The Ph.D. trajectory: Is it only about counting papers or also about personal academic growth?
During the last few weeks I have attended several meetings in which researchers in the field of general educational sciences and health professions education discussed criteria by which to evaluate Ph.D. trajectories.
As you can read on our website, the SHE Ph.D. program is rated among the top Ph.D. programs in the world and has high internationally recognized standards. The main objective of the Ph.D. program is that participants conduct educational research (typically a series of empirical studies) in their own work setting, resulting in a Ph.D. thesis and a Ph.D. degree. In their initial talks with supervisors, Ph.D. students will soon discover that they are expected to conduct and report on four studies which are preferably partly published or submitted to peer-reviewed international journals with an impact factor within a period of four or five years. In the Netherlands, completing at least four studies seems to be the gold standard in our field. Consequently, we as supervisors seem to be primarily concerned with the number of studies to be included.
However, this is strange since the aim of the Ph.D. trajectory is to learn to conduct high-quality research. Isn’t a Ph.D. trajectory first and foremost a learning trajectory aimed at preparing a Ph.D. student to conduct independent good research (Cleland & Dolmans, 2017)? Shouldn’t we as educationalists explain to our students that a Ph.D. trajectory above all things is a training trajectory? Isn’t it about learning to become a highly qualified and well-trained scholar in the field? Shouldn’t we as supervisors focus on encouraging our Ph.D.’s to participate in formal Ph.D. training courses on recent developments in specific research areas or on methodology and academic writing? Shouldn’t we encourage our Ph.D.’s to informally meet with other Ph.D.’s and researchers to expand their internal and external networks within the research arena?
There is more to a Ph.D. trajectory than counting papers. We should not forget that it is first and foremost a learning trajectory aimed at personal academic growth. We are in December, not only a busy time of the year, but also a time to reflect on the past year and set new goals for the next year. I would recommend supervisors and Ph.D. students alike to start their first 2018 meeting with a dialogue about how to develop as a scholar and which Ph.D. courses to attend to stimulate their personal academic growth.
Diana Dolmans