Search

The alternative format PhD, in which doctoral candidates produce a thesis composed of a series of peer reviewed publications, is growing in popularity internationally. However, across the HE (HE) system in the United Kingdom (UK), universities have been slower to adopt the alterative thesis format. This paper presents a systematic narrative review to understand the development of institutional-level policies pertaining to the alternative thesis format across UK HE institutions (n = 135), identifying best practice and opportunities for improvement. The paper evidences a fragmented policy landscape in which there is a notable lack of consistent and coherent policy and guidance across institutions, that may in fact compound existing inequalities in doctoral provision. Recommendations are made to encourage the design of institutional policies that support PhD candidates to opt for the alterative format thesis where appropriate, with wide ranging implications for the HE sector.

Higher education is increasingly defined by data, indicators and metrics. The paper examines how English universities conceptualise and articulate their perspectives on 'teaching quality' in the context of the Teaching Excellence and Student Outcomes Framework (TEF) in the UK. By adopting a qualitative thematic analysis approach, the author examines how a sample of English higher education institutions [n = 18] articulated their perspectives on teaching quality by analysing the 'teaching quality' section of their qualitative TEF submissions. The findings have shown that higher education policies, such as TEF, have greatly shaped institutions' perspectives on teaching quality and teaching excellence. In turn, universities' articulation of teaching excellence appeared to have significant implications for their management and academic practices, such as institution priorities, resource allocations, performance evaluation and academic career development.

Policy interventions have created tighter controls over the duration of individual doctoral candidatures. In response, institutional regulations in UK universities typically require that a doctoral researcher's progress is carefully monitored through progress review procedures to maximise the chances of timely completion. Despite the ubiquity of progress review procedures, little is known about how they influence doctoral researchers' progress and chances of completion. This study addresses that gap by drawing on case study data of progress monitoring procedures in a UK-based research-intensive university. These findings were also validated via two workshops with participants from other UK universities. The paper argues that progress monitoring can be an effective and supportive intervention for dealing with project-related and time management issues that occur during doctoral candidature. However, the effectiveness of progress reviews is contingent on how they are perceived within doctoral researchers' social networks and overcoming social norms that create barriers to transparent reporting.