Quality Assurance in Education

Emerald Article: A flexible approach to PhD research training

Iain A. Frame, ILiz Allen

Article information:
To cite this document: Iain A. Frame, ILiz Allen, (2002),"A flexible approach to PhD research training", Quality Assurance in
Education, Vol. 10 Iss: 2 pp. 98 - 103
Permanent link to this document:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09684880210423582
Downloaded on: 02-05-2012
References: This document contains references to 7 other documents
Citations: This document has been cited by 1 other documents
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
This document has been downloaded 3169 times.

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by UNIVERSITI TEKNOLOGI MARA

For Authors:
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service.
Information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Additional help
for authors is available for Emerald subscribers. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
With over forty years' experience, Emerald Group Publishing is a leading independent publisher of global research with impact in
business, society, public policy and education. In total, Emerald publishes over 275 journals and more than 130 book series, as
well as an extensive range of online products and services. Emerald is both COUNTER 3 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is
a partner of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive
preservation.
*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

A flexible approach to
PhD research training
Iain A. Frame and
Liz Allen
The authors
Iain A. Frame is Research Officer and Liz Allen is Senior
Policy Adviser, both at the Policy Unit, The Wellcome
Trust, London.
Keywords
Qualifications, Research, Training, Students, Supervisors
Abstract
The Wellcome Trust has reviewed the provision of PhD
training from the viewpoint of the students and
supervisors it funds; this paper presents evidence from
these reviews. A number of factors affect the ``success'' of
the PhD training experience; what is considered good (i.e.
fit for purpose) PhD research training may be different for
the student and the supervisor. Compares and contrasts
the views of PhD students and PhD supervisors on a
number of issues including reasons for doing a PhD, the
purpose of PhD training and perceptions of the quality of
PhD research training. Suggests that to support the
different needs of students, supervisors and the science
base, a flexible yet quality assured approach to PhD
research training is required.
Electronic access
The research register for this journal is available at
http://www.emeraldinsight.com/researchregisters
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is
available at
http://www.emeraldinsight.com/0968-4883.htm
Quality Assurance in Education
Volume 12 . Number 2 . 2002 . pp. 98103
# MCB UP Limited . ISSN 0968-4883
DOI 10.1108/09684880210423582
98
Introduction
The Wellcome Trust has a remit to fund
biomedical research that will lead to
improvements in human and animal health.
Excellent research depends on the
combination of excellent research facilities
and a high quality, well-trained research
workforce. Provision of PhD research training
has, therefore, been an important part of the
Trust's funding and career support portfolio
to help ensure that there is a well-trained
research community for the future. It is
important that this training meets both the
needs and aspirations of prospective students
as well those who are responsible for
providing that training.
The Trust has provided formal PhD
studentship support since 1986 and currently
supports around 150 students per year, half
through thematic four-year programmes,
around 60 through a three year PhD
Studentship route, and a further ten through
designated capacity building initiatives
(e.g. Bioarchaeology and the Cardiovascular
Research Initiative). The Trust funded its
first four-year PhD programme at the
University of Liverpool in 1994 and now
funds 12 thematic four-year PhD
programmes at ten universities. On a four-
year programme, a PhD student typically
spends their first year working on a number of
projects in a selection of laboratories. The
intention of this first year is to enable students
to gain experience of new areas of science or
techniques and to allow a more informed
choice of PhD project at the end of the year.
Some programmes offer an additional degree
such as an MSc or an MRes at the end of the
first year.
While being a relatively small player in the
PhD funding market in terms of the number
of students it supports, Trust studentships are
desirable to both prospective students and
supervisors because they carry a substantially
higher student stipend, there is no bar on
nationality of the student (although fees are
awarded at the home rate only), and full
research costs of the studentship are allocated
to the associated laboratory.
The Trust has always considered it
important to monitor and evaluate its funding
schemes, and it is consistent with the Trust's
charitable objects, and Charity Commission
guidance on charities in research, that it
demonstrates where possible the payback on
 Iain A. Frame and Liz Allen
its research ``investment''. Routine
information about the PhD students the
Trust supports is derived from two main
sources: first, recruitment information
required prior to the award of any
studentship, and second, all students in their
final year are invited to complete an ``exit''
questionnaire to provide feedback to the
Trust on their PhD experience and intended
career destination.
In addition, the Trust has conducted a
series of reviews of its provision of PhD
research training (The Wellcome Trust
2000a, b, 2001a). In March 2000, the Trust
published a review of its PhD training
provision based on a series of interviews
conducted with current PhD students. In
February 2001, nearly 300 current UK
academic supervisors of Trust-funded PhD
students were invited to complete a
questionnaire seeking opinions on a wide
range of issues including the purpose of PhD
training, the role of a supervisor and the
challenges facing PhD trainers. This paper
draws on these combined sources, which
constitute a review of more than a decade of
provision of PhD student support by the
Trust.
Why do a PhD?
There is debate about the broader ``purpose
of PhD training'' and a plethora of definitions.
For example, the recent British Academy
Review of The Graduate Studies Committee
viewed the purpose of PhD training ``as a
preparation for a research or academic career,
and as a preparation for a wide range of
advanced research support in industry, civil
service, culture, media and the heritage
sector. Research training makes a crucial
contribution to the high level skills required to
sustain a high value added knowledge-based
economy'' (British Academy, 2001). For a
funding organisation such as the Wellcome
Trust, whose mission is ``To foster and
promote research with the aim of improving
human and animal health'', the purpose of
PhD training is to ensure that science has
enough highly skilled researchers and a
science literate population to allow progress
towards its mission. By this broad definition
``science'' is not exclusively the domain of
academia but encompasses industry,
government, schools and society at large. For
99
Volume 12 . Number 2 . 2002 . 98103
the individual student, such a definition of
purpose and foresight is not likely to be the
primary reason for embarking on PhD
training.
In the recent review of PhD supervisors,
when asked to select the best description of
the purpose of PhD training, a minority
(6 per cent) of supervisors described a
``purist'' view of PhD training, where the
primary purpose was ``training for a career in
academic research'' with a commitment to
academia. Taking a wider view, a fifth of
respondents (20 per cent) described the
purpose in its broadest sense as ``training for a
range of careers'', being pragmatic in the
reasons for their choice.
It is no longer tenable to train people solely for
research in an academic setting. Also industrial
research has moved much closer in style and
content to academic research in the last ten years
(PhD supervisor).
The majority of supervisors, however, took a
middle position, with nearly three-quarters,
(72 per cent) believing the purpose of PhD
training to be ``training for a career in
scientific research in general''. There was
general consensus that it was neither realistic
nor necessarily appropriate to train students
solely for a career in academic research.
Skills learned during PhD can be applied to a
wide range of careers. Not all PhD students will
be suited to remain in research (PhD
supervisor).
One would like all students to go on and become
great scientists, but things do not always work
out that way! (PhD supervisor).
Research with Trust-funded students found
that the primary reason for doing a PhD was
an inherent curiosity and a love of science,
indeed many students described the profound
influence of a school science teacher on their
decision to pursue science at a higher level
(The Wellcome Trust, 2000a). While an
interest in science was a common motivation
among students, there were also interesting
differences between students pursuing
different types (and duration) of PhD.
Students following a three-year studentship
expressed greater certainty about the sort of
research they wished to pursue. They also
tended to have more direct laboratory
research experience and in the main were
older than students embarking on the
four-year programmes.
As described, the four-year PhD training
programmes provide a qualitatively different
 Iain A. Frame and Liz Allen
type of research training (see Appendix). The
rotation year was particularly attractive to
students who were uncertain about the
precise area of research they wished to pursue
and enabled those wishing to either change
disciplines or do multidisciplinary research to
make the move. Students pursuing this type
of PhD welcomed the opportunity to work in
different laboratories and in different working
environments. This enabled them to broaden
their research experience and be more
involved in development of a full PhD project.
For both three-year and four-year PhD
students, the encouragement of a prospective
supervisor and potential bench colleagues,
regardless of the particular research project
offered, was a crucial factor influencing the
student's decision whether to do research in a
certain place or a particular laboratory.
Research has found that the quality of the
PhD training experience is a strong influence
on the decision to pursue a long-term career
in scientific research (National Research
Council, 1998; The Wellcome Trust, 2000b).
Our research suggests that for the PhD
student the potential working environment
and the nature of training provided is as
important, if not more so, than the research
project itself. It is important, therefore, to
manage the needs and aspirations of students
and those responsible for their training, not
only in relation to the research experience,
but in relation to the broader career
aspirations of the students.
In the absence of national co-ordinated
career destination statistics for PhD
graduates it is difficult to determine
precisely where PhDs are employing their
skills. There are moves among funding
agencies and higher education institutions
(HEIs) to collect career destination
information in a more systematic way to
help determine what happens to the
graduates it supports. Research with a
cohort of Trust-funded PhD students
supported a decade ago found that while 81
per cent of students took a first post-PhD
position in academia, after around five years
post-doc, less than half of the cohort
remained in academic research (The
Wellcome Trust, 2000b). The
comprehensive US study carried out in
1998 described similar academia exit rates
(National Research Council, 1998).
For Trust-funded students, the reasons for
leaving academia included the oft-cited ``poor
100
Volume 12 . Number 2 . 2002 . 98103
pay and career structure'', but the reasons
were also more proactive and positive. The
PhD qualification was thought to be
marketable to sectors throughout the
economy and a range of attractive career
options were open to PhD graduates. Given
the changing realities and job security
inherent in academia, it is important that the
benefits of a PhD qualification are
appreciated and valuable across sectors of the
economy and that exit from academia is
regarded as beneficial to science and society at
large and not as a ``failure'' option.
At a Trust-hosted symposium held in the
UK in 2001, current academics,
ex-academics, policy makers and
representatives from higher education
funding bodies came together to discuss
career issues facing researchers and
academics, with an emphasis on the sciences
(The Wellcome Trust, 2001b). Delegates
were required to identify what they thought
were the most important challenges relating
to career issues facing the biosciences. The
issue generating the greatest concern was how
to make science teaching in schools exciting,
both to ensure the supply of prospective
science students into the future, and also to
help ensure greater science literacy in the
population. One solution to this potential
dilemma was to encourage more science PhD
graduates with a passion for science to be
perhaps fast-tracked into a teaching career.
Clearly, good PhD training has value beyond
academia and its benefits can be actively
promoted.
The quality of the PhD training
experience
Among the many factors affecting perceptions
of the quality of PhD training among
students, the student-supervisor relationship
is perhaps the most influential. In our
research with PhD supervisors, pastoral care
of students was given high priority. When
asked to describe their role as a supervisor, a
vast array of descriptions were offered,
ranging from ``teacher'', ``trainer'' and
``mentor'', to ``father'' and ``mother''!
Virtually all supervisors described a training
focus, combining shaping the research with
guiding the student through the research
experience to foster the development of an
 Iain A. Frame and Liz Allen
independent researcher who is able to think
creatively.
To be interested, available, critical, supportive
and encouraging (PhD supervisor).
Providing scientific guidance, support in times of
need, overall perspective, inspiration when the
going gets tough, career advice later (PhD
supervisor).
In the same way that an inspired science
teacher or undergraduate lecturer is
influential in the decision to do a PhD, so a
PhD student's decision to remain in academia
and science more broadly is likely to be
influenced by the encouragement and
inspiration of a supervisor.
The accessibility of a supervisor is of course
a crucial factor in fostering the student-
supervisor relationship. Among Trust-funded
students, access to the supervisor appeared to
be closely related to a supervisor's seniority. A
senior academic supervisor, with a host of
other research and academic responsibilities,
is not likely to spend much time at the bench.
As a result, the student, who may be relatively
new and inexperienced to the laboratory,
relies for day-to-day assistance on other less
senior research staff, frequently post-doctoral
research assistants, who have their own
research workload to manage.
Accessibility is an issue. At times she can be so
distracted by other work that e-mails go
unanswered and you don't have anyone to go to
if things are going badly. Frankly she doesn't
have enough time (PhD student).
Interestingly, our research found a mismatch
between student and supervisor perceptions;
while virtually all supervisors reported that
they met frequently with their students,
around a quarter of students described
problems in accessing their supervisor. This
mismatch may reflect a difference in
perceptions of what ``accessibility'' truly
means; when required, does a supervisor have
sufficient time to discuss a PhD research
project in-depth? Furthermore, in the Trust's
annual ``exit'' survey of final year students,
around 25 per cent express ``dissatisfaction''
with their overall PhD training experience;
accessibility of the supervisor is consistently
mentioned as part of this.
It is therefore important to ensure that a
supervisor's existing academic workload does
not preclude sufficient time to spend with
their student throughout the duration of the
PhD. It may be necessary to ensure that any
prospective supervisor is able to demonstrate
101
Volume 12 . Number 2 . 2002 . 98103
that they have sufficient time available for
PhD training and support.
Ensuring quality of PhD training
experience
There have been increasing moves in UK
universities to introduce formal guidelines for
PhD supervision, intended to clarify
expectations, establish minimum standards of
PhD training, and help improve PhD training
quality. Around a quarter of Wellcome Trust
supervisors are currently working with
broader PhD training supervision guidelines,
drawn up either by a funding agency or an
individual university. On the whole, those
working with guidelines find them useful,
particularly as a reference point, although a
number of supervisors felt that, while
sensible, such guidelines should not be overly
prescriptive.
Mentoring or co-supervision systems are
often a component of more formal PhD
guidelines or formal PhD training contracts.
Trust-funded students' views have described
positively the value of a co-supervision policy,
primarily to ensure accessibility at any time to
at least one senior researcher with knowledge
and involvement in their research and as a
backup, providing a second person, or team,
with whom ideas can be discussed (The
Wellcome Trust, 2000a). As described
previously, having an accessible supervisor is
an important influence on the whole PhD
experience. Supervisors echoed the
sentiments of students on the benefits of a
co-supervision policy. In fact, the majority of
supervisors (83 per cent), in our review, are
already working within an institutional
mentoring/co-supervision policy and there
was, overall, clear support for this practice
(The Wellcome Trust, 2001a).
As might be expected, given the experiences
of Trust-funded PhD supervisors, supervisory
guideline practices are varied in the UK HEI
sector; while some universities operate their
own policies, others have no such guidance.
There is also considerable variation between
funding bodies on what constitutes
``minimum standards''. The Higher
Education Funding Council for England
(HEFCE) has recently undertaken a
fundamental review of research policy. As
part of that review, attention has been paid to
the development needs of research students
 Iain A. Frame and Liz Allen
and there has been a call for minimum criteria
for postgraduate research training, which
would apply equally to all institutions, and be
a condition of receipt of funding for research
students. HEFCE is currently developing
what will constitute those criteria. The
Biotechnology and Biological Sciences
Research Council (BBSRC) has recently
announced a system of formal and accredited
training for the supervisors of its PhD
students. The Training and Accreditation
Programme for Postgraduate Supervisors
(TAPPS) was piloted at the Institute of
Animal Health and is a scheme where
individual supervisors receive training in
supervision, and accreditation for good
supervisory practice.
There is increasing recognition among
research funders that PhD training should be
flexible to reflect the varying needs of
students. Changes in school and
undergraduate education have had, over the
last 20 years, a profound influence on the
preparation current students have for a PhD.
The traditional length of the UK PhD has
always been short by international standards
but was underpinned by a rigorous
undergraduate degree, which in science often
involved substantial laboratory experience.
The growth in undergraduate numbers,
without a corresponding growth in teaching
resources, has resulted in some science
graduates being ill-equipped to undertake a
PhD and less able to make an informed
choice of research topic. In response to these
changes in tertiary education, some
universities now offer a four-year
undergraduate degree leading directly to a
Master's degree (e.g. MBiochem, MChem)
which is effectively a first degree (universities
in Scotland have always offered a four-year
undergraduate degree). Often referred to as
the 4+3 model, this has become increasingly
common in the physical sciences and the arts
and humanities.
In the mid-1990s, the Medical Research
Council (MRC) introduced Masters in
Research (MRes) degrees which allow a
greater flexibility in the length and breadth of
training. During the first year, students can
sample the research environment through
laboratory rotations in addition to taught
elements and identify subject areas of interest
before deciding whether or not to commit to a
PhD. The students who do not commit to
continuing their studies may take a job
102
Volume 12 . Number 2 . 2002 . 98103
elsewhere and will have gained a valuable
qualification in the process (MRes); those
that decide to continue may do so at the same
institute or seek further funding to do a PhD
elsewhere. The popularity of the early MRes
programmes, led to their expansion with a
wider range of subject areas offered by the
other research councils.
In a further innovative development in PhD
training provision, the Engineering and
Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC)
recently (October, 2001) introduced Doctoral
Training Accounts. These accounts allow
HEIs to offer training that is specific to an
individual student's needs (EPSRC, 1999).
Distinctive among current PhD training in
the UK, the training accounts allow HEIs to
vary the length of a studentship to suit the
individual student and/or discipline, and to
vary the level of the student stipend offered to
attract the best candidates for each discipline.
This ability to vary the stipend might be
particularly useful where it is proving difficult
to attract high calibre graduates into a specific
scientific discipline. In return for this
considerable level of flexibility, universities
are expected to commit themselves to a
minimum level of supervision quality offered
to doctoral students and to accurate record
keeping on issues relating to the students
supported (projects, supervisors, completion
dates, career destination and progression).
This in the longer term will allow funding
bodies to consider the ``outcomes'' of their
research funding and inform funding
practices in the future.
The EPSRC Doctoral Training Accounts
also require that HEIs include transferable
skills training and career advice as part of their
PhD training support. In recognition of the
fact that most PhD graduates will not, in the
longer term, pursue a career in academia, the
demand for transferable skills training among
students is increasing. Wellcome Trust
students described a range of skills that would
be desirable components of PhD training
including ``grantsmanship'' (how to write a
good grant application), writing skills,
business accounting and science
communication (The Wellcome Trust,
2000a). Among PhD supervisors a substantial
minority described a reluctance to commit
their students to substantial transferable skills
training, mainly from a belief that time in the
laboratory was paramount and too precious to
be spent learning about peripheral issues (The
 Iain A. Frame and Liz Allen
Wellcome Trust, 2001a). The majority of
supervisors, however, embraced the
importance of transferable skills training,
skills required not only to reflect changes in
academia, but also the reality that the
majority of PhD graduates are likely to leave
academia at some point in the future.
To help the Trust achieve its goal of
improving human and animal health it is
vital that there is a continued influx of
high-quality, highly skilled individuals into
research. To make certain that the pool of
future researchers remains sufficiently deep it
is important that PhD training remains an
attractive option to prospective graduates. By
providing both high quality and broad ranging
PhD research training, in the laboratory
environment for example, and more broadly,
by ensuring transferable skills training, the
PhD becomes an increasingly desirable and
marketable qualification and asset.
References
British Academy (2001), Review of Graduate Studies in
the Humanities and Social Sciences.
Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council
(EPSRC) (1999), 34 99 Flexible Support for
Doctoral-Level Training, EPSRC, London.
National Research Council (1998), Trends in the Early
Careers of Life Scientists, National Academy Press,
Washington, DC.
(The) Wellcome Trust (2000a), Review of Wellcome Trust
PhD Research Training: The Student Perspective,
The Wellcome Trust, London.
(The) Wellcome Trust (2000b), Review of Wellcome Trust
PhD Research Training: The Career Paths of a 1988-
103
Volume 12 . Number 2 . 2002 . 98103
1990 Prize Student Cohort, The Wellcome Trust,
London.
(The) Wellcome Trust (2001a), Review of Wellcome Trust
PhD Research Training: The Supervisor Perspective,
The Wellcome Trust, London.
(The) Wellcome Trust (2001b), ``Radical thinking, creative
solutions, career issues in UK academic research'',
Proceedings from the Hinxton 2001 Symposium, The
Wellcome Trust, London.
Appendix. Attraction of the four-year
programme
It's always hard, a bit of a guess, there's so much
to choose from. That's why I'm doing the
Programme, I didn't know what I wanted to do.
. . . I was so scared of ending up in a lab where I
couldn't stand my supervisor and I didn't get on
with the lab. (Four-year PhD student).
It was a follow-on from one of my rotation
projects. The group atmosphere in the lab.
seemed very good and I had respect for my
supervisor and it's important to get along with
your supervisor (Four-year PhD student).
It was attractive because it was an
interdisciplinary project. I was a physicist and I
was given the chance to combine this with
something biological. All other projects are very
narrow. Here I have one year to know what I
want and I have the impression that I have more
freedom, to choose my own project and during
my project the freedom to follow my own path
(Four-year PhD student).
I had a fair idea of what I wanted to do but I
wasn't completely sure. I really liked the idea of
doing a first year so that I could make a much
more informed choice. As a result I'm now doing
a PhD that I wouldn't have done before (Four-
year PhD student).