1 / 44

Giuseppe Silvestri The EUA Council for Doctoral Education

Giuseppe Silvestri The EUA Council for Doctoral Education. Seminar on Training on Quality Assurance in PhD March 18 – 19, 2013 University of Palermo. Synopsis. The European University Association and the Council for Doctoral Education.

octavia-green
Download Presentation

Giuseppe Silvestri The EUA Council for Doctoral Education

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Giuseppe SilvestriThe EUA Council for DoctoralEducation Seminar on Training on Quality Assurance in PhD March 18 – 19, 2013 University of Palermo

  2. Synopsis • The European University Association and the Council for Doctoral Education. • Doctoral education as the third step of the Bologna process. • After the Salzburg principles: the EUA Salzburg II recommendations (2010). • Charter & Code for European Researchers and Doctoral Education. • Collaboration with Enterprises. • Accountable research environment: a European survey. • Interdisciplinarity: time to clear the obstacles.

  3. The European University Association (EUA) 34 national university associations across Europe Over 870 individual university members in 47 countries - Institutional development, - Exchange of good practice through joint European projects and events, - Common policies for the European Higher Education and Research Areas, - Research Policy Working Group. Independently managed à la carte member services: - Institutional Evaluation Programme (EUA-IEP) - Council for Doctoral Education (EUA-CDE)

  4. EUA Council for Doctoral Education, 2008 • The first Europe-wide platform to develop and advance doctoral education and to enhance its visibility at international level • Promoting cooperation and exchange of good practices • Encouraging and supporting the development of institutional policies

  5. EUA Council for Doctoral Education, 2008 • Identifying and monitoring the trends in doctoral education • Improving the availability of data and information • Providing policy advice to EUA Board and Council (e.g. MoU EUA – DG Research, 2013) • More than 220 members (2012)

  6. Doctoral education as the third step of the Bologna process • A short historical excursus: • 1998: Sorbonne (France, Germany, Italy, UK) • 1999: Bologna (27 Countries) • 2003: Berlin • 2005: Bergen

  7. QA ECTS EHEA Doctoral Education ESG DEC. 2008: ERA

  8. The Salzburg principles/The Salzburg recommendations Conclusions and Recommendations from the Bologna Seminar: “Doctoral Programmes for the European Knowledge Society” (Salzburg, 3 – 5 February 2005) Document issued by the EUA-CDE and endorsed by the Board and the Council “ Salzburg II recommendations ” EUA, 2010

  9. The Salzburg Principles/Recommendations 1. The core component of doctoral training is the advancement of knowledge through original research. Care about the needs of an employment market It is essential that the development of doctoral education should follow its own path and not to use the same tools as the first and second cycles.

  10. The Salzburg Principles/Recommendations 2. Embedding in institutional strategies and policies. Universities need to assume responsibility for appropriate design of doctoral programmes to meet new challenges and include appropriate opportunities of professional career development Structuring doctoral education is to create a supportive environment for individual development and not to produce uniformity or predictability.

  11. The Salzburg Principles/Recommendations • Flexible structures • Wide range of cultural and scientific opportunities • Transparent admission procedures • High quality of supervision • Taught courses are to be seen as a support to individual professional development and not central to the meaning of structure

  12. The Salzburg Principles/Recommendations 3. The importance of diversity The rich diversity of doctoral programmes in Europe – including joint doctorates – is a strength which has to be underpinned by quality and sound practice Structures should be developed at the appropriate level of governance and not be imposed on or within the institution.It is essential that academic staff takes responsibility and ownership of these structures through inclusive procedures

  13. The Salzburg Principles/Recommendations 4. Doctoral candidates as early stage researchers. They should be recognized as professionals – with commensurate rights – who make a key contribution to the creation of new knowledge. Structured programs should develop recruitment strategies that correspond to their particular mission: • International recruitment • Gender equality • Social background

  14. The Salzburg Principles/Recommendations 5. The crucial role of supervision and assessment. Arrangements for supervision and assessment should be based on a transparent contractual framework of shared responsibilities between doctoral candidates, supervisors and the institution (and where appropriate including other partners). Take care of the supervisors! Providing professional development to supervisors is an institutional responsibility.

  15. The Salzburg Principles/Recommendations • Developing common supervision culture shared by supervisors, doctoral schools leaders and doctoral candidates must be a priority for doctoral schools. • Supervisors must be active researchers • Outcomes: early stage researchers, original research results • Career development: individual goals and motivations

  16. The Salzburg Principles/Recommendations 6. Achieving critical mass. Different solutions may be appropriate to different contexts and in particular across larger and smaller European countries. These range from graduate schools in larger universities to international, national and regional collaboration between universities. Critical mass does not necessarily mean a large number of researchers but rather the quality of research.

  17. The Salzburg Principles/Recommendations 7. Duration. Doctoral programmes should operate within an appropriate time duration (3 or 4 years full time). Problem of harmonization between different countries.

  18. The Salzburg Principles/Recommendations 8. The promotion of innovative structures. To meet the challenge of interdisciplinary training and the development of transferable skill The institution should provide support structures for professional development offering training in: - transferable skills - understanding ethics of research.

  19. The Salzburg Principles/Recommendations 9. Increasing mobility. Doctoral programmes should seek to offer geographical as well as interdisciplinary and intersectoral mobility and international collaboration within an integrated framework of cooperation between universities and other partners. Internationalization at home (intnl candidates, staff, events, guests researchers) Collaborative doctoral programmes (individual mobility, co-tutelle) International joint doctoral programmes (joint or integrated curricula, joint committees and juries, joint degrees) Mobility driven by research projects

  20. The Salzburg Principles/Recommendations 10. Ensuring appropriate funding. The development of quality doctoral programmes and the successful completion by doctoral candidates requires appropriate and sustainable funding. Need of resources for supporting structures, physical space, recruiting candidates.

  21. The Salzburg Principles/Recommendations Autonomy the use of specific tools must be decided autonomously within the institution in accordance with the profile of the doctoral programmes and the needs of the doctoral candidate.

  22. The Salzburg Principles/Recommendations Legal framework The national and European legal frameworks must give institutions the possibility to engage in innovative doctoral programmes and take the necessary institutional responsibilities

  23. The Salzburg Principles/Recommendations Legal framework The National legislation governing joint degrees or dual degrees should be reviewed to facilitate international collaborations. Institutions must have the freedom to develop their own indicators for quality

  24. The Salzburg Principles/Recommendations Quality and accountability It is necessary to develop specific systems for quality assurance based on the diverse institutional missions and linked to the institutional research strategy. Assessment of the academic quality of DE should be based on peer review and be sensitive to disciplinary differences

  25. The Salzburg Principles/Recommendations Quality and accountability In order to be accountable for the quality of doctoral programmes institutions should develop indicators based on institutional priorities such as: • Individual progression • Net research time • Completion rate • Transferable skills • Career tracking • Dissemination of research results

  26. The Salzburg Principles/Recommendations Intersectoral collaboration • Stakeholders should engage in measures to facilitate cooperation and build trust between providers of doctoral education and non-academic sectors. • Build trust on formalized but flexible research, and on research training collaboration between industry and higher education institutions. • Necessary to create awareness about the qualities of doctorate holders.

  27. Charter & Code Specific attention is devoted to doctoral candidates and to post doctoral positions Section 1. The charter. • Recognition of the profession: All researchers engaged in a research career should be recognized as professionals and be treated accordingly. This should commence at the beginning of their careers and should include … doctoral candidate, postdoctoral fellow, …

  28. Charter & Code • General principles. … Post doctoral appointments. The need of clear rules and explicit guidelines for the appointment of post doctoral researchers… • The term early stage researcher refers to the first four years of research activity including the period of research training • Experienced researchers are defined as researchers having at least four years of research experience (full time equivalent) since gaining a university diploma giving them access to doctoral studies.

  29. 1st edition 2005 2nd edition 2009

  30. RESPONSIBLE PARTNERINGEuropean Industrial Research Management Association, European University Association, European Association of Research and Technology Organizations, ProTon Europe A voluntary programme aimed at improving strategic collaboration and knowledge exchange between companies and publicly funded research organizations (PRO)

  31. The DOC CAREERS II PROJECTCollaborative Doctoral Education The objectives of the project are: • To reflect on strategies and good practices on university industry relations; models and degree of structure of university-industry doctoral schemes; employability of doctoral holders and its relation with transferable skills; good practices in tracking of doctoral holders; • To identify strategies and good practices used by SMEs and other local partners to approach universities and address how their access to university research could be enhanced; • To explore the perspectives of employability of doctoral holders in the region, mobility opportunities and its relation to regional efforts to reinforce doctoral employability considering the benefits of employing highly trained workers and their professional expectations.

  32. The ARDE project • Specificity of doctoral education • Questions regarding the content of supervision rules or guidelines (1): • Maximum number of candidates for supervisor? • Obligatory training for supervisors? • Voluntary training for supervisors? • Requirements or recommendations for a minimum number of meetings with the supervisor(s)?

  33. The ARDE project • Questions regarding the content of supervision rules or guidelines (2): • Requirements or recommendations for supervisory teams? • Written agreements between supervisors, supervisees and/or institution? • Procedures for dealing with supervisor-supervisee conflicts? • Systematic feedback collected from doctoral candidates?

  34. A short comment on a large issue: Interdisciplinarity(after Maria Morràs – UPF) Interdisciplinaritycould implie: • Collaborative research across disciplines: -Within a group project, by different experts multidisciplinarity, transdisciplinarity (Model by addition) • In an individual project: - Someone who has the knowledge from diverse disciplines or the ability to acquire it (Model by synthesis/integration) Source:NationalAcademy of Science, USA, 2004

  35. Interdisciplinarity (2) Cultural and institutional barriers The visible frontiers: • Schools/Faculties, Departments, Research groups • Promotion, funding, acknowledgement The invisible frontiers: • Prejudices: hard sciences vs. soft sciences, humanitiesvs. sciences, social sciences vs. humanities vs. scientific sciences … • Parity of esteem • Open-mindedness

  36. Interdisciplinarity (3) • Why promote interdisciplinarity (building bridges) • Trains in collaborative work • Shows recognition of disciplines in action • Fosters open-mindedness • Incentives creativity • Tackling and working within uncertainty, comfort in complex, not-well-defined situations • Enhances boldness: New problems, new solutions, new disciplines

  37. Interdisciplinarity (4) • How to promote interdisciplinarity: creating a common material and intellectual space. • Exposing junior researchers to other disciplines and • approaches: Physical center, common activities • Emphasis on non-structured, non-penalty settings: value of mistakes, serendipity • Seminars based on cases • Co-supervision

  38. Interdisciplinarity (5) • Risks: - Lack of recognition - Undervalue/ overvalue - Reluctance and rivalries among faculty and programs • Main placement of PhD researchers: funding and discipline location

  39. … at the end Thanks for your attention!

More Related