A framework for evaluating the doctoral curriculum

Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education

Volumn 29, Issue 3, 2004, Pages 299-309

  Gilbert, Rob ^a  

^a JAMES COOK UNIVERSITY   (Australia)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 11844254717     PISSN: 02602938     EISSN: 1469297X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/0260293042000188258     Document Type: Article

References (30)

1. Adams, F. & Mathieu, E. (1999) Towards a closer integration of Ph.D. training to industrial and societal needs, Analytica Chimica Acta, 393, 147-155.
2. Association of American Universities (1998) Graduate education report. Available online at: www.aau.edu/reports/GradEdRpt.html (accessed 5 March 2003).
3. Burgess, R. (1997) The changing context of postgraduate education in the United Kingdom, in: R. Burgess (Ed.) Beyond the first degree: graduate education, lifelong learning and careers (London, The Society for Research into Higher Education and Open University Press).
4. Coate, K. & Leonard, D. (2002) The structure of research training in England, The Australian Educational Researcher, 29(3), 19-42.
5. Deem, R. & Brehony, K. (2000) Doctoral students' access to research cultures-are some more unequal than others?, Studies in Higher Education, 25(2), 150-165.
6. Delamont, S., Parry, O. & Atkinson, P. (1997) Critical mass and pedagogic continuity: studies in academic habitus, British Journal of Sociology of Education, 18(4), 533-549.
7. Economic and Social Research Council (2001) Postgraduate training guidelines (Swindon, Economic and Social Research Council).
8. Economic and Social Research Council (2003) Postgraduate training guidelines. Available online at: www.esrc.ac.uk/esrccontent/postgradfunding/ptgcd01.asp (accessed 26 March 2003).
9. Gallagher, M. (2000) The challenges facing higher education research training, in: M. Kiley & G. Mullins (Eds) Quality in postgraduate research: making ends meet, paper presented at the Proceedings of the 2000 Quality in Postgraduate Research Conference (Adelaide, University of Adelaide Advisory Centre for University Education).
10. Geiger, R. (1997) Doctoral education: the short-term crisis vs. long-term challenge, The Review of Higher Education, 20(3), 239-251.
11. Gilbert, R. (2002) Research training: needs and directions. A framework for evaluating the doctoral curriculum, Report to the Higher Education Division, Australian Department of Education, Science and Training (Townsville, James Cook University).
12. Hamilton, D. (1987) Education: an unfinished curriculum (Glasgow, University of Glasgow Department of Education).
13. Higher Education Funding Council for England (2003) Improving standards in postgraduate research degree programmes: informal consultation (Bristol, Higher Education Funding Council for England).
14. Hockey, J. (1995) Change and the social science PhD: supervisors' responses, Oxford Review of Education, 21(2), 195-206.
15. Kendall, G. (2002) The crisis in doctoral education: a sociological diagnosis, Higher Education Research and Development, 21(2), 131-141.
16. Kyvik, S. & Smeby, J. (1994) Teaching and research. The relationship between the supervision of graduate students and faculty research perfomance, Higher Education, 28, 227-239.
17. McWilliam, E. & Singh, P. (2002) Towards a research training curriculum: what, why, how, who? The Australian Educational Researcher, 29(3), 3-18.
18. Mullins, G. & Kiley, M. (2002) 'It's a PhD, not a Nobel Prize': how experienced examiners assess research theses, Studies in Higher Education, 27(4), 369-386.
19. Norris, N. (1998) Curriculum evaluation revisited, Cambridge Journal of Education, 28(2), 207-219.
20. Office of Science and Technology (1992) The nature of the PhD: a discussion document (London, Office of Science and Technology).
21. Parry, S. & Hayden, M. (1994) Supervising higher degree research: an investigation of practices across a range of academic departments (Canberra, Australian Government Publishing Service).
22. Pearson, M. (1996) Professionalising Ph.D. education to enhance the quality of the student experience, Higher Education, 32, 303-320.
23. Pearson, M. & Brew, A. (2002) Research training and supervision development, Studies in Higher Education, 27(2), 135-150.
24. Pole, C. (2000) Technicians and scholars in pursuit of the PhD: some reflections on doctoral study, Research Papers in Education, 15(1), 95-111.
25. Popkewitz, T. (2002) The non-bricks and the non-mortar of an intellectual culture: my Americanization story of graduate education, The Australian Educational Researcher, 29(3), 43-62.
26. Raber, L. R. (1995, May 29) Chemists give mixed review of NRC report on doctoral education, American Chemical Society, p. 44.
27. Review Committee on Higher Education Financing and Policy (1998) Learning for life: review of higher education financing and policy, final report (Canberra, Department of Education, Employment, Training and Youth Affairs).
28. Scriven, M. (1973) The methodology of evaluation, in: B. Worthen & J. Sanders (Eds) Educational evaluation: theory and practice (Belmont, CA, Wadsworth Publishing).
29. Tinkler, P. & Jackson, C. (2000) Examining the doctorate: institutional policy and the PhD examination process in Britain, Studies in Higher Education, 25(2), 167-180.
30. Winter, R., Griffiths, M. & Green, K. (2000) The academic qualities of practice: what are the criteria for a practice-based PhD? Studies in Higher Education, 25(1), 25-37.