Social sciences include a variety of disciplines and sub-discipline: Anthropology, communication studies, economics, sociology, psychology, political sciences, psychology, geography, to name a few. Each of them offers epistemologies, methodologies and approaches to raise questions about social economic inequality, distribution of power and rights among different social actors, and the role of social institutions to interrupt or reproduce injustice. Yet, what is less talked about is how social scientists, in their individual spaces, make choices and activities associated with the role of teaching, doing research, mentoring and participating in community projects within the structure of doctoral education.
In the fifth webinar of the series “Committing ourselves to Social Justice: Doctoral Education for Complex Times”, CIRGE has invited two scholars – Carolina Guzman-Valenzuela from Chile and Peter Sachweh from Germany – to share how they theorize and practice social justice in their specific academic spaces within their doctoral education ecosystem.
Speakers
Carolina Guzmán-Valenzuela is a professor of Higher Education at the University of Tarapacá (Chile). Her research agenda includes the study of university teaching-learning processes, academic identities and the role of universities in neoliberal contexts. Currently, she is leading a project that analyses the effects of colonial legacies on the knowledge production of social sciences and humanities in Latin America.
Patrick Sachweh is a professor and dean of the Bremen International Graduate School in Social Sciences (BIGSSS) at the University of Bremen (Germany). His most recent research interrogates how social narratives about the causes and consequences of the economic crisis resulting from the Coronavirus pandemic are negotiated in the German and Italian public debates.
“In Malaysia, with the right qualification, almost anybody can get at least some kind a tertiary education”. With this quote, Dr. Roshada Hashim, Director of USIM ‘Alamiyyah International Centre, Universiti Sains Islam Malaysia and former Dean of the Institute of Graduate Studies at the Universiti Sains Malaysia, starts her explanation about the effect of internationalization policies on Malaysian doctoral education.
Dr. Roshada Hashim
CIRGE had the opportunity to hold an extended conversation with Dr. Hashim, who shed light on the ongoing process of internationalization of doctoral education. Her vast experience as an investigator, formative professors, and top administrator for more than 20 years in Malaysia as well as research collaborator worldwide, makes her an expert voice to elucidate the challenge of doctoral education in Malaysia.
Malaysia ranks 11th in the world in attracting large numbers of international students. The government has been explicit in its attempt to internationalize higher education. How do you see this affecting doctoral education in Malaysia?
We are now seeing an increasing number of international universities opening branches of their universities in Malaysia. Because the government wants Malaysia to be a higher education hub, we have liberalized our educational policy to the extent that universities can open branch campuses here. This resulted in universities from the United Kingdom and Australian opening branch campuses and we are expecting an even larger number of top universities from other foreign countries to open their branch campuses in Malaysia. Although these branch campuses will initially offer undergraduate programs, it stands to reason that these universities will expand to provide postgraduate programs resulting in an influx of doctoral students coming from abroad to Malaysia, but not just to study at Malaysian universities, but foreign ones as well. The fees charged by the foreign universities are only a portion of what they would pay if they were to study in United Kingdom for example, or their own country, so these are very effective circumstances for many students who want to pursue doctoral degrees. Currently, public Malaysian universities offer a wide range of doctoral degrees but the presence of the foreign universities will eventually open up more opportunities for students worldwide to come to Malaysia and study.
Quality assurance is a hot topic in doctoral education in these days. What is the quality assurance process at these new universities?
Well, until now, every program has to go through the rigorous standards set by the Malaysian Qualifications Agency and the Ministry of Education. Malaysian students have an opportunity either to study at government or private universities and would experience the same quality assurance mechanism. The difference is that the price is a tenth in government universities, because education in government universities is highly subsidized, students pay a very small portion of the fees. Therefore, many students automatically will try to get into government universities, especially because many government universities are mature, very well equipped (and have a good infrastructure), in all, they are more attractive. But having said this, private universities are developing quickly and they are interested in improving their quality standards. Obviously many are well funded and therefore are able to improve at a faster rate than public ones.
Well, from my perspective, I notice a serious problem of unequal quality among our international students. Quality standards differ greatly from one nation to another nation, which, in my opinion, is affecting the success of their graduate education here in Malaysia. For example, we get a lot of students from developing countries with various quality of skills and knowledge. Although everybody has a Bachelor’s or a Master’s degree, the standards differ so much that when they come to our universities, these students sometimes need to catch up with our standards or they realize that they cannot follow the advance level that we have in our classes. Sometimes their academic qualification and the training they had received at home are not at par with our standards and therefore they have difficulties being admitted into our programs. We have had to take measures to level up the competencies and I believe it has affected how we take in students and who we take in hence they may have to spend more time to complete their studies. Many universities in Malaysia have a policy to provide education for everyone. This policy applies not just to Malaysian students but it applies to all students who want to study in Malaysia, and because of this policy, we have an issue of quality.
Besides, we also notice that there are students who fulfill the requirements to attend graduate school but lack the required language proficiency. There is a pool of students who have gone through a bachelor’s degree in their home country and since their country has limited opportunities for postgraduate studies, these students have to attend graduate school elsewhere. In doctoral studies, students more often than not have to write a dissertation in English. Therefore, we are now very selective and only take students who have a certain level of English proficiency. It is indeed an unfortunate situation because it doesn’t mean that if you can’t speak English, you aren’t good enough for a doctoral program. Because of their inability to speak English and to formulate their arguments, we think they’re not smart. So it is very likely that we “miss” good doctoral students. We need to come up with creative solutions to address this gap in our education system.
This is one of the entrances of the Universiti Sains Islam Malaysia, where Dr. Hashim works as the former Dean of the Institute of Graduate Studies
Do you see PhD students enhancing international collaboration?
Definitely. I think that’s how we’ve been surviving all these years. It’s how we’ve been able to improve our network. Many international students are from developing countries and become professors in their countries. Also, a good number of them work later in the ministries of their countries and in turn influence policies. Over the years, we have found that our alumni are the ones with whom current PhD students connect and start collaboration. A lot of our collaboration is a result having educated them here during their PhD education
Do you think that the influx of international students is affecting the experience for both local student and academic staff, as well as international students and scholars within your universities?
I always tell people here that there is a culture shock on both sides. It is not only the international students who have to adjust to their new surroundings and culture, there’s a culture shock on the university’s side, too. As our universities mature and have more diverse groups of university students, the culture shock affects more of the non academic staff. We, the academic staff, are familiar with the do’s and don’ts of how people from different countries behave. However, the non academic staff have had very little exposure in the past to people from different cultures. We in Malaysian universities need to understand and know how to address people from different cultures. It’s not so much that we expect the international students to adjust to our culture, but that we have to become more knowledgeable about other cultures and adjust to theirs as well.
Overall, international students are welcomed and accepted by both the university and the community surrounding the universities. The willingness to understand and accept different cultures must penetrate the entire university, including administrators and lecturers/faculty including the local students as well as among the international students themselves, otherwise we are not offering a very good learning and working environment. We need to be willing to give and take and not close our minds. I tell this to the international students and I tell this to our people. International students need to adjust to us, and we need to adjust to them. It is a positive and mutual adaptation process.
–
Recently, the Malaysian government implemented a policy that aims to educate 200,000 international students by the year 2020, which is projected to boost the economy by about 180 billion USD. The success that Malaysia has been experiencing by focusing on higher education may prove to be a model copied by many other developing economies.
While Australia is one of the more popular countries for international students to receive a postgraduate degree, domestic applicants seem to be less motivated for continuing doctoral degrees at home. Dr. Richard Strugnell, Pro Vice-Chancellor of Graduate Research at the University of Melbourne, summarizes the phenomenon succinctly: “The universities are not hiring – they’re just growing their class size, and as a consequence, there are a lot of PhDs who are finishing their degrees and can’t find jobs in academic positions. Then they try to find a position in their respective field of the corporate sector or government, but they do not necessarily have an advantage by having a PhD.” Dr. Strugnell is an expert on doctoral education in Australia. His experience as a professor, lead researcher, administrator and advisory member for Australian and International universities make him an informed voice to elucidate the challenges of doctoral education in Australia.
How can you explain this phenomenon of the depreciating value of a PhD in Australia?
There are several causes, but I perceive that graduates know early on in their doctoral programs that it’s going to be hard to find a job in Australia. This leads to attrition and low completion rates in some disciplines and to lower and lower domestic supply of PhDs. Twenty years ago, maybe more, it was very common for doctoral graduates from Melbourne to go to the US or Europe for a postdoctoral stay. Then, those individuals remained in these countries and went on to academic careers. These days, I don’t see students traveling so often. I see students operating under the assumptions that even if they go overseas for a postdoc, when they come back, they will not get an academic position, so they might as well accept that and go straight into some sort of profession here (or try to) and therefore give up the idea of an academic career pretty early on.
CIRGE: Quality of doctoral education has become a hot topic in the United States and in some European countries. What kind of quality assurance mechanisms exist in Australia?
The process of quality assurance is very different in Australia. For example, doctoral candidates who are about to graduate submit their thesis in a similar way ascandidates at US universities, but the Australian candidates do not have an oral exam and thus, the candidates are not subjected to the in depth questioning that can occur through a viva. The thesis is read by at least two experts in the field who have an opinion about the quality of the doctorate, which is a proxy for the quality of the research and the PhD graduate. The principle is that the thesis is examined and not the student. Therefore, we send the thesis to two or three experts outside of the university and usually outside of Australia. From a quality assurance perspective, the thesis is being examined by people who have no conflict of interest within the university. In examination settings where internal examiners are used, it is sometimes hard to get fully objective views of the quality of the thesis and you can start to get conflicting views. But this examination process is just a consequence of Australia being a long way from everywhere else. The view was taken early on that since we were so far away and it took such a long time to get here by plane or by boat, then we would examine the thesis, not the student. So that’s a different quality assurance process than the one in place in other countries. In Australia, while we accept there are weaknesses in this process, at the same time, there is reasonable quality assurance, because the dissertation is being assessed bysomeone who doesn’t have any relationship with the university. They read the argument and make an assessment.
The US model of doctoral education appears as a reference for several countries, such as Germany, which is promoting institutional and formative adjustments in order to provide more structured conditions in their doctoral education programs. How does Australia address this process of creating structured doctoral programs?
There are tensions around preparation. Our PhD is shorter than the American doctoral degree by two or three years and usually students don’t do as much teaching during their candidature. In many disciplines, they finish their undergraduate studies and jump right away into the research phase. We’re trying to make our students more like US graduates who have more and deeper discipline related coursework in either a bridging Masters program or in the first 1-2 years of the research phase. Employers are looking at the preparation of the graduate, and want to know about the types of experiences student received during the PhD. Was there any further preparation between the undergraduate degree and entry into the PhD program? And when there was not, there is a growing pressure on the preparation pathway to include coursework. Probably that pathway will be extended to have a deeper disciplinary understanding before the PhD candidates begin their research. While we are beginning to extend the process of receiving a doctorate, we do not want it to become as long as the process is in the United States. You can graduate with a PhD in Australia in six to seven years after you have started your undergraduate degree. That rarely happens in the US. So the pressure here is to extend the program and make our graduates look more like US graduates, who may have deeper discipline knowledge gained through coursework or teaching, by adding more disciplinary related coursework. We are harmonizing our model to the US.
International students are important actors in the doctoral education system in Australia. We have developed strategic relationships with universities in particular countries like China, where China’s undergraduates will come to Melbourne to do their PhDs and then go back to China. There’s good investment from our side into these collaborations. We need a certain number of PhD students because in the Australian research environment, especially in the STEM disciplines, doctoral students do much of the research. This is also different than the US. We don’t have so many postdocs here; we have a lot of PhD students, relatively speaking. If we can’t get Australian students to do PhDs, then we need to get the PhDs from China, India, Europe, and sometimes from the United States. In this sense, international students provide both an important challenge and opportunity for Australian universities: they need to hire more international researchers and professors in order to internationalize our workforce to deal with larger numbers of international undergraduates.
Campus of University of Melbourne, one of the most important universities in Australia.
Is the Australian national government addressing any policy in regards to doctoral education?
Well, the government carries out an exercise looking at research strengths every two to three years, in order to see how strong the universities are from a research perspective. This program is called the ERA: Excellence in Research in Australia. This program assesses the research strength of universities by discipline. But then this program doesn’t restrict research training to those universities that can demonstrate a strong research culture. It allows every university to do what they want regardless of the quality of the research and research infrastructure. We think this is an ineffective policy that is potentially bad for the student. It’s hard enough to get a job as it is, but it’s hard to get one when you don’t really know what internationally competitive research looks like. So the government is certainly interested in doctoral education, but it is not interested enough, in our view. The government should not only take a keen interest in the research production, but it should also be interested in the quality of research, and allow research and doctoral education in only those universities with very good research environments. A good doctoral training program can only happen in a good training environment. We have some places offering PhDs where the research environment is pretty skimpy.
CIRGE: Is the decline of PhDs seen as an important issue? How can this issue be resolved?
To support the increased higher education participation rate, the Australian academic sector needs to grow and there’s no evidence that anyone wants to invest in this country, in growing the academic sector. The federal government wants more students to go to university but they don’t want to spend more money on the universities on a per student basis – the government simply wants the universities to absorb the increasing students numbers with little additional funding and/or to transfer the major financial burden to students. The Australian government bandies around the fact that university graduates have significantly increased lifetime earnings and therefore should pay more. What they do not say is that, as a consequence, university graduates pay more in income taxes over their lifetime that more than offsets the costs of their education.
And the other area that needs a lot of work is explaining to potential interested students the value of doing a doctorate and the skills that doctoral students obtain during their training, thus becoming more employable in all sectors of society, be it in academia, or government, or industry. The value of their training needs to be understood both by the PhD candidates and by employers. This is not happening at the moment.
All we can see is that the number of Australian students who are applying is declining. This is a bit disappointing, but at the same time, it raises the question of the role of doctoral education and the value of a PhD outside of the academy.
In a study commissioned by the Australian Department of Industry, Innovation, Science, Research and Tertiary Education, which is the department responsible for administering funding for higher education in Australia, 1,200 PhD researchers were surveyed in 2012. It was found that almost all of them enjoyed their work, but experienced difficulties with the employment system. In fact, more than half the respondents indicated that “uncertain job prospects” was the single worst aspect of a PhD career.
A silent paradigm shift has occurred in doctoral education. Preparing the next generation of PhDs to function successfully in and contribute to today’s and tomorrow’s global environment requires an approach that goes beyond conceptualizing an apprenticeship model and institutes communities of practice, which should include recognition of peers as learning partners. Coordinated efforts are also needed across many levels inside and outside the university. Because more is being asked of the next generation of researchers—in addition to the traditional academic research competencies, they now need professional skills as well as cultural competencies—what is required today at the PhD level is the kind of purposeful structuring that allows for transformative doctoral education.
Nerad, M. (2012) Conceptual Approaches to Doctoral Education: A Community of Practice, Alternation, No 19,2, pp. 57–72.
An earlier version of this article appeared in Acta Academica Supplementum 2011, 2:198–216. (ISSN 0587-2405) Available at: http://www.ufs.ac.za/templates/ journals.aspx?article=1264.
“Otherwise, Elsewhere: International Doctoral Students in Globalized Transnational Spaces”
Dr. Jenny Phelps from the University British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada presents findings from her recent dissertation
Where? Miller 102T
When? Thursday October 10th at 12:00 p.m.
Dr. Jenny Phelps is the Assistant Dean, Student Administration and Strategic Initiatives, at the Graduate Studies in the University of British Columbia, Vancouver.
This study asked broad questions about how and why talented individuals from around the world imagine and choose to pursue doctoral education in a particular location (the University of British Columbia in Vancouver, Canada), their experiences as international doctoral students in constructing and navigating their lives and studies in place and space, and their imagined careers, accomplishments, responsibilities and locations as they emerge from formal education with its apex of achievement.
These trajectories into, through and beyond doctoral education were viewed through the lens of globalization theory and theories of capital with the purpose of understanding further how the phenomena associated with globalizing and networked social fields (including higher education, research, policy, work and migration) are reflected in student purposes, imaginations, choices and experiences. A case-study design focusing on a single institution and a multiple, embedded case research method which analyzed personal narratives were used.
The study found that international doctoral students pursue PhDs with many purposes in mind, some of which reflect dominant policy and institutional discourses of purpose for doctoral education (such as human capital development, career preparation and knowledge production).
However, students were also found to utilize doctoral education abroad as a mechanism for building less theorized forms of capital, for contributing to social good, and for pursuing sometimes surprising private purposes. Their experiences in first becoming and then navigating life as international graduate students demonstrated immersion and engagement in the attributes of deeply globalized societies, including networked technologies, high levels of mobility, globalized fields of education, research and work, and transnational spaces in which borders and identities become more fluid.
The growing global embrace of neoliberal, market-based ideologies infiltrated student experience and imagined careers in nuanced ways. However, while large-scale forces of globalization clearly shape international doctoral student trajectories, these forces are not homogenizing nor fully controlling of student experiences. Students navigate these forces with agency and strategy within their personal ranges of motion, and offer a multiplicity of narratives and trajectories that counter any singular notion of the “international doctoral student”. Implications for doctoral education, public policy, and further research are advanced.
June 19 – Maresi Nerad presentation at the Graduate Management Admissions Council conference held in Baltimore, MD, titled “Time-to-Degree and the Case for Enhanced PhD Skills Training.” Download: GMAC
May 19 – Maresi Nerad presentation at the Mobility and Internationalization of Doctoral Studies in Europe conference held in Paris, titled “Doctoral Education in the U.S. in times of Globalization.”
Presentations 2008
December 16-17 – Maresi Nerad and Nelofer Halai of the Aga Khan University presentation at the 3rd Interantional Conference on Postgraduate Education in Penang, Malaysia, titled “Globalization and the Internationalization of Doctoral Education.” Download: Malaysia
October 16-18 – Maresi Nerad presentation at International Workshop on Graduate Education, Hiroshima University, Japan, titled “Graduate Education and its Changes in the U.S.: An Evolving Process.” Download: Hiroshima University
August 4 – Maresi Nerad and Emory Morrison presentation at American Sociological Association conference, Boston, MA – “Are Sociologists Different: Findings from Social Science PhDs – Five+ Years Out: A National Study of Six Social Science Fields.” Download: Sociology
June 25 – Maresi Nerad presentation at University of California, Davis, Graduate Career Consortium, Sacramento, CA – “Social Science PhDs – Five+ Years Out: A National Study of PhDs in Six Social Science Fields” Download: Grad Career Symposium
March – Maresi Nerad presentation at the Western Association of Graduate Schools (WAGS) annual meeting, Denver, CO – “Promoting Productive Educational Experiences for International Students: A Two-Way Street – The Internationalization of Graduate Education.” Download: WAGS Conference 2008
February 21 – Maresi Nerad’s presentations at the American Political Science Association (APSA), Political Science Chairs Conference, San Jose, CA — “Political Science Findings from Social Science PhDs — Five+ Years Out,” Download: 1) Plenary Meeting; 2) Workshop
February 11 – Maresi Nerad webcast presentation for the Worldwide Universities Network (WUN) Initiative, Ideas and Universities — “Changes in Doctoral Education Worldwide: Past Differences, Current Commonalities and Future Trends.” Download: WUN webcast
January 18 – Presentations at the University of Washington, College of Education Faculty Career Symposium, Seattle, WA – 1) Maresi Nerad & Mimi Heggelund: “Globalization and its Impact on Doctoral Education Worldwide.” Download: Globalization 2) Maresi Nerad & Elizabeth Rudd: “Social Science PhDs — Five+ Years Out: A National Study of PhDs in Six Social Science Fields.” Download: COE-SS5
December 7 – Maresi Nerad presentation at the annual meeting of the Council of Graduate Schools (CGS), Seattle, WA – “Social Science PhDs — Five+ Years Out: A National Study of PhDs in Six Social Science Fields.” Download: CGS 2007
November 4 – Maresi Nerad and Elizabeth Rudd presentation at CRA Gender Diversity in Computing Doctoral Programs Workshop, Bellevue, WA — “The Context: Doctoral Education Research – Advising and Retention.” Download: Gender Diversity
November 17 – Maresi Nerad presentation at Peking University, Peking, China – “Designing Future-Oriented Doctoral Education.” Download: Peking Univ
August 28 – Maresi Nerad presentation at National University of Singapore — “Designing Future-Oriented Doctoral Education.” Download: Singapore
April 19 – Maresi Nerad presentation at American Association of Geographers (AAG) annual meeting, San Francisco, CA – “Geography Findings from Social Science PhDs — Five+ Years Out” Download: AAG 2007
April 14-18 – Elizabeth Rudd presentation at McGill University Conference, Challenging Research Pedagogies, Montreal, Canada – “The PhD in the US.” Download: McGill Univ
March 28- April 4 – Maresi Nerad presentation at the second Forces and Forms of Change in Doctoral Education Worldwide workshop, Melbourne, Australia — “Quality Indicators: Assessing the Quality of Doctoral Education.” Download: Quality Indicators
March 17 – Maresi Nerad presentation at Western Association of Graduate Schools (WAGS) annual meeting, Portland, OR — “Life With a PhD: Findings from Social Science PhDs — Five+ Years Out.” Download: WAGS 2007
March 1 – Maresi Nerad and Elizabeth Rudd presentation at University of Washington Graduate Professional Education Week, Seattle, WA – “Life with a PhD: Findings from Social Science PhDs — Five+ Years Out.” Download: GPE Week 2007
Presentations 2006
October 8 – Maresi Nerad presentation at CHERI Policy Research Conference, Doctoral Education and the Faculty of the Future, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY – “Confronting Common Assumptions: Designing Future-Oriented Doctoral Education.” Download: Cornell 2006
July 8 – Maresi Nerad presentation at European Summer Conference, New Dimensions for Doctoral Programs in Europe: Training, Employability and the European Knowledge Agenda, Florence, Italy – “Defining and Measuring Successful PhD Career Outcomes.” Download: Defining and Measuring
March 9 – Maresi Nerad presentation at University of Washington Second Annual Graduate Career Development Symposium, Seattle, WA – “The PhD: Journey to Multiple Destinations.” Download: UW Career Symposium
The collaborative work done by the participants of the workshop (professors in STEM fields, educational researchers, graduate students and post doctoral fellows from around the world), generated new publications and grants subsequent to the workshop.
Blumenfield T., Nerad M., 2012. International Assessment: Developing a Research Agenda for (Post) graduate Education and Collaboration. Australian Universities Review. Vol. 54. No 1. 2012, pp. 72-83.
Culver Culver, S., Warfvinge, P., Grossman, C., & Puri, I. (2011). Evaluation of engineering double-degree programs in Sweden: Results of the Lund focus groups. European Journal of Higher Education, 1, pp. 220-232.
Culver, S. M., Puri, I. K., Spinelli, G., DePauw, K. P., Dooley, J. E. (2011). Collaborative dual-degree programs and value added for students: Lesson learned through the Evaluate-E project. Journal of Studies in International Education, pp.1-22.
Deardorff, D., de Wit, H., Heyl, J., & Adams, T (eds). (2012). The Sage Handbook of International Higher Education. California: Sage Publication.
This article assesses the current state of internationalisation and international experiences, focusing in particular on science and engineering fields. It discusses initial results from a workshop, sponsored by the US National Science Foundation and organised by the Center for Innovation and Research in Graduate Education at the University of Washington, to develop an interdisciplinary research agenda aimed at launching and coordinating empirically driven research on international graduate education. It concludes by identifying areas for future research.
Blumenfield T., & Nerad, M. (2012). International Assessment: Developing a Research Agenda for (Post)graduate Education and Collaboration. Australian Universities Review. Vol. 54. No 1, pp. 72-83.
This chapter explores the unique, often horizontal, peer education dynamics found in doctoral education, which are far less understood than the role of undergraduate peer educators.
Flores, E., & Nerad, M. (2012). Peers in Doctoral Education: Unrecognized Learning partners. New Directions for Higher Education. No 157, Spring 201, pp.73- 83.
