Michael Samuel gave a seminar in the SOTL @ UJ: Towards a Socially Just Pedagogy series, on the 17 March. He Michael
started with an activity on three data sets with participants divided into
three groups. Each group received a set of topics to decide if those were
potential Ph.D. topics or not. The three
topics were, from the University World News, the Daily Higher Education News
and the third share was from the existing topics that were currently undertaken
as Ph.D. studies.
The
groups had to answer the questions on whether the different topics could be undertaken
as Ph.D. studies or not, and why they decided
on the particular topics. The groups had to report back on the factors
that drive the Ph.D. It was interesting
to hear the different perspectives influenced by the different disciplines and
contexts. Some participants said what drives the study is the issue of where
people are located, real contextual problems or on how they would be able to
find the data. Some said it is more of a convenience issue.
The
question was, should the students be given the research topic or should they
bring their own? In the Natural Science, the candidates are given a topic based
on the project from the supervisor.
Professor
Michael Cross commented that a number of factors play an important role in a Ph.D. study topic. He mentioned that academic
knowledge production is no longer at the top of the agenda for a Ph.D. study and that is where we missing the
point. He further remarked that the students could be guided on the topic at Honours
and Masters level and not at Ph.D. It is
unfortunate that the Higher Education system expects the Ph.D. candidate to complete in a less than four
years yet in the South African context the majority of Ph.D. candidates are studying part-time and they have full-time
jobs, which makes it impossible to complete in three years. Or else the
supervisors end up with a prescription, as the students have to complete their
studies quicker than it used to be the case. Thus,
academic knowledge production is not at the top of the agenda anymore.
Ph.D. in Higher Education does not necessarily take the social justice
agenda. We are aware that the focus of the study should be broad rather than narrowly
focusing on a small case study. Students often think they can resolve a
particular problem, but the Ph.D. should
move beyond that.The theoretical underpinning should
be developed as the study builds up. Students often think they can resolve a
particular problem, but the Ph.D. should
move beyond this thinking.
What
is driving the Ph.D.?
The
international discourses that are influenced by the international rankings
would ask questions such as:
How many Ph.D. graduates does
an institution like the University of Johannesburg produce? Or even the
differentiated South African higher education context?
How are these issues contributing to redress, transformation and
social justice issues? (Instead of the agenda of the knowledge production
issues).
How do we ensure that knowledge production occurs?
How do we build the next generation of researchers (Holness, 2015)?
The
outcome should be about knowledge production rather than throughput rates.
Individual
students at the end get caught up in the different agendas that determine
whether the institution is research intensive or not. Thus, the supervisors chooses the topics that will address the nature
of the set agenda.
The
agenda for the Ph.D. production is driven by other forces such as the National Development Plan, the
Department of Science and Technology and the Council on Higher Education. The
managerial considerations are also pushed in this framework. The agenda is
mostly driven from the Higher Education system as opposed to from the institution. This
agenda should rather be driven from the institution to the outside rather than
the other way around. It's a problematic agenda from the Higher Education system that
does not promote institutional autonomy.
Ph.D.
Models
The
different models of Ph.D. curriculum need
to be introduced especially considering the current student protest of
decolonising the curriculum. The range of Ph.D.
curriculum options available needs to be
executed, in terms of the different forms of doctorates available. We need to
move away from the British model of one-on-one supervision and introduce other
forms such as the cohort and team
supervision. The different Ph.D. models, the Ph.D.
by publication and the professional doctorate should also be encouraged. The dominant Western worldview has made us believe that a Ph.D. education is about producing a written
text and nothing else. Alternative forms of representation of what the Ph.D. would look like are documented in the Higher
Education Qualifications Sub-Framework (2014) and should be explored.
With
the Ph.D. by publication, the candidate needs to produce a minimum of four
articles. The downside is that the
average time to produce an article and get it published takes longer, so this
is not an easy option as candidates think. Also,
the Ph.D. by publication is more rigorous
in terms of examination. In addition, the body of knowledge also moves as the
candidates waits for the publication of
the article.
The
largest growth of the Ph.D.
internationally is the professional doctorate, of which the idea is to move
from context to theory. Unfortunately, some institutions and disciplines in
South Africa are rejecting this option as it is seen as a lesser form of a Ph.D., which is not necessarily the case. A lot
of institutions are suggesting that a theory-driven
Ph.D. is superior as compared to a context-driven one. Some strong institutions
see this as the watering down of the Ph.D.
The
vast majority of our students would appreciate the professional doctorate as
they do not have the luxury of studying full-time. They come from the world of
work that seems to be pushing the agenda for the studies and not the higher
education system. They have to address the daily issues that they face. There
is tension between two worlds, which is misunderstood and seen in this
particular way. All three form of the Ph.D. have to mediate the theory, the
context and the practice, and, therefore,
none should be seen as dominant over the other.
One
can ask, which model of the Ph.D. supervision
is beginning to dominate and take hold? The models of supervision are crossing
over and the cohort model of team supervision is becoming dominant, whereby the
students work together. Michael Samuels' 2011 paper titled, Emergent frameworks of
research teaching and learning in a cohort-based doctoral programme, argues
for shifting the dynamics.
The
candidates in the Natural Sciences have less to do independently as compared to the students
in the Social Sciences. Their journey is not as lonely and they are able to
produce more graduates. The
joy in the Social Sciences, however, is
to have ownership of the entire project and experience the doctorate emerging. The
studies are moving away from the limits of policy implementation analysis
Can
alternative methodologies generate new forms of social justice? We
see a shift of agenda, of a move away from
policy implementation and analysis. The tension is also between small scale studies that focus on the individual and large scale studies that focus on the
system. Samuels argued that this focus on the micro might be the beginning of a new narcissism.
He
concluded by drawing from Wayne Hugo who argues that maybe this is the flip
side of individualism, whereby we produce consumers rather than producers of knowledge. This is where the uniqueness of
individual cases needs to be celebrated. Candidates at Ph.D. level need to be encouraged to solve the
problems at a more systematic level, rather than a small case study. He closed
comments by emphasizing that a methodology cannot ensure a new form of social
justice. It can rather be a place to think about
how we are self-critical about our own research agendas and how they come to
be.
 |
| Michael Samuel |
Michael Samuel is a Professor in the School of Education, University
of KwaZulu-Natal. He has served as a curriculum designer of innovative masters
and collaborative doctoral cohort programmes locally and internationally. He
has supervised to successful completion over 20 Ph.D.
studies. He was a member of the Ministerial Committee on Teacher Education
assisting the development of national teacher education policy in South Africa.
He has served as former Deputy Dean: Initial Teacher Education and Dean
(Faculty of Education, UKZN). His research interest focuses on teacher
professional development, higher education, life history and narrative inquiry.
He serves on several national and international editorial boards of educational
journals. He is the recipient of the Turquoise Harmony Institute’s National
Ubuntu Award for Contribution to Education.
No comments:
Post a Comment