A PROGRESS REPORT

ON
QUALITY OF RESEARCH PROGRAMME AT M.PHIL. LEVEL WITH
REFERENCE TO COURSEWORK AND PERCEPTION OF STAKEHOLDERS

A progress report submitted to Ravenshaw

University in partial fulfillment of the Degree of
Doctor of Philosophy in Education

by

DEBAJANI SAHOO

Supervisor

DR. B.C DAS

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

RAVENSHAW UNIVERSITY, CUTTACK

Quality of research in higher education
Strive for excellence and quality in education means to strive for richer curriculum
and transaction based on the varying talents and needs of all students, the need for
each student potential and the development and nurturing of outstanding talent
(Pandey, 2012). Efforts to formulate the basis of excellence teaching and research
have sounded similar around the world over the last few decades. The “massification”
of higher education in most countries and the belief that quality of teaching and
research is becoming endangered. Similarly although more and more students are
prepared for and motivated by the quality education, governments seem less willing to
maintain average expenditures per student at a high level. Then there is “privatisation”
of higher education where private provision is claimed to be closely linked to the
economy and the needs of the employee. This leads to concentration on fields in high
demand, a curriculum geared to the work place make teaching practioners and more
practical experience during course. Another issue is the loss of autonomy that
universities and academics enjoyed for many years in the wealthier economics, where
they were free to large extent of government interaction. “Rethinking the criteria for
research quality” that report says substantial criticism surrounds the notion of a one
dimensional set of criteria for assessing the quality of research regardless of where ,
by whom and on what subject it was performed. Instead, dealing with assessment of
research quality require more differentiated ways, taking into account the research
setting, the kinds of research question asked, the methodological on intention and the
use of research findings. “Different functions and criteria of research” notes that while
all societies and knowledge differences exist in the functions that university research
can serve. Universities such as Stanford, much more generously most, may be able to
serve a broader range of functions in global context, their particular environment and
society. Other such as the University of Ghana, have to concentrate on the present and
future knowledge needs of their communities. Research- intensive universities are
increasingly challenged by the globalisation of research institutional competition or
innovation and the impact of international ranking mostly based on scientific
performance (Hazellkorn, 2008).
1.3.0 Rationale of the study
Higher education has an important role both for the student, as an individual, and also
for the society in which he lives. Tertiary education contributes to socio economic
development through 4 major missions
 The formation of human capital (primarily through teaching);
 The building of knowledge bases (primarily through research and knowledge
development);
 The dissemination and use of knowledge (primarily through interaction with
knowledge users); and
 The maintenance of knowledge (inter-generational storage and transmission of
knowledge).
Quality of higher education very often construed to be contingent upon the satisfaction of the
stakeholders. Students and teachers possess different perceptions on the quality of higher
education. Teachers perceived all dimensions of quality with a higher satisfaction level than
students (Abidin ,Muniru, 2015). Quality was conceptualized as meeting societal needs and
preparing graduates for employment (ThipamHoung and Starkey Louice, 2016).Higher
education authorities are not able to perform their responsibilities with the current
bureaucratic structure and major duties fall onto the higher education institutions in terms of
quality management (Basari1 Gulsan ,ZehraAltinay, Gokmen Dagli1 &FahriyeAltinay
2016).High quality and relevant higher education is able to equip students with knowledge,
skills and core transferable competencies they need to succeed after graduation, within a high
quality learning environment which recognizes and supports good teaching and research.
Quality assurance allows people to have confidence in the quality of higher. Every higher
education institution have a rigorous system of internal quality assurance, Quality Assurance
Agencies which make external checks. There is a strong need or flexible, innovative learning
approaches and delivery methods to improve the quality and relevance while expanding
student numbers. A number of studies were conducted on quality of higher education but
there is least studies on quality of M.Phil. programmes. It is imperative therefore to raise
these questions: What is the quality of M.Phil. researches? What kind of processes are
operating to enhance the quality of M.Phil. coursework? How do the stakeholders perceive
the quality of M.Philprogrammes? What kind of problems and constraints are faced by the
students and supervisors during their involvement in the process of coursework, research
activities, guidance and assessment processes? Keeping these questions in mind the
researcher intends to undertake an intensive study on the quality of M.Phil. Programmes with
reference to coursework processes and perception of Ph.D. scholars and supervisors.

1.5.0 STATEMENT OF PROBLEM

On the basis of the above rationale, the present study has been selected to be
conducted with the intention of finding out quality of M.Phil. Programme with reference to
process intervention involved in coursework and perception of scholars and supervisors
towards quality of M.Phil. Programmes. Hence the problem for the present study is stated as
“Quality of Research Programme at M.Phil. Level with reference to Coursework and
Perception of Stakeholders”.

1.6.0 RESEARCH QUESTIONS

1. What are the inputs and processes operating in the M.Phil. coursework with reference
to
i. Theoretical and practical processes ;
ii. Participation and expectations of researchers and
iii. Participation of supervisors in coursework facilitation and
iv. Expert’s views on course contents
2. What is the correlation between theoretical and practical performances of
M.Phil.researchers ?
3. What are the perceptions of researchers and supervisors about the quality of M.Phil.
Programme?
4. What are the problems and constraints faced by the researchers and supervisors?
1.7.0 OBJECTIVES
The objectives of the present study are as follows:
1. To study the inputs and processes operating in the M.Phil. coursework with
reference to
i. Theoretical and practical processes ;
ii. Participation and expectations of researchers and
iii. Participation of supervisors in coursework facilitation and
iv. Expert’s views on course contents
2. To study the correlation between theoretical and practical performances of M.Phil.
researchers ?
3. To study the perceptions of researchers and supervisors about the quality of
research programme at M.Phil. Level.

4. To examine the problems and constraints faced by the researchers and supervisors
during research programme at M.Phil. Level.
1.8.0 OPERATIONAL DEFINITION OF KEY TERMS
Participation of researcher- refers to researcher’s attendance and engagement in
coursework activities.
Processes of course work – refersto academic activities: theoretical and practical operated
during coursework of M.Philprogramme.
Participation of supervisor –refers to the nature of the supervisor’s involvement in
academic activities facilitated in the process of coursework.
Perception of researchers and supervisors – refers to expression of their feeling and views
on different procedures and practices operated during M.Phil. programme.
1.9.0 DELIMITATION OF THE STUDY-:
1. The study will be restricted to Universities only.
2. The study will be restricted to M.Phil. Programmes in social science and education
only.
1.10.0 METHODOLOGY
The present study will be conducted by using both qualitative and quantitative research
methods.
1.10.1 DESIGN
Convergent explorative design will be adopted in present study.
1.10.2 POPULATION AND SAMPLE
The population of the study comprises universities in Odisha. The sample of this study
will be confined to 4 universities. The sample is 24 Heads of the Department, 120 researchers
and 50 supervisors. The sample will be selected by adopting purposive sampling procedures.

1.10.3 TOOLS AND TECHNIQUES

The following tools and techniques will be used for data collection.
 Observation schedule
 Questionnaire for researchers
  Questionnaire for supervisors
 Workshop for experts
 Performance information schedule
 Perception scale for researchers and supervisors
 Interview schedule for supervisors
 Focus group discussion guide for researchers
 Photographs
 Field diary

1.10.4 PROCEDURE OF DATA COLLECTION

The researcher will visit the field personally and use observation schedule to observe input
and processes, administer two separate questionnaires to collect data from the researchers and
supervisors related to their involvement in coursework processes. A workshop will be
conducted to examine the expert’s views on course contents for M.Phil programme. A
performance information schedule will be used to collect the data related to researcher’s
performance. A perception scale will be used to collect data from researchers and supervisors
related to their perception about the quality M.Phil. programme. About 40 per cent
supervisors will be interviewed with the help of interview schedule in order to examine their
problems and constraints during M.Phil. programme. Around 24 focus group discussions will
be organized for researchers to collect data related to their problems and constraints during
M.Phil. programme. Photographs will be used to capture meaningful processes interventions
whereas diary notes will be helpful to note the meaningful experience or anecdotes of the
respondents
1.10.5 ANALYSIS TECHNIQUES
The data will be analysed with the help of percentage, correlation, chi-square test and content
analysis techniques.
Table 1: An Overview of Research Design
Objectives Sample Tools Procedure of data Analysis
collection techniques

1. To study the inputs and processes 4 Observation The researcher will Percentage
Universities visit field and content
operating in the M.Phil. coursework with schedule ,
, 24 personally and analysis
reference to department Questionnaire for conduct
s, 120 observation
i. Theoretical and practical processes ; researchers,
researchers schedule,
ii. Participation and expectations of 50 Questionnaire for administer with the
supervisors questionnaire a
researchers and supervisors and
and 24 workshop will be
iii. Participation of supervisors in experts Workshop for conducted to
examine for
coursework facilitation and iv. Expert’s experts
expert’s view
views on course contents.
2.To study the correlation between 4 Performance Performance correlation
universities, information
theoretical and practical performances information
24 schedule will be
of M.Phil. researchers department schedule used to collect data
s and related to
120 theoretical and
researchers practical
performances of
M.Phil. researchers
3.To study the perceptions of researchers 4 Perception Scale The researcher will Percentage
and supervisors about the quality Universities for researchers visit field and chi-
research programme 120 and supervisors personally and square test
researchers administer
and 50 perception scale to
supervisors supervisors and
researchers
4.To examine the problems and 24 Interview The researcher will Percentage
constraints faced by the researchers and
supervisors Schedule for take interview and and content
supervisors during the
M.Philprogramme. 120 supervisors and conduct FGDs analysis
researchers. FGD for
researchers

OBJCTIVES

1. To study the perceptions of researchers and supervisors about the

quality of research programme at M.Phil. Level.
TOOL

Perception scale for researchers and supervisors about the quality of M.Phil. Program

Dear sir\madam

As a responsible supervisor/researcher, committed for quality higher education, you are

requested to response a series of statements incorporated in this tool. Please indicate your
valuable response freely by putting a tick mark under the suitable alternative given in front of
each statement. Your response will be used for research purpose only.

With regards

Dr. B.C. Das Debajani sahoo

Supervisor Researcher

1. Name
 2. Designation
3. Subject
4. Teaching experiences
5. Qualifying test : UGC/CSIR-NET/JRF
6. M.Phil./Ph.D.: completed/pursuing
7. Research supervision :yes/no

Sl.no Statement SA A UD D SD

1. Completion of M.Phil. will enhance teaching and research

Competencies
2. There should not be integrated M. Phil. Course in Indian
Universities
3. Entrance test should not be conducted at university level
For direct admission into M.Phil.
4. M.Phil. entrance test should not be conducted by the state
Government.
5. NET qualified candidate should not be exempted from M.Phil.
Entrance.
6. Entrance test cannot fetch high quality scholars for M.Phil.
Programme.
7. Name of the researcher and research title should be shown on
UGC website in order to check duplicity.
8. The allocation of supervisor should not be left to the research
Students and teachers.
9. Increased number OF research scholars under a supervisor
does not dilute the quality of research work.
10. Mandatory of course work M.Phil. is relevant
11. Course work for M.Phil, can enable the researchers to develop
Research competencies
12. There should not be a Departmental Research Committee (DRC)
13. Course work should not be organized by the department.
14. Course work completion should not be the responsibility
of the researcher and guide.
15. Departmental involvement in coursework organization and
Evaluation process is relevant.
16. Approval of synopsis should be done by research development
Committee.
17. Research work must be published in refereed journals or books
18. Research paper published in journals taking prescribed
publication fees must not be considered as quality publication.
19. Quality of research publication should not be judged on the basis
Of certain prescribed points.
20. Promoting weekly seminar provides opportunities to the
researcher for relevant discussion with peers and experts.
21. Promoting inter-disciplinary collboration cannot enhance
the quality of research activities
22. Participation in related seminar and workshop can enhance
 the research activities.
23. Quality of research paper should be judged on the
basis of “what is published” not “where is published”
24. Foreign publication should be greater valued than national publication
25. Academic performance indicator (API) cannot appropriately
measure quality of academic performance.
26. Research should contribute to development
27. Research problem should be free from national and international problem
28. Thesis which has rare expression at operational level must not be rejected
29. The process of pre-submission presentation before departmental research
Committee is not relevant prior to final submission of thesis
30. The research supervisors should not be involved at any stage in suggesting
the names of examiners panel for evaluation of M.Phil. Thesis of own students

31.The vice chancellor should pick the name of the two external examiners

without bringing it to the knowledge of the supervisor

32. Evaluation of thesis should be done by at least two external experts without bringing it to
the state/country

33.The supervisor should develop the attitude of producing only a few good quality thesis
than to have a number of a few feeble thesis

34. There should not be open viva voice of M.Phil. candidates in thesis evaluation process

35. Thesis evaluation reports of the external examiners must be read out by the
head/chairperson in the open viva voice of M.Phil. candidates.

36.Mandatory for enclosing a research publication to the before submission is unnecessary

37. A softcopy of the thesis should be submitted to UGC by the university.