Advertisement

Doctoral Program Types and Legitimacy of Models: Different Forms for Different Purposes

  • Fernando F. Padró
  • Jonathan H. Green
  • Robert Templeton
Living reference work entry
Part of the University Development and Administration book series (UDAA)

Abstract

Globally, there has been a shift in Higher Education. The rise in the number of nontraditional students and the educational inclusiveness obligations of universities has seen the development of differentiated doctoral pedagogies to meet the demand for flexible enrolments. The shift in university thinking that occurred due to student demand and political interference into higher education financially and socially has necessitated a change in traditional doctoral pedagogy to provide for the educational motivations of these students. This chapter will explore these factors relative to the doctoral degree models that have evolved in various countries in response to student, industrial, and political requirements.

References

  1. Adler, N., L. Friedman, and Z. Sinuany-Stern. 2002. Review of ranking methods in the data envelopment analysis context. European Journal of Operational Research 140: 249–265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Altbach, P.G., L. Reisberg, and L.E. Rumbley. 2009. Trends in global higher education: Tracking an academic revolution: A report prepared for the UNESCO 2009 world conference on higher education. Paris: United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. Retrieved from http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0018/001832/183219e.pdf.Google Scholar
  3. Barnes, T. 2013. Higher doctorates in the UK 2013. Staffordshire: UK Council for Graduate Education.Google Scholar
  4. Biloslavo, R., C. Bagnoli, and R.R. Figelj. 2013. Managing dualities for efficiency and effectiveness of organisations. Industrial Management & Data Systems 113 (3): 423–442.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Blume, S. 1986. The development and current dilemmas of postgraduate education. European Journal of Education 21 (3): 217–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Boud, D., and A. Lee. 2009. Introduction. In Changing practices of doctoral education, ed. D. Bound and A. Lee, 1–9. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  7. Bourner, T., R. Bowden, and S. Laing. 2001. Professional doctorates in England. Studies in Higher Education 26 (1): 65–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bozeman, B. 2002. Public-value failure: When efficient markets may not do. Public Administration Review 62 (2): 145–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bransford, J.D., A.L. Brown, R.R. Cocking, M.S. Donovan, and J.W. Pellegrino, eds. 2000. How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  10. Bridgland, A., and C. Goodacre. 2005. Benchmarking in higher education: A framework for benchmarking quality improvement purposes. In Proceedings, Educause Australasia, 5–8. Auckland: April.Google Scholar
  11. Brown, D.K. 2001. The social sources of educational credentialism: Status cultures, labor markets, and organizations. Sociology of Education, Extra Issue: Current of Thought: Sociology of Education at the Dawn of the 21st Century 74: 19–34.Google Scholar
  12. Burgess, S., and H. Turon. 2010. Worker flows, job flows and unemployment in a matching model. European Economic Review 54: 393–408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Candlin, F. 2000. Practice-based doctorates and questions of academic legitimacy. International Journal of Art and Design Education 19 (1): 96–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Carter, S., J. Frazey, J.L. González Geraldo, and C. Trevitt. 2010. The doctorate of the bologna process third cycle: Mapping the dimensions and impact of the European higher education area. Journal of Research in International Education 9 (3): 245–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Chase, S., and R. Pruitt. 2006. The practice doctorate: Innovation or disruption? Journal of Nursing Education 45 (5): 155–161.Google Scholar
  16. Christensen, K.K. 2005. Bologna Seminar: Doctoral programmes for the European Knowledge Society, Salzbug, 3–5 February 2005. Retrieved from http://www.cnaa.md/i/news/2015/11272015/salzburg_report_final.1129817011146[1].pdf.
  17. Christensen, C.M., and H.J. Eyring. 2011. The innovative university: Changing the DNA of higher education from the inside out. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  18. Clark, B.R. 1983. The higher education system: Academic organization in cross-national perspective. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  19. College of Information and Computer Sciences, UMass Amherst. 2018. PhD portfolio. Retrieved from https://www.cics.umass.edu/grads/phd-portfolio.
  20. Collins, R. 2002. Credential inflation and the future of universities. In The future of the city of intellect, ed. S. Brint, 23–46. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Costley, C., and S. Baker. 2012. Work-based doctorates: Professional extension at the highest levels. Studies in Higher Education 37 (3): 257–269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Council of Australian Deans and Directors of Graduate Studies. 2007. Guidelines on professional doctorates. Retrieved from http://www.uhr.no/documents/guidelines_on_professional_doctorates.pdf.
  23. Council of Ministers of Education, Canada. 2007. Ministerial statement on quality assurance of degree education in Canada. Retrieved from http://www.cmec.ca/Publications/Lists/Publications/Attachments/95/QA-Statement-2007.en.pdf.
  24. Crane, A., and S.M. Livesey. 2003. Are you talking to me? Stakeholder communication and the risks and rewards of dialogue. In Unfolding stakeholder thinking, ed. J. Andriof, S. Waddock, S. Rahman, and B. Husted, vol. 2, 39–52. Sheffield: Greenleaf.Google Scholar
  25. Crosier, D., D. Purser, and H. Smidt. 2007. Trends V: Universities shaping the European higher education area. Brussels: European University Association. Retrieved from: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Hanne_Smidt/publication/248810872_Trends_V_Universities_shaping_the_European_HE_Area/links/56406dce08ae34e98c4e7fdb.pdf.Google Scholar
  26. Davis, S., and J. Haltiwanger. 1999. Gross job flows. In The handbook of labor economics, ed. O. Ashenfelter and D. Card, vol. 3B, 2711–2805. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  27. Dellgran, P., and S. Höjer. 2012. The politics of social work research—PhD theses in Sweden. European Journal of Social Work 15 (4): 581–597.  https://doi.org/10.1080/13691457.2012.710875.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Duke, N.K., and S.W. Beck. 1999. Research news and comment: Education should consider alternative formats for the dissertation. Educational Researcher 28 (3): 31–36.  https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X028003031.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Edwards, S. 2009. A professional practice-based doctorate: Developing advanced nursing practice. Nurse Education Today 29: 1–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Engels-Shwarzpaul, A.-C. 2013. Non-traditional ways to the doctorate: Introduction. In Of other thoughts: Non-traditional ways to the doctorate: A guidebook for candidates and supervisors, ed. A.-C. Engels-Schwarzpaul and M.A. Peters, 1–16. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Ericsson, K.A. 2008. Deliberate practice and acquisition of expert performance: A general overview. Academic Emergency Medicine 15: 988–994.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. European Higher Education Area. 2005. Communiqué of the Conference of European Ministers Responsible for Higher Education, Bergen, 19–20 May 2005. Retrieved from http://media.ehea.info/file/2005_Bergen/52/0/2005_Bergen_Communique_english_580520.pdf.
  33. European University Association [EUA]. 2007. Doctoral programmes in Europe’s universities: Achievements and challenges – Report prepared for European universities and ministers of higher education. Brussels: European University Association. Retrieved from: https://www.dcu.ie/sites/default/files/graduate_research/pdfs/doctoral_programmes_in_europe_s_universities.pdf.Google Scholar
  34. Federal Ministry of Education and Research. n.d. The path to a professorship. Ministry website https://www.research-in-germany.org/en/jobs-and-careers/info-for-postdocs-and-junior-researchers/career-paths/path-to-professorship.html.
  35. Federkeil, G., F.A. van Vught, and D.F. Westerheijden. 2012. Classifications and rankings. In Multidimensional ranking: The design and development of U-multirank, ed. F.A. van Vught and F. Ziegele, 25–38. Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Freeman, R.E. 1984. Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Boston: Pitman.Google Scholar
  37. Freie Universität Berlin. n.d. PhD and postdoc. University website http://www.mi.fu-berlin.de/en/stud/prom-habil/index.html.
  38. Gannon, F. 2006. What is a PhD? European Molecular Biology Organization 7 (11): 1061.Google Scholar
  39. Gill, T.G., and U. Hoppe. 2009. The business professional doctorate as an informing channel: A survey and analysis. International Journal of Doctoral Studies 4: 27–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Glass, J.C., G. McCallion, D.G. McKillop, S. Rasaratnam, and K.S. Stringer. 2009. Best-practice benchmarking in UK higher education: New nonparametric approaches using financial ratios and profit efficiency methodologies. Applied Economics 41: 249–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Green, B. 2012. Addressing the curriculum problem in doctoral education. Australian Universities’ Review 54 (1): 10–18.Google Scholar
  42. Guerin, C. 2015. Connecting the dots: Writing a doctoral thesis by publication. In Research literacies and writing pedagogies for masters and doctoral writers, 31–50. Leiden: Brill.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Hamann, T.H. 2009. Neoliberalism, governmentality, and ethics. Foucault Studies 6: 37–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Hesseling, P. 1986. Frontiers of learning: The PhD octopus. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
  45. Hoddell, S., D. Street, and H. Wildblood. 2002. Doctorates – Converging or diverging patters of provision. Quality Assurance in Education 10 (2): 61–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Holley, K. 2010. Doctoral student socialization in interdisciplinary fields. In On becoming a scholar: Socialization and development in doctoral education, ed. S.K. Gardner and P. Mendoza, 97–112. Sterling: Stylus.Google Scholar
  47. Huisman, J., and R. Naidoo. 2006. The professional doctorate: From Anglo-Saxon to European challenges. Higher Education Management and Policy 18 (2): 1–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Jackson, N. 2001. Benchmarking in UK HE: An overview. Quality Assurance in Education 9 (4): 218–235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. James, W. 1903. The Ph.D. octopus. The Harvard Monthly. 36 (1), 7.Google Scholar
  50. Kot, F.C., and D.D. Hendel. 2012. Emergence and growth of professional doctorates in the United States, United Kingdom, Canada and Australia: A comparative analysis. Studies in Higher Education 37 (3): 345–364.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Kuhn, T.S. 1970. The structure of scientific revolutions. 2nd ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  52. Lee, A., and D. Boud. 2009. Framing doctoral education as practice. In Changing practices of doctoral education, ed. D. Bound and A. Lee, 10–26. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  53. Lester, S. 2004. Conceptualising the practitioner doctorate. Studies in Higher Education 29 (5): 757–770.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Looks Good on Paper. 2011. Times Higher Education Supplement. Retrieved from https://www.timeshighereducation.com/features/looks-good-on-paper/416988.article.
  55. Lowe, J. 2000. International examinations: The new credentialism and reproduction of advantage in a globalising world. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice 7 (3): 363–377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Malfroy, J. 2005. Doctoral supervision, workplace research and changing pedagogic practices. Higher Education Research & Development 24 (2): 165–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Manchester Metropolitan University Research and Knowledge Exchange 2013. Guidelines for PhD by publication and PhD by practice. Retrieved from https://www2.mmu.ac.uk/media/mmuacuk/content/documents/graduate-school/regulations-procedures/guidelines-phd-published-work.pdf.
  58. Marginson, S., and M. van der Wende. 2007. To rank or be ranked: The impact of global rankings in higher education. Journal of Studies in International Education 11 (3/4): 306–329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Maxwell, T.W., and P.J. Shanahan. 1997. Towards a reconceptualisation of the doctorate: Issues arising from comparative data relating to the EdD degree in Australia. Studies in Higher Education 22: 133–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. McWilliam, E.L., P.G. Taylor, and P. Singh. 2002. Doctoral education, danger and risk management. Higher Education Research and Development 21 (2): 119–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. McWilliam, E.L., A. Lawson, T. Evans, and P.G. Taylor. 2005. Silly, soft and otherwise suspect’: Doctoral education as risky business. Australian Journal of Education 49 (2): 214–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Mellros-Bourne, R., C. Robinson, and J. Metcalfe. 2016. Provision of professional doctorates in English HE institutions: Report for HEFCE by the careers Research & Advisory Centre (CRAC), supported by the University of Brighton. Cambridge: Careers Research & Advisory Centre. Retrieved from http://www.hefce.ac.uk/media/HEFCE,2014/Content/Pubs/Independentresearch/2016/Provision,of,professional,doctorates/Professional_doctorates_CRAC.pdf.Google Scholar
  63. Meritosis, J. 2016. Credentials reform: How technology and the changing needs of the workforce will create the higher education system of the future. Educause Review 51 (3): 26–34.Google Scholar
  64. Monash University. 2017. Thesis including published works: Guidelines for a thesis including published works. Retrieved from https://www.monash.edu/graduate-research/supervisors-and-examiners/examiners/publication.
  65. Morgan, K.J. 2011. Where is von Humboldt’s university now? Research in Higher Education-Daigaku Ronshu 42: 325–344.Google Scholar
  66. Nerad, M. 2004. The PhD in the US: Criticisms, facts, and remedies. Higher Education Policy 17: 183–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Neumann, R. 2005. Doctoral differences: Professional doctorates and PhDs compared. Journal of Higher Education, Policy and Management 27 (2): 173–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Nimkulrat, N. 2011. Problems of practice-based doctorates in art and design: A viewpoint from Finland. In Proceedings of ICPD-2, 2nd international conference on professional doctorates, Edinburgh, UK, 20th-21st April, 58–61. London: UK Council for Graduate Education.Google Scholar
  69. Norcross, J.C., and P.H. Castle. 2002. Appreciating the PsyD: The facts. Eye on Psi Chi 7 (1): 22–26. Retrieved from: http://cms.bsu.edu/-/media/www/departmentalcontent/psychology/docs/psyd.pdf.Google Scholar
  70. Northcott, D., and S. Llewellyn. 2005. Benchmarking in UK health: A gap between policy and practice? Benchmarking: An International Journal 12 (5): 419–435.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Nyquist, J.D., and B.J. Woodford. 2000. Re-envisioning the Ph.D.: What concerns do we have? Pullman: Center for Instructional Development and Research, University of Washington. Retrieved from https://depts.washington.edu/envision/resources/ConcernsBrief.pdf.Google Scholar
  72. Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development [OECD], European Union, and UNESCO Institution for Statistics. 2015. ISCED 2011 operational manual: Guidelines for classifying national education programmes and related qualifications. Paris: OECD Publishing. Retrieved from http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0023/002323/232343e.pdf.Google Scholar
  73. Ostriker, J.P., C.V. Kuh, and J.A. Voytuk, eds. 2011. A data-based assessment of research-doctorate programs in the United States. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  74. Padró, F.F. 2004. Statistical handbook on the social safety net. Westport: Greenwood Publishers.Google Scholar
  75. Padró, F.F., and Jonathan H. Green. in press. TQM’s impact on the legal apparatus: Informing and directing compliance practices. In Education and the law: Considering the legal context of schools, ed. K. Trimmer, R. Dixon, and Y. Findlay. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  76. Park, C. 2005. New variant PhD: The changing nature of the doctorate in the UK. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management 27 (2): 189–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Park, C. 2007. Redefining the doctorate. The Higher Education Academy discussion paper. York: The Higher Education Academy. Retrieved from file:///E:/HEA-redefining-the-doctorate-February-2007-Vitae%20.pdf.Google Scholar
  78. Plaza-Úbeda, J.A., J. de Burgos-Jiménez, and E. Carmona-Moreno. 2010. Measuring stakeholder integration: Knowledge, interaction and adaptational behavior dimensions. Journal of Business Ethics 93 (3): 419–442.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Powell, S., and E. Long. 2005. Professional doctorate awards in the UK. Staffordshire: UK Council on Graduate Education. Retrieved from: https://www2.le.ac.uk/departments/doctoralcollege/about/external/publications/professional-doctorates.pdf.Google Scholar
  80. QS World University Rankings. 2017. Who rules? The top 500 universities in the World 2018. Retrieved from https://www.topuniversities.com/university-rankings/world-university-rankings/2018.
  81. Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education [QAA]. 2015. Characteristic statement: Doctoral degree – UK quality code for higher education. In Part A: Setting and maintaining academic standards. Glouster: Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education. Retrieved from http://www.qaa.ac.uk/en/Publications/Documents/qualifications-frameworks.pdf.Google Scholar
  82. Scott, D., A. Brown, I. Lunt, and L. Thorne. 2004. Professional doctorates: Integrating professional and academic knowledge. Maidenhead: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  83. Servage, L. 2009. Alternative and professional doctoral programs: What is driving the demand? Studies in Higher Education 34 (7): 765–779.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Sharmini, S., R. Spronken-Smith, C. Golding, and T. Harland. 2015. Assessing the doctoral thesis when it includes published work. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 40 (1): 89–102.  https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2014.888535.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Smith, M. 2018. Credentialism. International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences. Retrieved from http://www.encyclopedia.com/social-sciences/applied-and-social-sciences-magazines/credentialism.
  86. Sullivan, T.A., C. Mackie, W.F. Massy, and E. Sinha, eds. 2012. Improving the measurement of productivity in higher education. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  87. Teichler, U. 2008. Indicators concerning rationales and modes of doctoral study and research in economically-advanced countries. In UNESCO Forum on Higher Education, Research and Knowledge Trends and Issues in Postgraduate Education: Challenges for Research International Experts’ Workshop, 5–7 March, 2008, Dublin City University (DCU) Dublin, Ireland – Final Report, ed. UNESCO, 24–27. Retrieved from http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0016/001607/160744e.pdf.
  88. United Kingdom Council for Graduate Education [UKCGE]. 1997. Practice-based doctorates in the creative and performing arts and design. Staffordshire: United Kingdom Council for Graduate Education. Retrieved from www.ukcge.ac.uk/media/download.aspx?MediaId=1289.Google Scholar
  89. United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization [UNESCO]. 2010. World Conference on Higher Education 2009: Final Report. Paris: United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. Retrieved from: http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0018/001892/189242e.pdf.Google Scholar
  90. Weineck, S.B., D. Koelblinger, and T. Klesslich. 2015. Medizinische Habilitation im deutschsprachigen Raum: Quantitative Untersuchung zu Inhalt und Ausgestaltung der Habilitationsrichtlinien. Der Chirurg 86 (4): 355–365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Wildy, H., S. Peden, and K. Chan. 2015. The rise of professional doctorates: Case studies of the doctorate in education in China, Iceland and Australia. Studies in Higher Education 40 (5): 761–774.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. Winter, R., M. Griffiths, and K. Green. 2000. The “academic” qualities of practice: What are the criteria for a practice-based PhD? Studies in Higher Education 25 (1): 25–37.  https://doi.org/10.1080/030750700115993.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Fernando F. Padró
    • 1
  • Jonathan H. Green
    • 1
  • Robert Templeton
    • 1
  1. 1.University of Southern QueenslandToowoombaAustralia

Personalised recommendations