Programme approaches to doctoral education in Humanities and Social Sciences

The latest edition of the IAU Horizons (Vol. 19 No.2) is now available online.
The In Focus section of the magazine includes 14 papers focusing on Innovative Approaches to Doctoral Education in Africa.By Chrissie Boughey and Sioux McKenna, Rhodes University, South Africa (C.Boughey@ru.ac.za). Participation rates and dropout rates for doctoral education are of concern globally but they are particularly dismal on the continent of Africa where the need for economic development and knowledge production is acute. These demands require that we scrutinise the challenges facing doctoral education and reconsider some of our established practices.
In South Africa, two recent publications have put the issue of doctoral education squarely on the higher education agenda. The CHE/CREST report on postgraduate study (2009) and the ASSAf report entitled The PhD Study (2010) both highlighted concerns about the way in which doctoral education is approached in the country.
In particular, these reports suggested the need for serious reflection on the ways in which doctoral education is undertaken in the broad areas of humanities and social sciences (HSS). One of the findings was that the traditional apprenticeship model, favoured in HSS, might not be the most efficient way to approach supervision. The traditional model relies on the relationship between the doctoral candidate and her supervisor as the main, or only, structure within which the research work is undertaken.
Such reliance assumes a level of experience and broad range of expertise in the supervisor that many novice supervisors may not have. It also assumes that the supervisor has access to a supportive disciplinary network with whom she/he can share her/his concerns and that the PhD student has a similar environment in which she/he can test out her/his ideas and develop her/his doctoral voice. The CHE/CREST report and the ASSAf report, along with a number of other similar reports, suggest that such assumptions are misplaced.
Furthermore, where the entire PhD journey is a private one between student and supervisor or supervisors, there is little opportunity for the student to be exposed to disciplinary concerns or to research approaches beyond those of her own study. The assumption that students will be exposed to such matters through the wider intellectual environment of the university or by attending conferences relies on the concept of full-time students with access to funding.
One newly established doctoral programme in Higher Education Studies at Rhodes University has been developed with these concerns in mind. While the PhD is, by its very nature, a single-authored piece of work whereby the individual student is examined by her/his peers, there are multiple benefits to undertaking such work within a community with shared interests. A community allows for deeper knowledge through shared endeavours. It provides a space for scholars to participate legitimately in conversations with others who are similarly engaged as well as with those who are already members of the disciplinary community and are now experienced researchers and supervisors.
The Doctoral Programme in Higher Education Studies was launched in January 2010. In 2013, the programme comprises 29 PhD scholars and 8 ‘Pre-Docs’ – candidates judged not to be ready for full registration at doctoral level and who are given the opportunity of engaging with structured reading and writing within the Programme overall. All candidates are, with just one exception, full-time academics at universities and are undertaking their doctoral studies on a part-time basis. Ten of the 23 public South African universities are represented in the student body as well as one academic from the private sector. There are also scholars from Malawi, Rwanda, Zimbabwe and the United Arab Emirates. Co-supervisors on the programme come from seven South African universities beyond Rhodes University where the programme is housed. This diversity enhances the potential for engagement and for research that moves beyond the narrow confines of each scholar’s own context of practice.
The development of the programme is in part a response to the national need for more doctoral graduates, which has resulted in targeted outputs being set by the government and the National Research Foundation. It is also in response to the concerns about low doctoral participation rates. But alongside these and other driving forces, the key push behind the development of the programme has been the provision of a community of practice that works against the ‘lonely space’ of the doctoral journey.
In South Africa, the doctorate is by full thesis only and no coursework can provide credits towards the qualification. The structures of the programme are thus not about accumulating credits but rather are about supporting the development of the research design, undertaking the research and writing the thesis. These structures include three ‘Doc Weeks’ a year that include guest seminars, debates, panel discussions, student presentations, workshops and so on. There is also a vibrant online classroom where academic readings are shared, controversial news items are deliberated upon, questions are asked and support is provided. Advisory panels, online meetings and other structures augment traditional supervision relationships and are all developed to give the scholars and supervisors a sense of belonging to a broader community.
Participation in these structures is voluntary. The excellent attendance at ‘Doc Weeks’, despite the financial implications of travelling long distances and taking leave from work, indicates that scholars are finding the support useful. Evaluations speak to a sense of ‘being part of a group’ and ‘all being in this together, looking out for one another’. Such structures require that the supervisors see the benefits of working with students within a community and are willing to participate to this community beyond their own individual supervision responsibilities. They benefit from having a whole network of people supporting and encouraging their students.
Tackling problems in doctoral education in South Africa will require a multi-pronged engagement but we believe that reconsidering the structure of the relationships of those involved is a good starting point.