Expanding Postgraduate Learning Communities

Supervising Doctoral Students: A delicate balanceCurrent UK Postgraduate Policies and DevelopmentsDe-institutionalising Doctoral Education: The DIY PhD?Expanding Postgraduate Learning CommunitiesThe View from the Part-Time Doctoral Student

Postgraduate Researchers

in the Spotlight

News from the British Educational Research Association Issue 124 Summer 2014

ResearchIntelligence

News from the British Educational Research Association Issue 124 Summer 2014

ResearchIntelligence

BAMBOO HOUSE PUBLISHING LTDwww.bamboohouse.co.uk

BERA British Educational Research Association 9-11 Endsleigh Gardens, London WC1H 0EH T: 020 7612 6987 E: [email protected]

RI Editor Hilary Burgess E: [email protected] Editorial Team Nick Johnson, Sarah Newman, Farzana Rahman E:[email protected]

Contents 3 FROM THE PRESIDENT

4–5 ANNUAL LECTURE

6 BERA AT AERA

7 OFFICE NEWS

8 BRITISH CURRICULUM FORUM

9–25 POSTGRADUATE RESEARCHERS IN THE SPOTLIGHT Editorial (Burgess and Burns) 9

Current UK Postgraduate Policies and Developments (Deem) 10–11

Developing Doctoral Students’ Critical Writing and Reviewing Skills: Through peer assessment (Smith, Wood, Burgess and Lewis) 12–13

Supervising Doctoral Students: A delicate balance (Wellington) 14–15

Expanding Postgraduate Learning Communities (Burns) 16

Doctoral Research Training (Rawdin) 17

The View from the Part-Time Doctoral Student (Pagden) 18

PhD and Depression (Ahmad) 19

The EdD Directors National Network (Pratt) 20–21

Building Research Capacity: Stories from a new University’s School of Education (Devecchi, Murray and Preece) 22–23

De-institutionalising Doctoral Education: The DIY PhD? (Thomson) 24–25

26–27 JOURNEY TO OPEN ACCESS: THE LATEST STAGE?

28 BERA SIG: RESPECTING CHILDREN AND YOUNG PEOPLE

29 BERA SIG: INCLUSIVE AND SPECIAL EDUCATION

30 BERA SIG: INVESTIGATING INEQUALITIES

31 INFORMATION Call for papers RI 125

Notes for contributors

ISSN: 0 307-9023

Published on behalf of BERA by:

IN ALL THREE LOCATIONS I will be talking about the final report of the BERA-RSA Inquiry into Research and Teacher Education. The report has stimulated considerable interest over here. In Australia in particular, teacher education is in a considerable state of flux, that is causing some similar concerns to those which stimulated our own activity in the UK. I do hope that the work we have done will be helpful here and elsewhere.

There was indeed considerable interest when a team of us presented at the well-attended BERA symposium at the AERA conference in Philadelphia in April. And in the autumn I will be speaking about this work at the conference of the Standing Conference on Teacher Education North and South (SCOTENS) in Ireland.

Of course the real test of the effectiveness of the Inquiry is what influence it may have on policy and practice in our own four nations,

including Northern Ireland, at home. With the help of the RSA we have been implementing ‘an influencing strategy’, which among other actions has involved us meeting with politicians such as David Laws and with Ofsted officials in England to share the insights that have emerged. In Northern Ireland, Wales and Scotland, we have also been discussing the report with many stakeholders. It would be fair to say that there is a more straightforward relationship with politicians and policy-makers in those three jurisdictions than there is in England, where political ideology seems to be far more dominant. Having said that, however, I do think we can be pleased to see some aspects of current English developments, for example encouragement to teachers in schools and colleges to make more use of research evidence in their work. Nevertheless, the continuing pressures on university departments of education that have followed from the arrival of School Direct and associated initiatives continue to pose a serious threat to the educational research infrastructure.

We continue to celebrate our 40th anniversary. Our first annual lecture was held in May and was extremely successful. The leading Finnish educator Pasi Sahlberg, now Professor of Practice at Harvard Graduate School, gave a scintillating presentation centred on his critical analysis of educational globalisation, setting out how the ‘GERM’ - the Global Education Reform Movement - had spread like an epidemic around the world and identifying several of the consequences, some intended, others unintended.

As you read this, you may well be preparing to attend our 40th anniversary Conference, in London. Other celebratory events will be included there, including the launch of a timeline covering BERA’s 40 years as well as a publication celebrating 40 years of educational research by highlighting 40 studies. Both of these are projects designed to highlight the great achievements of educational research in the UK over our lifetime as an organisation.

Also during Conference we will be seeing the completion of Mary James’ term of office as she relinquishes her formal responsibilities after four years. We will be welcoming our new Vice-President, Gemma Moss.

I do urge you to attend the Annual General Meeting to play your part in the Association’s democratic processes, as well as the various social events that will be on offer. That of course is not to mention the presentations themselves. As ever, we have a fantastic array of keynotes, symposia, spotlights, posters, awards ceremonies and paper presentations on the programme.

Finally, in our 40th year it is crucial that we look forwards as well as backwards, which is why it is so apposite that this issue of RI has postgraduate research as the major theme. It is in our postgraduate community that a large part of this future lies. Let us celebrate and support the work of those at the early stage of their careers and perhaps, with them, by proposing a toast to the next 40 years of BERA!

Ian MenterUniversity of Oxford

British Educational Research Association

PRESIDENT’S LETTER 3

From the PresidentAs I write this I am sitting in a room looking down to the Yarra River in Melbourne. Next week I will be heading to Waikato University in New Zealand and then back to Australia, to Sydney, to present a keynote at the conference of the Australian Teacher Education Association.

Research Intelligence Issue 124 Summer 2014

4 ANNUAL LECTURE

PASI ENTERTAINED AND STIMULATED a large audience with his analysis of how best practices and evidence-based policies have become a common mantra in educational improvement.

He argued that international education benchmarking as a policy tool has three different manifestations. The first manifestation is ‘facts’ or myths that typically are observations and causal

beliefs from successful reforms and high performance in other education systems. The second manifestation are ‘true facts’ because they are often findings through statistical data or measured performances, such as international student assessments. The third manifestation is academic research and other systematic scientific work.

By taking his audience through the way in which facts, true facts

and research have been applied to issues of competition, test-based accountability, parental involvement and teacher quality, Pasi argued that the reality is often far removed from the assertions made by politicians, which are based upon a superficial reading of the evidence at best.

He concluded that by referring to these manifestations as ‘evidence’, policy-makers can justify almost any education reform direction

Inaugural BERA Annual Lecture – Pasi Sahlberg

In May, BERA held our inaugural Annual Lecture and we welcomed Professor Pasi Sahlberg to London to talk on Facts, True Facts and Research in Improving Education Systems.

Pasi argued that the reality is often far removed from the assertions made by politicians, which are based upon a superficial reading of the evidence at best

Professor Pasi Sahlberg engages

the audience at BERA’s inaugural

Annual Lecture

ANNUAL LECTURE 5


that they decide to implement. Because scholarly research is often considered to be slow and expensive, many educational reforms today are built on facts and true facts instead. Pasi ended his lecture by making the point that the information age makes it easier to propagate myths as technology enables people to engage only with like-minded people that reinforce their prejudices and opinions. Perhaps this is a new kind of ‘bubble’ to rival Michael Gove’s accusation that the educational establishment operates as ‘the blob’.

This tendency to rely on superficial ‘facts’ has underpinned what Pasi calls the Global Educational Reform Movement (GERM) which has spread across the globe in recent years, becoming preeminent in the United States, England, Australia and now spreading into other parts of Europe, South America and the far east.

By contrasting the GERM’s preoccupation with issues of competition, choice and test-based accountability with the Finnish system based upon collaboration, professional capital and trust, Pasi argued that successful educational outcomes were more likely in the latter environment. However, he also strongly argued the importance of equity within a country – indeed, stressing that this was the strongest predictor of a high quality education system. In high equity, cohesive,

happy societies, you are far more likely to achieve successful educational outcomes. The danger in this argument is that by being so persuasive about this latter issue, Pasi risks undermining his other arguments about the importance of

the nature of a country’s education system. The value of high quality teaching delivered through strong, university-linked teacher education, and a collaborative trust-based school environment are still important variables in educational outcomes whatever the socio-economic profile of the country.

You can find the recording of the lecture as well as a link to the slides on the BERA website:

http://www.bera.ac.uk/news/inaugural-bera-annual-lecture

Pasi’s lecture provoked a range of questions and clearly stimulated debate during the reception that followed. We were delighted to see so many people there and hope that the BERA Annual Lecture will become a fixture in the calendar. As always, we welcome suggestions for future speakers – please get in touch via the BERA Office.

Nick Johnson

The value of high quality teaching delivered through strong, university-linked teacher education, and a collaborative trust-based school environment are still important variables in educational outcomes whatever the socio-economic profile of the country

Nick Johnson in conversation with delegates

President Ian Menter in discussion with Pasi Sahlberg

THIS YEAR BERA FOCUSED ON TEACHER EDUCATION for its sponsored symposium at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association (AERA) in Philadelphia in April. Representatives of the BERA-RSA Inquiry into Research and Teacher Education spoke on the theme ‘Does Teacher Education Need Research? Does Research Need Teacher Education?’. There was a packed audience, indicative of the considerable international interest generated by these issues among educational researchers, policy-makers and practitioners.

The session was chaired by BERA President Ian Menter, who introduced the BERA-RSA Inquiry. Louise Bamfield, Associate Director for Education at the RSA, who led the Inquiry’s secretariat, then offered an overview of the major findings published in the Inquiry’s interim report. Our presentations followed, representing two of the specific papers commissioned by the Inquiry.

Janet spoke first, to the paper Philosophical reflections on the contribution of research to teacher education, which she co-authored with Christopher Winch and Alis Oancea. The paper identifies three kinds of professional knowledge that teachers need to undertake their job well: situated understanding, technical knowledge and critical reflection. However, the account of teachers’ professional knowledge that is promoted by the dominant policy discourse is insufficiently robust or ambitious to capture the quality of professional judgement which a complementary relationship between all three dimensions of professional knowledge comprises and which distinguishes the very best teachers from others. Educational research and

teachers’ professional judgement can certainly enrich each other, as long as a sufficiently rich and nuanced account of the good teacher is promoted and supported by teacher education of a particular kind. This will be challenging to develop and sustain but is possible and necessary in future practice.

Katharine spoke to the paper she co-authored with Trevor which reviews Research-informed clinical practice in initial teacher education, looking at a number of influential programmes (in the UK and elsewhere) specifically designed to facilitate and deepen the interplay between the different kinds of knowledge generated and validated within the different contexts of school and university. The paper argues that while there is good evidence from different contexts about the value of ‘clinical practice’, its impact is determined by the interplay between those different components. This highlights a need for secure partnerships, committed not only to making distinctive kinds of expertise and learning opportunities available, but also to co-operating sufficiently closely to ensure their genuine integration. Such collaboration may be difficult to secure within policy contexts in which there is little stability and no long-term planning for the allocation of prospective teachers to particular ITE providers.

John Furlong, Chair of the Inquiry Steering Group, concluded the first part of the symposium with overall reflections on the questions about the nature of the relationship between research and teacher education reflected in the session’s title. Three respondents then offered contrasting international perspectives. Marilyn Cochran-Smith raised questions about the nature of the research or enquiry

skills that teachers require, given their particular need to develop local knowledge. She also called for schools and universities to work together on framing the research questions that would drive teacher education reform. Bob Floden, focusing more broadly on the implications for educational researchers, stressed the importance of training doctoral students to engage effectively with a wide variety of audiences, including teachers. Maria Teresa Tatto (whose own paper within the Inquiry ranges across a wide range of contexts) made an impassioned plea that we should demand and defend high quality research, challenging the impoverished evidential basis cited in defence of recent US policies.

It was clear from the lively and extended discussion which followed that the Inquiry’s findings resonated with a great many delegates. There was strong identification with the developing scenario in the UK not only from colleagues in the US but also further afield in Australasia, and agreement about the importance of the Inquiry’s work, raising the possibility of developing strategic alliances with other international educational research associations, including AERA. Ian Menter reported the imminent publication of the Inquiry’s final report and outlined proposals particularly driven by the RSA to try to shape future debate, seeking both to inform policy and influence practice for the better over the longer term.

Katharine Burn University of OxfordTrevor Mutton University of OxfordJanet Orchard University of Bristol

BERA At AERA 2014A report on the BERA symposium held at the AERA annual meeting in April.

6 SYMPOSIUM


NEWS 7

Practitioner Research Conference

WITH THE INCREASED FOCUS on Research and Development for Teaching Schools as part of their ‘Big 6’ agenda, this partnership heralded an important acknowledgement of the changing landscape. Teacher participants were required to submit abstracts that were scrutinised by reviewers including one from the NCTL. From 22 abstracts received, 12 were selected to present on the day and received a £500 grant from the NCTL to support their research work and cover conference travel costs. Colleagues from within the BERA SIG were then invited to offer methods workshops to further support teachers develop their knowledge and understanding of research methods.

Fifty-five delegates from the school and higher education sectors attended the conference, which was opened by a keynote from Professor Anne Lieberman from Stanford University, who offered an insightful perspective of collaborative research partnerships in China, Chile and Canada. All three partnerships shared some of the same

tensions within their countries’ reform programmes as those experienced in England; the ownership of teacher knowledge and the nature of the professionalism to name but two. After this thought-provoking start to the day, delegates moved into four breakout groups in each of which three teachers presented their research. A plenary discussion followed, in which each group fed back links between the presentations. The links from the four breakout groups were clustered into broad themes for the final themed discussion groups at the end of the day.

The five methods workshops in the afternoon were introduced by Lori Beckett of Leeds Metropolitan University, who reminded the delegates of the history of the practitioner research tradition, including Winifred Mercier who in 1909 was experimenting with, and writing about, her teaching of history. The methods workshops were: Mapping Mixed Method(ology)

Research Dr Alison Kington & Dr

Scott Buckler Researching student voice- a

researching practitioner’s perspective Dr Patricia M. Davies Using video and multimedia within

educational research Dr Anthony Barnett Analysing data in R&D Projects

Dr Mike Coldwell Capturing a picture of pupils’ learning:

Choosing the lens and making sure it is in focus Dr Alison Clark-Wilson

The conference drew to a close with a final plenary subsequent to the themed discussion groups. Delegates left with ideas of possible future research agendas and, from the very positive feedback, it seemed a sense of empowerment about what they themselves could achieve in their own context. It is hoped that next year a similar event might be held in the South.

d’Reen StruthersUniversity of RoehamptonOlwen McNamaraUniversity of Manchester

The ‘Supporting Teachers as Researchers’ Conference on June 30th at Manchester University was a collaborative venture between the Practitioner Research SIG, the National College of Teaching and Leadership (NCTL) Teaching Schools Network and Manchester University.

Final report of the BERA-RSA Inquiry into the role of research in teacher education

RESEARCH AND THE TEACHING PROFESSION

Building the capacity for a self-improving education system

Research and the Teaching Profession: Building the Capacity for a Self-Improving Education SystemIn May, BERA published the final report of the BERA-RSA inquiry into Research and teacher education. The report concludes that the UK “lacks a coherent plan for teacher research and development”, going on to say that teachers’ experience of professional development in most parts of the UK is “fragmented, occasional and insufficiently informed by research”.

The inquiry lays down 10 principles for self-improving and research-rich education systems, and 20 recommendations, embracing both teacher education and teachers’ professional development once in the job.

To read the report and all the background papers, please visit our website: http://www.bera.ac.uk/project/research-and-teacher-education

8 BRITISH CURRICULUM FORUM


THIS IS THE FOURTH change of name in its 40-plus year history but its primary objectives remain the same: to focus on curriculum; to advance policy and practice as well as knowledge; and to promote a genuine conversation between researchers and practitioners.

This was the vision of Lawrence Stenhouse, the founder of the Association for the Study of the Curriculum, the BCF’s predecessor. John Elliott, perhaps the foremost interpreter of Stenhouse, explains: “Stenhouse’s idea of research-based teaching emerged as a way of linking the world of the educational theorist in the university with that of the teacher. It is the means by which the development of theory is disciplined by the problems of practice and places theorists under an obligation to translate their ideas into a form that can be tested in practice. Stenhouse (…) wrote (1980):Only in curricular form can ideas be tested by teachers. Curricula are hypothetical procedures testable only in classrooms. All educational ideas must find expression in curricula before we can tell whether they are day dreams or contributions to practice. Many educational ideas are not found wanting, because they cannot be found at all.(…) Research-based teaching then for Stenhouse not only involved collaboration between teachers but also with educational theorists in the university sector. Busy teachers needed theorists as a source of new ideas and theorists needed teachers to test and develop them further.” (Elliott, 2006)

The BCF within BERA will pursue this vision by promoting and celebrating curriculum-focused, collaborative research. By ‘curriculum’ we mean the whole school or college curriculum.

We know however that this is not easy. Around the time of the Great Debate stimulated by Callaghan’s 1976 Ruskin College Speech, it was possible to bring researchers, policy-makers and practitioners together in large annual conferences to debate curricula. But the introduction of the National Curriculum in England, with its press towards ‘delivery’, tended to channel attention, energy and resources elsewhere. So, in 1989, Bob Moon, the Chair of the Curriculum Association as it was then, set up The Curriculum Journal, as an alternative forum for research-informed debate on curriculum policy and practice. (I was its first editor.)

The Curriculum Journal continues to be overseen by the BCF, and gathers strength under its dynamic new editorial team. Volume 25, Issue 1, sets out the team’s vision for the journal with an excellent special issue on ‘Creating curricula’.

With sponsorship from Routledge, the BCF has also established a prize for partnership work between schools or colleges and universities to improve any aspect of curriculum. In 2013, the prize was awarded to Glasgow University and its two partner primary schools. In 2014, the winner is Westminster University and its secondary school partner.

Many of the high quality submissions for this prize, in both years, shared a concern to develop

curricula appropriate to particular, and sometimes marginalised, groups of students. BCF’s next initiative, therefore, will be to have an event, around these projects, to bring researchers and teachers together. Timing is crucial if we are to get teachers involved, as are the means of connecting with them. We will look to develop our links with relevant BERA SIGs, with external networks and alliances of schools and teachers, and our use of social media. We will be helped in this by two new members of the BCF steering group: Dame Alison Peacock, Headteacher of The Wroxham School and Chair of the Teaching Schools Research and Development Advisory Group; and Gerry Czerniawski, from BERA Council, who will take over chairing the BCF when I step down.

The BCF steering group is buzzing with more ideas but history has taught us to proceed step-wise. Whatever the BCF does in future, the principle will be to serve the vision of researchers and practitioners working together for curriculum development based on educational ideas.

Mary JamesBCF Chair and BERA Vice President

Renewing the Vision for Schools-University Partnerships in Curriculum Research and Development

The British Curriculum Foundation (BCF) is now fully incorporated into BERA under the amended title British Curriculum Forum.

ReferencesElliott, J. (2006) ‘Research-based Teaching’. Paper given at ESRC TLRP C-TRIP thematic seminar on the ‘Impact of research on professional practice and identity’: http://www.tlrp.org/themes/seminar/gewirtz/papers/seminar8/paper-elliott.pdf. Stenhouse, L. (1980) Curriculum Research and the Art of the Teacher, Curriculum, 1, Spring.

IT MAY BE FILLED with peaks of excitement and troughs of despair. Whatever the balance between highs and lows, the postgraduate journey is rarely a smooth one. Yet at the beginning of a new academic year, students who have very recently gained their degrees decide to continue with their higher education, and professionals in the middle of their career choose to study part time. Each of these postgraduate students has very individual reasons for taking the step to embark on a masters degree or a doctoral qualification, linked to career or self development. Whatever subject they are studying they all pursue a form of research that will make a contribution to their specialist subject area and as such become part of the wider research community. All new researchers need support from their supervisors, their university community and wider research networks. In recognition of this, BERA recently set up the BERA Postgraduate Forum with the aim of providing early career researchers with another opportunity to network and share their research. This issue of RI draws on the work of a number of early career researchers who have attended the BERA Postgraduate Forum seminars as well as the experience of established researchers and doctoral supervisors.

Rosemary Deem provides the context for current postgraduate development and policies in the UK. She explores the thorny issue of funding for HEU students, examining the difficulties as well as new projects that explore participation, quality and employment outcomes. Joan Smith and others from the University of Leicester, discuss an HEA funded project on developing students’ critical writing skills – often one of the most difficult areas for postgraduate students to achieve successfully. Jerry Wellington provides a succinct analysis of the supervisory relationship and explores issues from student and supervisor perspectives. Adam Burns, a postgraduate

student himself, introduces the symposia organised by the BERA Postgraduate Forum and this is followed by three short articles from postgraduate students. They explore the experiences of being a doctoral student and offer advice that they hope other postgraduates might find helpful. In particular, Sukeina Ahmad’s piece examines the rarely discussed issue of depression among international postgraduate students and suggests some positive steps that could be taken.

Supervisors and leaders of postgraduate programmes also require support if postgraduate outcomes are to be successful. Nick Pratt examines the role that can be played by a national network for Directors of Doctor of Education programmes. The student body of the EdD, a professional doctorate programme, consists largely of mid career professionals who choose to study part time. This brings distinctive issues to bear on these programmes for both supervisors and students.

The enterprise of developing a research career continues even after a postgraduate qualification has been achieved and three new researchers at the University of Northampton explore how their individual backgrounds have all contributed to the building of research capacity in their department.

In keeping with other issues for BERA’s fortieth anniversary year, the final article provides a look forward for postgraduate doctoral education. Pat Thomson discusses what she has termed ‘the DIY PhD’ . By this she means the advice and support that students receive from social media outside the formal supervisory relationship. Today, students have access to not only advice books but blogs, twitter and a range of PhD chat forums and supervisors especially, should be more aware of the many ways in which their postgraduate students communicate.

We hope that this issue has highlighted just a few topics that vex, elate, support and enable networking among our postgraduate students and their supervisors. It is a sensitive and at times fragile community, which needs nurturing, strong funding arrangements and support if it is to produce the top quality researchers of the future.

Postgraduate Researchers in the Spotlight

Deciding to study for a postgraduate degree can be the start of a very uncertain career.

By Hilary Burgess, RI Editor, University of Leicester and Adam Burns, University of Leicester

EDITORIAL 9


FOR EXAMPLE, THE QUALITY ASSURANCE AGENCY FOR ENGLAND has begun to focus more on postgraduate developments and recently established a Postgraduate Advisory Board (PAB) with wide sector membership. The PAB held a workshop on the doctorate in London in April 2014 entitled ‘New Challenges, New Solutions: the examination of research degrees’: http://www.qaa.ac.uk/Newsroom/Events/Pages/QEN-Research-Degrees.aspx

There has been a lively (although mostly anecdotal) debate over the past year or so in the Times Higher about the relevance and quality of the UK doctoral viva, but at the workshop there was no evident demand for radical change.

One of the major problems for many UK HEIs is how to entice HEU students into Masters programmes with virtually no funding available (although lab-based sciences often have integrated Masters as a year 4 of undergraduate degrees, whereby students can make use of the Student Loan Company). In late 2013, the Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE) announced the 20 successful bidders for its £25m

Postgraduate Support Scheme (PSS), which is looking at how to improve the financial support, changes to the curriculum, employer co-funding and targeted student mentoring and advice. The projects all have a relatively short time span, so it will be interesting to see what gets achieved and how generalisable it is.

Masters degrees have also been the focus of development work. The Scottish Higher Education Enhancement Committee (SHEEC) as part of its work on ‘Learning from international practice’ has been exploring ‘Facets of Mastersness’ which includes 25 UK/international case studies: http://www.enhancementthemes.ac.uk/sheec/learning-from-international-practice/taught-postgraduate-student-experience

This work is distinctive because it has looked imaginatively at the wide variety of programmes and curricula which fall within the broad umbrella of taught Masters degrees and the shared characteristics that hold them together.

A Universities UK report Masters with a Purpose: taught postgraduate employability and employer engagement was published in May 2014 demonstrating how Masters degrees prepare their participants for employment (or promotion) and how such degrees are regarded by employers: http://www.universitiesuk.ac.uk/highereducation/Documents/2014/MastersWithAPurpose.pdf

It is quite astonishing how little was known about UK taught postgraduate study until very recently (there is a much bigger literature on research degree study). Among recently commissioned HEFCE projects are an ‘Intentions After Graduation’ survey, linked to the National Student Survey, looking at whether attitudes towards postgraduate study are changing now

Current UK Postgraduate Policies and Developments

After a spate of national reports in 2010-12 on the developing crisis in UK and especially English postgraduate education, due to the loss of funding council teaching monies and concern about the effects of high HEU (Home/European Union) fees, as well as the broader economic climate which has affected all four UK countries, there has been a period of consolidation combined with some fact-finding activity.

By Professor Rosemary Deem, Vice Principal (Education), Royal Holloway, and Executive Member, UK Council for Graduate Education

10 POSTGRADUATE RESEARCHERS IN THE SPOTLIGHT


There has been a lively (although mostly anecdotal) debate over the past year or so in the Times Higher about the relevance and quality of the UK doctoral viva

English HEU undergraduate fees have risen so significantly and how this is affected by student, subject and institutional characteristics. The results, published in December 2013, showed that 43% of final year undergraduate finalists consider themselves ‘certain’ or ‘likely’ to enter postgraduate study but see finance as a key element in their decision: http://www.hefce.ac.uk/pubs/year/2013/201334/name,85246,en.html

An analysis of HESA (Higher Education Statistics Agency) data demonstrating how postgraduate numbers have changed across the last decade by subject, domicile, mode of study, institution type and student characteristics was published in July 2013. It shows steady growth in postgraduate research across the decade and considerable growth in taught postgraduate education, particularly among overseas students, but a recent decline in part-time study and vocational courses like Education: http://www.hefce.ac.uk/pubs/year/2013/201314/#d.en.82615

There are also some on-going studies about postgraduates. Firstly is a soon-to-published Department of Business, Innovation and Skills investigation into mature students which shows disparate progression to postgraduate education, although no proposed solutions are expected in this study.

A KPMG project to see if TRAC data (the time-utilisation study completed by academics) could be used to demonstrate the cost of delivering taught postgraduate education, is due to report this summer. No doubt Treasury officials will be pouring over it, since if any additional Government money does make its way into taught Masters, it is likely to be linked to student number controls and a restricted subject range as well as cost constraints.

A comparative study is currently being carried out by the University of Oxford contrasting the postgraduate education system in England with selected other countries, in order to understand the implications of different approaches to participation, perceptions of quality and employment outcomes. It is always helpful to see the UK system in comparative perspective, since it can open up new avenues and stop policy-makers re-inventing the wheel or making the same mistakes as others.

A project aimed at understanding the recruitment and selection processes involved in deciding which research students to admit to universities is being undertaken by The Career Development Association (CRAC) and Vitae (who work with contract researchers): http://www.crac.org.uk/273-183092/Research-on-PGR-recruitment-for-HEFCE-now-underway.html

But it is surely self-evident that students with

no studentship or sponsor are unlikely to be successfully recruited, however promising their academic background.

There have been a number of funding initiatives around doctoral education, mostly by Research Councils UK (RCUK), typically in the form of Doctoral Training Partnerships. Thus, the Arts and Humanities Research Council (AHRC) announced 11 new Doctoral Training Partnerships (DTPs) and seven Centres for Doctoral Training (CDTs) in October 2013, which will deliver postgraduate supervision, training and skills development from 2014, with £164m of funding. In early 2014 the Leverhulme Trust also announced a scheme for doctoral scholarships, the bidding round for which is still in process (closing date September 2014). In April 2014, the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC) announced that it was investing £83.5m in a further tranche of Doctoral Training Partnerships (DTPs). RCUK schemes are increasingly demanding co-funding from institutions, which is likely to decrease institutional funding available to those not eligible for RCUK studentships, including most international students. There may also be a suspicion under this co-funding regime, since PhD fees and QR for Home/EU research students don’t bring in much spare money, that HEU undergraduate student fees might be used to subsidise research students.

Yet despite all this activity and a significant increase in the sector’s understanding of the interstices of postgraduate study, we are still no nearer to solving the problem of how to attract more (especially non-traditional) HEU students into Masters or research degree programmes. Postgraduate study has been described by the Higher Education Commission as ‘the new frontier of widening participation’: http://www.policyconnect.org.uk/hec/research/report-postgraduate-education

Until we find workable solutions to funding the costs of postgraduate study and encouraging all eligible applicants, whether by extending the undergraduate loan scheme, using private finance or getting universities to make loans available, this will remain the case.

The views expressed above are personal and not intended to represent the collective opinion of Royal Holloway or the UK Council for Graduate Education.


43% of final year undergraduate finalists consider themselves ‘certain’ or ‘likely’ to enter postgraduate study

POSTGRADUATE RESEARCHERS IN THE SPOTLIGHT 11

IT REQUIRES THE ABILITY to adopt diverse angles on the same topic, to read and assimilate complex concepts and to step outside of one’s daily work in school to view what can be taken-for-granted assumptions through a critical lens. As Kamler and Thomson (2006) argue, the process of writing is integral to thinking, meaning-making and developing research understanding: postgraduate researchers need to be writing critically throughout the research process.

Teaching critical writing also presents a challenge to most academics. Realising that we frequently advise our students to ‘be more critical’ - yet for the most part fail to clarify what this actually means - we embarked upon this project with a will to work collaboratively to develop our own pedagogy in this key area.

The project focuses on our work with EdD students. The EdD is a part-time, professional doctorate designed for full-time teachers, headteachers and other education

professionals who wish to combine full-time work with part-time study. Taught sessions take place during intensive study schools twice a year, and support materials are made available to students via the University Virtual Learning Environment. The experience of undertaking a professional doctorate of this nature differs considerably from the more traditional, campus-based, full-time PhD route: research tends to be undertaken in the context of the students’ workplace, and the contact with other doctoral students can be rather minimal, resulting at times in feelings of isolation.

In this project, we are using peer assessment as a device to secure students’ engagement in a research community in ways that are meaningful, empowering and self-sustaining. Our aim is to develop postgraduate researchers’ ability to give, receive and act upon constructive critical feedback, so inducting them into the process of peer review. This is a vitally important part of integration into the academic world and

Developing Doctoral Students’ Critical Writing and Reviewing Skills:Through peer assessment

The skill of critical writing presents a significant challenge to most postgraduate research students in Education.



By Joan Smith, Phil Wood, Hilary Burgess and Gareth Lewis, University of Leicester

We frequently advise our students to ‘be more critical’ - yet for the most part fail to clarify what this actually means

Affective barriers and traditions of polite positivity can impede some students’ readiness to give or accept developmental criticism, to the detriment of their progress and their self-esteem as researchers

key to researcher resilience – and yet these skills are often assumed rather than explicitly addressed. Affective barriers and traditions of polite positivity can impede some students’ readiness to give or accept developmental criticism, to the detriment of their progress and their self-esteem as researchers. We see a need to address this by fostering a culture of collective responsibility, mutual support and critical friendship, within which individualism, instrumentalism, one-up-manship and competition are discouraged and research and writing are viewed as a collective endeavour.

Drawing on Kamler and Thomson’s (2006: 5) notion of ‘writing as social practice’, we are working to empower students to develop their own critical writing and peer review community. The project offers students structured and informal opportunities to work with others to: develop an awareness of what

critical writing is; practise and develop their own

critical writing; provide constructive critical feedback via a

peer reviewing system to other students; become integrated into a research

community in a meaningful way.The project was launched through a critical

writing residential weekend. Before the event, participants were interviewed in order to ascertain their understandings of criticality, and their motivation for taking part in the project. Each student was asked to submit a short draft piece of work in advance of the weekend. This was sent to two other students for formative feedback. Each student received three or four drafts on which to comment. As far as possible, we tried to make sure students read and fed back on the work of colleagues they did not know well or had never met.

During the first session on the Friday, an intensive round table discussion involved students in publicly giving feedback to those whose work they had read. Whilst students

were clearly anxious about this, the task was undertaken with tactful professionalism, as students at various stages of the programme (from year one to year four) provided critical feedback to their colleagues.

Day two offered students the option of attending two workshops, the first on ‘Positive Criticality’ and the second on ‘Clarity and Criticality’. The third session of the day prepared students for the next stage of the project, in which they are to act as an editorial board and produce on online journal for and by EdD students. After an initial briefing from the tutor/researchers, students held their first editorial board meeting: roles were identified, jobs listed, key decisions made and a plan drawn up for the next few weeks. At this stage tutors withdrew but were available for students to consult in another part of the building. We were approached just once for guidance during that time – all decisions were made by the editorial board of students. The weekend culminated in a presentation by students about their plans for the journal.

After the residential weekend participants were re-interviewed in order to gather their perceptions of whether and how they had moved on in terms of their understanding of criticality, their resilience in reacting to feedback and their ability to write critically. They will be interviewed again at the end of the academic year and findings will help us to evaluate and review our pedagogies.

Our next project milestone will be the publication of Issue 1 of Bridging the Gap, the organ of a group of EdD students interested in spanning the academic-practice divide. We still have a lot to learn about how to support doctoral students effectively, but this does feel like the start of something very exciting.

This project is funded by the HEA Social Sciences Strategic Project: Teaching research methods in the social sciences.



ReferencesKamler, B. & Thomson, P. (2006) Helping doctoral students write: pedagogies for supervision. Abingdon: Routledge.

An intensive round table discussion involved students in publicly giving feedback to those whose work they had read. Whilst students were clearly anxious about this, the task was undertaken with tactful professionalism

Each student received three or four drafts on which to comment. As far as possible, we tried to make sure students read and fed back on the work of colleagues they did not know well or had never met


Opening up the supervision processI suggest that most supervisors and students would agree with my starting point: supervisors are a vitally important part of the doctoral student’s development and ‘journey’. Yet, until recently, there had been a history of treating supervision as something that takes place behind closed doors. As Pearson and Brew (2002, 138) put it, there has been a tradition of seeing supervision ‘as a set of implicit and unexamined processes’.

This one-time lack of attention to the supervision process and staff development for it has changed in recent years, and certainly since those articles were written, with the advent of a range of documents outlining principles and precepts for supervision and also many publications discussing and sometimes theorising the supervision process (for example, Eley & Murray, 2009; Taylor & Beasley, 2005). The supervision process is now beginning to receive the study and scrutiny that other forms of teaching and learning have received over a much longer period.

One early exception was a study by Hockey (1997) who analysed the supervision process as one which involves a ‘complex craft’, often described metaphorically: guiding, informing, critiquing, timing and foreseeing. Soon after this,

a widely cited study by Delamont et al (1998) discussed how supervisor and student engage in a kind of ‘delicate balancing’ act: we return to her metaphor in the final section. My own research into the supervision process (Wellington, 2010) suggests that both students and supervisors use a range of metaphors in reflecting on supervision. Reflecting on these metaphors helps in understanding and improving the process.

Viewing supervision from both sides From the student’s viewpointDuring interviews and discussions with both PhD and professional doctorate students I have come across a spectrum of perceived needs, expectations and wants, which often contain interesting metaphors: I want a hard worker; ‘toughness’; good guidance; I want the ‘voice of experience’; someone directive yet non-judgemental; someone who leaves space for my initiative; someone to trigger creativity; a good listener. From these discussions, I feel that students’ expectations of supervision can be classified under four main categories: 1 technical and organizational: for example setting deadlines; reminders; a quick response; not changing the goalposts; agreeing parameters and deadlines;2 practical: for example on aspects of writing; practical ideas on methods, access; regular contact; 3 pastoral / affective: for example praise; encouragement; empathy; support; tolerance:; a safety net; 4 philosophical, theoretical, conceptual:for example providing ‘a road map’; keeping me focused/ ‘keeping me on track’; setting boundaries; ‘spotting the gaps’; clarifying; pointing to the literature.From the supervisor’s viewpointAn equally important part of the supervision process is the supervisor’s perspective: What do they want? What do they expect? What do they get from supervising?

Supervising Doctoral Students: A delicate balance

Supervision is a vitally important part of the doctoral student’s development and ‘journey’, and is now beginning to receive more study and scrutiny.

By Jeremy Wellington, University of Sheffield

The supervision process is now beginning to receive the study and scrutiny that other forms of teaching and learning have received over a much longer period




My interviews have elicited a range of responses. Supervisors say that they do it for enjoyment and to learn, to pick up some new references, new ideas and new methodologies. Many gain satisfaction from seeing a student ‘through’ from the first meeting to the viva and even further publication.

These discussions have revealed a range of descriptors and metaphors used to express what the process of supervising or being supervised means to individuals: critical friend, mirror, old slipper, anchor, sounding board, and so on. Others which surfaced included the notions of: a guide over a mountain range, but not to carry your luggage for you; a leader through the ‘doctoral maze’; an adviser; a devil’s advocate; a coach; a gate keeper; a holiday rep; a counsellor; a marriage between two partners; a parental relationship (maternal or paternal); the supervisor as a clock.

The metaphors used do show, as Lakoff and Johnson (1980) put it, evidence of the implicit understandings and views of both supervisors and students. By considering these metaphors we can gain a clearer

grasp of the ‘complex and subtle process’ of supervision. The metaphors used also indicate some of the affective aspects of the process as well as the cognitive.

In Delamont et al’s study (1998) the more committed supervisors were engaging in reflective practice. Considering and focusing on metaphor can be a valuable part of this process. Engaging in such reflection, or ‘meta-supervision’ (Wellington, 2010), is essential for both supervisor and student in making the most of the supervision process.

Concluding remarks: What makes an excellent supervisor? Supervision, like all teaching, requires tact, patience, subtlety, understanding and rapport. Students and supervisors draw upon a variety of metaphors and images when they reflect upon the supervision process: these can be valuable in aiding our understanding of this important process.

There is no one, single, ideal model of the excellent supervisor. But my view is that the ‘good supervisor’ has three key qualities; she or he is aware that all students are different, that different students require different styles of supervision, and that good supervision requires a balancing act between the extremes shown in the table above.

In summary, every student-supervisor relationship is different. There is no single template, style, or strategy which will suit all students; no one metaphor or model of supervision will fit all situations or all phases. The key features of good supervision in the current context are adaptability and flexibility (Pearson & Brew, 2002).

Supervision of PhD and professional doctorate students really is a delicate balancing act.

ReferencesDelamont, S., Atkinson, P. & Parry, O. (1998) Creating a delicate balance: the doctoral supervisor’s dilemmas. Teaching in Higher Education, vol. 3 , no. 2: 157- 172.Eley, A. & Murray, R. (2009) How to be an effective supervisor. Maidenhead: Open University Press. Hockey, J. (1997) A complex craft: UK PhD supervision in the social sciences. Research in Post-Compulsory Education, volume 2: 45-70.Lakoff, G & Johnson, M. (1980) Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Pearson, M. & Brew, A. (2002) Research Training and Supervision Development. Studies in Higher Education, 27(2): 138-43.Taylor, S. & Beasley, N. (2005) A Handbook for Doctoral Supervisors. London, RoutledgeFalmer.Wellington, J. (2010) Making supervision work for you. London; Sage.

Balances from the supervisor’s perspectiveLeaving students alone to ‘get on with it’ pestering, reminding, cajoling. Setting strict deadlines allowing students to manage their own time.Directing, dominating students’ work or ‘leaving them to it’.

Balances from the student’s perspective: power, authority and adviceComplete deference from student, subservience student over confident, has false sense of independence.Student heeds advice slavishly, deferently ignoring advice, blind independence.Supervisor sets the agenda for meetings student sets the agendas.

Balances in the pastoral aspects of supervision Over-interested, patronizing and intrusive indifferent, dis-interested, un-interested.Being overly sociable being aloof.

Balances in the Writing ProcessAllowing students’ writing to be ‘theirs’ supervisor correcting, editing, re-writing, even adding.

Discussions have revealed a range of descriptors and metaphors used to express what the process of supervising or being supervised means to individuals: critical friend, mirror, old slipper, anchor, sounding board, and so on


THE SYMPOSIA AIM to bring some of the benefits that one might gain from attending the main BERA Conference to a potentially wider audience, particularly those in the early stages of their research design. Under the stewardship of Prof David James (Cardiff), Rille Raaper (Glasgow), Fiona Willans (King’s, London) and I were tasked with organising three regional events for postgraduates. Our fourth convenor, Patsy Davies (Manchester), led the effort to further widen the discourse between these postgraduate groups by bringing their ideas together on the forum’s blog (http://berapgforum.wordpress.com/about-us). We have been proactive in gathering feedback from the participants and are continually reviewing the efficacy of our events, and the use of our blog, as a forum for expanding the potential for networking and support.

For postgraduates in Education, many of whom study part-time and/or distance-learning, the idea of an easily accessible network of other postgraduates from across the country with whom they can connect is certainly to be welcomed. For many, postgraduate research can be an isolated experience, particularly for those who are not campus-based. However, as Wellington (2005, 66) notes, ‘doctoral study for the distance learner does not have to be analogous to the ‘loneliness of the long distance runner’.’ Indeed, Wenger’s (1998) seminal work concerning ‘communities of practice’, stresses the importance of ‘learning as social participation,’ and the BERA symposia aim to add additional avenues for otherwise insulated postgraduates across the country to engage with and share their collective experiences as well as providing an initial outlet for their nascent research

ideas. Scott et al (2014, 56) argue that Wenger’s idea of a community of practice might not apply directly to postgraduate learning communities because they lack a common enterprise or goal; however, the authors go on to note that a learning transition is not ‘an isolated individual experience,’ but rather is about entering into ‘new communities (of practice)’. The BERA forum activities fit in nicely with this model as they are targeted very firmly at new or early-stage postgraduates, often making their first moves in independent research at this level.

The first series of events were held across the summer of 2013 in England and Scotland. The stated aim of these events was to provide a less formal space for an exchange of ideas and experiences than a standard academic conference panel, while also offering a chance for people to have an early opportunity to communicate their research to their peers. Each event was ‘guided’ by one or two experienced educational academics, but primarily they provided a space for presentation, feedback and discussion. Those who provided feedback on last year’s events noted the benefits of access to a new and wider audience, small groups of peers, and for non-campus-based researchers a feeling of ‘immersion’ in an academic community that they rarely had access to. As Alan Percy (2014), head of counselling at the University of Oxford, recently observed, it is ‘important to have honest and supportive relationships with other researchers to provide valuable encouragement and reality checking.’ Feedback from one participant of the BERA symposia suggested that the events provided a useful middle ground between university peer/friendship groups and a formal academic panel presentation, where unfamiliar peers provided an additional level of constructive criticism.

The 2014 round of postgraduate symposia were scheduled in the spring and early summer in Glasgow, London and Leicester.

Expanding Postgraduate Learning Communities

In 2012 the BERA Postgraduate Forum decided to launch a new series of postgraduate-led events, which later developed into a series of symposia to be held annually across the UK.

By Adam Burns, University of Leicester

ReferencesPercy, A. (2014) Studying a PhD: don’t suffer in silence. Guardian Online, http://www.theguardian.com/higher-education-network/blog/2014/mar/25/studying-phd-dont-suffer-in-silence-seek-support.Scott, D., Hughes, G., Evans, C., Burke, P. J., Walter, C. & Watson, D. (2014) Learning Transition in Higher Education. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Wellington, J. (2005) An Issue of Distance, in Eley, A. R. and Jennings, R. (eds.) Effective Postgraduate Supervision: Improving the Student/Supervisor Relationship. Maidenhead: Open University Press, pp. 62-68.Wenger, E. (1998) Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning, and Identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.




THE ‘CORE MODULES’ you are likely to attend at your institution will (and perhaps should) encourage all but the most resolute doctoral student to continually re-think his or her preferred methodological approach.

Arguably, this is the central purpose of effective doctoral training: to provide the student with an overview of the many different approaches to research design and methods of data collection. There are some excellent introductory guides to social research, with Luker’s Salsa-dancing into the Social Sciences recommended for those students considering a more qualitative approach (Luker, 2008). You are likely to encounter tutors on your training who are deeply invested in a particular kind of research design or methodology. Regardless of these and your own biases, the student’s task is to select the most appropriate techniques for investigating his or her particular research questions.

Indeed, a typical starting point in my own training at the University of Birmingham was to formulate the questions that my thesis was to be based upon. This exercise led me to re-consider if I really wanted to look at the effectiveness of emotional well-being measures in schools. Reformulating my questions represented a significant departure from my initial research proposal and warranted a radical shift from an experimental design to that of a case study.

Being critical, especially when writing the literature review chapter of your thesis, is

essential and is a capacity that your core training can greatly enhance. The first assignment I completed as part of my training required me to critically appraise a recently published research paper in my substantive field. This increased my awareness of how not to conduct my own research and led me to consider other methodological possibilities.

In any research training, there is a delicate balance between the philosophical and the practical aspects of research. While it is important to know the epistemological and ontological underpinnings of your thesis and appreciate the methodological implications, a disproportional amount of time can be afforded to the philosophy of science when often the doctoral student requires more practical advice about how to implement a method or a design.

Perhaps no doctoral training, however effective, can fully prepare you for the practical problems you will invariably encounter in your own research. There are some excellent texts which have been written by educational researchers about the experience of doing research. Reading Geoff Walford’s book offered much reassurance at a point in my project where I was encountering difficulties negotiating access to research sites (Walford, 2001).

Too much emphasis on data analysis within core training can seem a little pre-emptive. This is because the nature of your thesis is likely to change shape, meaning that the type of data you gather and how you will analyse it is subject to change. In addition, your first year of PhD study is unlikely to involve much, if any, data collection. Fortunately, at my institution, Advanced Training Courses (ATCs) are offered in the Summer semesters throughout the doctoral programme to offer students more nuanced tuition.

Doctoral training should provide you with a comprehensive overview of the entire research process. It will not, nor should not, prescribe how to conduct your thesis. Wider reading in the both the methodological and substantive fields will provide much food for thought for students embarking on a PhD.

Doctoral Research TrainingIt is important to approach doctoral research training with an open mind.

By Clare Rawdin, University of Birmingham

ReferencesLuker, K. (2008) Salsa-dancing into the Social Sciences: research in an age of info-glut. Cambridge, USA: Harvard University Press.Walford, G. (2001) Doing Qualitative Educational Research: a personal guide to the research process. London: Continuum.

Perhaps no doctoral training, however effective, can fully prepare you for the practical problems you will invariably encounter in your own research



HOW QUICKLY ONE FORGETS; five years on, in amongst a growing family, I am now in my penultimate year of an educational doctorate.

I, like many other doctoral students, embarked on my doctorate shortly after commencing a career in higher education. My Masters gave me the grounding of research skills, but I wanted to develop and broaden my skill set. I wanted my research to inform and improve my practice, thus producing knowledge that has a direct impact on my professional endeavour (Doncaster & Lester, 2002).

Whilst researching part-time certainly has its challenges (see Wellington & Sykes, 2006, for an exploration of the impact on personal lives), there are clear advantages in the way in which knowledge and practice inform and change one another. As Bourner et al (2001) would suggest, I also straddle the worlds of being both a ‘professional researcher ‘and a ‘researching professional’.

Whilst I struggle to find the time to read, collect data and write, I enjoy the opportunities I have to work on my doctorate. Currently I work in a research-led institution, and evidence-based practice is at the heart of what we do. My conversations at work inform my studies and my studies inform my conversations at work. My reading at work informs my reading for my studies and vice versa. Both complement each other and stretch my field of knowledge and enquiry. The community of practice (Brown & Duguid, 1991) where I work develops my social capital, giving me access to ‘information, ideas, support and cooperation’ (Pilbeam & Denyer, 2009).

Nonetheless, I do not undertake my doctoral studies in the same institution I work in. There are drawbacks to this situation: the lack of proximity has impacted on my connectivity within my cohort of EdD students (Pilbeam & Denyer, 2009). Ultimately the very reason I chose to do an EdD (rather than a PhD) has been lost. As Pilbeam and Denyer (2009) suggest, learning to do a doctorate occurs informally ‘in the social practice of doctoral student communities’ (p.304) and consequently I miss out on this aspect. Yet on the other hand, I value the’ distance or ‘detachment’ between the workplace and my professional life’ (Wellington & Sykes, 2006). This distance enables a greater degree of reflection between the ‘swampy lowland’ (Doncaster & Lester, 2002) and the alternative vantage point.

My study, however, is very sporadic. Whilst undertaking the taught element of the course, deadlines were non-negotiable; a ‘doctorate in a tight compartment’ (Wellington & Sykes, 2006). Now I am writing my thesis and I dictate my own deadlines. Given the priority for my paid role, these often slip. Teaching preparation, assessment, conference planning, validations and revalidations of degrees all interfere with any possibility of progressing in a regular fashion. One way I have found to enforce deadlines is to apply to speak at conferences, which ultimately means there is no escape.

All in all, being a part-time doctoral student is very hard work. In between juggling family and work commitments my doctorate just fills in the gaps, or makes gaps where I didn’t realise they existed. Nonetheless, the rewards outweigh the sacrifices. I value the opportunity to take the longer view and peer up from my papers once in a while to remember why I value education and the impact it can have on people’s lives.

The View from the Part-Time Doctoral Student

In 2009 when I finished my Masters in education, with my three-month old baby in one arm and my bound thesis in the other, I vowed to my husband that I would never do anything like this again.

By Louise Pagden, University of Winchester

ReferencesBourner, T., Bowden, R. & Laing, S. (2001) Professional Doctorates in England. Studies in Higher Education. 26: pp. 65-83. Brown, J. & Duguid, P. (1991) Organizational learning and communities of practice: Toward a unified view of working, learning and innovation. Organisational Science (2): pp. 40 -57. Doncaster, K. & Lester, S. (2002) Capability and its development: experiences from a work-based doctorate. Studies in Higher Education. 27 (1), pp.91 – 101. Pilbeam, C. & Denyer, D. (2009) Lone Scholar or community member? The role of student networks in doctoral education in a UK management school. Studies in Higher Education. Vol 34, No. 3 May 2009, pp.301-318.Wellington, J. & Sikes, P. (2006) A doctorate in a tight compartment: why do students choose a professional doctorate and what impact does it have on their personal and professional lives? Studies in Higher Education. Vol. 31, No. 6, pp. 723-734.



ADDITIONALLY, conducting a research project necessitates a great deal of attention and enthusiasm to achieve a certain level of success. Yet this extreme care with which a PhD student has to approach his study may lead to unbearable feelings of fatigue, tediousness and loneliness. Many university students have therefore experienced symptoms of depression, especially those coming from a less privileged background (Ibrahim et al, 2013).

Furthermore, international students who have come from different parts of the world with the intention to study in the UK are often more likely to encounter certain difficulties leading to an increased level of unhappiness. Some of these difficulties stem from the new environment, language barriers, loneliness, a lack of self-confidence, social and religious discrimination, a desire to succeed and ensuing stress. All this can make it difficult for students to cope, especially at the beginning of their academic journey.

Personally, I am not surprised that a great number of PhD students can end up losing their appetite to continue studying, especially those who are in their first year. As a PhD student, I have personally come across different challenges that have affected my studies and social life. Had it not been for all the support that I have received from the university, I would not have been able to articulate my feelings and speak about my PhD-related depression and thus eventually improve my situation. In addition, I have met and heard from a considerable number of international PhD students across the country who have displayed similar symptoms, shared similar feelings and who were on a slippery slope ending in serious depression. Accordingly, talking about depression in academia seems to be common these days (Wang et al, 2009).

Some typical statements that I have heard from colleagues are: “I feel that my supervisor sees me

as an idiot”; “I cannot articulate while talking to him”; “I forgot all my good ideas and started to discuss a stupid nonsense idea” or “I cannot cope with my research; I really want to skip this rough life and go back home.”

I personally have had many bad feelings about myself and my abilities until I stopped myself to ask: what is the next step? How can I cope with this and progress to the next stage? What if I failed? What about my family’s trust? What about other PhD students who seem to be enjoying their research and their life? This means that there must be light at the end of the tunnel.

So what strategies can a student choose to shorten this long research journey and cope with PhD-related depression – and even enjoy themselves? In the absence of a comprehensive study presenting possible solutions for PhD students suffering from depression, the following points are a few suggestions how to improve the whole experience: Stop worrying about feeling down all the time and

start to join seminars and workshops where you can meet other PhD students. Talk about your problems to a PhD friend as he or

she may have the same feeling and want someone to discuss it with. Persistence is a key word – starting with a little

task is crucial since then you will find that even very complex projects can be done. Plan your work but do not get too attached to it,

otherwise if something were not to go according to the plan, it would be another source of stress. Do not avoid supervisory meetings, as it is

important to discuss with your supervisor any issue as he/she might provide relevant advice. Enjoy other hobbies and do not waste time

procrastinating behind your computer pretending that you are working. Leave it for a reasonable time, enjoy yourself and then come back with a refreshed mind.

In the end, remind yourself that having been accepted by the University for a PhD study is a positive sign, indicating that you are perceived as being capable to succeed in this new academic environment. So be proud of yourself and start working.

PhD and Depression There is no doubt that PhD research is a painstaking process requiring a plethora of skills, such as efficient reading, good time management and at least an adequate level of academic writing.

By Sukeina Ahmad, Exeter University

ReferencesIbrahim, A.K., Kelly, S. & Glazebrook, C. (2013) Socioeconomic status and the risk of depression among UK higher education students. Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology 48(9): 1491-1501.Wang, K. T., Yuen, M. & Slaney, R.B. (2009) Perfectionism, depression, loneliness, and life satisfaction: a study of high school students in Hong Kong. The Counseling Psychologist 37(2): 249-274.


AS A CO-CONVENOR OF THE EDD DIRECTORS NATIONAL NETWORK (EdDNN), this is a question that is timely and relevant for me, and for the 70+ colleagues who form this group, to consider – though I note that the views presented here are mine alone and do not claim to represent the Network or the individuals that constitute it.

The EdDNN was set up in 1998 in order to provide a forum for support and discussion amongst those leading EdD programmes across the country. Though well before my time, one of its early functions was to support recognition of professional doctorates (PDs) as research degrees in their own right. Sixteen years on, those involved know that there is still a fight to be had in some quarters over their legitimacy. The apocryphal story of the candidate who was told that his/her EdD thesis ‘was so good it could almost have been a PhD’ still irritates; as do university systems which appear to find it hard to know where

to ‘put’ EdDs (research degree or taught programme?).

However, all these matters are part of a more fundamental question within professional doctorates about the relationship between the workplace and the university (for example, Burgess, Weller & Wellington, 2011), itself part of that most fundamental of arguments about the relationship between ‘theory’ and ‘practice’ which we have seen rehearsed repeatedly, in the modern era at least since Dewey (for example, 1938). Despite immense progress in the ways in which we understand learning and its relationship to wider life, this issue seems to reappear ubiquitously in educational policy-making and practice. For EdDs, and those leading them, there is a further layer of complication. Participants are engaged on a research degree and must therefore also negotiate the tension between ‘teaching’ and ‘research’, itself a potential minefield in university and school settings.

What, then, might the National Network do in terms of supporting members in this respect? Of course there are detailed matters that we can share to make programmes run smoothly. But I would suggest that more fundamentally we must offer each other the support needed to stand up for what a university can do, uniquely, in a contemporary society that is making education a commodity to be traded

The EdD Directors National Network

What role can a national network for EdD programmes play and how can it best support programme leaders in their work with postgraduate researchers?

By Nick Pratt, University of Plymouth

The apocryphal story of the candidate who was told that his/her EdD thesis ‘was so good it could almost have been a PhD’ still irritates; as do university systems which appear to find it hard to know where to ‘put’ EdDs (research degree or taught programme?)


As money increasingly flows away from university education departments towards schools and colleges, we have to be really clear about what we can offer to help it flow back again, but in a principled manner



by all and sundry. As money increasingly flows away from university education departments towards schools and colleges, we have to be really clear about what we can offer to help it flow back again, but in a principled manner. My sense is that specific, high-profile initiatives in teacher education, such as Schools Direct, are indicative of a more general feeling afoot in the wider education community that there is little need for ‘academic’ work. With a bit of practice-based research here and some reflective thinking there, all educational problems can be solved in-house.

Professional doctorates are interestingly placed in this respect. Of course much can, and has been, achieved by education professionals in their own settings – and, contrariwise, academics don’t always have an answer – though we always have something to say! Indeed, part of the raison d’être of the PD has been to validate professionals’ work, recognising rightly that professionals solve problems in practice in sophisticated ways, and acknowledging and legitimising this process. PDs therefore implicitly, indeed often explicitly, advocate against the idea of the superiority of one form of knowledge over another. But if all that PDs did was to accredit professional work with a university badge it would call into question what academic activity actually was and what it was for, and lead to a position in which one must almost apologise for undertaking it.

Universities therefore need to make clear what they are bringing to their relationship with professional educators and one role of the EdDNN is in supporting each other in clarifying this. For me, two things stand out: methodological expertise and rigour; and conceptual understanding which allows participants to re-imagine the world in ways they don’t otherwise have access to – theory, in other words. In the competitive world of the postgraduate marketplace, methodology

somehow feels easier to offer; rooted in practice and professionally familiar. And, of course, it is vital too in helping PD students become skilled ‘researchers’ of and in their own settings. Yet theorising is perhaps the more important because without a fresh framework within which to think, one is likely to end up back in the same place having gone round whichever reflective cycle is currently in vogue. Theoretical frameworks, particularly those that open up the kinds of social issues that educators tend to want to ask questions about, offer people a way – perhaps the only way – to break out of these cycles. My assertion, then, is that we need to trumpet the role of theorisation and persuade people that it is worth investing in if the rhetoric of transformative education is to become real for them.

Surely this ‘maximisation of reason’ (Furlong, 2013) is what universities, uniquely, are for; and hence what we should be shouting about? However, given the general public suspicion of theory, in advertising EdD programmes it might seem easier to focus on notions of ‘practice-based research’ and ‘critical reflection’. Beyond practical issues of management, I therefore see a network such as the EdDNN as a supportive space to explore these questions and to communicate the excitement of theorising, as well as practice-research, to the professional audience we want to work with. Fortunately, if ironically, as the grip of performativity strengthens, theorising seems to appear ever more exciting.

ReferencesBurgess, H., Weller, G. & Wellington, J. J. (2011) ‘Tensions in the purpose and impact of professional doctorates’. Work Based Learning e-Journal, 2 (1), [Online]. Available at: http://wblearning-ejournal.com/archive/10-10- 11/E3020%20rtb.pdf (Accessed: 14th November 2011).Dewey, J. (1938) Experience & Education. New York, NY: Kappa Delta Pi. Furlong, J. (2013) Education – an anatomy of the discipline: rescuing the university project? London: Routledge.

Beyond practical issues of management, I therefore see a network such as the EdDNN as a supportive space to explore these questions and to communicate the excitement of theorising, as well as practice-research, to the professional audience we want to work with

Much can, and has been, achieved by education professionals in their own settings – and, contrariwise, academics don’t always have an answer – though we always have something to say!

A UNIVERSITY SINCE 2005, Northampton comprises six Schools and 14,000 students and has embarked on a programme of major changes, asserting itself a leader in social enterprise and innovation and planning a new campus. Our School of Education has a good reputation for teaching but despite its current tally of 40 PhD students it is less renowned for research. In 2013, we three were seconded for a minimum of two years as the first substantive researchers at senior lecturer level within our School’s Centre for Education and Research, with Dr Cristina Devecchi since appointed an Associate Professor. In a volatile national context of rife marketization and increasingly scarce research funding in education, our core role is to build educational research capacity within our University. In this paper we relate our professional stories, reflecting on where we have come from, what we are doing as educational researchers in a highly dynamic space and where this might lead.

Dr Cristina Devecchi My academic career started in my mid-30s when I pursued a Master’s degree in Special

and Inclusive Education at the University of Cambridge. The Master’s was followed by an MPhil in Educational Research and a PhD. After working for a year as a research assistant at an EU-funded project in a London university, I applied for a position at the University of Northampton. I was appointed Lecturer in 2009, Senior Lecturer in 2011, and Associate Professor in 2013. During the first four years I taught mainly educational research modules at undergraduate and graduate level and supervised PhD students. Besides my contractual 550 teaching hours, I continued researching at national and international levels, presenting at conferences, getting published, and forging international links with colleagues in Brazil and Italy. Working at a teaching university meant my research activity was mostly at weekends and during holidays. I am committed to integrating research into this new university’s systems and culture so am a member of Senate, Deputy Chair of a research board, Senate representative at the Research and Enterprise Committee and Deputy Research Leader in my school. I am also increasingly involved with the University’s status as the only UK Ashoka U Changemaker Campus, and keen to enable academics and student support staff to become research-literate and research-involved.

Dr Jane Murray My own introduction to educational research was the BEd degree framed by the four key educational disciplines that I completed in England in 1983. Subsequently I taught for 20 years in early years and primary education but always regretted leaving initial teacher education before the optional fourth Honours year. In 1998, despite teacher education policy distancing theoretical rigour, I embarked on an MA Education and found the research

Building Research Capacity: Stories from a new University’s School of Education

We are three educational researchers working together in the School of Education at the University of Northampton.

In a volatile national context of rife marketization and increasingly scarce research funding in education, our core role is to build educational research capacity within our University



By Cristina Devecchi, Jane Murray and David Preece, University of Northampton

fascinating: my dissertation focused on the implementation of the first Foundation Stage Curriculum. Next, I completed NPQH, including practitioner research, but found the experience intellectually inferior to the Master’s. In 2003 I moved to HE as a Senior Lecturer in early years education and have remained research active, for example, contributing to the Teaching and Learning Research Programme and completing my PhD part-time with focus on young children as researchers. My new role includes building schools’ research partnerships, facilitating colleagues’ research engagement and dissemination and my own research activity across numerous projects at local and international levels.

Dr David Preece After a PGCE in the 1970s, I spent most of my working life outside education, managing and developing social care services for children with autism. To further my knowledge, I undertook a PG Cert in Autism at the University of Birmingham. Twenty years after my previous university experience I was back on campus, but with new-found passion and interest. I then completed an MEd in Special Education (Autism) in 2001 and undertook a PhD (as a hobby!) while working full-time. I was awarded my PG Cert in Research Methods in Education in 2005 and my PhD in 2010. Through the noughties I worked as a regional tutor for Birmingham University, teaching and supervising up to Masters level. I found teaching enjoyable and satisfying - but even more I enjoyed undertaking research and supporting others with theirs. I was appointed as Senior Lecturer in SEN at Northampton in 2012; and when this research secondment became available, I went for it. In addition to my own research activity, I am engaged in building research capacity within the school and with the third sector.

Developing capacityAlthough we come from different backgrounds we all have a passion for education and evidence-led teaching; alongside continuing to teach in our specialist fields we all teach research methods and supervise PhD students. Our personal experiences of researching and using others’ research to inform our practice have made us aware of the crucial importance of research in education and the difference it can make to people’s lives. We share our passion, enthusiasm and commitment with colleagues, with the intention of making the School of Education at the University of Northampton a place where research and teaching are two equal

sides of the same coin.Our two-year clock is ticking. Effective action

planning and our visibility are crucial success factors. Equally, we are all ‘link researchers’ for different teams within the school, supporting colleagues to engage with research. We have established a regular programme of research seminars and informal colloquia led by academic as well as administrative colleagues, and open to staff and students, raising awareness of research activity and nurturing the developing university’s research community. Research has become a standing agenda item at School Fora, so the whole school is aware of its own national and international research engagement. We are developing links across other departments in our university, establishing and enhancing research partnerships with schools, FE colleges, and other HEIs in the UK alongside growing our international success.

Our ‘research-led’ roles are a departure for the University of Northampton’s School of Education, which has historically given primacy to teaching. We remain motivated by the strong belief that education needs research and that increasingly research in the social sciences requires an understanding of education. Furthermore, we are convinced that the systematic production of new knowledge gained through rigorous research will be the key success factor for education, going forward. The multi-disciplinary and multi-professional experiences we bring to research enable us to support our in-house colleagues and build bridges with colleagues and stakeholders beyond. As the university transforms, new opportunities for growing and sustaining our intellectual capital will arise. Our developing roles fit within our University’s post-REF2014 strategy of intellectual capital building and its mission of ‘Transforming Lives, Inspiring Change’. Increasing knowledge production capacity and research culture are considerable challenges for our School of Education yet as new models of teacher training develop, a shared awareness exists that Schools of Education must change or perish. Supported by our Vice-Chancellor and managers, we are increasing the value of research in our School of Education and enhancing its capacity to bring about positive change.



Our two-year clock is ticking. Effective action planning and our visibility are crucial success factors


ONE OF THE LANDMARKS in the supervision-as pedagogy-case came in a 1995 issue of The Australian Universities Review (Vol. 38, no. 2), when editors Bill Green and the late Alison Lee brought together a range of ‘down-under’ scholars to discuss ‘postgraduate studies/postgraduate pedagogy’. The special issue addressed the emergence of a mass higher education system in which a normative ‘rational’ science model of research and supervision and discourses of ‘quality’, ‘experience’, ‘competency’ and ‘accountability’ were rapidly becoming dominant. In this context, the editors and authors collectively argued, the PhD was still subject to its popular caricature of apprenticeship. This ignored key questions of disciplinarity, identity and the production and reproduction of knowledge and knowledge elites. While addressing the Australian context, the special issue also suggested that the same practices could be seen elsewhere, including in Britain.

Arguably, much of what the writers in this special issue saw as trends in higher education postgraduate education have indeed become reality. British universities no longer see the PhD as the production of a ‘genius elite’ (Yeatman, 1995); rather it is ‘training’ for a career in research or teaching either in higher education or elsewhere. It would be hard to find a British university that does not now have a Graduate school and/or Academic Development Unit which runs a menu of doctoral training programmes. Some of course also have Research Council funded Doctoral Training Centres which offer ‘core’ methods modules, as well as master classes. Supervision too has become more formalized and normalized with various kinds of confirmation papers and vivas, annual reports, and proforma to provide audit trails of supervision meetings. Doctoral education is now much more than the sole responsibility of the supervisor.

However, a recent Google search, combined with conversation on social media, suggests that in Britain, despite all this ‘academic

De-institutionalising Doctoral Education: The DIY PhD?

In the humanities and social sciences, the PhD is usually equated with a supervision relationship; thinking about this supervision relationship as a pedagogy is however relatively recent.


By Pat Thomson, Professor of Education, The University of Nottingham

British universities no longer see the PhD as the production of a ‘genius elite’ (Yeatman, 1995); rather it is ‘training’ for a career in research or teaching either in higher education or elsewhere

A recent Google search, combined with conversation on social media, suggests that in Britain, despite all this ‘academic development’ there seems to be pretty patchy institutional engagement with supervisors on the topic of postgraduate pedagogies



development’ there seems to be pretty patchy institutional engagement with supervisors on the topic of postgraduate pedagogies - despite the growing body of research in and around supervision pedagogies and doctoral education. There is even less discussion with supervisors about the changes that might be produced by what I see as rapidly expanding DIY doctoral education practices.

Doctoral researchers have probably always acted outside of the supervision relationship, talking to each other, swapping ideas, books and experiences. These days it would be a rare supervisor, graduate school or academic developer who frowned on self-managed reading groups - such groups are often formally organised within institutions, and more often than not, within shared disciplinary frames. Supervisors also are not averse to referring doctoral researchers to selected volumes from the shelves of advice books that are now available on every aspect of the PhD. There are also now academic writing groups that function in the same way as reading groups, within and beyond universities and within disciplines (Aitchison & Guerin, 2014).

The plethora of advice books (Kamler & Thomson, 2008) were probably the first major indication of the trend to de-institutionalise doctoral education through DIY pedagogy. The advent of social media has exponentially accelerated it. Doctoral researchers can now access a range of websites such as LitReviewHQ, PhD2Published and The Three Month Thesis youtube channel. They can read blogs written by researchers and academic developers such as Thesis Whisperer, Doctoral Writing SIG, Explorations of Style, and my own blog, Patter. They can synchronously chat on social media about research via general hashtags #phdchat #phdforum and #acwri or discipline-specific hashtags such as #twitterstorians or #socphd. They can buy webinars, coaching and courses in almost all aspects of doctoral research. Doctoral researchers are also themselves increasingly blogging about their own experiences and some are also offering advice to others. Much of this socially mediated DIY activity is international, cross-disciplinary and all day/all night.

We know too little about how doctoral researchers weigh up the advice they get

from social media compared to that of their institutional grad school and their supervisors. We also don’t know much about how supervisors engage with this DIY sphere, particularly about how much they talk with their supervisees about what they are doing online. We don’t know what support doctoral researchers get to work out what is good and bad online advice. We don’t know how supervisors and academic developers build on what doctoral researchers are learning elsewhere.

As someone who is engaged in this DIY field with books, blogs and twitter, it seems pretty apparent to me that something is happening here and we (collectively) don’t know what it is. It’s largely outside the normative audit oriented training processes that Green and Lee were so concerned about. It’s a field which is fragmented, partially marketised, unregulated and a bit feral. But it’s big, and it’s powerful, more and more doctoral researchers are into it, and it is profoundly pedagogical. I’m concerned that British universities are generally (and of course there are exceptions, but generally is the case) not helping supervisors to think about this DIY supervision trend and what it means for how doctoral education is changing and the implications for their supervision practice.

ReferencesAitchison, C., & Guerin, C. (Eds.) (2014) Writing groups for doctoral education and beyond. London: Routledge.Kamler, B., & Thomson, P. (2008) The failure of dissertation advice books: towards alternative pedagogies for doctoral writing. Educational Researcher, 37(8), 507-518. Yeatman, A. (1995) Making supervision relationships accountable: graduate student logs. Australian Universities Review, 38(2), 9-11.

WebsitesDoctoral Writing SIG: http://doctoralwriting.wordpress.com Explorations of Style: http://explorationsofstyle.comLitreview HQ: http://www.literaturereviewhq.comPatter: htto://patthomson.wordpress.comPhD 2Published: http://www.phd2published.comThreemonththesis: https://www.youtube.com/user/threemonththesisThe Thesis Whisperer: www.thesiswhisperer.com

The next issue of RI will focus on ‘Respecting Children – A Global Issue’.

Doctoral researchers can synchronously chat on social media about research via general hashtags #phdchat #phdforum and #acwri or discipline-specific hashtags such as #twitterstorians or #socphd. They can buy webinars, coaching and courses in almost all aspects of doctoral research

26 OPEN ACCESS


THE HIGHER EDUCATION COUNCIL FOR ENGLAND AND WALES (HEFCE) latest policy statement now takes the evolving policy further, especially as it affects the post-2014 research excellence framework (REF) (HEFCE, 2014). In this article we raise questions about what is proposed, pointing to anomalies and contradictions in the OA policy that in the long term could leave all stakeholders, other than commercial publishers, worse off than they are now.

The Finch committee’s stance

was to give precedence to the ‘Gold’ model of OA, in which access to a given paper depends on meeting the publishers’ so-called ‘Article Processing Charges (APCs)’ through, for example, building these costs into research block grant allocations for administration by universities and research institutions. UK higher education minister David Willetts supported the committee’s position. And the UK research councils, while acknowledging the importance of other models in the transition period, for the longer term followed suit (Research Councils UK, 2013). Subsequently, the Parliamentary Select Committee on Open Access took a somewhat different view, stressing more explicitly the merits of the alternative ‘Green’ model, in which manuscripts accepted for publication, following satisfactory peer review, are deposited in an online repository within a fixed period of publication (House of Commons BIS Committee, 2013) - six to 12 months in the case of the social sciences. As the committee’s report puts it, “We strongly support author freedom of

choice between Green and Gold open access.”

HEFCE’s policy statement similarly accepts the Green model, spelling out in detail how it should operate and the rules governing a paper’s eligibility for submission in the next REF: “outputs must have been deposited in an institutional or subject repository on acceptance of publication and made open access within a specified time period” (paragraph 5).

This is good news not only for the Learned Societies that run subscription journals to which authors can submit articles free of charge, but also for researchers themselves, not only in the UK but across the world, who may not have access to research funding supplements or other sources of finance to pay commercial publishers’ APCs.

But, as is often the case in these kinds of debates, matters are not quite as simple as they might seem. While endorsing the Green model in her March 31st letter to Vice Chancellors (paragraph 6), HEFCE chief executive Professor Madeleine Atkins quotes approvingly Finch and the UK research funders’ support for Gold as “the most sustainable and preferred model for the long term. We share that view...” The letter goes on to “welcome publishers’ efforts to offer sustainable and cost-efficient open access options to the research community and to convert existing titles to open access”.

Journey to Open Access: The latest stage?

In the Spring 2013 Issue of RI, Editor Hilary Burgess opened debate about online Open Access (OA) for research publications, offering a platform for a range of responses to the Government’s Finch Committee report (Burgess, 2013; Finch, 2012).

The Finch committee’s stance was to give precedence to the ‘Gold’ model of OA, in which access to a given paper depends on meeting the publishers’ so-called ‘Article Processing Charges

John BynnerEmeritus Professor of Social Sciences in Education, Institute of Education, University of London

Harvey GoldsteinProfessor of Social Statistics, University of Bristol

OPEN ACCESS 27


A number of issues arise from this apparently contradictory position of supporting Green while asserting Gold is best.

First, there remains a mixed economy, in which commercial publishers continue to exert dominance over research publication through journal subscriptions, excessive downloading charges and now APCs - at up to £2000 an article.

Secondly, in a highly competitive research funding climate, any diversion of funding away from research towards meeting other costs such as APCs is unlikely to be done as a supplement to Government research investment. Rather it will be through further reduction in the funds available for actually doing research.

Thirdly, neither the Finch report nor subsequent commentaries, including HEFCE’s, discuss, in any depth, the possible effects of the UK policy, and potentially similar policies elsewhere, on the international free flow of scientific information. The disadvantaging of poor countries who cannot afford to subsidise the APCs of the major journal publishers is one likely consequence, leading to further concentration of research in relatively wealthy nations. The prevailing confusion is exemplified by the Sweden-based Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ)’s rejection for listing any journal published under the Green model.

There is an urgent need to agree international standards for all of these purposes, establishing common policy internationally on what defines OA and a common set of rules for deciding whether any given publication complies with it. The forum for undertaking the needed standardization could be UNESCO,

in collaboration with such other international consumers of research literature as OECD right through to the individual funding bodies in every country. In particular, the involvement of publishers, while legitimate, should not be dominant.

An important additional concern, to which little attention has been paid, is the needs of non-specialists – including academics in other specialist fields, policy users and the general public who are most likely to be best served by accessible accounts of established research findings rather than journal articles written primarily for a readership of other specialists.

In the light of these considerations we believe that OA still has some way to go in working out what it means for the worldwide research community and how the need for it is best served by policy.

One of the important and exciting developments that we believe will be seen in the next few years is the rise of open source software, such as OJS (http://pkp.sfu.ca/ojs/) for online publication. In contrast to the very large profits enjoyed currently by journal publishers and likely to continue under the Gold model, such online publishing can be done relatively cheaply while maintaining high quality reviewing and editing.

Some preliminary calculations, based upon the costs of the online Journal of Longitudinal and Life Course Studies, with which we are closely involved, suggests that profit margins of up to 50% are currently being enjoyed by many commercial publishers, partly because they pay nothing for the services of editors and reviewers.

In the light of such returns for

‘Gold’ journals it seems only right to ask if they should be underwritten from the public subsidies to be handed out by the research councils and other funding bodies. In fact Finch proposed, from a suggested budget of £50-60m to support OA, an additional £38m of HE expenditure dedicated to meeting the cost of APCs. In contrast, support for repositories under the Green model was suggested at only £3-5m. Thus, on economic grounds alone there would seem to be a strong case for Government to provide funds for Green publications, at far less cost than the proposed subsidy for Gold publications.

We believe that there is a strong case for re-opening the debate on OA, starting from a broad look at the likely future publishing landscape, using a proper evaluation of user needs and a realistic set of costing scenarios. Before the current access models and provision become set in stone, it is definitely the time to think again.

ReferencesBurgess, H. (2013) Open access: the future of academic publishing? Research Intelligence, 120 11-25.Finch, J. (2012) Accessibility, sustainability and excellence: how to expand access to research publications. Report of the Working Group on Expanding Access to Published Research Findings. www.researchinfonet/org/wp-content. HEFCE (2014) Policy for Open Access in the post-2014 Research Excellence Framework. Higher Education Funding Council for England. House of Commons Business, Innovation and Skills committee (2013) Fifth Report of Session 2013-2014.Research Councils UK (2013) RCUK Policy on Open Access and Supporting Guidance. http://www.rcuk.ac.uk/RCUK-prod/assets/documents/documents/RCUKOpenAccessPolicy.pdf.

The involvement of publishers, while legitimate, should not be dominant

Thus, on economic grounds alone there would seem to be a strong case for Government to provide funds for Green publications, at far less cost than the proposed subsidy for Gold publications

28 SPECIAL INTEREST GROUPS

EDUCATIONAL RESEARCHERS IN BERA are being put to work on addressing the challenges of global change and exacerbating social inequalities that diminish the lives of many children and young people. The Respecting Children and Young People project arose initially from discussions amongst three of the BERA special interest groups (SIGs) that have direct interest in issues of equality: Social Justice, Race and Ethnicity Education, and Sexualities. We wanted to use the research done within our SIGs to inform public debate prior to the Westminster election in May 2015, celebrating the work of our members and demonstrating how it can be used to provide an evidence base for policy that has issues of equality and social justice at its heart. The project has now extended to six SIGs, including involvement of the Inclusive Education, Youth Studies and Informal Education and Practitioner Research SIGs.

Connected to BERA’s 40th Anniversary, our project is focused upon developing policy recommendations on issues related to the lived experience and futures of children and young people. Some of BERA’s leading educational researchers are working alongside other members of the collaborating SIGs to produce an alternative policy manifesto that is informed by research on equality in education from the past 40 years; through this manifesto we aim to raise the profile

of educational research by actively promoting our alternative manifesto amongst politicians, lobby groups, NGOs, social media and the press.

We are working towards the production of our policy manifesto through a combination of individual and joint SIG activities and events. If you are a member of the participating SIGs you may be invited to work on your SIG’s contribution to the manifesto. There are also some events planned during this year’s annual Conference at the Institute of Education. The Social Justice and Race, Ethnicity and Education SIGs are independently holding members-only workshops on 22 September, and the Sexualities SIG will be discussing the project at two symposia during the Conference. If you would like to know more about individual activities within the participating SIGs, contact the SIG convenors. Representatives from the SIGs will be meeting in October at a joint workshop to develop a draft of the manifesto.

We are inviting the wider BERA membership to contribute to our work through our public blog http://berarespectingchildren.wordpress.com. On this blog we have been posting ‘think pieces’ from SIG members and manifesto contributors. These posts identify the themes that will be addressed in our manifesto. Other BERA members are welcome to engage with this work, acting as critical friends by helping us to identify any

oversights, give guidance on where we might find additional research to support the positions put forward, and also to help us refine the policy recommendations for our manifesto. We are also looking for critical friends for a formal consultation on the draft in November 2014. If you would like to contribute to the project in this way, or have ideas about how else you might engage with our agenda, please contact Social Justice SIG convenor, Ruth Boyask, at [email protected].

And finally, keep a watchful eye on your emails for an invitation to our release event in London, in early 2015.

Ruth BoyaskPlymouth UniversityVini LanderUniversity of ChichesterPam AlldredBrunel UniversityKaty VigursStaffordshire UniversityJennifer SprattUniversity of AberdeenIan McGimpseyUniversity of Birminghamd’Reen StruthersUniversity of Roehampton

Respecting Children and Young People: Learning from the past; redesigning the future

The creation of BERA’s Respecting Children and Young People project stemmed from discussions amongst members of BERA special interest groups that have a direct interest in issues of equality.


THE PACE AND RADICAL NATURE of recent and anticipated changes in educational legislation across the four nations of the UK is considerable, and yet there are also significant differences between them, particularly with regard to policy, provision and practice in the area of special and inclusive education. Last November over 70 people attended a day conference at the University of Cambridge to consider these shifting and sometimes contradictory educational landscapes. The aim of the conference, organised by the BERA Special Interest Group for Inclusive Education, was to avoid narrow debates around the placement of individual children, but rather to take account of broader national concerns and developments. The idea for the event grew out of a discussion by members of the Inclusive Education SIG during the 2012 BERA Conference in Manchester. There was a strong consensus that the focus of the SIG’s next event should represent and bring together the interests of all four nations of the UK.

Our speakers were Dr Jean Ware (University of Bangor, Wales), Professor Sheila Riddell (University of Edinburgh, Scotland), Dr Ron Smith (Queen’s University, Belfast, Northern Ireland) and Professor Brahm Norwich (University of Exeter, England). Whilst the talks were highly diverse they all took careful account of how policy and practice in special and inclusive education have been shaped by broader national and, indeed,

international political, social and cultural changes. By exploring the critical concerns of each nation in the UK, the speakers encouraged us to challenge and extend our understandings of commonalities and differences across all four educational systems.

Whilst it is not possible to provide much detail from the talks, we have selected some ‘starting points’ offered by the speakers to help illustrate the complexity of the field. Thus, Jean Ware explored the key role that education has played in the development of a bilingual Wales, and the, sometimes unintended, consequences of the Welsh Language Strategy on policy and practice in special and inclusive education. Like the other speakers, she drew attention to how changes in one aspect of education (such as, in Wales, literacy and numeracy strategies, and teacher education) can have rippling effects on the everyday experiences of those learners identified with special needs. Sheila Riddell outlined how Scottish social policy is traditionally based on a strong commitment to the principles of social justice and inclusion. She also argued that historically Scottish policy on special and inclusive education has been both similar to and different from legislation in England, but that greater divergence has taken place following Scottish devolution, raising further questions in the light of the forthcoming Scottish Referendum. Ron Smith reminded us that 15 years has passed since the signing of the Belfast, or ‘Good Friday’ Agreement, which committed all participants to

a future based on the celebration of diversity and the principles of equality, partnership and mutual respect. However, he questioned how far the recent government review of Special Educational Needs and Inclusion has seized the opportunity for a radical review. Finally, Brahm Norwich placed the new statutory system of identifying special educational needs in England in the context of the substantial changes to the governance and funding of schools, not only in terms of the new system of funding special educational needs but also the introduction of free schools and increasing numbers of academies.

Readers who are members of BERA’s Inclusive Education SIG can find out more by visiting the SIG’s webpage on the BERA website, as all four speakers have kindly allowed their presentations to be uploaded onto the site. We are also delighted that the Editors of the British Journal of Special Education have accepted a proposal for a Special Edition based on the four presentations for their December 2014 issue. Our thanks go to all the delegates for their contributions to the conference and, of course, to the four speakers whose thoughtful and thought-provoking presentations ensured its success by stimulating lively and informative discussion throughout the day.

Kristine Black-HawkinsUniversity of CambridgeMhairi BeatonUniversity of Aberdeen

Changing Legislation and its Radical Effects on Inclusive and Special Education: Perspectives across the four nations of the UK

A conference at the University of Cambridge considers educational landscapes.

SPECIAL INTEREST GROUPS 29

British Educational Research AssociationResearch Intelligence Issue 124 Summer 2014

30 SPECIAL INTEREST GROUPS

ANDREW MCCULLOCH (Leeds Metropolitan University) used data from the Longitudinal Study of Young People in England to consider the aspirations and trajectories of applicants to university. He proposed that young people’s aspirations could be grouped into six distinct trajectories, of which four showed stability in aspirations relative to age, whilst two showed instability in aspirations with age, with aspirations stratified according to educational achievement and socioeconomic background. Andrew emphasised the limitation of policies that seek to raise aspirations without raising achievement, and the lack of pathways into university for young people with moderate levels of achievement.

Reshma Agrawal (Queen Mary University of London) spoke about the methodological challenges encountered in her ongoing evaluative project on widening participation in dentistry education. As a novice qualitative researcher but expert healthcare practitioner, she reflected on her relationship with research participants, her negotiations with ‘gatekeepers’, which was compounded by changing gatekeepers, and her search for a robust theoretical underpinning to the study. Reshma aims to advance knowledge of widening participation initiatives beyond the static notions of achievement and under-representation in higher education.

Elaine Keane (School of Education, National University of Ireland, Galway) presented research conducted with Manuela Heinz, on Initial Teacher Education (ITE) in Ireland. Despite

increasing student diversity amongst school populations, the teaching population in Ireland has remained largely homogenous. The Diversity Profiling Initial Teacher Education (DITE), funded by the Irish Research Council, is a cross-sectional, longitudinal study investigating background and attitudinal data from applicants and entrants to ITE programmes. Elaine discussed the challenges of designing and implementing an anonymous system that tracks applicants to entrants, and of establishing collaborative relationships with the national application management systems.

Neil Harrison (University of the West of England) presented his work with Colin McCaig (Sheffield Hallam) demonstrating that the current focus in widening participation policy on ‘Low Participation Neighbourhoods’ (LPNs) was an example of an ecological fallacy, namely, that ‘you are where you live’. LPNs are used to target outreach activity and allocate funding, as a supposedly accurate means of identifying disadvantaged young people. However, using data from UCAS and the Census, it was shown that these individuals live across a much wider section of geographical areas. This is a problem for national and local policy and research, as LPNs are starting to be used as a proxy for social class, which potentially masks real social differences.

Réka Plugor (University of Leicester) is a multi-ethnic, multi-lingual researcher and translator conducting cross-national comparative research with higher education students in Romania

and England. Her standpoint is that methodological papers written from the perspective of researcher-translators or bi/multi-lingual researchers are very uncommon, and language-related discussions in qualitative research are rare. Réka’s presentation addressed this gap by providing a thick description of her experiences, dilemmas and choices in conducting her project on education-to-work transitions.

Iain Jones (Newman University, Birmingham) articulated the dilemmas that arose when examining the development of policies, practices and research on widening participation via the analysis of policy texts, critical events and interviews with policy actors. Iain discussed how the co-construction of narratives and the concept of the bricolage may be applied to the analysis and interpretation of interviews. He argued that the bricolage provides a theoretical lens through which to analyse how evidence is gathered and co-constructed by interviewer and interviewee.

The format of the day permitted ample opportunity for discussion, with ethical dilemmas emerging as a significant sub-theme that could fruitfully inform a future seminar in the series.

Victoria Perselli Kingston University

Investigating InequalitiesOn 21st May 2014, the BERA Higher Education SIG hosted a symposium at the Institute of Education, University of London, on the theme of ‘Investigating Inequalities’.

INFORMATION 31

Notes for ContributorsDisclaimerThe British Educational Research Association (BERA) make every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in our publications. However, BERA make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. BERA shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content.

In the interests of professional and academic dialogue, Research Intelligence (RI) will occasionally publish articles that deal with controversial topics. Publication of any article by RI should not be seen as an endorsement by BERA or by the RI Editor of the views expressed, but as an attempt to promote academic freedom.

The acceptance of an advertisement to appear in RI does not constitute a guarantee or endorsement by BERA or by the RI editorial team of the quality or value of the advertised products or services, or of the claims made for them by their advertisers.

Author rights and responsibilitiesa) OriginalityArticles submitted to RI must be original and not previously published elsewhere. Drafts of papers which can only be accessed on individual/personal websites will be regarded as unpublished. The authors should ensure that they have written entirely original works, and if the authors have used the work and/or words of others, that this has been appropriately cited or quoted.b) Reproduction of copyright materialAuthors are required to secure permission to reproduce any proprietary text, illustration, table, or other material, including data, audio, video, film stills, and screenshots, and any supplemental material that authors propose to submit. This applies to direct reproduction as well as “derivative reproduction” (where authors have created a new figure or table which derives substantially from a copyrighted source). The reproduction of short extracts of text, excluding poetry and song lyrics, for the purposes of criticism may be possible without formal permission on the basis that the quotation is reproduced accurately and full attribution is given.c) AccuracyIt is the responsibility of the authors to use all reasonable efforts to ensure the accuracy of all content of the article.d) PermissionsBy submitting an article to RI authors are granting permission for BERA to copyedit, format and publish the article according to BERA’s publishing process, and to distribute it as part of the issue, in print form and electronically.

Authors retain the right to reuse the article in its published form in whole or in part without revision or modification, provided that acknowledgment to prior publication in RI is made explicit.

Call for contributions to Research Intelligence 125The next issue of RI (RI 125, Autumn 2014) will focus on RESPECTING CHILDREN – A GLOBAL ISSUE. Each issue of RI aims to capture a range of perspectives on a topic of current relevance to the wide range of sites for the generation and mobilisation of education research. If you have some recently completed research that you feel is relevant to the theme and likely to be of interest to BERA members, please summarise it in 1000–1200 words and send it to the Editor.

We are keen to hear from researchers at different stages of their career, including student and early career researchers. We welcome contributions from different education sectors and interest groups and from different sites for the generation and use of education research.

If you would like to contribute please contact Farzana Rahman at [email protected] with the subject line “RI 125”. The deadline for papers will be 26th September, 2014.

In 2014 Research Intelligence will be focused on themes connected with BERA’s 40th anniversary and a chance to reflect on educational research in that period. If you have ideas of topics for inclusion, please do send your suggestions to: [email protected].

Opinion and general contributions Brief opinion pieces addressing other current critical issues affecting education research and its stakeholders are also welcome. We also encourage members to submit contributions discussing initiatives of strategic importance to education research from any sector of activity. Members wishing to respond to an existing piece or to suggest topics for future issues of RI should contact the Editor.

We would like to receive brief pieces relevant to agencies or individuals who use educational research. We would particularly welcome contributions sharing news in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.

SIG convenors can use the medium of RI to update all BERA members of their activities or open up a particular issue for debate. Contributions should not exceed 600 words and be sent to the Editor. Accounts of events supported by BERA are also very welcome.

In all types of submissions please avoid the use of footnotes and keep the number of references to a minimum. Please refer to articles in recent issues for examples of acceptable formats. Material should not exceed 600 words unless specifically agreed in advance and should be sent to the Editor, Hilary Burgess, care of [email protected].

About BERAThe British Educational Research Association (BERA) is a member-led charity which exists to encourage educational research and its application for the improvement of practice and public benefit. We strive to ensure the best quality evidence from educational research informs policy makers, practitioners and the general public and contributes to economic prosperity, cultural understanding, social cohesion and personal flourishing.www.bera.ac.uk

British Educational Research Association, 9-11 Endsleigh Gardens, London WC1H 0EH 020 7612 6987 [email protected] www.bera.ac.uk

Expanding Postgraduate Learning Communities

Documents

Transcript of Expanding Postgraduate Learning Communities