How do Danish humanities PhD school leaders constitute their roles? Interactions of biography, place and time

IF 1.8 Q2 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH
Lynn McAlpine, Andrew Gibson, Søren Smedegaard Bengtsen
{"title":"How do Danish humanities PhD school leaders constitute their roles? Interactions of biography, place and time","authors":"Lynn McAlpine, Andrew Gibson, Søren Smedegaard Bengtsen","doi":"10.1108/sgpe-10-2023-0097","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<h3>Purpose</h3>\n<p>Increasingly governmental policy around PhD education has resulted in greater university oversight of programs and student experience – often through creating central PhD Schools. While student experience is well researched, the experiences of Heads of these units, who are responsible for creating student experience, have been invisible. This exploratory Danish case study begins such a conversation: its purpose to examine the perceptions of five Heads of PhD Humanities Schools, each responsible for steering institutional decisions within Danish PhD policy landscapes.</p><!--/ Abstract__block -->\n<h3>Design/methodology/approach</h3>\n<p>A qualitative approach integrated three distinct analyses: a review of Danish PhD education policies and university procedures, each university’s job specifications for the Heads of the Schools and the Heads’ views on their responsibilities.</p><!--/ Abstract__block -->\n<h3>Findings</h3>\n<p>The Heads differentiated between their own and today’s PhD student experience. They had held prior leadership roles and fully supported institutional regulations. They cared deeply for the students under their charge and were working to achieve personal goals to enhance PhD experience. Their leadership perspective was relational: enhancing individual student learning through engaging with multiple PhD actors (e.g. program leaders) – when possible at a personal level – to improve PhD practices.</p><!--/ Abstract__block -->\n<h3>Originality/value</h3>\n<p>This study contributes an expanded perspective on how PhD School Heads constitute their roles by empirically linking: macro-national policies and institutional regulations and individuals’ biographies to their support of the PhD regimes – with implications for academic leadership generally. The authors argue research into PhD School leadership is essential, as it is such individuals who create the organisational settings that students experience.</p><!--/ Abstract__block -->","PeriodicalId":42038,"journal":{"name":"Studies in Graduate and Postdoctoral Education","volume":"5 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Studies in Graduate and Postdoctoral Education","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1108/sgpe-10-2023-0097","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose

Increasingly governmental policy around PhD education has resulted in greater university oversight of programs and student experience – often through creating central PhD Schools. While student experience is well researched, the experiences of Heads of these units, who are responsible for creating student experience, have been invisible. This exploratory Danish case study begins such a conversation: its purpose to examine the perceptions of five Heads of PhD Humanities Schools, each responsible for steering institutional decisions within Danish PhD policy landscapes.

Design/methodology/approach

A qualitative approach integrated three distinct analyses: a review of Danish PhD education policies and university procedures, each university’s job specifications for the Heads of the Schools and the Heads’ views on their responsibilities.

Findings

The Heads differentiated between their own and today’s PhD student experience. They had held prior leadership roles and fully supported institutional regulations. They cared deeply for the students under their charge and were working to achieve personal goals to enhance PhD experience. Their leadership perspective was relational: enhancing individual student learning through engaging with multiple PhD actors (e.g. program leaders) – when possible at a personal level – to improve PhD practices.

Originality/value

This study contributes an expanded perspective on how PhD School Heads constitute their roles by empirically linking: macro-national policies and institutional regulations and individuals’ biographies to their support of the PhD regimes – with implications for academic leadership generally. The authors argue research into PhD School leadership is essential, as it is such individuals who create the organisational settings that students experience.

丹麦人文学科博士生学校领导如何扮演自己的角色?传记、地点和时间的相互作用
目的政府有关博士生教育的政策日益加强了大学对项目和学生体验的监督--通常是通过建立中央博士生院来实现。尽管对学生体验进行了深入研究,但负责创造学生体验的这些单位的负责人的体验却不为人所见。这项探索性的丹麦案例研究开始了这样的对话:其目的是研究五位博士人文学院院长的看法,他们各自负责指导丹麦博士政策环境中的机构决策。设计/方法/途径定性方法综合了三项不同的分析:对丹麦博士教育政策和大学程序的审查、每所大学对学院院长的工作要求以及院长对其职责的看法。他们曾担任过领导职务,完全支持学校的规章制度。他们非常关心自己负责的学生,并努力实现个人目标,以提升博士生的体验。他们的领导力视角是关系型的:通过与多个博士生参与者(如项目负责人)的接触(在可能的情况下在个人层面上)来提高学生的个人学习能力,从而改善博士生的实践。 原创性/价值 本研究通过将宏观的国家政策和机构规定以及个人履历与他们对博士生制度的支持联系起来,对博士生院院长如何扮演其角色提供了一个扩展视角,并对学术领导力产生了普遍影响。作者认为,对博士生院领导的研究至关重要,因为正是这些人创造了学生所经历的组织环境。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Studies in Graduate and Postdoctoral Education
Studies in Graduate and Postdoctoral Education EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH-
CiteScore
2.90
自引率
9.10%
发文量
17
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信