Keith Comer

When the Governmental Tail Wags the Disciplinary Dog: Some Consequences of National Funding Policy on Doctoral Research in New Zealand.

This paper explores disciplinary approaches to knowledge production and the supervision of doctoral students in the context of New Zealand’s current Performance Based Research Fund (PBRF). In the last decade New Zealand has experienced significant changes to the way doctoral students are funded by central government. Funding has moved away from a ‘head count’ model to one that rewards specific performance criteria of staff and timely completion of students. In the new regime, research outputs by way of peer reviewed publications, conference presentations, grant awards, postgraduate completions and so forth constitute the significant markers of such performance. Yet in general terms, the production of knowledge varies considerably by academic discipline. This paper uses qualitative methods to explore the potential for the PBRF to privilege some approaches to knowledge production (and models of doctoral supervision) while challenging the viability of others.

Interpreting differences between the United States and New Zealand university students’ engagement scores as measured by the NSSE and AUSSE

Press releases concerning the Australasian Survey of Student Engagement (AUSSE) results warn that university students in Australia and New Zealand are less engaged than their peers at United States institutions. Such warnings about student engagement and interactions then become targets for improvement on Australasian universities’ strategic plans. In considering New Zealand university students’ survey responses, we examined AUSSE and the US National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE) data for 2009 and 2010 with respect to all items that load on the five scales these instruments share. We argue that most of the observed differences in responses, response distributions and subsequent scale scores can be attributed to differences in educational pathways and cultures between the USA and New Zealand. Consequently, considerable caution in these trans-Pacific comparisons is warranted, particularly when formulating policy and practices to improve student engagement in New Zealand based on methods that have been employed in different educational contexts.

Using Doctoral Experience Survey Data to Support Developments in Postgraduate Supervision and Support

Provision of both high standards of thesis supervision and high quality research environments are required for doctoral candidates to flourish. An important component of ensuring quality provision of research resources is the soliciting of feedback from research students and the provision from research supervisors and institutions of timely and constructive responses to such feedback. In this manuscript we describe the use of locally developed survey instruments to elicit student feedback. We then demonstrate how actions taken in response to this student feedback can help establish a virtuous circle that enhances doctoral students’ research experiences. We provide examples of changes to supervisory practice and resource allocation based on feedback and show the positive impact on subsequent student evaluations. While the examples included here are local, the issues considered and the methods and interventions developed are applicable to all institutions offering research degrees.

Developing Evidence for Action on the Postgraduate Experience: An Effective Local Instrument to Move beyond Benchmarking.

ABSTRACT Summative and benchmarking surveys to measure the postgraduate student research experience are well reported in the literature. While useful, we argue that local instruments that provide formative resources with an academic development focus are also required. If higher education institutions are to move beyond the identification of issues and benchmarking practices, the scope of survey results and their reporting need to enable and foster appropriate changes in disciplinary practices. Robust, locally developed instruments can provide detailed, programme-specific information and foster timely changes in practice with direct benefits for postgraduate respondents. Unlike benchmarked surveys, local tools can adapt to explore and examine specific concerns of students, supervisors and academic developers. Coupling high-response rates and follow-on engagement with participant feedback, well-designed local instruments provide clear and irrefutable indicators to programme and university administrators of specific disciplinary strengths and weaknesses in postgraduate pathways. In this paper, we discuss the development of a research student survey specifically designed to support academic development purposes in strengthening and enhancing the postgraduate experience.