Higher Education – Meta Research

By Oonagh McGee and Richy Hetherington

Over the last 10 years there has been a shift in the way the UK Government has funded doctoral research. The Research Councils, RCUK (now UKRI, UK Research and Innovation) started concentrating funding with Doctoral Training Centres at specific locations and building cohorts of research students working at places where there was a significant area of expertise. This model was developed further ensuring that funding for research students was dedicated to higher education institutions (HEIs) with a strong record in research. Doctoral Training Partnerships (DTPs) required institutions to have a research grant income above a certain threshold to apply. Only a select few universities could apply individually, most would be required to partner up in order to fund a cohort of students. Alongside the DTP model, universities were also able to apply for Centres for Doctoral Training, with significant funding offered by UKRI. The majority of this specifically concentrated on EPSRC priority areas, in comparison to other funding councils. The latest call (launched in 2018) saw a combined investment from EPSRC and external partners of £945M. (1) These targeted investments cover a wide range of topics although subjects can be disparate within each centre and each with their own operating models.

The concept that research students should learn their research skills together and develop as a cohort is intrinsically a very positive step. Everything that can be done to foster collaboration in research endeavours must be considered a positive. It could be argued that where students are co-located with their cohorts, or brought together for regular events and training, these centres could provide an antidote to the ‘lonely journey’ often reported by doctoral students.

In a study of doctoral centres in (2019-2020) students (n=209) and staff (n=6) reported on the less tangible benefits of doctoral centres (2) primarily relating to wellbeing and support but also the opportunity to share methods, skills, and work on problems collaboratively.

There are excellent training opportunities for students, in a variety of areas with individual DTPs arranging training in Science Communication, Enterprise & Innovation and Personal & Professional Development more generally. The BBSRC took a very defined focus on the employability of research students with their Professional Internships for PhD Students (PIPS) scheme. The requirement for three month internships away from the research was originally met with some scepticism from academic supervisors but the internships have proved popular with students. The opportunity to demonstrate and recognise research skills in other environments has proved to be a significant positive.

However, for the many benefits this concentration of funding with three and a half or four year fully funded studentships with numerous additional training opportunities included has increased the disparity in experience between research students depending on how they are being supported and their discipline.

Whilst feedback from students (n=209) was generally positive, students also highlighted issues of competition, comparison and, in some cases, extra activities as a distraction from their core research. Additionally, students highlighted that whilst working together could be beneficial in many areas, they felt a research group would have been a more appropriate environment.

One good example of how DTP funding has made an impact more broadly. Is the North East Postgraduate conference (NE-PG.CO.UK). By supporting a conference for their own students to present their work to the broader research student community, the DTPs can also promote an opportunity for all research students in the discipline to submit and share their work, practice their presentation skills and network. It has also proved an important opportunity for researchers to develop skills in organising such an event. Including a broad range of skills that stem from research, such as reviewing abstracts and providing critical but fair feedback. The Student led conference also allows researchers to develop organisational skills that are a quite tangential extension of those acquired through organising a research conference.

This opportunity to maximise and broaden the benefit that can come from the funding that comes with funded training centres and partnerships is a relative scarcity. The perspective of many of the academics involved in organising partnerships or centres seems to be a one of caution not to kill the goose that laid the golden egg. There have been notable cases where research intensive universities did not get the DTP they applied for or did not have their partnership renewed. A clear steer from UKRI that spreading and maximising the support would be greatly welcomed. Brexit and Covid19 are already greatly testing international research students’ desire to come to the UK. If the Universities are to continue to encourage a range of models for research students they need to ensure there is not a two tier (or many tier) system in doctoral education. Whilst the funded centre model has provided opportunities for students to work collaboratively across institutions, there is also the argument that some Centres for Doctoral Training (CDTs) & DTPs can lead to a two-tier system with funding, opportunities and support built around a specific cohort of students which are not afforded to those without this funding .

It has been recognised for some time that the Master and Apprentice model of PhD supervision is becoming outmoded with research being performed by larger interdisciplinary groups. There could be some consideration into the way in which doctorates are assessed. The individual monograph is not entirely in-keeping with modern research methods, nor does it accurately reflect how many students will go on to work within their chosen career . Industries outside of academia have embraced the effectiveness of cross-cutting teams and collaboration. It would appear there is increasing recognition that the complexity of the projects academics researchers face means that there will need to be greater openness collaboration and recognition for all parties involved, this is articulate very well by Professor Muzlifah Haniffa when speaking about how the research team they work in responded to Covid-19 (3). If universities and research councils are genuinely interested in developing individuals for their career post-doctorate a radical rethink may be required.

UKRI have continued to fund large-scale, multidisciplinary grants over the last decade, recognising that in order to solve grand challenges a new approach is required. If we hope to develop research culture away from the application of individual rewards to the lead or last author on papers, and the named individual on grant applications then it maybe be necessary to change the formative stages of building a research career to bring in greater recognition of the contribution that many individuals make together on a project. Is the portfolio PhD the way forward?

Recommendations from the report to the UKCGE Conference 2020 (2)

Could UKRI funding be allocated to enable engagement with non-funded students?
Could we have further funding distributed across institutions?
Ensure student feedback is incorporated into review process
Integrate student wellbeing and satisfaction scales and benchmark with PRES.

Tag: Higher Education

Doctoral Training Partnerships & Centres and how they influence the formative development of researchers