An Evaluation of Doctoral Education in Finland PhD Training and the Knowledgebased Society FINHEEC 2

1
An Evaluation of Doctoral Education in Finland
PhD Training and the Knowledge-based Society
FINHEEC - 2006

• Dr. Seppo Saari, Adjunct Professor in Evaluation
  - University of Helsinki
• Dublin 15.10.2008

2
Outline

• Core objectives in evaluation
• Limitations of Evaluation
• Observations
• Academic Focus of GSs
• GS Admissions Process
• Doctoral Student Funding
• GS Program Design
• GS Supervision
• Quality Assurance
• Relationship between GSs and Working Life
• National/International Cooperation in GS
• GS Governance
• The Problem of Passive Participation
• Recommendations
• After the evaluation trends in Finland

3
Ways to doctorate
Professional researcher career - Universities -
Other public sector - Private sector
Other doctoral training in Universities
Graduate Schools
Masters in Universities
Working experience
Expertise - public and private sector
Other doctoral training in Universities
Main stream
Optional stream
4
Evaluation panel

• Professor David D. Dill, University of North
  Carolina-Chapel Hill, USA
• Professor Hans Siggard Jensen, The Danish
  University of Education, Denmark
• Professor Erno Lehtinen, University of Turku,
  Finland
• Professor Sanjit K. Mitra, University of
  California-Davis, USA
• Professor Tomi Mäkelä, University of Magdeburg,
  Germany
• MSc, doctoral student Anna Parpala, University of
  Helsinki, Finland
• Chief Policy Advisor Hannele Pohjola,
  Confederation of Finnish Industries, EK, Finland
• Professor Mary A. Ritter, Imperial College of
  London, UK
• Project Manager, Adjunct Professor Seppo Saari,
  FINHEEC

5
Core Topics in Evaluation

• Objectives of the education
• Content and structure of the education
• Acceptance for education
• Organisation, teaching and supervision
• National and international co-operation
• Profiling of the education units
• Relationship between the education and working
  life
• Evaluation of the quality of the education,
  feedback systems and quality development
• Future prospects for the education
  quantitative and qualitative challenges

6
Charge to Team

• to provide a qualitative evaluation of the
  content and structures of doctoral education,
  including mention of good practice, with
  recommendations to guide continuing quality
  assessment and improvement in the overall system

7
Limitations of the Evaluation

• Reviewed 25 Graduate Schools nominated by
  universities (19 Ministry-funded 9
  University-funded)
• Sample lt 20 Ministry-funded GSs no doctoral
  programs or conventional doctoral education
• Believe observed variations in GSs and openness
  of discussions provided us with valid insights
  into the strengths and weaknesses of the overall
  system

8
Academic Focus of GSs

• Introduction of Graduate Schools (GSs) was an
  important innovation in Finnish higher education
• Flexibility of structure and focus permitted a
  healthy degree of bold experimentation
• Coverage of subject fields by GSs appears to be
  more or less by chance - consequently may be
  under-investment in established disciplinary
  fields or in individual institutions with
  potential for international stature
• Existence of an established strength in research
  would appear to be the critical criterion for
  awarding GSs (cf. Academy of Finland Centers of
  Research Excellence)

9
GS Admissions Process

• Competition for funded GS places ranges from 51
  to 11 generally good
• Quality of information available to applicants
  about doctoral study varies among the GSs
• Admission requirements/criteria also vary among
  GSs
• few GSs have clearly stated and transparent
  criteria governing admissions process
• selection relies primarily upon students
  submission of academic and research plans,
  recommendation letters, in-person interviews
• few GSs appear to use students previous grades
  or marks and/or internationally available test
  scores in the selection of doctoral students
• GS admissions process could benefit from more
  systematic means of marketing doctoral programs,
  recruiting students, and evaluating future
  potential of doctoral applicants

10
Doctoral Student Funding

• Students and faculty members interviewed reported
  most important element of the GS program was the
  financial support it provided to doctoral
  students
• Advanced and graduated doctoral students stressed
  the significance of receiving a four-year grant
  for their success
• Decentralised system of doctoral student support
  GSs, universities, Academy of Finland, private
  foundations may weaken the effectiveness of DES

11
GS Program Design

• Three primary components
• training in subject-related content and research
  techniques
• training in transferable skills and career
  development
• the research project
• Issue of core course requirements, supervision,
  and academic standards
• Redundant training in transferable skills and
  career development
• Critical relationship between GSs and faculties

12
GS Supervision

• Supervision practices frequently criticised --
  few examples of comprehensive, well organised
  supervision system
• Excessive supervision load reported by faculty --
  tradition of restricting supervision to
  professors may contribute to this
• Some GSs create a team or board of supervisors
  for each student highly valued by students
• GSs ability to improve supervision limited
  because responsibility for supervisors/supervision
  lies with the faculties/departments

13
Quality Assurance

• Focus of doctoral quality assurance is on
  review/defense of dissertation
• Responsibility for quality assurance lies with
  supervisor, academic faculty/department few GS
  coordinators/directors took active role
• Appears to be little systematic evaluation by
  universities of this process e.g., monitoring
  selection of reviewers/opponents by the
  relevant faculties, assessment of written
  feedback on the quality of dissertations by
  external opponents, etc.
• Few GSs had external advisory boards or other
  evaluative mechanisms discovered little
  evidence of GS site-visits by representatives of
  central funding bodies
• Overall, appeared to be only modest scrutiny of
  doctoral programs by universities -- curriculum,
  quality of supervision, dissertation review and
  defense process, student progress -- as well as
  limited evidence of remedial actions taken by GSs
  and/or universities

14
Relationship between GSs and Working Life

• Some examples of a clear connection between a GS,
  a research area, and an important sector of
  industry or society
• In most GSs connection to working life mainly
  reflected in courses on practical/transferable
  skills and in use of visiting lecturers from
  business and industry in some courses

15
National/International Cooperation in GS

• A number of good examples of national cooperation
  in which GS students can choose different courses
  from different universities
• Finnish research appears to be well embedded in
  the international research system, e.g., use of
  foreign lecturers, student participation in
  international conferences, student exchanges,
  participation in Nordic/EU doctoral networks,
  international joint research programs
• The GSs with outstanding national/international
  cooperation have faculty members with established
  relationships with faculty members from other
  universities in Finland and foreign countries
  and/or where the GS is focused on a Centre for
  Research Excellence

16
GS Governance

• Many GSs governed by a Board comprising members
  of academic staff some had student members
• Some GS directors/heads exerted strong leadership
  occurred most often in University-based GSs
• GSs require appropriate authority as noted the
  reporting lines/relationship between a GS and the
  involved departments and faculties unclear
• Finnish doctoral education a complex organisation
  involving a student, a supervisor, a funding
  agency, a department, a degree-granting faculty,
  a GS, and a university
• A GS system can not alone solve the problems of
  improving the quality of doctoral education --
  there needs to be an institution-wide and a
  national system of quality assurance

17
The Problem of Passive Participation

• Passive participation -- doctoral students,
  either part-time or full-time, who retain their
  student status but make little measurable
  progress in their doctoral studies
• Many doctoral students appear to be employed
  full-time or are carrying out other
  responsibilities - possible due to the
  traditional practice of independent
  study/research
• Impossible to remove a persons right to study
  once granted
• The extent of passive participation and its
  negative impact on the DES not well documented
  some faculty members believe it highly costly
• Observable trend in international doctoral reform
  appears to be shift from research training toward
  doctoral education involving more structured
  courses, more careful supervision, and greater
  demands on student time ergo successful
  part-time participation in research doctoral
  programs will likely become more difficult for
  students

18
Recommendations

• Continue, but Revise, the GS System
• Encourage the Development of University-Wide
  Means of Assuring Quality in Doctoral Education
• Develop Code of Conduct International
  Benchmarking
• Maximise Four-Year Funding Create National
  Fellowships
• Address the Passive Participation Problem
• Encourage Further Internationalisation of the DES

19
Continue, but Revise, the GS System

• GS system strengthens the Finnish DES and should
  be continued
• Criteria for funding of new GSs/renewal of
  existing GSs by the Ministry of Education should
  be reviewed and possibly revised
• The process for awarding new GSs, or renewing
  support for existing GSs, should include a site
  visit by experienced individuals
• Primary criterion for the award of a GS should be
  the existence of a strong program of research
• A second criterion could be effective process for
  assuring quality in doctoral education within the
  GS
• A third criterion could be evidence of effective
  organisation and leadership
• A fourth criterion might be involvement in
  regional/international networks
• It is important to develop the position of GS
  leader, who is not only a coordinator or a
  figure-head, but has the authority and prestige
  attractive to able researchers

20
Encourage Development of University-Wide Means of
Assuring Quality in PhD Education

• Quality of the overall DES will depend upon the
  development within each university of some
  collective mechanism or structure for assuring
  the quality of all doctoral programs
• Examples of the types of policies and activities
  that might fall within the authority of this
  collective structure include
• Criteria and process for approval of new doctoral
  programs
• Doctoral admissions processes, policies, and
  criteria
• Policies and practices governing award of
  university-based doctoral fellowships and
  doctoral research support
• Policies governing the supervision, academic
  progress, and research experience of doctoral
  students
• Policies governing reviews and defense of
  doctoral theses
• Provision/support of courses/experiences common
  to all doctoral degree programs
• Systematic evaluation of all doctoral programs on
  a regular cycle, etc.
• Related Government Support
• Capacity building grants
• Academic Audits

21
Develop Code of Conduct International
Benchmarking

• Greater specification of central government rules
  and regulations governing doctoral education is
  not the best means for improving the DES
• Other policies/initiatives
• Finnish universities in cooperation with FINHEEC
  to develop and disseminate a National Code of
  Conduct for doctoral research programs
  encouraging the adoption of discovered good
  practices
• Emphasising performance of research doctoral
  programs as part of university contracts to
  ensure value for invested resources
• Development and maintenance of data that bench
  marks the performance of the Finnish DES against
  other similar countries and systems

22
Maximise Four-Year Funding Create National
Fellowships

• Increasing number of four-year fellowships
  available to doctoral students in the DES would
  likely improve the quality and productivity of
  the overall system
• Several possible means of achieving this goal
• more government funding
• greater cooperation among the universities, the
  Academy of Finland, the Ministry of Education,
  and private foundations

23
Encourage Further Internationalisation of the DES

• Evidence of active involvement in relevant Nordic
  and EU doctoral school networks as one of the
  criteria for the creation and renewal of GSs
  funded by the Education Ministry
• Include internationally available test scores as
  one of the criteria for the admission of foreign
  doctoral students
• Establishment of a highly visible and attractive
  program of International Visiting Professorships
  by the Education Ministry

24
Recent development in PhD training

• Strengthening of the GS system has resulted in
  2.5-fold increase in the number of doctoral
  degrees since early 1990s.
• Currently more than 1400 doctorates per year
• Competitive funding 3.5 of GDP
• Changes are in the line with European Charter and
  Code of Conduct for Recruitment of Researchers in
  Europe
• Doctoral trainees have both a supervisor and a
  thesis committee with annual reporting
  practices
• Doctoral school researchers are employed by
  University and receive salaries, usually 4-year
  terms

25
After PhD degree

• Academy of Finland Research Council
• Post doctoral research system
• Support system for post doctoral training abroad
• 5 year position for independent researchers
• Sabbatical for professors senior scientists
• Academy professor 5 year including substantial
  research funding
• Majority working in Universities
• Research career in Universities
• Research combined with teaching 5 years full
  professorships

26
Young doctors estimated figures in market

• 33 never get listed as RD personnel
• 33 continue career within University, including
  funding from Academy of Finland
• Industry 7
• State research institutes 7
• Administration 3
• Health care 7
• Abroad 7
• Polytechnics 3

27
Proposal for strategic development for research
career

• MofE (2006) coordinated efforts
• Increase mobility internationally and between
  sectors (Universities/research Institutes/enterpri
  ses)
• 4-stage research career system in Finnish
  Universities with elements of tenure track
• Progress evaluated by peer reviews
• Longer contracts
• Change from stipend to salaries (incl. soc
  security)
• Extension of transferable skills training to
  postdoctoral stage

28
References

• Hiltunen, K. Pasanen, H-M. 2005. Tulevat
  tohtori. Jatko-opiskelijoiden kokemukset ja
  arviot tohtorikoulutuksesta 2005. OPM 200648.
• International Postgraduate Students Mirror.
  Catalonia, Finland, Ireland and Sweden. Report
  200629 R. Högskoleverket.
• Minimum Treshold Standards and Good Practice
  Guidelines for RDPs (2003).
• Sadlak, J. 2004 Doctoral Studies and
  Qualifications in Europe and the USA. OECD,
  CEPES.
• Salzburg Recommendations (2005). Conference
  notes.
• Vuorio, E. 2006. PhD Career. MofEd Finland.

• Audit Manual. FINHEEC 2008.
• Development challenges of PhD education MofEd
  20063. (52 recommendations).
• Dill al. 2006. PhD Training and the
  Knowledge-Based Society. FINHEEC.
• Doktorandspegeln/PhD Mirror. 2003.
  Högskoleverket. Sweden.
• ENQA Standards and Guidelines.
• The European Charter for Researchers. The Code of
  Conduct for the Recruitment of Researchers.
  European Commission. 2005.