Search results

Increasingly governmental policy around PhD education has resulted in greater university oversight of programs and student experience – often through creating central PhD Schools. While student experience is well researched, the experiences of Heads of these units, who are responsible for creating student experience, have been invisible. This exploratory Danish case study begins such a conversation: its purpose to examine the perceptions of five Heads of PhD Humanities Schools, each responsible for steering institutional decisions within Danish PhD policy landscapes.

A qualitative approach integrated three distinct analyses: a review of Danish PhD education policies and university procedures, each university’s job specifications for the Heads of the Schools and the Heads’ views on their responsibilities.

The Heads differentiated between their own and today’s PhD student experience. They had held prior leadership roles and fully supported institutional regulations. They cared deeply for the students under their charge and were working to achieve personal goals to enhance PhD experience. Their leadership perspective was relational: enhancing individual student learning through engaging with multiple PhD actors (e.g. program leaders) – when possible at a personal level – to improve PhD practices.

This study contributes an expanded perspective on how PhD School Heads constitute their roles by empirically linking: macro-national policies and institutional regulations and individuals’ biographies to their support of the PhD regimes – with implications for academic leadership generally. The authors argue research into PhD School leadership is essential, as it is such individuals who create the organisational settings that students experience.

This paper describes the development of the WECARE cross-national research alliance for investigating early childhood educators’ wellbeing, and details the experiences of some of WECARE’s 17 members.

The paper explores and situates the WECARE team’s experiences within extant literature on cross-national and collaborative research groupings alongside a strongly practical focus.

The study’s findings included effects of member mindsets and motivations, differentiated benefits and challenges of membership, cultural sensitivity, research capacity-building, leadership, communication, data security and planning.

Cross-national research is seen as an important part of academic researchers’ activities. Yet, little has been written about how cross-national research groups form and operate, and what benefits and challenges their members experience.

Integrated care (IC) improves patient outcomes, patient and provider experiences and healthcare costs. Still, education and interprofessional experiential training in IC is limited. There is a lack of studies examining current practices, perceptions and barriers to implementing IC training. Specifically, no studies to date assess training and practice across multiple health professions and roles (student/faculty/clinicians) within an academic medical institution or university, a gap this study sought to address.

This cross-sectional study examined current clinical and training practices, attitudes about IC and barriers to IC practice, learning and training through a survey distributed to faculty, clinicians and students (n = 220) in nine departments of health professions within a large academic health system.

The majority of respondents reported that activities promoting IC occur often, including consultation with other professions in patient care settings, incorporation of IC concepts into teachings and interprofessional learning opportunities. Respondents endorsed willingness to practice IC, high perceived benefits of IC on patient outcomes and cultural benefits of IC. The most strongly endorsed barriers were related to resources and organizational culture. Knowledge barriers were not strongly endorsed.

In the most comprehensive study of attitudes toward IC to date, clinicians, students and faculty alike endorsed favorable attitudes about IC, supporting the acceptability of incorporating IC education and training into curricula. IC is seen as enhancing experiences, competence and professional marketability of providers-in-training, indicating it is a desired focus of future practice for many healthcare providers.