Death of the PhD: when industry partners determine doctoral outcomes
- Frick, Liezel, McKenna, Sioux, Muthama, Evelyn
- Authors: Frick, Liezel , McKenna, Sioux , Muthama, Evelyn
- Date: 2017
- Language: English
- Type: text , article
- Identifier: http://hdl.handle.net/10962/66680 , vital:28981 , ISSN 1469-8366 , https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2017.1263467
- Description: Pre-print , The PhD is the highest formal qualification and signifies a scholar’s rite of passage as a legitimate contributor of new knowledge in a field. Examiner reports make claims about what is legitimate in a thesis and what is not and thus articulate the organising principles through which participation in a field is measured. The authors analysed 39 examiners’ reports on 13 PhDs produced over a five-year period by scholars from the Higher Education Research doctoral studies programme at Rhodes University in South Africa. Drawing on aspects of Karl Maton’s Legitimation Code Theory (LCT), this study uses the dimensions of LCT:Specialisation and LCT:Semantics to explore what kinds of knowledge, skills and procedures and what kinds of knowers are validated in the field of Higher Education Research through the examination process. The study found that despite concerns in the literature about the a-theoretical nature of the Higher Education Studies field, examiners valued high-level theoretical and meta-theoretical engagement as well as methodological rigour. In addition, examiners prized the ability to demonstrate a strong ideological position, to use a clear doctoral voice, and to recognise the axiological drive of the field. The analysis showed that examiners were interested in strong contextualisation of the problem-spaces in higher education in South Africa but also commented positively on candidates’ ability to move from troubling an issue within its context to being able to abstract findings so as to contribute to the field as a whole.
- Full Text:
- Date Issued: 2017
- Authors: Frick, Liezel , McKenna, Sioux , Muthama, Evelyn
- Date: 2017
- Language: English
- Type: text , article
- Identifier: http://hdl.handle.net/10962/66680 , vital:28981 , ISSN 1469-8366 , https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2017.1263467
- Description: Pre-print , The PhD is the highest formal qualification and signifies a scholar’s rite of passage as a legitimate contributor of new knowledge in a field. Examiner reports make claims about what is legitimate in a thesis and what is not and thus articulate the organising principles through which participation in a field is measured. The authors analysed 39 examiners’ reports on 13 PhDs produced over a five-year period by scholars from the Higher Education Research doctoral studies programme at Rhodes University in South Africa. Drawing on aspects of Karl Maton’s Legitimation Code Theory (LCT), this study uses the dimensions of LCT:Specialisation and LCT:Semantics to explore what kinds of knowledge, skills and procedures and what kinds of knowers are validated in the field of Higher Education Research through the examination process. The study found that despite concerns in the literature about the a-theoretical nature of the Higher Education Studies field, examiners valued high-level theoretical and meta-theoretical engagement as well as methodological rigour. In addition, examiners prized the ability to demonstrate a strong ideological position, to use a clear doctoral voice, and to recognise the axiological drive of the field. The analysis showed that examiners were interested in strong contextualisation of the problem-spaces in higher education in South Africa but also commented positively on candidates’ ability to move from troubling an issue within its context to being able to abstract findings so as to contribute to the field as a whole.
- Full Text:
- Date Issued: 2017
The contradictory conceptions of research in historically black universities
- Muthama, Evelyn, McKenna, Sioux
- Authors: Muthama, Evelyn , McKenna, Sioux
- Date: 2017
- Subjects: To be catalogued
- Language: English
- Type: text , article
- Identifier: http://hdl.handle.net/10962/187183 , vital:44577 , xlink:href="http://dx.doi. org/10.18820/2519593X/pie. v35i1.10"
- Description: Research is conceptualised in multiple and contradictory ways within and across Historically Black Universities (HBUs) with consequences for knowledge production. Under the apartheid regime, research was deliberately underdeveloped in such institutions and this continues to have an impact. We argue that if HBUs are to move from the constraints of the past into the possibilities of the future, there is a need for a thorough understanding both of how research is currently conceptualised, and of the consequences of such conceptions for research output. We used a critical discourse analysis of interviews, documents and survey data from seven HBUs to identify the dominant discourses about the purposes of research. The findings are four dominant conceptions of research that sometimes contradict each other across and within the HBUs. These are research as integral to academic identity; research for social justice; research as an economic driver and research as an instrumentalist requirement for job security, promotion and incentives. These conceptions seemed to emerge in part because of the history of the institutions and create both constraining and enabling effects on research production.
- Full Text:
- Date Issued: 2017
- Authors: Muthama, Evelyn , McKenna, Sioux
- Date: 2017
- Subjects: To be catalogued
- Language: English
- Type: text , article
- Identifier: http://hdl.handle.net/10962/187183 , vital:44577 , xlink:href="http://dx.doi. org/10.18820/2519593X/pie. v35i1.10"
- Description: Research is conceptualised in multiple and contradictory ways within and across Historically Black Universities (HBUs) with consequences for knowledge production. Under the apartheid regime, research was deliberately underdeveloped in such institutions and this continues to have an impact. We argue that if HBUs are to move from the constraints of the past into the possibilities of the future, there is a need for a thorough understanding both of how research is currently conceptualised, and of the consequences of such conceptions for research output. We used a critical discourse analysis of interviews, documents and survey data from seven HBUs to identify the dominant discourses about the purposes of research. The findings are four dominant conceptions of research that sometimes contradict each other across and within the HBUs. These are research as integral to academic identity; research for social justice; research as an economic driver and research as an instrumentalist requirement for job security, promotion and incentives. These conceptions seemed to emerge in part because of the history of the institutions and create both constraining and enabling effects on research production.
- Full Text:
- Date Issued: 2017
- «
- ‹
- 1
- ›
- »