首页> 外文期刊>International Journal of Doctoral Studies >Individual and Structural Challenges in Doctoral Education: An Ethical Perspective
【24h】

Individual and Structural Challenges in Doctoral Education: An Ethical Perspective

机译:博士教育中的个人和结构挑战:道德观点

获取原文
       

摘要

Aim/Purpose: The study set out to understand the challenges doctoral students experience at different systemic levels of doctoral education through the perspective of ethical principles. Background: Doctoral students experience various challenges on their journey to the degree, and as high dropout rates indicate, these challenges become critical for many students. Several individual and structural level aspects, such as student characteristics, supervisory relationship, the academic community as well national policies and international trends, influence doctoral studies, and students’ experiences have been researched quite extensively. Although some of the challenges doctoral students experience may be ethical in nature, few studies have investigated these challenges specifically from an ethics perspective. Methodology: The study drew on qualitative descriptions of significant negative incidents from 90 doctoral students from an online survey. The data were first analyzed using a reflexive thematic analysis, and then the themes were located within different systemic levels of doctoral studies: individual (e.g., doctoral student, the individual relationship with supervisor) and structural (e.g., the institution, faculty, academic community). Finally, the ethical principles at stake were identified, applying the framework of five common ethical principles: respect for autonomy, benefiting others (beneficence), doing no harm (non-maleficence), being just (justice), and being faithful (fidelity). Contribution: Understanding doctoral students’ experiences from an ethical perspective and locating these among the systemic levels of doctoral studies contributes to a better understanding of the doctoral experience’s complexities. Ethical considerations should be integrated when creating and implementing procedures, rules, and policies for doctoral education. Making the ethical aspects visible will also allow universities to develop supervisor and faculty training by concretely targeting doctoral studies aspects highlighted as ethically challenging. Findings: In doctoral students’ experiences, structural level ethical challenges out-weighed breaches of common ethical principles at the individual level of doctoral studies. In the critical experiences, the principle of beneficence was at risk in the form of a lack of support by the academic community, a lack of financial support, and bureaucracy. Here, the system and the community were unsuccessful in contributing positively to doctoral students’ welfare and fostering their growth. At the individual level, supervision abandonment experiences, inadequate supervision, and students’ struggle to keep study-related commitments breached fidelity, which was another frequently compromised principle. Although located at the individual level of studies, these themes are rooted in the structural level. Additionally, the progress review reporting and assessment process was a recurrent topic in experiences in which the principles of non-maleficence, autonomy, and justice were at stake. Recommendations for Practitioners: Going beyond the dyadic student-supervisor relationship and applying the ethics of responsibility, where university, faculty, supervisors, and students share a mutual responsibility, could alleviate ethically problematic experiences. Recommendation for Researchers: We recommend that further research focus on experiences around the ethics in the progress reporting and assessment process through in-depth interviews with doctoral students and assessment committee members. Impact on Society: Dropout rates are high and time to degree completion is long. An ethical perspective may shed light on why doctoral studies fail in efficiency. Ethical aspects should be considered when defining the quality of doctoral education. Future Research: A follow-up study with supervisors and members of the academic community could contribute to developing a conceptual framework combining systemic levels and ethics in doctoral education.
机译:目标/目的:通过道德原则的角度,研究旨在了解探索博士生博士生在不同系统水平的经历。背景:博士生在学位的旅程中经历各种挑战,随着高辍学率表明,这些挑战对许多学生来说至关重要。若干个人和结构级别方面,如学生特征,监督关系,学术界以及国家政策和国际趋势,影响博士研究以及学生的经历已经得到了广泛的研究。虽然一些挑战博士生的经历本质上可能是道德的,但很少有研究则从道德角度调查了这些挑战。方法论:该研究制定了来自在线调查的90名博士生重大否定事件的定性描述。首先使用反射专题分析进行分析,然后主题位于不同的系统性博士研究水平范围内:个人(例如,与主管的博士生,个人关系)和结构(例如,机构,教师,学术界) )。最后,确定了股权的道德原则,应用五个常见的道德原则的框架:尊重自主权,使他人(受益)没有伤害(非恶意),只是(正义),忠诚(忠诚) 。贡献:了解博士生从道德观点的经验,在系统的博士研究水平中找到这些经验,有助于更好地了解博士生经验的复杂性。在创建和实施博士教育的程序,规则和政策时,应融入道德考虑。通过具体定位博士学研究方面,伦理的道德方面也将允许大学开发主管和教师培训,以突出的是道德挑战。调查结果:在博士生的经验中,结构水平道德挑战在个人博士研究层面的普遍伦理原则的漏洞中。在批判性经验中,受益原则是学术界缺乏支持,缺乏财政支持和官僚机构的风险。在这里,系统和社区在促进博士生的福利和促进其增长方面取得了不成功。在个人层面,监督遗弃经历,监管不足,学生斗争与学习相关的承诺违反忠诚,这是另一种经常受到影响的原则。虽然位于个人研究水平,但这些主题植根于结构层。此外,进度审查报告和评估过程是在经验中的经常性主题,其中非恶意,自主权和正义的原则是有利害的。从业者的建议:超越二等学生 - 主管关系并应用责任道德,大学,教师,监督者和学生分享相互责任,可以减轻道德问题的经历。研究人员的建议书:我们建议进一步研究通过与博士生和评估委员会成员的深入访谈进行进展报告和评估过程的伦理周围的经验。对社会的影响:辍学率很高,时间完成时间很长。道德观点可能会揭示为什么博士研究效率的失败。在定义博士教育质量时,应考虑道德方面。未来的研究:与学术界的监事和成员的后续研究可能有助于制定一项结合系统水平和德文学在博士教育中的概念框架。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号