scholarly journals A Theoretical Perspective on How Doctoral Supervisors Develop Supervision Skills

10.28945/4446 ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 14 ◽  
pp. 721-739
Author(s):  
Katherine Fulgence Swai
Keyword(s):  
Doctoral Students ◽  
Doctoral Education ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Research Approach ◽  
Supporting Evidence ◽  
Ongoing Research ◽  
Knowledge And Skills ◽  
Contemporary World ◽  
Supervision Process ◽  
Doctoral Supervision

Aim/Purpose: The paper establishes how doctoral supervisors develop the supervision skills needed to handle the doctoral supervision process in the contemporary world. Background: While the existing literature confirms that PhD holders can supervise doctoral students, there is a need to provide supporting evidence that the skills they possess qualify them to do this. Methodology: Using the qualitative research approach, the study established the knowledge and skills that are needed to supervise doctoral students in the contemporary world. Through thematic analysis of 82 scholarly publications, the study established, in order of preference, five mechanisms through which doctoral supervisors develop supervision skills, i.e. the supervision process, doctoral education, institutional guidelines, institutional training courses and individualized learning. Contribution: The study contributes to the ongoing research on the supervision of doctoral studies in the 21st century. Findings: Findings show that a well-structured doctoral education, including the related processes, imparts the knowledge and skills needed for doctoral supervision. Likewise, a combination of the mechanisms and an individual’s commitment, in terms of time and engagement, develop the skills that are relevant for doctoral supervision. Recommendations for Practitioners: Higher Education Institutions need to make supervisors aware of the potential of these mechanisms for developing the skills necessary for doctoral supervision and encourage them to use them Recommendation for Researchers: Further research on the development of doctoral supervision skills should broadly consider the role of different programmes in developing doctoral supervision skills in different contexts. Impact on Society: The study has implications for doctoral supervisors and universities as regards the need to ensure that both mechanisms are instituted to enable doctoral supervisors to develop doctoral supervision skills. Future Research: Since the study was done theoretically, it might be important to conduct further research using mixed-methods research with a phenomenological design to establish the skills possessed by doctoral supervisors and the mechanism they used to develop the supervision skills in any context.

Quality Enhancement in Doctoral Education: Developing a More Public Process

2001 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
pp. 13-24 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ruth Neumann ◽  
James Guthrie
Keyword(s):  
Doctoral Students ◽  
Doctoral Education ◽  
Quality Enhancement ◽  
Code Of Practice ◽  
Recent Developments ◽  
Ultimate Responsibility ◽  
Key Issues ◽  
Doctoral Supervision

AbstractGovernments play an important role in providing an appropriate national framework and structure for the development of doctoral education. Nevertheless, ultimate responsibility for quality supervision processes lies with institutions, in particular with their departmental units and their policies and processes (DETYA, 1999c). This paper presents a case study of recent developments in the quality enhancement of doctoral supervision in the Macquarie Graduate School of Management (MGSM). In doing so it looks at three areas in particular: (1) the key role of infrastructure support, including the introduction of a code of practice in doctoral supervision; (2) the induction and acculturation processes; and (3) supervision quality, including the selection, development and training of supervisors. The aim of the developments is to make a recognized private process more public and transparent. MGSM currently enrolls a significant number of doctoral students and the enhancement of their doctoral experience is a key priority. The paper concludes by highlighting key issues for future development.

scholarly journals Re-envisioning Doctoral Mentorship in the United States: A Power-Conscious Review of the Literature

10.28945/4735 ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 16 ◽  
pp. 237-252
Author(s):  
Genia M. Bettencourt ◽  
Rachel E. Friedensen ◽  
Megan L Bartlett
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Doctoral Students ◽  
Doctoral Education ◽  
The United States ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Power Dynamics ◽  
Research Findings ◽  
Direct Applicability ◽  
Important Form ◽  
The U.S

Aim/Purpose: Multiple barriers exist within doctoral education in the United States that can undermine the success of students, particularly for students with marginalized identities. While mentorship can provide an important form of support, it must be done in an intentional way that is mindful of issues of equity and power. Background: By applying a power-conscious framework to current practices of doctoral mentorship in the U.S., we propose key considerations to help support doctoral students and shift power imbalances. Methodology: As a scholarly paper, this work draws upon a comprehensive review of existing research on doctoral mentorship in the U.S. Contribution: As a relatively recent development, the power-conscious framework provides an important tool to address issues of inequity that has not yet been applied to doctoral mentorship to our knowledge. Such a framework provides clear implications for mentorship relationships, institutional policies, and future research. Findings: The power-conscious framework has direct applicability to and possibility for reshaping doctoral mentorship in the U.S. as well as elsewhere. Each of the six foci of the framework can be integrated with research on doctoral students to help formal and informal mentors enhance their practice. Recommendations for Practitioners: Throughout our analysis, we pose questions for mentors to consider in order to reflect upon their practice and engage in further exploration. Recommendation for Researchers: Research on doctoral mentorship should explicitly engage with broader dynamics of power, particularly as related to understanding the experiences of marginalized student populations. Impact on Society: The demanding nature of and precarity within U.S. doctoral education leads to high rates of departure and burnout amongst students. By re-envisioning mentorship, we hope to begin a broader re-imagining of doctoral education to be more equitable and supportive of students. Future Research: To examine these claims, future research should explore doctoral student mentorship relationships and how power dynamics are contained therein both within the U.S. and in international contexts.

Quality Enhancement in Doctoral Education: Developing a More Public Process

2001 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
pp. 13-24
Author(s):  
Ruth Neumann ◽  
James Guthrie
Keyword(s):  
Doctoral Students ◽  
Doctoral Education ◽  
Quality Enhancement ◽  
Code Of Practice ◽  
Recent Developments ◽  
Ultimate Responsibility ◽  
Key Issues ◽  
Doctoral Supervision

AbstractGovernments play an important role in providing an appropriate national framework and structure for the development of doctoral education. Nevertheless, ultimate responsibility for quality supervision processes lies with institutions, in particular with their departmental units and their policies and processes (DETYA, 1999c). This paper presents a case study of recent developments in the quality enhancement of doctoral supervision in the Macquarie Graduate School of Management (MGSM). In doing so it looks at three areas in particular: (1) the key role of infrastructure support, including the introduction of a code of practice in doctoral supervision; (2) the induction and acculturation processes; and (3) supervision quality, including the selection, development and training of supervisors. The aim of the developments is to make a recognized private process more public and transparent. MGSM currently enrolls a significant number of doctoral students and the enhancement of their doctoral experience is a key priority. The paper concludes by highlighting key issues for future development.

scholarly journals Defining Doctorateness: A Concept Analysis

10.28945/3939 ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 13 ◽  
pp. 031-148
Author(s):  
Shahram Yazdani ◽  
Foroozan Shokooh
Keyword(s):  
Conceptual Model ◽  
Doctoral Students ◽  
Doctoral Education ◽  
Doctoral Programs ◽  
Concept Analysis ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Step Method ◽  
Doctoral Studies ◽  
Academic Degree ◽  
New Concepts

Aim/Purpose: This study analyses the concept of doctorateness and its defining characteristics and gives a definition for it by examining the various ways it is used in doctoral education literature. Background: The term ‘doctorateness’ is an immature unclarified concept referred to as a common quality for all doctoral awards. With the emergence of different types of doctoral studies worldwide, a clear definition for this concept is a requirement. Defining doctorateness can result in major implications for research and the practice of doctoral education, as determining attributes of doctorateness will pose serious expectations regarding standard setting for the process and outcome of doctoral programs and requirements of doctoral students. Methodology: In this study, Walker and Avant’s eight step method of concept analysis is used. The method is a systematic approach frequently used to analyze relatively new concepts. Contribution: The current study moves beyond the earlier studies by isolating defining attributes of the concept and giving a clear conceptual definition for doctorateness. Findings: Five defining attribute of doctorateness refined from literature include independent scholar, developmental and transformative apprenticeship process, original conceptual contribution/scholarship, highest academic degree, and stewardship of the discipline. Based on the defining attributes a definition is formulated for the concept of doctorateness. In addition to giving a definition a conceptual model consisting of five conceptual areas of purpose, process, product, prerequisite, and impact according to the usage of concept in the literature is also presented. Recommendations for Practitioners: By using the conceptual model and defining attributes presented in this study practitioners and professionals in doctoral education can study the effective design for doctoral programs and utilize the definition as a basis for evidencing doctoral awards. Future Research: Defining attributes can also contribute to psychometric researches related to tool development and constructing tools with explicit criteria for doctorate judgment.

scholarly journals The Philosophical Approach of Sankofa: Perspectives on Historically Marginalized Doctoral Students in the United States and South Africa

10.28945/4463 ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 14 ◽  
pp. 783-801
Author(s):  
Pamela Felder
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
South Africa ◽  
Doctoral Students ◽  
Doctoral Education ◽  
Doctoral Degree ◽  
The United States ◽  
Student Experiences ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Philosophical Approach ◽  
Doctoral Experience

Aim/Purpose: This work contributes to the expansion of dialogue on doctoral education research in the United States, South Africa, and within the context of higher education internationalization. There is an emphasis on identifying and reinterpreting the doctoral process where racial and cultural aspects have been marginalized by way of institutional and systemic exclusion. An underlying premise is to support representation of marginalized doctoral student experiences to raise questions about participation and contributions within the dialogue on doctoral education research and practice. Background: Decades of reporting provide evidence of statistical portraits on degree at-tainment. Yet, some large-scale reporting does not include representation of historically marginalized doctoral students until the 1970s in the United States, and the 2000s for South Africa. With the growth of internationalization in higher education, examination of the impact of marginalization serves to support representation of diversity-focused discussions in the development of regional international education organizations, multilateral networks, and cross-collaborative teaching and research projects. Methodology: The philosophical approach for this conceptual paper embraces the Sankofa tradition as a process of going back to previous trends in literature on doctoral degree completion to identify opportunities for interrogation and reinterpretation of the doctoral experience. A dimensional framework of diversity and critical race theory, CRT, guides interpretation of racial and cultural perspectives focused on exclusion, structural diversity, and the psychological/behavioral experiences related to doctoral degree completion in the United States and South Africa. A purposeful sampling strategy is used to identify of literature sources where these dimensions are identified. Contribution: A major contribution of this work is the use of a dimensional diversity framework in doctoral education in both the US and South Africa. Findings: Interpretation of previous studies reveal critical insight for understanding the racial and cultural aspects of the doctoral process through comparison of perspectives on the historically marginalized doctoral experience in the United States and South Africa. They include consideration of the social developments leading to the current predicament of marginalization for students, awareness of the different reporting strategies of data, implementation of cultural philosophies to broaden the focus on how to understand student experiences, and an understanding of the differences in student-faculty relationships. Recommendations for Practitioners: Recommendations for practitioners highlight the application of cultural approaches in the development and implementation of practical strategies for supporting historically marginalized doctoral students. Recommendations for Researchers: Recommendations for researchers consider the application of cultural ap-proaches in the development of scholarship supporting historically marginal-ized doctoral students within a global context. Impact on Society: Intended outcomes for this work include increasing awareness about historically marginalized doctoral students. Recommendations are focused on improving their academic and career experiences in the United States and South Africa with global implications regarding their contributions. Future Research: Future research should consider the application of cultural philosophical ap-proaches when examining the historically marginalized doctoral experience within global, national, and local contexts.

scholarly journals Pastoral Care in Doctoral Education: A Collaborative Autoethnography of Belonging and Academic Identity

10.28945/4900 ◽  
2022 ◽  
Vol 17 ◽  
pp. 001-023
Author(s):  
Danielle Hradsky ◽  
Ali Soyoof ◽  
Shaoru Zeng ◽  
Elham M Foomani ◽  
Ngo Cong-Lem ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Pastoral Care ◽  
Doctoral Students ◽  
Academic Writing ◽  
Doctoral Education ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Self Awareness ◽  
Writing Groups ◽  
Education Programs ◽  
Self Reflection ◽  
Doctoral Writing

Aim/Purpose: It is increasingly recognized that doctoral education programs should better support doctoral students. In particular, it has been noted that students experience significant isolation during their PhD, which negatively affects their educational experiences and their personal wellbeing. Doctoral writing groups are collaborative learning communities that have in recent years received increasing attention to address this issue. This collaborative autoethnography explores the affective benefits (i.e., benefits associated with emotions and feelings) of these doctoral writing groups, particularly focused on the pastorally supportive nature of these learning communities. Background: Writing groups have been shown to promote academic writing skills and build reflective practice, personal epistemology, and academic identity. We have found that a much more significant benefit of our writing groups has been the pastoral care we have experienced, particularly in relation to the turbulent emotions often associated with academic writing. This should, perhaps, not be surprising since it is clear that academic writing is a form of identity work. There is, therefore, a clear need to better support doctoral students, particularly with regard to the more affective components of academic writing. This prompted us to write this collaborative autoethnography to showcase what we consider to be the primary role of doctoral writing groups: pastoral care. Methodology: We employ a collaborative autoethnographic methodology to integrate our personal reflections into the existing literature in the field. Contribution: We argue that doctoral writing groups are vehicles of pastoral care as they promote wellbeing, foster resilience, provide academic care, and build social capital. Findings: We demonstrate that doctoral writing groups foster students’ sense of belonging through self-reflection and the sharing of experiences in a safe space, which builds perceived self-efficacy and self-awareness. Furthermore, through the self-reflection and discussion that is inherent in doctoral writing groups, students also develop a better understanding of themselves and their place within the academy. Recommendations for Practitioners: Our research highlights that writing groups may be designed to teach academic communication skills, but they provide an affective benefit that cannot yet be quantified and which should not be underestimated. Incorporating writing groups into doctoral education programs can, therefore, have a positive influence on the educational experiences of PhD students and improve their overall wellbeing. This paper concludes by providing practical suggestions to help practitioners implement writing groups into doctoral education programs, particularly focused on how these groups can be made more pastorally supportive. Recommendation for Researchers: This paper also extends the theoretical understanding of pastoral care by providing a framework for pastoral care within the doctoral writing group environment. We show how pastoral care can be conceptualized as the promotion of self-awareness, self-efficacy, reflection, and empowerment of doctoral students through nurturing communities where all members are valued, encouraged, guided, and supported. Our experiences, which we have integrated throughout this paper, also highlight the importance of relationship-building within the educational community, particularly when these relationships are characterized by mutual respect and shared responsibility. Impact on Society: The poor well-being of doctoral students has now been well-established across the world, but strategies to improve the academic environment for these students are still lacking. This paper provides evidence that implementing writing groups as a strategy to embed pastoral care in a doctoral education environment helps doctoral students flourish. Ultimately, this can lead to an improved academic research culture into the future. Future Research: Future research should explore other methods of better integrating pastoral care interventions into doctoral education programs in order to reduce isolation and promote student wellbeing.

scholarly journals The PhD Journey at Addis Ababa University: Study Delays, Causes and Coping Mechanisms

10.28945/4744 ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 16 ◽  
pp. 319-337
Author(s):  
Getnet Tizazu Fetene ◽  
Wondwosen Tamrat
Keyword(s):  
Higher Education ◽  
Doctoral Students ◽  
Doctoral Education ◽  
Addis Ababa ◽  
Coping Mechanisms ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Opportunity Costs ◽  
Archival Data ◽  
Addis Ababa University ◽  
And Coping

Aim/Purpose: This study was conducted to examine the rate of delay, explanatory causes, and coping strategies of PhD candidates at Addis Ababa University, Ethiopia’s premier university, over the last ten years. Background: Delayed graduation is a common theme in doctoral education around the world. It continues to draw the concern of governments, universities, and the candidates themselves, calling for different forms of intervention. Addressing these challenges is key to resolving the many obstacles into doctoral education. Methodology: Ten-year archival data consisting of 1,711 PhD students and in-depth interviews with ten PhD candidates were used as data-generation tools. The data collection focused on progression patterns, reasons for study delays, and the coping mechanisms used by doctoral students when they face challenges. While the candidates were interviewed to narrate their lived experience pertinent to the objectives of the study, the archival data regarding the PhD students were collected from the Registrar Office of the University under study. Contribution: Amid an ongoing global debate about best practices in doctoral education, the research on study delays contributes not only to filling the existing empirical gap in the area but also in identifying factors, for example, related to financial matters, family commitment, and student-supervisor rapport, that help address the challenges faced and improving the provision of doctoral education. Findings: The findings of this study revealed that the cumulative average completion time for a PhD study was 6.19 years— over two years more than the four years given as the optimum duration for completing a PhD program. The institutional pattern of delays over the last ten years indicates that doctoral students are requiring more and more years to complete their PhDs. The study further revealed that completing a PhD in time is a process that can be influenced by many interacting factors, which include student commitment and preparation, favourable academic and research environment, and positive student-supervisor rapport. Recommendations for Practitioners: It is important for practitioners and higher education institutions to find ways to improve the on-time completion of doctoral programmes in order to minimise the continued financial, emotional, and opportunity costs the higher education sector is currently incurring. Recommendation for Researchers: The fact that this study was limited to a single institution by itself warrants more studies about time-to-degree in PhD programs and causes for study delays as well as studies about successful interventions in doctoral education. Future research should particularly explore the nature of the advisor/advisee relationship and other critical factors that appear to have a significant role in addressing the challenges of study delay. Impact on Society: The expansion of PhD programmes is an encouraging development in Ethiopia. The findings of this study may help improve completion rates of doctoral students and reduce program duration, which would have significant implication to minimise the ensuing financial, emotional, and opportunity costs involved at individual, national, and institutional levels. Future Research: Given the growing number of universities in Ethiopia and their possible diversity, PhD students’ profiles, backgrounds, and expectations, more research is needed to examine how this diversity may impact doctoral students’ progression and persistence.

scholarly journals The Doctoral Mentoring Relationship: The Phenomenology of Scholarly Leadership

10.28945/3882 ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 12 ◽  
pp. 219-249 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jason D Flora
Keyword(s):  
Best Practices ◽  
Doctoral Students ◽  
Undergraduate Students ◽  
Lived Experiences ◽  
Doctoral Education ◽  
Research Process ◽  
Essential Elements ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Transformative Power ◽  
Doctoral Candidate

Aim/Purpose: Much has been written in academia about the meaningful relationship between doctoral students and their respective dissertation chairs. However, an often-overlooked benefit of the dissertation research process as a whole is its potential to professionally and personally transform the capacities of all concerned – the doctoral candidate, mentor/major professor, and committee. Background: From the exclusive perspective of the doctoral Chair/mentor, this qualitative study explores the potentially transformative power of the dissertation process as it relates to scholarly leadership. Methodology: In order to most accurately address the study’s research questions and to best capture the lived experiences of 4 purposefully selected doctoral chairs, each with varying degrees of dissertation guidance experience, the study was inten-tionally designed to leverage the phenomenological method. Data was collected through a series of in-person and phone interviews (each co-researcher was interviewed 3 times) and subsequently coded to determine emerging themes and categories relative to the co-researchers’ lived experiences as doctoral mentors. Contribution: Specific findings about what scholarly leadership means relative to doctoral student/mentor interactions, including how this pivotal relationship can be enhanced, support and contribute to current global higher education literature calling for increased understanding of and accountability within doctoral education as a whole. Such will further inform and enhance current mentoring best practices of graduate and undergraduate students alike. Findings: As a rich experiential education and learning opportunity, the essence of scholarly leadership features four essential elements: acting with authenticity, facilitating growth or change, holding vision, and acknowledging deficiency. Recommendations for Practitioners: It is recommended that practitioners of doctoral education, particularly at the dissertation Chair/mentor level, as well as institutionally, first genuinely value the results of this study, and, in turn, authentically and consistently implement such best practices in order to meaningfully enhance the quality of the overall doctoral experience. Recommendation for Researchers: Implicit below Impact on Society: Implementation of the study’s findings likewise has the potential to positively actualize the lives of doctoral mentors/major professors in their roles as educators, scholars, and life-long learners. Future Research: Further research is necessary to determine the relationship between scholarly research and each of its attendant essential elements: authenticity, facilitative behavior, vision, and deficiency.

scholarly journals The PhD Experience: A Review of the Factors Influencing Doctoral Students’ Completion, Achievement, and Well-Being

10.28945/4113 ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 13 ◽  
pp. 361-388 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anna Sverdlik ◽  
Nathan C. Hall ◽  
Lynn McAlpine ◽  
Kyle Hubbard
Keyword(s):  
Academic Success ◽  
Doctoral Students ◽  
Doctoral Education ◽  
Recent Literature ◽  
Doctoral Student ◽  
Well Being ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Unique Contribution ◽  
Family Responsibilities ◽  
Doctoral Experience

Aim/Purpose: Research on students in higher education contexts to date has focused primarily on the experiences undergraduates, largely overlooking topics relevant to doctoral students’ mental, physiological, motivational, and social experiences. Existing research on doctoral students has consistently found mental and physical health concerns and high attrition rates among these students, but a comprehensive understanding of these students’ experiences is still lacking. Background: The present review paper aims to offer deep insight into the issues affecting doctoral students by reviewing and critically analyzing recent literature on the doctoral experience. An extensive review of recent literature uncovered factors that can be readily categorized as external and internal to the doctoral student; external factors include supervision, personal/social lives, the department and socialization, and financial support opportunities, while internal factors motivation, writing skills, self-regulatory strategies, and academic identity. Methodology: 163 empirical articles on the topic of doctoral education are reviewed and analyzed in the present paper. Contribution: The present paper represents a comprehensive review of the factors found to influence the experiences (e.g., success, satisfaction, well-being) of doctoral students in their programs. It represents a unique contribution to the field of doctoral education as it attempt to bring together all the factors found to date to shape the lived experiences of doctoral students, as well as evidence-based ways to facilitate students’ success and well-being through these factors. More specifically, the present paper aims to inform students, faculty, and practitioners (e.g., student support staff) of the optimal practices and structures uncovered to date, as most beneficial to doctoral students in terms of both academic success and well-being. Impact on Society: Decreases to doctoral students’ well-being as they progress in their programs, financial struggles, and the notable difficulty in maintaining a social life/family responsibilities have been widely discussed in popular culture. The present paper aims to highlight these, and other, issues affecting the doctoral experience in an attempt to contribute to the conversation with comprehensive empirical evidence. By facilitating discussions on the issues that play a role in the attribution and dissatisfaction of existing doctoral students, and perhaps deter potential doctoral students from ever entering doctoral education system, we hope to contribute to a student-cantered focus in which departments are concerned with the academic success of doctoral students, but also equally concerned with maximizing students’ well-being in the process of attaining a doctoral degree. This, we hope, will enhance the societal perception of doctoral education as a challenging, yet worthwhile and rewarding process. Future Research: Future research in which the confluence of the factors discussed in this review, particularly with respect to the cross-cutting impact of socialization variables, is recommended to provide a sufficiently in-depth examination of the salient predictors of doctoral student development and persistence. Future research efforts that steer away from single-factor foci to explore interactive or redundant relationships between factors are thus recommended, as are analyses of the potential effects that changes to one aspect of the doctoral experience (e.g., motivational interventions) can have on other factors. Finally, studies employing various alternative methodologies and analytical methods (e.g., observational, questionnaire, experimental, experience sampling) are similarly expected to yield valuable knowledge as to the nature and extent of the afore-mentioned and novel contributing factors, as well as the utility of student intervention programs aimed at improving both the personal and professional lives of doctoral students internationally

Listening and feeling doctoral students’ perceptions of their doctoral supervision. The PhD students’ point of view.

2020 ◽  
Vol 6 (12) ◽  
pp. 206-223
Author(s):  
Isabel Ribau Coutinho
Keyword(s):  
Doctoral Students ◽  
Doctoral Education ◽  
Point Of View ◽  
Doctoral Research ◽  
Documentary Analysis ◽  
Open Questions ◽  
Supervision Practices ◽  
Doctoral Supervision ◽  
The Relationship

Doctoral education has been subject to research and analysis by researchers in the last fifty years. Nevertheless, doctoral supervision still a private issue among supervisor and PhD student; if the relationship between them goes wrong, a shadow undermines the doctoral research, hindering student support of others, which may result in attrition and dropout. Breaking this situation, transforming the “private place” in a “public matter”, requires a profound reflection about the doctoral education aim, institutions goals, institution policy, but also a supervisor and PhD students’ perspectives (careers, goals, development, financial support). It is necessary to know, where we want to go, to outline a path to achieve the goals. During the last three years, doctoral supervision has been studied at Universidade Nova de Lisboa (UNL). A qualitative case study method was used. This was the first study (a pilot study) that covered all the nine UNL schools, is intended to identify the supervision practices, but also captures a glimpse of doctoral students’ life in the academy, their difficulties, their thoughts and feelings related to doctoral education. The documentary analysis, concerning the institution rules related to doctoral education, was the study first step (already published). The second was the implementation of a survey with closed and open questions to allowed students to express their opinion regarding doctoral education, especially doctoral supervision. During three months, a survey, centred in doctoral supervision, applied online in all schools. This paper aims to describe what was found and what was unexpected in the context of a young university.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document