Search results

The Quality Assurance Agency’s (QAA) qualifications framework has resulted in hives of benchmarking activity in 42 subject areas focussed on defining acceptable standards of performance exclusively for first degree awards. There appears to be little similar activity nationally around postgraduate awards. It has been suggested by QAA that, for the time being, awards at postgraduate levels should be benchmarked directly by reference to the outcomes contained within the qualifications framework for awards at levels M and D. This leaves something of a significant black hole in efforts to assure equity of standards across the postgraduate sector. Begins to address this situation by identifying the sort of thinking that has emerged from undergraduate benchmarking groups and applying it in the context of attempting to benchmark the standards of the PhD. Identifies and discusses issues emerging from this process and from associated national workshop activity. Concludes by indicating the questions to which clear answers should be sought if the PhD, as well as other postgraduate awards, are to be rigorously benchmarked.

This article shows how an external policy imperative can be assimilated into the process of managing change within a university. It describes a project‐based approach to develop an understanding of the practical implications and use of programme specifications. It identifies a number of generic issues that will need to be addressed if the opportunities provided by programme specifications are to be fully exploited but concludes that there are benefits for institutions, academics and the users of programme specification information.

Reviews the origins of the MRes – the research masters programme developed in the mid‐1990s as a result of pressure to provide research students with a broader based training in research before embarking on a PhD or industrial research career. Notes the variation in the implementation of the MRes across a range of science‐based programmes observing the diversity, innovation and approach to skills training. The implications of recent and current national developments promoted by the Government, the QAA and the research councils are considered briefly. Finally the paper reflects on the role that the MRes might play in the further development of research training in doctoral programmes in the UK.

This article considers current developments in aspects of continuous professional development (CPD) in the UK, focussing particularly on areas which relate to the development and delivery of an appropriate curriculum. It questions the appropriateness of the traditional concept of continuous professional development in the context of the newly emerging notion of lifelong learning. Some of the major national initiatives and imperatives for change are identified and a range of the typical emerging responses and reactions of Higher Education Institutions are itemised and briefly described. The article was originally prepared for a seminar in Hungary. It will allow the current processes, perspectives and aspirations for continuous professional development in Hungary to be compared against the UK model to assist in the identification and transfer of appropriate practice into the Hungarian context. In so doing it provides a base from which other institutions and professions might consider the development of CPD and lifelong learning.

Since the disintegration of Cold War international systemic bipolarity in 1989, the international community has witnessed the entrance of at least 30 new states, proclaiming their formal sovereignty by obtaining membership in the United Nations. As with the previous wave of UN membership enlargement following decolonization three decades earlier, this most recent burst of accessions reflected inter alia the power of nationalism to change the domestic and international political status quo. In some cases, horrendous violence at times approaching genocidal levels has accompanied these changes. Of ten boundaries among these new states remain under intense dispute. This persistence and intensification of movements for national self‐determination require that the prerequisites for a successful international strategy for peacefully regulating this type of change include accommodation of sovereign self‐determination for “aspiring” nations.

Reports on discussions that took place at a series of specialist seminars and workshops on research degree examining organised by the UK Council for Graduate Education during 2000/2001 at various venues in the UK. Debates the processes and procedures of research degree examination in the UK in terms of variations in practice that exist along with principles that signal a common identity. Takes account of the effects of developments in, for example, professional doctorates and the PhD by published work and on perceptions of the “traditional” examination. Issues addressed include: the composition of PhD examining panels and the roles of individual examiners; the training and qualification of examiners; the purpose and nature of the oral examination; the tension between examination of the process of training and that of the “finished product” (which the thesis may be seen to represent). Argues for the need for more transparency about examination processes, for challenge to common assumptions and for a refocusing on research degree examination as a process of assessment.

Describes the development, management and organization of a major cross‐university project designed to discover how students spend their study‐related time. Identifies critical strategic decisions both in diary instrumentation design and implementation and points out matters of general principle that might usefully inform similar ventures in other contexts and settings. Outlines a range of important results and gives some indication of the major implications that these findings have in the broader university context.

Art and design has recently seen considerable growth in PhD studies and in the UK the sector has been at the forefront in developing practice‐based doctorates. There is an ongoing debate about the nature and quality of these PhDs. There are residual confusions about practice and research, and wide variations in requirements across universities. In the UK, design has a long tradition of vocational education arising from well respected art schools, which for the most part have been absorbed into the modern universities. Generally, the award of first degrees across mainstream design dates back only three decades, the award of PhDs less than one decade. There is still a shortage of experienced supervisors and examiners who themselves hold the PhD and have deep knowledge of the process. A model specification defines clearly what is expected for the award of PhD in Art and Design.

The Wellcome Trust has reviewed the provision of PhD training from the viewpoint of the students and supervisors it funds; this paper presents evidence from these reviews. A number of factors affect the “success” of the PhD training experience; what is considered good (i.e. fit for purpose) PhD research training may be different for the student and the supervisor. Compares and contrasts the views of PhD students and PhD supervisors on a number of issues including reasons for doing a PhD, the purpose of PhD training and perceptions of the quality of PhD research training. Suggests that to support the different needs of students, supervisors and the science base, a flexible yet quality assured approach to PhD research training is required.

Describes a number of quality assurance issues relating to the award of the degree of PhD on the basis of published work by the University of Hertfordshire which arose over a nine‐year period between 1992 and 2001. Emphasises the importance of ensuring that the academic standards associated with the award of a PhD on the basis of published work are identical with those established for the traditional route to a PhD based on an approved programme of supervised research, and that the quality assurance procedures for the two routes are as similar as possible. Concludes with the view that there are quality assurance arguments for the two routes to a PhD to be merged into a single set of regulations which allow doctoral theses to be an integral mix of published and unpublished research outcomes.