Introduction

Doctoral degrees have evolved to encompass multi- and trans-disciplinary study by practitioners within their work context (Lester 2004). The designation has also changed to include terms such as professional, industrial or practice-based PhDs or Doctorates (Fillery-Travis 2014). Their one differentiator from PhDs is that some part of the supervision occurs outside of the academy and within a workplace or practice environment. For the remainder of this issue, these doctoral forms will be identified as ‘modern doctorates’.

The modern doctoral forms have developed over a number of decades; by 2009 the number of professional doctorates in the UK was 308 with the largest number offered in the subject areas of Education, Business and Engineering providing a total of over 3600 students (Brown and Cooke 2010). Initially, they were designed (Maxwell 2003) from the ‘academic’ perspective of Mode 1 knowledge production (Gibbons 2000) and are close in ethos to the PhD. This type of doctorate takes practice as a focus for research with the student investigating a particular aspect of the activity. The student is still in essence separate and remote from the practice/workplace and is an observer of it with the locus of enquiry being within the University. The second generation (Lee 2008) are more aligned to Mode 2 where the production of knowledge is considered within its context and with the full engagement of the end-user of that knowledge. The student in this case is a scholar-practitioner embedded within their practice and their research (Ruona and Gilley 2009). This is highly sympathetic to Schon’s view of the interdependence of knowledge and practice with each developing the other (Schön 1983). In each case, the disciplinary focus of the doctorate is maintained primarily through the professional identity of the practitioner (Bennett 2009) as the multi- and inter-disciplinary nature of practice is investigated.

A third type of Professional Doctorate emerged in the UK and Australia. It is not discipline or profession specific and has been identified as a generic Doctorate of Professional Studies or Professional Practice (DProf) (Lester 2004). Originally developed within Middlesex University in 1998 it maintains the Mode 2 perspective of knowledge generation within practice in which the overarching discipline provides a framing of the work but in this case the content is the knowledge-in-use;

Its focus is on generating practical action which also represents high-level professional scholarship … addressing complex professional, organisational and social issues. (Lester 2004, 758)

Research for this doctorate is again situated within the workplace and practitioner research is at the core of its vision, enabling advanced practitioners to undertake a doctoral programme where the focus of their research is within their area of practice and work. The individuals who undertake this type of programme are required to have significant experience in their field; be engaged in high-level non-routine tasks, often trans-disciplinary in nature and operating in environments that are highly ambiguous.

The speed and scope of these developments have been driven not by external or organisational drivers for these qualifications – the exception being the fit-for-practice doctorates of psychology and related practices of psychotherapy and counselling – but by the needs of individual candidates who perceive this qualification as a career differentiator for them within the workplace. However, there is a growing identification by the European Commission and other major research funders, of the potential of the contribution to knowledge exchange these degrees make and how they facilitate innovation and growth within diverse sectors:

It is essential to … build trust between universities and other sectors. Such trust is, for example, built on formalised but flexible research and research training collaboration between industry and higher education institutions, including joint research projects, industrial doctorates or similar schemes. (EUA 2007, 15)

Given the growth and diversity of these doctoral forms, it is clearly problematic that the design, delivery and supervision of modern doctorates is currently not fully codified or strategically positioned within University provision. Most are developed in isolation to other programmes and without recourse to disciplinary or professional benchmarks (again with the exception of psychology and some programmes in health and social care). This is evident in the variation in requirement for taught delivery of disciplinary or professional knowledge/capabilities in addition to the central focus on new knowledge production through a major research project (Mellors-Bourne, Robinson, and Metcalfe 2016). Some require 2–3 years of taught disciplinary modules leaving scant time for research development whilst others require only a taught research methods module before embarking on the research proposal. This mirrors the best practice in the current supervision of PhDs.

The lack of codification of purpose, delivery methods and underpinning pedagogy is particularly evident in the supervision within modern doctoral programmes. Although it has been identified that supervision here requires a number of capabilities (academic and professional) recognised as being beyond those needed for conventional PhD supervision such as advising and facilitation (Boud and Costley 2007). However, without effective supervision, delivery of the full benefits of these degrees to the host/sponsoring organisation and the progression and attainment of the candidates will be compromised.

In 2014, a consortium of HEIs providing modern doctorates from the EU and USA, and the association of European Doctoral Candidates (EURODOC), was awarded an Erasmus + grant to explore best practice in the supervision of modern doctorates. Their aim was to provide appropriate resources for European universities and companies to leverage the innovation and new knowledge these degrees can produce and support supervisors wishing to work with these doctoral forms.

In moving beyond the current state of the art this special issue reports upon a number of findings from this project within a broader consideration of the field of modern doctoral education. The authors are drawn not only from the project consortium but also from around world. They are drawing experience from working within a range of doctoral modes including DBAs, industrial PhDs, EdDs and the generic DProfs. Specifically, the studies reported in this edition allow the following three themes to be considered.

The developing landscape of doctoral education and its purpose

The edition opens with an exploration of the current trends in professional doctorates around the world considering both the overarching purpose but also the range and form of the degree. The following work by Loxley sharply focusses on the purpose of the modern doctorate from the perspective of the supervisor – to what end are they seeking to supervise. The analysis of interviews with 50 supervisors of modern doctorates in Europe and the US identifies the range of purposes they have for their work from instrumentalism, transformation, recognition, positionality (professional or disciplinary) and finally knowledge generation in itself. This informs the final outcome of the work and specifically the type of impact that can be achieved. It sets the scene for the following theme that is focussed on unpicking the pedagogical elements that contribute to achieving these purposes.

The underpinning research pedagogy for practice

The structure of doctoral and research pedagogy is explored in Fillery-Travis and Robinson’s paper through the practice theory concepts of epistemic practice and knowledge objects as well as adult learning theory and codified into three areas:

• The tool by which the enquiry into practice can be undertaken, i.e. the critically reflective engagement,

• The content of such a pedagogy which will be a research pedagogy suitable for practice enquiry and

• The relationality that provides the environment in which such personal and professional explorations can occur.

The discussion explores the fundamental process required to research practice and highlights the need for the candidate to dissociate themselves from their research focus to see it anew and in effect make the familiar strange in order to know it. In traditional doctoral supervision, the focus of enquiry is usually a generalisable research question within a discipline and the method of enquiry is bounded by the norms of that discipline in terms of epistemology, methodology and outcomes. There is, in effect, a research curriculum to be learnt appropriate to each field. The exploration of practice can rarely be considered in such a manner and therefore we must turn to developing distinct research pedagogy for the research practitioner.

The desirable qualities and competencies required of a supervisor delivering such pedagogy are investigated within the context of an EdD in the US in the next work. Using a mixed-methods study the authors (Taylor, Vitale, Tapoler and Whaley) identify the indicative behaviours required of a supervisor and how the professional relationship between candidate and supervisor develops during the doctoral journey. The paper explores this from the perspective of the supervisor and candidate and it is notable that two candidates are themselves co-authors on this work allowing the candidate voice to be heard.

The supervisory context and the background of supervisors are also highly contextualised within the modern doctorate and there is a specific opportunity to have senior practitioners from the workplace as supervisors although they are not members of the academy. The paper by Maguire, Prodi and Gibbs presents exploratory findings from workplace supervisors’ experiences and reveals a range of indicative issues that can be examined through a praxis lens to enhance researcher support and development. The section finishes with the paper by Lee on the results of the interview and survey study conducted within the SuperProfDoc project coupled with perspectives from a development network for supervisors in Norway. She explores the implications of their experience of the work for the supervisory training necessary to equip those supporting candidates in these new doctoral forms.

Specific requirements of practice and supervisory contexts

The specific issues that arise within these doctoral forms are then considered starting with the Identification and exploration of what constitutes transferable skills required for advanced professional doctoral candidates. This is first considered from the perspective of transitioning student identity and sense of place looking at the overarching concept of employability skills (Griffiths, Inman, Rojas and Williams). The final paper addresses the specific opportunity afforded by the modern doctorate – to achieve impact within the work/practice context in synchrony with the enquiry. It addresses the perception and indeed the ‘selling point’ of modern doctorates – that they will allow research within practice for practice. This has a strong implication that the impact will be beyond the development of the candidate themselves but will engage, enhance and/or influence practice within the candidate’s context and perhaps within their professional group as well. Within this paper Boud et al. directly address this assumption in the first paper to seek to explore such impact directly. They found evidence from interviews of DProf graduates of the creation and adoption of usable practices and products, indications of new processes, networks and relations and suggestions of ideas crossing organisation or international boundaries.

Conclusion

Doctoral supervision is one of the highest levels of scholarly activity within the academic profession and has the complexity expected of such elevated work. The demands on the supervisor in terms of academic rigour, insight and relational acuity are many and there was also evidence of a real personal investment in the candidate’s progression in all the studies presented here.

The supervisory role is pivotal to the progression of the candidate but within the modern doctorate is cannot be a simple transmission of disciplinary norms of research to train the academic of the future. It is clear that facilitating the interdisciplinary and professional learning necessary for research at this level requires an ability by the supervisory team to be experts in the process of knowledge creation and be able to work in contexts where they are NOT the subject specialist, i.e. the professional practice of the candidate. It also requires an attention to the relational and power dynamics that provides the ‘crucible’ for the work in the supervisor–candidate relationship.

With that in mind, we would like to thank all our contributing supervisors for their service to us and to their whole community in sharing their practice with us and the Erasmus + RA2 programme for funding it. This issue is hopefully able to spread their work and inform supervisors working in what is clearly a growing body of doctoral programmes suitable for the advanced practitioners and leaders of the future.

The authors

The selection of papers for this edition allowed for contributions from the SuperProfDoc Erasmus Consortium: USA, Ireland, Netherlands, Italy and the UK (see below) but also incorporated authors from Australia, Norway and Wales. It includes those who have an established publication record in the field (P. Gibbs and D. Boud) and those from a variety of professional/disciplinary backgrounds including contributions from past and present doctoral candidates themselves and newer researchers to this field.

The Members of the SuperProfDoc Erasmus Consortium were:

Maastricht School of Management (NL): Nora Stel, James Molensky

Fondazione ADAPT (IT): Elana Prodi, Francesca Sperotti and Michele Tiraboschi

EURODOC: Claudia Dobrinski

Trinity College Dublin (IRE): Andrew Loxley

Evaluator as nominated by IAPD: Anne Lee

Chair of IAPD: Kevin Flint

Middlesex University (UK): Kate Maguire and Nico Pizzolato

University of Wales Trinity Saint David (UK): Annette FIllery-Travis (PI)

Non-funded US partners: Rosemarye Taylor and Thomas Vitale of University of Central Florida as international observers and benchmarking partners

Contributing Modern Doctorate Candidates/Graduates: Colton Taylor and Kari Whaley from University of Central Florida and Linda Robinson graduated from the University of Chester UK.

The consortium acknowledges with gratitude funding from the EU via Eramsus + 2014-1-UK01-KA203-001629

Doctoral Supervision of multidisciplinary practice abased doctorates: an appreciate inquiry into best practice in their design, development and delivery

1/09/2014-31/-8-2017

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.