Social science doctoral training centres not working, says report

Analysis of impact of doctoral training centres funded by Economic and Social Research Council prompts further questions over approach to postgraduate learning

November 26, 2018
Damaged car
Source: Alamy

UK academics have called for an urgent review of the running and funding of doctoral training centres for postgraduate students, amid claims that the schemes are ineffective and unsustainable.

Publishing a report on the impact of the Economic and Social Research Council’s doctoral training policy – which requires universities to bid for funding to establish new training centres – researchers from Liverpool Hope and Bath Spa universities warned that bureaucracy and lack of funding were preventing universities from achieving positive results.

It follows accusations that the doctoral training centres funded by a second council, the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council, were not performing as well as billed.

Drawing on interviews with staff and students alongside doctoral completion rate figures, the report on the ESRC reiterates concerns over the “selective nature” of the centres. Post-92 universities were found to be “far more likely” to be excluded from ESRC doctoral funding than pre-92 institutions, which researchers said raises questions about whether access to doctorates is socially inegalitarian.

Not only did the findings show no evidence that students in a DTC had a better training experience, but researchers argued that “we are by and large in the dark as to how they work, and whether they work”.

Reflecting on the report’s findings, Rosemary Deem, vice-principal (education) and dean of the doctoral school at Royal Holloway, University of London, labelled the scheme a “politically awkward”, expensive administrative burden on institutions.

“Pre-existing cultural and competitive divisions between disciplines and universities over what was perceived to be a limited, precious resource – doctoral scholarships – could not be overcome solely through the creation of what was largely an administrative structure,” she concluded.

Cuts to ESRC funding amid increased pressure for universities to seek external sources of income for the programmes “may lead in time to an ESRC kitemark alongside a good deal of bureaucracy but no money”, Professor Deem warned, “which in a post-Brexit Britain cut off from all European Union research funding may make the UK look like the poor relation of its European cousins”.

Upon the introduction of DTCs in 2010, 83 universities had access to ESRC doctoral funding. A UK spending review that same year led to budget cuts, however, and by 2011 this number had dropped by almost half – disproportionately affecting post-92 institutions.

Richard Budd, senior lecturer in education studies at Liverpool Hope and co-author of the report, called for a major review of the centres policy to establish the best way forward.

Speaking to Times Higher Education, Dr Budd said that the concept of doctoral training centres was a “good idea” in principle that “doesn’t seem to be working”.

“Very experienced academics feel that it is the right approach, but it is also clear that there are significant problems in its implementation,” he said. “The fact that there are about 230 training centres and no real evidence that this is the best approach…is certainly a concern.”

Frances Burstow, deputy director for skills and methods at ESRC, said that the funding council “remains committed to working with institutions to continue to develop and raise standards of postgraduate training across the social sciences”.

“We understand that concerns were raised in this report about the level of concentration within the DTC network and the potential impacts on widening participation,” she said, adding that bids to the 2016 doctoral training partnerships scheme “were encouraged to be inclusive of pockets of excellence wherever they occurred and they had to explicitly set out their approach to widening participation”.

rachael.pells@timeshighereducation.com

Please login or register to read this article

Register to continue

Get a month's unlimited access to THE content online. Just register and complete your career summary.

Registration is free and only takes a moment. Once registered you can read a total of 3 articles each month, plus:

  • Sign up for the editor's highlights
  • Receive World University Rankings news first
  • Get job alerts, shortlist jobs and save job searches
  • Participate in reader discussions and post comments
Register

Reader's comments (1)

CDTs (as they are called now) have both good pints and bad points and it is important to identify both in an article such as this: The good: 1. By bringing students together as a cohort, there is less of a chance that students feel isolated, and instead have a greater capacity to learn from each other. 2. They can be used to get significant input from external partners such as charities, industry and government - which in turn can built up strong symbitotic links with academia. 3. They can be used to force change on issues such as diversity, and thus in theory improve management practice. The Bad? Only a handful of big Universities get many CDTs. Most (even in the Russell group) will get 1 or 2. However, universities are diverse places, and forcing all academic who want to take on PhD students to do research into "Ageing" or "big data" or other such categories could potentially be destructive to that diversity of research effort. This effect is clearly greater on Universities lower down the food chain which receive fewer or no CDTs, but which may have important pockets of research excellence. So please be balanced and also delve down to the real issues. s that they c

Have your say

Log in or register to post comments