Has something got to give? Tensions and opportunities in achieving both a UK social science doctorate and ESRC-specified research and skills training
View/ Open
Date
30/11/2020Author
Vettini, Amanda
Metadata
Abstract
Social sciences research students in the UK have experienced major contextual changes to their
doctoral studies over recent decades. Compared to minimal and piecemeal training received by
doctoral students in the 1970s, doctoral students now undertake their studies in more highly
structured and regulated institutional environments. Influencing such study environments,
guidelines have been developed not only for doctoral training in qualitative and quantitative
research methods but also career preparation within and beyond academia. The current structure
of Doctoral Training Partnerships (DTPs), formerly Doctoral Training Centres (DTCs) and
supported by universities and the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC), is the outcome
of a series of changes introduced over a long period intended to prepare researchers for modern
employment conditions. The contemporary doctoral student is expected to graduate, not solely
with a PhD thesis that contributes to knowledge in a particular field, but also with skills and
competencies to enable a successful research career. Such abilities and aptitudes referenced in
the guidelines include analytical, communication, leadership and teamwork skills and an ability to
stimulate impact and change in the non-academic world. Curriculum extension for social science
research students has some good arguments to support it, not least concerns to boost academic
and non-academic employability among PhD graduates and to enhance the relevance of social
science research. There are, however, some indications that students find the new training
arrangements stretching to some degree. Moreover, it is suggested that universities also
experience challenges in meeting the increased demands of providing specified training and the
administration of doctorates. Against this backdrop of change to higher education, such as its
massification and marketisation, moves to increased interdisciplinarity, paradigm shifts in
employment, developments in the training infrastructure and the introduction of DTPs must be
evaluated with reference to this wider picture.
Drawing on a social constructionist approach and with reference to the sociology of work, this study
sets out to investigate the extent to which the new training arrangements have expanded
opportunities open to social science research students and whether there are also tensions in the
overall project. This thesis draws on original data collected through diaries, interviews and
questionnaires with research students across a range of social science disciplines, interviews with
key informants who have played roles in the introduction and assessment of the new training
framework as it unfolded, and analysis of key documents. An argument is developed that extending
what was required of research students is placing them, their supervisors and potentially their
institutions, under increasing and intense pressure. Within this climate where many feel ‘something
has to give’, the goals that the new infrastructure seeks to secure may be challenging to achieve
in their entirety. The question becomes, which goals will, or must, be sacrificed and what are the
critical priorities? The thesis draws on the recognition that research students’ backgrounds,
learning styles, motivations for doctoral study and ambitions are heterogeneous yet arguably
‘standardised’ doctoral and Masters degree training models assume student homogeneity. Within group differences among postgraduate students underpin this thesis’ approach to evaluating the
success of changes to the research student training landscape, and to identifying certain
modifications offering potential to make its operation more effective. The thesis also develops an
analysis of the perennial tension between the pursuit of ‘breadth’ and ‘depth’ of knowledge and
skills in the curriculum. Concerns that training standardisation may result in loss of innovation and
technical research depth, and the salience of individualisation versus standardisation, are
foregrounded as fundamental issues and challenges.