International Conference on Professional & Practice Based Doctorates — Conference Publications

Studies in Continuing Education, 41:2(2019) — Special Edition: Professional Doctorate Curriculum, Pedagogy and Achievements

The contributors to this special issue have undertaken research on professional doctorates that puts an emphasis on practice and practitioner research and how this can provide for and impact upon workplaces, professions, societies and the candidates themselves. They are all experienced academics in the field of professional doctorate (PD) learning providing individual examples of their researched practice and drawing on international literature and evidence.

Internationally, there has been more focus on practice in a range of different doctorate pathways not only in PDs (Kot and Hendel 2012). Doctorates, in general, have experienced a ​‘practice turn’ (Dall’Alba and Barnacle 2014), with an increased focus on practice as a concept and as a professional site of inquiry. The numbers of PD programmes available have increased, particularly in the UK, Australia and the US and there has also been a wealth of publications that demonstrate the importance of practice (Lester 2012) and the need to turn more towards researching principles of practice (Hawkes and Yerrabati 2018). The papers in this edition contribute to the development of these principles. These principles of practice can then continue to be developed for PDs that can stand as an appropriate and relevant qualifications for enabling candidates to develop their research skills and particularly for advancing their profession and their professional practice (Costley and Lester 2012; Burnard et al. 2018).

The purpose of doctoral education has come under scrutiny in many countries (Costley 2013): governments are asking that it contributes to improving economic and social development (Strengers 2014); universities that have traditionally spearheaded the pursuit of disciplinary knowledge now also need to balance this with the provision of attractive, sustainable educational opportunities; and candidates are increasingly conceptualising themselves as participants engaging in a life-enhancing experience, rather than purely as student learners (Salter 2013). Previous research has demonstrated that there are different ways in which doctorates for professionals can have an impact on those who complete them, on their professional context, and how the knowledge generation it enables can be harnessed for national and international economic, and socially sustainable developments (Strengers 2014; Winch 2015). This makes exploring the effects of participation an important concern for those involved in PDs. Other matters such as the employment prospects of doctoral graduates have also fuelled research and consideration of the purposes of doctorates internationally (Wellington 2013; Poole 2015).

Research outputs and conferences that focus on professional and practice-based doctorates have become more evident over the last 20 years. An international biennial conference series held in Australia from 1996 to 2004 accelerated the debate; each of which produced a set of papers, many of which were developed as contributions to higher education journals. Then in 2009 the UK Council for Graduate Education and Middlesex University in the UK started an international PD conference series which has had six meetings. Many of the papers in this issue started as ideas brought to the Council for Graduate Education conference series. These also spearheaded an International Association of Practice Doctorates (IAPD). The association has an international membership and works to support academics and practitioners involved in practice-based doctorate programmes, to consider policy issues, provide a source of information and to widen the debate about professional and practice-based doctorates http://www.professionaldoctora…

Contributions to the special edition – curriculum, pedagogy and achievements

The papers in this special edition consider three major themes: curriculum, pedagogy and achievements. The first two themes represent the overwhelming areas of interest reported in the literature on PDs, while achievements although featured has been less prevalent (Hawkes and Yerrabati 2018). The three themes are explored through the lens of the candidate and graduate experiences, outcomes and impacts. As the perception of doctoral education had been changing to a greater focus on candidates’ actual professional practices, the authors of these papers, many of whom are also curriculum designers, recognise the utility of graduate feedback and success for developing their programmes (Armsby, Costley, and Cranfield 2018).

In the area of curriculum, analysis of how universities can work with professional groups such as educators or social workers or engineers and come to an agreement about what the core features of their practice are, is important. Also, the influence of other stakeholders such as professional bodies on what comprises doctoral level study for practicing professionals needs consideration, and in some cases requires close cooperation. Curricula that contribute to personal, professional, or social impact are also common. This has significant relevance now as doctoral education is under review, particularly in relation to work related issues e.g. the employability of doctorate graduates and connecting doctoral research with impact for social good (East, Stokes, and Walker 2014).

The first paper by Eubank and Forshaw explores PD curricula through the lens of practitioner psychology in the UK, which is currently one of the few professional areas to incorporate professional accreditation with a PD. The authors explore the challenges of this wide-ranging and multi-regulatory territory that requires curricula that meet a professional body’s standards through the provision of opportunities to develop practice competences, and the research focus that is widely accepted in the UK as distinctive of doctoral study (QAA 2015). The place and type of research and practice in PDs is an ongoing consideration for curriculum developers and the use of different terminology may better define the purpose of PDs. The term ​‘researching professional’, has been coined as more appropriate than the vaunted ​‘professional researcher’ that may be argued to be more suitable for those intending to become academics or researchers. Whereas ​‘practitioner-researcher’ is suggested by Eubank and Forshaw as the most appropriate term which they argue offers a different specification from PhDs and other PDs.

PDs are developed for different purposes in relation to practise. Many act as an opportunity for extension of practice, but in this case it embodies both a preparation for and a license to practice. Both can use the practitioner-researcher approach but the focus of enquiry may differ with the former candidates researching and developing their existing practice and the latter developing and researching their emerging practice. The focus on practices in PDs suggests that the development of the practitioner e.g. high-level reflective skills is important, and balancing this with undertaking research that extends the boundaries of knowledge is a key concern. The authors note that the supervision of this kind of doctorate requires experience in applied practice and expertise in research. This is likely to be true of most PDs, however, in this case, the applied practice will be codified by a professional body and therefore requires supervisors to have that level of detailed knowledge. Eubank and Forshaw recommend that there is much to be gained by universities and professional bodies collaborating to develop curricula.

Hall’s paper makes a thought-provoking contrast to the first paper as it takes an in-depth focus on curriculum design through the exploration of a single programme case example of a doctorate in law – the DLaw. Interestingly, the candidates are academics in the university’s own law department who have previously been legal practitioners but now require a doctoral qualification to support their academic career. Using experiential data, which is also often a cornerstone of professional learning, the paper reviews the PD programme’s development through curriculum designer and candidate dialogue. While some have voiced concerns around undertaking a doctorate in one’s own university, this work has utilised the relationship to explore the PD learning process.

Notions such as doctorateness, threshold concepts and constructive alignment are considered alongside programme delivery, and responses to the difficulties encountered such as setting appropriate assessment points in a constructivist, learner-led programme are discussed. Hall’s contribution illustrates the complex theoretical thinking that underpinned the curriculum design and evaluation for the practitioners in her programme: a curriculum designed to promote a ​‘research culture in which innovation, creativity and divergence are privileged’. Notwithstanding the need to identify quality and assess doctorateness, the paper concludes that the process involved in developing a practitioner to doctorate level requires candidates ​‘to spend a good deal more time in the liminal space’. While it can be argued that all doctorates offer up this uncomfortable space, the first two papers in this special edition focused on curriculum issues illustrate that the additional practitioner element provides a further level of complexity.

For the second theme of pedagogy, the research undertaken for these papers reviewed what constitutes an appropriate approach for supporting professional development considering the focus of candidates’ study is often situated in work practices and can, therefore, be remote to the university setting, and thus how feedback provided by a university supervisor can connect with a practice-oriented research issue. With candidates based overseas, online pedagogy is also of particular interest for all types of doctorate, and the importance of developing research capacity through supervision has continued to be noted as needing attention (Roumell and Bollinger 2017).

Gray and Crosta’s paper reports on a systematic literature review that aimed ​‘to improve thesis support and supervision provided to international students undertaking an online doctorate in Higher Education’. PDs offered online to international and remote candidates are not uncommon, so the lessons learned from this work may be relevant to anyone developing an online pedagogy for supervision. A range of supervision issues are discussed, for example, ​‘belongingness’, or the effective relationship between supervisor and supervisee. Without a physical presence, it is argued that ways to develop belongingness need to be nurtured through virtual meetings that help build a healthy supervisory relationship. Synchronous technology with effective use of other digital technologies are suggested as key requirements. Further research that reviews what may be required for different forms of the doctorate is required. Do those focusing on professional learning and research or who are already experienced professionals need a different kind of online supervision than those focusing on more theoretically oriented, non-professionally related knowledge? The views expressed by curriculum designers in the first two papers suggest that doctorates for professionals may require additional practitioner-oriented knowledge and skill to be incorporated in the supervision process.

Adams and Cripps’ paper on the experience of feedback on a PD again provides a contrast in focus to the previous paper on the theme of pedagogy. This qualitative investigation looks at a single case of a recent graduate of an EdD programme, and her particular experience of feedback. The narrative study conveys the candidate’s experience through a number of verbatim quotes. Feedback is defined by the candidate as ​‘a kind of flowing conversation’, which illustrates a dialogue between self and others including supervisors and peers. While this dialogic approach advanced the research, it was also noted to develop the candidate’s identity, suggesting the conversation was also taking place within the candidate to make sense of their experience. This reflective analysis on who one is and who is one becoming within a professional context and alongside a research endeavour can provide a springboard for positive action.

The final set of papers explore what kinds of impacts can be made through PDs.This theme explores the experiences, outcomes and achievements of candidates on a range of levels. It connects well with the wider debates about the purpose of doctoral education because for PDs, in particular, there is usually an expectation that the research is intended to form a rationale for the change in a practice setting. For example, in relation to PDs:

Complex change-oriented issues … approached with a researching and critically reflective orientation can be a powerful source, not only of contextual insights but of academically and professionally-valid knowledge, giving rise to new concepts, models, theories and critiques as well as different ways of doing things. (Lester 2012, 279)

The kinds of impact included in this issue are: the personal, that is the perceived and actual development of practitioner knowledge, skill, ability and identity amongst candidates as it relates to purpose of the programme offered and its recognition; the work-place impact in terms of improvements to outcomes and practices; and the social impact, for example on professional culture. Significant impacts are difficult to substantiate however examples suggestive of impact can be helpful in exploring the kinds of impact that can be made by professional doctorate candidates. The movements towards developing doctoral outcomes that make an impact have more recently been a subject of debate. As doctoral candidates engage with their studies, through gaining research experience they may achieve developmental impacts that can contribute to the public good, and develop themselves through new confidence and prestige and impact on colleagues and associates. These are small and increasing capacities to make a change in professional settings.

One of the features of professional and practice-based doctorates is that there is likely to be an outcome that seeks to make a tangible impact in a given area. The McSherry, Saltikov. Walsh, Walker, Cummings and Ford paper asks for attention to be paid to the challenging and complex nature of impacts and outcomes that are an expectation of many PD programmes. The writers have taken data from international colleagues who run PDs and find that measuring the impact and outcome of them is invariably a difficult and problematic task. Similarly, having the goal of specific outputs and the intention of making a societal or economic impact is not easy to plan as part of a doctorate initiative. Moreover, the meanings of these terms can be ambiguous and there is an interchangeability of the terms. Impact and outcome measures may now constitute evidence for quality assurance for academic reviewers, employers, professional regulators/​commissioners and other stakeholders. This is because PDs are often described as making an original and significant difference to practice and so for doctorate outcomes in those areas that claim to serve professional areas, it is becoming essential to have clear and effective definitions and guidance. It is recommended that the terms ​‘outcome’ and ​‘impact’ are defined and this paper produces data that helps provide some of that definition. There is a long way to go in defining impacts through practitioner research but this is a significant area of development in distinguishing some key purposes of professional and practice-based doctorates.

Maxwell’s paper demonstrates how doctorate learning can make a positive difference to a developing country. Doctoral scholarships gave Bhutanese students the opportunity to develop themselves as researchers and teachers thus enhancing their personal capacity. The nature of their doctoral research enabled many to influence the education sector that in turn increased capacity in that sector, especially in the Royal University of Bhutan. Others developed leadership roles, some at the national level. Maxwell’s research was timely as it came at a time when Bhutan was explicitly seeking to become an active member of the so-called ​‘knowledge economy’ and to continue to improve its education system.

Finally, Hager, Turner, Little and Dellande begin by demonstrating that the Doctor of Business Administration (DBA) is focussed on generating practice-based knowledge for the academy, practitioners and organisations outside the academy. They cite different ways of conducting the doctoral research pathway to prepare for career goals additional to the research-emphasis of PhDs. DBA graduates like many other PDs prepare candidates to engage in strategic or managerial scholarship within a variety of settings that may be appropriate for operational purposes outside or within higher education. The detailed study of individuals indicates that there are varied developmental networks that provided them with differing levels of and challenges to psychosocial support from family, peers, colleagues and faculty. The analysis reveals how these sources of support contribute to professional doctoral candidates’ psychosocial development. The authors conclude that DBA courses can support candidates more by providing and encouraging engagement with networking within their professional communities, garnering support from those who may be interested parties and generally being more aware of this aspect of candidates’ development during their studies. Such support leads to professional outcomes that link scholarly engagement within the practice setting in which they work especially in leadership and relevant scholarly outputs.

The future of doctorates for professionals

The papers in this special edition range in focus from the wider view provided by literature review to in-depth case studies of the experiences of individual PD candidates. These contributions provide the foundations for taking forward further research on the curriculum, pedagogy and impact of practitioner doctorates. Discussion on doctorateness, including the similarities and differences between PhDs and PDs will continue, and while there are usually nominally identical quality standards internationally, there are often different purposes that mean the curriculum, pedagogy and achievements have a different focus. Some PhDs also often focus explicitly on practice issues such as in the Industrial PhD and PhDs associated with more practice-oriented subjects, for example, arts and engineering.

Practitioner doctorates can lead to greater professional capability and therefore possible national socio-economic advantages. The changing role of higher education and its internationalisation may affect the ways in which PDs are understood in universities, in particular, the way research knowledge is engaged in the curriculum and facilitated in terms of both academic and workplace practices.

The generation of new knowledge is understood as central to the outcome of a doctorate. For PDs this is often where the doctorate can directly solve problems and improve quality of life. The complexity involved in making knowledge work for the societal good is already embodied in areas of study such as engineering, management and medicine but there is a more recent drive to explore the specific impact of a wider range of practitioner-led research. These papers demonstrate that knowledge alone is not adequate without pathways to utilise it effectively. Practitioner doctorates are beginning to excel in the exploration and understanding of the effective implementation of knowledge, addressing societies’ problems and developing creative possibilities from a variety of research and practice perspectives. Research on the curriculum and pedagogy that support the highly motivated candidates that undertake practitioner doctorates is likely to progress such achievements.

References

1. Armsby, P. M., C. Costley, and S. Cranfield. 2018. ​“The Design of Doctorate Curricula for Practising Professionals.” Studies in Higher Education 43 (12): 2226–2237. doi: 10.1080/03075079.2017.1318365
2. Burnard, P., T. Dragovic, K. Ottewell, and W. M. Lim. 2018. ​“Voicing the Professional Doctorate and the Researching Professional’s Identity: Theorising EdD’s Uniqueness.” The London Review of Education 16 (1): 40–55. doi: 10.18546/LRE.16.1.05
3. Costley, C. 2013. ​“Evaluation of the current status and knowledge contributions of Professional Doctorates.” Quality in Higher Education 19 (2): 7–27. doi: 10.1080/13538322.2013.772465
4. Costley, C., and S. Lester. 2012. ​“Work-based Doctorates: Professional Extension at the Highest Levels.” Studies in Higher Education 37 (3): 257–269. doi: 10.1080/03075079.2010.503344
5. Dall’Alba, G., and R. Barnacle. 2014. ​“Exploring knowing/​being through discordant professional practice.” Educational Philosophy & Theory 13–14: 1452–1464. doi:10.1080/00131857.2014.947562.
6. East, L., R. Stokes, and M. Walker. 2014. ​“Universities, the Public Good and Professional Education in the UK.” Studies in Higher Education 39 (9): 1617–1633. doi: 10.1080/03075079.2013.801421
7. Hawkes, D. and Yerrabati, S. 2018. A Systematic Review of Research on Professional Doctorates, London Review of Education, 16, 1, 10–27. doi: 10.18546/LRE.16.1.03
8. Kot, F. C., and D. D. Hendel. 2012. ​“Emergence and Growth of Professional Doctorates in the United States, United Kingdom, Canada and Australia: A Comparative Analysis.” Studies in Higher Education 37 (3): 345–364. doi: 10.1080/03075079.2010.516356
9. Lester, S. 2012. ​“Creating Original Knowledge in and for the Workplace: Evidence from a Practitioner Doctorate.” Studies in Continuing Education 34 (3): 267–280. doi: 10.1080/0158037X.2011.613595
10. Poole, B. 2015. ​“The Rather Elusive Concept of ​‘doctorateness’: A Reaction to Wellington. Studies in Higher Education 40 (9): 1507–1522. doi: 10.1080/03075079.2013.873026
11. Quality Assurance Agency. 2015. ​“Doctoral Degree Characteristics.” Accessed February 22, 2019. https://www.qaa.ac.uk/docs/qaa/quality-code/doctoral-degree-characteristics-15.pdf
12. Roumell, E., and D. Bollinger. 2017. ​“Experiences of Facutly with Doctoral Student Supervision in Programs Delivered via Distance.” The Journal of Continuing Higher Education 65: 82–93. doi: 10.1080/07377363.2017.1320179
13. Salter, D. 2013. ​“One University’s Approach to Defining and Supporting Professional Doctorates.” Studies in Higher Education 38 (8): 1175–1184. doi: 10.1080/03075079.2013.833030
14. Strengers, Y. 2014. ​“Interdisciplinarity and Industry Collaboration in Doctoral Candidature: Tensions within and Between Discourses.” Studies in Higher Education 39 (4): 546–559. doi: 10.1080/03075079.2012.709498
15. Wellington, J. 2013. ​“Searching for Doctorateness.” Studies in Higher Education 38 (10): 1490–1503. doi: 10.1080/03075079.2011.634901
16. Winch, C. 2015. ​“Towards a Framework for Professional Curriculum Design.” Journal of Education and Work 28 (2): 165–186. doi: 10.1080/13639080.2014.1001335

ABSTRACT

This paper aims to articulate the multi-regulatory and complex territory that programme developers of professional doctorates are required to navigate, and, using examples from Health Psychology and Sport and Exercise Psychology, discusses the impact of this territory on programme development. ​‘Practitioner Psychologist’ is a legally protected title for use by those listed on the UK’s Health and Care Professions Council (HCPC) register of practitioner psychologists. Achieving registration involves undergoing training to meet the HCPC prescribed standards, with the professional practitioner doctorate representing a viable training vehicle. The paper makes critical comparison between the HCPC standard-driven research andpractice competences required of psychology professionals in a professional doctorate framework, versus traditional professional doctorates that provide a platform for qualified ​‘in situ’ professionals to undertake research that problem solves and generates real–world application. For programme developers, the paper outlines a number of key considerations, including the importance of considering the territorial compatibility between the professional body requirements and the associated university framework to develop a viable product. The paper also provides some useful and informative suggestions for programme developers who may encounter similar territorial challenges, and is of relevance to an international audience interested in programme design for certified professional practitioners.

KEYWORDS: Professional doctorates, practitioner psychologists, programme development

ABSTRACT

This paper is both a reflexive report on an attempt to operationalise ​‘doctorateness’ in a specific case context and a synthesis of theory from the philosophy of education and curriculum design. Using the context of a new Professional Doctorate programme in Law (the DLaw) at a University in the North-East of England, it is an exploration of the conceptual framework of the students and the curriculum designer. All participants have consented to the use of their reflections and contribution to discussions, recognising the potential for them to be identified through publically available data about the programme and cohort members. This was the focus of discussion in the group and the decision –that whilst individuals are not directly identified, there has been no attempt to conceal the identity of the institution or programme – was made collaboratively. The paper articulates the particularity of the ​‘Category 3’ doctorate and its position as a pathway for staff development and recognition (within post-1992 institutions in particular) as a way of setting the boundaries and context of what follows. Experiential data in this paper describes both my aspirations for the DLaw and how that initial model has been developed through dialogue with the first cohort of students as a vehicle for illuminating the theoretical discussions.

KEYWORDS: Doctorate study, curriculum design, threshold concepts, pedagogy and learning

ABSTRACT

The aim of this systematic literature review was to ascertain the best practice available to provide high-quality online support to students during their thesis stage of an Online Doctorate in Higher Education programme. The review process involved a synthesis of available research literature to arrive a comprehensive and trustworthy picture. For completeness we reviewed literature related to both online and face-to-face doctoral supervision and how the latter could be applied to the growing area of providing online doctoral supervision. Through a detailed and systematic review of the literature by the two researchers independently we identified good practices which fit under three themes: Enculturation; Emancipation; and Healthy Relationship. We also highlighted aspects of effective online doctoral supervision

KEYWORDS: Doctorate, supervision, online, enculturation, emancipation, healthy relationship

ABSTRACT

Feedback has an important role in supporting learning. It is through feedback that learners can actively construct and clarify understanding, monitor their performance and direct their learning. Despite attention on feedback in higher education, limited research exists exploring the role and experience of feedback within doctoral programmes. This article focuses on student experiences of feedback during a professional doctorate in England. Analysis of the narrative of one recent Doctorate in Education graduate reveals several inter-related themes, illustrating the role of peers in supporting the move to autonomous researcher. This intensive focus on one student’s experience narrative contributes to a reconceptualization of feedback as dialogic, revealing feedback through the doctoral journey as an ongoing dialogue, with the doctoral researcher taking increasing responsibility for orchestrating the conversation. I argue that such a perspective moves beyond the traditional view of doctoral learning through the support of a supervisor to encompass both formal and informal learning experiences within a community of research practice, emphasising the active participation of the doctoral candidate in this community. I discuss the potential contribution of student experience stories to the development of doctoral relationships and practice.

KEYWORDS: Professional doctorate, dialogic feedback, student experience, narrative, communities of practice

ABSTRACT

The aim of the paper is to report some of the research findings from a workshop held at an International Professional Doctorate Conference. The workshop aimed to elicit the views of attendees surrounding the following questions: How do you currently measure the impact and outcome of your professional doctorate programme(s)? What tools, frameworks, benchmarks, guidelines do you know currently exist? How could we better measure the impact and outcome of the professional doctorate programme(s)? A qualitative research design was applied. Thirty self-selecting participants attended the workshop. Thematic Analysis identified 31 organisational themes and 5 global themes. These related to (1) defining and operationalising the terms impact and outcome for professional doctorate programmes (PDP); (2) Recognising and respecting the difference, diversity and variety of impact and outcome measures; (3) Designing a 360° stakeholder approach to PDP evaluation; (4) Sharing and Dissemination post-completion; (5) Recognising formal and informal external validation. The originality and significance of this research is in sequencing the impact and outcome measures of professional doctorate programmes and in identifying the approaches that could be taken to track and evaluate a programme both before, during and on completion. Furthermore, the newly devised 360° stakeholder approach to PDP evaluation is original in two ways. It incorporates the personal, organisational, professional and employer (POPE) approach and also acknowledges the importance of a comprehensive longitudinal evaluation, pre, throughout and beyond the programme.

KEYWORDS: Professional doctorate, measuring, impact, outcome, evaluation

ABSTRACT

Higher education in Bhutan changed irrevocably in 2003 with the amalgamation of disparate colleges to form the country’s first university. Research was not well known or understood. Over the last two decades doctorates were obtained outside Bhutan. The focus of this study is the impact of those who returned with an education doctorate. Using a questionnaire addressed to all but one education doctorate holder in Bhutan and a similar one to key persons in Bhutan, a range of impacts was evident. There were the anticipated personal outcomes but also considerable professional gains in the two education colleges. In particular, mentoring was building capacity in research. Research now appears to be on the agenda. Some doctorate returnees had taken well to leadership roles. Others however, returned and did not take up the intellectual leadership that might be expected. There were other negative impacts. The two colleges, and indeed the Royal University of Bhutan (RUB), need to address the issues of workload and promotion. These are discussed and other ways forward are addressed in the paper.

KEYWORDS: Doctoral education, impact, Bhutan, developing country

ABSTRACT

This research presents a three year case study examining the impact of social support and isolation in the doctorate of business administration (DBA) on professional outcomes these graduates have experienced. Through individual reflections, participant-observer conversations and a short open-ended questionnaire, social support derived from multiple developmental networks contributed to reducing academic and social isolation in their DBA programme. Academic and social engagement also related to professional outcomes such as scholarly participation and output, workplace contributions and identity development. The DBA process and completion meant deeper engagement applying scholarship in their daily work. It could manifest as leadership of scholarly communities and presenting dissertation research at national and international venues. Participants described engaging professional communities with the dual identities of graduate students in training as researchers and senior colleagues responsible for practical expertise and professional work. For DBA students already in faculty roles, the identity shift to doctoral qualified scholar represented joining the academic community of practice more fully as they were enculturated into new ways of work and being within their home communities of higher education.

KEYWORDS: Professional doctorate, academic integration, developmental networks, social support, doctoral education