The changing context for the doctorate and its influence on examining
When I started supervising in the 1980s it was (I am sorry to say) a fairly laid back affair. It was usually one-to-one (co-supervision was not common let alone compulsory). I did make regular appointments with the student and although our meetings were enjoyable and challenging for both parties they rarely had a mutually agreed agenda and notes were not taken, still less stored and looked back on. This was bad practice; this chapter reflects on the huge improvements that have been made in doctoral education.
The main change, in two nutshells, has been from professional self-regulation to evidence-based quality control, and, at the same time, from a loose autonomy to a tight accountability.
These changes have had both positive and negative impacts. To begin with the positive, the supervision process is no longer as hidden as it once was. Co-supervision, for example, has opened up the process and has often led to improved guidance and stimulation for the student. From supervisors being left alone to âjust get on with itâ, and conduct supervision behind closed doors in their own unique (perhaps idiosyncratic fashion), the move towards greater transparency has at least led to the sharing of good practice. This has been enhanced by a growth (though not universal) in supervisor âtrainingâ, or more accurately âdevelopmentâ, in universities. Another impact of quality control and accountability has been the pressure on students and supervisors to achieve timely submission. A few decades ago I met a PhD student on a research âtrainingâ course who told me she had been working on her doctorate for 12 years. I asked her why. She said: âbecause I am enjoying it and donât want it to endâ. (Incidentally, and importantly, she was self-funded!) I cannot imagine that happening now. Time pressures have led to more submissions being on time and a reduction in the âriskâ those students might take with their work. Many students have said to me that they âjust want to get it doneâ. Completion rates may have improved, but opponents of quality control and time keeping will argue that this has reduced risk taking, stifled originality and led to âmanaged mediocrityâ. An article entitled âItâs a PhD not a Nobel Prizeâ published in 2002 neatly captures this change (Mullins and Kiley 2002). A PhD is no longer someoneâs âlifeâs workâ as perhaps it was once viewed. Equally, time pressures, or the clock ticking on scholarships, may lead to early submissions before a doctorate is fully ready, as in: âLetâs give it a go, submit now and see what happens. We will at least get feedback from the examiners âŚâ. I have also heard, from more than one supervisor, the football analogy of âLetâs get it submitted and go for a 1â0 victoryâ.
Another change that came about early this century resulted from the Roberts Review, which we discuss later. Sir Gareth Roberts, who was vice chancellor at the University of Sheffield when I was a young professor there, instigated a move towards the development of âgeneric, transferable skillsâ as part of the doctoral programme. For many this had clear advantages for the students, and it was largely seen as an improvement in their âemployabilityâ. But for others the pressure to develop generic skills â and to have this development audited â was an unwanted diversion from âreal researchâ and original inquiry.
Many of the changes are seen as a key feature in the growth of what has now become known as the âaudit cultureâ. For example, an increasing number of questions have been asked about the impact of the doctorate. This has arisen from the growth in concern (even consternation perhaps) in higher education and amongst wider stakeholders, such as industry, with the value, outcomes, performance and returns on public investment arising from doctoral work.
To cut a long discussion short, I have summarised in Table 1.1, in a polarised fashion, the opposing views that have been expressed on the increasing moves towards regulation of the doctorate.
Table 1.1 Regulatory contexts: have they led to standardisation or improvement? Two polarised viewpoints
| POSITIVE â FOR REGULATION | NEGATIVE |
| A timely end to a laissez-faire, behind closed doors approach | Severe scrutiny, constant audit |
| Demise of the secret garden | Removed autonomy, stifled originality |
| Wise risk management | An end to risk, managed mediocrity |
| Pragmatism, improved completion rates, emphasis on making the doctorate âdo-ableâ | Constant time keeping, closed-ended, excessive/unhelpful pressure to complete |
| End of unwanted risk taking | Doctorates by numbers |
| Supervisor training improves completion rates | Supervisors cannot be trained â supervisor development is the aim (reflective practice) |
| Introduction of generic skills agenda to increase, for example, employability | Skills demand reduces completion rates (it gets in the way of the doctoral contribution) |
| Careful time keeping â which may help with timely submission | Time pressures can bring undue stress and either âordinary/just good enoughâ or early submissions |
| Increased scrutiny of doctoral assessment | Reduced autonomy of doctoral examiners |
| Longer and more explicit written regulations on the criteria for a doctorate and the conduct of examinations | Examiners no longer allowed to âjust get on with itâ |
In parallel with the above shifts in doctoral education another radical change has taken place which has had a major impact on doctoral examining: the growth of diversity. As the context has changed so has the tendency towards diversity in doctorates.
Doctoral diversity
Quite simply, doctorates are far more diverse than they were even 10 years ago and certainly vastly different to doctoral provision in (say) the 1980s and 1990s. This has huge implications for the examination of doctoral work and for the notion of âdoctoratenessâ which is discussed in detail later.
Diversity can be viewed as having three dimensions or contexts, rather like concentric circles. First, at the micro level, there is now greater diversity in doctoral programmes and the students they attract. The programmes offered and the doctoral teaching âdeliveredâ (a word I detest) are more varied then ever â teaching or pedagogy, has moved from being largely one-to-one (or one-to-two in co-supervision) to a more distributed form of pedagogy (see next section). Consequently, assessment en route to the final award has changed from being one final event (often the viva â see later) to continuous assessment at different phases of the âdoctoral journeyâ (a hackneyed metaphor but the most common!). Programmes are now structured so that feedback and assessment occurs at various âmilestonesâ (another metaphor, sorry). Formative feedback or assessment may occur in a âresearch trainingâ phase, in the nurturing of a portfolio or in the development of so-called generic skills. Progressive assessment is particularly true of professional doctorates (PDs/Prof Docs) where, for example, a âtaughtâ first part is assessed before students can proceed to the second part, the dissertation phase.
To sum up this first level of diversity, the benefits to students are immense: they have greater choice of doctoral routes, access is more open, assessment may be less final or brutal, provision is more flexible, and thus participation is so much wider. Programmes can be matched to studentsâ varying needs, lifestyles, family situations, ages and learning styles.
The second aspect of diversity is at institutional level (the mesa level). Briefly, we can say that far more universities are involved in doctoral work; the type, size, reputation, values, ethos, culture and structure of institutions offering doctoral programmes have diverged enormously as a result. For the university, diversity has widened the potential pool of students. Each higher education institution (HEI) can choose its own style of provision and target audience. Thus HEIs have become more responsive to outside needs in four areas: students, employers, society and professions.
Finally, at the macro level, the society in which doctoral work is occurring has changed in terms of graduate opportunities, the nature and range of employment, the demand for doctorates by employers and the professions, and the post-doctoral impact of successful students in those areas. In particular, the nature and attitude of the professions which give rise to the appetite for their staff to seek doctorates and then subsequently the demand for them, has changed steadily and is one of the factors behind the rise in professional doctorates.
In summary, the three dimensions of the growth in diversity of doctorates have had a huge impact. To take an ecological line, we now experience greater variation, competition, adaptation, survival of the fittest and natural selection, sometimes leading to extinction when an institution abandons one or more of its doctoral programmes. For students, it has been, and still is, a question of finding their niche or favoured habitat. Table 1.2 shows some of the titles of doctorates now available in one university in the UK.
Table 1.2 List of possible doctoral titles (from University of Leicester handbook)
| Doctor of Philosophy (PhD) |
| Doctor of Psychology (PsyD) |
| Doctor of Medicine (MD) |
| Doctor of Clinical Psychology (DClinPsy) |
| Doctor of Social Sciences (DSocSci) |
| Doctor of Education (EdD) |
| Doctor of Engineering (EngD) |
In the USA, to take another example, there is also the DNP (Doctor of Nursing Practice, with over 100 programmes), PharmD (Doctor of Pharmacy), Doctor of Law, and the DPT (Doctor of Physical Therapy).
Routes, types of doctorate and modes of submission
We have also witnessed an increase in the âtypes of doctorateâ now available, principally among PhDs. There has been the ânew routeâ PhD, often called the integrated PhD, and also the âPhD by publicationâ. The new route/integrated PhD involves (for full time students) starting with a one year Mastersâ degree followed by the expected three years to complete the PhD dissertation ready for submission. This is then assessed in the usual way, explained fully later.
The âPhD by publicationâ as a mode of submission has been ideal for the academic who has built up a list of published work in their chosen field but has never had either the time or the inclination to create a single document in the form of a traditional dissertation. The candidate then submits a portfolio of work they have published. This may be in the form of a peer-reviewed book, or book chapters together with an ongoing series of refereed articles in acceptable journals. A covering statement must show the coherence and the âdriving forceâ behind the portfolio; as well as explaining how the portfolio is a coherent body of work, the candidate must also make explicit the âoriginal contributionâ that their work has made. This vitally important statement is then submitted alongside the publications themselves. This entire submission will be sent to both or all the examiners and the assessment will proceed using the criteria and the procedures described in later chapters. In my experience, this makes for an excellent viva voce! The student may typically be a âmid-career academicâ and the whole procedure offers them the challenging task of reflecting on their work thus far and the contribution they have made: not an easy task.
A useful summary of âfour routesâ to the doctorate is given at:
www.prospects.ac.uk/postgraduate-study/phd-study/4-routes-to-getting-a-doctorate
Increased diversity has also had a major impact on the practice of doctoral assessment and the behaviour of examiners, as we see later.
