2. DPROF (HEALTH & SOCIAL CARE)
Doctoral Research Critical
Year 1 Foundation Methods (30 Leadership
(30 credits) credits) (30 credits)
Year 2 Professions & Practice Practitioner Researcher
(30 credits) (60 Credits)
RESEARCHER ELEMENT: KEY MILESTONES
Year 3 Interim Assessment: End of Year 3
Year 4 Internal Evaluation: End of Year 4
Year 5 Submission of Thesis and Viva: End of
year 5 (thesis 60,000 words)
3. Postgraduate Research Student Life Cycle
13. PRAB
12. Viva Voce (oral Enquires
Examination) 14. Graduation
1. Admissions /
11. Submission Application
of Thesis
University of Salford Research Award 2. Formal
10. Notice of Regulations Offer Letter
Presentation HEFCE QAA
FHEQ Framework
15. Research HEFCE Research Activity Survey/Audit
Training 3. Registration
Programme
9. Internal Induction
Evaluation
4. Learning
8. Re-registration
Agreement
(APRs & SEF
Evaluations)
7. Interim 5. APRs & SEF
Assessment 6. Re-registration Evaluations
4. Enquires
Admissions / Application
Formal Offer Letter
Professional Doctorate Research Student Life Cycle Registration
Post Graduate Induction
13. PRAB 14. Timely
12. Viva Voce completion & 1st Supervision:
(oral Graduation Orientation. 30 credit
Examination) module Doctoral
Foundations
11. Submission
of Thesis
2nd Supervision.
University of Salford Research Progress update 30
10. Notice of Award Regulations credit module, Critical
Presentation HEFCE QAA Leadership
FHEQ Framework
HEFCE Research Activity
Survey/Audit 3rd Supervision.
Research Identifying strengths/
Training Learning needs
9. Internal Programme 30 credit module,
Evaluation Professions & Practice
4th Supervision.
8. Re- Research proposal
registration 60 credits, Practitioner
(APRs & SEF Researcher
Evaluations) 4. Learning
7. Interim 6. Re- 5. APRs & SEF
Agreement: Year
Assessment registration Evaluations 3 completed in
first 3 months
5. Capturing This scoping exercise seeks to capture
supervision trends 2. Did supervision … ? student supervision in the early years of the
professional doctorate. In support of QAA
guidelines, the scope is not seeking to outline
what might be appropriate in terms of roles
and responsibilities, nor codify how a
1. About how
1 2 3 4 5 supervision relationship might operate.
However, to create the most effective learning
many times did environment for the student it is hoped this
you meet with scope will provide greater synergy between
your supervisor the taught and supervision elements of the
in years 1-5? programme
What have you perceived useful
for practice?
Did you discuss
Did you set any transferable skills?
outcomes?
What practical and transferable
skills might have helped?
Dr E Ball, audit flow chart for professional
19/08/2011 transferable skills
6.
7. Differences: Ph.D. c.f. Prof Doc
PhD Prof Doc
Pre-service In-service
Theoretical research Applied research
Single discipline Interdisciplinary
Abstract knowledge Knowledge in context
‘knowledge of’ ‘knowledge for’
Development of research Development of teaching/
career management career
Literature / lab based Work based action research
research
8. The journey
1 Starting out on the journey 2Apprenticeship via taught
sessions
4Springboard from year 2 3 Refinement of ideas
into year 3
4 New relationship
Assessment &
5 6Critical interpretation of
Evaluation processes the findings back to
practice
9. One factor that adds complexity to the
DProf is partition and time
As I see it the Students are supported by a
disadvantages firstly are, peer group where they
the inability to keep the encounter many excellent
work solid (by freezing interior structures such as
the subject in some way) competition, peer assessment,
The dominant challenge champions, encouragement
is producing research and friendship
that sits comfortably in Inter-disciplinary and inter-
the real world of practice professional working
that does not use the fall- Students have the art of
back of generalisable ‘throat clearing’ imposed
outcomes, but does upon them
actually make an explicit
contribution to
knowledge
10. Esoteric discourse / Exoteric dialogue
Doctoral candidate:
“How will I know my
writing is doctoral
level?
Supervisor:
“I don’t know…. I
know it when I see it”
11. Supervisory craft
At the core is the
need to manage the
interplay between
individual students &
the organisation
12. T T
H H
E The supervisory role is action oriented E
O O
R We need to organise thinking about situations so that action to R
Y bring about change can be taken (Checkland & Poulter 2006)
Y
The legitimacy of professional knowledge & practice
G are implied within a professional doctorate
E T
N Ethical issues are far greater, as is confidentiality
(Boucher & Smith 2004)
E
E S
R From both student & supervisor there needs to be a recognition
that others must be included in the research process T
A
T I
In the final analysis, good communication is the key to good N
I
supervision G
N
G SUPERVISION
12
13. Anecdotal feedback
“I have limited experience of Professional Doctorates; I have only been External
Examiner for one University & have only supervised one student (student X)
At X’s IA one of our examiners was keen the DProf was not treated any differently to
a normal PhD project; he rightly did not want it to be seen of any different standard to
a traditional PhD project. It is this important point that I have mulled over in my mind
all week, because…
When I was External Examiner at another University they had a very senior person to
chair the viva. The reason was that I was to examine their first Professional
Doctorate project. The advice they gave to me prior to the viva was crystal clear …
“please note that you are examining a component of a Professional Doctorate”; they
went on to remind me that the first two years of that part time award had already
been examined and passed. They were very clear in their advice; in that they felt
only having a 3 year project (compared with a 5 year project) would produce work of
a different kind to that of a traditional PhD. They said I should bear this point in mind
during the viva discussion and also when reflecting upon the written work itself.
With point ‘3’ above in mind I thought again about point ‘2’ above. I then wondered
whether there might be mileage in considering this matter, in light of my experience,
and also being fair to both the award and the student. Fundamentally - do
Professional Doctorate (PD) examiners (internal / external) need to take a different
approach than with a traditional PhD thesis in light of PD students having already
completed 2/5th of the award – unlike traditional PhD students where the entire work
is on ‘the examination table’ for discussion and scrutiny”?
16. Questions for the supervisor’s workshop
1. What is the role of the supervisor (a) in years 1-2 and (b) in years
3-5?
2. How (if at all) might a professional doctorate thesis differ from
one submitted for a PhD?
3. How (if at all) might the methodological approach for
professional doctorate research differ from that in PhD research?
4. How much of the student’s existing professional knowledge can
legitimately be incorporated into the thesis?
5. Is there any difference between the amount of existing literature
that a professional
doctorate student might be expected to engage with compared with
a PhD student?
6. Should a professional doctorate thesis be written in the third or
the first person?
Why?
17. References
Edwards N., Webber J., Mill J., Kahwae., Roelofs S (2009). Building capacity for nurse-led research. International
Nursing Review. 56, 88–94.
