A flexible approach to PhD research training

Transcription

1 A flexible approach to PhD research training Iain A. Frame and Liz Allen The authors Iain A. Frame is Research Officer and Liz Allen is Senior Policy Adviser, both at the Policy Unit, The Wellcome Trust, London. Keywords Qualifications, Research, Training, Students, Supervisors Abstract The Wellcome Trust has reviewed the provision of PhD training from the viewpoint of the students and supervisors it funds; this paper presents evidence from these reviews. A number of factors affect the ``success of the PhD training experience; what is considered good (i.e. fit for purpose) PhD research training may be different for the student and the supervisor. Compares and contrasts the views of PhD students and PhD supervisors on a number of issues including reasons for doing a PhD, the purpose of PhD training and perceptions of the quality of PhD research training. Suggests that to support the different needs of students, supervisors and the science base, a flexible yet quality assured approach to PhD research training is required. Electronic access The research register for this journal is available at The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at Volume 12. Number pp. 98±103 # MCB UP Limited. ISSN DOI / Introduction The Wellcome Trust has a remit to fund biomedical research that will lead to improvements in human and animal health. Excellent research depends on the combination of excellent research facilities and a high quality, well-trained research workforce. Provision of PhD research training has, therefore, been an important part of the Trust s funding and career support portfolio to help ensure that there is a well-trained research community for the future. It is important that this training meets both the needs and aspirations of prospective students as well those who are responsible for providing that training. The Trust has provided formal PhD studentship support since 1986 and currently supports around 150 students per year, half through thematic four-year programmes, around 60 through a three year PhD Studentship route, and a further ten through designated capacity building initiatives (e.g. Bioarchaeology and the Cardiovascular Research Initiative). The Trust funded its first four-year PhD programme at the University of Liverpool in 1994 and now funds 12 thematic four-year PhD programmes at ten universities. On a fouryear programme, a PhD student typically spends their first year working on a number of projects in a selection of laboratories. The intention of this first year is to enable students to gain experience of new areas of science or techniques and to allow a more informed choice of PhD project at the end of the year. Some programmes offer an additional degree such as an MSc or an MRes at the end of the first year. While being a relatively small player in the PhD funding market in terms of the number of students it supports, Trust studentships are desirable to both prospective students and supervisors because they carry a substantially higher student stipend, there is no bar on nationality of the student (although fees are awarded at the home rate only), and full research costs of the studentship are allocated to the associated laboratory. The Trust has always considered it important to monitor and evaluate its funding schemes, and it is consistent with the Trust s charitable objects, and Charity Commission guidance on charities in research, that it demonstrates where possible the payback on 98

2 its research investment. Routine information about the PhD students the Trust supports is derived from two main sources: first, recruitment information required prior to the award of any studentship, and second, all students in their final year are invited to complete an exit questionnaire to provide feedback to the Trust on their PhD experience and intended career destination. In addition, the Trust has conducted a series of reviews of its provision of PhD research training (The Wellcome Trust 2000a, b, 2001a). In March 2000, the Trust published a review of its PhD training provision based on a series of interviews conducted with current PhD students. In February 2001, nearly 300 current UK academic supervisors of Trust-funded PhD students were invited to complete a questionnaire seeking opinions on a wide range of issues including the purpose of PhD training, the role of a supervisor and the challenges facing PhD trainers. This paper draws on these combined sources, which constitute a review of more than a decade of provision of PhD student support by the Trust. Why do a PhD? There is debate about the broader purpose of PhD training and a plethora of definitions. For example, the recent British Academy Review of The Graduate Studies Committee viewed the purpose of PhD training as a preparation for a research or academic career, and as a preparation for a wide range of advanced research support in industry, civil service, culture, media and the heritage sector. Research training makes a crucial contribution to the high level skills required to sustain a high value added knowledge-based economy (British Academy, 2001). For a funding organisation such as the Wellcome Trust, whose mission is To foster and promote research with the aim of improving human and animal health, the purpose of PhD training is to ensure that science has enough highly skilled researchers and a science literate population to allow progress towards its mission. By this broad definition science is not exclusively the domain of academia but encompasses industry, government, schools and society at large. For the individual student, such a definition of purpose and foresight is not likely to be the primary reason for embarking on PhD training. In the recent review of PhD supervisors, when asked to select the best description of the purpose of PhD training, a minority (6 per cent) of supervisors described a purist view of PhD training, where the primary purpose was training for a career in academic research with a commitment to academia. Taking a wider view, a fifth of respondents (20 per cent) described the purpose in its broadest sense as training for a range of careers, being pragmatic in the reasons for their choice. It is no longer tenable to train people solely for research in an academic setting. Also industrial research has moved much closer in style and content to academic research in the last ten years (PhD supervisor). The majority of supervisors, however, took a middle position, with nearly three-quarters, (72 per cent) believing the purpose of PhD training to be training for a career in scientific research in general. There was general consensus that it was neither realistic nor necessarily appropriate to train students solely for a career in academic research. Skills learned during PhD can be applied to a wide range of careers. Not all PhD students will be suited to remain in research (PhD supervisor). One would like all students to go on and become great scientists, but things do not always work out that way! (PhD supervisor). Research with Trust-funded students found that the primary reason for doing a PhD was an inherent curiosity and a love of science, indeed many students described the profound influence of a school science teacher on their decision to pursue science at a higher level (The Wellcome Trust, 2000a). While an interest in science was a common motivation among students, there were also interesting differences between students pursuing different types (and duration) of PhD. Students following a three-year studentship expressed greater certainty about the sort of research they wished to pursue. They also tended to have more direct laboratory research experience and in the main were older than students embarking on the four-year programmes. As described, the four-year PhD training programmes provide a qualitatively different 99

3 type of research training (see Appendix). The rotation year was particularly attractive to students who were uncertain about the precise area of research they wished to pursue and enabled those wishing to either change disciplines or do multidisciplinary research to make the move. Students pursuing this type of PhD welcomed the opportunity to work in different laboratories and in different working environments. This enabled them to broaden their research experience and be more involved in development of a full PhD project. For both three-year and four-year PhD students, the encouragement of a prospective supervisor and potential bench colleagues, regardless of the particular research project offered, was a crucial factor influencing the student s decision whether to do research in a certain place or a particular laboratory. Research has found that the quality of the PhD training experience is a strong influence on the decision to pursue a long-term career in scientific research (National Research Council, 1998; The Wellcome Trust, 2000b). Our research suggests that for the PhD student the potential working environment and the nature of training provided is as important, if not more so, than the research project itself. It is important, therefore, to manage the needs and aspirations of students and those responsible for their training, not only in relation to the research experience, but in relation to the broader career aspirations of the students. In the absence of national co-ordinated career destination statistics for PhD graduates it is difficult to determine precisely where PhDs are employing their skills. There are moves among funding agencies and higher education institutions (HEIs) to collect career destination information in a more systematic way to help determine what happens to the graduates it supports. Research with a cohort of Trust-funded PhD students supported a decade ago found that while 81 per cent of students took a first post-phd position in academia, after around five years post-doc, less than half of the cohort remained in academic research (The Wellcome Trust, 2000b). The comprehensive US study carried out in 1998 described similar academia exit rates (National Research Council, 1998). For Trust-funded students, the reasons for leaving academia included the oft-cited poor 100 pay and career structure, but the reasons were also more proactive and positive. The PhD qualification was thought to be marketable to sectors throughout the economy and a range of attractive career options were open to PhD graduates. Given the changing realities and job security inherent in academia, it is important that the benefits of a PhD qualification are appreciated and valuable across sectors of the economy and that exit from academia is regarded as beneficial to science and society at large and not as a failure option. At a Trust-hosted symposium held in the UK in 2001, current academics, ex-academics, policy makers and representatives from higher education funding bodies came together to discuss career issues facing researchers and academics, with an emphasis on the sciences (The Wellcome Trust, 2001b). Delegates were required to identify what they thought were the most important challenges relating to career issues facing the biosciences. The issue generating the greatest concern was how to make science teaching in schools exciting, both to ensure the supply of prospective science students into the future, and also to help ensure greater science literacy in the population. One solution to this potential dilemma was to encourage more science PhD graduates with a passion for science to be perhaps fast-tracked into a teaching career. Clearly, good PhD training has value beyond academia and its benefits can be actively promoted. The quality of the PhD training experience Among the many factors affecting perceptions of the quality of PhD training among students, the student-supervisor relationship is perhaps the most influential. In our research with PhD supervisors, pastoral care of students was given high priority. When asked to describe their role as a supervisor, a vast array of descriptions were offered, ranging from teacher, trainer and mentor, to father and mother! Virtually all supervisors described a training focus, combining shaping the research with guiding the student through the research experience to foster the development of an

4 independent researcher who is able to think creatively. To be interested, available, critical, supportive and encouraging (PhD supervisor). Providing scientific guidance, support in times of need, overall perspective, inspiration when the going gets tough, career advice later (PhD supervisor). In the same way that an inspired science teacher or undergraduate lecturer is influential in the decision to do a PhD, so a PhD student s decision to remain in academia and science more broadly is likely to be influenced by the encouragement and inspiration of a supervisor. The accessibility of a supervisor is of course a crucial factor in fostering the studentsupervisor relationship. Among Trust-funded students, access to the supervisor appeared to be closely related to a supervisor s seniority. A senior academic supervisor, with a host of other research and academic responsibilities, is not likely to spend much time at the bench. As a result, the student, who may be relatively new and inexperienced to the laboratory, relies for day-to-day assistance on other less senior research staff, frequently post-doctoral research assistants, who have their own research workload to manage. Accessibility is an issue. At times she can be so distracted by other work that s go unanswered and you don t have anyone to go to if things are going badly. Frankly she doesn t have enough time (PhD student). Interestingly, our research found a mismatch between student and supervisor perceptions; while virtually all supervisors reported that they met frequently with their students, around a quarter of students described problems in accessing their supervisor. This mismatch may reflect a difference in perceptions of what accessibility truly means; when required, does a supervisor have sufficient time to discuss a PhD research project in-depth? Furthermore, in the Trust s annual exit survey of final year students, around 25 per cent express dissatisfaction with their overall PhD training experience; accessibility of the supervisor is consistently mentioned as part of this. It is therefore important to ensure that a supervisor s existing academic workload does not preclude sufficient time to spend with their student throughout the duration of the PhD. It may be necessary to ensure that any prospective supervisor is able to demonstrate that they have sufficient time available for PhD training and support. Ensuring quality of PhD training experience There have been increasing moves in UK universities to introduce formal guidelines for PhD supervision, intended to clarify expectations, establish minimum standards of PhD training, and help improve PhD training quality. Around a quarter of Wellcome Trust supervisors are currently working with broader PhD training supervision guidelines, drawn up either by a funding agency or an individual university. On the whole, those working with guidelines find them useful, particularly as a reference point, although a number of supervisors felt that, while sensible, such guidelines should not be overly prescriptive. Mentoring or co-supervision systems are often a component of more formal PhD guidelines or formal PhD training contracts. Trust-funded students views have described positively the value of a co-supervision policy, primarily to ensure accessibility at any time to at least one senior researcher with knowledge and involvement in their research and as a backup, providing a second person, or team, with whom ideas can be discussed (The Wellcome Trust, 2000a). As described previously, having an accessible supervisor is an important influence on the whole PhD experience. Supervisors echoed the sentiments of students on the benefits of a co-supervision policy. In fact, the majority of supervisors (83 per cent), in our review, are already working within an institutional mentoring/co-supervision policy and there was, overall, clear support for this practice (The Wellcome Trust, 2001a). As might be expected, given the experiences of Trust-funded PhD supervisors, supervisory guideline practices are varied in the UK HEI sector; while some universities operate their own policies, others have no such guidance. There is also considerable variation between funding bodies on what constitutes minimum standards. The Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE) has recently undertaken a fundamental review of research policy. As part of that review, attention has been paid to the development needs of research students 101

5 and there has been a call for minimum criteria for postgraduate research training, which would apply equally to all institutions, and be a condition of receipt of funding for research students. HEFCE is currently developing what will constitute those criteria. The Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BBSRC) has recently announced a system of formal and accredited training for the supervisors of its PhD students. The Training and Accreditation Programme for Postgraduate Supervisors (TAPPS) was piloted at the Institute of Animal Health and is a scheme where individual supervisors receive training in supervision, and accreditation for good supervisory practice. There is increasing recognition among research funders that PhD training should be flexible to reflect the varying needs of students. Changes in school and undergraduate education have had, over the last 20 years, a profound influence on the preparation current students have for a PhD. The traditional length of the UK PhD has always been short by international standards but was underpinned by a rigorous undergraduate degree, which in science often involved substantial laboratory experience. The growth in undergraduate numbers, without a corresponding growth in teaching resources, has resulted in some science graduates being ill-equipped to undertake a PhD and less able to make an informed choice of research topic. In response to these changes in tertiary education, some universities now offer a four-year undergraduate degree leading directly to a Master s degree (e.g. MBiochem, MChem) which is effectively a first degree (universities in Scotland have always offered a four-year undergraduate degree). Often referred to as the 4+3 model, this has become increasingly common in the physical sciences and the arts and humanities. In the mid-1990s, the Medical Research Council (MRC) introduced Masters in Research (MRes) degrees which allow a greater flexibility in the length and breadth of training. During the first year, students can sample the research environment through laboratory rotations in addition to taught elements and identify subject areas of interest before deciding whether or not to commit to a PhD. The students who do not commit to continuing their studies may take a job 102 elsewhere and will have gained a valuable qualification in the process (MRes); those that decide to continue may do so at the same institute or seek further funding to do a PhD elsewhere. The popularity of the early MRes programmes, led to their expansion with a wider range of subject areas offered by the other research councils. In a further innovative development in PhD training provision, the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC) recently (October, 2001) introduced Doctoral Training Accounts. These accounts allow HEIs to offer training that is specific to an individual student s needs (EPSRC, 1999). Distinctive among current PhD training in the UK, the training accounts allow HEIs to vary the length of a studentship to suit the individual student and/or discipline, and to vary the level of the student stipend offered to attract the best candidates for each discipline. This ability to vary the stipend might be particularly useful where it is proving difficult to attract high calibre graduates into a specific scientific discipline. In return for this considerable level of flexibility, universities are expected to commit themselves to a minimum level of supervision quality offered to doctoral students and to accurate record keeping on issues relating to the students supported (projects, supervisors, completion dates, career destination and progression). This in the longer term will allow funding bodies to consider the outcomes of their research funding and inform funding practices in the future. The EPSRC Doctoral Training Accounts also require that HEIs include transferable skills training and career advice as part of their PhD training support. In recognition of the fact that most PhD graduates will not, in the longer term, pursue a career in academia, the demand for transferable skills training among students is increasing. Wellcome Trust students described a range of skills that would be desirable components of PhD training including grantsmanship (how to write a good grant application), writing skills, business accounting and science communication (The Wellcome Trust, 2000a). Among PhD supervisors a substantial minority described a reluctance to commit their students to substantial transferable skills training, mainly from a belief that time in the laboratory was paramount and too precious to be spent learning about peripheral issues (The

6 Wellcome Trust, 2001a). The majority of supervisors, however, embraced the importance of transferable skills training, skills required not only to reflect changes in academia, but also the reality that the majority of PhD graduates are likely to leave academia at some point in the future. To help the Trust achieve its goal of improving human and animal health it is vital that there is a continued influx of high-quality, highly skilled individuals into research. To make certain that the pool of future researchers remains sufficiently deep it is important that PhD training remains an attractive option to prospective graduates. By providing both high quality and broad ranging PhD research training, in the laboratory environment for example, and more broadly, by ensuring transferable skills training, the PhD becomes an increasingly desirable and marketable qualification and asset. References British Academy (2001), Review of Graduate Studies in the Humanities and Social Sciences. Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC) (1999), 34 ± 99 Flexible Support for Doctoral-Level Training, EPSRC, London. National Research Council (1998), Trends in the Early Careers of Life Scientists, National Academy Press, Washington, DC. (The) Wellcome Trust (2000a), Review of Wellcome Trust PhD Research Training: The Student Perspective, The Wellcome Trust, London. (The) Wellcome Trust (2000b), Review of Wellcome Trust PhD Research Training: The Career Paths of a Prize Student Cohort, The Wellcome Trust, London. (The) Wellcome Trust (2001a), Review of Wellcome Trust PhD Research Training: The Supervisor Perspective, The Wellcome Trust, London. (The) Wellcome Trust (2001b), ``Radical thinking, creative solutions, career issues in UK academic research, Proceedings from the Hinxton 2001 Symposium, The Wellcome Trust, London. Appendix. Attraction of the four-year programme It s always hard, a bit of a guess, there s so much to choose from. That s why I m doing the Programme, I didn t know what I wanted to do.... I was so scared of ending up in a lab where I couldn t stand my supervisor and I didn t get on with the lab. (Four-year PhD student). It was a follow-on from one of my rotation projects. The group atmosphere in the lab. seemed very good and I had respect for my supervisor and it s important to get along with your supervisor (Four-year PhD student). It was attractive because it was an interdisciplinary project. I was a physicist and I was given the chance to combine this with something biological. All other projects are very narrow. Here I have one year to know what I want and I have the impression that I have more freedom, to choose my own project and during my project the freedom to follow my own path (Four-year PhD student). I had a fair idea of what I wanted to do but I wasn t completely sure. I really liked the idea of doing a first year so that I could make a much more informed choice. As a result I m now doing a PhD that I wouldn t have done before (Fouryear PhD student). 103