Postgraduate Education Practitioners’ Network — Online Workshop 2026

The workshop was facilitated by the PEP Network’s Co-Chairs (Susanna Broom and Kerri Gardiner) who opened with a brief icebreaker session. Once people had returned after their discussions, Kerri introduced Dr Heather Mackenzie (Doctoral College Professional Development Programme Manager at the University of Southampton) who opened her presentation on researcher development. 

Heather began with an overview of the eras of UK PGR professional development, starting with its increased recognition in the 1990s through to the Sir Gareth Roberts’ Review of April 2002 and beyond. Once the Roberts funding ended in 2011, HEIs had to work out how to support PGR development through other means. ​“What we’ve seen in the post-Roberts era is variable institutional commitment and funding,” she observed. 

She then went on to discuss the ​‘multiplying hats’ worn by researcher developers, citing such elements as influencing strategy and culture change, and programme facilitation. ​“In the past, Researcher Developers have also influenced the funders on what changes are needed to incentivise institutions to effect the changes we want to see.”

Heather then discussed several areas where researcher developers can make a difference, despite not always having direct control over staff and financial resources. Her own take on ​‘quick wins and future proofing’, were as follows: 

• Control the controllables – are there any aspects of what you’re doing that you could do differently in light of changes to resourcing?
• Question the default – is the workshop really king? What approaches might be less resource-intensive?
• Collaboration – who can help? Who can you help? What already exists?
• Bake sustainability in – what can you create that’s re-useable?
• Don’t underestimate your influence – but choose your audience and arguments with care.

She said that the question she always returns to is ​“What is professional development anyway?” She spoke of people using the word ​‘training’ interchangeably with professional development, but said she felt that the term was not expansive enough. She then discussed the image problem of PGR professional development and the benefit of hindsight. ​“We see ourselves as giving the gift of a magic feather to make doctoral study easier to navigate and more impactful,” she said, ​“but there can be a mismatch of perception – some people think that, instead of a feather, they are receiving another burden to carry through the next few years.” 

Heather then explored positives and negatives around PGR professional development. ​“My experience is that not always making the moral argument [about the importance of PGR professional development] but making evidence-based arguments about impact can be more effective with both supervisors and the PGRs themselves,” she said. Following a discussion of the Postgraduate Research Experience Survey (PRES) report she concluded with suggestions for further reading and a question session. 

Susanna Broom moved onto the second item on the agenda: a presentation about assuring the quality of PGR programmes. She reflected whether quality assurance (QA) on PGR programmes may be undervalued within institutional contexts (given the focus on taught provision) and moved to consider some of the risks and challenges involved in assuring the quality of research degrees. Following a quick exercise where attendees answered the question: ​“What does quality assurance mean to you?”, Kerri expanded on the external drivers behind quality assurance concerns (OfS Conditions of Registration; QAA; CMA; UKRI etc.) She also spoke about feedback, such as the PRES and internal surveys. ​“Susanna and I have identified some challenges,” she explained, before inviting attendees to add any additional challenges they have experienced, together with potential solutions to an interactive Padlet. The availability of data, getting buy-in from institutions and artificial intelligence were key themes to emerge from the discussion that followed.

The final talk of the workshop was given by Carolyn Wynne (Director, Doctoral and Researcher College at Coventry University), whose presentation was entitled: ​‘I’m an expert, too! Navigating options, choices and paths to recognition and progression for HEI Professional Services Staff’. She began by saying that professional services staff may not have been on a linear career path. ​“We all have different strings to our bows … and we become experts in what we do by doing it,” she explained. She then spoke about the shifts in the higher education landscape with regard to remit, responsibilities, funding and strategic priorities (both internal and external).

Carolyn’s presentation then turned to the ways in which staff can support their own development in uncertain times. She referenced a research study which she has been conducting on professional service leaders in the UK, and on the value of the doctorate. She explained that some of the themes that had emerged from the work were if the perception of the doctorate as an external demonstration of expertise was the only measure, and the tendency for tensions to emerge with academic colleagues: these were standalone areas but areas that also converged. She added that the focus for today was not an advocacy either way on academic qualifications, rather to highlight the experiences and perceptions of participants of her research on qualities and criteria that were critical working in Professional Services spaces, as well as the different doors that are open to them. She hoped to encourage reflection on how people feel about their own expertise and on the variety of career paths out there.

Carolyn then moved onto a discussion of criteria which emerged strongly from the work and shared some responses concerning the role of a doctorate in a professional services role. ​“What came out was the value of different opportunities to open doors – what can help career and professional development in equally valuable ways, aside from a doctorate,” she said (these included everything from peer mentoring to writing blogs, articles and reports). Carolyn then introduced a breakout session which focussed on three questions: What makes you an expert, what skills would you like to develop next, and what is your top tip for navigating progression and career paths? 

Once attendees had discussed the above points, Susanna and Kerri closed the session with appreciation for the guests’ presentations, encouraging colleagues to reflect on their expertise – whether that be in researcher development, quality assurance, or any other aspect of PGR provision and support – and the value they bring to their institutions, and by urging PEP members to get in touch with feedback and ideas for future sessions.