MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1123660367

Students' perspectives on impacts of the PhD process : the PhD as the acquisition of intellectual virtues

2010· article· en· W1123660367 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Susan Mowbray

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicDoctoral Education Challenges and Solutions
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDiversity (politics)PedagogyProcess (computing)PsychologySociologyTransformative learning
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

idea of PhD students as knowledge workers or “super-technicians” (Pearson et al., 2009, p. 100), its predominantly descriptive nature also limits its potential in providing deeper insights into students’ experiences during the doctoral education undertaking. This highlights the need for research that conceptualises the different and diverse elements of the doctoral education experience as a complex, interrelated range of activities and further, the need for a framework that recognises how all these elements and processes contribute to enabling the production of a skilled, resourceful and competent PhD graduate. 3.3 Theorising the PhD experience There is also a paucity of research that theorises students’ experiences of the PhD process, although more recent research is contributing to this gap by providing accounts of the doctoral experience that move beyond descriptive accounts. Haggis’s (2002) research with eight PhD students in the UK, for example, is amongst the small number of articles on students’ experiences of the PhD to use a theoretical lens to theorise what students described. Haggis (2002) problematises current approaches and understandings of adult learning that promote a notion of learning as linear, rote and methodological. Haggis (2002) draws on the learning theories of Brockbank and McGill (1998) and Taylor (1987) to show how students’ experiences during the PhD are complex, implicit, contextual and multifactorial. She notes that this complexity means that students’ learning is therefore experienced in a diversity of ways through a diversity of experiences. For example, “frustration . . . blocked some, irritated others and boosted still others. Relationships were central in some cases, but incidental in others” (Haggis, 2002, p. 216). Hopwood (Hopwood, in press-b) draws on data from 22 interviews and three focus groups held with 33 doctoral students from seven institutions to examine students’ experiences of teaching, student journal editing and mentoring during candidature. Hopwood (Hopwood, in press-b) frames his work within a socio-cultural perspective Mowbray Students’ perspectives on impacts of the PhD process 51 that recognises the agency of students in promoting their learning to examine some of the human, environmental and provisional factors that contribute to the students’ formal and informal, personal and professional learning and development in these areas during candidature. Accounts of doctoral students’ experiences during candidature such as those of Haggis (2002), and Hopwood (Hopwood, in press-a; Hopwood, in press-b) illuminate some of the complexities of students’ experiences during candidature that influence their learning and development. In recognising these complexities, their research approaches align with theories of knowledge that recognise learning and knowledge as multi-faceted, multi-factorial and multi-contextual. For example, Aristotle’s notion of the different, interrelated branches of knowledge (discussed in (Aristotle, 2002) describes how different types of experiences enable different, yet interrelated types of knowledge. The learning theories of Bandura (1977) and Vygotsky (1978) have highlighted the fundamental role social interactions play in promoting learning while more recently, McWilliam and Taylor’s (2001), Polanyi’s (1958, 1998, 1967) and Stehr’s (2005) notions of lived and tacit knowledge and contemporary theories of knowledge and learning recognise and uphold the scope and significance of emotions, attitudes, motivations and social processes, content, interactions and relations in the learning processes of individuals (Brockbank & McGill, 1998; Illeris, 2007, 2009). Thus, research that theorises students’ experiences of the PhD, such as Haggis’s (2002) and Hopwood’s (in-press-a; in-press-b), and Parry’s (2007), provides another perspective to understand students’ experiences during the PhD. In using and theorising students’ experiences, such research also shows that people matter in accounts of learning and that what individuals carry with them can add value. Further, it demonstrates how, theoretically, framing students’ experiences of the PhD can extend our understandings of the learning processes that enable different types of knowledge to be produced (Howells & Roberts, 2000; Polanyi, 1958, 1998; Stehr, 2005). In doing so, these studies indicate the need for more research that theorises students’ experiences during candidature, to illuminate other impacts of the PhD process. Mowbray Students’ perspectives on impacts of the PhD process

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.016
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.018
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.086

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0160.018
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0110.022
Scholarly communication0.0180.009
Open science0.0010.014
Research integrity0.0030.011
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.121
GPT teacher head0.526
Teacher spread0.405 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicDoctoral Education Challenges and SolutionsFrench-language works237,207