faculty focus are imposed upon the student from a program level through to a division, school, faculty and university. As I watch our students negotiate these completely arbitrary rules imposed upon them, I understand their frustration. They should be in the library or laboratory working, reading, writing and thinking about their chapters, rather than filling in another( damn) form from another( damn) middle manager who is offering an opinion about their project. Appoint a dean of graduate studies who is an expert in the field. Surround that person with specialist administrators who care about the postgraduates and their progress. Cut away the noise.
4
DIAGNOSE INSTITUTIONAL PROBLEMS IN CANDIDATURES AND COMPLETIONS. DEVELOP PRECISE STRATEGIES TO SOLVE THEM Each university is different and attracts a precise cohort. Therefore, understanding the sociology of this group – who they are and what challenges they may face – is a key to completion. For example, one of my previous universities attracted a large number of parttime older women working in the humanities; however, the fastest completions were by young men, enrolled full time in the sciences. Assuming the same strategies would work on these disparate groups was a mistake. It was necessary to recognise the problems of isolation, disconnection and multiple responsibilities facing these courageous women returning to study, and implement specific strategies for dialogue and support. Assuming all postgraduates are young men working in the sciences is not only socially unjust, but ignores the positive schemes that can be created when solving specific issues and concerns.
5
HOLD EXIT INTERVIEWS WITH STUDENTS WHO LEAVE THE PROGRAM. INTERVIEW THEIR SUPERVISORS If students leave, then we need to know why. Some reasons may be personal: death, divorce or a lack of money. Other causes may be directly tied to the institution itself. The dean of graduate studies should do an exit interview. If a problematic supervisor is discovered who is repeatedly losing students, then remedial education programs should be put into place. Experienced and successful supervisors should be rewarded with more students. Supervising is a privilege, not a right to fill a workload allotment.
HOLD AN ORIENTATION DAY FOR PHD STUDENTS
6 Being admitted to a PhD is one of the greatest experiences and opportunities of a student’ s life. There should be acknowledgement of this privilege alongside proper preparation for the three years that follow. It should be a university-wide event that welcomes students and orients them into the environment. As part of a new doctoral community, they should be introduced to the library and librarians, teaching opportunities, expectations for scholarships and – most importantly – the risk factors they should monitor in themselves to recognise if their doctorate may be in danger.
MAKE THE FIRST MEETING COUNT, MAKE THE FIRST
7 YEAR COUNT The most crucial moment in PhD supervision is the first meeting. In one hour, the research framework must be established, the terms of the relationship formed and the trajectory of the next three years put into place. The key strategy for this meeting is to use a whiteboard and plan the entire thesis, predicting problems and revealing potential strengths. By the time the new postgraduate has left the room, they have a title, thesis statement, argument and nine prospective chapter headings.
From this critical first meeting, I expect three chapters to be completed in the first year of candidature. These initial attempts at doctoral-level scholarship will require the most drafting before submission, but making students focus on finishing three chapters of the research project ensures that their first year is not wasted with generalised reading.
8
EXPECT A PHD PROPOSAL, WITH AN ARGUMENT, ORIGINAL CONTRIBUTION TO KNOWLEDGE AND BIBLIOGRAPHY, WITHIN SIX MONTHS OF ENROLMENT The most important document that a student produces before the completed doctorate is the proposal. This should be completed within the first six months. The reasons for the early submission of this document are multiple. The students have a motivated early period, knowing that there will be a requirement for a large, intricate and verified document monitoring their progress. Further, they must be able to state – in a sentence – their original contribution to knowledge.
One of the startling concerns I have seen when examining theses has been the swamping of method over all other intellectual concerns.
Instead of demonstrating theoretical intricacy or rigorous reworkings of archives, the theses I have marked have instigated tired, dull and basic literature reviews and discussions of method. Indeed, a couple of theses attempted to offer an original contribution to knowledge by applying a method to a new site.
If the student is required to show that they have an original contribution to knowledge – or at least a trace of that possibility – within six months, then the candidature can be confirmed. Conversely, if the student is bogged down with methods and cannot manage higher-order thinking and research, then this reality can be acknowledged and a review instigated to probe whether their research is at a master’ s, rather than doctoral, level.
ASK SENIOR ACADEMICS TO SIGN OFF ON
9 THE PROPOSAL It is fascinating to me that so many people are involved in administering doctorates, yet the crucial review role of the senior academic has practically disappeared.
For me, the ideal reviewer of the PhD proposal is not a head of school, but a senior academic with expertise in the topic. Often, this academic may not be in the school in which the student is enrolled. This function is pivotal because these senior scholars can – early in the enrolment – ascertain if there is a theoretical misstep or an area of scholarship that appears to have been missed. Every time that I have seen this strategy used, the senior academic has located either a misinterpretation of a source or the wide, gaping absence in an area of scholarship.
MAKE AN EARLY CALL ON WHETHER THIS RESEARCH
10 PROJECT TRULY IS A DOCTORATE Much to my amusement, a series of universities in the UK hold an upgrade meeting at the end of the second year to move a master of philosophy to a doctor of philosophy.
This is a little late. Within the first six months of a candidature, supervisors and senior academics should know if the student can research and write at a level that places them on the track for a PhD. The decision about whether a research project is a master’ s or a doctorate is determined through one simple question: is there an original contribution to knowledge?
Our universities are judged – rightly – by the quality of their doctorates. Yet as the bureaucracy of higher education increases, the key scholarly functions of supervisors and expert reviewers have been mashed, squashed and undermined. One key question should direct our work: are all stages of the doctoral process guided by scholarly experts in this field? If not, then we are managing complacency and conformity in our PhD programs, rather than enabling excellence. n
Tara Brabazon is head of the school of teacher education at Charles Sturt University. campusreview. com. au | 27