Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

A Comparison of Best Practices for Doctoral Training in the European and North Americaa Contries

334 views

Published on

Presenration from ORPHEUS conference 2017 in Klaipeda

Published in: Health & Medicine
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

A Comparison of Best Practices for Doctoral Training in the European and North Americaa Contries

  1. 1. A Comparison of Best Practices for Doctoral Training in the European and North American Continents Michael Mulvany, Robert Harris, Joey Barnett Professor emeritus Department of Biomedicine Aarhus University, Denmark Head Graduate Studies, 2002-2011 mm@farm.au.dk Chairman Labelling Board, 2014- Vice-President, 2011-2014 Executive Committee, 2007- Organization for PhD education in biomedicine and health sciences in the European system 5 May 2017
  2. 2. 1800s Germany, Humboldt: dr. phil. to younger students who had completed a prescribed course of graduate study under supervision and and successfully defended a thesis/dissertation containing original research in science or in the humanities . Wilhelm von Humboldt Professionalising the doctorate The apprenticeship model
  3. 3. The project Developing best practices: learning from each other
  4. 4. www.orpheus-med.org The project Developing best practices: learning from each other
  5. 5. www.orpheus-med.org The project Developing best practices: learning from each other
  6. 6. www.orpheus-med.org Manitoba Vanderbilt Karolinska Institute Graz • Medical University of Graz, Graz, Austria • Karolinska Instituttet, Stockholm, Sweden • College of Medicine, University of Manitoba, Canada • Vanderbilt University School of Medicine, Nashville, TN, USA A Comparison of Best Practices for Doctoral Training in the European and North American Continents Joey Barnett, Robert Harris, Michael Mulvany
  7. 7. Data collection using ORPHEUS self-assessment questionnaire www.orpheus-med.org 68 recommendations
  8. 8. Comparison of questionnaire responses 68 recommendations www.orpheus-med.org
  9. 9. • Scientific project under supervision* • Increasingly … transferable skills • Project concludes with a thesis • Thesis includes published articles Similarities between the four institutions: = *supervisor (Europe) = mentor (USA)
  10. 10. Main differences between institutions  structure of PhD programs  thesis committees  assessment of PhD theses ≠
  11. 11.  structure of PhD programs  thesis committees  assessment of PhD theses Main differences between institutions ≠
  12. 12. Structure of PhD programmes bachelor master’s PhD 2 Karolinska bachelor PhD qualifying exam 4 Vanderbilt bachelor master’s 3 Manitoba PhD ORPHEUS recommendation: PhD programmes should be structured with a clear time limit, a length equivalent to 3-4 years full time. (BR4.4) courses research0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 yr master’sbachelor PhD 1 Graz
  13. 13. Structure of PhD programmes courses research0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 yr master’sbachelor PhD 1 Graz bachelor master’s PhD 2 Karolinska bachelor PhD qualifying exam 4 Vanderbilt bachelor master’s 3 Manitoba PhD ORPHEUS recommendation: PhD programmes should be structured with a clear time limit, a length equivalent to 3-4 years full time. (BR4.4) • Flexible • But, less time for PhD preparation • Pre-PhD gives time to choose supervisor and prepare project • But, candidate is locked into system
  14. 14.  structure of PhD programs  thesis committees  assessment of PhD theses Main differences between institutions ≠
  15. 15. ORPHEUS recommendation: Graduate schools could consider having a thesis committee for each PhD candidate. (QD8.6). Thesis committees Thesis committee  Additional to traditional supervision.  3-5 members of faculty with responsibility for advice to candidate and supervisor concerning formulation of project, project development and thesis  Annual or biannual meetings Thesis committee Graz - yes - annual meetings Karolinska Institute - no - half-time review Manitoba - yes - annual meetings Vanderbilt - yes - bi-annual meetings ≠
  16. 16. Strengths Weaknesses Supervision • Clear division of responsibility • Emphasis on candidate-supervisor relation • Possible lack of supervisor time • Possible low competence Supervision and thesis committees
  17. 17. Strengths Weaknesses Supervision • Clear division of responsibility • Emphasis on candidate-supervisor relation • Possible lack of supervisor time • Possible low competence Thesis committee • Regular (bi-annual) expert advice to PhD candidate and supervisor throughout project • Possibly conflicting advice • Too much scientific input at the expense of PhD candidates’s own development of critical scientific thinking • Major faculty workload Supervision and thesis committees
  18. 18.  structure of PhD programs  thesis committees  assessment of PhD theses Main differences between institutions ≠
  19. 19.  formative assessment in which a doctoral candidate’s learning can be monitored and feedback given in order to facilitate improvement  e.g. regular input from a Thesis Committee Assessment of thesis: summative v. formative assessment  summative assessment in which doctoral candidate learning is evaluated according to a predefined standard  e.g. thesis defence against independent opponents ORPHEUS recommendation: An independent summative assessment (BR7.3)
  20. 20. Graz - decision of independent assessment committee - supervisor not member - two from another university Karolinska Institute - decision of independent examination board - supervisor not member - at least one from another university Manitoba - decision of assessment committee consisting of - thesis (advisory) committee - supervisor is a member - one from another university Vanderbilt - decision of thesis committee (including supervisor) summative formative (formative) Thesis assessment summative
  21. 21. Assessed by Strengths Weaknesses Summative Independent assessment committee Graz, Karolinska, (Manitoba) • In principle, objective determination of whether level has been obtained. • Lack of agreed criteria • Reluctance in practice to fail a PhD candidate Thesis assessment
  22. 22. Assessed by Strengths Weaknesses Summative Independent assessment committee Graz, Karolinska, (Manitoba) • In principle, objective determination of whether level has been obtained. • Lack of agreed criteria • Reluctance in practice to fail a PhD candidate Formative The Thesis Committee Vanderbilt, (Manitoba) • Regular (bi-annual) expert advice throughout project • Intimate knowledge about how the candidate has progressed • Defence is just conclusion of the project where the committee has been involved throughout • No benchmarking with other institutions Thesis assessment
  23. 23.  structure of PhD programs  thesis committees  assessment of PhD theses ≠ The need for regular review ORPHEUS recommendation: There ought to be procedures for regular review and updating of the structure, function and quality of PhD programmes. (QD8.1)
  24. 24. www.orpheus-med.org Xx hoji sp ep dæie jkj enicodiekkm,eooke Jodmm,oe iihenkdXx hoji sp ep dæie jkj enicodiekkm,eooke Jodmm,oe iihenkd Xx hoji sp ep dæie jkj enicodiekkm,eooke Jodmm,oe iihenkdXx hoji sp ep dæie jkj enicodiekkm,eooke Jodmm,oe iihenkd e Jodmm,oe iihenkdXx hoji sp ep dæie jkj enicodiekkm,eooke Jodmm,oe iihenkd e Jodmm,oe iihenkdXx hoji sp ep dæie jkj enicodiekkm,eooke Jodmm,oe iihenkd ORPHEUS self-evaluation ORPHEUS support for regular review Self-evaluation
  25. 25. Evaluation of the completed Self- evaluation questionnaire by the ORPHEUS Labelling Board. www.orpheus-med.org Written discussion with ORPHEUS Labelling Board Xx hoji sp ep dæie jkj enicodiekkm,eooke Jodmm,oe iihenkdXx hoji sp ep dæie jkj enicodiekkm,eooke Jodmm,oe iihenkd Xx hoji sp ep dæie jkj enicodiekkm,eooke Jodmm,oe iihenkdXx hoji sp ep dæie jkj enicodiekkm,eooke Jodmm,oe iihenkd e Jodmm,oe iihenkdXx hoji sp ep dæie jkj enicodiekkm,eooke Jodmm,oe iihenkd e Jodmm,oe iihenkdXx hoji sp ep dæie jkj enicodiekkm,eooke Jodmm,oe iihenkd ORPHEUS self-evaluation ORPHEUS support for regular review Self-evaluation Evaluation certificate Award of an ORPHEUS Evaluation Certificate.
  26. 26. Evaluation of the completed Self- evaluation questionnaire by the ORPHEUS Labelling Board. www.orpheus-med.org Written discussion with ORPHEUS Labelling Board Xx hoji sp ep dæie jkj enicodiekkm,eooke Jodmm,oe iihenkdXx hoji sp ep dæie jkj enicodiekkm,eooke Jodmm,oe iihenkd Xx hoji sp ep dæie jkj enicodiekkm,eooke Jodmm,oe iihenkdXx hoji sp ep dæie jkj enicodiekkm,eooke Jodmm,oe iihenkd e Jodmm,oe iihenkdXx hoji sp ep dæie jkj enicodiekkm,eooke Jodmm,oe iihenkd e Jodmm,oe iihenkdXx hoji sp ep dæie jkj enicodiekkm,eooke Jodmm,oe iihenkd ORPHEUS self-evaluation ORPHEUS support for regular review Site visit by two members of the Labelling Board to meet with stakeholders. Award of an ORPHEUS label Self-evaluation Evaluation certificate Label Award of an ORPHEUS Evaluation Certificate.
  27. 27. Institutions with Evaluation Certificates Mannheim Institutions in process of self-evaluation Copenhagen Belgrade Bergen Graz Iceland Karolinska Izmir Institutions with Labels Evaluation Certificate and Labelling Groningen, NL Marmara, TR Manisa, TR Manitoba, CA Vanderbilt, US Ankara, TR Kocaeli, TR
  28. 28. To conclude Self-evaluation, Evaluation Certificate, LabellingORPHEUS

×