The fact that only about 40 to 50% of the academic staff at South Africa’s more research-intensive univer- sities have doctorates poses a serious constraint on any substantive growth in doctoral enrolments in the near future. Coupled with the continuing ageing of the same cohort, the ‘burden of supervision’ is possibly the single largest threat to any major initiative to increase doctoral output in the next decade.
At the time of writing this Report, the first Higher Education Quality Committee (HEQC) audit cycle (which commenced in 2005) was nearly complete.
Inspection of the HEQC Audit Panel reports of nine universities indicates that quality assurance mecha- nisms in many cases were found wanting73. Universities are criticised, amongst other things, for:
• not providing adequate support for their postgraduate students;
• a lack of clarity on guidelines to postgraduate students on the doctoral process;
• a lack of formal training for supervisors;
• inconsistent application of rules regarding supervision and examination across faculties within the same university;
• inadequate monitoring and information systems to track postgraduate students.
Interestingly, many of these critical comments were directed at the established and strong research universities, and they were encouraged to improve
their quality assurance and support structures for post- graduate education.
Finding 12: It is evident that the traditional appren-
works within a group with other students; (3) the doc- toral studies include formal course work; and (4) the doctorate is examined on the basis of peer-reviewed academic papers. The models are not mutually exclu- sive but rather they often have shared characteristics, and doctoral programmes may adopt hybrid versions (Box 2, below).
In South African public higher education institutions there is a persistence of the apprenticeship model of individualised and personal relationship between the supervisor and the PhD student. However, new path- ways to a PhD are emerging to fill the need for more di- versified modes of delivery for the knowledge econo- my. There are three prevalent understandings among PhD programme leaders with regard to the purpose of the PhD: (1) as training for an academic career; (2) as training for industry; and (3) as training for a profes- sion. While some of the programmes focus on only one goal, most try to achieve a hybrid of at least two pur- poses. It is evident that as the purposes of the doctorate are changing, so are the modes of delivery, provision, pedagogy, policy and funding.
The availability of appropriately qualified doctoral supervisors is particularly important within the South African context, where the traditional apprentice- ship model remains the most prevalent approach to doctoral education. It is evident that the traditional approach – being based on the availability of suitably qualified supervisors – serves a relatively small number of students and may not be an efficient model for rapidly increasing PhD production, especially when it involves a one-on-one student-supervisor relationship.
As indicated above, the shortage of suitably qualified academic staff and the continuing ageing of the same cohort pose a serious constraint on any substantive growth in doctoral enrolments in the near future.
Internationally, there is a growing trend towards abo- lishing the apprenticeship model in favour of more structured research education and training within dis-
ciplinary or interdisciplinary programmes or graduate schools74. The new types of programme that have been created are intended to reduce the duration of doctoral education, to reduce drop-out rates, and to provide more targeted research training. Typically they include course work.
The study found that there is an increasing trend to in- corporate some kind of course-based programme, or an expressed wish to do so. A number of PhD programme leaders maintain that they would like to emulate the concept of a course work PhD in order to ensure the quality of the input. It is important to remember, how- ever, that doctoral training is context-dependent. What may work well in one discipline, or at one university, or in one country, may not be directly transferable to other areas. The assumptions regarding the success of course- based doctorates need to be tested as they have various unintended consequences.
Furthermore, it should be noted that the proliferation of types and models for doctorate education have also triggered some criticism, and the full impact and con- sequences of these changes continue to unfold and be- come apparent in international research literature75. Recent innovative supervision practices, such as super- visory committees, joint supervision, virtual faculty and consortia, could potentially increase supervisory capa- city and expose students to additional expert know- ledge. These innovations also provide opportunities to make use of the large numbers of staff members with doctoral qualifications employed within South Africa’s national science councils, which represent an under- utilised source of doctoral supervisory capacity. Cohort- based and course-based models could also maximise the available supervisory capacity, but they remain resource-intensive (in terms of time and money), require institutional support and infrastructure, and may not be applicable across all contexts (i.e. different aims, fields of study and modes of research).
74 Kehm, B.M. (2004)
75 Park, C. (2005b)
Box 2: Four models of doctoral education within the South African context, 2009 Traditional apprenticeship
The main feature of the traditional apprenticeship model is the development of an informal, unstructured, ad hoc and individualised, one-on-one mentoring rela- tionship between student and supervisor. It generally does not include any course work and is defined as a delivery model “whereby PhD students are expected to learn the necessary skills and competencies from their supervisors”76.
Even though this is still the most prevalent approach to doctoral education at public higher education institu- tions in South Africa, there is an acknowledgment of the vulnerability of the model, especially when the student is relying on only one supervisor. In response, various mechanisms are being used to supplement the appren- ticeship model to expose students to the experience of additional supervisors. These include forming various co-supervisory arrangements, establishing doctoral student groups and providing formal opportunities for regular scholarly exchanges and debate between students and academics other than the main supervi- sor. However, the exposure of the students to all these possibilities still depends on the individual supervisor.
Cohort-based
The cohort-based model represents a shift from doc- toral education as a solitary experience defined by an individual student-supervisor relationship, to a shared (group) experience defined by a specified time cycle.
A PhD cohort can be defined as “a year-group of self- minded doctoral candidates who study together in workshops, progress through doctoral studies together, are identified by others as a group and identify them- selves as a group”77 and generally include a strong course work component.
Some of the reported advantages of a PhD cohort in the South African context are that it provides a criti- cal mass of students and supervisors and theoretically offers economies of scale. It also provides structure and clear achievement benchmarks for students within the training process, it ensures the development of a ‘com- munity of scholars’, and it creates opportunities for students to network and learn from one another, there- by lessening the isolation of young researchers.
There are also disadvantages to the cohort model, such as dominant group members or lack of commit- ment to the cohort. The cohort may also create pres- sures, especially in the advanced stages when students tend to have different timeframes. There is a certain degree of competition (though this is not always a negative consequence).
There is also a view that cohort students are being segregated from colleagues outside the group, and that these students may be perceived as being more privileged than other PhD students. Finally, the cohort approach requires funding, infrastructure and com- patibility with the existing tradition of research.
The project-based model is a type of cohort-based model in that students also study in a group. It does not, however, necessarily include collaboration with other students, course work or a specified time cycle.
In this approach students are assigned to a research project upon admission and work in close collaboration with their supervisors and other junior and senior re- searchers as an integrated part of an ongoing project. It is said that working in a project enhances the students’
research skills and their level of commitment. However, projects are usually pre-defined by the supervisor – who also provides the necessary funds and bursaries – and students therefore do not initiate their own research.
Course-based
In this model, the doctoral programme includes a structured curriculum in addition to individual super- vision (i.e. apprenticeship model). Course work provides students with input from a variety of academics and usually focuses on epistemology, research methodo- logy, critical thinking skills and discipline-specific theory. The course-based model is usually presented in a cohort format, but can also be utilised as a competency-based model, i.e. tailored to an indivi- dual student’s previous academic qualifications, work experience and learning goals.
Some supervisors consider PhD-level course work to be a critical part in the development of the student. It is often noted that coursework is required at this level in the South African context to compensate for the lack of adequate research training at the undergraduate, honours and masters levels.
76 Ulhøi, J P. (2005)
77 Leshem, S. (2007)
There is, however, resistance to the course work model from students as well as institutions. Where course work is presented in a cohort format, students sometimes feel that some courses do not relate directly to their topics.
The model is also a resource-intensive approach to doc- toral education, it is far removed from the traditional model, and it is not accredited by the HEQF.
PhD by publication
PhD by publication is accredited in a number of faculties
at South African public higher education institutions.
This model is defined by Park78 as a doctorate that is “...
based largely on the supervised research project, but examined on the basis of a series of peer-reviewed academic papers which have been published or accepted for publication, and usually accompanied by an overarching paper that presents the overall introduction and conclusions.” There are, however, different conceptions of what counts as a publication and how a dissertation is constructed and assessed.
Source: Exemplary PhD programmes (see Appendix 1)
1.6 What are the conversion rates from masters to doctoral degrees?
Finding 13: Major blockages along the educational