Research Training in Doctoral Programs - What can be learned from Professional Doctorates?

Source: OAI

ABSTRACT Doctoral education in Australia is currently under pressure to become more industry focused. This report discusses the relatively recent experience of offering doctoral education through professional doctorate programs as a contribution to the improvement of doctoral education in Australian universities. The evaluation focused on the extent to which such programs had developed practices for sustaining closer collaboration between universities and industry, through:

• a review of the general literatures relating to the role of doctoral research in contributing to the growth of knowledge and innovation;

• a multi-method exploration of the range of practices and relationships associated with professional doctorate programs; and

• the development of strategies and policy recommendations for optimising doctoral education in Australian universities in terms of industry-focused outcomes.

When set against the 800-year history of the PhD, the professional doctorate is a young doctorate, the first being set up in Australia within the last two decades. The nature and status of professional doctorates remains unclear to many, including a number of university administrators of research training, as well as government and industry personnel. The fact that 61 per cent of professional doctorate programs fall under the classification of ‘research’ higher degrees is not widely understood. Moreover, the 131 programs we found to exist in 35 of the 38 Australian public universities, exhibit a wide range of structures and features.

While there is strong evidence of an increase in the number of professional doctorates being offered in Australian universities, and there is some evidence of innovation in a number of professional doctorate programs, it appears that industry-focused doctoral education is still in its infancy. With a few exceptions, neither industry nor universities were engaging in any significant way to develop sustainable partnerships to serve and support the work of doctoral education. While the government White Paper Knowledge and Innovation (Kemp, 1999a) is clearly having an impact on universities in terms of active improvement of the quality and accountability of research training, industry remains to be engaged in any systematic or sustained way.

Most operational professional doctorates programs may be characterised as having ‘surface’ level links, in that they exhibit the following features:

• A particular industry or group of industries is the source from which most clients come and to which they return;

• There is some attempt made to involve non-academic individuals from industry and/or a professional group in course delivery, supervision or assessment (this is likely to be limited and ad-hoc);

• Research and research activities are workplace-based; and

• Marketing materials stress the value of the program to targeted professions.

A few programs exhibited ‘deep’ levels of linkage with professional and industry bodies as indicated by the following:

• Their establishment is driven by a particular industry or professional association (eg, peak industry groups define the nature of the training to be undertaken and the skills/attributes that are to be developed);

• Industry and/or professions are partners in the delivery and supervision of programs, and this is built into the funding and/or sponsorship arrangements that exist between universities, participants and external bodies;

• Industry/professional bodies play a substantial role in the assessment and credentialing process;

• Research training outcomes are of a nature and in a form that is recognisable as beneficial to the industry/professional partner; and

• The community of learning built around the program includes both academic and industry and/or profession based participants.

While the strengths in a number of the ‘surface’-linked programs investigated are impressive, the potential for professional doctorates to offer a context for more innovative and industry-focused doctoral training is yet to be realised. In particular, there are significant possibilities for the design and development of doctoral programs that deliver new types of quality research training. Programs that are deeply linked to industry and/or the professions are needed to achieve this. There is no evidence that surface levels of engagement evolve into deeper ones.

1 Bookmark
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Professional doctorates in Australian universities have been a growing and controversial area recently. A major unresolved problem in seeking to understand and place the professional doctorates in the universities is their uncertain identity. In this paper it is argued that professional doctorates should be primarily concerned with advancing professional practice and that the research component of a professional doctorate program should be orientated towards making a contribution in the professional practice arena. In this way they can distinguish themselves from the PhD degree. To meet needs of the wider society in areas of professional practice education, universities will have to change. Professional doctorates are one aspect of such change. A professional doctorate should be a different type of doctorate to the PhD; there is no point in having it exist as a weaker version of the PhD. The central feature of that difference is that professional doctorates should value other types of knowledge, namely knowledge of and in professional practice. There is resistance to moving the university in the necessary direction to be overcome. For example, "Guidelines for Professional Doctorates" were widely promulgated in Australia in 1998. If enforced in universities these would seriously impact negatively on the educational standing of professional doctorates
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: rofessional doctorates in psychology have grown rapidly in the past decade. These degrees come in two forms. The first generally is a variant of the research Doctor of Philosophy degree, combined in some way with coursework and practice components from Master of Psychology courses. The second form is the Doctor of Psychology, which generally also incorporates the same requirements, but with a smaller thesis. The standing of these degrees relative to the pure research Ph.D. varies and also plays a role in how they are offered, and how they are used both here and abroad. In this paper we document the growth in these professional doctorate programs, comment on conflicting pressures, and provide examples of possible structures for the Doctor of Psychology in the context of competing regulatory, academic, and professional interests. P
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Purpose – To explore the nature (component parts, degree structure) and purpose (intended outcomes) of the Doctor of Business Administration (DBA) degree, identifying the strengths and weaknesses of the degree as they stand presently, using Australian experience. Design/methodology/approach – A review of DBA programme offerings in Australia identified commonalities and differences in these offerings, and provided information necessary to propose strategic and theoretical implications of DBA education. Findings – The paper demonstrates areas of confusion surrounding the purpose and nature of the DBA degree, especially as a research degree in comparison to the PhD. It concludes that quality controls are needed to ensure that this growing addition to management education adds to, and aids, the goal of strengthening management research, in ways that link theoretical insights with management practice. Research limitations/implications – Theoretical and practical implications of the DBA degree are offered, as well as the extent to which the DBA addresses the educational needs of students and its benefits to the university. Practical implications – The paper provides data useful to administrators interested in establishing a DBA degree in their institution, for researchers wishing to further explore and contribute to the discourse regarding the calibre and content of DBA degrees, and for students wishing to learn more about the fundamental differences between the PhD and the DBA. Originality/value – This paper provides new information about the way the DBA degree is developing in an Australian context, and offers advice on issues that need attention in order to further ground the DBA in a combined research and practitioner ethic.
    Education and Training 12/2004; 47(1):40-52.

Full-text (2 Sources)

Available from
May 20, 2014