Visits

Two institutional visits took place using the preparatory phase funding

29 April to 3 May – Sioux McKenna & Chrissie Boughey travelled to Lancaster University (see details below). Three University of Venda colleagues who were meant to join us did not get their UK visas in time. We will ensure that visa applications are readied long in advance for the full project.

23 May to 25 May – Mamo Mpeta, Nancy Mutshaeni and Langutani Masehela visited Rhodes University (see details below).

Visit to University of Lancaster

29 April to 3 May 2019

Chrissie and Sioux spent time in CHERE at Lancaster University, meeting key people related to our project theme and planned model, sharing ideas, working closely with Paul Ashwin to develop proposal, attending a departmental tea to meet all staff and on-campus PhD students and post-doctoral fellows, and enjoying a project team supper with CHERE, Lancaster University colleagues. All in all, this was a highly productive visit. We skyped our University of Venda colleagues three times during the visit so that they could participate despite not being able to join in person.

2. Key areas of discussion at Lancaster University visit

This was a great opportunity to share and learn from each other, in particular about:

• Joint doctorates

• Online doctorates

• Use of coursework in doctorates

• Role of Postgraduate Centres

3. Key lessons: About their model:

• Most do PhD in two parts – coursework and then thesis, coursework usually worth 50%

• Some purely online and some blended

• Entry to Part Two on basis of progress and exam/assignment

• Explicit progress markers are important

• Instructional design is key

• Structure is important, speedy responses, interactivity, good to mix with residentials, videos if time difference prohibits seminars, regular discussion topics in smaller groups, need strong EdTech support who understand the initiative

• Supervisors allocated, not selected – ensures even workloads and allocation according to expertise, mentorship of new supervisors

• Proposal development as part of module structure

• Core readings with tasks attached – reading and writing intensive from the start; small, formative assessment points along the way, substantial feedback, peer feedback too

• Need to build low-risk/creative spaces into PhD and develop to the expected levels

• Overt feedback on literacy practices

• Assignments of 5000 words per module, marked at PhD level – peer review of assignment draft, then tutor feedback then final submission.

• Need support in how to do peer review. Understand the academic activity of reviewing

• Assignment in form of article. This is time consuming and may be better to leave only as an option.

• Link to broader PhD community so don’t become ‘elite group’

• Social events important

• Various less formal workshops, seminars and courses during Phase 2: progress seminars, how to present a viva, writing an article etc. (But low uptake as people busy finishing thesis).

• Different tutors will run modules differently, students have to learn that different tutors have different perspectives – this is academic argument and position not about ‘fighting’ – model intellectual positioning

• Compulsory readings plus a few optional readings – each have to comment on the core and the optional readings and then mediate a discussion online as a small group on the readings, at the end of the allotted period for that set of readings one has to summarise the discussion. Importance of students leading the discussions – have to structure this – but also importance of tutor participation in such discussions (and pick up on misconceptions and offering additional readings). Encourage personal experiences to ensure benefit from different institutional contexts – link readings to experience.

• Don’t be scared to explicitly set structures and make expectations absolutely up-front. Don’t be ‘nice’ in regards participation etc, make clear these are a requirement. Handbook makes very clear what is expected, what requirements of progress are etc. Cannot move on to next module until completed assignment. Have to take an intercollation until the module taught the next year. Need very strong admin to cope with these. Keep evidence of concerns.

• Apply online – look for qualifications, match in interest, employment and support from employment, personal statement – why they want to do it, their commitment, writing ability, can ask to engage with a couple of core readings for application concept note

• *might need to include signature from line manager and DVC: Research of institution for support in time etc before accepted – or a condition of acceptance,

4. Key lessons: To follow up:

· Chat to Dave Cooper on joint doctorates. Keep this on the agenda throughout the project and consider this and other possible collaborations.

· “Robbins’ Trap” – using old ways in a new system (Robbins’ report on expanding UK HE) – need to expend significant time on ‘cultural’ domain if structures are to work – clear articulation of ethos, intentions etc.

· Stirling University (Education)- structuring non-credit bearing support for doctorates. A possibility to follow up during full project.

· HECU and HELTASA will be good spaces for candidates to present their work and also for the research team to disseminate research on the model.

· “Accomplishing change in T&L regimes” Paul Trowler, forthcoming and “Locating Social Justice in HE research” Jan McArthur & Paul Ashwin (eds), forthcoming – both may make useful core readings. Need to include a literature budget.

· Importance of marketing of course and accessible website. Need to discuss marketing and selection strategy in detail.

5. Key activities in modules at Lancaster University

· Journal article analysis and seminars. Possibly include a reading journal template as a key task?

· Bring questions related to readings to seminar and then prepare an a-synchronous response to the author – conversations with the researcher

· Video on a particular approach to analysis, then mock data to analyse collectively

· Links to additional learning videos on, for example, citation software, formatting, peer reviewing, presentations. Use postgradenvironments.com website and contribute towards it.

6. Doctoral Academy at Lancaster University

· Doctoral Academy is a new structure. Mostly virtual bringing together various faculty structures within umbrella, each faculty has a PG Associate Dean - look after PG research

· Joint Doctorate - Joint degree with enormous regulations implications as have to have agreed conjoined rules, Usually weaker version where dual embossed but one institution lead and oversight of examination, quality assurance etc. Build around research collaboration – make part of a larger project, also a staff development process, Strengths of HES expertise in both universities allow for close cooperation. We will continue to develop this as we go.

· (NB for Doctoral REVIEW in South Africa: Series of check points – departments define what and when they are but university needs markers to know supervisor and students are being ‘held’ – don’t impose a one-size-fits-all model. Eg appraisal interviews with reflection on progress AND reflection on how the supervision going – end of Year 1 and end of Year 3. See document sent from Chris.

· Work in progress annual presentations – the external (departmental representative) participates in this.

· Online system with progress markers – but each department selects the form of the markers. Sometimes formal panels, sometimes external reader – ensures both PhD student and supervisor get multiple inputs. (See emailed document). “Stages of completion” model – each has to meet specific stage output.

· PhD students probationary until confirmed after completion of modules. Appraisal after 10 months – form of appraisal determined by dept. Then every 6 months or annually. Look at supervisory relationship, plan of action, progress.

· Pair less experienced supervisor with an experienced – but the less experienced one is the MAIN and does the bulk of the work – with regular diarised meetings with all three – OR – work in small teams and then

· Doctoral academy is about community – bringing together academics across disciplines to share practices and resources.

Visit to Rhodes University

23 May to 25 May 2019

We spent three days together very productively indeed.

We discussed the lessons we learned from the Lancaster University visit and how these inform our practices and our plans for the project.

We discussed the literature review and discussed what issues it raised and how these issues pertain to each of our institutional contexts.

We analysed the online survey responses and discussed what issues were raised and how these issues pertain to our planned project.

We finalised the project proposal.

We discussed the roles each of us would play in the project.