Constructing Anthropologists: Culture learning and culture making in U.S. doctoral education

2012 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. 32-68
Author(s):  
Laura Bathurst
Keyword(s):  
Power Relations ◽  
Doctoral Education ◽  
Doctoral Training ◽  
Culture Learning ◽  
Doctoral Studies ◽  
Public Anthropology

In the tradition of anthropological reflexivity, this article examines how the structure of early doctoral training contributes to the construction of particular kinds of anthropologists. Based on research conducted in an anthropology department in the U.S.A. during the late 1990s, the experience of the transition from undergraduate to doctoral studies is explored as simultaneously a process of culture learning and culture making, with power relations expressed, imposed, and contested through language. The implications for questions animating current anthropological debates, including calls for 'public anthropology', are considered.

Transfering best practices of doctoral training between EU, Russia, Belarus and Armenia

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Katja Anniina Lauri ◽  
Sini Karppinen ◽  
Alexander Mahura ◽  
Timo Vesala ◽  
Tuukka Petaja ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Doctoral Students ◽  
Doctoral Education ◽  
Research Training ◽  
Bologna Process ◽  
Research Management ◽  
Added Value ◽  
Doctoral Training ◽  
Learning Material ◽  
Doctoral Studies ◽  
European Universities

<p>MODEST (Modernization of Doctoral Education in Science and Improvement Teaching Methodologies) is a new capacity building project funded by the Erasmus+ programme. The project is coordinated by the University of Latvia. There are three other EU partners (from Finland, Poland and the United Kingdom) and a total of ten partners from three partner countries (Russia, Belarus and Armenia). Aims of the project include:</p><ol><li>To improve the structure and content of Doctoral Education and the internal capacities of services that manage doctoral studies by set up of Doctoral Training Centers (DTC) in partner universities in accordance with the modern European practices.</li> <li>To facilitate a successful adherence with Bologna process reforms and its instruments by the academic and administrative staff involved in doctoral studies and research management through the organization of special training sessions in Armenia, Belarus and Russia.</li> <li>To improve/increase the quality of international and national mobility of doctoral students of Armenia, Belarus and Russia for training and research based on development of double degree programmes and joint supervision.</li> <li>To ensure sustainability of DTC’s and their cooperation with European partners by establishing a sustainable professional network providing the use of participatory approaches and ICT-based methodologies.</li> </ol><p>The work is carried out in three phases: preparation, development, and dissemination & exploitation. In the preparation phase, a detailed analysis of organization of doctoral studies and research management structures is done in both EU and partner countries. The development phase includes preparation of training materials, a series of study visits and training sessions, and creation of DTC’s. The dissemination & exploitation phase includes open access learning material, dissemination conferences, publications and workshop/conference presentations, as well as events and open resources for stakeholders, policymakers, students and the general public.To partly serve similar purposes as MODEST, University of Helsinki and Russian State Hydrometeorological University have introduced a new project, PEEX-AC (PEEX Academic Challenge). The aims of PEEX-AC are to share knowledge and experience, to promote state-of-the-art research and educational tools through organization of research training intensive course on “Multi-Scales and -Processes Modelling and Assessment for Environmental Applications”, to improve added value of research-oriented education in Finnish and Russian Universities, and to boost the PEEX international collaboration.The MODEST and PEEX-AC projects serve as a great examples of transfer of good practices in higher education, especially on doctoral level, but they also create new connections for educational and scientific collaboration. From the PEEX perspective, MODEST is an important initiative strengthening connections between European universities and institutions in Russia, Belarus and Armenia. The project will continue until autumn 2022.</p>

Science education for doctoral students: MODEST approach and experience

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Katja Anniina Lauri ◽  
Alexander Mahura ◽  
Sini Karppinen ◽  
Irina Obukhova ◽  
Tatiana Kalganova ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Doctoral Students ◽  
Digital Literacy ◽  
Personal Development ◽  
Doctoral Education ◽  
Bologna Process ◽  
Personal Data ◽  
Doctoral Training ◽  
Doctoral Studies ◽  
Personal Data Protection ◽  
European Universities

<p>MODEST (Modernization of Doctoral Education in Science and Improvement Teaching Methodologies) is a capacity building project funded by the Erasmus+ programme.</p><p>The project is coordinated by the University of Latvia. There are three other EU partners (from Finland, Poland and the United Kingdom) and a total of ten partners from three partner countries (Russia, Belarus and Armenia).</p><p>The project aims to improve the structure and content of doctoral education and the internal capacities of services that manage doctoral studies in accordance with the modern European practices, to facilitate a successful adherence with Bologna process reforms and its instruments, to improve and increase the quality of international and national mobility of doctoral students of Armenia, Belarus and Russia, and to establish a sustainable professional network providing the use of participatory approaches and ICT-based methodologies.</p><p>During the past year, almost one hundred members of academic and administrative personnel as well as doctoral students have contributed to creating a total of 14 new courses mainly in transferable skills: Research methodology and research design; Project writing, project management, and funding sources; International research writing and presentation skills; Research ethics, Intellectual property rights and personal data protection; 3I - Interdisciplinarity, interculturality, internationalization in research; Organization of doctoral training; Educational/constructive alignment, design and implementation of courses for doctoral studies; Digital literacy; Data analysis and expert systems; Virtual environment; Commercialization of research, managerial skills; Personal development; Complexity; and Sustainable development and global challenges of 21st century. Each course has specific target group(s) such as PhD students, university teachers, doctoral programme managers, or administrative staff.</p><p>Summary of each developed course – aims, learning outcomes, content (including course blocks on lectures, seminars, homeworks, etc.), planned learning activities and teaching methods, assessment methods and criteria, and other relevant – will be presented. The developed courses will be an integral part of the Doctoral Training Centers for PhD students to be established in the MODEST partner universities in Armenia, Belarus and Russia.</p><p>The MODEST project serves as a great example of transfer of good practices in higher education, especially on doctoral level, but it has also created new connections for educational and scientific collaboration. From the PEEX perspective, MODEST is an important initiative strengthening connections between European universities and institutions in Russia, Belarus and Armenia. The project will continue until 2022. More detailed information is available at www.emodest.eu.</p>

scholarly journals The Preparation of Stewards with the Mastery Rubric for Stewardship: Re-Envisioning the Formation of Scholars and Practitioners

2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (4) ◽  
pp. 292
Author(s):  
Christopher M. Rios ◽  
Chris M. Golde ◽  
Rochelle E. Tractenberg
Keyword(s):  
Cognitive Abilities ◽  
Data Science ◽  
Doctoral Education ◽  
Work Force ◽  
Performance Level ◽  
Developmental Trajectory ◽  
Doctoral Training ◽  
Original Definition ◽  
Practice Standards ◽  
Directed Development

A steward of the discipline was originally defined as “someone who will creatively generate new knowledge, critically conserve valuable and useful ideas, and responsibly transform those understandings through writing, teaching, and application”. This construct was articulated to support and strengthen doctoral education. The purpose of this paper is to expand the construct of stewardship so that it can be applied to both scholars and non-academic practitioners, and can be initiated earlier than doctoral education. To accomplish and justify this, we describe a general developmental trajectory supporting cross-curriculum teaching for stewardship of a discipline as well as of a profession. We argue that the most important features of stewardship, comprising the public trust for the future of their discipline or profession, are obtainable by all practitioners, and are not limited to those who have completed doctoral training. The developmental trajectory is defined using the Mastery Rubric construct, which requires articulating the knowledge, skills, and abilities (KSAs) to be targeted with a curriculum; recognizable stages of performance of these KSAs; and performance level descriptors of each KSA at each stage. Concrete KSAs of stewardship that can be taught and practiced throughout the career (professional or scholarly) were derived directly from the original definition. We used the European guild structure’s stages of Novice, Apprentice, Journeyman, and Master for the trajectory, and through a consensus-based standard setting exercise, created performance level descriptors featuring development of Bloom’s taxonometric cognitive abilities (see Appendix A) for each KSA. Together, these create the Mastery Rubric for Stewardship (MR-S). The MR-S articulates how stewardly behavior can be cultivated and documented for individuals in any disciplinary curriculum, whether research-intensive (preparing “scholars”) or professional (preparing members of a profession or more generally for the work force). We qualitatively assess the validity of the MR-S by examining its applicability to, and concordance with professional practice standards in three diverse disciplinary examples: (1) History; (2) Statistics and Data Science; and (3) Neurosciences. These domains differ dramatically in terms of content and methodologies, but students in each discipline could either continue on to doctoral training and scholarship, or utilize doctoral or pre-doctoral training in other professions. The MR-S is highly aligned with the practice standards of all three of these domains, suggesting that stewardship can be meaningfully cultivated and utilized by those working in or outside of academia, supporting the initiation of stewardship prior to doctoral training and for all students, not only those who will earn PhDs or be scholars first and foremost. The MR-S can be used for curriculum development or revision in order to purposefully promote stewardship at all levels of higher education and beyond. The MR-S renders features of professional stewardship accessible to all practitioners, enabling formal and informal, as well as self-directed, development and refinement of a professional identity.

How has mobility become central to the EU’s idea of doctoral education?

2018 ◽  
Vol 11 (2) ◽  
pp. 5-29
Author(s):  
Pavel Zgaga
Keyword(s):  
Doctoral Education ◽  
Research Policy ◽  
Bologna Process ◽  
Negative Consequences ◽  
Doctoral Studies ◽  
Policy Tool ◽  
Open Questions ◽  
Erasmus Programme ◽  
The Bologna Process ◽  
The Eu

This article addresses why and how mobility has become central to the EU’s idea of doctoral education, aiming to reconstruct, in a historical perspective, the gradual conceptualisation of mobility as a policy idea. This process began with the discussion of academic mobility in the 1970s, when the European Communities had as yet no responsibility in the field of education, which resulted in the Erasmus Programme. In the late 1990s, the Bologna Process strengthened the discussion, substantially contributing to a consideration of mobility as a policy tool and the establishment of a mobility strategy. In connection with the EU research policy, the integration of doctoral studies into the Bologna Process is specifically analysed. The article concludes with some open questions, including the potentially negative consequences of the instrumentalisation of higher education for the concept of mobility.

scholarly journals Doctoral Education And Government Funding In Higher Education Institutions: An Approach From Chile

2016 ◽  
Vol 9 (2) ◽  
pp. 67-76 ◽  
Author(s):  
Liliana Pedraja-Rejas ◽  
Emilio Rodriguez-Ponce Rodriguez-Ponce ◽  
Carmen Araneda-Guirriman
Keyword(s):  
Higher Education ◽  
Doctoral Education ◽  
Higher Education Institutions ◽  
Academic Staff ◽  
Government Funding ◽  
Doctoral Training ◽  
Direct Impact

This research reveals the importance that government funding and the quality of faculty have on the doctoral training of universities from the Council of Chilean Universities (CRUCH), thus exploring the existing relationship inside this formative process. The results and conclusions show that government funding has a direct impact on doctoral training in Chile, along with the quality of the academic staff that these analyzed institutions have. Therefore, it is pertinent to conclude that fiscal funding and quality of faculty is important and relevant within the training of doctors in Chile.

scholarly journals Individual and Structural Challenges in Doctoral Education: An Ethical Perspective

10.28945/4738 ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 16 ◽  
pp. 211-236
Author(s):  
Liana Roos ◽  
Erika Löfström ◽  
Marvi Remmik
Keyword(s):  
Doctoral Students ◽  
Doctoral Education ◽  
Academic Community ◽  
Assessment Process ◽  
Ethical Principles ◽  
Structural Level ◽  
Ethical Perspective ◽  
Doctoral Studies ◽  
Individual Level ◽  
The Individual

Aim/Purpose: The study set out to understand the challenges doctoral students experience at different systemic levels of doctoral education through the perspective of ethical principles. Background: Doctoral students experience various challenges on their journey to the degree, and as high dropout rates indicate, these challenges become critical for many students. Several individual and structural level aspects, such as student characteristics, supervisory relationship, the academic community as well national policies and international trends, influence doctoral studies, and students’ experiences have been researched quite extensively. Although some of the challenges doctoral students experience may be ethical in nature, few studies have investigated these challenges specifically from an ethics perspective. Methodology: The study drew on qualitative descriptions of significant negative incidents from 90 doctoral students from an online survey. The data were first analyzed using a reflexive thematic analysis, and then the themes were located within different systemic levels of doctoral studies: individual (e.g., doctoral student, the individual relationship with supervisor) and structural (e.g., the institution, faculty, academic community). Finally, the ethical principles at stake were identified, applying the framework of five common ethical principles: respect for autonomy, benefiting others (beneficence), doing no harm (non-maleficence), being just (justice), and being faithful (fidelity). Contribution: Understanding doctoral students’ experiences from an ethical perspective and locating these among the systemic levels of doctoral studies contributes to a better understanding of the doctoral experience’s complexities. Ethical considerations should be integrated when creating and implementing procedures, rules, and policies for doctoral education. Making the ethical aspects visible will also allow universities to develop supervisor and faculty training by concretely targeting doctoral studies aspects highlighted as ethically challenging. Findings: In doctoral students’ experiences, structural level ethical challenges out-weighed breaches of common ethical principles at the individual level of doctoral studies. In the critical experiences, the principle of beneficence was at risk in the form of a lack of support by the academic community, a lack of financial support, and bureaucracy. Here, the system and the community were unsuccessful in contributing positively to doctoral students’ welfare and fostering their growth. At the individual level, supervision abandonment experiences, inadequate supervision, and students’ struggle to keep study-related commitments breached fidelity, which was another frequently compromised principle. Although located at the individual level of studies, these themes are rooted in the structural level. Additionally, the progress review reporting and assessment process was a recurrent topic in experiences in which the principles of non-maleficence, autonomy, and justice were at stake. Recommendations for Practitioners: Going beyond the dyadic student-supervisor relationship and applying the ethics of responsibility, where university, faculty, supervisors, and students share a mutual responsibility, could alleviate ethically problematic experiences. Recommendation for Researchers: We recommend that further research focus on experiences around the ethics in the progress reporting and assessment process through in-depth interviews with doctoral students and assessment committee members. Impact on Society: Dropout rates are high and time to degree completion is long. An ethical perspective may shed light on why doctoral studies fail in efficiency. Ethical aspects should be considered when defining the quality of doctoral education. Future Research: A follow-up study with supervisors and members of the academic community could contribute to developing a conceptual framework combining systemic levels and ethics in doctoral education.

scholarly journals Changing Doctoral Education at the University of Maribor

2020 ◽  
pp. 3-10
Author(s):  
Zoran Ren ◽  
Nataš Vaupotič
Keyword(s):  
Higher Education ◽  
Doctoral Education ◽  
Doctoral Studies ◽  
European Higher Education Area ◽  
European Higher Education ◽  
The University

The paper gives an overview of changes in the European Higher Education Area regarding the Doctoral studies, and outlines the steps that the University of Maribor undertook to renovate the Doctoral studies in line with the Salzburg principles and Principles of Innovative Doctoral Education.

scholarly journals Exploring doctoral students’ expectations of work-based skills training

2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (3) ◽  
pp. 403-417
Author(s):  
Jenny Candy ◽  
Padmali Rodrigo ◽  
Sarah Turnbull
Keyword(s):  
Higher Education ◽  
Doctoral Students ◽  
Skills Training ◽  
Doctoral Training ◽  
Perceived Fit ◽  
Snowball Sampling ◽  
Doctoral Studies ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Team Working ◽  
Uk Higher Education

Purpose Doctoral students are expected to undertake work-based skills training within their doctoral studies in areas such as problem solving, leadership and team working. The purpose of this paper is to explore student expectations of doctoral training within a UK Higher Education context. Design/methodology/approach The data for the study were gathered via two focus groups conducted among doctoral students from different faculties in a post-92 UK University. Participants were selected using a snowball sampling approach. Findings The findings suggest that the expectations of doctoral students are contingent upon their year of study, study mode, perceived fit between training goals and available training, peer recommendations, word-of-mouth (WoM) and the scholarly support they received from their supervisors. Practical implications The study suggests a better understanding of students’ segmentation can help Higher Education Institutions deliver training that meets the expectations of doctoral students in a way that result in zero or a positive disconfirmation. Originality/value This paper develops and deepens the understanding of the doctoral students’ expectations of work-based skills training and highlights the need for universities to adapt their doctoral training according to the expectations of different student segments.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document