Location: Graduate School, University of Reading
Summary of content:
The day began with a summary from Chris Park of the main points and issues explicated in his HEA Discussion Paper: Redefining the Doctorate (Feb 07). This was followed by four presentations (Howard Green, Mick Fuller and Simon Felton, Pam Denicolo and Chris Park) outlining particular potential topics for debate (Quality and Standards; the Student Experience; Convergence –whether inevitable and welcome; the Purpose of the doctorate). After lunch, participants joined their discussion of choice, each group responding to key questions from the Park document. Each group reported back briefly and the day ended with a lively debate that drew the strands together.
Key points of discussion:
There are not only a variety of forms of doctorate in the UK and abroad but the doctorate itself means different things to different stakeholders. Although it was agreed that we cannot pin ‘doctorateness’ down for once and all, because it is dynamic and evolving, we do need to provide better definition of criteria (essential elements- in what combinations) in order to withstand criticism and make cases for continued practice. We need to identify the value of doctorates but not just in economic terms (although there is a demand from Treasury for this) because all stakeholders are becoming more discerning and critical. The sector needs to own the debate and draw conclusions before others do and this is urgent. Supervisors are very significant in this and participants decided that it was important to take this message back to institutions.
Evaluation and outcomes:
Of the 26 respondents, the majority had their expectations met fully (16) or exceeded (2); and found the workshop very (16) or extremely (6) useful.
Some typical comments were:
Relevant/timely/informed presentations and discussions; an excellent opportunity for lively debate; highlighted hot topics in the sector; felt like a genuine opportunity to contribute to this key debate.
Content was good (9) to excellent (16) and a similar distribution of good/excellent was attributed to structure, delivery, speakers, venue and catering.
Different people rated highly different aspects of the structure – thus supporting the variety of activities included in the programme.
Other comments / notable points:
In different ways, it was expressed that the topic was too large for one day although participants were pleased to begin the debate and continue it later.
The vast majority found the style of the day extremely stimulating. However, throughout the feedback there are comments from one participant, whose expectations were only partly met, who clearly expected a more didactic, less debate-centred day. Others enjoined and enjoyed the debates, but perhaps we could make the nature of sessions clearer in the promotional material.
Participants appreciated the short summaries provided for breakout sessions to inform their choice of which to select.
Report author: Prof. Pam Denicolo
Date: 13th May 07
