QAA discussion paper about doctoral programmes:
summary of preliminary analysis

Background

The Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education (QAA) discussion paper about doctoral programmes, which was web-published for consultation in July 2007, covers a range of topics
in respect of doctoral degrees in the UK and continental Europe and contains 18 questions.
The discussion paper published for consultation is available for reference at: www.qaa.ac.uk/academicinfrastructure/doctoralProg/consultationpaper.asp

This paper has been prepared to support the current review of The framework for higher education qualifications in England, Wales and Northern Ireland (FHEQ), as a preliminary summary only, and is limited to feedback on the four questions (7 to 10 inclusive; reproduced in full below) in the discussion paper that were explicitly focused on the FHEQ. In due course, a full analysis will be completed for publication, which will provide further details about the responses to all questions and other points of relevance raised by respondents.

Introduction

At the time the doctoral discussion paper was written, it was known that QAA would soon be convening a group to review the current FHEQ. It was thought appropriate to frame some of
the questions embedded in the discussion paper around the FHEQ and its general relevance
to doctoral programmes, with particular reference to the doctoral qualification descriptor.
The following sections set out some of the opinions emerging from a preliminary analysis of responses in respect of the individual questions relating to the FHEQ.

We received a total of 72 responses to the consultation, the majority of which have been made on behalf of higher education institutions (HEIs). Other respondents include: professional bodies, some of which accredit higher education (HE) programmes; professional groups of staff in a subject area based in a HEI; formal responses on behalf of organisations connected with the HE sector (eg the UK Council for Graduate Education, Universities UK, including the Europe Unit, etc.); and individual/personal responses from academic staff in institutions. The following table shows the number of responses from each group:

Type of respondent

HE institutional response

Individual academic staff within HEIs

Professional groups based in HEIs

Professional bodies

Other organisations

Number of respondents

Responses to questions 7-10

Please note that the summary points below are based on a preliminary analysis only of the feedback on the four questions in the discussion paper about doctoral programmes specifically about the FHEQ and that more details will emerge from the responses to these questions after further work has been done. The sub-sections under each question are not in priority order,
nor do they necessarily represent the volume of opinion from respondents.

Question 7: In your view, do the attributes of doctoral graduates described in the FHEQ doctoral qualification descriptor still apply?

Most respondents think that the attributes of doctoral graduates expressed in the current doctoral qualification descriptor are eminently appropriate. Of the 72 respondents, 67 said the descriptor remained appropriate. Five respondents did not answer the question specifically;
noone said the descriptor was not appropriate. A significant number have not qualified their positive response, but others have added helpful comments which fall broadly into the categories below.

Some respondents suggested that, while the descriptor remains appropriate for PhD candidates/graduates, it could be improved by expanding the attributes so that they are more inclusive of professional doctorates. For example, while welcoming the extent to which the current descriptor recognises advanced scholarship and the application of existing knowledge in new situations, as well as new knowledge, some respondents thought there was room for additional attributes geared to a slightly broader concept of research output emerging from professional doctorates.

In considering this question, some respondents had referred to other public statements about expectations of achievement for doctoral graduates, including those relating to the Bologna Process. Several said that in any revision of the FHEQ, they would welcome more alignment with the Dublin Descriptors and the European Qualifications Framework.

Some respondents said they found the flexibility built into the current qualification descriptor very helpful in that. it was appropriate for different disciplines and doctorates. One respondent commented that there was perhaps less emphasis on the importance of the written presentation of the candidate’s research and the development of argument than might be expected in some humanities disciplines.

Other respondents had strong views about the need not to dilute the level of academic standards set out in the current descriptor, being concerned to maintain the high quality of UK doctorates.

Several respondents asked that the current qualification descriptor remain unchanged; in working with it over the years they had found it useful for their needs in its existing form.

Question 8: How would/do you/does your institution define ‘originality’ in the context of doctoral study?

We received some interesting and varied answers to this question. Some institutions were helpful enough to send copies of their assessment criteria and similar documents defining their expectations of doctoral candidates’ ‘original thought’. Although the detail cannot be reproduced in a summary paper, the following points represent an overview of respondents’ feedback (a few respondents did not answer this question).

Definitions of what is expected of doctoral candidates/graduates in respect of ‘originality’ are many. Institutions have a strong sense of ownership (and a wish to retain it), of their definitions, most of which seem to have evolved to take account of different disciplines and types of doctorate. Responses to the question in the paper which asks whether institutions have different assessment criteria for different types of doctorate have not yet been analysed (Question 11).

A few institutions have chosen not to define ‘originality’ and do not intend to do so, although they may well refer to an ‘original contribution to knowledge’ or similar statement in
their regulations.

The candidate’s discipline is fundamental to the definition of originality. Aside from the creation of new knowledge, some respondents pointed out the difficulty of trying to define ‘originality’, ‘original work’ or ‘original thought’ in any meaningful way at a generic level. For example, original work in arts, humanities and some other disciplines may include studying previously unpublished or newly discovered material, or undertaking further analysis of existing knowledge. In scientific research, originality often involves working as part of a research team, all of whom contribute to the overall project (when it can be difficult to quantify individual contributions, for instance the extent to which someone’s work is ‘publishable’ when it is included in multi-authored papers or articles). In addition, some institutions have decided to introduce a separate definition of originality to encompass practical subjects, like some branches of engineering, the performing arts or fine art,
or that involve both the production of an artefact and a commentary about how it was produced and fits into the existing body of work in the discipline.

A significant number of respondents said that their definition of originality is expressed in terms of a contribution to knowledge and specifically the extent to which the work presented provides new insights into the subject and issues examined.

Overall, respondents were enthusiastic to retain some reference to ‘originality’, ‘original work’ or ‘original thought’ in the doctoral qualification descriptor.

Question 9: Does the qualification descriptor remain appropriate for different types of doctoral graduate?

This question is linked to Question 7 above and Question 10 below. On the basis of the analysis so far, respondents have said that the descriptor is appropriate for different types of doctoral graduate but that any revision would benefit from expansion to acknowledge the particular attributes expected of professional doctoral graduates. Specific comments noted so far include: a suggestion that professional doctorates require supplementary specific learning outcomes that relate to the directed study elements of such programmes, and that it would be beneficial to test the existing descriptor in respect of practice-based doctoral candidates.

Question 10: To what extent, if at all, should employers’ views influence the doctoral qualification descriptor?

This is the area where there is least agreement between respondents, perhaps because it
is complicated by the different types and purposes of doctorates, candidates’ reasons for completing them, and the variety of types of employment doctoral graduates enter. The following views have been expressed.

The qualification descriptor should remain based on academic achievement, with the views of the academic community paramount. This is linked to the overall assessment criteria for doctoral degrees which are about the candidate’s ability in the discipline, as discussed above, and remain separate from the assessment of directed study modules (for example, to develop various skills, including research methods and statistical analysis) that a candidate may complete during the period of doctoral study.

Institutions should work closely with employers in respect of professional doctorates. In practice this is normally a requirement, since candidates in these programmes are often part-time students who are working in parallel to their studies and taking the qualification for their continuing professional development.

It is appropriate for the sector to be aware of employers’ views, but there should not be a direct impact on the qualification descriptor, which already includes references to the qualities and generic skills necessary for employment.

The descriptor needs to be sufficiently generic to take account of a valid variety of expectations of the doctoral qualification, including its pursuance for personal pleasure.

There should not be too close a correlation between a research degree and outlets in the employment market.

Academic institutions are one of the largest employers of doctoral graduates. Graduates requiring skills other than those needed for academic employment should have appropriate opportunities during their programme to acquire the different mix of skills and other attributes needed.

The question of employer needs is complex. An institution employing a PhD graduate as a career academic expects embedded academic standards that will guarantee the quality of academic judgements made by the holder during a professional lifetime. A commercial employer of a post-doctoral researcher who completed his/her doctoral work on a research project funded by the same organisation is likely to have different expectations. Some other employers may be looking for generic, ‘doctor-level’ skills.

Doctoral graduates go into a wide range of professions including academia; pure research; industry; teaching; and the City. It is therefore a challenge to get a systematic view of employer requirements. An incomplete view could provide a distorted picture.

Institutions need to be clear about why they offer research degrees. This is influenced by where their graduates go. To some extent, employers are influenced in their choice of employees by the description of the degree awarded. Inevitably, institutions need to be influenced by employers in deciding what their degrees consist of and how they are described.

Employers should influence the doctoral qualification descriptor to the same extent they influence other FHEQ qualification descriptors.

Employers’ views might contribute to the skills sections of the descriptor. Although it is appropriate to consult employers, their views should not be disproportionate to those of other contributors.

There is a role for professional and representative bodies who are likely to be in a position to take a broader view of a particular sector and in many cases have existing relationships with, and an understanding of, the HE sector.

The importance of skills acquisition in research degrees is acknowledged and should be acted upon by institutions.

Conclusion

Responses analysed so far indicate a broad satisfaction with the current doctoral qualification descriptor with the hope that it will not change radically. They also show the sense of ownership and responsibility held by all involved with the education and assessment of doctoral candidates to uphold the academic standards of doctoral qualifications.

QAA discussion paper about doctoral programmes: summary of preliminary analysis