Crossing borders and boundaries:Positioning joint doctoral degrees as a capacity building initiative
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Doctoral education has evolved from the single isolated scholar on a lone knowledge quest into a diverse array of programme formats and supervisory arrangements. This diversity within doctoral education systems and structures include the crossing of national borders and institutional boundaries for both students and supervisors, sometimes through formal arrangements such as dual and joint degree programmes. While such arrangements have been in existence for some time, the research on the topic is limited, which often restricts our understanding to anecdotal evidence. Existing research also does not explore the complexities inherent to these arrangements when partnerships are forged between more than two partnering institutions, when North-South divides are crossed, when there are historical and current inequalities to navigate, and differences in structures, policies and practices across the partnering institutions. In parallel, there is the shared responsibility for the development of the doctorate candidates into early career researchers. This paper reports on an innovative funded transnational, structured joint doctoral degree programme in the field of higher education that involves three partnering institutions in the United Kingdom and South Africa, while also building skilled supervisory capacity. The programme sets out to support a cohort of doctoral staff-as-students within the three institutions exemplifying an internationalised curriculum underpinning the enhancement of supervisory capabilities at all three institutions, and the enrichment of their local research environments. The programme has the goal of transforming teaching, learning and research leading towards enhanced quality, success and equity in universities by establishing an academic pipeline (particularly in the South African context) that is transformative and disruptive yet equitable, and which addresses transformation imperatives in higher education. The programme demonstrates how foci on student development, staff development, and programme or curriculum development can be integrated. The key themes that delimit the project include equality, diversity, inclusion and well-being; transnationalisation, decolonisation and transformation of the curriculum; and developing creative spaces in higher education curricula. All the doctoral staff-as-student candidates projects fall within these delimited areas of interest. In the paper we explore what potential for innovation joint doctoral programmes of this nature may offer in terms of a) structuring collaborative spaces in doctoral programmes; b) development of early career researcher capacity (for both students and novice supervisors); and c) challenging institutional hierarchies and establishments.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,004 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».