Measures of Central Tendency: Mean, Median and Mode
Professional Management in Doctoral Education: The PRIDE project
1. Professional Management in Doctoral
Education: The PRIDE project
Lisette Schmidt | University of Vienna (Research Services and
Career Development)
UNIMED General Assembly, 22 October 2015
2. Overall aim:
Professionalize administrative staff in the area of doctoral education
Key data:
Life Long Learning Project (funded by European Commission)
Started in October 2013 (till October 2016)
Consortium with 7 HEIs, 2 university networks (UNICA, unimed) and
one private public partnership organization
Project leader: University of Vienna
540332-LLP-1-2013-1-AT-ERASMUS-EIGF „PRIDE“
4. Context - Doctoral Education in Europe
The purpose of and the expectation towards doctoral education has
changed in the last decades
Doctoral education has shifted from an individual to an institutional
responsibility
Recognized need for the professionalization of supervision
Trend towards structured programmes and doctoral schools with a
clear effective administration and strong leadership
540332-LLP-1-2013-1-AT-ERASMUS-EIGF „PRIDE“
5. Background of PRIDE project
• professional administrative staff plays a key role to face future
challenges in doctoral education
The PRIDE consortium decided to focus on this group who – as we
think – has the potential to make a qualitative difference to doctoral
education and enhance the quality of doctoral education
540332-LLP-1-2013-1-AT-ERASMUS-EIGF „PRIDE“
6. Definition | HEI-Staff in general
Figure 1: Overlap Model created by Christian Schneijderberg
7. Overall aim:
Professionalize administrative staff in the area of doctoral education
Main outcomes:
• data collection and analysis on different roles and responsibilities of
administrative staff in doctoral education as well as expectations
• handbook for the professionalization of administrative staff
• training course for the professionalization of administrative staff
540332-LLP-1-2013-1-AT-ERASMUS-EIGF „PRIDE“
8. What has happened so far?
• Literature review
• Survey 1 and 2 + Analysis
• 4 focus group interviews (vice-rectors, academic directors of
doctoral schools, senior professionals, EUA-CDE steering
committee)
540332-LLP-1-2013-1-AT-ERASMUS-EIGF „PRIDE“
9. What has happened so far? | Survey 2
Sent out to over 500 contacts in Autumn 2014
222 respondents (response rate: 33% )
Answers from 29 countries/regions
135 participants indicated interest in further activities (personal
interviews etc.)
Report on results: http://www.pride-project.eu/InterimResults
540332-LLP-1-2013-1-AT-ERASMUS-EIGF „PRIDE“
13. What next?
Analysis of the focus group interviews
Handbook for professionalizing administrative staff
Development of trainings to professionalize administrative staff
Association of professionals in doctoral education
Further dissemination to raise awareness and create a network
540332-LLP-1-2013-1-AT-ERASMUS-EIGF „PRIDE“
The overall aim of this project is to contribute to the professionalization of administrative staff in the field of European doctoral education, in order to provide better support to PhD supervisors, PhD candidates and external stakeholders.
The PRIDE project brings together a consortium with the aim of collaborating together on providing tools to professionalize administrative staff in the area of doctoral education. Ad LLP: The Lifelong Learning Programme (LLP) was designed to enable people, at any stage of their life, to take part in stimulating learning experiences, as well as developing education and training across Europe.
With a budget of nearly €7 billion, the programme, which ran from 2007-2013, funded a range of exchanges, study visits, and networking activities. The LLP programme does not exist any more. From 2014 on (till 2020) the new Erasmus+ programme is in place.
7 HEIs, 2 university Networks (Unica, unimed) and one private public partnership organization
Salzburg principles 2005: 1)The core component of doctoral training is the advancement of knowledge through original research. At the same time it is recognised that doctoral training must increasingly meet the needs of an employment market that is wider than academia. Europe needs more researchers who will be able to work not only in academia, but also in the various sectors of the economy and society, industry, SMEs, public sector, NGOs, etc. This was stressed in several speeches and discussions. Industry requires people who are excellent in specific field, but also offer generic skills such as communication, presentation, teamwork and social skills. Demands on today’s researchers are therefore wider and this has to be reflected in the structure and organisation of doctoral programmes. Training in transferable, “generic” skillsand competences should become an integral part of all doctoral programmes in order to meet challenges and needs of the global
labour market.
2) Embedding in institutional strategies and policies: universities as institutions need to assume responsibility for ensuring that the doctoral programmes and research training they offer are designed to meet new challenges and include appropriate professional career development opportunities. Universities should develop long-term strategies for doctoral programmes with the focus on building strong research environments and mechanisms for enhancing the quality of doctoral programmes.
3) The crucial role of supervision and assessment: in respect of individual doctoral candidates, arrangements for supervision and assessment should be based on a transparent contractual framework of shared responsibilities between doctoral candidates, supervisors and the institution (and where appropriate including other partners). Conditions of supervision are often not clear and regulated, and they differ from country to country or institution to institution. universities should introduce institutional regulations on terms and obligations of doctoral candidates, supervisors and the institution. In addition, a signed contract (agreement) on rights and responsibilities between the three parties can be a good instrument ensuring that each party is aware of their role in the process of doctoral training.
Having the changing context in mind… our assumptions is that administrative staff: key role
What do we mean by talking about professional staff in doctoral education? What is the difference between administrative staff and „professionals in doctoral education“? According to the literature… siehe Folie
Characteristics (according to literature): an increase in the formal status of administrative positions, an increase in the requirements for formal qualification and training to hold specific administrative positions, growth and formalisation of networks
The project aims at elaborating an alternative approach to administration in the area of doctoral education. The main outcomes of the project provide tools to reach this overall aim.
Ad handbook: The handbook will include a number of good practices, a set of hands-on tools and guiding principles to foster professional development at universities. This handbook should become a valuable source of information for university leadership, middle-managers as well as administrators who want to enhance their competences.
Ad training course: consisting of modules for formal qualification according to specific administrative tasks and positions. These training modules will serve as one of the major vehicles to disseminate and exploit the project’s results.
Production: Evidence based trainings, handbook
Exploitation: lasting results, trainings could run on, association
Handbook: with a description of roles and responsibilities of professionals, selection of good practices and suggestions how to recruit and further train professionals in DE.
Ad dissemination: publication of results