Location: Goodenough College, London
Summary of content:
Over the past two or three years, retention rates and completion times on doctoral programmes have become a major issue, particularly in the light of the HEFCE’s intention to publish annual lists of qualification rates.
The aims of the workshop were to look at the answers to two questions, namely why students did not complete or took over-long to do so, and what could be done about it.
The morning was spent on the first question, with group work in syndicates followed by a presentation summarising international research findings. In the afternoon, delegates considered a range of possible interventions to improve retention rates and reduce completion times, again followed by a presentation outlining a range of initiatives from the US, Australia, and the UK.
Key points of discussion:
In terms of the ‘why?’ question, perhaps the most significant point to emerge from the discussion was the disjuncture between the model of research students seemingly held by many policymakers as young, full-time, and fully-funded, and the reality. In many of the institutions represented at the workshop, a majority of research students – particularly outside the natural sciences - were mature, often had family commitments, and were studying part-time while holding down jobs.
Given this, many delegates felt that the presumption that departments could wield a ‘big stick’ to keep candidates in the programme and force them to keep to time was too simplistic. Instead, delegates identified a range of ways in which improvements could be made to recruitment and selection, supervision, the programme environment, and the institutional environment to facilitate higher retention rates and lower completion times. Delegates noted with concern that, whereas in the US a range of measures were being trialled and evaluated in terms of their effectiveness, there was no comparable initiative in the UK.
Evaluation and outcomes:
Evaluations of the event were highly positive, with 22% of delegates saying that it had exceeded their expectations, 57% that it had met them in full, and 22% that their expectations had been mostly met (N=23). Positive comments included the opportunities for group discussion and sharing good practice as well as the provision of papers summarising international research in the relevant areas. Areas for improvement included too much discussion and a need to perhaps re-balance the workshop with less time on the causes and more on strategies.
Report author: Dr Stan Taylor
