A Qualitative Framework for Comparison and Evaluation of Computer Science Doctoral Programs Maria del Carmen Calatrava Moreno Vienna University of Technology Vienna, Austria
[email protected] ABSTRACT
2.
This work aims to provide a better understanding of the process, content and outcome of different programs’ models of doctoral education in Computer Science. Our approach compares them on the basis of the analysis of empirical data gathered about the experiences and career paths of doctoral students, as well as the impacts of the initiatives themselves.
We believe that the circumstances in which postgraduate programs are offered have a major impact on their quality. Students play an important role, as we enlist them as agents and products of change and improvement. Our qualitative research is based on grounded theory method [1] to build an explanatory framework, differentiating three stages of students’ doctoral experience: pre-admission, ongoing studies and post-graduation. For each, we select indicators to scrutinize in-depth and longitudinally academic performance and professional development. Case studies are conducted in three different doctoral programs offered in CS at our faculty – one follows the traditional model and two are doctoral college initiatives. We utilize data of open-ended interviews and organizational information. The sample consists of 24 male and female PhD candidates in their first and second year. To analyze the interview statements we use Qualitative Comparative Analysis [3], a comparative case-oriented research technique based on set theory and Boolean algebra, with which we develop explanatory models on the basis of a systematic comparison of a limited number of cases.
Categories and Subject Descriptors K.3.2 [Computer and Information Science Education]: Computer Science Education
General Terms Management, Human Factors
Keywords Doctoral Education, Evaluation
1.
INTRODUCTION
3.
With the implementation of the third cycle of the Bologna Process, European universities are currently involved in an intensive reform of doctoral structures, across a range of scales, from the macro-contextual through to the micropractices of everyday. A core part of these initiatives is the offer of PhD studies in doctoral colleges, which resemble the Anglo-American doctorate and differ from the traditional European Master-apprentice model [2]. The latter is typically conceived as a single-supervised approach based on a close relationship between supervisor and PhD candidate. The matching process is personal, left to the professor and the prospective student, who is not necessarily integrated into a formal study program but is involved in individual research work. Instead, doctoral colleges set clear rules for the application and selection of new candidates, have a structured curricula with general and subject-related courses and milestones, all under continuous supervision [4].
OUR APPROACH
RESULTS AND FUTURE WORK
Preliminary results identify empirical patterns and relations among students’ experiences in different PhD stages and program models, which could be transformed into hypotheses about correlations between variables. We intend to extend this framework with quantitative criteria. We plan to select a sample of European doctoral colleges based on similarity to ours, and apply our framework to benchmark them and analyze their effect on the doctoral experience.
4.
REFERENCES
[1] B. G. Glaser and A. L. Strauss. The Discovery of Grounded Theory. Strategies for Qualitative Research. Aldine Pub, 1967. [2] B. Kehm. Doctoral education in Germany within the European framework. CIRGE, 2005. [3] C. C. Ragin. The Comparative Method: Moving Beyond Qualitative and Quantitative Strategies. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1987. [4] J. Sadlak. Doctoral studies and qualifications in Europe and the United States. UNESCO, CEPES, 12(2), 2004.
Our work aims to analyze the actual effects of the organization and structure of new-style doctoral programs and fill an evident lacuna in the literature on CS doctoral education.
Copyright is held by the author/owner(s). ITiCSE’12, July 3–5, 2012, Haifa, Israel. ACM 978-1-4503-1246-2/12/07.
398
