Interim report on research training

An interim report of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Innovation has been published this month. Entitled Research Training on Australian Universities , the report contains 24 recommendations for consideration by the Australian government.

A number of these recommendations are specific to the Australian PhD. For example, the Committee has recommended:

• that the period of doctoral candidature be extended to three and a half years (EFT) with the possibility of two six-month extensions [No 9], and for the duration of federal postgraduate awards [No. 11]
  
• that stipend rates for all federally funded postgraduate awards be increased by 50 per cent [No. 12]
  
• that the Australian Government double the number of IPRS to reflect the growth in the international student cohort [No. 19]
  
• that the Australian Government develop and implement an additional industry partnership program, modelled on Knowledge Transfer Partnerships, that will further facilitate connection between business and research institutions [No. 23].

Only the interim report’s 24 recommendations are currently available online, and it will be interesting to consider the main arguments and the final report when it becomes available—not to mention the nature and timing of the government’s response.

Engaging communities

The Higher Education Research and Development Society of Australasia’s (HERDSA) annual conference was held in Auckland last week with ‘Engaging Communities’ as its main theme.

In the light of current developments in Australia (e.g. major reviews of higher education, research training and research quality), it was refreshing to reflect on strategies that acknowledge the economic imperative on the one hand, while promoting more collaborative and holistic approaches to development on the other.

The HERDSA 2008 Conference Handbook contains details of the three-day program, and a printed report of the conference has also been published. While keynote presenters were generally good, the contribution of Etienne Wenger was particularly noteworthy. In contrast to other presenters, he engaged and interacted with participants by generating something akin to a Socratic dialogue. His use of simple techniques such as rearranging the furniture; using a roving mike; and screening select (i.e. two or three) PowerPoint slides made for a highly stimulating and informative session. Some fresh insights on communities of practice emerged, for example, his reference to an ‘ecology of leadership’ provided considerable food for thought.

I presented a refereed paper entitled ‘Acknowledging conflict in communities of practice: A case from doctoral education’. While the session appeared to go well, the process highlighted the age-old problem of how to engage participants in meaningful ways. I deliberately didn’t use Power Point; arranged participants into a circle; and encouraged participant input and feedback. At the end of the day, however, questions of effectiveness and impact began to re-surface. My attendance at other sessions confirmed the problematic nature of many conference presentations, as academics and researchers relentlessly dumped huge slabs of information on submissive recipients; moved rapidly through highly complex data shows (frequently apologising for their inaccessibility); and invited a quick question or two as participants initiated the stampede to the next session.

To their credit, the HERDSA conference leaders were nothing short of exceptional in their demonstration of organisational competence. This was one of the best organised conferences I have attended in the past 30 years. A variety of sessions was on offer—showcases (20 mins); refereed papers (40 mins); symposia (90 mins); as well as keynotes (75 mins). However, as Etienne Wenger implied, it is the foyer conversations at conferences that are generally the most memorable. The challenge of engaging conference communities remains one of orchestrating substantive input on the one hand, with a view to maximising individual and collective outcomes on the other. However, getting the balance right is easier said than done.

Generic skills - from definitions to strategies

The release of a Discussion Paper from the Review of Australian Higher Education (June 2008) identifies “meeting labour market and industry needs” as a key challenge for the sector.

In line with recent papers and reports, the importance of generic/employability skills is highlighted. For example, one of the thirty-five questions on which the review panel is seeking feedback asks: "Are there particular examples of good practice where you can demonstrate either rapid response to skill shortages or successful initiatives to improve generic skills?"

The discussion paper cites—and indeed reflects in some respects—the thrust of a recent paper issued by the Department for Innovation, Universities and Skills (DIUS) in the UK entitled Higher Education at Work. High Skills: High Value (April 2008).

It is possible to detect a shift in the focus of recent discourse from the rationale for, and definition of, employability/generic/transferable skills and attributes, to effective mechanisms and strategies for development, i.e. ‘what works’.

Productive partnerships and linkages appear to be near the top of the list. The DIUS paper refers to the need to forge new relationships between employers and higher education (e.g. co-funding arrangements, local/regional problem solving). Universities Australia has proposed a National Internship Scheme (May 2008). In this position paper there is talk of "a broad partnership between universities, government and industries".

A dominant theme in these documents is the importance of economic growth, national productivity and international competitiveness. Emphasis is placed on industry needs and skill shortages—although benefits to individuals and society are identified in some cases.

While Macquarie University’s announcement (June 2008) regarding the introduction of a Global Futures Program is big on partnerships, its focus is on community. Working in partnership with Australian Volunteers International, the aim of the program is to develop local and international partnerships resulting in community contributions of mutually benefit. Significantly, students on placements will receive academic credit.

Much of the current activity in relation to employability/generic skills development in the higher education sector mirrors that which occurred in secondary education over twenty years ago in the flurry to establish work experience programs. It is likely that a number of issues that emerged in the 1980s will recur, e.g.

• Paid or unpaid (i.e. will students be engaged in service, experiential or authentic work)?
• Formal or informal (e.g. will programs be accredited and how will student participation be recognised)?
• Who is primarily responsible/accountable (e.g. insurance, processes, outcomes)?
• Mandatory or optional (e.g. for some or all students)?
• Integrated, embedded or bolt-on approaches (e.g. questions of curriculum, pedagogy, assessment, reporting)?
• Who coordinates, monitors and evaluates? (e.g. placements, internships, programs)?

Graduation Statements Proposed

The final report of the national diploma supplement project was released earlier this month with little fanfare. Entitled Proposal for an Australian Higher Education Graduation Statement, the key recommendation is that statements be issued by awarding institutions (i.e. in addition to degree certificates or testamurs) to all graduates of higher education.

To quote from the report: "The aim is to make Australian higher education qualifications more portable and their value more transparent. Graduation statements will provide information on the nature, level, context and status of the studies that were pursued and completed by graduates, as well as information about the education system to which the qualification belongs. It will be provided without charge to all graduates from higher education courses recognised within the Australian Qualification Framework". (p.iv)

The report includes an example of a Graduation Statement for a PhD degree (see Example 5, pp. 31-34). Like other statements, there are five structural components, namely, graduate, award, institution, academic achievements, and the Australian higher education system.

However, it is also recommended that implementation of Graduation Statements should be voluntary and spread over a three year period commencing as soon as practicable in 2008. The possibility of a lump sum payment to each public university that formally agrees to complete implementation over a three year period is raised in the report. The Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations and Universities Australia are identified as sharing responsibility for implementation and the monitoring of progress.

Presumably the next step in the process will be a statement from the government or department regarding acceptance of—or an alternative response to—the report.

New Inquiry

An Inquiry into Research Training and Research Workforce Issues in Australia has been established by the House of Representatives Industry, Science and Innovation Committee. This Committee will inquire into the contribution that Australian universities make to Australian research training, and the challenges universities face in recruiting, training and retaining quality research staff in this country.

One of the Committee’s terms of reference is concerned with the effectiveness of current Commonwealth research training schemes. Recent research in the fields of higher education and academic and professional practice undertaken by staff at CEDAM could well be of interest to this Committee.

Like many of the recent initiatives of Kim Carr, this inquiry emphasises the importance of fostering Australia’s competitiveness through an integrated approach to science, research and innovation. However, with only a month available to make a submission there is no time to lose.

Given the transparency of many House of Representative Standing Committee inquiries, it is likely that submissions will be available via the Parliamentary website during the course of the investigation. It will be interesting to review the quality, as well as the quantity, of submissions received.

Transferable Skills

Transferable skills for HDR candidates provided the focus for several sessions at the Quality in Postgraduate Research Conference (QPR) held in Adelaide on 17-18 April.

For example, keynote presenter Professor Jean Chambaz (Chair of a recently initiated EUA Council for Doctoral Education) emphasised the importance of embedding generic capability in the doctoral curriculum. However, he argued strongly against the development of structured courses designed to foster transferable skills, suggesting that these were best developed THROUGH the conduct of authentic doctoral research.

A number of presenters at the Conference provided details of programs currently being implemented with a view to developing transferable skills for HDR candidates. Examples included a Doctoral Skills Program (University of Auckland); Postgraduate Teaching Internship Scheme (UWA); Research Student Virtual Portfolio (UQ); Learning Employment Aptitudes Program and the e-Grad School (QUT); and Generic Skills Programs (Deakin).

Other papers were concerned with current research that is exploring elements to do with the employability of doctoral graduates. Examples included “The PhD in the global knowledge Economy: Hypothesising beyond employability”; “Australian Doctoral Graduates: Where are they going?”; and “Postgraduate Research Education and the Engineering Workplace: Employers’ perspectives”.

Details of keynote and paper presentations should be uploaded to the QPR Conference Proceedings website in the next few weeks.

Doctoral Skills

Commentary on the skills that doctoral scholars and other students in higher education should have on graduation has been getting a run in the media recently. For example, on March 5, an article by Lawson and Weston entitled doctorates ailing on the world stage was published in The Australian. One of the main arguments advanced was that greater "institutionalisation of structured learning practices" (e.g. more formal training and coursework) is needed to increase the international competitiveness of Australian PhD graduates.

In a subsequent letter to the editor captioned doctoral skills I argued that while structured approaches to training and development have their place, these need to be complemented by a raft of learning opportunities that enable candidates to demonstrate capability as well as build capacity (i.e. semi and und unstructured approaches which highlight student agency). This generated a few online responses, most of which appeared to support the need for more coursework. However, I also received a couple of private responses from researchers supporting a more strategic approach to the development of generic skills.

On April 11, the VC of Macquarie University argued in the Canberra Times that "the skills required for employment today are not necessarily those that will be needed in the future". Schwartz singled out "foresight, constructive dissent and creativity" as being in short supply among university graduates. Employers, governments and universities have been developing extensive lists of graduate attributes and employability skills for years, but scant attention has been paid to articulating what doctoral scholars and students can actually do. If greater effort were invested in the capturing and illuminating of skilful performance in authentic settings, then much of the current angst around the perceived deficiences of Australian graduates might well dissipate.