名古屋高等教育研究

第 7 号 （2007）

Is the Doctorate in Crisis?
Christine Halseᴾ ᴾ ᴾ ᴾ ＜Abstract＞
This paper examines recent claims by university, business andgovernment leaders that the doctorate is in crisis. It examines recentchanges to the doctorate and the development of new sorts of doctorates, such as professional doctorates, and analyses the social, political and economic factors that have contributed to these changes. It
argues that there has been a radical shift in what the doctorate meansin the twenty-first century and that has profound implications for thepedagogy and practice of the doctorate. The analysis draws primarily
on data from Australia, the United States of America and the United
Kingdom but these trends are typical of elsewhere in the world including Europe, and are important to understanding of the contemporary challenges confronting the doctorate as an internationallyrecognised and transportable qualification that operates in an international community and marketplace.

1．Introduction
The doctorate is an internationally recognised qualification that has acontroversial history. As early as 1903, it was savaged by American
philosopher William James as 㵰a sham, a bauble, a dodge, whereby todecorate the catalogues of schools and colleges㵱 (p. 338). Disquiet about thedoctorate that has intensified in recent years, particularly in Australia, theUnited Kingdom and Europe. Symptomatic of this concern have been thecalls for a critical rethinking of existing doctoral programs by the Carnegie
Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching as part of its five year
Professor, University of Western Sydney

321Carnegie Initiative on the Doctorate.
This essay provides an overview of conversations about the crisis withthe doctorate. It draws primarily on developments in Australia, the UnitedStates of America of America and the United Kingdom, but makes reference to trends in other countries. As the UNESCO analysis, Doctoral
Studies and Qualifications in Europe and the United States testifies (Sadlak,
2004), universities operate in an international community and global marketplace and share similar concerns and challenges with their doctoral
programs.
The essay comprises three parts. Section I, Concerns about the doctorate, describes some of the key concerns about the current state of thedoctorate. Section 2, Reshaping the doctorate examines the factors thathave reconfigured the doctorate and universities in recent times. Section 3,
Crisis or Comprehension? examines the erroneous premises of claims
about a doctoral crisis but contends that we have entered an era of more
conscious comprehension of the challenges entangled with the doctorate.
Finally, in Section 4, Future Directions, two major challenges for the futureof doctoral policy and pedagogy are detailed and discussed.

2．Concerns about the doctorate
The current state of the doctorate is a cause of concern and heartachefor policy-makers, university administrators and education leaders. In the
United States of America, Canada, and Australia, the attrition rate fromdoctoral programs is 50 percent or higher (Elgar, 2003; Golde & Walker,
2006; Martin, Maclachlan, & Karmel, 2001). Typically the attrition rate ishigher in the Humanities and Social Sciences that in the Natural Sciencesand Engineering. In France, the drop-out rate averages 12 percent in
Science subjects and 51 percent in the Humanities and Social Sciences(Kehm, 2004, p. 288). Similarly, Cohen and Cherwitz (2006), citing a study
by the US Council of Graduate Schools, report that completion rates after
10 years of study are 64 percent in engineering, 62 percent in life sciences,
55 percent in the physical sciences and social sciences and 47 percent in
the humanities.

322

Is the doctorate in crisis?

High attrition rates are socially and economically costly for individuals,
institutions and societies, but they are only part of the problem. In Canada
over the last three decades, time-to-degree has nearly doubled from 6.3 to10.5 years (Council, 1995). In the United States of America, the averagetime-to-degree is 8 to 9 years but has risen in Education to 12.6 years(Hoffer et al., 2005). In Australia, the Commonwealth government has
issued trenchant criticisms of the time required to complete research
degrees (Kemp, 1999).
The quality of doctorates in some disciplines has also attracted criticism.
Felbinger (1999) cites a decade of research testifying that public administration dissertations lack the explanatory, interpretive and criticalanalysis of those in the social sciences. Lee Shulman and colleagues (2006)
from the Carnegie Institution recently damned professional doctorates in
education as a 㵰PhD-Lite㵱 that is blighted by 㵰chronic and crippling㵱
problems (Shulman, Golde, Bueschel, & Garabedian, April 2006, p. 27).
The increase in the number of doctoral graduates has prompted concernthat there are too many doctoral graduates (Fox, 1997). Yale University
awarded the United States㵭 first PhD in 1861 and a total of 406 universities now award doctoral degrees, resulting in the award of about 45,000
doctoral degrees each year (Altbach, 2004, p. 261), producing 5,700 engineering doctorates, 6,000 doctorates in the physical sciences and 8,800
doctorates in the life sciences annually, in addition to those from otherdisciplines (Hoffer et al., 2005).
Commentators are unanimous: there too many doctoral graduates forthe number of available academic posts and progression from a doctorate
to a university appointment is the exception rather than the rule. This
state of affairs has prompted questions about the relevance of the PhD for
future employment, with commentators from Germany, the United
Kingdom, the United States and Australia arguing that the PhD does notprepare graduates for the sort of work they eventually do, particularly in
professional fields like education, engineering, and business. In Australia,
the government has been blunt. It has criticised research degree programs
as too narrow, specialised and theoretical, and for producing graduateswith inadequate communication, interpersonal and leadership skills to323

contribute to the knowledge economy, the workplace and national innovation (Kemp, 1999). Such criticisms have triggered a groundswell of calls
for doctoral graduates to be equipped with 㵬life-skills㵭 and the skills toteach and to work in industry (Adams & Mathieu, 1999; Baldauf, 1998;
Gilbert, Balatti, Turner, & Whitehouse, 2004).
Anxiety about the well-being of the doctorate has been shored-up bystudies that report high levels of student discontent (Anderson & Swazey,
1998; Harman, 2002; Phillips & Pugh, 1994) although the findings of suchstudies vary across disciplines and institutions because they use different
student satisfaction surveys with different student populations. Nevertheless, there is strong evidence of disciplinary differences in student
satisfaction. Illustrating this point, an Australia-wide survey of doctoral
graduates found that 81.7 percent of education graduates reported they
were satisfied with their doctoral supervision compared with 69.9 percent
of Engineering graduates and 58.2 percent of Architecture graduates(Ainley, 2001).
The belief that there is a crisis with the doctorate has triggered aplethora of institutional, national and international initiatives including:new program structures; modes of delivery and support for doctoral
students; new quality standards and funding models; new procedures tomonitor and account for student enrolments, attrition rates, progressions,completions, and research training support; compulsory training for thesis
supervisors and advisors; and cross-institutional graduate exit surveys.
Nevertheless, as Magner (2000) commented in the Higher Education

Chronicle, critics agree that a change is required but are uncertain about
what should be done and how to go about it.

3．Reshaping the doctorate
Claims that the doctorate is in crisis are vulnerable to ignoring orover-simplifying the complex entanglement of social, political, economic
factors that shape the doctorate and universities in current times. The
formidable challenges confronting contemporary higher education havethrown into doubt the hitherto taken-for-granted assumptions about the324

Is the doctorate in crisis?

meaning and purpose of the doctorate. Concerns about a crisis with thedoctorate tend to fall into two strands. The first relates to quality issues,
such as retention and completion rates, time-to-degree, quality andstructure of programs and supervision etc. The second relates to graduate
employment including the acquisition of generic and specific employment
skills, labour market demands for doctoral qualifications and the relevanceof research versus professional doctorates for the world of work (see also
Sadlak, 2004). In this paper, I trace some of the key changes that have hada particular impact on the doctorate and have helped construct theseconcerns.
3.1

The ‘massification’ of higher education

The modern university evolved during the Enlightenment under the
influence of Kantian rationality and from this base emerged the notion of
the university as a centre for research, scholarship and critique, and theassumptions of personhood that lie at the heart of the production of thecredentialed, licensed 㵬doctor㵭. At first, doctoral students were a smalland elite group within universities who could expect to be offered auniversity appointment when their degree was conferred.
The expansion and democratisation of universities from the 1960schanged universities from institutions for an elite into a system of mass
higher education. The change had a dramatic impact on the doctorate. For
example, in Australia in the early 1970s, only around 15 per cent ofschool-leavers progressed directly to university but between 1975 and2001, the participation rate in universities doubled (Marginson, 2004). The
㵰massification㵱 of higher education established 㵰favourable long-term
conditions for basic research and doctoral training in all fields of study㵱
(Marginson, 2004, p. 1). In Australia between 1979 and 2000, the number ofdoctoral students increased from 5,753 to 28,629, and the profile of doctoral
students changed dramatically with the number of part-time doctoral
students increasing from almost zero to close to 40 percent, with nearly
half enrolled in areas related to the professions rather than the disciplines(Evans & Pearson, 1999). The pattern has been similar elsewhere in theworld. In the United Kingdom, the number of doctoral students has in-325creased by 220 percent over the last 30 years, including a 700 percent
increase in female enrolments and a 354 percent increase in part-timeenrolments (Taylor, 2004). The same trend is evident at a discipline level.
If we take Education doctorates in the United States as a case in point, thefirst education PhD was awarded by Teachers College, Columbia University in 1893 and the first EdD was awarded by Harvard University in
1920. Today, more than 250 universities in the United States grant a PhD
or EdD, producing about 6,500 education doctorates each year (Hoffer et al.,2005).
3.2

The knowledge economy and epistemological shifts

Governments, business and industry have a vested interest in the
production of high quality doctoral graduates who can provide leadershipand a competitive national advantage in an internationalised market place.
International organisations like OECD and UNESCO identify educational
attainment as an important and influential variable in the economic performance of nations and the higher education sector as a key mechanism
by which countries can grow and sustain high-skill economic prosperity(OECD, 1999; Sadlak, 2004). In more social terms, the provision of highquality doctoral education is a commitment to the social development andwell-being of the constituent communities within national and international societies.
Consequently, the doctorate is an investment in social and human capitaland the doctoral graduate is now expected to have the capacity to engage
with different social groups and communities, including business, industry,
and to work in partnership with others. While a doctorate provides
long-term employment advantages, it does not guarantee a job for life andgraduates also need transferable and flexible skills. In this new environment, knowledge can not be the sole weltanschauung for the doctorate
or its sole desirable outcome. This change represents a fundamental shift
in the epistemology of the doctorate as a continuing project of the
Enlightenment, replacing it a new epistemology where knowledge is also
valued and legitimated, as Lyotard (1984) describes, by its performativity
or capacity to enhance the efficiency and effectiveness of the326

Is the doctorate in crisis?

socio-economic system.
This epistemological shift has not been unitary or universal. It has beentaken-up in different ways in different sorts of doctorates and in different
disciplines, departments, institutions and countries. What is important isthat the shift has created different kinds and modes of knowledge production that have opened up the possibility of different ways of thinking
about and doing a doctorate.
3.3

The corporatisation of universities and the education market

At a pragmatic level, 㵰the three 㵬C㵭s㵭 - competition, corporatism andconsumerism㵱 (Marginson, 2004, p. 4) have become the key drivers ofuniversity decision-making as governments have sought to reduce publicfunding of universities and shift the financial burden of a university
education to consumers. In practice, these changes have transformed
publicly funded universities into a quasi-privatised, corporate higher
education sector. In the United States and the United Kingdom, universities wrestle with rising tuition fees and diminishing state support(Barnett, 2004; Brint, 2005). In Australia, expenditure on higher education
halved between 1975 and 2001, despite a two-fold increase in the par

ticipation rate in higher education .
The move to a performance-based, corporatised, market model of universities has impacted on the funding of doctoral education. In Australia,
public funding of universities is increasing performance-based and publicly
funded doctoral places have been significantly reduced. Similar funding
approaches have been adopted in the United Kingdom and other countries
where, until recently, high levels of public funding for universities anddoctoral education were sacrosanct.
These changes are part of wider international changes whereby theperformance of universities in research and teaching are ranked in international league tables, and universities compete in an international
market for high quality students and academic staff. In this new world, a
university㵭s doctoral programs generate institutional income, academic
jobs and institutional prestige and standing in a competitive, international,
tertiary education system. The changes do not obviate the ideals of the327doctorate or the prestige it confers but they do mean that a high quality
doctoral program is part of a university㵭s armoury for enuring its own
social and economic well-being in a competitive education market-place.
3.4

A diversity of doctorates

Growing out of this conflation of changes has been emergence of newforms of doctorate. These have included the PhD by publication andportfolio; professional doctorates; group research doctorates; two andthree track and time-limited doctorates, and Britain㵭s New Route PhD
involving a consortium of 34 universities. The new doctoral forms havebeen accompanied by changes in structure and pedagogy, including morestructured programs, week-end intensives, summer school programs,
distance education, etc.
The new forms of doctorate have been controversial. Advocates argue
that they are a response to student and employer needs and merely
provide a different route to the same qualification while opponents consider them a dumbed down version of the PhD that lowers the standing
and prestige of a doctoral award. Nevertheless, the emergence of new
doctoral forms has broadened the market and interest in the doctorate, as
this is evident in increases in student numbers and the number of doctoral
programs. In Australia, for example, the number of professional doctoral
programs increased from one in 1990 to 131 in 2001 (McWilliam et al.,2002).
The diversity of doctorates has not been restricted to the type of
doctorate. It has extended to differences between the same doctoral
programs. For instance, there are substantial variations within and between professional doctorates in business, engineering and education in
the United Kingdom (Scott, Brown, Lunt, & Thorne, 2004), while dramaticinter-institutional diversity in examination procedures and practices led
Tinkler and Jackson (2000) to conclude that the PhD in the United
Kingdome is 㵰conceptualised and operationalised in diverse ways㵱 (p. 179).
3.5

Quality assurance

The changed political economy of universities has occurred in tandem328

Is the doctorate in crisis?

with the infiltration and adoption of quality assurance processes and new
managerial forms of governance, audit and accountability including: expanded procedures for monitoring and auditing student enrolments,
progression and completions; training of dissertation supervisors/ad-visors and committee members; and stricter accountability for on-goingfunding of doctoral candidates.
Such measures signal the passing of the laissez faire approach to thedoctorate of the 1970s and 1980s but they have not been universally
welcomed by academics, particularly in Australia, the United Kingdom, of
the United States (McInnis, 2000; Tierney, 2003) and have been criticisedfor reducing the doctorate 㵰to a mere exercise to demonstrate certain
skills㵱 that make students consumers rather than producers of knowledge(Smith, 2000, p. 4).
Despite such protests, quality assurance is part of the responsibility andaccountability of universities to their multiple constituencies. Moreover,such strategies are also concerned with the effectiveness and quality ofthe doctorate and with 㵰the knowledge and skills of the graduate㵩thefinished 㵬product㵭 of doctoral study (Cullen, Pearson, Saha, & Spear, 1994,
p. 22). Nevertheless, as discussed below, this new environment has challenged assumptions about how the doctorate should be organised andwhat a doctorate should involve.

4．Crisis or Comprehension?
While claims of a doctoral crisis are based on legitimate concerns that
university administers and policy makers need to address to ensure
quality doctoral education and doctoral graduates, the rhetoric of a crisis isalso based on number of misconceptions about the doctorate.
The first misconception is that problems such as poor retention andcompletion rates are a recent phenomenon and a radical disjuncture fromthe way things were in the past. These problems are not new but they
have become comprehensible in recent years because universities, governments and international organisations, like UNESCO, have access tobetter empirical data about the doctorate in different countries - much of329

which has been collected as part of the new quality assurance regimes thatsome commentators have criticised as an undesirable bureaucratisation of
the doctorate. Viewed in this light, however, the alleged crisis with thedoctorate is not necessarily a new issue or problem but one that has only
become comprehensible through improved information about the doctorate.
The second misconception hinges on romanticised assumptions of thepast that ignore the empirical evidence and the long history of concern
about the doctorate amongst policy makers, university administers andscholars. In Australia, for example, policy leaders have complained consistently about the failure of universities to address problems with thedoctorate ever since the national Review of Tertiary Education, nearly 40
years ago. As an influential, former senior bureaucrat described
We all know people who have spent years studying towards research
degrees who have pulled out before they finished. Equally, many whocomplete find the experience frustrating and demoralising, particularly if at the end of their degree they have no immediate, attractive
employment prospects (Gallagher, 2000, p. 11).
The third misconception arises from the erroneous belief that thedoctorate is static and unchanging entity. There is considerable historicaland national discontinuity about the meaning and use of the title 㵬doctor㵭.
It has been used ever since universities first began for those who had
㵰completed an apprenticeship in the guild (universitas) of teachers㵱
(Cullen, Pearson, Saha, & Spear, 1994, p. 12) but the application of the termfor graduates of a doctoral degree is much more recent. It dates from
Humboldt㵭s establishment of the PhD in 19th century Germany whereby
doctoral candidates developed an independent program of study andmoved between institutions before producing and defending a thesis andbeing conferred with the award of doctor.
This original notion was taken up in very different ways in different
countries. The United States adopted a model of mandatory coursework
followed by the production of a dissertation assessed by an internal

330

Is the doctorate in crisis?

committee and conducted in Graduate Schools. In the United Kingdom andAustralia, many professional doctorates use the coursework/dissertation
model but a PhD involves a major piece of supervised research that that is
examined by external experts in the discipline. Thus, it is inaccurate toassume that the doctorate has a continuous linear history, or is based onlong, well established traditions, or that it has had consistent identity overtime and between different disciplines, universities and countries. As the
emergence of new doctoral forms demonstrates, the doctorate is a discursive entity, fashioned by history and by social, political and economic
circumstances, changing in response to and as part of the broader changes
that have refashioned the identity, purpose and operation of universities.
The fourth misconception involves assumptions about doctoral standards and what constitutes a doctorate, and how much time and work is
required for the award of a doctoral degree. There are historical anddisciplinary differences in notions about what constitutes a doctorate. In
general, most Australian universities currently require a doctoral thesis in
the social sciences and humanities to be an original piece of research thatis 80,000-100,000 words long. However, the first Australian PhD, awarded
in 1949, was a detailed, interpretive literature review of 30,000 words; andthat a doctorate in science can be as brief as 5-10 pages - apt reminders
that it is the weight of the intellectual work rather than the weight of thetome that decides the quality of a doctorate.
The notion that the doctorate is not a uniform or unchanging entity withlong and well-established traditions is unsettling because it dissolves thesense of security that comes with the certainty of knowability. In thischaotic condition, it can be more comfortable to remain loyal to idealised
notions than to tackle the tricker challenge of how the doctorate should beconstituted in the changing context of contemporary higher education.

5．Future directions?
While claims of a crisis overstate the case, the doctorate is in a phase ofradical transformation. Two fundamental challenges are likely to shapeforeseeable future of the doctorate. The first is the pedagogical challenge331

of moving beyond the supervisor/student binary that has haunted thehistory of doctoral pedagogy (Halse, under review) to a more structured
pedagogy and program design. This trend is already evident in many
countries. For example, a key feature of doctoral programs in the 13
countries that participated in UNESCO㵭s analysis of doctoral studies andqualifications in Europe and the United States has been the move to morestructured doctoral programs.
The second challenge will be the establishment of common, international
quality standards. The danger of construing the changes in the doctorate㵭s past as anticipating a perpetually fluid future is that it undermines
the capacity to reach an agreed understanding about the quality andstandard that warrants the award of a doctoral degree. In Australia, national quality audits have increased the pressure for cross-institutional
benchmarking of doctoral quality and performance. The United Kingdom
has introduced common criteria for the award of a doctorate. In the UnitedStates, the Carnegie Initiative on the Doctorate worked with departments
and faculties to reform their doctorates based on a shared vision of thedoctoral graduate as a 㵬steward of the discipline㵭. The collaboration of 45
nations in the Bologna process to harmonise the higher education systemsof Europe is likely to have a particularly profound effect on the doctorate
elsewhere in the world. As part of Europe㵭s goal to become the world㵭sleading knowledge-based economy by establishing the European Research
Area and European Higher Education Area, the third cycle of the Bologna
process involves abandoning national degrees for a uniform architecture
for the doctorate. If universities and counties wish to maintain the comparability of their doctoral qualifications and the employability of theirgraduates in an international, global market place, the changes to thedoctorate arising from the Bologna process are likely to have a significant
effect on the doctorate elsewhere in the world.
In this respect, therefore, it might be said that the doctorate is truly at
a stage of radical transformation - a transformation that does not arise
from current crises or concerns but from the transformations that will
emerge from the doctorate㵭s formal designation as a uniform, global
qualification.

332

Is the doctorate in crisis?

Notes1）The same trend is evident in Japan where national universities have beentransformed into corporations that are expected to be economically independent.

References
Adams, F., & Mathieu, E., 1999, "Towards a closer integration of PhD training
to industrial and societal needs", Analytica Chimica Acta, 393: 147-55.
Ainley, J., 2001, The 1999 Postgraduate Research Experience Questionnaire(No. 01/4 April), Canberra: Evaluations and Investigations ProgrammeHigher Education Division, Department of Education, Training and YouthAffairs.
Altbach, P. G., 2004, "The United States: Present realities and future trends", J.
Sadlak (Ed.), Studies on Higher Education: Doctoral studies and qualifications

in Europe and the United States: Status and prospects,259-77, UNESCO.

Anderson, M. S., & Swazey, J. P., 1998, "Reflections on the Graduate Student
Experience: An Overview", New Directions for Higher Education, 101: 3-13.
Baldauf, B., 1998, "Doctoral education and research training in Germany:
Towards a more structured and efficient approach?", European Journal of

Education, 33(2): 161-82.
Barnett, R., 2004, "The purposes of higher education and the changing face of
academia", London Review of Education, 2(1): 61-73.
Brint, S., 2005, "Creating the Future: 'New Directions' in American Research
Universities", Minerva, 43(1): 23-50.
Cohen, P., & Cherwitz, R., 17 January 2006, "In Doctoral Education its Time for
an Overhaul", Tomorrow's Professor Mailing List.
(http://www.statesman.com/opinion/content/editorial/stories/01/17gradschool̲edit.html)
Council, N. R., 1995, Summary Report 1993: Doctorate Recipients from UnitedStates Universities, Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

333

Establishing effective PhD supervision. Canberra: Department of Employment, Education

Cullen, D. J., Pearson, M., Saha, L. J., & Spear, R. H., 1994,
and Training: Australian Government Publishing Service.

Delanty, G., 2001, Challenging knowledge: The university in the knowledge

society, Buckingham: SRHE/Open University Press.
Elgar, F. J., 2003, PhD Degree Completion in Canadian Universities, Halifax,
Canada: Graduate Students㵭 Association of Canada.
Evans, T., & Pearson, M., 1999, "Off-campus Doctoral Research and Study inAustralia: Emerging Issues and Practices", A. Holbrook & S. Johnston (Eds.),

Supervision of Postgraduate Research in Education: Review of Australian
Research in Education, 5: 185-206, Coldstream, Victoria: Australian Association for Research in Education.
Felbinger, C. L., Holzer, M., & White, J. D., 1999, "The doctorate in public
administration: Some unresolved questions and recommendations", Public

Administration Review, 59(5): 459-64.
Fox, M. A., 1997, "Graduate students: Too many and too narrow?", R. Ehrenberg (Ed.), The American university: National treasure or endangered spe-cies? Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
Gallagher, M., 2000, The challenges facing higher education research andtraining. Paper presented at the Quality in postgraduate research: Making
ends meet. Proceedings of the 2000 Quality in Postgraduate Research
Conference, 13-14 April, Adelaide.
Gilbert, R., Balatti, J., Turner, P., & Whitehouse, H., 2004, "The generic skills
debate in research higher degrees", Higher Education Research & Devel-

opment, 23(3): 376-88.
Golde, C. M., & Walker, G. E. (Eds.), 2006, Envisioning the Future of Doctoral
Education: Preparing Stewards of the Discipline - Carnegie Essays on the
Doctorate Jossey-Bass.
Green, P., & Usher, R., 2003, "Fast Supervision: changing supervisory practicein changing times", Studies in Continuing Education, 25(1): 37-50.
Halse, C. (under review), "A critical review of approaches to doctoral supervision", The Review of Higher Education.
Harman, G., 2002, "Producing PhD graduates for the knowledge economy",

Higher Education Research & Development, 21(2): 180-90.
Hoffer, T. B., Welch, V., Williams, K., Hess, M., Webber, L., Lisek, B., et al.,2005,334

Is the doctorate in crisis?

Doctorate recipients from United States universities: Summary report 2004,
Chicago: National Opinion Research Centre.
James, W. 1987, "The Ph.D", Octopus. Reprinted from Harvard Monthly, Mar.
1903, 149㵨57, William James Writings, 1902-10 , 1111㵨8, New York: Library ofAmerica.
Kehm, B. M., 2004, "Studies on Higher Education: Developing doctoral degrees
and qualifications in Europe: Good practice and issues of concern - a comparative analysis", J. Sadlak (Ed.), Doctoral Studies and Qualifications in

Europe and the United States: UNESCO.
Kemp, D., 1999, Knowledge and Innovation: A Policy Statement on Researchand Research Training. Canberra: Department of Education, Science, andTraining.
Lyotard, J.-F., 1984, The Postmodern Condition: A Report on Knowledge.
Manchester: Manchester University Press.
Magner, D. K., 2000, "Critics urge overhaul of PhD training, but disagree
sharply on how to do so", The Chronicle of Higher Education, 46(34): A19-20.
Marginson, S., 2004, "National and Global Competition in Higher Education",

The Australian Educational Researcher, 31(2): 1-28.
Martin, Y. M., Maclachlan, M., & Karmel, T., 2001, Postgraduate Completion

Rates. Canberra.
McInnis, C., 2000, The work roles of academics in Australian Universities.
Canberra: Australian Government Publishing Service.
McWilliam, E., Taylor, P., Thomson, P., Green, B., Maxwell, T., Wildy, H., et al.,2002, Research Training in Doctoral Programs: What can be learned fromprofessional doctorates?, Canberra: Department of Education, Science andTraining, Evaluation and Investigations Program.
Neumann, R., 2005, "Doctoral Differences: Professional doctorates and PhDs
compared", Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 27(2):173㵨88.
OECD., 1999, The response of higher education institutions to regional needs. .
Paris: Centre for Educational Research and Innovation.
Phillips, E., & Pugh, D., 1994, How to get a PhD. Buckingham: Open University
Press.
Sadlak, J. (Ed.), 2004, Studies on Higher Education: Doctoral Studies andQualifications in Europe and the United States: Status and Prospects:

335

UNESCO.
Scott, D., Brown, A., Lunt, I., & Thorne, L., 2004, Professional Doctorates: in-tegrating professional and academic knowledge. Maidenhead: SRHE/ Open
University Press.
Shulman, L. S., Golde, C. M., Bueschel, A. C., & Garabedian, K. J., April 2006,"Reclaiming Education㵭s Doctorates: A Critique and a Proposal", American

Educational Researcher, 25-31.
Smith, B., 2000, "'Research Training' and the conceptual barbarism of the White
Paper's postgraduate research agenda", Australian Universities' Review,
43(2): 2-4.
Taylor, J., 2004, "The United Kingdom", J. Sadlak (Ed.), Studies in Higher

Education: Doctoral Studies and Qualifications in Europe and the UnitedStates: Status and Prospects, 231-58: UNESCO.
Tierney, W. G., 2003, "Cultural Disintegration and the Decline of the Engaged
Intellectual: The transformation of academic work", Discourse: Studies in the

Cultural Politics of Education, 24(3): 371-83.
Tinkler, P., & Jackson, C., 2000, "Examining the Doctorate: institutional policy
and the PhD examination process in Britain", Studies in Higher Education,25(2): 167-80.
Usher, R., 2002, "A Diversity of Doctorates: fitness for the knowledge economy",

Higher Education Research and Development, 21(2): 143-53.

336

危機にたつ博士課程
クリスティン・ハルス

ᴾ ᴾ ᴾ ᴾ ᴾ ＜要旨＞

本稿では、博士課程は危機にあるとする近年の大学界、産業界、官界からの批判について検証する。博士課程にまつわる近年の変化や、プロフェッショナル・ドクターなどの新しいタイプの博士課程の発展を検証し、これらの変化をもたらした社会的、政治的、経済的要因を分析する。21 世紀における博士号の意味がこれまでとは大きく異なることを議論し、博士課程における教育や訓練に対しても重大な示唆をする。分析にはオーストラリア、アメリカ、イギリスのデータを用いるが、傾向はヨーロッパを含む世界中に共通である。この傾向は、国際的なコミュニティおよび市場で認知され通用可能な「資格」としての博士号が対面している課題を理解するために重要である。

ウェスタンシドニー大学・教授

337