Search

As elsewhere across the globe, for the past two decades doctoral education in the UK has been in the throes of change. This article seeks to describe and analyse developments in 1) the national framework for doctoral education, 2) institutional structures, 3) doctoral programmes, 4) doctoral candidacy, 5) doctoral supervision and 6) doctoral examination. Multiple sources of evidence, including official documentation and the results of investigations of the public-facing websites of the 150 institutions providing doctoral programmes, are used. The conclusion shows that these changes have been far-reaching, particularly for supervisors, and a call is made for greater recognition of their contributions to doctoral education.

Traditionally, doctoral education was a matter of the talented few being apprenticed to learn how to research from masters in their discipline; it was conducted in private in spaces far removed from normal teaching or industry or commerce; the only requirement to supervise or to examine candidates was to be research active; many candidates dropped out in the course of their studies; for those who persisted their research took as long as it took; and the majority of graduates went on to become academics. But, over the past three decades or so, there have been a number of changes which have transformed doctoral education almost beyond recognition. The purpose of the present article is to provide a general analysis of these factors in order to provide an overall framework for the discussion at the international level of the changes in doctoral education in a sample of case studies drawn from across the globe. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The aim of this paper is to map the pattern of awards for research degree supervision in institutions in Australia and the United Kingdom. In particular, it explores the scope of such awards, their objectives, the criteria for nomination, the evidence required to be submitted, the composition of award panels, the criteria for award, and the rewards and conditions attached to success. Marked differences are found between these features in the two systems, which it is argued stem mainly from the fact that in Australia institution-led awards are the norm, while in the UK student-led awards are predominant. In conclusion, it is suggested that, while institution-led awards seem more likely to be effective in identifying, recognising and rewarding exemplary supervision, students can and should have an important role to play and, hence, that optimally all stakeholders should be involved in the awards process. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]