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 Perspectives on Historically Marginalized Doctoral Students in the United States and South Africa

10.28945/4210 ◽  
2019 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Higher Education ◽  
United States ◽  
South Africa ◽  
Doctoral Students ◽  
Doctoral Education ◽  
The United States ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Cultural Frameworks ◽  
Higher Education Internationalization ◽  
Doctoral Experience

[This Proceedings paper was revised and published in the 2019 issue of the International Journal of Doctoral Studies, Volume 14] Aim/Purpose: This work expands discussions on the application of cultural frameworks on research in doctoral education in the United States and South Africa. There is an emphasis on identifying and reinterpreting the doctoral process where racial and cultural aspects have been marginalized by way of legacies of exclusions in both contexts. An underlying premise of this work is to support representation of marginalized students within the context of higher education internationalization. Background: Decades of reporting provide evidence of statistical portraits on degree attainment. Yet, some large-scale reporting does not include representation of historically marginalized groups until the 1970’s in the United States, and the 2000’s 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: Qualitative research synthesis of literature focused on a dimensional framework of diversity provides a basis for this discussion paper regarding the potential of Sankofa as a cultural framework for examining the historically marginalized doctoral experience in the United States and South Africa. Contribution: A major contribution of this work offers critical questions on the use of cultural frameworks in doctoral education in the US and South Africa and broader dynamics of higher education internationalization. Findings: Sankofa reveals critical insight for reinterpretation 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 frameworks 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 frameworks in the development and implementation of practical strategies in the support of historically marginalized doctoral students. Recommendations for Researchers: Recommendations for researchers consider the application of cultural frameworks in the development of scholarship supporting historically marginalized 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 for this student population. Future Research: Future research should consider the application of cultural frameworks when examining the historically marginalized doctoral experience within global, national, and local contexts.

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.

scholarly journals Executive Higher Education Doctoral Programs in the United States: A Demographic Market-Based Analysis

10.28945/3713 ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 14 ◽  
pp. 001-019
Author(s):  
Sydney Freeman Jr. ◽  
Gracie Forthun
Keyword(s):  
Higher Education ◽  
United States ◽  
Doctoral Programs ◽  
Doctoral Degree ◽  
Practical Experience ◽  
The United States ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Education Programs ◽  
Doctoral Degree Programs ◽  
Education Degree

Aim/Purpose: Executive doctoral programs in higher education are under-researched. Scholars, administers, and students should be aware of all common delivery methods for higher education graduate programs. Background This paper provides a review and analysis of executive doctoral higher education programs in the United States. Methodology: Executive higher education doctoral programs analyzed utilizing a qualitative demographic market-based analysis approach. Contribution: This review of executive higher education doctoral programs provides one of the first investigations of this segment of the higher education degree market. Findings: There are twelve programs in the United States offering executive higher education degrees, though there are less aggressively marketed programs described as executive-style higher education doctoral programs that could serve students with similar needs. Recommendations for Practitioners: Successful executive higher education doctoral programs require faculty that have both theoretical knowledge and practical experience in higher education. As appropriate, these programs should include tenure-line, clinical-track, and adjunct faculty who have cabinet level experience in higher education. Recommendation for Researchers: Researchers should begin to investigate more closely the small but growing population of executive doctoral degree programs in higher education. Impact on Society: Institutions willing to offer executive degrees in higher education will provide training specifically for those faculty who are one step from an executive position within the higher education sector. Society will be impacted by having someone that is trained in the area who also has real world experience. Future Research: Case studies of students enrolled in executive higher education programs and research documenting university-employer goals for these programs would enhance our understanding of this branch of the higher education degree market.

scholarly journals The Validation of Using Assessment Tools and a Theory to Mentor Doctoral Students with Integrity and Trustworthiness

10.28945/4475 ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 15 ◽  
pp. 029-056
Author(s):  
Laura Roberts
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Doctoral Students ◽  
Graduation Rates ◽  
Research Methods ◽  
Content Validity ◽  
Doctoral Programs ◽  
The United States ◽  
Assessment Tools ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Safe Haven

Aim/Purpose: The primary aim of this study was to reveal the assessment tools and a theory preferred to mentor doctoral students with integrity and trustworthiness. The connection between mentors’ feelings of trustworthiness and protégé success were explored. Background: This study examines the concept presented in 1983, 1985, and 1996 by Kram of mentor relations (MR) theory, which illustrates that graduation rates can improve with effective mentoring. In the United States, doctoral programs have low graduation rates. Scholars and researchers agree that doctoral programs must develop ways and means to improve their graduation rates. This researcher examined an extension of Kram’s mentor relations theory by employing the Mentor Integrity and Trustworthiness (MIT) theory, which depicts that mentors with a strong sense of integrity and trustworthiness provide a safe haven for protégés to succeed. As supported by Daloz, a trustworthy mentor provides a safe haven for protégés to take the intellectual risks required to produce an original contribution to the canon of scholarly knowledge in the form of a doctoral dissertation. Methodology: A quantitative research methodology of data collection ensued including the researcher generated MIT scale and the mentors’ perceptions of protégés’ independence (MPPI) scale, a survey to establish acceptable levels of internal consistencies for items on the two scales, a supported evidence of the content validity of the two scales, the researcher’s analysis of the validity of the MIT theory, and a multi-stage sampling method to recruit a research sample of 50 mentors from four universities in the eastern part of the United States from several education-related doctoral programs. The doctoral programs were diverse in terms of selectivity, type of degree, and mentors’ years of experience. Contribution: This research study contributes to existing literature knowledge by generating the relationship between mentors’ feelings of trustworthiness and protégés’ success as measured by graduation rate and the number of awards won by protégés. The validation of the mentor integrity and trustworthiness (MIT) scale and the mentor perceptions of protégé independence (MPPI) scale, and the supported evidence of content validity and reliability for both scales will deepen and extend the discussion of doctoral mentoring in higher education. Findings: Results indicated that mentors’ feelings of trustworthiness were correlated with the number of dissertation awards won by protégés and with graduation rates. Graduation rates and dissertation awards rates were not measured directly, but were reported by the mentors. In addition, the researcher found that mentors perceived their protégés to be independent scholars, in general, however, minimally in the area of writing the research methods section of their dissertation. Recommendations for Practitioners: The researcher discussed the practical implications for mentors’ professional development in trustworthiness and integrity. The researcher also provided the Right Angle Research Alignment table to help protégés organize and manage the research methods section of their dissertation. Recommendation for Researchers: Researchers should continue to explore MIT theory with experimental methods to attempt to improve the internal validity of the theory. Impact on Society: The researcher encourages scholars to test the MIT theory in mentoring relationships that go beyond doctoral studies such as mentoring in business and in the arts. The researcher also encourages scholars to test whether the MIT theory is relevant in other kinds of teaching relationships such as coaching and tutoring. Future Research: Further research questions that arise from this study are as follows: What can mentors do to improve their integrity? What can mentors do to improve their feelings of trustworthiness? How can the MIT and MPPI instruments be refined and improved?

scholarly journals Performance satisfaction, shareholder and stakeholder orientations: Managers´ perceptions in three countries across continents

2013 ◽  
Vol 16 (2) ◽  
pp. 199-215 ◽  
Author(s):  
Georgios Angelopoulos ◽  
John A Parnell ◽  
Gregory J Scott
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
South Africa ◽  
The United States ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Organisational Performance ◽  
Stakeholder Orientation ◽  
And Performance ◽  
Performance Satisfaction ◽  
The Relationship

Managers working in South Africa, Peru and the United States were classified as stakeholder- and/or shareholder-oriented along the Perceived Role of Ethics and Social Responsibility (PRESOR) scale. The relationship between stakeholder/shareholder orientation and perceptions of organisational performance was further explored. In South Africa and overall, respondents with both high stakeholder and low shareholder orientations reported the greatest performance satisfaction. In Peru, managers with a high stakeholder orientation reported the greatest satisfaction with organisational performance. A significant link between stakeholder or shareholder orientation and performance satisfaction was not found in the United States, however. Directions for future research are outlined.

scholarly journals Executive Higher Education Doctoral Programs in the United States: A Demographic Market-Based Analysis

10.28945/3673 ◽  
2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gracie Forthun ◽  
Sydney Freeman Jr.
Keyword(s):  
Higher Education ◽  
United States ◽  
Doctoral Programs ◽  
Doctoral Degree ◽  
Practical Experience ◽  
The United States ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Education Programs ◽  
Doctoral Degree Programs ◽  
Education Degree

[This Proceedings paper was revised and published in the journal Issues in Informing Science and Information Technology] Aim/Purpose : Executive doctoral programs in higher education are under-researched. Scholars, administers, and students should be aware of all common delivery methods for higher education graduate programs. Background: This paper provides a review and analysis of executive doctoral higher education programs in the United States. Methodology : Executive higher education doctoral programs analyzed utilizing a qualitative demographic market-based analysis approach. Contribution: This review of executive higher education doctoral programs provides one of the first investigations of this segment of the higher education degree market. Findings: There are twelve programs in the United States offering executive higher education degrees, though there are less aggressively marketed programs described as executive-style higher education doctoral programs that could serve students with similar needs. Recommendations for Practitioners: Successful executive higher education doctoral programs require faculty that have both theoretical knowledge and practical experience in higher education. As appropriate, these programs should include tenure-line, clinical-track, and adjunct faculty who have cabinet level experience in higher education. Recommendation for Researchers: Researchers should begin to investigate more closely the small but growing population of executive doctoral degree programs in higher education. Impact on Society: Institutions willing to offer executive degrees in higher education will provide training specifically for those faculty who are one step from an executive position within the higher education sector. Society will be impacted by having someone that is trained in the area who also has real world experience. Future Research: Case studies of students enrolled in executive higher education programs and research documenting university-employer goals for these programs would enhance our understanding of this branch of the higher education degree market.

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

scholarly journals While Collaboration Is Increasing in the Profession the LIS Dissertation Remains a Solo-Authored Monograph

2011 ◽  
Vol 6 (3) ◽  
pp. 61
Author(s):  
Diana K. Wakimoto
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Qualitative Analysis ◽  
Doctoral Students ◽  
Bibliometric Analysis ◽  
Doctoral Education ◽  
Committee Member ◽  
The United States ◽  
Faculty Members ◽  
Assistant Professors

Objective – To investigate collaboration in LIS doctoral education, in particular the extent and perception of collaboration between advisors and advisees, and the dissertation as a collaborative product. Design – Quantitative and qualitative analysis of questionnaire data. Qualitative analysis of interviews. Bibliometric analysis of curricula vitae (CVs) and dissertation citations. Setting – American Library Association (ALA)-accredited, doctorate-granting schools in the United States and Canada. Subjects – A total of 374 full-time, tenured faculty members with the rank of associate or full professor (advisor group) and 294 assistant professors (advisee group) comprised the pool of faculty members (n=668) who were sent the questionnaire. Of these, 30 individuals participated in follow-up telephone interviews, which were equally split between the two groups. There were 97 faculty members from the original pool of 668 faculty members were included in the bibliometric analyses. Methods – The author developed two questionnaires, one for the advisors (associate and full professors) and one for the advisees (assistant professors), and sent the surveys to faculty members at ALA-accredited schools in the United States and Canada. The questionnaires gathered information about the extent of collaboration and perceptions of collaboration in LIS doctoral education. The author also collected contact information from those interested in participating in a follow-up interview. The author selected the first 30 individuals who responded as the interview participants. The interview participants were split equally between advisors and advisees. A separate subpopulation of 97 faculty members was chosen for the bibliometric analysis phase of the study. These faculty members were chosen with the following criteria: graduation from an ALA-accredited school; full-text of dissertation available online; and a current, full CV available online. CVs were searched to determine the level of co-authoring before and after graduation. Main Results – A total of 215 faculty members completed the questionnaires. The results from the surveys showed that more than 61% of the advisors reported collaborating with at least half of their advisees, while 58% of the advisees reported collaborating with their advisors. Both advisors and advisees defined collaboration mainly as publishing, researching, and presenting together. More than 50% of the advisors reported co-publishing with half of their advisees during the advisees’ doctoral education. The advisors reported co-publishing with less than 30% of their advisees after the students completed their doctoral education. Advisees reported similar numbers: 44% and 31%, respectively. Following graduation, the majority of advisees (96%) planned to publish from their dissertations. Of these, 78% did not plan to include their advisor as co-author in these publications. 42% of the advisors reported that none of their advisees included them as co-authors, while 3% of advisors stated that their advisees always included them as co-authors. After the 30 interview transcripts were coded using inductive and deductive approaches, the results showed that advisees saw research as a process whereby they became collaborators with their advisors. Advisees also found collaboration with other doctoral students as “kind of key” (p. 7). Advisors saw collaboration as a form of mentorship. However, both advisees and advisors reported that the dissertation itself was not a collaborative product, with the responsibilities of the dissertation tasks falling more heavily on the advisees than the advisors, except in the realm of reviewing and approving the final version of the dissertation. Analysis of the CVs for co-publishing between advisees and their advisor and/or committee members showed that 41% of the advisees published with their advisors and 34% published with at least one committee member before receiving their doctorate. After receiving their doctorates, 31% of the advisees published with their advisors and 32% published with a committee member. Conclusion – The author concluded that a majority of advisors and advisees see collaboration as joint publication during the period of doctoral studies. Both advisors and advisees see the doctoral dissertation as a solo-authored monograph and not a collaborative product. However, other forms of collaboration among advisees and their advisors, committee members, and fellow doctoral students are viewed as important parts of the doctoral education experience. Based on these findings, the author suggests that the profession may need to adapt its model of doctoral education to become more aligned with the increasingly collaborative nature of LIS research.

Disrupting hegemony in social work doctoral education and research: Using autoethnography to uncover possibilities for radical transformation

2020 ◽  
pp. 147332502097334
Author(s):  
Austin Gerhard Oswald ◽  
Sarah Bussey ◽  
Monica Thompson ◽  
Anna Ortega-Williams
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Social Work ◽  
Doctoral Students ◽  
Doctoral Education ◽  
Research Training ◽  
Personal Narratives ◽  
The United States ◽  
Early Career ◽  
Academic Context ◽  
Social Work Research

Social work has enhanced its profile in the United States by adopting a particular dialect of scientific inquiry wherein positivism and evidence-based practice are considered gold standards of social work research and practice. This ideological shift permeates doctoral education and research training, as well as social work more broadly. Little attention, however, is paid to the pedagogical approaches used to train doctoral students into a “science of social work,” and we know even less about critical methodologies in doctoral education. This collaborative autoethnography weaves together the personal narratives of three doctoral students and one early career faculty member navigating an academic context within a large public university in the United States. We employ a participatory and intersectional approach to analyze narrative data in terms of how our identities interact with the structures relevant to where we study and work. Three themes emerged from our collaborative analysis: becoming disillusioned by disciplinary shortcoming; confronting dissonance with radical solidarity; and making change on the inside using perspectives from the outside. We argue throughout that critical reflexivity is a tool to document, resist, and transform hegemonic discourse that narrowly defines what it means to embody social work research, practice, and education.

Dismantling Common Perceptions of Research Proposals Through South African Doctoral Students’ and Supervisors’ Experiences

10.28945/4877 ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 16 ◽  
pp. 737-756
Author(s):  
Walters Doh Nubia ◽  
Shan Simmonds
Keyword(s):  
South Africa ◽  
Doctoral Students ◽  
South African ◽  
Knowledge Production ◽  
Doctoral Education ◽  
Quality Attributes ◽  
Research Proposal ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Doctoral Research

Aim/Purpose: There is a significant amount of research on supervision, assessment, and socio-economic benefits in South Africa. However, there have been relatively few attempts to analyse the research proposal phase, which remains a critical part of doctoral education in South African. Background: As part of the broader transformation agenda in South Africa, universities are under pressure to produce vastly more high-level doctoral graduates. The aim is to allow South Africa to build its knowledge base so it can address the socio-economic problems inherited from the apartheid regime. In South Africa, quality in doctoral education is mainly understood and measured in terms of throughput rate. The danger is that greatly increasing the number of doctoral graduates will have a deleterious effect on the quality of the studies done. At present, the general view is that the research proposal phase is an administrative requirement or merely a planning phase in doctoral education. However, the research proposal phase is when doctoral students have their first opportunity to show their capacity for high-level intellectual engagement. This article explores what doctoral students and supervisors regard as necessary for a quality research proposal and how they view this phase of the doctoral journey. Methodology: This qualitative research used phenomenology to capture the lived experiences of participants. There were nineteen (19) participants from three South African universities. Eleven (11) of them were supervisors and eight (8) were doctoral students. Semi-structured interviews generated the data that were used to explore how participants experience and construct their understanding of quality at the research proposal phase. Contribution: The study makes three contributions: (i) it increases our understanding of the research proposal phase of doctoral education, (ii) it provides an alternative understanding of quality attributes: those centred on research learning. At present planning to meet administrative requirements dominates notions of quality; and (iii) it positions the doctoral research proposal at an intersection of different views of knowledge production: mode 1 that favours disciplinary knowledge production, mode 2 that favours cross disciplinary knowledge production and mode 3 that favours quadruple helix innovation systems of knowledge production. Findings: The findings indicate that participants understand quality in terms of planning for research, compliance with administrative requirements, confinement of research ideas within disciplinarity boundaries and the calibre of academic support. These understandings inform the common perceptions of the research proposal phase and its quality attributes. Participants’ narrow understanding of the research proposal phase and its quality attributes have, in turn, supported the view that writing of research proposals is a matter of technical compliance. This has deprived the research proposal phase from harnessing the full potential of research learning. It has also restricted the epistemological imagination of students, as econometrics parameters are being used to measure the production of knowledge. Recommendations for Practitioners: The possibility of enhancing the quality of the doctoral research proposal phase could be increased if those directing doctoral education were more aware (i) that the support programmes should encourage significant doctoral research; (ii) of the importance of having courses that are an integral part of the research proposal phase, which enable candidates to develop the ability to sustain a cohesive, coherent, critical and logical academic argument, and (iii) of the necessity for interdisciplinary research at the level of doctoral education. Recommendation for Researchers: Researchers from diverse social and cultural contexts need to improve the quality of their research proposals through engaging in research learning. This would require deeper understandings of social and cultural diversity of the context from which the research proposal phase is being experienced. This requires further research on understanding how students negotiate the transition from different social learning contexts into doctoral education. Impact on Society: Implementation of the recommendations would help to establish a robust standard of doctoral education, which could enhance the personal, professional, social, and economic growth of South African society. Future Research: Future research should explore different approaches to support services to identify the kind of support services that would enable doctoral students to engage in quality interdisciplinary research.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document