Death of the PhD: when industry partners determine doctoral outcomes
- Authors: Frick, Liezel , McKenna, Sioux , Muthama, Evelyn
- Date: 2017
- Language: English
- Type: text , article
- Identifier: http://hdl.handle.net/10962/66680 , vital:28981 , ISSN 1469-8366 , https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2017.1263467
- Description: Pre-print , The PhD is the highest formal qualification and signifies a scholar’s rite of passage as a legitimate contributor of new knowledge in a field. Examiner reports make claims about what is legitimate in a thesis and what is not and thus articulate the organising principles through which participation in a field is measured. The authors analysed 39 examiners’ reports on 13 PhDs produced over a five-year period by scholars from the Higher Education Research doctoral studies programme at Rhodes University in South Africa. Drawing on aspects of Karl Maton’s Legitimation Code Theory (LCT), this study uses the dimensions of LCT:Specialisation and LCT:Semantics to explore what kinds of knowledge, skills and procedures and what kinds of knowers are validated in the field of Higher Education Research through the examination process. The study found that despite concerns in the literature about the a-theoretical nature of the Higher Education Studies field, examiners valued high-level theoretical and meta-theoretical engagement as well as methodological rigour. In addition, examiners prized the ability to demonstrate a strong ideological position, to use a clear doctoral voice, and to recognise the axiological drive of the field. The analysis showed that examiners were interested in strong contextualisation of the problem-spaces in higher education in South Africa but also commented positively on candidates’ ability to move from troubling an issue within its context to being able to abstract findings so as to contribute to the field as a whole.
- Full Text:
- Date Issued: 2017
The role of doctoral education in early career academic development
- Authors: Frick, Liezel , Albertyn, Ruth , Brodin, Eva , McKenna, Sioux , Claessson, Silwa
- Date: 2017
- Language: English
- Type: text , book
- Identifier: http://hdl.handle.net/10962/66658 , vital:28978 , ISBN 9781928357216 , https://www.researchgate.net/publication/311427468/download
- Description: The social and economic significance of the doctorate is recognised across the world, as doctoral candidates are considered to be key contributors to the knowledge society by contributing to socio-economic development through innovation (Barnacle 2005; Taylor 2012). Doctoral students – regardless of their discipline – are expected to take part actively in the knowledge creation process at universities, and this is especially important for those who will remain in academia and continue to contribute in this way.1 But knowledge creation is a complex process. Knowledge creation at the doctoral level and beyond requires a comprehensive understanding of relevant knowledge, sound judgment, and the ability to advise with insight. Doctoral learning also includes aspects such as abstract reasoning, the ability to conceptualise, and problem solving. Thus, through the original contribution candidates are expected to create during the doctorate, they are supposed to become experts in their chosen field of study. This process has been described by Evans (2014) as disciplinary acculturation. Various authors (for example Danby & Lee 2012; Lin & Cranton 2005; Manathunga & Goozée 2007) point out that this process of becoming an expert is by no means easy or straightforward. Rather, developing as a scholar is a lifelong process in which moving from a novice to an expert is an essential rite of passage into academic practice (Dreyfus & Dreyfus 1986). Benmore (2014) states that for those pursuing academic careers, it involves coming to know, but also coming to be an academic. Such a process of becoming doctorate implies movement over time, progression, and transformation (Barnacle, 2005).
- Full Text: false
- Date Issued: 2017