Communications in agricultural and applied biological ...

VOL 75/1 (2010) COMMUNICATIONS IN AGRICULTURAL AND APPLIED BIOLOGICAL SCIENCES Formerly known as MEDEDELINGEN FACULTEIT LANDBOUWKUNDIGE EN TOEGEPASTE BIOLOGISCHE WETENSCHAPPEN Publishers Prof. Guy Smagghe Prof. Pascal Boeckx Prof. Peter Bossier Prof. Walter Steurbaut Prof. Els JM Van Damme Prof. Niko Verhoest

Editorial address Coupure links 653 9000 Gent (Belgium)

Website http://www.digi-five.com/APLU_ICAconference2010/

ISSN 1379-1176

The results published in this book of abstracts are under the full responsibility of the authors. The organizing committee can not be held responsible for any errors in this potential consequences thereof.

PROCEEDINGS APLU-ICA CONFERENCE 2010 Doctoral and postdoctoral professional development in Agricultural and Life Sciences Challenges for the next decade

FACULTY OF BIOSCIENCE ENGINEERING

MEMBERS OF THE ORGANIZING COMMITTEE Members International Scientific Committee: Guido Van Huylenbroeck, Ghent University (chair) David Acker, Iowa State University (chair) Koen Dewettinck, Ghent University Ian Maw, APLU Vice President, Food, Agriculture and Natural Resources Frank Monahan, University College Dublin Maurice Boland, University College Dublin Simon Heath, ICA secretary general Tom Payne, University of Missouri-Columbia Andrea Bohn, University of Illinois John Ferrick, University of Wisconsin

Members Local Organizing Committee: Koen Dewettinck, Ghent University (chair) Hilde Vandecasteele (secretary) Mieke Calus, Ghent University Hilde Dewulf, Ghent University Luc Tirry, Ghent University Paul Van der Meeren, Ghent University Marc Van Meirvenne, Gent University Wim Verbeke, Ghent University

Comm. Appl. Biol. Sci, Ghent University, 75/1, 2010

CONTENT INTRODUCTION................................................................................................. 7 PREFACE ........................................................................................................ 9 PROGRAM ..................................................................................................... 11 OPENING SESSION: RESEARCH CAREERS AND DOCTORAL EDUCATION IN EUROPE ............... 19 F. Bernard ...................................................................................................... 21 A. Bitusikova ................................................................................................... 23 FIRST SESSION: UNIVERSITY STRATEGIES FOR DOCTORAL TRAINING .............................. 29 L. Moens and N. Bracke ...................................................................................... 31 M. R. Ryan and H. Campa .................................................................................... 39 A. H. Dodd & J. Bagdonis .................................................................................... 41 A. Cobb ......................................................................................................... 43 SECOND SESSION: SKILLS SET DEVELOPMENT OF DOCTORAL GRADUATES AND POST DOCS .................................................................................................... 45 R. Kanwar ...................................................................................................... 47 M. A. Gunderson and K. Barrick ............................................................................. 57 J. B. Penson .................................................................................................... 67 E.J.H. Spelt, Dr. H.J.A. Biemans, Dr. P.A. Luning,H. Tobi and Prof. Dr. M. Mulder ................. 73 M. Marete....................................................................................................... 81 A. Huber & W. Praznik ....................................................................................... 87 C. Marcus ....................................................................................................... 89 A. Caillères & P.H. Duée ..................................................................................... 97 B. Schraven, I. Eguavoen and G. Manske................................................................. 101 THIRD SESSION: INNOVATIVE MODELS FOR DOCTORAL AND GRADUATE RESEARCH SCHOOLS ..................................................................................................... 103

5

Comm. Appl. Biol. Sci, Ghent University, 75/1, 2010 L.A. Johnson and A. Proctor ............................................................................... 105 D. Lust, D. Topliff and R. Deotte ......................................................................... 115 P. Kovar....................................................................................................... 131 G.V. Semenov and T.V. Ivanova ........................................................................... 133 F. Pepping, V. Prsic and M.A.J.S. van Boekel ........................................................... 135 B. Bijo, A. Hoda and F. Thamaj ........................................................................... 143 A. François, G. Jean-Joseph and M. Mambrini .......................................................... 149 G.E. Briers, J. R. Lindner, G. C. Shinn, G. J. Wingenbach, and M. T. Baker ....................... 153 P. Bossier and P. Sorgeloos ................................................................................ 175 FOURTH SESSION: INTERNATIONALIZATION OF DOCTORAL TRAINING PROGRAMS .............. 179 N. Strange, C. Smith-Hall and F. Helles .................................................................. 181 E. Norberg & M. Aarø-Hansen ............................................................................. 183 M.M. Delgado-Serrano, J.L. Gomez-Bruque, M.J. Ambrosio-Albala & B. LlamasMoreno ........................................................................................................ 187 D. Hunaefi .................................................................................................... 199 F. Ayuga, D. Briassoulis, P. Aguado, I. Farkas, H. Griepentrog, E. Lorencowicz ................... 209

6


INTRODUCTION The APLU-ICA Conference organized by the Faculty of Bioscience Engineering (FBE) of Ghent University is one of the main activities organized by the Faculty to celebrate its 90th anniversary. The Faculty was founded in 1920, at that time as the independent Higher Institute for Agricultural Sciences. Now, 90 years later this Institute, that started with 19 students and 12 professors, has developed into an international education and research centre in the field of bioscience engineering with over 1300 bachelor and master students, 500 PhD students and 60 professors. Besides the enlargement of the research field from agricultural sciences to life or biosciences, and the increase in number of students, another important change is the internationalization of the institute. Indeed, today about half of the 600 master students are non-Belgian students coming from all over the world. Last year 592 students from 92 countries were registered at the Faculty either as Master or PhD students. Together with the Erasmus exchange students they make our campus a real international campus. Of the 75 PhD theses defended in 2009, 40 percent were by a PhD student from abroad. Therefore the opportunity to organize this international conference as part of our program to celebrate our 90th anniversary was warmly welcomed, as well as the proposed topic concerning the development of graduate and post-graduate programs. The problems and issues in agriculture and life sciences are indeed becoming more and more global, international and multi-disciplinary as evidenced, among others, by the recent food crisis, climate change and other environmental problems, the globalization of food standards, the increased interactions between commodity and energy markets, the globalised risks of plant and animal diseases and contaminations. It is clear that these and other challenges require more interdisciplinary and international doctoral and post-doctoral early stage researchers in agricultural and life sciences. This development will be greatly enhanced by the creation of opportunities for increased mobility, cooperation among higher education institutes and exchange with non academic stakeholders. However, such developments pose, of course, important challenges to higher educational institutes. Therefore the papers in this volume and presented at the conference share experiences of institutions both in the EU and US on how to engage in the professional development of doctoral graduates and post doctoral staff. The papers provide innovative ideas and models in terms of doctoral schools organization, interdisciplinary training, transferable skills learning, recognition of training periods and mutual development and recognition of double degrees and diplomas. As chair of the organizing committee I am encouraged by the high number of valuable contributions to the conference. In total 29 contributions were presented. Among them 18 from Europe, 10 from the US and one from Asia. The papers in this volume therefore allow us to compare the developments at both sides of the Atlantic. The papers are grouped according to the 5 main themes discussed in the conference. The introductory session focused on the developments in Europe in a broader perspective, in particular emphasizing the role of the EU in the

7

Comm. Appl. Biol. Sci, Ghent University, 75/1, 2010 internationalization. In the second session the university strategies for doctoral training programs were compared. Starting from the doctoral school concept as developed by Ghent University different models at both sides of the Atlantic were discussed. In the third session the future skills development of graduate and postgraduate researchers was the focus of the discussion. The fourth session focused on innovative models for graduate and post-graduate research training while the fifth session was looking more specifically to the internationalization of such training programs with the Erasmus Mundus doctoral school model of the EU as an example. We are convinced that the papers presented at the conference (and thus also this paper and abstract book) will contribute to a better understanding of developments taking place at the graduate and post-graduate level in institutes of agricultural and life sciences. I want to thank the International Program Committee, as well as the Local Organization Committee and in particular Mrs Hilde Vandecasteele in making this Conference possible. I also want to emphasize the very good cooperation with the ICA secretariat. This international conference is not only part of our 90th anniversary celebrations but has also been organized because Professor Roland Verhé will reach the official age limit for professors in Flanders and will officially retire the 1st of October 2010. Roland Verhé has not only been a distinguished professor in his research area but has been the main promoter of internationalization in our institute. Since the seventies he has been playing a pioneer role in setting up exchange programs within the Socrates and Erasmus program, later also in the Tempus program and more recently also the EU-US Atlantis and other worldwide programs. He has also taken responsibilities in a lot of organizations and events, promoting the internationalization of education such as ICA. Our Faculty is grateful for his achievements and service because without his stimulating role the Faculty of Bioscience Engineering and Ghent University would not have such impressive track record and name in the field of international education programs. We are convinced that also after his official retirement he will continue to support and inspire our staff in our further endeavours in internationalizing our degree programs. This ICA-APLU Conference and in particular the many participants are a major tribute to a professor who has devoted an important share of his academic life in putting Ghent University and the Faculty of Bioscience Engineering on the international educational map. As acknowledgement, I want to devote this issue of our Faculty Communications to Professor Roland Verhé. Prof. Guido Van Huylenbroeck Dean of the Faculty of Bioscience Engineering

8


PREFACE This APLU-ICA Conference marks the 10th Anniversary of the signing in April 2000 of a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) between ICA and NASULGC, the National Association of State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges. In 2009 NASULGC became the Association of Public and Land-Grant Universities (APLU) and ICA was renamed in 2006 as the Association for European Life Science Universities (ICA). The MoU affirmed our shared interest in, and desire to establish and broaden, education and research programmes and exchanges between the member institutions of both Parties “in a collaborative effort to lead the world towards a better future through agricultural education and research”. Cees Karssen, President of ICA and Peter Magrath the President of NASULGC signed the MoU in 2000. The partnership has since developed through the efforts of Leopold Maerz (ICA) and Mortimer Neufville (NASULGC) with the active support of many persons including those who have led the development of the Conferences; David Acker, Floor Brouwer, Gale Buchanan, Margarita Calderon-Peter, James Dobrowolski, Stephan Goetz, Guido Van Huylenbroeck, Pavel Kovar, Margit Laimer, Daryl Lund and Paul Vaughn. Through their commitment to strengthening European US collaboration these colleagues have delivered real outcomes and breathed life into the MoU. Cees Karssen at the ICA-NASULGC Conference 2003 interpreted the activities that might be undertaken by the partnership under this MOU as to: • • • • • • • • •

develop a transatlantic dimension in education enhance the quality of education by means of transatlantic co-operation foster exchange of information on educational systems and policy standardise recognition of diplomas, qualifications and study periods stimulate and co-ordinate student and staff exchange develop joint curricula modules and teaching materials organise transatlantic teaching and training courses participate in mutual quality audits of institutions organise study tours and summer schools

This was an ambitious list of activities some of which it has since been agreed are better pursued by bilateral agreements between European and US universities rather than directly organised by the APLU and ICA secretariats. What the MoU has achieved through networking is mutual understanding and the building of confidence in each others capabilities, which are the necessary precursors for to the development of bilateral activities. In recent years the focus has been to arrange Conferences and Workshops for university leaders, faculty and administrators to stimulate this networking between European and US colleagues, to provide a forum to discuss innovative practice and concerns, for information exchange and updates on strategic issues. These Conferences have developed to focus on either: •

educational issues, particularly focusing on stimulating staff and student mobility, and the broadening of degree programmes in our faculties from the

9


•

study of the agricultural sciences to those of the sciences of life and the environment, or on topics in the field of the applied life sciences where there is mutual concern for improved understanding, or the resolution of disagreement in approaches on either side of the Atlantic. For example the 2005 Workshop GMOs worldwide: science and its public perception - aimed to assess the current basis for the society's perceptions of the value of GMOs to the public, taking account of the opportunities and threats posed by their introduction. These conferences have not only focused on issues surrounding the sciences of the topic but have also addressed the implications for the development of the curriculum in higher education. Delegates to these conferences have found them to be most beneficial not only because of the transatlantic perspectives but also because of the coverage of the subject from the basic sciences to the application in practice. The delegates have greatly benefited from the broad ranging discussions taking them out of their own particular sphere of interest. Such a broad ranging perspective is considered a unique benefit from the collaboration between APLU and ICA

The most recent conferences alternating between the US and Europe have been: • • • • •

2009 - Water Policy 2009 – water as a vulnerable and exhaustible resource 2008 – Moving from the sciences of agriculture to the sciences of life: an international perspective 2007 – The science and education of land use: a transatlantic, multidisciplinary and comparative approach 2005 – Providing our graduates with a global perspective through real and virtual exchange 2005 – GMOs worldwide: science and its public perception

It is our pleasure to celebrate the 10th anniversary of the MoU at Ghent University at the time of the Faculty of Bioscience Engineering’s 90th celebrations. With an ever increasing global economy the enhanced mutual understanding between nations is ever more important. This understanding is supported through the development of graduates with a truly international perspective. The aim of this conference is to how to engage in the professional development of doctoral graduates and post doctoral staff. The conference will provide innovative ideas and models for inclusion in university strategic plans. We anticipate the continuing development of our collaboration with the signing of a new MoU in 2010. We look forward to extending our collaboration to working with other global networks. In 2011 we will sponsor the GCHERA conference in 2011 in Beauvais, France and we are already planning a follow up to the Water Policy 2009 conference. Per Holten-Andersen, President of ICA Ian L. Maw, Vice President for Food, Agriculture, and Natural Resources, APLU

10


PROGRAMME APLU-ICA CONFERENCE 2010 Doctoral and postdoctoral professional development in Agricultural and Life Sciences Challenges for the next decade

Wednesday 7 April 2010 Registration (Coupure links 653 – Blok E (ground floor), B-9000 Gent) 16h00-18h00

Welcome Reception at the Town Hall (Botermarkt 1, B-9000 Gent) 18h00-20h00

Thursday 8 April 2010 Overview

Registration and welcome coffee Opening Opening session: Research careers and Doctoral Education in Europe First session: University strategies for doctoral training Lunch Second session: Skills set development of Doctoral graduates and Post Docs ICA reception & Conference dinner

Registration and welcome coffee (Coupure links 653 – Blok E (ground floor), B-9000 Gent) 08h30-09h00

Opening (Coupure links 653 – Blok E, room “Oehoe”, B-9000 Gent) 09h00-09h15

Opening session: Research careers and Doctoral Education in Europe (Coupure links 653 – Blok E, room “Oehoe”, B-9000 Gent) Invited speakers Florent Bernard The Marie Curie Actions: Best practices for European research careers (European Commission)

11

Comm. Appl. Biol. Sci, Ghent University, 75/1, 2010 09h15-09h45 Alexandra Bitusikova Doctoral education in Europe: Trends and challenges (EUA Council for Doctoral Education) 09h45-10h15

Coffee Break 10h15-10h45

First Session: University strategies for doctoral training (Coupure links 653 – Blok E, room “Oehoe”, B-9000 Gent) Invited speaker Luc Moens (vice-rector of Ghent University) University strategy for doctoral training: the Ghent university doctoral schools 10h45-11h15 Contributed papers Mark R. Ryan and Henry Campa (University of Missouri & Michigan State University) “Expanding Competencies to Expand Capacity for Doctoral and Post-Doctoral Students in Preparation for Diverse Careers in Life Sciences” 11h15-11h30 Ann H. Dodd & Jessica Bagdonis (Pennsylvania State University) “Establishing Quality Assurance Benchmarks for Graduate Programs in the Agricultural Sciences: Experiences from the Pennsylvania State University” 11h30-11h45 Andy Cobb (Harper Adams University College) “From “sink or swim” to support for the career development of researchers: A UK perspective of the changing graduate research student experience” 11h45-12h00

Discussion 12h00-12h30

Lunch (Coupure links 653 – Blok E (ground floor), B-9000 Gent) 12h30-14h00

12


Second session: Skills set development of Doctoral graduates and Post Docs (Coupure links 653 – Blok E, room “Oehoe”, B-9000 Gent) Invited speaker Rameshwar Kanwar (Iowa State University) Skills set development of doctoral and post-doctoral graduates in life sciences 14h00-14h30 Contributed papers Kirby Barrick & M. Gunderson (Univ. Florida) “Potential Paths to Pedagogical Excellence: Early Stage Career Support” 14h30-14h45 John Penson (Texas A&M University) “Development of Future Faculty Teaching Skills” 14h45-15h00 E.J.H. Spelt, Dr. H.J.A. Biemans, Dr. P.A. Luning, Prof. Dr. M. Mulder (Wageningen University) “Interdisciplinary Thinking in the Agricultural and Life Sciences – Guidelines and Techniques” 15h00-15h15 Mary Marete (Pennsylvania State University) “Skills set development of doctoral graduates and post doctoral staff” 15h15-15h30

Coffee Break 15h30-16h00 Anton Huber (KF-Univ. Graz) & Werner Praznik (BOKU Wien) “The place of summer schools in developing skills and interdisciplinary knowledge and understanding. Sustainable Utilization of Renewable Resources: From Availability towards Usability” 16h00-16h15 Craig Marcus (Oregon State University) “Professional Development Programs for Early Career Investigators” 16h15-16h30 Anne Caillères & Pierre-Henri Duée (Institut national de la recherche agronomique (INRA)) "Projectories from Human Resources model through “Datas”" 16h30-16h45

13

Comm. Appl. Biol. Sci, Ghent University, 75/1, 2010 Benjamin Schraven, Irit Eguavoen and Günther Manske (University of Bonn) “Doctoral degrees for capacity development: Results from a survey among the African alumni of a German development research institute” 16h45-17h00 Discussion 17h00-17h30

ICA Reception & Conference Dinner (Het Pand, Onderbergen 1, B-9000 Gent) ICA Reception for 10th Anniversary of the collaboration between APLU and ICA 19h00-20h00 Conference Dinner 20h00-22h30

Friday 9 April 2010 Overview

Third session: Innovative models for doctoral and graduate research schools Lunch Fourth session: Internationalization of doctoral training programs Closing session of Prof. R. Verhé Closing reception

Third session: Innovative models for doctoral and graduate research schools (Coupure links 653 – Blok E, room “Oehoe”, B-9000 Gent) Invited speaker Lawrence Johnson (Iowa State University) “Building Transatlantic Graduate Education Programs in Biorenewables” 09h00-09h30 Contributed papers David Lust (West Texas A&M University) “Successes and Challenges in a Novel Doctoral Program in Systems Agriculture: A Case Example” 09h30-09h45 Pavel Kovar (CULS Prague) “New PhD Study Programmes in Water Sciences at CULS Prague” 09h45-10h00

14

Comm. Appl. Biol. Sci, Ghent University, 75/1, 2010 G.V. Semenov and T.V. Ivanova (Moscow State University of Applied Biotechnology) “Training of scientific and pedagogical personnel within doctoral studies at Moscow State University of Applied Biotechnology” 10h00-10h15 Fré Pepping, Vesna Prsic and Tiny van Boekel (The Graduate School VLAG, Wageningen University and Research Centre) “From national graduate school to European leadership; the case of the VLAG” 10h15-10h30

Coffee Break 10h30-11h00 Bizena Bijo, Anila Hoda and Fadil Thamaj (Agricultural University of Tirana) “Academic PhD school at Faculty of Agriculture in Tirana” 11h00-11h15 Alice François, Gwladys Jean-Joseph and Muriel Mambrini (AgroParis Tech & ABIES doctoral school) “EuroDoc’Agro, the Ile de France initiative for international doctoral and postdoctoral professional development in Agricultural and Life Sciences” 11h1511h30 Glen C. Shinn, Gary J. Wingenbach, James R. Lindner, Gary E. Briers, and Matt T. Baker, (Texas A&M University & Texas Tech University) “Doctoral-level Content in Agricultural and Extension Education for 2010 and Beyond: Comparative Analysis of International and Domestic Scholars” 11h30-11h45 Peter Bossier (Ghent University) "PhD curriculum development: an AquaTNET case study" 11h45-12h00


Lunch (Coupure links 653 – Blok E (ground floor), B-9000 Gent) 12h30-14h00

Fourth session: Internationalization of doctoral training programs (Coupure links 653 – Blok E, room “Oehoe”, B-9000 Gent)

15

Comm. Appl. Biol. Sci, Ghent University, 75/1, 2010 Invited speaker Niels Strange (Copenhagen University) An example of an Erasmus Mundus Doctoral school experiment in forestry and nature management 14h00-14h30 Contributed papers Elise Norberg & Marianne Aarø-Hansen (Aarhus University) "Internationalisation as strategic tool to strengthen the doctoral education at Faculty of Agricultural Sciences at Aarhus University” 14h30-14h45 M.M. Delgado-Serrano, J.L. Gomez-Bruque, M.J. Ambrosio-Albala & B. LlamasMoreno (University of Cordoba) “Understanding International Postgraduate Studies. Drivers from the Supply and the Demand Side” 14h45-15h00 Dase Hunaefi (Bogor Agricultural University) “A challenge to achieve Internationalization of Graduate Program: A case studies of Bogor Agricultural University, Indonesia” 15h00-15h15 F. Ayuga, D. Briassoulis, P. Aguado, I. Farkas, H. Griepentrog, E. Lorencowicz (Universidad Politécnica de Madrid, Agricultural University of Athens, Universidad de León, Szent István University, University of Copenhagen, University of Life Sciences in Lublin) “Third Cycle University studies in Europe in the field of Agricultural Engineering and in the emerging discipline of Biosystems Engineering” 15h15-15h30


Coffee Break 16h00-16h30

16


Closing session in honour of Prof. R. Verhé (Coupure links 653 – Blok E, room “Oehoe”, B-9000 Gent) 16h30-18h00

Speakers: Prof. N. De Kimpe, Dept. of Organic Chemistry, UGent Prof. C. Vaca Garcia, ENSIACET, INP Toulouse Prof. A. Garrido Varo, University of Cordoba Prof. J. Chrzanowska, Vice-Rector, Wroclaw University of Environmental and Life Sciences Dr. Ph. Ruffio, European Commission Prof. A. Proctor, University of Arkansas Prof. P. Holten-Andersen, President of ICA Dr. I. Maw, Vice President Food, Agriculture and Natural Resources, APLU Prof. P. Van Cauwenberge, Rector UGent

Closing reception (Coupure links 653 – Blok E (ground floor), B-9000 Gent) 18h00-19h30

17


18


OPENING SESSION RESEARCH CAREERS AND DOCTORAL EDUCATION IN EUROPE

19


20


THE MARIE CURIE ACTIONS: BEST PRACTICES FOR EUROPEAN RESEARCH CAREERS F. BERNARD Marie Curie Actions - Directorate General for Research – European Commission Square de Meeus n°8 -1049 Brussels Website: http://ec.europa.eu/mariecurieactions

ABSTRACT For more than a decade Marie Curie Actions have played a central role in structuring the European Research Area by stimulating researchers' career development. By fully endorsing and implementing the principles of the European Charter for Researchers and the Code of Conduct for the Recruitment of Researchers, Marie Curie Actions have become increasingly recognized as a source of best practices for European research careers. These best practices are now seen by stakeholders as essential factors to advance science, promote excellence and underpin innovation in Europe. The Marie Curie Actions address each need linked to the human resources aspects of the European Research Area. They help improve the employability of researchers by upgrading their competences at all career stages, focusing on giving them high quality training. They promote geographical mobility allowing researchers to benefit from the best infrastructures available in Europe and beyond, creating networks and promoting collaborations among researchers. The Actions have also taken care of fostering transfer of knowledge and encouraged the interactions between academic and private sectors by promoting the exposure of fellows to the private sector or the exchange of staff between the two sectors, thereby changing mentalities, encouraging entrepreneurship mind and exploitation of results. In addition to that the Marie Curie Actions have also ensured that proper transferable skills are offered to fellows engaged in a research career, providing them tools that will widen their career opportunities. Thanks to the Actions, tens of thousands of excellent researchers have so far had the possibility to gain new knowledge and expertise within the best European research groups and beyond through these prestigious mobility fellowships. But the Marie Curie Actions are not only about making researchers mobile or helping them acquire new skills. They have ensured that funding is awarded according to fair, transparent and high-quality criteria. Equally important the Actions are also about enabling the researchers to enjoy a rewarding career by promoting better, more stable careers through employment contracts with full social security rights instead of traditional stipends. Given that a better work-life balance is known to motivate staff, they insist that their researchers take full advantage of their rights, including parental and maternity leave. Gender balance is also a major issue, and all efforts are being made to avoid Europe losing topclass researchers because of gender discrimination.

21

Comm. Appl. Biol. Sci, Ghent University, 75/1, 2010 Finally, the Marie Curie Actions believe research should be based on a shared responsibility between science, policy and society, where public policy is based on evidence and where researchers engage with the rest of society to emphasise responsibilities and ensure freedom of thought. In this respect they strongly encourage researchers to disseminate their achievements to a wider public audience and raise awareness of the benefit of their results for citizens’ everyday life.

22


DOCTORAL EDUCATION IN EUROPE: TRENDS AND PERSPECTIVES A. BITUSIKOVA Senior Adviser EUA Council for Doctoral Education

SUMMARY The paper introduces latest trends in doctoral education in Europe, based on results of numerous conferences, seminars, workshops, debates and interviews with European universities‘ representatives. It focuses on the impact of the Bologna Process and the EU research strategies on the reform of doctoral education in Europe. It challenges some trends such as the focus on coursework and credits, and emphasizes the core component of doctoral education – original research that should remain the crucial feature of training of young researchers. The paper examines key changes in European doctoral education related to organization and structure, supervision, skills training, and internationalization.

INTRODUCTION Doctoral education has been in the centre of European higher education reforms in recent years. After a decade of the Bologna Process and of building the European Higher Education Area when the main focus was put on the first and the second cycles, the reform of doctoral education as the third cycle has now become central at many European universities. It is not only the agenda of the Bologna Process that had an impact on changes in doctoral education. European research agenda (especially the Lisbon strategy) aiming to create the European Research Area (ERA) had an equal influence on the dynamics of doctoral reforms. Doctoral education is considered the bridge between the two processes, between education and research, and has a crucial role in preparing new generation of professionals. Sustainable supply of highly qualified researchers with doctoral degrees, capable of working in different sectors of global economy, is the only way to meet ambitious goals of European strategies to build Europe as the most competitive knowledgebased society and economy. Are European universities aware of these challenges and ready to change? Universities are main institutions awarding doctoral degrees in Europe, and therefore, they are the key players in doctoral education reforms. The initiator of debates on these reforms has been the European University Association (EUA), an independent representative body of higher education institutions in Europe with almost 900 university members. Since 2003 when doctoral education was identified as the third cycle in the Bologna Process, EUA has been building a network of collaborators and developing a platform for discussions on the development and change of doctoral education in Europe. EUA does not provide the exact recipe what should be changed and how, but promotes the exchange of good practice examples among universities and encourages interinstitutional, national and

23

Comm. Appl. Biol. Sci, Ghent University, 75/1, 2010 European cooperation. Results of EUA doctoral projects and initiatives have fed into the biannual Bologna policy dialogues of education ministers, and have had an impact on policy decisions in the European Commission. The most important consequence of all EUA initiatives has been an increasing interest of European universities in the development of doctoral education. This was the reason why EUA decided to enlarge its activities in this area, and in 2008 it launched its new initiative: the EUA-Council for Doctoral Education (CDE) that has taken all actions related to doctoral education in Europe under its umbrella. The following paragraphs present the results of numerous debates, workshops, seminars and conferences organized or co-organized by EUA-CDE at universities all over Europe on doctoral education.

MATERIALS AND METHODS The paper builds on results of qualitative surveys and analyses based on interviews, debates, workshops and conferences conducted by the European University Association – Council for Doctoral Education (EUA-CDE). The objective is to identify main trends in the development of doctoral education in Europe and to introduce good practice examples applicable in and transferable to different higher education institutions.

RESULTS Key words: diversity and original research Whatever topic in doctoral education is discussed, diversity always comes out as a significant feature. Organization, structure, management, quality assessment and monitoring of doctoral education across European countries, but also within European countries and universities differ enormously. Different national legislations contribute to this diversity, too. In an ideal world, we tend to look at diversity as a strength reflecting European rich academic and research traditions, but in an everyday reality we cannot ignore also the weaknesses of this diversity that may lead to fragmentation. The Bologna process is often seen and understood as an instrument for harmonizing and managing diversity in doctoral education, and indeed, it may help to achieve it. However, this diversity cannot be managed by applying common rules and regulations (as it might be the practice in the first two cycles), but only by allowing different flexible routes tailored for and by each institution in order to achieve a common goal: a better (or best) quality doctoral education. Overregulation does not work in doctoral education. The third cycle differs significantly from the first and second cycles by its nature. Original research performed by each doctoral candidate in a unique way is and has to remain the key component of doctoral education. Universities (as well as policy-makers) have to realize this uniqueness of the third cycle and to offer doctoral candidates a high quality research training, but also training in (or awareness of) transferable skills preparing young researchers for different academic and non-academic careers. The unique characteristics of doctoral education based on research are reflected in all aspects of organization and management of doctoral education from recruitment, selection, admission, progress monitoring, taught and research phases, to the composition of the final jury and the thesis defense.

24


Organisation (or structuring) of doctoral education A trend towards more structured doctoral education seems to be a major change in the development of doctoral education in Europe in recent years. Traditional „master-slave“ study programmes based on an individual model of a working alliance between the doctoral candidate and the supervisor without a structured taught phase are being increasingly questioned as being inappropriate in preparing young researchers for multiple careers (although individual study programmes still may prevail in social sciences and humanities). Many European universities decided to tackle this problem by establishing doctoral/ graduate/ or research schools that have different models, but they provide some kind of a common structure supporting administration, management, professional and transferable skills development, and quality assurance monitoring and assessment. These schools can be organized around a particular discipline, research theme or a cross-disciplinary research area and may involve one or several institutions.

Supervision Supervision is a crucial component and measure of quality of doctoral education and a major topic of debates. It is doctoral candidates themselves who ask for the improvement of standards of supervision and for the development of new supervision practices in doctoral training. Arrangements based upon a transparent contract of shared responsibilities and rights signed by the doctoral candidate, the supervisor and the institution at the very beginning of doctoral studies; transparent double or multiple supervision models; and continuous professional development for supervisors (as part of life-long-learning programmes) are most used and already verified good practice examples.

Transferable/ Generic/ Life skills development Evidence-based research (including EUA research, especially DOC-CAREERS project) shows that a „traditional“ doctorate with a narrow and purely research focus does not always meet challenges of the outside world. Current research carried out at universities is often driven by the needs of various stakeholders - governments, industry or business. This has been the main reason why more and more European universities are introducing training in transferable/ generic/ life skills for doctoral candidates that focuses on enhancing skills that can be transferred to any economy or society sector. At the level of the third cycle the objective is to raise awareness among doctoral candidates of the importance of both recognizing and enhancing the skills that they develop and acquire through research. This training, however, does not necessarily mean the need for more „traditionally understood“ courses and lectures for doctoral candidates (and even credits given for them), as many universities understand it, but the creation of an innovative, interactive and international space for learning, sharing and discussing research issues among doctoral candidates as early stage researchers, and for practicing their skills through research in various seminars, colloquia or summer schools.

25


Internationalisation of doctoral education Support for internationalization of doctoral education has or should become an important component of university strategies. Internationalization can be understood, interpreted and supported in different ways, ranking from internationalization „at home“ (e.g. recruitment of international students and staff; organizing international events – conferences, summer schools, videoconferences; e-learning; involving doctoral candidates in international projects; inviting guest lecturers from abroad; networking, co-publishing, etc.), to internationalization “abroad” (international exchanges; study periods abroad; overseas campuses; collaborative and joint programmes). European and international collaborative and joint doctoral programmes are increasingly encouraged, but it is important to realize that they require a lot of planning, human resources and sustainable funding. It is no doubt that these programmes offer the doctoral candidate an invaluable opportunity to gain international experience in the context of their own research. Although universities run several types of these programmes, two main types are most common – collaborative, where the home institution awards the degree, and joint, where a single diploma is awarded jointly by both host and home university. A half-way arrangement is the double degree, where two separate certificates are issued. The Bologna process rhetorically supports mobility across European countries in order to encourage intercultural understanding, respect, dialogue and multilinguism. However, mobility within Europe is often a one-way route (EastWest or South-North) leading to brain drain. European universities should aim to to achieve brain circulation by combining all kinds of internationalization, some more and others less costly.

Quality in doctoral education The special nature of doctoral education based on research means a big challenge for its internal and external evaluation and assessment. This evaluation includes two main and rather different aspects: the quality of doctoral training (educational part) and the quality of research (including the quality of research environment, the quality of the supervisor and the research team, the quality of research outcomes, international reputation etc.). Each university should decide on its own quality standards of doctoral education linked to its mission, functions and goals rather than following only external standards, quantitative methods and checklists that do not take into account diversity of organizational models and profiles. Various aspects of internal quality assurance include internal regulations and codes of practice in doctoral education as well as agreements signed between the doctoral candidate, the supervisor and the institution; standards of access, recruitment and selection; flexible and optional transferable skills training tailored for each candidate; new supervision models and opportunities for professional development of supervisors; regular monitoring of each doctoral candidate’s progress; internationalization and mobility; high standards of the process of the thesis defense; TTD (time to degree) and completion rates; different funding schemes; tracking of doctoral graduates and others. All these aspects are not always covered under the umbrella of „quality assurance“ at universities, but are followed as separate issues.

26

Comm. Appl. Biol. Sci, Ghent University, 75/1, 2010 All higher education institutions try to identify and implement different internal quality indicators. It seems that quality assurance with all its aspects is easier to achieve and monitor if doctoral education is organized in a structured way such as a doctoral/ graduate/ research school. It does not mean that doctoral school is the best or the only way of the organization of doctoral education, but its structure helps to monitor the procedures and the process of doctoral studies and thus, to have a major impact on their quality.

Other challenges? In spite of a number of significant changes in the reform of doctoral education in many European countries and universities, there are still many challenges to face. Status of the doctoral candidate (a student status vs. an employee / an early stage researcher status with all commensurate rights); a weak or even non-existent postbox position; the development of new doctorates (such as Professional Doctorates in the UK and Ireland or European Doctorate in many European countries), the impact of disciplinary differences, and funding of doctoral education and funding of doctoral candidates – all these open challenges wait for further European discussions. European University Association – Council for Doctoral Education encourages the dialogue on doctoral education among all key stakeholders in Europe: higher education institutions, National Rectors Conferences, university associations (such as LERU, UNICA, COIMBRA, Santander Group, EIASM, AEC and others), European Commission, national policy makers and non-profit educational, research and business organizations. It builds strong partnerships with similar association in other parts of the world (USA and Canada; Latin America; Australia; Asia and Africa). Its main objective is to improve the quality of doctoral education in Europe by increasing general standards and by looking for best practices in different countries and universities that can be transferable and useful at any higher education institution.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This paper follows the results of the European University Association – Council for Doctoral Education projects and initiatives, published in two reports (see References), and conclusions of numerous workshops and conferences. The author was involved in all projects and initiatives as their coordinator, co-organizer as well as co-author of the reports. All documents can be found on www.eua.be and www.eua.be/cde.

REFERENCES •

DOCTORAL PROGRAMMES for the European Knowledge Society (2005), EUA Report, www.eua.be.

•

DOCTORAL PROGRAMMES in Europe's Universities: Achievements and Challenges (2007), EUA Report prepared for European Universities and Ministers of Higher Education, www.eua.be.

27


28


FIRST SESSION UNIVERSITY STRATEGIES FOR DOCTORAL TRAINING

29


30


UNIVERSITY STRATEGY FOR DOCTORAL TRAINING: THE GHENT UNIVERSITY DOCTORAL SCHOOLS N. BRACKE1 AND L. MOENS2 1

Ghent University, Doctoral Schools Coordination Unit Sint-Pietersnieuwstraat 25, BE-9000 Gent, Belgium 2 Ghent University, Deputy vice-chancellor Sint-Pietersnieuwstraat 25, BE-9000 Gent, Belgium Corresponding author E-mail: [email protected]

SUMMARY The Doctoral Schools at Ghent University have a three-fold mission: (1) to provide support to doctoral students during their doctoral research, (2) to foster a quality culture in (doctoral) research, (3) to promote the international and social stature and prestige of the doctorate vis-à-vis potential researchers and the potential labour market. The Doctoral Schools offer top-level specialized courses and transferable skills training to doctoral students as part of their doctoral training programme. They establish mechanisms of quality assurance in doctoral research. The Doctoral Schools initialize and support initiatives of internationalization. They also organize information sessions, promotional events and interaction with the labour market, and as such keep a finger on the pulse of external stakeholders. Key words: Doctoral Schools, doctoral training, employability, quality assurance, internationalization.

INTRODUCTION Ghent University is one of the leading institutions of higher education and research in the Low Countries with about 3,000 doctoral students (on a total of 32,000 students) and about 400 doctoral degrees awarded each year. Unlike the past, a doctoral degree is no longer considered to prepare a person solely for an academic career. It is a sign of research experience and research competency, both of which are valuable assets in higher education, in private companies and in the service industry. Postgraduates are more than ever involved in the transfer of knowledge between university, industry, enterprise and the social sector. They work in all sectors of today’s dynamic and knowledge-intensive economy. The number of doctoral degree holders also by far exceeds the real academic career opportunities. That is why Ghent University has adapted its ‘PhD model’. Doctoral training by research has become more important than doctoral training for research. All doctoral students are entitled to further training during their doctoral studies. Research coaching is still provided by a personal dissertation supervisor, but

31

Comm. Appl. Biol. Sci, Ghent University, 75/1, 2010 ‘doctoral guidance committees’ provide additional support to young researchers. A yearly progress report gives the doctoral students the opportunity to reflect on the present status of their doctoral research and to report their doctoral training activities. The Doctoral Schools are key players in this ‘new’ PhD model. They were designed as a response to the changing landscape in academia. The Doctoral Schools strengthen the long existing efforts of doctoral students, supervisors and faculties to make a success of each doctoral project. They are active partners in the doctoral training programme: they organize specialist courses as well as transferable skills training. The Doctoral Schools promote the employability of doctoral degree holders and build bridges towards future academic and non-academic careers. The Doctoral Schools also focus on quality assurance and stimulate a quality culture in doctoral research.

THE DOCTORAL SCHOOLS Structure and membership The academic year 2007-2008 marked the official start of five Doctoral Schools at Ghent University: • • • • •

Doctoral Doctoral Doctoral Doctoral Doctoral

School School School School School

of of of of of

(Bioscience) Engineering (BSE) Life Sciences and Medicine (LSM) Natural Sciences (NS) Social and Behavioral Sciences (SBS) Arts, Humanities and Law (AHL)

These Doctoral Schools are organized around broad fields of research and cover all disciplines of the 11 faculties. That way the Doctoral Schools stimulate a dynamic research culture and cross-fertilization of disciplines. Each Doctoral School brings together a critical mass of young researchers and allows top-level specialization. At registration for the doctorate, all doctoral students join one of the Doctoral Schools. In joint consultation with their dissertation supervisor, they choose the Doctoral School which is most in keeping with their research topic. At present, 2,095 doctoral students belong to one of the Doctoral Schools (doctoral students who started their research prior to the academic year 2007-2008 are allowed to continue their doctoral studies without joining a Doctoral School) (figure 1).

32

Comm. Appl. Biol. Sci, Ghent University, 75/1, 2010 Figure 1. Members per Doctoral School (December 2009)

SBS 14% NS 15%

LSM 25%

BSE 31%

AHL 15%

The Doctoral Schools are interdisciplinary bodies offering a clear-cut clear cut framework for matters relating to doctoral studies. However, admission to the doctorate study, the doctoral training programme programme and the doctoral exam, as well as the granting of the doctor’s degree and of the doctoral training certificate come under the authority of the Faculty. The scientific responsibility of the doctoral research belongs to the Faculty and the department to which the doctoral student belongs.

Mission and achievements The mission of the Doctoral Schools is: (1) to provide support to doctoral students, (2) to foster a culture of quality in (doctoral) research and (3) to promote the international and social stature and prestige of the doctorate vis-à-vis vis potential researchers and the potential labour market. Pursuant to the threefold assignment, the Doctoral Schools are active in four areas: doctoral training, employability, quality assurance and internationalization. internationalization. In addition, the Doctoral Schools tender advice to the University Board and the Faculties with regard to doctoral policy.

Doctoral training The training of doctoral researchers into experts in a wide range of fields is one of the preconditions of a successful knowledge economy. At the same time, doctoral students have to be top-experts top experts in their field of research, because they play a key role in pushing the boundaries of fundamental research. The training which doctoral students receive at Ghent University has to meet academia’s and society’s wide-ranging wide ranging expectations. The doctoral training programme organized at Ghent University widens and deepens the knowledge and

33

Comm. Appl. Biol. Sci, Ghent University, 75/1, 2010 skills of doctoral students and as such forms a quality label, in addition to the scientific merit of a completed doctorate. The Doctoral Schools give prominence to the role played by Ghent University in the training of young researchers. They provide training envisaging the broad-based and in-depth exploration of the know-how and competences of the doctoral students. The Doctoral Schools organize ‘in-depth’ and ‘broadening’ courses, seminars aimed at the acquisition of skills and other activities as part of Ghent University’s doctoral training programme. All doctoral students at Ghent University are entitled to further training while they carry out their doctoral research. They can take 60 study points (ECTS credits) of the doctoral training programme (figure 2). When they have completed the programme successfully and they have also defended their doctoral dissertation in public, the doctoral students receive the certificate of the doctoral training programme, in addition to their doctor’s degree diploma. For most doctoral students, the doctoral training programme is not compulsory. However, in some faculties (e.g. faculty of Economics and Business Administration, faculty of Psychology and Education Sciences), for some doctoral titles (e.g. Doctorate of Arts) and for some groups of students (e.g. holders of a Master degree awarded by a University College) the training programme is fully or partly compulsory. Figure 2. Ghent University Doctoral Training Programme Study programme

1. Specialist studies 1.1. Regular course units from ManaBa or ManaMa study programmes staged by Ghent University and, subject to due motivation from the supervisor, from the Bachelor study programmes, or preparatory or linking programmes staged by Ghent University 1.2. Specialist courses and regular course units staged by a Doctoral School at Ghent University 1.3. Specialist studies staged by another Flemish or foreign university or by a Permanent Training Institution 2. Doctoral seminars aimed at competence training (transferable skills) 3. Research-related activities undertaken by the doctoral student 4. The defense of the doctorate dissertation

Minimum study points 12

Maximum study points 40

9

25

8

30

3

3

The way the training programme is concretized occurs on an individual basis for each doctoral student and is subject to the approval of the dissertation supervisor, the doctoral guidance committee and the Doctoral School. Flexibility is the key in the range of courses and activities doctoral students can choose from. Some may

34

Comm. Appl. Biol. Sci, Ghent University, 75/1, 2010 prefer to sharpen their intellectual-critical abilities, while others will concentrate more on transferable skills training. Doctoral students can build their individual curriculum by reporting all courses, seminars and research activities that they have attended or carried out during their research period.

Employability Doctoral training is only one way to make doctoral students more employable. The Doctoral Schools also give clear information about career opportunities at home and abroad. The Doctoral Schools seek to increase the visibility of the doctorate degree. They organize promotional activities with a view to providing society at large with accurate information with regard to the added value of the doctorate. The Doctoral Schools want to promote access of doctoral students to the labour market and to widen the employment market. They also seek to increase the economic value of the doctorate degree by making Ghent University the hub of knowledge potential in the region. The Doctoral Schools maintain close and regular contacts with private companies and with the public sector. They engage in an active dialogue with potential employers to show them that the Doctoral Schools are a breeding ground for talent and innovation, and that doctoral degree holders are being trained to take up key positions in private and public companies. The Doctoral Schools invite employers to actually meet doctoral students and to discuss their career opportunities.

Quality assurance Ghent University seeks to maintain high quality standards in doctoral research and to combine top-level doctoral training with outstanding scientific research. The Doctoral Schools stimulate the quality of doctoral research and of completed doctorates. They establish a quality culture and mechanisms of quality assurance in doctoral research. Doctoral students at Ghent University get individual research supervision from their dissertation supervisor(s). These supervisors guide the doctoral students through the entire doctoral project. They help them to plan their scientific research and their doctoral training activities. Doctoral guidance committees can provide extra assistance. They surround the doctoral students by an extended network of specialists in their field of study. The doctoral guidance committees consist of (international) experts from within or outside the faculty to which the doctoral student belongs. Each year, the doctoral students report the progress of their research and training to their dissertation supervisor and to their doctoral guidance committee. The supervisor and the doctoral guidance committee are to draw up an appraisal of the progress made by each doctoral student. The Doctoral Schools supervise the running of the doctoral guidance committees and the progress reports of the doctoral students. The Doctoral Schools, the doctoral guidance committees and the progress reports strengthen the coaching of

35

Comm. Appl. Biol. Sci, Ghent University, 75/1, 2010 the doctoral students. That way they deepen the mechanisms of quality assurance in doctoral research. All the parties involved in doctoral research also actively encourage a quality culture in doctoral research. They foster a group dynamic within the Doctoral Schools, the faculties and the research groups. Dissertation supervisors and Doctoral Schools stimulate the doctoral students to position themselves at the frontline of research. The Doctoral Schools encourage their members to publish in international peerreviewed journals and to give oral presentations at international conferences as part of their research training. This allows doctoral students to become part of a dynamic (international) community of researchers, provides them with top-level feedback on their research results and challenges them to achieve excellence in their research.

Internationalization Increasing the visibility of the doctorate degree is an objective with a national as well as an international focus. Ghent University recruits potential doctoral researchers worldwide. The Doctoral Schools promote an open collaboration with similar organizations, both at home and abroad. They facilitate national and international collaboration and exchanges. They welcome and support initiatives of internationalization of Doctoral Schools and doctoral training programmes: strategic alliances with universities in neighbouring regions, collaboration between Doctoral Schools, participation in joint doctoral programmes. The Doctoral Schools provide information to doctoral students in the area of mobility. They stimulate their members to spend part of their research period at a university or research institution abroad. They encourage the doctoral students to attend courses abroad as part of their doctoral training programme. The Doctoral Schools also invite international lecturers to teach summer schools or intensive seminars at Ghent University. Some of these training activities are open to international doctoral students.

CONCLUSION The foundations for a new structure are now in place. The Doctoral Schools offer training to 65% of Ghent University’s doctoral students. Until now they have organized 60 specialist courses and 37 transferable skills seminars. In the course of the academic year 2009-2010, Ghent University will award the first (10) certificates of the doctoral training programme. The Doctoral Schools have established valuable and sustainable contacts with potential employers. Once a year they organize a doctoral conference ‘From PhD to job market’, during which doctoral students meet employers from the private and the public sector. The Doctoral Schools at Ghent University closely collaborate with the Doctoral Schools at Vrije Universiteit Brussel. In the field of Life Sciences, they participate in the training programme of the Flanders Institute for Biotechnology (VIB). The Doctoral Schools also collaborate with partners abroad: in humanities for instance with partner universities in Italy; in linguistics with partner universities in Switzerland.

36

Comm. Appl. Biol. Sci, Ghent University, 75/1, 2010 In the future, Ghent University continues its efforts to prepare its doctoral students to take up their role in the 21st-century knowledge economy. The Doctoral Schools have to keep a finger on the pulse of external stakeholders to ensure that the courses organized by the Doctoral Schools indeed meet academia’s and society’s expectations. The Doctoral Schools also need to maximize the cooperation opportunities nationally and internationally.

REFERENCES •

GHENT UNIVERSITY (2007). Doctoral Schools.

•

GHENT UNIVERSITY (2009). Focus on Ghent University.

•

LEYMAN A., DESMYTER F., DECROOS L., VAN DER GOTEN G., VANDEVELDE K., HOEDEMAKERS C., VAN ROSSEM R., PAGE H. & BRACKE N. (2008). Survey Doctoral Schools.

37


38


EXPANDING COMPETENCIES TO EXPAND CAPACITY FOR DOCTORAL AND POST-DOCTORAL STUDENTS IN PREPARATION FOR DIVERSE CAREERS IN LIFE SCIENCES M. R. RYAN1 AND H. CAMPA² 1

The School of Natural Resources, University of Missouri, Columbia, Missouri, USA 65211 ²III, Department of Fisheries and Wildlife & The Graduate School, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan, USA 48824

Career trajectories pursued by Ph.D. holding professionals, including those in the Life Sciences, are more diverse than ever. While many pursue “research” careers modeled after their doctoral experiences, an increasing number use their education in complementary vocations. Interests and opportunities in careers in education, administration, government, and business are becoming more common and demand a broader suite of knowledge and skills than traditional occupations in research-focused jobs. Even Ph.D.s in research positions routinely find substantial need for knowledge and ability related to financial and human resources management, communications, conflict resolution, policy analysis, ethics and integrity, use of information and technology, and work-life balance. Yet, research indicates many students do not get the education and mentoring required to build competencies in these areas. Our thesis is that Doctoral and Post-Doctoral education programs and mentors in Life Sciences need to re-evaluate the competencies they stress to help new Ph.D.s meet their career and professional development goals, which may not include research-focused positions. Research suggests that expanded competencies can be addressed by embracing mentoring models that include more than a research advisor but rather entire institutions. Through collaborative mentoring institutions can add focus on process skills (e.g., communication, problem solving, leadership, learning-to-learn) and management (e.g., personnel, budgets, entrepreneurship), to historically dominant foci on discipline-specific science competencies. We do not mean that degree or post-doctoral experiences should be lengthened. Rather, we believe that the percent of time focused on scholarship of science alone should be integrated with opportunities for early career professionals to build their capacities in other competencies to enable them to be marketable and effective professionals. We do not envision a major shift; the conduct of science would still occupy well more the three-quarters of a doctoral student’s time. But, in a time when new knowledge in expanding disciplines (e.g., Life Sciences) turns over approximately every 7 years, spending too much time learning “facts” versus learning how to acquire new information, use that information, and recognize when it is becoming obsolete will better prepare young scientists for diverse careers in the 21st century. Those mentoring Ph.D. and Post-doctoral students should recognize that many nonresearch competencies can be developed via workshops, training sessions, or seminars, some requiring relatively low-level of engagement and will not expand course requirements or long-term time commitments of the participants.

39

Comm. Appl. Biol. Sci, Ghent University, 75/1, 2010 Professional development activities for doctoral students and post-doctoral fellows transcend discipline boundaries, and therefore, efficiencies and effectiveness in delivery can be achieved by partnering within or among institutions. For example, Michigan State University developed a career and professional development model known as PREP (Preparation, Resilience, Engagement, and Professionalism) (http://grad.msu.edu/prep/) that focuses on assisting graduate students and postdocs, at all stages, develop “transferable skills” within these four thematic areas. These programs are planned to complement mentoring and professional development in departments and colleges. In addition, PREP programs also complement opportunities available nationally through the CIRTL (Center for the Integration of Research, Teaching and Learning) Network (http://www.cirtl.net/), of which Michigan State University is a participant. CIRTL focuses on enhancing students’ abilities to view teaching-as-research, to enhance learning through diversity, and to engage in professional learning communities. Calls for better communications skills for college graduates have been made for many years, but employers continue to indicate that even Ph.D’s need enhanced writing and speaking abilities. Of particular note is the call for better abilities to communicate with diverse science and non-science audiences. Alan Leshner, writing in Science (315 (5809): 161) in 2007 said that “…scientists must engage more fully with the public about scientific issues and the concerns that society has about them.” And, he called upon universities to “…design specific programs to train graduate students and postdoctoral fellows in public communication.” So, as educators and administrators how can we meet this challenge for communications as well as the other transferable skills that employers want and new Ph.D.s/postdocs need? At many universities harsh economic conditions have promoted a widening of academic-private sector partnerships with economic development as objective. These new models for knowledge creation and extension put a premium on entrepreneurial skills. It remains a very rare doctoral or post-doctoral education that provides formal education in entrepreneurship! Another area of professional development that we believe should be enhanced in graduate and post-graduate education is that of Leadership. Greater mastery of leadership skills would enhance career outcomes of Ph.D.s regardless of whether they pursue positions in research, academia, government, or the private sector. The challenge before us as educators and mentors is to take a fresh look at the career trajectories of the future (not the past) and to design meaningful professional development experiences for graduate students that will make them competitive for careers of their choice. Building collaborative career and professional development programs across our institutions and with those who hire our Ph.D.s will help enable the next generation of scientists to be fully prepared to succeed in the 21st century. Curricula that combine research experiences with formal coursework beyond the research discipline and interweave (required) professional development workshops, short-courses, and internships outside of the science discipline of the Ph.D. candidate will be more effective than increasingly outdated models. Offering new cross-disciplinary minors, certificates, or other formal education markers will likely improve recruitment of top-notch graduate and post-doctoral students.

40


ESTABLISHING QUALITY ASSURANCE BENCHMARKS FOR GRADUATE PROGRAMS IN THE AGRICULTURAL SCIENCES: EXPERIENCES FROM THE PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY A. H. DODD, PH.D. 1 AND J. BAGDONIS, M.S. ² 1

Assistant Dean for Strategic Initiatives and Graduate Education Associate Professor of Agricultural Leadership College of Agricultural Sciences The Pennsylvania State University ²PhD Candidate, Department of Agricultural and Extension Education College of Agricultural Sciences The Pennsylvania State University

In response to changes in the political economy of higher education and to societal changes in the food system, graduate education in the agricultural sciences has evolved over the last century. As higher education is increasingly looked upon as a service industry, understanding the expectations and preferences of graduate students has become a critical part of attracting and retaining graduate students. Such an understanding can help to ensure that colleges of agricultural sciences are delivering relevant educational programs and services to prepare graduate students for success. However, the future of graduate education and research in the agricultural sciences also will depend on the ability of colleges of agricultural sciences to train students to address critical issues relevant to three interrelated systems – the food and fiber system, the ecosystem, and the socioeconomic system. At Penn State University, the 2008-2013 College of Agricultural Sciences strategic plan directly speaks to these issues. One of the college's four goals is to increase enrollment and enhance student success. Performance indicators for this goal include the traditional measures of enrollment and GRE scores as well as student satisfaction, employer and alumni satisfaction, and student achievement of program learning objectives. This paper addresses efforts to establish quality assurance benchmarks for graduate programs in the college through the administration of a graduate student survey in spring 2007 and spring 2009. During the spring semester of 2007, the Office for Graduate Education in the College of Agricultural Sciences at The Pennsylvania State University administered the first bi-annual Graduate Student Survey. Action was taken to enhance graduate education based on the survey results. The survey was subsequently revised and administered again in the spring of 2009, thus enabling a substantial comparison across the two points in time. Our objective for the survey research remains to provide the College of Agricultural Sciences with a better understanding of: The extent to which the College of Agricultural Sciences is meeting expectations and preferences of graduates for program quality.

41

Comm. Appl. Biol. Sci, Ghent University, 75/1, 2010 The extent to which graduate students in the College of Agricultural Sciences are aware of and are contributing to the land-grant university mission of engagement and outreach. How graduate students in the College of Agricultural Sciences assess the collegial environment. The first bi-annual survey was designed to collect data about students’ perceptions of their graduate program, departmental climate, advising and mentoring, knowledge and participation in Extension and outreach activities, overall satisfaction and demographics. Two-hundred ten usable surveys were collected for a response rate of 47 percent. After thorough analysis and consideration of the 2007 Graduate Student Survey results, several changes were made to the format of the Graduate Student Survey and it was administered again during the spring semester of 2009. Two-hundred seventy-eight survey usable surveys were collected for a response rate of 54 percent. In our first experience administering the Graduate Student Survey in 2007, we created ten scales to analyze more easily dimensions underlying our research objectives. These scales were program quality, departmental climate, student climate, opportunity for interdisciplinary work, curricular breadth and flexibility, and overall satisfaction. We also focused on differences across different demographic groups within the graduate study body. In our second experience administering the Graduate Student Survey in 2009, we reduced the number of questionnaire items and revised the scales to measure program quality as a composite scale with sub-scales for the quality of teaching, education and research within a program. As well, we measured departmental collegiality using a composite scale with sub-scales for faculty-student collegiality and student-student collegiality. Additionally, we shifted our focus from differences across different demographic groups to differences among programs and discipline (social versus life science). In this paper, we describe the process that we have gone through to establish quality assurance benchmarks for graduate programs in the agricultural sciences. We provide details on both successes and challenges encountered. In addition, we outline the process through which we refined our scales to measure quality. Finally, we discuss the results of our data analysis as they relate to improving the quality of graduate programs to train students to address critical needs in agricultural sciences.

42


FROM “SINK OR SWIM” TO SUPPORT FOR THE CAREER DEVELOPMENT OF RESEARCHERS: A UK PERSPECTIVE OF THE CHANGING GRADUATE RESEARCH STUDENT EXPERIENCE A. H. COBB, PHD, FSB, FHEA Emeritus Professor of Plant Sciences and former Dean of Academic Affairs and Director of Research, Harper Adams University College, Newport, Shropshire, TF10 8NB, UK

ABSTRACT This presentation will compare and contrast the changing postgraduate research student experience in the UK from the late 1960s to the present day, based on the personal experience of the author. The phrase “sink or swim” succinctly summarises the experience of the postgraduate researcher forty years ago. At that time, academically able undergraduates were encouraged to “drift upwards” and embark on a research career in the laboratory of a member of academic staff, often in the same university, investigating a topic of his choice. Seldom was a formal process of interview followed and supervisors had no training. Furthermore, skills training analysis or personal development planning were unheard of; one simply followed the practices ongoing in the laboratory, for better or for worse. It was totally up to the individual researcher to take full responsibility for their own development and there were no “swimming lessons”. Consequently, a relatively high proportion of contemporaries “sank”, completion rates were low and some students failed their final viva voce examinations. The career opportunities of some able candidates were blighted and their potential lost, both to science and the nation. It has taken the following decades to satisfactorily address these issues. As part of the European Commission’s wish, in 2000, to establish the European Research Area by 2010, the European Charter for Researchers was published in Brussels in March 2005 (see www.europa.eu.int/eracareers/europeancharter). This contains a list of general principles and requirements, specifying the roles, responsibilities and entitlements of researchers, their employers and funding bodies. The Charter is a framework for all parties to address and provides a comprehensive listing of issues. Indeed, there are twelve items for researchers and nineteen for employers and funders to consider. A Code of Conduct for the Recruitment of Researchers was also presented in the Charter. The Charter also contains a comprehensive set of 13 recommendations for Member States to undertake, to enable the EU to “become the most competitive and dynamic knowledge economy in the world by 2010”. The Commission requested the Member States to “endeavour to undertake the necessary steps” and to “inform the Commission.....annually......of any measures taken”. The entry for endeavour in the author’s diary implies to “try, attempt, strive after”. It would be interesting

43

Comm. Appl. Biol. Sci, Ghent University, 75/1, 2010 and illuminating to establish how far each Member State has progressed with their endeavours since 2005. As a joint initiative of the Research Councils (RCUK) and Universities UK, the Concordat to Support the Career Development of Researchers was launched in 2008 (see www.researchconcordat.ac.uk). The Concordat sets out the expectations and responsibilities of researchers, their managers, employers and funders. It aims to ensure that today’s researchers are nurtured and supported during their career development.

THE CONCORDAT HAS SEVEN KEY PRINCIPLES; 1.

Recognition of the importance of recruiting, selecting and retaining researchers with the highest potential to achieve excellence in research.

2.

Researchers are recognised and valued by their employing organisation as an essential part of their organisation’s human resources and a key component of their overall strategy to develop and deliver world-class research.

3.

Researchers are equipped and supported to be adaptable and flexible in an increasingly diverse, mobile, global research environment.

4.

The importance of researcher’s personal and career development, and lifelong learning, is clearly recognised and promoted at all stages of their career.

5.

Individual researchers share the responsibility for and need to pro-actively engage in their own personal and career development. and lifelong learning.

6.

Diversity and equality must be promoted in all aspects of the recruitment and career management of researchers.

7.

The sector and all stakeholders will undertake regular and collective review of progress in strengthening the attractiveness and sustainability of research careers in the UK.

The Concordat aims to help universities align their strategies and processes with the European Charter for Researchers and Code of Conduct for the Recruitment of Researchers. Perhaps such alignment will become a requirement for future funding from the EU. As a consequence of Principle 7, UK universities are currently being surveyed on how the Concordat is being implemented in their institutions and a national Concordat Strategy Group (on which the author is a member) has been inaugurated to oversee progress. It is anticipated that each university and higher education institution in the UK will provide a local response, highlighting features of good practice, by 2011.

44


SECOND SESSION SKILLS SET DEVELOPMENT OF DOCTORAL GRADUATES AND POST DOCS

45


46


SKILL SET DEVELOPMENT OF DOCTORAL AND POST-DOCTORAL GRADUATES IN LIFE SCIENCES R. S. KANWAR Department of Agricultural and Biosystems Engineering Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa 50011, USA

ABSTRACT Doctoral and post-doctoral training programs at leading research universities in the USA are highly important in generating the much needed knowledge in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics for keeping rural and urban economies strong and societies healthy and prosperous. In addition, innovative graduate and post doctoral research programs are the driving engines of the success of U.S. economy and have made the U.S. the most successful model of generating new knowledge in the broader areas of life sciences (and agricultural education, research, and extension). We need to do everything in our power to make these training programs innovative, collaborative, independent, and resourceful so that students are trained in different disciplines making them more flexible within a range of challenges and opportunities. The training programs must empower students to solve complex and interdisciplinary problems of the society in 21st century and make our students competitive within a global economic system, to improve the health of the nation’s economy. If our land grant schools and institutions of higher learning are not preparing doctoral students to be globally competitive scientists to create new knowledge and technologies to solve complex and interdisciplinary problems of the 21st century, then either we need to redefine the mission of our land grant system or we risk losing our role to serve the public and industry effectively. Doctoral and post doctoral students should be given the needed skills and experiences to prepare them for tenure track faculty jobs at leading US Universities in the 21st century as well as prepare them for the world outside of academia. I would say minimum competency skills are needed as “bare survival skills” for all doctoral students to become successful after obtaining PhD degrees. Today’s PhD students will be working in a global but highly competitive, rapidly changing, and complex world. It is no longer enough to be a good researcher and a good teacher; researchers and teachers must be good team players and leaders to lead interdisciplinary research programs, and exceptional managers to effectively manage their research staff, MS and PhD students, and post doctoral researchers. Doctoral students have exceptional opportunities during their PhD degree programs to acquire these skills from their world class supervisors and participate in available workshops on how to develop successful and winning grant proposals, improving communication skills, and participate in “future faculty programs” on their campuses.

47


INTRODUCTION The United States of America is one of the few countries in the world that is blessed with rich natural resources and a highly educated work force to solve society’s 21st century global problems. The abundance of land and water resources, and the passage of the Morrill Act of 1862 (which established the U.S. land grant system to provide affordable education and generate the much needed knowledge in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) for keeping rural and urban societies prosperous) were the driving engines of the success of U.S. economy and made the U.S. the most successful model of generating new knowledge in the broader areas of life sciences (and agricultural education, research, and extension). Our land grant system has continued to excel for more than147 years and trained some of the best doctoral and post doctoral graduates to meet the demand of academia in higher education and industry. More recently, the Colleges of Agriculture and Life Sciences in the USA are called upon to serve as economic engines of their state’s economy and must provide a highly trained workforce for the 21st century. In addition, our land grant schools must make sure that student interest in higher education is strong and educational programs for doctoral students are interdisciplinary in nature to solve complex and emerging problems in areas of energy, water, climate change, food nutrition and quality, biosciences and biotechnology, and environmental and ecological sciences. Key questions for educational leaders aspiring to lead the mission of agricultural schools are: 1.

2.

Is the present system of land grant universities and institutions of higher education adequately prepared to educate and train doctoral and post doctoral students to solve society’s five major challenges (energy, water, food, environment, and human and animal health) of the 21st century? Are our global institutions of higher education adequately prepared today to provide education and train doctoral and post doctoral students to face global challenges in 2050? Can we grow enough food to feed 9.5 billion people in 2050? How do we provide clean drinking water, energy, quality healthcare, and clean environment for 9.5 billion people? Who is going to create new frontiers of science and knowledge to solve these global problems other than the doctoral and post doctoral students of today and scientists of the future requiring all doctoral students an understanding of future global issues?

If our land grant schools and institutions of higher learning are not preparing doctoral students to be globally competitive scientists to create new knowledge and technologies to solve complex and interdisciplinary problems of the 21st century, then either we need to redefine the mission of our land grant system or we risk losing our role to serve the public and industry effectively.

EMERGING OPPORTUNITIES FOR COLLEGES OF AGRICULTURE AND LIFE SCIENCES One of the fundamental values and key mission of any institution of higher learning should be to help lay a foundation by developing innovative and affordable educational programs to create a “knowledge powered society” in which

48

Comm. Appl. Biol. Sci, Ghent University, 75/1, 2010 knowledge is seen by masses as the basis for social and economic development. People’s knowledge, talents, skills and experiences are crucial assets for any society system to progress and increase their standard of living. Therefore, it is important for any university that its impacts in empowering the society by new knowledge are part and parcel of university reputation and national and international rankings. Those people who possess the most advanced knowledge are seen as the most important individuals in a society and help the rest of the society advance further. Much of the agenda for the development of new science and technologies in STEM institutions of higher education in the 20th century was driven by hydrocarbon based economy. Petroleum based fuels (kerosene, gasoline, diesel) provided better sources of fuel over steam power to conduct research and develop gasoline and diesel engines that helped design new generation of tractors and harvesting machines in the early to middle of 20th century to bring a major change to the way farming was done. Farm operations became a lot more automated and highly intensive when agriculture changed from animal agriculture to tractor powered agriculture. This brought a major revolution in agriculture opening doors for more research opportunities and doctoral student training programs in several new areas of agricultural sciences such as plant breeding, soil and plant chemistry, herbicide and insecticide chemistry, soil science, entomology, plant pathology, drainage and irrigation, agricultural mechanization, and other related agricultural sciences like biochemistry. In the middle to latter part of 20th century several more new areas of life sciences developed such as plant and animal genomics, role of biotechnology for plant and animal breeding, human nutrition and food safety, pharmaceuticals, and biological engineering, requiring training of doctoral and post doctoral students in areas not known earlier. In addition, many of the new engineering and technology disciplines at the universities in the developed and developing world flourished and excelled and trained doctoral and post doctoral students to process, utilize, and commercialize hydrocarbon based fuels and bi-products to develop and enhance 20th century economy. Emerging fields of life sciences (such as human nutrition, genomics for plant and animal sciences, and biological engineering) and hydrocarbon based economy of the 20th century provided new opportunities for training doctoral students in several newly emerged interdisciplinary areas of life sciences and created thousands if not millions of jobs worldwide for trained PhDs to generate the needed pool of scientists. However, with rapid depletion and accelerated use of fossil fuels by US and Western countries, and newly emerging economies (such as China and India), many scientists are now asking questions on the sustainability of the hydrocarbon based economy to meet global society’s energy needs in the 21st century. There is a consensus among certain STEM disciplines that sustainability of hydrocarbon based global economic system is at risk and the 21st century economic system will require finding alternate sources of energy to replace hydrocarbon/petroleum-based economy. One of the possible opportunities for the Colleges of Agriculture and Life Sciences is to help to develop a biological and renewable materials based economy generating renewable sources of energy such as biofuels (ethanol, biodiesel, biogas, hydrogen gas, etc.) from plant materials such as forest biological material and products, crops, and agricultural residues. A bio-based economy over a hydrocarbon based one, has tremendous potential for creating new frontiers of sciences and generating many new opportunities, such as

49

Comm. Appl. Biol. Sci, Ghent University, 75/1, 2010 sustainable sources of energy, possibly reduced greenhouse gas emissions and improved environmental quality. This will also require the training of future PhDs to meet the science and technological based needs of a biofuel/hydrogen fuel economy. New interdisciplinary educational programs would be needed to train and develop the needed skills of doctoral and post doctoral students to prepare necessary human capacity (scientists, professors, managers, and innovative leaders) for the biobased economy integrating technical and business skills. For example, in 2003, Iowa State University developed the very first interdepartmental and interdisciplinary graduate degree program of its kind in the United States on “Biorenewable Resources and Technology” with an enrollment of about 25 student (10 M.S., 15 PhD students). Students graduating from this program have found highly attractive offers in academia and industry. Other potential areas offering opportunities for colleges of agriculture and life sciences in the 21st century would be to train doctoral students in areas of global warming, climate change, web based information technology, bio-environmental and water sciences.

CHALLENGES IN DOCTORAL EDUCATION The United States of America has been extremely successful in establishing global leadership in science, engineering, and technology over the past 100 plus years by developing one of the best system educational system in the world consisting of public and private autonomous institutions of higher education. Since World War II, the US has dominated the world economy because of significant investments made in promoting science and technological advancements in institutions of higher learning offering STEM doctoral programs. In fact, the key to US success has been in making STEM sciences a cornerstone of the US economy. In addition, the US has been highly successful in attracting some of the best trained foreign scientists and graduate students in the world. This has helped the US in establishing internationally renowned programs in STEM areas (in particular maintain its dominance in electronics, manufacturing, space, defense, and aircraft industry). Certain US policies have pushed much of the manufacturing and information technology overseas resulting in the loss of jobs for US citizens. At this time, the US is facing a critical period of global competition that threatens the US position of global leadership in various areas of sciences and technology. While many countries in the world are making increased commitments to higher education and would like to educate their students in science and technology, the United States has begun to lag behind. Unless the US changes its mind in investing more on higher education, the United States will no longer be the global economic leader, which will impact US industrial growth, jobs, national security, and standard of living of its citizens. We must make a national commitment to maintain and sustain global leadership in STEM fields, in particular life sciences. In order to remain globally competitive, the United States must make increased investments for federal agencies providing research funds for university faculty and federal research institutions. Making a serious commitment to higher education must be our number one national priority so that our researchers continue to carry on state-of-the-art research and establish cross disciplinary cutting-edge science and engineering programs in emerging areas of sciences for years to come. The second major national issue in the US is the lack of student interest in STEM subjects in the middle and high schools. This has resulted in the continuous decrease of US students entering science and engineering programs (Committee on

50

Comm. Appl. Biol. Sci, Ghent University, 75/1, 2010 Science, Engineering, and Public Policy, 2006). Also in the US, only about 35% of the college students join science bound degree programs compared to 75% in China. This issue requires serious attention when developing national policies on higher education. Although we have seen an increase of about 15% of U.S. citizens and permanent residents enrolled in science and engineering doctoral programs between 2000 and 2004, there was a decrease of 12% of students between 1993 and 2000. Part of the good news for our colleges of agriculture and life sciences is that the disciplines showing the largest increases in doctoral degrees awarded were in the areas of engineering, biological/agricultural sciences, and social and behavioral sciences (National Science Board, 2006). Another challenge that we face in the US is that only a fraction of college bound students enter the doctoral programs in engineering and sciences; only 6% of college students receiving degrees in science and engineering go on to obtain a doctorate degree (National Science Board, 2006). This trend over the years has reduced the available pool of highly educated workforce of educators, researchers, and skilled workers needed for a knowledgebased economy and re-establish US leadership in the world in science and engineering. Third, the United States of America is a land of immigrants. The demographics of the U.S. have been changing the since World War II. Within the last 40 plus years, the number of immigrants from certain countries and the population of color have increased significantly. This trend is expected to continue for next 20 to 30 years. However, student enrollment into the science and engineering from some of these minority groups and population of color do not mirror the diversity of the U.S. population (Malcom and Chubin, 2006). Although the number of college bound students from minority groups (African Americans, Hispanics, Native Indians, and Asian and Pacific Islanders) has increased to more than 30% in 2010, only 6 percent of STEM doctoral graduates are from minority groups. Therefore, universities must make a serious attempt to recruit more students from minority groups into sciences and engineering fields. Also, we must make a serious attempt to increase more women students into STEM fields, especially in engineering, although we have made significant progress in recent years in increasing the proportion of doctoral women students in science and engineering. Finally, US education is becoming more and more expensive for students. The mission of land grant universities to provide affordable education to people of the land is no longer true today. Today, students are being asked to pay more for their education further limiting the number of students becoming available for doctoral programs in science and engineering.

REQUIREMENTS OF TRAINING NEEDS AND SKILLS FOR THE DOCTORAL STUDENTS IN LIFE SCIENCES Today’s science bound programs offering academic degrees have become a lot more complex and multidisciplinary because today we are asking key questions on how one piece of research will help society’s problems or how that research may impact the larger ecological system. About fifty to one hundred years back, research was being done to advance knowledge in a given field without asking the question when and how these advancements in science will impact the society as a whole. In addition, we have seen the role of information technology on the advancement of science and immediate access to scientific literature. These two

51

Comm. Appl. Biol. Sci, Ghent University, 75/1, 2010 issues have brought a major challenge for university professors, scientists, and academic leaders on how to train PhDs of the future so that they are successful in their careers and take the institutions of higher learning into the future. Complex scientific problems can be solved by taking interdisciplinary approaches which will require doctoral students to develop interdisciplinary skills by enhancing their knowledge and appreciations for other disciplines. This will require much stronger or improved communication skills between disciplines than ever before. Earlier, the best model of communication was to have one-to-one meetings between the students and their co-advisors to discuss science, methods and materials, and results of a given study. With the developments in new communication techniques such as e-mails and Skype, people can even meet remotely or at distance using electronic media or information technology. Also, methods of experimentation or data analyses are different today because of the advancements made in computational sciences allowing, for instance, rapid computer simulations instead of conducting expensive lab experiments and also cross border virtual teamwork between different locations. These advancements in other disciplines have necessitated today’s doctoral students to develop good skills of teamwork and obtain a high level of knowledge of other disciplines in order to understand the advancements made in other disciplines and the latest developments in their own disciplines. Second, with the advancements made in information technology, our world has become lot smaller or one might say closer. Earlier the best mode for doctoral students to share or discuss their research was at a regional or national conference within a community of national researchers. Today, doctoral students have access to global information and can synthesize their research from an international or global perspective. National boarders in today’s science have no meaning which is having a serious impact on the academic world. Third, the private sector, especially private companies, have always conducted research in partnership with universities and their scope was more or less a finite scope. Today, research and development units in private companies are increasingly international and an in-country research unit of a private firm has little meaning. Much of the research is being done where skilled manpower and materials are available and research has become more global by forming research cluster cells around international centers of excellence at different universities in the world. This requires our graduate students to be willing to move and adjust to different environments of research and cultures. Fourth, diversity in research labs is increasing as more and more foreign born students are studying in the US resulting in local competition for domestic students. As countries like China, India, Korea, Taiwan, Thailand, and Indonesia develop their economic system further, many families from these countries can afford to send their children abroad for higher studies because of lack of quality local institutions of higher education. Also, students from developing countries are interested in advancing their education from some of the best universities in the US or in the West. This has created an environment of f competition and collaboration between international and domestic universities because the best universities will select the very best doctoral students irrespective of national origin. In some case, universities may consider foreign graduate students as source of revenues in

52

Comm. Appl. Biol. Sci, Ghent University, 75/1, 2010 today’s economic downturn in the US. All these factors will lead to giving different tools and skill set to our doctoral students to be successful in their careers. Availability of research funds on a competitive basis for doctoral students and their major professors is extremely important to develop new knowledge for a healthy and vibrant economic system. Without competitive access to research funding to develop innovative research projects to solve society’s problems, it would be difficult to have internationally known research universities. Policy driven initiatives to provide research funds at the national level to solve society’s special problems (such as energy, water, environment, food, and human and animal health) by the governmental agencies, research foundations and private industry have increased the science production capacity of educational institutions and trained some of the best doctoral students in the world. Some of the best known international initiatives have been the Human Frontier Science Program, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and Intelligent Manufacturing Systems research projects. Similar national level programs are led by US agencies such as National Institutes of Health, National Science Foundation, Department of Energy, Environmental Protection Agency, Department of Defense, and National Institute of Food and Agriculture and have made US universities highly competitive in delivering science for human benefit. Above all, significant changes have occurred in the later part of 20th century and in the beginning of 21st century to advance science, and doctoral and post doctoral students must be trained in developing competitive grant proposals to become successful researchers. A successful young PhD scholar of today is no longer entering a safe and single discipline profession, but a multi-disciplinary profession in a competitive university system. His or her success will depend on how well he or she is trained in all the factors discussed above.

NEEDED SKILLS AND TRAINING OF MY PHDS AT IOWA STATE UNIVERSITY One of the key questions in training PhD students remains “what range of competencies should a PhD student acquire before taking and passing the final thesis defense?” Is the completion of a PhD thesis and taking bunch of courses to meet the degree requirements adequate? All my graduate students (in particular PhDs) at Iowa State University are expected to have the following: • • • • • • •

Understanding of 21st century society’s problems. Have the knowledge and willingness to solve society’s complex and interdisciplinary problems. A global thinker and asks big/major science questions before developing a thesis topic. Have exceptional skills to do review of literature on the thesis topic to know the current status of science. Will formulate and develop his/her thesis problem by the end of first semester in residence independently Willingness to learn and become interdisciplinary by crossing disciplinary boundaries; acquire additional knowledge in physical, social, economic, and engineering sciences if needed. Must learn the art of world clad research business to stay competitive such as how to establish state-of-the-art-labs, develop innovative research

53


• • • • • • • •

•

methodologies for conducting research experiments and establish credibility, and use innovative techniques to analyze, summarize, and present research data/results. Must be self mover; capable of conducting independent and original research with minimum supervision. Must develop skills to manage/administer major professor’s research projects and mentoring of MS students. Develop skills to become an effective communicator and communicate research results with public/farmers. Desire and ability to do networking with national and foreign colleagues from other countries. Become a global professional who works interdependently, collaboratively, and enjoys teamwork. Solves complex/challenging problems by using systems approach and critical thinking skills. Passionate to write papers, receive travel grants to attend and present thesis papers at international conferences, and aspire to receive graduate student/thesis awards Highly passionate to wrap up research results into refereed publications; expected two papers from a MS thesis and three papers from a PhD thesis. All PhD students must enjoy writing. If PhD students do not enjoy writing, they may be in the wrong profession. All PhD students will acquire skills and traits to become successful faculty members and future leaders at major research universities; needed skills will include acquiring experience in developing successful grant proposals and entrepreneurship to establish independent research program/empire; passion for teaching and research; willingness to work with students and make them global professionals; willingness to become an effective teacher by acquiring class room experience; develop and display visionary leadership skills with moral and ethical integrity and become a role model for others.

The above-mentioned skills and experiences would be very much needed to prepare doctoral students for the success of research universities in the 21st century as well as prepare them for the world outside of academia and serve the global society well by solving global society’s major problems. I would say these must be the minimum competency skills needed as “survival skills” for all doctoral students to become successful after obtaining PhD degrees. In addition, one of my own requirements is that every PhD student must teach their major professor/supervisor something as an outcome of their thesis research. This is how I have improved my own scientific knowledge over the years. Today’s PhD students will be working in a global and highly competitive, rapidly changing, and complex world. Even to obtain a faculty position after completing their PhDs, these students will be facing a global competition because US universities are hiring the best and brightest from any part of the world. Also, it is no longer enough to be a good researcher and a good teacher; researchers and teachers must be good team players and leaders to lead interdisciplinary research programs, and exceptional managers to effectively manage their research staff, MS and PhD students, and post doctoral researchers. Doctoral students have exceptional opportunities during their PhD degree programs to acquire these skills from their world class supervisors

54

Comm. Appl. Biol. Sci, Ghent University, 75/1, 2010 and participate in available workshops on how to develop successful and winning grant proposals, improving communication skills, and participate in “future faculty programs” on their campuses.

NEEDED EXPERIENCE AND SKILLS FOR POSTDOCTORAL STUDENTS In certain academic disciplines (especially in basic sciences such as Chemistry, Physics, Biology, Entomology, human nutrition and health, and medical sciences), post doctoral experience may be necessary before becoming qualified for a tenure track faculty position at a leading research university. Post doctoral experience is typically considered as upper level PhD student experience with long hours in labs conducting experiments and writing research manuscripts for publication. The typical expectation from my post doctoral student is to publish two to four research papers a year so that they can get intensive research experience in publication and teaching students. I have always expected my post doctoral students to write research grant proposals, publish papers, lead team meetings of MS and PhD students, mentor MS and PhD students on their research, and acquire all the needed experience to become a successful and tenured faculty member at a lead university. The primary objective of gaining a post doctoral experience is to work with world class researchers and build a curriculum vita to become competitive for faculty positions at world class research universities. I will not keep post docs for more three years. Keeping them for more than three years is kind of a disservice to them. If post docs are not able to find a tenure track faculty job within three years of their experience, something is wrong. Post docs also gain collaborative research experience that provides both advances to state-of-the-art knowledge in science and key service to the nation in developing the economic system.

LIST OF REFERENCES •

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, Engineering, and Public Policy.2006. Rising Above the Gathering Storm: Energizing and Employing America for a Brighter Economic Future. The National Academies Press, Washington, DC.

•

MALCOM, S. M. AND D. E. CHUBIN. 2006. Supply, demand, and something else preparing the future science and technology workforce. Presentation at the American Association for the Advancement of Science Fellows Seminar, New York, New York on May 25, 2006.

•

NATIONAL SCIENCE BOARD. 2006. Science and Engineering Indicators 2006. Publication No. NSB 06-01. Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation, Washington, DC.

55


56


POTENTIAL PATHS TO PEDAGOGICAL EXCELLENCE: EARLY STAGE CAREER SUPPORT M.A.GUNDERSON1 AND R.K. BARRICK² 1

University of Florida, College of Agricultural and Life Sciences Assistant Professor, Food and Resource Economics P.O. Box 110240, Gainesville, FL 32611-0240

²University of Florida, College of Agricultural and Life Sciences Dean, P.O. Box 110270, Gainesville, FL 32611-0270

SUMMARY Faculty who desire to improve student learning through improved teaching have a variety of opportunities to address change. University educators have as a goal to improve the competence of graduates through improved teaching and learning in their institutions. This article draws upon the scholarship of obtaining feedback on teaching performance from a variety of sources and describes opportunities for young faculty to develop and enhance their skills in order to improve student learning. The experiences described can also serve as guidance for other faculty in their role as faculty mentors and for administrators in their role of supporting and encouraging improvements in the teaching/learning processes in their colleges and universities. Key words: teaching assessment, teaching enhancement, teaching development

INTRODUCTION There is a difference between five years of teaching experience and one year of teaching experience repeated five times. As an assistant professor at a major American university, I have hoped to gain five years of teaching experience. The expectation for my teaching load (four to five sections of courses per year) is larger than that of most of my peers at other universities. As such I have aimed to improve and excel at this important duty by collecting tips on how improve through many different avenues. The aim of this article is to lend some guidance to other assistant professors who are looking to avoid repeating one year of teaching experience five or six times before their tenure packets are being evaluated. The article begins with a review of why improving teaching has become more broadly important than it has been in the past. Then there is a discussion of opportunities for 360 degree feedback: feedback from students, peers, mentors, and administrators. The focus then turns to professional development opportunities that can offer numerous tips on improving teaching. Some final thoughts are shared in closing. It should be noted that while this article might be of most interest to those just beginning their academic career, even those who are long-tenured faculty might find some of this discussion useful.

57


THE IMPORTANCE OF IMPROVING TEACHING Various reports have criticized the quality of instruction in higher education (Brinko, 1993). Colleges and universities have recently clamoured for the improvement of teaching and the recognition that teaching is an important part of the mission of the institution. University faculty members are generally prepared for the academy through a number of years of study, typically culminating in the doctor of philosophy degree, a journey that is by definition a research-oriented enterprise. But as institutions re-examine their commitment to teaching, faculty are being held accountable to provide solid evidence of their classroom instruction (Seldin, 1993). The Kellogg Commission on the Future of State and Land-Grant Universities issued several reports regarding teaching and learning. The Commission purported that universities must improve teaching and educational quality while keeping college accessible (Kellogg Commission, 1997). The Commission further reported that a survey of government and university leaders indicated that the current model used in higher education may be an obstacle to improving teaching and learning (Kellogg Commission, 1999). Rhetoric throughout the higher-education community is almost universal in stating that the primary purpose of faculty evaluation is to help faculty improve their performance. However, an examination of the system—as used—indicates that the primary purpose is almost always to make personnel changes (Cashin, 1996). Because teachers probably need different kinds of help at different stages of their careers, efforts to help them improve must be varied and geared toward their particular needs (Seldin, 1995). A combination of sources and methods for collecting information about teaching performance can be utilized in a fullydeveloped teaching assessment and enhancement program. Sources include students, colleagues, self, alumni and records, and the methods include ratings, written appraisals, achievement tests and interviews (Braskamp, Brandenburg, Kohen, Ory and Mayberry, 1984). Groccia (1987) also identified a wide array of faculty assessment-of-teaching options, including self-assessment, mid-semester and end-of-course student evaluations, and peer review and classroom observations, among others. Seldin (1995) posited that a variety of programs is necessary to address the variety of instructor needs in improving teaching performance. Likewise, programs need to assist instructors in building bridges between what they know and what students are trying to learn. Faculty development opportunities can help instructors develop their sense of competence and must be multi-faceted (Austin and Baldwin, 1995). A comprehensive plan for providing enhancement opportunities is essential (Seldin, 1995). The purpose of this paper is to share how a variety of mechanisms can be used to enhance teaching performance. While different institutions have different mechanisms available, and while different faculty may adopt different approaches to enhancing their teaching performance, this study provides meaningful and

58

Comm. Appl. Biol. Sci, Ghent University, 75/1, 2010 thoughtful discussions of a variety of feedback mechanisms and development opportunities that can and should be considered by faculty and by administrators.

FEEDBACK OPPORTUNITIES Just as we subject our research to peer review, so too should we consider soliciting review of our teaching from as many sources as possible. Historically it seems that most have relied on student evaluations of teaching as the primary or only source of feedback on the quality of instruction. This has an element of ‘the inmates running the asylum’ to it and creates incentives for faculty to pander to students for improved scores. Soliciting input from experienced colleagues and departmental/college/university leaders can help to ensure rigor in the classroom and instructional materials. Opportunities for feedback can come at the end of the semester via sanctioned student evaluations or during the semester via informal student feedback. Feedback can also come from peers, administrators, and a mentoring committee. Finally, some self assessment can prove useful.

FORMAL STUDENT EVALUATIONS Most universities and colleges have a sanctioned, end-of-the-semester student evaluation form. Most have standard questions with the opportunity to add questions that are relevant specifically to the course content and instructional design. Typically these forms are administered anonymously and shared with faculty members only after the semester is over and grades have been assigned. Though questions vary widely by institution, some version of ‘overall instructor rating’ and ‘overall course rating’ nearly always appears on these forms. This form is and should be taken seriously. Properly asked, students can share feelings regarding the instructor’s methods and processes. Organization, enthusiasm, and accessibility are all important inputs to strong learning outcomes. In regard to these three inputs, it is really only the impressions that the students are left with that matter. Even if peers and administrators perceive the instructor as enthusiastic, it is relatively meaningless if students do not. These forms often end up providing convenient ‘measures’ of teaching success. Likert-scale preferences are quantified and compared to department, college, and university averages. Often additional weight is put on ‘overall instructor rating’ and ‘overall course rating,’ when quick comparisons are necessary. Faculty need to look beyond these two simplistic measures and dig deeper into the questions. During my first semester, I was disappointed by my ‘overall’ scores and took deep offense to them. A senior faculty member wisely noted that if I were to look a little deeper many students were harsh on these measures even though they indicated that I was enthusiastic and accessible. It also became clear that organization was a trait that needed strengthening.

INFORMAL STUDENT FEEDBACK Although feedback at the end of the semester is most commonly used, summative evaluations present the least opportunity to improve teaching for students currently in your class. They will move on to other classes and their feedback can

59

Comm. Appl. Biol. Sci, Ghent University, 75/1, 2010 only be used to improve future classes. As a result, if one truly desires to improve teaching for the current class, then some form of mid-term student feedback must be solicited. Several approaches exist. In graduate school, I served as a teaching assistant for a professor who distributed feedback forms after each of his three semester exams. He inquired broadly about what was working well, what wasn’t working well, and what students thought could be improved. I believe it was important to provide this opportunity to students immediately after the exam. Since he was commenting on their performance, he gave them an opportunity to do the same for him. As a participant in the Young Professionals Teaching Academy of the American Agricultural Economics Association (see below) I learned a tip that I have found effective. I ask students to write on a note card at the end of each lecture their name, one thing they learned, and one question they have remaining. It becomes clear from the note cards if you have achieved your primary objective (what they have learned) and what you failed to communicate well (one remaining question). As an added bonus, this is a convenient method of tracking attendance in a large class. I have found the best and most encouraging feedback is from high-performing students. These students tend to visit with me during office hours more frequently than other students. It is during these times that I will often inquire about how they feel class is going, what we are covering too fast or what is taking too long. These students tend to be very confident and as a result very honest. The only drawback to this source is that they might be desirous of accelerated coverage of material relative to the majority of the students in the class.

PEER ASSESSMENT The College of Agricultural and Life Sciences at the University of Florida has required peer evaluation as a factor in the tenure and promotion decision since the mid-1990s. The College continues to promote, as part of that effort, ongoing peer assessment among faculty members. Peer assessment is a means to improve learning through improved teaching, rather than simply being an evaluation for promotion and retention. This shift in emphasis makes the process more collegial, with peers assisting peers through an observation and coaching process. The process can and often does add clarity to formal student feedback. The assessor can help identify why students rated the course and teaching as they did. Furthermore, the assessor can help identify changes that can be made to bring about improved learning and greater satisfaction among students. Finally, it gives the instructor ideas regarding how teaching can be improved. During my first two years, I have asked two peers to provide assessment. I have specifically asked faculty members outside of my department for feedback. This serves two purposes. First, it gives me a perspective from individuals who are likely less familiar with the topics than members of my department. This means they can understand how students might have been confused about a particular point. Second, members of my mentoring committee have attended and provided feedback already. The variety in sources of feedback is likely to enhance the diversity and value of feedback as well.

60

Comm. Appl. Biol. Sci, Ghent University, 75/1, 2010 One issue that I have struggled with in my teaching is organization. During the preobservation meeting in my office, I specifically asked both of my peer assessors to provide feedback on the organization of the material. I also shared with them the syllabus and a plan for what would occur during the day that they attended my class, including learning goals. We also discussed general questions about the class. During the class that they attended, assessors took notes and shared them with me. They often were able to relate instances where my organization did a poor job of communicating the relationships among concepts. One assessor even asked students to share their notes with him. He relayed that perhaps I was not as disorganized as originally thought, but that there was room for improvement. As a result, suggestions included providing an outline on the board of the day’s topics at the beginning of class. Also, one assessor showed that there is an opportunity to build organization into the course syllabus and outline. I believe that organization has improved, but that I need to work diligently not to lapse. Even this semester I have forgotten on occasion to provide an outline of topics for the day. The most satisfying aspect of peer assessment for me has been that the assessor always provides feedback about student behaviours that I would have never noticed otherwise. During the post-observation meeting, assessors shared that more students than I had thought were paying attention. They also provided strong, positive feedback about my interaction and dialogue with such a large class. The post-observation feedback was also documented in written form in a manner that could be included (or not) in a tenure and promotion packet.

ADMINISTRATOR ASSESSMENT Our department recently interviewed six candidates to serve as our department chair, five of which had previous department-level administrative experience. Their measures of success in the classroom were diverse. Oddly, none had visited the classroom of any recent hire at their current university. Some even expressed embarrassment at not having thought to visit an instructor’s classroom. It is odd that many annual and mid-tenure reviews are carried out by administrators who have never observed the individual being evaluated in the classroom. The teaching coordinator is a valuable resource in understanding how your course fits into the bigger picture. The teaching coordinator likely will have experience in teaching and is a logical individual to provide feedback and guidance. These individuals are the most likely to understand how your course fits into the curriculum and how your skills compare to those of other instructors the students might have. They are also likely to have a general sense of what students expect and their current course load.

MENTORING COMMITTEE As universities experience large amounts of faculty turnover, there is a desire to retain the best young faculty. As such, mentoring committees have proven to be successful in ensuring that young faculty members stay on a path that will aid in earning promotion. In my department the new faculty members receive a mentor in two of the three land grant missions (those two that compose the largest portion of their assignment). As such I had a teaching and a research mentor. My teaching

61

Comm. Appl. Biol. Sci, Ghent University, 75/1, 2010 mentor won the College of Agricultural and Life Sciences Outstanding Graduate Teaching Award during my first year on faculty, so he was an accomplished teacher to provide guidance. I have relied on my mentor for guidance in preparing course materials and the amount of time dedicated to that activity. Teaching can become all-consuming if done to the point of diminishing returns. As such, my mentor was able to provide guidance on how to construct meaningful assignments that were also relatively efficient to grade. My intense dislike for multiple-choice questions made them an unacceptable alternative even in my class with 120 students. My mentor noted, however, that only having essay questions on the exam would be just as detrimental to me, the students, and learning in the end. The amount of time consumed reading and evaluating 120 essays exams would mean reduced turnaround time, inconsistent or incomplete feedback, and the elimination of any free time on my weekends. In this role, my mentor has helped to protect some of my time, while also making sure that I am the best teacher that I can be.

SELF ASSESSMENT All the outside feedback from students, peers, mentors, and administrators is valuable. Perhaps most valuable though is engaging in some self-assessment. Assistant professors may not have complete control over the courses they teach, but they should have some input. You should assess your own strengths and weaknesses and communicate to those in charge how those align with courses that need to be taught. In addition, we have great flexibility in how the material is taught in courses, even if we don’t have control over what courses we teach. Make whatever subject you are teaching fun and interesting to yourself and you will more than likely make it fun and interesting for your students. Challenge yourself to deliver as well on your teaching as is done in other areas of your appointment, and you will find it rewarding.

DEVELOPMENT OPPORTUNITIES Many opportunities exist to learn about new methods of teaching and instructional resources. The department, college, university, and profession all are likely to dedicate resources to helping faculty members learn about the latest successful teaching strategies. These opportunities are frequently without cost, although when there is a cost I have found them to be worth the investment.

TEACHER’S COLLEGE The College of Agricultural and Life Sciences recently began a Teachers’ College. The twelve-week course is an opportunity for faculty dedicated to improving their teaching to meet and interact with similar faculty in other departments. Our experience was one night per week for the entire semester. About 30 faculty

62

Comm. Appl. Biol. Sci, Ghent University, 75/1, 2010 participated in a program directed by a faculty member in agricultural teacher education. Participation was entirely voluntary and included a faculty member with no formal teaching appointment, lecturers with full teaching appointments, and everything in between. Evenings typically included experienced instructors leading discussions on various topics. Topics ranged from the physiology of the brain during learning, to dealing with large classes, to assessment, to creation of a syllabus, to development of a teaching philosophy. Throughout the semester, there was an emphasis on ‘objective-based’ learning that required participating faculty to think about what it was students really needed and how those needs could best be met.

PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION DEVELOPMENT OPPORTUNITIES Every year during the annual American Agricultural Economics Association (AAEA) meetings, the members of the Teaching, Learning, and Communications section puts on the Young Professionals Teaching Academy (YPTA). Traditionally, seasoned members of the profession share ideas and strategies with graduate students and assistant professors. The YPTA lasts one-half day with lunch provided. Not only is it a great opportunity to hear from some of the profession’s best teachers, but also to interact with new faculty members from across the country. I have picked up several teaching tips that are discipline-specific. From using experimental auctions in the economics classroom to dealing with the urban student in your farm management course, this experience provides tailored information not available elsewhere. The interactions among junior faculty have provided connections that have involved me in their research projects as well. In addition to the YPTA, the AAEA has an entire track of paper presentations dedicated to the scholarship of teaching. Award winning teachers in the profession talk about their teaching programs. Others share their research on teaching, student activities, and curriculum reviews. I co-organized a teaching symposium at the meetings of the Southern Agricultural Economics Association that asked administrators (department heads and college deans) what were relevant measures of teaching excellence.

CALS TEACHING ENHANCEMENT SYMPOSIUM University and college teaching workshops can be valuable opportunities to interact with teaching colleagues outside of your department as well as an opportunity to learn institution specific processes. The College of Agricultural and Life Sciences Teaching Enhancement Symposium (TES) is in its ninth year. A variety of concurrent sessions is offered in four periods throughout the day. This format allows faculty to choose among several options the topics most appropriate for them. In addition, there is a luncheon with a keynote speaker. The topics at the TES tend to be focused on the processes as they occur in the College and UF. For example, the agenda has included members of the Dean of Students Office of Judicial Affairs. These individuals were able to speak very specifically to the process faculty members should follow to document incidents of suspected cheating. It was also an opportunity to meet these individuals before

63

Comm. Appl. Biol. Sci, Ghent University, 75/1, 2010 problems arose. Another example is the professionals who assist with online course web pages have provided tips for the E-Learning System at UF.

INTERNATIONAL TEACHING Last fall, I was invited to participate in an international development project that is designed to improve the curricula and teaching strategies of university faculty and high school instructors in various agriculture disciplines in Egypt. Preparing for and presenting content in my discipline for an audience that is not native Englishspeaking caused me to assess my organizational strategies, teaching methods and presentation style. Generating enthusiasm for the subject when that enthusiasm must flow through an interpreter was challenging, and achieving clarity was of utmost importance since a careful choice of words and terms was necessary. My students at UF will benefit from the lessons learned while teaching in a foreign country.

SUMMARY Teaching enhancement is not likely to occur in one afternoon or even a weekend retreat. Instead, teaching improvement is incremental, with many opportunities to collect small tips that can snowball into an effective process of improvement. Junior faculty and more experienced faculty can both garner ideas for improvement in many of the different formats presented here. A commitment to doing so is certain to improve learning outcomes as well as job satisfaction. Faculty who want to enhance their teaching ability, and therefore enhance student learning, need these multiple avenues for garnering constructive feedback in both formative and summative methods. Therefore, colleges need to provide adequate, timely and positive opportunities for faculty to address issues, concerns, opportunities and ideas that result from the feedback sources to develop, enhance and improve the teaching and learning function. While empirical data may or may not be available to justify the needs, this case study identified the importance of a partnership between faculty and others to provide adequate opportunities to learn.

REFERENCES •

BALDWIN, R. G. & AUSTIN, A. E. (1995). Faculty collaboration in teaching. In Seldin, P., Improving college teaching. Bolton, MA: Anker Publishing.

•

BRASKAMP, L.A., BRANDENBURG, D. C., KOHEN, E. J., ORY, C., & MAYBERRY, P. W.(1984). Guidebook for evaluating teaching, Part II: Collecting evaluative information about teaching. NACTA Journal, 28(1).

•

BRINKO, K. T. (1993). The practice of giving feedback to improve teaching. Journal of Higher Education, 64(5), 575-593.

64

Comm. Appl. Biol. Sci, Ghent University, 75/1, 2010 •

CASHIN, W. E. (1996). Developing an effective faculty evaluation system. IDEA Paper No. 33. Kansas State University, Center for Faculty Evaluation and Development.

•

GROCCIA, J. E. (1987). Planning for evaluation flowchart. In Diamond, R. M. A guide to evaluating teaching for promotion and tenure. Littleton, MA: Copley Publishing.

•

SELDIN, P. (1993). Successful use of teaching portfolios. Bolton, MA: Anker Publishing.

•

SELDIN, P. (1995). Improving college teaching. Bolton, MA: Anker Publishing.

65


66


DEVELOPMENT OF FUTURE FACULTY TEACHING SKILLS J. B. PENSON, JR. Regents Professor and Stiles Professor Texas A&M University College Station, Texas, USA

SUMMARY Doctoral and postdoctoral students considering a career as an educator would be well served by: (1) training in effective classroom communication skills, (2) the use of existing technology in teaching, (3) developing a new course or updating an existing course, and (4) availing themselves of campus teaching resources designed enhance their teaching portfolio. Universities need to place more attention on developing the teaching skills of their doctoral and postdoctoral students. This should include teaching methods and aids, communication skills, motivation, learning theory, testing, counselling and guidance, and course design. An important dimension from a guidance stand point is the conduct of a formal peer review process for beginning faculty. Key words: pedagogy, syllabus, motivation, learning environment, peer review process.

INTRODUCTION The vast majority of doctoral and postdoctoral students plan careers as educators. The development of their teaching skills in university curricula, however, is often relegated to a secondary role, if not ignored altogether. Primary emphasis during the completion of their programs is often placed research methodology and application to a particular problem. Attention to communication skills is on getting published in peer reviewed literature. Many new faculty members, therefore, find themselves in the classroom after accepting a joint research - teaching appointment with little or no formal training in classroom instruction methods. In fact, their initial faculty appointment often has a disproportionate weight dedicated to teaching assignments. The purpose of this paper is to highlight the deficiency gap in teaching training received by doctoral and postdoctoral students desiring to pursue a career as an educator, the skill set they will need when they find themselves in the college classroom for the first time and the design of a peer review process for beginning faculty.

67


DISCUSSION Some doctoral and postdoctoral students have the opportunity to serve as a parttime instructor while completing their current programs. This often means they find themselves in an undergraduate classroom with a piece of chalk or other writing device and no advance teaching preparation. Bad habits formed in these classroom situations can be carried over to the classroom when doctoral or postdoctoral students accept their first a faculty appointment. Other doctoral and postdoctoral students serve as teaching assistants (TA) where their function typically includes conducting help sessions and grading. These students benefit from learning the concerns and questions raised by students. They also derive benefit if the instructor is an effective teacher. Chances are high, however, that doctoral and postdoctoral students accepting their first academic appointment have never taken a course in teaching pedagogy. Their observations of classroom instruction is instead influenced by their composite experiences while a student. The university hiring new faculty members with teaching responsibilities also bears responsibility for the faculty member’s ultimate success. Results from surveys of university administrators of doctoral programs indicate that there is a gap between the perceived need for instructor training in new hires and what they provide their own doctoral students. A survey of 46 Accounting Departments in the United States indicated that only 4 departments offered a course for credit course integrated with a practicum. Yet these respondents indicate that teaching effectiveness is important for faculty selection, promotion and tenure, particularly for appointments at academic institutions focusing on baccalaureate and master degrees. (Edward, Ingram and Sanders) Thus many doctoral and postdoctoral students accepting their first faculty appointment may have prerequisite subject matter competence and exhibited potential grantsmanship, but not be skilled in the delivery of principles and concepts in the classroom. Regardless of whether doctoral and postdoctoral students intend to concentrate primarily on a research career, those with fractional teaching appointments must develop their teaching skill set to achieve tenure and promotion.

Challenges facing the new faculty member A new faculty member entering his/her classroom for the first time must be able to: • •

•

develop a course syllabus consistent with the published curriculum that outlines the scope of the course and pacing of the individual lectures, utilize relevant instructional methodologies and techniques, motivate student interest and comprehension of principles and concepts, tie a specific lecture into a larger context, particularly at the start and end of a lecture, ask good questions during lectures and exams, and adjust lesson plans based upon the answers to these questions

68


and foster an effective learning environment, including encouraging student involvement and respect for the student.

Getting the syllabus right is the first step The principle role of a course syllabus should be to tell students about the scope of the course including the sequencing of topics, what is expected of them, and how their performance will be assessed. It should be consistent with the latest approved curriculum and reflect specific university boilerplate. The syllabus should also include a clear statement of student learning objectives. These objectives should be clearly identified. They should describe a learning outcome, or what the student will be able to do, know, or believe as a result of the instruction. Avoid vague verbs such as "understand," "know," or "learn about". Replace them with specific verbs. For example, consider the following list of verbs when stating the learning objectives for a course: At the end of this course you will be able to: list, identify, state, describe, define, solve, compare and contrast. A list of student outcomes for agricultural communications majors at a major US university suggests that a student: demonstrate knowledge of current communications practices, including effective writing, layout and design, photography, computer skills, and oral communications, demonstrate the ability to work in a professional communications setting through an experiential-learning environment (i.e., internship), and demonstrate the ability to solve problems, to work independently and to work as members of a team. In short, the syllabus is the instructor’s contract with the students. A poorly planned syllabus requiring modifications during the course can cause a variety of problems and result in poor performance assessments. Time spent on getting the syllabus “right” is time well spent.

Enhancing student learning Student learning is enhanced when incentives for learning in the classroom meet objectives when enrolling in the course. They may be seeking their perceived needs to meet career objectives (i.e., perfect/complete skills, need to succeed, need to be competent). Students learn by doing, making, writing, designing, solving. Using small work groups or teams are a useful to get students actively participating in learning. Tell students what they must do to succeed. Reassure them they can do well in your course by doing what is required. An instructor’s enthusiasm for the topic is a crucial in capturing student interest and motivating their efforts. The use of demonstrations or case examples illustrating the application of key concepts also induces motivation. Design tests that reinforces learning. If you design tests that emphasize memorization, students will focus on memorizing facts. Also make tests consistent with assignments and classroom discussions. If the average grade on hour exams is

69

Comm. Appl. Biol. Sci, Ghent University, 75/1, 2010 say 55, don’t ignore the fact that the tests may have been unfair and curve grades to meet some grade distribution goal. Give students feedback on exams as soon as possible. Notes on specific exams indicating a particularly good answer can motivate the student. Similarly notes indicating why and answer is wrong and why can also be motivating. A simple “check mark” indicating a wrong answer is not. Sharing accomplishments of individuals with the entire class when passing back exams also has its benefits. Obviously avoiding making demeaning comments is critical.

Role and conduct of the peer review process The qualification for promotion and tenure is normally based, in part, upon the success of the faculty member’s teaching evaluations by students and peers. A formal peer review process within a department should provide informed peer judgments that supplement existing sources of information, such as student ratings of teaching performance. This peer review process should be based upon classroom observations and an assessment of class materials. The classroom observation part of the peer review process should focus on the instructor’s performance in the classroom. The review used should include the following components: 1. Instructor Organization - does the instructor arrive on time, does the instructor make the transition from the previous class to the purpose of this class clear and does the instructor make summary statements during and at the end of class? 2. Variety and Pacing of Instruction – does the instructor pause after asking questions, effectively direct discussion, help extend student responses when appropriate, draw students into discussions, prevent some students from consistently dominating discussion, mediate conflicts of opinion, attentively listen to student responses and complete topics scheduled for the class period? 3. Content Knowledge – does the instructor exhibit knowledge of the subject material during the class period, frequently contradict the textbook, identify perspectives on topics and communicate the reasoning behind concepts 4. Presentation Skills – does the instructor speak so that all could hear, speak in a varied in tone and pitch for emphasis and interest, avoid distracting mannerisms, maintain eye contact throughout class, avoid reading extensively from notes or text and speak at a pace that allowed students to take notes? 5. Rapport With Students – does the instructor address students by name, attempt to determine comprehension during lectures, give positive reinforcement when due and incorporate student ideas into the class when appropriate? 6. Clarity – does the instructor clearly define new terms or concepts, elaborate or repeat complex material, use examples to make a point and pause during explanations to give students an opportunity to ask questions? The class materials assessment part of the peer review process should focus on the whether the following components were evident:

70

Comm. Appl. Biol. Sci, Ghent University, 75/1, 2010 1. Syllabus - is it clear, are the student’s responsibilities and consequences spelled out, does it reflect university policy, is it motivational and challenging, is it attractive and devoid of spelling and grammatical mistakes, does it match the course description in the catalog, is the course coverage and assignments realistic and are grading policies explicit and fair? 2. Course Handouts - do course handouts supplement the course content, do they contain current and accurate content, are course handouts devoid of spelling errors and poor grammar and do course handouts provide adequate level of detail? 3. Overhead Transparencies and Presentation Shows - do these materials enhance the course content, express content clearly, present material legibly, contain accurate content, are devoid of spelling errors and poor grammar and enhance interest level, and reflect production quality? 4. Textbook Content - is the textbook appropriate for this class level, are the authors reputable on this subject matter and are the reading assignments fair for this class level? 5. Class Assignments - is the level of assignments appropriate for the class level are the assignments clearly stated, are students given sufficient time to complete the assignments, are the penalties for late submissions made clear and are students asked for their evaluation of others in team assignments? 6. Tests and Quizzes - are the directions clear, does the content match course goals, are the tests and quizzes laid out in a legible fashion and are the tests and quizzes appropriate in length and level of challenge? The peer review process should culminate in a report to the beginning faculty member from the departmental peer review committee after it has made several visits to the classroom and viewed the class materials. This report should have a formative component and a summative component (Chism). The formative report should include constructive criticisms on how the instructor might improve communications with students and enhance course materials. This report is shared with the faculty member in a meeting with the peer review committee, but not become a part of the faculty member’s permanent record. A separate summative report should “sum up” the instructor’s performance, emphasizing the instructor’s strong points and areas that could improve performance. In many instances, this report becomes a part of the faculty member’s permanent record in the department. This report should address the following elements: 1. Based upon classroom visits and review of course materials, does the instructor possess a broad, deep, and current knowledge of the course content, as demonstrated by the course syllabi, assignments, handouts, text and tests?

71

Comm. Appl. Biol. Sci, Ghent University, 75/1, 2010 2. Does the instructor use good design principles to facilitate learning in the course, as demonstrated by the course materials? 3. Does the instructor deliver effective instruction, as indicated by classroom observations, subsequent interaction with students in the course, and a review of classroom materials such as tests, papers and project reports? 4. Overall, what is the quality of the classroom teaching performance and what is your summative recommendation? In summary, the peer review process should be seen as an aid or guide to beginning teaching faculty. It should reinforce what he or she is doing right and make suggestions on what can be improved upon. Participation in this process should be voluntary rather than mandatory. My experience is that beginning faculty members welcome the opportunity to participate in such a program.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT The author wishes to acknowledge the faculty in the Department of Agricultural Economics who has willingly participated in the peer review process. Participation in this conference was funded by the Stiles Foundation Endowment.

REFERENCES •

BRENY, R., R.M. FELDER (2004) A Protocol for Peer Review of Teaching, Proceedings of the 2004 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference and Exposition.

•

CHISM, N.V. (1998) Peer Review of Teaching, Anker Publishing Company, Bolton, MA.

•

CHISM, N.V. (2004) Using a Framework to Engage Faculty in Instructional Technologies, Educause Quarterly, No. 2, pp. 39-45.

•

EDWARDS, J.B., IINGRAM, R.W. & SANDERS, H.P. (1981). Developing Teaching Skills in Doctoral Programs: The Current Status and Perceived Needs. The Accounting Review. 33:1; 144-156.

•

UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA, Center for Teaching and Learning, Peer Review of Teaching, Minneapolis, Minnesota. [email protected].

•

UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON, Center for Instructional Development, Peer Review for Teaching, www.depts.washington.edu/cidrweb/consulting/peerreview.html.

72


INTERDISCIPLINARY THINKING IN AGRICULTURAL AND LIFE SCIENCES HIGHER EDUCATION E.J.H. SPELT1, H.J.A. BIEMANS1, P.A. LUNING², H. TOBI³, M. MULDER1 1

Wageningen University, Education and Competence Studies, The Netherlands ²Wageningen University, Product Design and Quality Management Group, The Netherlands ³Wageningen University, Research Methodology Group, The Netherlands

SUMMARY Interdisciplinary thinking as a skill appears to be of value to higher education students and those in employment. This idea is explored with reference to the agricultural and life sciences. The need for further understanding of the development of interdisciplinary thinking is acknowledged. This is closely related to the requirement for well-founded curriculum and course design. This publication presents a brief introduction to a systematic review of scientific research into teaching and learning in interdisciplinary higher education. While tentative, the understanding arising from the review findings is considered to be of potential value to educational practice. A selection of the review findings is presented by way of illustration. The selection is believed to be of relevance to the agricultural and life sciences. The review findings presented here take the form of interdisciplinary thinking sub skills and enabling conditions. Key words Interdisciplinary thinking, interdisciplinary higher education, agricultural and life sciences

INTRODUCTION Interdisciplinary thinking can be defined as ‘The capacity to integrate knowledge and modes of thinking in two or more disciplines or established areas of expertise to produce a cognitive advancement – such as explaining a phenomenon, solving a problem, or creating a product – in ways that would have been impossible or unlikely through single disciplinary means’ (Boix Mansilla et al., 2000). Interdisciplinary thinking can be considered as a complex cognitive skill that constitutes a number of sub skills (Van Merriënboer, 1997). Sub skills are, for instance, the ability to change disciplinary perspectives and to create meaningful connections across disciplines. Two kinds of interdisciplinary thinking can be distinguished: narrow and broad (Newell, 2007). Narrow includes integration of knowledge of disciplines within a particular science. Broad includes integration across sciences, like natural and social sciences. Traditionally, higher education has focused on domain-specific knowledge and general skills development. The ultimate goal of interdisciplinary higher education is to enable undergraduate and graduate students to become capable of integrating knowledge of different disciplines. Today, it is appropriate for students to experience interdisciplinary higher education and learn the sub skills it has to offer

73

Comm. Appl. Biol. Sci, Ghent University, 75/1, 2010 such as the ability to tolerate ambiguity and those described above (Newell, 2009; Franks et al., 2007). It is believed that these skills enable students to become capable of dealing with complex issues that arise in both scientific and professional environments (Jacobson and Wilensky, 2006). The integration of disciplinary knowledge is typical of interdisciplinarity; multidisciplinarity refers to the addition of disciplinary knowledge whereas interdisciplinarity refers to the integration or synthesis of disciplinary knowledge (Klein, 1990). In view of workplace needs and the increasing interdisciplinarity of the research activity itself, it is advocated that interdisciplinarity be developed within the agricultural and life sciences (e.g., Ewel, 2001; Innes, 2005). Often named ‘BètaGamma integration’, broad interdisciplinary thinking is frequently advocated in the agricultural and life sciences (e.g., Luning and Marcelis, 2006; Lund et al., 2006). An illustration of the value of interdisciplinary thinking to food sciences is provided by the following student exercises. In a narrow interdisciplinary thinking exercise, students are required to integrate their knowledge of food microbiology and food processing to keep bacterial growth within food safety criteria. In a broad interdisciplinary thinking exercise, students are challenged to integrate their knowledge of sciences such as food processing and microbiology as well as social sciences, such as management and psychology, to realise safe food production that excludes contamination by employees (Luning and Marcelis, 2009b). Numerous reports of interdisciplinary higher education in the agricultural and life sciences can be found in the literature (Zarin et al., 2003; Vedeld and Krogh, 2005; Jaykus and Ward, 1999; Parr and Van Horn, 2006; Warren, 2006). The reports tend to focus on organisational aspects or learning content. Less is said about the pedagogy required to achieve interdisciplinary thinking. Recent research in interdisciplinary higher education (Holley, 2009; Misra et al., 2009) demonstrates the difficulties of providing a curriculum that enables students to master interdisciplinary thinking. Similarly, the need for greater understanding of curriculum and course design in interdisciplinary higher education is recognised (Stefani, 2009; Yang, 2009). After all, a pedagogically underpinned method does not yet exist. This implies that questions such as the following remain to be researched: (a) What is the evidential outcome of interdisciplinary thinking? (b) How can interdisciplinary thinking be achieved? and (c) What teaching and learning methods for developing interdisciplinary thinking are required? To provide a platform from which to move forward, Spelt et al., (2009) reviewed the scientific research into teaching and learning in interdisciplinary higher education.

METHOD The objectives of the review were to systematically identify, critically analyse, and discuss scientific research on teaching and learning in interdisciplinary higher education. This was done by using the general teaching and learning theory of Biggs (2003) as a frame of reference. The theory approaches teaching and learning as an interacting system consisting of four components: student, learning environment, learning process and learning outcomes. The theory embodies the alignment principle, which means that teaching and learning methods are aligned with the desired learning outcomes. This supports an outcome-based approach to teaching and learning in higher education. An in-depth description about the review method can be found in Spelt et al., (2009).

74


RESULTS AND DISCUSSION The systematic review of teaching and learning in interdisciplinary higher education yielded a tentative understanding of the development of interdisciplinary thinking (Spelt et al., 2009). The tentative understanding relates to sub skills and conditions. Sub skills constituting the component interdisciplinary thinking were identified. In addition, for the components student, learning environment and learning process, enabling conditions for developing interdisciplinary thinking were identified. The identified sub skills (5) and conditions (26) should be considered as tentative. Nonetheless, the theoretical understanding gained seems to be of potential value to educational practice. The identified sub skills and conditions may facilitate practitioners in agricultural and life sciences higher education in designing courses and curricula on interdisciplinary thinking. The total of 31 identified sub skills and conditions provide rich material. Presented here in Figure 1, by way of illustration, are just eight of the identified sub skills (2) and conditions (6). The selection reflects the first author’s preliminary exploration in agricultural and life sciences higher education. The exploration centred on three curricula whose aim is to develop broad interdisciplinary thinking. Each curriculum is delivered at a different Dutch university. The exploration took the form of classroom observations and discussions with teachers and students. Figure 1: Examples of tentative sub skills and conditions for interdisciplinary thinking development, based on Spelt et al., (2009). Student

Openness

Knowledge of disciplinary paradigms

Balance

Subskills & Conditions

Teacher expertise

Communication skills Phased with milestones Iterative Learning process

75

Learning environment

Interdisciplinary thinking

Respect

Comm. Appl. Biol. Sci, Ghent University, 75/1, 2010 For the component interdisciplinary thinking (Figure 1), the sub skills of ‘knowledge of disciplinary paradigms’ indicates the importance of widening the focus on disciplinary knowledge to include the characteristics of the disciplines involved, such as their theoretical and methodological assumptions. This type of knowledge may support students to step beyond the disciplinary theories and methods on a meta-level (Boix Mansilla and Duraising, 2007). The meta-level may facilitate students to make connections between disciplines, to identify disciplinary contradictions, and to consider opportunities for integration. In addition, the sub skills ‘communication skills’ indicates the need to pay attention to the language of discourse of different disciplines (Manathunga et al., 2006; Woods, 2007). This will facilitate students to negotiate meaning, resolve epistemological differences, develop shared understanding, and communicate cognitive advancements to a broad audience. In Figure 1 with respect to the component student, the tentative conditions ‘openness’ and ‘respect’ are presented. The conditions point to the necessity of developing the student’s appreciation of other disciplines (Bruce et al., 2004). Student attitudes towards other disciplines appear to show wide variation (Woods, 2007). For the component learning environment (Figure 1), the condition of ‘balance’ between disciplinarity and interdisciplinarity, which gives rise to an overarching framework, seems to be an essential focus (Newell, 1992). Such a framework links and sequences curricular and course content to provide context and a roadmap for learning interdisciplinary thinking. In addition, the condition of ‘teacher expertise’ points to the need for teachers’ professional development to include interdisciplinarity (Newell, 1992; Graybill et al., 2006; Gilkey and Earp, 2006). Such professional development would seem, for instance, to be beneficial to teacher teams; facilitating the necessary understanding and integration of one other’s disciplines. Additionally, it enables teachers to realise a safe environment in which to mentor students on their journey towards interdisciplinarity. In Figure 1 with regard to the component learning process, the tentative conditions ‘phased with milestones’ and ‘iterative’ are shown. The conditions refer to the need for a phased learning process with predetermined learning outcomes (Graybill et al., 2006; Ivanitskaya et al., 2002; Manathunga et al., 2006; Woods, 2007). The predetermined learning outcomes serve as milestones for each phase in which students are exposed repeatedly to interdisciplinary thinking.

CONCLUSION AND FURTHER RESEARCH The need for greater understanding of the pedagogy underpinning the development of interdisciplinary thinking is recognised. The systematic review presented above identifies sub skills of interdisciplinary thinking as well as enabling conditions. Some of these are presented by way of illustration. The example sub skills described above are: knowledge of disciplinary paradigms and communications skills. The example conditions described are: openness, respect, balance, teacher expertise, phased with milestones and iterative. It may be fruitful to recognise these sub skills and enabling conditions when organising the teaching and learning of interdisciplinary thinking.

76

Comm. Appl. Biol. Sci, Ghent University, 75/1, 2010 Further research should examine whether empirical evidence can be found for the identified sub skills and conditions (Spelt et al., 2009). Empirical research is required to test the hypothesised value of the tentative understanding to educational practice in agricultural and life sciences higher education. Thereafter, it is proposed that the full range of sub skills and conditions thus validated be used to analyse courses and curricula on interdisciplinary thinking. It would be beneficial to use such analysis as the starting point for techniques and guidelines for fostering the development of interdisciplinary thinking. The tentative understanding of the development of interdisciplinary thinking gained from the review is already being tried out in practice. It is being applied in the analysis of interdisciplinary higher education in the agricultural and life sciences. The curriculum in question is the MSc Food Quality Management at Wageningen University in the Netherlands. The curriculum and the research involved (e.g., Luning and Marcelis, 2009a) exemplify the development of BètaGamma integration among students and researchers in the field of food quality management.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT This research into teaching and learning in interdisciplinary thinking in interdisciplinary higher education was made possible by partial funding received from the lectorate on Food and Health of A.F. Dijkstra of Van Hall Larenstein University of Professional Education, The Netherlands.

REFERENCES •

BIGGS, J B (2003). Teaching for quality learning at university:

•

WHAT THE STUDENT DOES. BUCKINGHAM: SRHE/Open University Press.

•

BOIX MANSILLA, V AND DURAISING, E D (2007). Targeted assessment of students' interdisciplinary work: An empirically grounded framework proposed. The Journal of Higher Education, 78: 215-237.

•

BOIX MANSILLA, V, MILLER, W C AND GARDNER, H (2000). On disciplinary lenses and interdisciplinary work. In: Interdisciplinary curriculum: Challenges of implementation. WINEBURG, S and GROSSMAN, P eds. New York: Teachers College Press.

•

BRUCE, A, LYALL, C, TAIT, J AND WILLIAMS, R (2004). Interdisciplinary integration in Europe: The case of the Fifth Framework programme. Futures, 36: 457-470.

•

EWEL, K C (2001). Natural resource management: The need for interdisciplinary collaboration. Ecosystems, 4: 716-722.

•

FRANKS, D, DALE, P, HINDMARSH, R, FELLOWS, C, BUCKRIDGE, M AND CYBINSKI, P (2007). Interdisciplinary foundations: Reflecting on interdisciplinarity and three decades of teaching and research at Griffith University, Australia. Studies in Higher Education, 32:167-185.

77


GILKEY, M B AND EARP, J A L (2006). Effective interdisciplinary training: Lessons from the University of North Carolina's Student Health Action Coalition. Academic Medicine, 81: 749-758.

•

GRAYBILL, J K, DOOLING, S, SHANDAS, V, WITHEY, J, GREVE, A AND SIMON, G L (2006). A rough guide to interdisciplinarity: Graduate student perspectives. Bioscience, 56: 757-763.

•

HOLLEY, K (2009). The challenge of an interdisciplinary curriculum: a cultural analysis of a doctoral-degree program in neuroscience. Higher Education, 58: 241-255.

•

INNES, J L (2005). Multidisciplinarity, interdisciplinarity and training in forestry and forest research. The Forestry Chronicle, 81: 324-329.

•

IVANITSKAYA, L, CLARK, D, MONTGOMERY, G AND PRIMEAU, R (2002). Interdisciplinary learning: Process and outcomes. Innovative Higher Education, 27: 95-111.

•

JACOBSON, M J AND WILENSKY, U (2006). Complex systems in education: Scientific and educational importance and implications for the learning sciences. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 15: 11-34.

•

JAYKUS, L A AND WARD, D R (1999). An integrated approach: The future of graduate food safety education. Dairy, Food and Environmental Sanitation, 19: 14-17.

•

KLEIN, J T (1990). Interdisciplinarity: History, theory, and practice. Detroit: Wayne State University Press.

•

LUND, V, COLEMAN, G, GUNNARSSON, S, CALVERT APPLEBY, M ANDKARKINEN, K (2006). Animal welfare science - working at the interface between the natural and social sciences. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 97: 37-49.

•

LUNING, P A AND MARCELIS, W J (2006). A techno-managerial approach in food qualitymanagement research. Trends in Food Science & Technology, 17: 378385.

•

LUNING, P A AND MARCELIS, W J (2009a). Food Quality Management - Technological and managerial principles and practices. Wageningen: Wageningen Academic Publishers.

•

LUNING, P A AND MARCELIS, W J (2009b). A food quality management research methodology integrating technological and managerial theories. Trends in Food Science & Technology, 20: 35-44.

•

MANATHUNGA, C, LANT, P AND MELLICK, G (2006). Imagining an interdisciplinary doctoral pedagogy. Teaching in higher education, 11: 365-379.

78


MISRA, S, HARVEY, R H, STOKOLS, D, ET AL. (2009). Evaluating an interdisciplinary undergraduate training program in health promotion research. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 36: 358-365.

•

NEWELL, W H (1992). Academic disciplines and undergraduate interdisciplinary education: Lessons from the school of interdisciplinary studies at Miami University, Ohio. European Journal of Education, 27: 211-221.

•

NEWELL, W H (2007). Decision making in interdisciplinary studies. In: Handbook of decision making. MORÇÖL, G ed. New York: CRC Press.

•

NEWELL, W H (2009). Interdisciplinarity in undergraduate general education. In: The Oxford handbook on interdisciplinarity. FRODEMAN, R, KLEIN, J T and MITCHAM, C eds. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

•

PARR, D M AND VAN HORN, M (2006). Development of organic and sustainable agricultural education at the university of California, Davis: A closer look at practice and theory. Horttechnology, 16: 426-431.

•

SPELT, E J H, BIEMANS, H J A, Tobi, H, Luning, P A and Mulder, M (2009). Teaching and learning in interdisciplinary higher education: A systematic review. Educational Psychology Review, 21: 365-378.

•

STEFANI, L A J (2009). Assessment in interdisciplinary and interprofessional programs: Shifting paradigms. In: Interdisciplinary learning and teaching in higher education: Theory and practice. CHANDRAMOHAN, B and FALLOWS, S eds. New York: Routledge.

•

VAN MERRIËNBOER, J J G (1997). Training complex cognitive skills: A fourcomponent instructional design model for technical training. Englewood Cliffs (N.J.): Educational Technology.

•

VEDELD, P AND KROGH, E (2005). Crafting interdisciplinary in an M.Sc. programme in management of natural resources and sustainable agriculture. The Forestry Chronicle, 81: 330-336.

•

WARREN, K (2006). Postgraduate veterinary training in conservation medicine: an interdisciplinary program at Murdoch University, Australia. EcoHealth, 3: 57-65.

•

WOODS, C (2007). Researching and developing interdisciplinary teaching: Towards a conceptual framework for classroom communication Higher Education, 54: 853-866.

•

YANG, M (2009). Making interdisciplinary subjects relevant to students: An interdisciplinary approach. Teaching in higher education, 14: 597-606.

•

ZARIN, D J, KAINER, K A, PUTZ, F E, SCHMINK, M AND JACOBSON, S K (2003). Integrated graduate education and research in neotropical working forests. Journal of Forestry, 101: 31-37.

79


80


SKILLS SET DEVELOPMENT OF DOCTORAL GRADUATES AND POST DOCTORAL STAFF M. MARETE PhD Student Pennsylvania State University (USA)

SUMMARY Three pillars used to develop skills of early stage researchers are increased mobility, cooperation among higher education institutes, and interaction with nonacademic stakeholders. Experiences as a Borlaug Fellow and a doctoral candidate illustrate ways to leverage these pillars to enrich the doctoral and post-doctoral experience. The doctoral and post doctoral staff requires skills to discover, integrate, and apply knowledge as well as to teach. Mentoring, attending workshops and seminars are essential. To acquire professional competencies to meet challenges of the next decade, early stage researchers need to take up and create opportunities to observe and learn from experienced researchers, practitioners and colleagues.

INTRODUCTION This paper describes innovative approaches for bringing new skills into doctoral degree programmes and the continuing professional development of post-doctoral staff. The paper revisits three pillars used to develop skills of these early stage researchers: Increased mobility, cooperation among higher education institutes, and interaction with non-academic stakeholders. My personal experience of how these three pillars have been brought to bear on my doctoral program will be illustrated. My doctoral research is funded by the Borlaug Leadership Enhancement in Agriculture Programme (LEAP). The Borlaug LEAP is a fellowship program, funded by the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), to enhance the quality of thesis research of graduate students from developing countries who show strong promise as leaders in the field of agriculture and related disciplines (http://leap.ucdavis.edu/). My research focuses on the assessment of a collaborative agro-business project involving Penn State and Tuskegee universities in the United States and the University of Nairobi in Kenya. This paper will explore my experiences with the Borlaug LEAP application and selection process. The paper will also highlight my graduate experience as a pioneer member of the International Agriculture & Rural Development Forum at Penn State and my monthly participation in seminars organized by the Interinstitutional Consortium for Indigenous Knowledge (ICIK) at Penn State. Discussions of my mentors/mentee experience as well as my graduate experience will follow. Finally, conclusions will be drawn on implications of these experiences to enhance the professional skills of doctoral and post doctoral staff.

81


METHODS The LEAP program requires that, before submitting an application, an applicant must identify an academic mentor as well as a non-academic mentor. The latter must be employed by one of the 15 international agricultural research centers that comprise the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR). My academic mentor is professor emeriti at Pennsylvania State University in the United States and also the co-director of ICIK. The academic mentor worked with me to identify the non-academic mentor. The task proved difficult as neither of us had prior knowledge of anyone at the CGIAR centers. After a few weeks of unsuccessful effort to identify a CGIAR mentor, the Director of International Programs at Penn State sent out a request to CGIAR headquarters at Washington, DC. The CGIAR headquarters subsequently sent a message to all their research centers requesting whether any researcher would be interested in mentoring a doctoral candidate. The message also described my research interest. A response came back promptly form Dr. Kristin Davis of International Food Policy Research Institute at Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. Her research interests were a perfect match to mine. Funding for travel to meet with my geographically dispersed mentors and interact with researchers in other organizations was provided through the LEAP fellowship. Faceto-face meetings with both mentors, as well as communication through Skype, email, and telephone facilitated our communication. ICIK hosts monthly seminars that draw speakers from various disciplines and organizations to share their experiences in integrating scientific research and indigenous knowledge. Many of the speakers are identified through networks of researchers. A challenge that exists for early stage researchers is to identify and prioritize opportunities for learning that ICIK and other similar professional development forums provide. Such opportunities help the researchers to not only extend knowledge, but also integrate and apply it. Students interested in international agricultural issues at Penn State came together to form an organization, The International Agriculture and Rural Development Forum. The Forum meets monthly and provides a venue for exchange of ideas and information. As a doctoral student, I have benefited immensely through insights offered in these sessions. Students meet with their peers and freely exchange information about the research in which they are engaged. They also invite speakers to make presentations on topics related to international agricultural issues. This broadens students’ perspectives and equips them to engage in a meaningful dialogue on international agricultural matters. These insights are particularly relevant in the rapidly changing global and international environment.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION The LEAP fellowship model is worth exploring further and lessons gleaned and documented for use in establishing or enhancing similar programmes. While identifying a suitable and willing mentor can be challenging, the experience of having an academic and a non-academic mentor creates an incredible learning opportunity. Face-to-face interaction among like-minded individuals remains critical in knowledge systems (Wagner, 2009). The early stage researcher gains

82

Comm. Appl. Biol. Sci, Ghent University, 75/1, 2010 valuable experience and becomes better equipped to perform competently the scholarship of discovery, integration, application or teaching (Alter, 2005). Doctoral and post-doctoral programmes provide early stage researchers with useful opportunities for professional growth. Caroline Wagner, author of “The Invisible College: Science for Development”, notes that the networks of scientists who shared scientific information during the time of Sir Isaac Newton and Irish chemist Robert Boyle are still relevant today as early stage researchers interact and exchange ideas and information (Wagner, 2009). Wagner observes that networks among scientists have no geographic or disciplinary boundaries, with new ideas emerging from the combination and recombination of people and knowledge. She further states that researchers with freedom to identify people and tools can advance their work by organizing themselves into groups. This organizing process makes interactions among researchers, face-to-face contacts between scientists, and cooperation among academic and non-academic stakeholders crucial for professional growth at the doctoral and postdoctoral levels. Early stage researchers need to leverage academic and non-academic opportunities to learn and acquire skills. As a result, the early stage researchers gain knowledge of the more experienced researchers in their areas of interest, the type of research they conduct and where they publish their findings. The LEAP program provides strong mentoring program for early stage researchers. The late Nobel Laureate Norman Borlaug, with support from policy makers, scientists and philanthropists, catalyzed a global effort to deal with wheat rust (Spielman & Pandya-Lorch, 2009). Under the leadership of Norman Borlaug, free information was shared and germplasm exchanged, facilitating unprecedented cooperation in agricultural research. Dr. Borlaug established the LEAP fellowship to enable early stage researchers to harness resources and advance knowledge in their area of interest. Once the mentoring process begins, the LEAP Fellow learns a great deal by interacting with two different mentors. My interactions with the academic and non-academic mentor yielded valuable lessons. The academic and nonacademic mentors also interact and in the process learn from one another. Mentors help doctoral students and post docs to set clear career goals. Reflective writing of experiences is core to successful mentoring. Reflection on one’s activities is imperative. A scholar must go “beyond doing” and think of their work from varying perspectives. Reflection is important to help conceptualize one’s plans, plan for change and move to a new experience. Reflection enables the scholar to develop solutions and consequently add to knowledge base and develop new skills. Alternating periods of goal setting and reassessment should be common to all scholars. Although the mentors found it necessary for an individual to pursue a specialized field of study, they emphasized that flexibility was important to enable one to adjust according to circumstances. Additionally, the mentors recognized the need to keep a portfolio and to make notes of ideas that cross one’s mind concerning their research project. Observing a mentor’s attitude and values is essential in developing enabling doctoral and post doc staff to develop a professional attitude. The mentors discussed with me professional ethics and values. According to the mentors a professional should have integrity, persistence, creativity and courage. In the work of a scholar credit should be accorded to respective persons for the work the scholar uses in his or her work and any citations should be done professionally.

83

Comm. Appl. Biol. Sci, Ghent University, 75/1, 2010 Professional networks are also created through the ICIK seminars and list serve. Professional networks are recognized as essential in career development. Networks, described as interpersonal linkages including informal relationships, are characterized by familiarity and trust. Therefore, one should take every opportunity to develop networks with professionals and colleagues in the specific area of interest. Studying networks of researchers across institutions nationally and internationally can provide insights on how information is exchanged and research findings put into use. Ways to enhance these networks could be identified and information shared on a wider scale. Seminars and conferences are essential forums to further develop professional networks and hone professional skills. During my visit to Addis Ababa, Dr. Davis introduced me to several researchers with whom I shared common interest. I gained valuable insights from discussions with them about my research project and the work they were engaged in. Exchange of information on current developments in my field of study was helpful to my research perspective. Both mentors singled out professional associations as very essential to professional development. The mentors valued their graduate experiences for enabling them to adjust from graduate school to faculty and research positions seamlessly. The Interinistitutional Consortium for Indigenous Knowledge (ICIK) hosts seminars that enhance professional development of doctoral and post-doctoral early stage researchers. Discussions held broaden the perspectives of participants and create awareness of expertise in various fields. Knowledge may be scientific or technical and can originate from scientific discovery, use or reorganization of internal and indigenous practices and behaviors (Spielman, Davis, Negash, & Ayele, 2008). Knowledge of expertise in one’s research area of interest in academia, industry and non-profit sectors is crucial. Thus discussions and consultations with professionals conducting similar research to that one is interested in are essential. The discussions stimulate critical thinking and greater awareness of other perspectives.

CONCLUSION The mentors discussed their work with admirable enthusiasm. I watched them as they worked and interacted with other professional. They discussed with me the experiences that prepared them to be remarkable scholars and researchers. The mentors also discussed their current work and research. Insights from the two mentors gave me an opportunity to ponder over the kind of the doctoral staff I should be to advance my career. The mentors enabled me to realize that although establishing credentials as a scholar and making a significant contribution to knowledge is important, insights from other disciplines are also essential if one is to develop a broader perspective on pertinent issues. Therefore, sharing of knowledge with other researchers as well as networking is crucial. The interactions one makes as a doctoral or post doc staff are important to professional growth. Doctoral or post doc staff have the responsibility to develop networks, maintain them and draw upon them to identify opportunities, acquire resources and respond to needs. Understanding issues and reflecting on the consequences of one’s work is important. Additionally, reflecting on the opinions of mentors and other experts regarding one’s work and making the necessary adjustment is important in helping acquire professional qualities. Ethical concerns and social values are also important to the work of a professional.

84

Comm. Appl. Biol. Sci, Ghent University, 75/1, 2010 Integrity, perseverance, courage and creativity should be closely weaved into the character of a professional. Good mentoring relationships with academic and nonacademic professionals and also creating opportunities for doctoral and post doc staff to exchange ideas will develop highly competent researchers performing the scholarship of discovery, integration application, and teaching.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT Funding for the research was provided by Borlaug LEAP fellowship program. The College of Agricultural Sciences and the Agricultural and Extension Education department at Penn State provided financial and technical support. The mentors for the project were Dr. Kristin Davis of International Food Policy Research Institute and Dr. Audrey Maretzki of Penn State.

REFERENCES •

ALTER, T. R. (2005). Achieving the promise of public scholarship. In S. J. PETERS, N. R. JORDAN, M. ADAMEK & T. R. ALTER (Eds.), Engaging campus and community: The practice of public scholarship in the state and land grant university system (pp. 461-487). Dayton, OH: Kettering Foundation Press.

•

IRA MATICSKE (2008). Evaluating the impact of social networks in rural innovation systems. IFPRI Discussion Paper No. 00816. Washington, DC: International Food and Policy Research Institute.

•

SPIELMAN, D. J., & PANDYA-LORCH, R. (2009). Millions Fed: Proven successes in agricultural development. International Food and Policy Research Institute, Washington, DC.

•

SPIELMAN, D. J., DAVIS, E. K., NEGASH, M., & AYELE, G. (2008). Rural Innovation Systems and Networks: Findings from a Study of Ethiopian Smallholders. IFPRI Discussion Paper No. 00759. Washington, DC: International Food Policy Research Institute.

•

WAGNER, C. (2008). The invisible college: Science for development. Brookings Institution Press, Washington, DC.

•

BORLAUG LEADERSHIP ENHANCEMENT http://leap.ucdavis.edu/

IN

AGRICULTURE PROGRAMME

85

(LEAP). Website:


86


THE PLACE OF SUMMER SCHOOLS IN DEVELOPING SKILLS AND INTERDISCIPLINARY KNOWLEDGE AND UNDERSTANDING. SUSTAINABLE UTILIZATION OF RENEWABLE RESOURCES: FROM AVAILABILITY TOWARDS USABILITY A. HUBER1 & W. PRAZNIK² 1 KFUG - Karl-Franzens Univ. Graz, IfC - Inst. f. Chem. / CePoL/MC - Central Polymer Lab / Molecular Characteristics, Heinrichstrasse 28, 8010 Graz / Austria ² Department of Chemistry, BOKU University of Natural Resources & Applied Life Science, Muthgassse 18, 1190 Vienna / Austria

Major theme: Skills set development of doctoral graduates and post-doctoral staff Topic: The place of summer schools in developing skills and interdisciplinary knowledge and understanding There is no doubt that 'Renewables' will be the dominant raw materials in the future. Adequate processing of these materials combined with the increasing request for sustainable technologies, however, cannot be achieved by simple substitution of fossil by renewable raw materials. Some of the extra-challenges to be handled when dealing with renewable resources are: • • •

to understand superimposed cooperative heterogeneities to design integral and sustainable valorization approaches to focus on template compounds for technologies in development towards balanced and economically reasonable processes

Although there still is the need for well educated scientists and engineers there is an additional qualification arising as tasks tend to become more and more complex: inter-& cross-disciplinary communication and cooperation skills. Intensive Programmes (IP) are a valuable tool to meet this situation as an add-on to traditional study programmes in multiple ways: IP-topics such as 'Sustainable Utilization of Renewable Resources' attract as well natural science educated, engineering educated as economy-educated students an heterogeneous international audience meets international teachers / instructors two weeks full-time activity in varying teams forces communication two weeks the chance to meet teachers / instructors even outside the classroom ECTS awarded examined cross- & interdisciplinary skills. A basic contribution to such an IP on Renewables will be presented: the background of complexity in the performance of renewable materials and the difference to performance of fossil materials. The contributions and activities in the IP on

87

Comm. Appl. Biol. Sci, Ghent University, 75/1, 2010 'Renewables' on the one hand shifts complexity from intuition to scientific terms, on the other hand introduces and demonstrates a range of options and approaches to handle complexity and provides the benefit of networking and interdisciplinary cooperation.

88


PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS FOR EARLY CAREER INVESTIGATORS C. MARCUS Oregon State University, College of Agricultural Sciences, Dept. of Environmental and Molecular Toxicology, Corvallis, OR. 97331, USA.

SUMMARY Early career investigators today are challenged to succeed in a world of exceptionally competitive, rapidly changing, as well as generally declining, extramural funding resources. It has become apparent that in order to be successful, most new investigators require additional career development mentoring and grantsmanship training, compared to their peers of only a few years ago. Thus, it has become imperative for academic institutions and their established senior faculty to provide new mechanisms of training and mentoring for early career scientists to support their career development and quest for extramural research funding. This paper briefly describes two new programs of professional development for early career investigators, implemented or in the process of implementation at two research-intensive universities in the US. The target audience includes highly motivated senior graduate students, post doctoral scientists and early career faculty members pursuing interdisciplinary basic, clinical or translational science career tracks. The first program described herein has been implemented at two universities as an independent program. The second, substantively more extensive program is in the process of implementation, and includes all elements of the first program as a key component. Key words: Professional development, Early career scientists, Mentoring strategies

INTRODUCTION In the current highly competitive climate of reduced extramural grant funding resources and the resulting exceptionally highly competitive nature of the funding milieu, it has become apparent that in order to be successful, current new investigators almost universally require additional mentoring and grantsmanship training, compared to new investigators of only a few years ago. Thus, it has become imperative for academic institutions and their senior established research faculty to provide new mechanisms of training and mentoring for early career faculty to support their early career development and quest for extramural research funding by developing formalized training programs in areas not generally included in traditional didactic graduate curricula and post-graduate training programs. These programs need to focus at least in part on grantsmanship, leadership, and lab development and management skills and strategies. (NAS, 2007)

89


Materials and Methods Professional Development Colloquium (PDC): The first program (which is also a component of the second program) consists of a monthly ‘Professional Development Colloquium (PDC)’, accompanied by a formal and dynamic individual mentoring process by senior faculty. This colloquium is designed to provide a structured venue for training early career scientists in topics not covered in traditional graduate and post doctoral curricula, focusing on the process of developing and building a successful academic career. Special emphasis is placed on strategies for developing independent research programs and building grantsmanship skills and strategies. The Colloquium is designed to provide a collegial training and mentoring environment, promote professional research career development and establish social as well as professional networks between both new investigators and senior investigators. The Colloquium includes both didactic presentations and student-centered activelearning exercises. The PDC is designed to accommodate the concepts of ‘andragogy’, which is broadly defined as the science of helping adults learn, in contrast to ‘pedagogy’, the science of helping children learn. This concept, articulated by Malcom Knowles (Knowles, 1970), recognizes the key concepts that adult learners are substantially more self-directed in their learning process and usually assume much greater responsibility for learning outcomes. Furthermore, the concept of andragogy dictates that the design of adult learning models must recognize that most adults need to learn experientially rather than didactically, and that adults adopt a primarily problem-solving approach to learning. Recognition of these key aspects of the adult learning process then dictates that the PDC is designed to encompass primarily active learning exercises, with the mentors and instructors adopting primarily a role of facilitator or ‘facilitutor’, rather than a traditional didactic instructor for the workshop sessions. The PDC consists of a formal and dynamic individual mentoring process, and is designed to provide a venue for training early career investigators in successful grantsmanship skills and strategies, as well as for the sharing and discussion of issues pertaining to early career investigators for the process of developing and building their independent research programs. The objective is to provide a collegial training and mentoring environment and for the development of research and scholarly collaborations while promoting professional research career development and establishing social as well as professional networks between both new investigators and senior investigators. The monthly training sessions focus on development of research skills, employing both didactic presentations and trainee-centered workshop exercises. The HHMI faculty development manual “Making the Right Moves” (HHMI, 2006a) is used as the primary resource text for this course for early career investigators participating in the Colloquium and the accompanying HHMI faculty mentoring manual “Training Scientists to Make the Right Moves” (HHMI 2006b) is utilized as the primary resource and guide for mentors. Although the curriculum for the Professional Development Colloquium utilizes the HHMI manuals to direct major components of the curriculum, it is well recognized that not all participants in the Colloquium will be applying solely to the National Institutes of Health (NIH), a primary focus of the HHMI manuals, although the basic principals addressed by the HHMI manuals are

90

Comm. Appl. Biol. Sci, Ghent University, 75/1, 2010 generally applicable to any funding agency. Therefore, the curriculum also addresses the strategies of selecting the most appropriate funding agency and review panel, and also the differences in funding application, submission, and review processes between various major US funding agencies such as NIH, NSF, USDA, CSREES, DOE, DOD, as well as domestic and international private foundations. The curriculum addresses this by including speakers with specific experience with each of these agencies, thus rendering the curriculum broadly applicable to early career investigators in the biomedical, agricultural, and physical sciences and engineering disciplines. The twelve monthly meetings are formatted as working luncheons, with time for socialization and networking over lunch at the beginning of each session. The curriculum begins with several engaging didactic presentations on an appropriate topics (e.g., grantsmanship, new electronic grant application formats and procedures, experimental design and data analysis, technology development and emerging new areas of scientific technology, funding sources, compliance, lab management, etc.). These initial limited didactic presentations convey an essential but minimal amount of key knowledge and content, and are followed by more extensive subsequent colloquium sessions entailing short didactic presentations enhanced and supplemented with active learning workshop-like exercises that include activities such as reading funded grants, grant applications that were submitted but not funded, writing practice grant reviews, and participating in mock grant review panels. Importantly, after these initial exercises, and during subsequent colloquium meetings, the participants must submit their own grant applications to the group of mentees and receive reviews from the senior faculty and other mentee participants. Thus mentees gain grantsmanship experience by both writing applications and participating in the review process. All participating mentees are also required to submit at least one extramural grant application annually during the course of their participation in the Colloquium. An important resource for these new investigators participating in the colloquium is access to a panel of experienced researchers established under the auspices of the PDC to review grant applications for participants in the Colloquium prior to submission to external funding agencies. All mentees participating in the PDC are also required to acquire a formal mentor in the form of a senior investigator, a process which the Colloquium fosters, supports and expedites. The Mentors selected by the mentees are required to attend one or more formal mentor training sessions, and utilize the HHMI Mentor Training manual as their guide for mentoring activities. This ensures that a consistent, high quality mentor-mentee relationship develops. As a key component of the program, each participant in the Professional Development Colloquium is required to identify a mentor. Importantly, in order for this mentoring experience to be successful, both the mentor and mentee must have a clear understanding of their roles in the relationship and be active participants. Therefore, The Colloquium participant mentee is required to work with their Department Head to identify an appropriate faculty member to serve as the mentor. Typically, the mentor must be a senior, productive research scientist with a strong track record of extramural funding. The mentor may or may not be in the same department as the mentee. The Department Head is responsible (in

91

Comm. Appl. Biol. Sci, Ghent University, 75/1, 2010 cooperation with the mentee) to monitor the mentee’s progress, resolve any mentor/mentee conflicts/problems, or terminate unproductive mentor/mentee relationships and reassign the mentee to a new mentor. The Director of the Professional Development Colloquium works with the mentees department heads to assign mentors and monitor mentee progress. Due to the critical role of the mentor in this program, Colloquium mentors are required to commit to be willing and able to invest time the considerable time required to effectively mentor an early career investigator, be readily accessible to the mentee, meet regularly with the mentee, and be a good communicator. The charge to the mentor is many-fold, but includes the expectation that the mentor will assist the mentee to develop a rigorous scientific thought process, facilitate networking for the new investigator by introducing them to key people and organizations at their institution, and provide detailed and constructive mentoring for the mentee as they develop their first grant proposals, research design methods, and manuscripts. As a major component of the trainee-centered active learning process, mentees in the program also are required assume significant obligations toward the success of the mentoring relationship, and must always be open and not defensive toward to the mentors comments and suggestions. Mentees must be realistic and have clear and reasonable expectations for the mentoring process and its outcomes. Mentees are expected to meet regularly with their mentors and be highly communicative. The mentee is responsible for working closely with the mentor to establish clear goals and a timeline for the scope of the mentor/mentee relationship, as well as establish clear criteria for the completion of the mentoring goals and accomplishment of the intended goals. The second new training program for early career investigators, is currently in the implementation process and is funded in part by two NIH Center and Training Grants. This second program constitutes a more comprehensive, multi-year ‘Career Development Program (CDP)’, designed to provide novel interdisciplinary educational and training activities not generally provided in traditional graduate curricula, but with a much more extensive training program. Given the ever increasing team-oriented and interdisciplinary nature of scientific research, these skills are critically needed by new investigators (NRC, 2009). The CDP is being designed to be offered to early career investigators to support their initial career development and increase the participation of underrepresented minorities and women in the sciences. The CDP is designed to provide a structured, goal-oriented framework to ensure mentees incorporate lifelong learning strategies into their career. The target audience is junior-, mid- and even senior-career level faculty in need of continuing education, to ensure continued productivity and promotion within the academic community. The CDP consists of 2 coordinated, tiered, and integrated components:

92

n O m ct gn e ve on io Dni tati slat tudy pide olle esianc II D pli n C e ra E ta S a archom el I & ics lem al/T D p e C at s ic m ev y I Clin Reics & cs L orm f ud i t n t h I t S is lE tat ica ios d B e om Bi

& nt rre u C

s pic logies ip o T hno nsh ncynt ing g Tec tsmapegteeme arch n s a e ar gin GranCom an es ome gy Le Emer ty M al R utc iolo ion rsi &

93 Un de rst an Kn din ow g led ge

0 Int eg ra tio Ap n pli ca tio n

1

2

3

4

# of Learn ing Module s

Figure 1: Personalized interdisciplinary professional development program for Scholars Program of the CDP.


Comm. Appl. Biol. Sci, Ghent University, 75/1, 2010 1) Scholars Program: A program to specifically develop existing early career faculty, with an emphasis on encouraging faculty to pursue interdisciplinary career development. This component of the CDP consists primarily of a ‘Certificate in Interdisciplinary Research’, awarded upon completion of a novel and transformative supplemental training program for graduate students, post docs or faculty to support development of interdisciplinary research careers. Each certificate program is customized to the needs and goals of individual CDP participants by providing individualized training from a menu of courses, seminars and symposia at two collaborating universities. 2) The Professional Development Colloquium (PDC) as described above is also a required component for all CDP trainees. Participants in the CDP create individualized training programs by selecting training activities from a menu of modular, interdisciplinary learning topics of appropriate career development-focused learning fields (Figure 1). For example, a mentee might develop a personalized training program from 12 of the topics offered by the training program, such as: Informatics; Biostatistics Level I & II; Biomedical Ethics & Compliance; Research Design; Data Collection; Epidemiology; Study Outcomes; Clinical/Translational Research; Study Implementation & Management; Diversity Competency; Grantsmanship; and Current & Emerging Technologies. Each learning topic is offered at four (4) increasing levels of tiered competency (1= Basic Knowledge; 2= Understanding; 3= Application; 4= Integration. Mentees take one or more modules, depending upon their initial level of knowledge and desired endpoint level of expertise. Not all levels of all modules thus need to be taken by each trainee, enabling a highly efficient learning program. Thus a highly individualized ‘Development Plan’ for each mentee is formalized with a ‘Mentoring Committee’. An important secondary goal is to cross-train early career scientists across multiple disciplines in order to develop highly effective and productive team-oriented investigators well positioned to effect cutting edge translational research in the environmental, agricultural, biomedical and engineering sciences. The professional development programs described herein are continually managed and assessed by a ‘Career Development Director’ and a ‘Mentoring Committee’ in order to verify the planned goals are being achieved and the program is satisfying the needs of the trainees. The evaluation strategy assesses both ‘Process’ and ‘Outcome’. Process evaluation focuses on whether the Career Development program is effectively provided to trainees, while Outcome evaluation focuses on program outcomes and impact for trainees and their stakeholders. Outcome evaluation activities contribute to both the ‘formative’ and ‘summative’ evaluation of the CDP. ‘Formative’ evaluation is iterative and provides data for ongoing program improvement and the ‘Summative’ evaluation provides data to guide the evaluation process.

94


RESULTS The first of the two early career professional development described herein, the Professional Development Colloquium (PDC), has been offered for two years at one research intensive university and one year at a second. All three times, the PDC program enrolled a multidisciplinary group of early career investigators from multiple disciplines and multiple colleges. During the first 2 years this program was offered at the first institution, approximately 15 early career investigators participated each year. Of this initial cohort of trainees, 25 submitted one or more grant applications for intra- or extramural funding during the 12 months of the Colloquium or during the following 12 months, and 15 were awarded one (or in several cases multiple) grant awards, ranging in amounts from $8000 to over $1 million dollars. At the second institution, a smaller cohort of 10 early career investigators participated, and submitted 6 applications during the course of the Colloquium or within 6 months following the program. Of these, 3 received funding, in amounts ranging from $25,000 to $2,000,000, and one the post doctoral participants was offered a tenured track assistant professor position at another institution, in large part due to their early funding success.

DISCUSSION While it is difficult to quantitatively assess the impact of the Colloquium in generating the observed success rate for participants, it is reasonable to assume that the Colloquium program substantively aided many if not all these early career investigators in developing successful research programs. The extra mural funding success rates for the participants appears subjectively to be higher than the generally recognized aggregate success rates for early career investigators. It also fostered interdisciplinary networking, and generated several novel and collaborative interdisciplinary grant applications between new investigators first brought together through the Colloquium.

REFERENCES •

HHMI (2006a) Making the Right Moves: A Practical Guide to Scientific Management for Postdocs and New Faculty. Burroughs Wellcome Fund and Howard Hughes Medical Institute (http://www.hhmi.org/catalog/main?action=product&itemId=314)

•

HHMI (2006b) Training Scientists to Make the Right Moves: A Practical Guide to Developing Pro-grams in Scientific Management. Burroughs Wellcome Fund and Howard Hughes Medical Institute. (http://www.hhmi.org/catalog/main?action=product&itemId=314)

•

KNOWLES, MALCOLM S. (1970) The Modern Practice of Adult Education; Andragogy versus Pedagogy. The Association Press, 291 Broadway, New York, N.Y. 10007 pp. 384

95


NAS (2007) “Rising Above the Gathering Storm: Energizing and Employing America for a Brighter Economic Future”. (2007) National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, and Institute of Medicine. 592 pp. The National Academies Press. Washington, D.C. ISBN: 0-309-65442-4 (http://www.nap.edu/catalog/11463.html)

•

NRC (2009) A New Biology for the 21st Century: Ensuring the United States Leads the Coming Biology Revolution. National Research Council. 112 pp. ISBN: 0-309-14489-2 (http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12764.html)

96


PROJECTORIES FROM HUMAN RESOURCES MODEL THROUGH “DATAS” A. CAILLÈRES1 AND P.H. DUÉE² 1 Institut national de la recherché agronomique (INRA) ²Centre de Versailles-Grignon, RD 10, 78 026 Versailles (France)

How a Human Resources frame will allow a modelling of projectories, for a wide range of roles and jobs to be attained by PhDs, through opening partnership, for brain circulation.The intent of the project is to lead actual size experimentation, throughout limited number of PhD’s students.

MAIN POINTS UNDERLYING THE APPROACH At a time of fast changing world and when new questions are to be asked and answered, our societies are in great need of PhDs skills. They are among the most mobile categories of workers. Yet, if EU countries produce more science and engineering graduates and PhDs than the US, yet, many European graduates, doctorate holders move away from research careers or pursue research in other countries for better opportunities. Too much training in traditional academic or in “moulding” ways does not equip them at best for the needs of knowledge economy. To make doctoral candidates become, as Frascati definition indicates: “Professionals engaged in the conception and creation of new knowledge, products, processes, methods and systems in the modern knowledge economy.” whatever will be their roles and jobs, doctoral candidates have to be introduced to intellectual, relational mobility, to brain circulation and its rules. New links between knowledge and economy bring public and private firms to create consortiums, to cross-talk/ engineer/ organize trans-disciplinarily, on local, regional, European and international levels, to think about trajectories for their own, without colliding. It is now a must for these new structures, that they invest in new knowledge and new questions that have to be put and answered within the range of complexity and interactions between economic, social, ethical stakes.

MILESTONES OF THE PROJECT Projectories A PhD has to become a project owner, has to make his thesis a projectory, thanks to him and his interlocutors of the partnership, supervisors. He can find benefit in being anchored in local and aware of global challenges. He has to be gifted with entrepreneurial and control spirit, resourceful so that to engineer scientific, economic, social, experimental, cultural data’s, and rely on his own resources to make the whole works. He has to be able to manage intellectual property, negotiate, handle company’s communication, address non profit organizations and civil society about risks, industry about potential capital gain, transfer to partners and train other teams, young people. So that, he has to be able to product new questions and knowledge.

97


Human resources project mode Our intent is to forge a frame for good processing of data’s collection and treatment, and propose a modus operandi, a how to put in practice projectories. We shall use this method for (1) integration of information through interconnecting brains for reengineering data’s through different points of views, (2) transparency and friendliness, (3) transactional exchanges and agreements, (4) meta-rules for partnership so that can be introduced derogations to general rules and procedures. This method will be put into practice at two levels: (1) a collective one, i.e. an organization of a human resources service as a “business and science partner” and (2) an individual one, i.e. profiles continuously staked out resources/competences/languages. So that thesis projectories do make research attractive because (1) providing accelerators for integration in research jobs or others and (2) cimenting relations between universities and firms, knowledge and economy, through dynamic process for translation of knowledge in results.

Some key themes 6 months before thesis: education “for” research • • • •

Information of what is research process in European and knowledge economy society, recruitment or assessments of candidates, portfolios for traceability of competences reflection about status, contracts, agreements, roles for PhD’s “workers”

3 years during thesis Topics will focused on ecological engineery of city stakes to match sustainable development of the city integrating services from periurban agriculture. Concrete actions will be focused on raising data for developing skills useful to interdisciplinary knowledge and understanding, and fostering innovation and entrepreneurship in doctoral students.

6 months after In purpose of recognition of mobility experience, and qualifications acquired combined with training sessions, our intent is to certify skills or transferability of skills to other jobs than research, through the assessment of: •

•

competent and indisputable juries mainly composed of private companies and PhD’ supervisors. They will deliver the students certificates of qualification, and help identifying different work paths possibilities, competent and indisputable juries mainly composed of universities’ officers. They will deliver the student certificates of accreditation.

The partnership and its network will be rallied for job seeking employment.

98


PARTNERS Research organizations and universities, doctorate schools, federations of firms, high school, Phds association, town halls.

DURATION Four years, i.e. 6 months before thesis/3 years of education “for” research conducting thesis as a projectory through own way of doing and mobility /6 months after thesis: projectory for jobs through research

99


100


DOCTORAL DEGREES FOR CAPACITY DEVELOPMENT RESULTS FROM A SURVEY AMONG THE AFRICAN ALUMNI OF A GERMAN DEVELOPMENT RESEARCH INSTITUTE B. SCHRAVEN1, I. EGUAVOEN1 AND G. MANSKE1 1

University of Bonn, Center for Development Research, Walter-Flex-Str. 3, 53115 Bonn, Germany

SUMMARY Based on the experiences of 65 African alumni of the Bonn Interdisciplinary Graduate School for Development Studies – most of them being graduates in the area of agricultural or life sciences -, this paper elaborates how successful capacity development can be organized via academic migration. The results of the alumni survey clearly indicate that a doctoral program organized as home-tie-oriented training offers a solid base for supporting capacity development processes. Such a program framework supports the establishment or maintenance of necessary social networks with former and present colleagues, African employers, as well as with other professionals or research institutions. The common practice of African employers to send staff and students to Bonn for the doctoral training as well as other home-tie components help guarantee an attractive carrier perspective for the graduates in their home countries. The survey results also show that many African alumni have the chance to contribute their knowledge, expertise and experience to political and societal processes in their home countries even though this takes place on an institutional level rather than on an individual level. This development-relevant involvement in consultancy and decision-making processes can mainly be explained by the selection of doctoral candidates from African institutions with good linkages and a consultancy status that can communicate their research results and have impacts at the national level. Key words: Africa, Germany, capacity development, educational migration, training program.

101


102


THIRD SESSION INNOVATIVE MODELS FOR DOCTORAL AND GRADUATE RESEARCH SCHOOLS

103


104


BUILDING TRANS-ATLANTIC GRADUATE EDUCATION PROGRAMS IN BIORENEWABLE RESOURCES L.A. JOHNSON1 AND A. PROCTOR2 1

Iowa State University, Center for Crops Utilization Research, Ames, IA, USA 2 University of Arkansas, Dept. of Food Science, Fayetteville, AR, USA

SUMMARY We are now faced with increasingly expensive motor fuels and agriculture has potential to partially relieve these pressures. The 2007 U.S. Energy Independence and Security Act calls for the U.S. to replace with renewable fuels about 36 billion gallons of its annual 150 billion gallon motor fuel consumption by 2022. This is a monumental task that can only be achieved by conducting innovative research to discover breakthrough technologies and by educating scientists and engineers around the world. Three European and three U.S. institutions have forged partnerships that have enabled 4-6 month graduate student and faculty exchanges, faculty and graduate student participation in two-week intensive courses in both the E.U. and U.S., and sharing of educational materials. With two years to go on a second grant, 23 U.S. students have been sent to the E.U. for 4-6 months and the E.U. has sent 29 students to the U.S. Another 38 U.S. students and 36 faculty have participated in two-week intensive programs in Europe; and five E.U. students and two faculty came to the U.S. to learn and teach, respectively, in our intensive program. Key words: biorewables, biofuels, study abroad, international exchanges

INTRODUCTION U.S. agriculture and perhaps even global agriculture are going through a revolution. We now expect agriculture to deliver biorenewable fuels, industrial chemicals and biobased materials in addition to its traditional role of providing food, feed and fiber. Over the past five years, biofuels and biobased products have emerged as new international research, development and education priorities. The advances resulting from these efforts will undoubtedly lead to a new “Bioeconomy” delivering energy, motor fuels and environmentally friendly consumer products (plastics, adhesives, construction materials, etc.) as well as the food we need. If the dreams of a new global economy based on annually renewable agricultural feedstocks instead of non-renewable petroleum are to be realized, new graduate education programs on a global scale will be needed. These educational programs must be put in place quickly to deliver highly trained graduates in science and engineering needed now by industry to create innovative and economic technologies. Additionally, we must focus on sustainability, as the Bioeconomy would fall seriously short of expectations if it merely leads to replacing unsustainable petroleum systems with unsustainable agricultural systems that threaten our soils and water. A new global bioeconomy based on biorenewable

105

Comm. Appl. Biol. Sci, Ghent University, 75/1, 2010 resources from agriculture is viewed by many policymakers as one of the best sources of new employment opportunities that can lead the global economy out of recession. Leaders like Professor Roland Verhe recognize that the education and research needs of the Bioeconomy are best met by developing international approaches and partnerships. The task is too great for one institution or even one country to “go it alone.”

STUDY-ABROAD PROGRAMS IN BIORENEWABLE RESOURCES Professor Verhe of Ghent originated the concept of graduate student study-abroad experiences in biorenewable resources and secured the initial EU-US grant from the European Commission’s Directorate for Education and Culture in 2004. The U.S. partners then submitted the same grant to the Atlantis Program at the U.S. Department of Education’s Fund for Improvement of Post-Secondary Education to obtain parallel funding. The first of two biorenewable resources projects was the “Renewable Resources and Clean Technology” program in 2004-2008; the second program was “Integral Valorization of Bio-Production,” funded for 2008-2012. Integral valorization means the essential or true nature, value or cost. It relates to the life cycle or “carbon footprint” of all energy and material inputs and outputs of a particular energy source or other biomaterial. EU-US Atlantis is an umbrella program for a variety of innovative educational opportunities for students and faculty to study and conduct research abroad and to develop curricula. The Atlantis Program in Biorenewables and Clean Technologies led by Professor Verhe is the first attempt to develop global graduate education and research programs in biorenewable resources. His efforts to forge linkages between key European and U.S. institutions form the basis for global graduate education and postdoctoral professional development in agriculture and life sciences, which is clearly a challenge for the next decade and the theme of this conference. While Professor Verhé has led many different international education programs in agriculture and food sciences, several of which we have participated in, I will focus this paper on those that have involved Iowa State University (ISU) and other U.S. institutions in biorenewable resources in the EU-US Atlantis Program. ISU has and continues to participate in the two trans-Atlantic programs with the E.U. costs funded by the Socrates Program, now known as the Life Long Learning Program, and the U.S. costs (∼$45,000 per year) by the Fund for Improvement of PostSecondary Education (FIPSE) of the U.S. Department of Education. The partnership has included the University of Arkansas (U.S. lead coordinator), Iowa State University, University of Washington (Seattle), and Kansas State University on the U.S. side, and Karl Franzen University of Graz (Austria), the National Polytechnic Institute of Toulouse (France), and the University of Ghent in the lead on the E.U. side. These grant awards enable six graduate students from each institution to study abroad for 4-6 months at each of the trans-Atlantic institutions (three for each of two grants). This means that a total of 36 students from Europe can travel to the three U.S. institutions and 36 graduate students from the U.S. can travel to the three European institutions by the end of the two grants. Fifty-two students— 23 from the U.S. and 29 from Europe—have participated or are scheduled for 2010.

106


EXPERIENCES WITH 4-6 MONTH EXCHANGES While study-abroad experiences for 4-6 month periods are common for undergraduate students at U.S. institutions, such programs targeting graduate students at U.S. institutions are rare and have unique challenges. Table 1 summarizes the scope of trans-Atlantic mobility achieved in the program so far. While European graduate students are accustomed to embarking on international experiences, unfortunately this is not the case for American graduate students and the lack of appreciation for the value of international experiences by our faculty and students has been a challenge to get American students to participate. We have had serious challenges on the U.S. side in convincing graduate students to participate. We have been unable to maintain equal numbers of students going both ways, which is important to university administrators who consider reciprocity of tuition to be important; students pay tuition to their own institution, not the host institution. I have been informed by the ISU administrators that I must maintain an equal number of students going each way and cannot accept any more E.U. students until I have another ISU student going. All of our research funds now come from external grants and industry contracts, which have specific research deliverables and timelines. Unfortunately, our research funding agencies focus on research discovery and educating graduate students comes second. Our faculty feel they must reduce research expectations to allow their students to participate. Our students and faculty and our research funding agencies have not yet come to fully appreciate the value of international research and education experiences. Personal finances also drive our students to complete their education as quickly as possible even at the loss of important educational experiences. We also have a high proportion of international students who cannot participate because the Department of Education funds are restricted to U.S. citizens. Our participation in the program has led to several strong international collaborations among scientists, which is one of the most compelling reasons to participate.

107


National Polytechnic Institute of Toulouse

Total

Sent Receive d University of Sent Arkansas Receive d University of Sent Washington Receive d Integral Iowa State Sent Valorization of University Receive Bioproduction d (currently University of Sent active) Arkansas Receive d Kansas State Sent University Receive d +X indicates planned mobilities during 2010

Karl Franzen University of Graz

Mobility

Iowa State University

University of Ghent

Renewable Resources and Clean Technologies (completed)

E.U. Institution

Grant

Table 1. Graduate Student Exchanges for 4-6 Months

1 3

1 3

1 2

3 8

5 5

1 3

3 0

9 8

0 4

0 1

0 0

0 5

1+1 1

0 0

0+1 0

1+2 1

3 3

+2 0

0 0

3+2 3

2 3

0 0+1

+1 0

2+1 3+1

The programs also promote faculty exchanges. One professor from the University of Arkansas spent four months in the pharmacy department at University of Ghent in 2006 conducting research on the use of modified starch as a controlled-release agent for pharmaceuticals. Her graduate student then studied in the same Ghent department in 2006 funded by the Atlantis program. Then the Arkansas professor hosted the Ghent professor for two study visits. These are the kinds of lasting collaborations that are ideal outcomes. TWO-WEEK INTENSIVE PROGRAMS Another dimension of our international collaboration has been our students and faculty participating in 2-week intensive courses to which each year ISU sends 5-6 graduate students to learn and 2-5 faculty to teach. These exchanges have been funded by the Erasmus program with complementary U.S. funding. Thirty-eight US students have participated in the six intensive programs on biorenewable resources and 36 U.S. faculty have helped teach the courses. Our ISU Bioeconomy Institute pays all or part of the international travel costs to attend and E.U. programs covered in-country costs until 2009 when a $1000 tuition fee for U.S. students was

108

Comm. Appl. Biol. Sci, Ghent University, 75/1, 2010 instituted. The 2-week intensive programs have proven to be easy to recruit American students and faculty participation as shown in Table 2. Our faculty who have taught in the intensive programs have used the experience to learn of common research interests of European faculty and to build research collaborations. The U.S. and state economies, however, are now in a severe economic recession and ISU will be unable to send any students or faculty to the 2010 intensive program. ISU has lost over 25% of its budget due to the economy and international programs are being hit disproportionately hard to meet new university budget realities.

University of Arkansas

2006

Ghent

2007

Toulouse

2008

Graz

2009

Graz

5 5 6 5 7 4 4 2 5 2

3 3 2 3 2 3 2 3 2 2

students faculty students faculty students faculty students faculty students faculty


0 students 1 faculty 0 students 1 faculty 0 students 1 faculty 0 students 0 faculty NA

NA NA NA NA 0 students 1 faculty

Total

Iowa State University

Toulouse

Kansas State University

Host Institution

2005

University of Washington

Year

Table 2. U.S. Graduate Student and Faculty Participation in E.U. Intensive Programs

8 9 8 9 9 8 6 5 7 5


ISU developed its own intensive program in biorenewable resources and technologies in 2009 with the generous support of $60,000 provided by Cargill, Inc., of Minneapolis, MN. The program was modeled after the remarkably successful E.U. intensive programs but we added lectures on crop production and agricultural sustainability. Course content is shown in Table 3. Some of the Cargill funds reimbursed international students for their travel expenses. Fifty students participated, five coming from the E.U. The University of Ghent sent two students and Professor Verhe delivered two lectures and Professor M. Mittlebach from the University of Graz provided another lecture.

109

Comm. Appl. Biol. Sci, Ghent University, 75/1, 2010 Table 3. Content of Overview of Biorenewables Biosphere Mass Energy Flows Biorenewables Quiz Bowl Cargill, Inc. Visit Minneapolis Tour Riparian Buffer Tour Reiman Gardens Tour Lipid Chemistry Starch Chemistry Plant Biology Cell Wall Biochemistry

2-wk Intensive Program Sponsored by Iowa State University Corn and Soybean Processing Industrial Chemicals Life-cycle Analysis Opportunities and Challenges Biofuels Economics Lincolnway Energy Tour Biofuel Challenges Renewable Energy Group Tour Iowa Farm Visit Fine Chemicals and Fibers Next Generation Feedstocks Biobased Plastics Biomass Production

Campus Lab Tours

Biomass Harvest, Storage Transportation BioCentury Research Farm Tour

and

Biofuel Crop Production Thermochemical and Conversion Processes

Poster Session Recreational Outings Gala Dinner Awards

and

Biological

SHARING EDUCATIONAL MATERIALS The partnership forged with European institutions has enabled us to improve our own graduate education in biorenewable resources by developing textbooks (one edited by Professors C. Stevens and R. Verhe at Ghent and another written by Professor R. Brown at ISU) and unique teaching materials, such as sample cards describing conversion processes by Professor L. Johnson (Fig. 1). The sample card workbooks achieve better understanding of processes to convert crops into biofuels and other value-added products.

110

Figure 1. New Training Materials in Biorenewable Resources


111


GRADUATE DEGREES IN BIORENEWABLE RESOURCES AND TECHNOLOGIES ISU recently established the first graduate program in Biorenewables Resources and Technology (BRT) in the U.S. (http://www.biorenew.iastate.edu/academics.html). While other universities offer certificate programs or minor programs related to biobased products and bioenergy, ISU offers M.S. and Ph.D degrees in this new field, as well as, a minor for students obtaining degrees in other majors. The BRT program offers students from a wide variety of science and engineering backgrounds advanced study in the use of plant- and crop-based resources for the production of biobased products, including fuels, chemicals, materials, and energy. We prefer co-majors with one major in a more traditional discipline so that the student has more diverse employment opportunities on graduation.

EXPERIENCES OF LEVERAGING RESOURCES ISU has also leveraged its Bioeconomy Institute programs (http://www.biorenew.iastate.edu/) and formed the Center for Biorenewable Chemicals (CBiRC) (http://www.cbirc.iastate.edu/index.asp), which is focused on transforming the chemicals industry by integrating biological and chemical catalysis systems to produce biorenewable chemicals. CBiRC also provides educational programs that attract a diverse set of students into engineering and produce a new cadre of globally competitive college graduates capable of designing integrated chemical/biological processing systems. CBiRC is funded by an $18.5 million, fiveyear award from the National Science Foundation, Engineering Research Center Program, with additional support from institutional matching and industry memberships.

CONCLUSIONS Many lessons have been learned in building trans-Atlantic graduate education programs in biorenewable resources over the past five years. Table 5 summarizes those lessons.

112

Comm. Appl. Biol. Sci, Ghent University, 75/1, 2010 Table 4. Lessons Learned in Building Trans-Atlantic Graduate Education Programs Program Lessons Learned 4-6 mo exchanges U.S. graduate students must be on graduate assistantships Faculty are reluctant to have students gone when grants have such high demands for deliverables and timelines Funds for added student costs are critical (i.e. DoEd FIPSE) Building research collaborations between faculty important Must have program and institutional champions University administrators insist on balance in exchange numbers Unlike E.U. students, U.S. graduate students are not accustomed to international experiences Lack of language capabilities limits U.S. student pool to some countries Sustained funding needed to achieve lasting partnerships 2 week intensive ISU students favor intensive programs over longer programs experiences U.S. faculty and students enthusiastic to participate Funding for E.U. student mobility to U.S. needed Funds to create intensive programs critical, U.S. lags in this type of education Students and faculty benefit from sharing educational materials Participating in trans-Atlantic graduate education programs in biorenewable resources has enriched our student’s graduate educational experience and enlightened both faculty and students about differences in perspectives about how we can fuel the world in sustainable ways. We all have made lasting relationships to enhance research and education. All of these activities were made possible because of strong leadership of Professor Roland Verhe; funding provided by the Department of Education (FIPSE), ISU Bioeconomy Institute and Cargill; and commitments by the seven E.U. and U.S. institutions to improve graduate education.

113


114


SUCCESSES AND CHALLENGES IN A NOVEL DOCTORAL PROGRAM IN SYSTEMS AGRICULTURE: A CASE EXAMPLE D. LUST, D. TOPLIFF, R. DEOTTE West Texas A&M University, Faculty Agriculture, Science and Engineering Dept. Agricultural Sciences, WTAMU Box 60998, Canyon, Texas 79016

SUMMARY A doctoral program in Systems Agriculture was initiated at West Texas A&M University, Canyon, TX, in September, 2003. The stated objective of the program was “..to prepare leaders for the agricultural industry that are trained in a multidisciplinary, research-based curriculum that emphasizes a systems approach to problem solving”. The program offers a single doctoral degree in Agriculture and accepts qualified students with a master’s or professional degree in agricultural or related disciplines. Courses related to systems methodologies, leadership, agricultural economics, plant and soil science, and animal science are required. Additional program requirements include a systems research project and dissertation, leadership training, and written and oral exams. The program has exceeded enrollment and graduation targets, suggesting interest in this approach to a doctoral degree. Students have entered the program with M.S. backgrounds in education, traditional agricultural disciplines, veterinary medicine, business, and physics. Graduates have gained employment in industry, university teaching and research, government research/administration, and extension. Doctoral student projects in systems agriculture contributed to curriculum changes and to the conceptual framework adopted by a multi-state research group. Designing and teaching courses for students with diverse backgrounds has been challenging. Development of a common understanding of systems agriculture was identified by a third-party program review as an issue for faculty. Development and maintenance of program standards and administrative procedures posed additional challenges. Leadership, administrative support, and timely and continuing program assessment are suggested as necessary components for a nontraditional doctoral program. Key Words: Doctoral programs, systems agriculture, leadership skills

115


INTRODUCTION The Ph.D. degree originally implied a great breadth of learning. Early Ph.D.’s were expected to be proficient in diverse topics, including grammar, language, rhetoric, logic, math, astronomy, music, art, and science. By the mid to late 1800’s, American Ph.D. programs had accepted the model of specialization, and the acceptance of research and science as the basis for the title of doctorate was firmly established by 1895-96. Secularization and standardization of the degree continued until, by 1940, the term “Ph.D.” acquired the standard meaning of great specialization, rather than breadth. This is the modern understanding of the Ph.D. in the United States. In more recent years, some have observed that specialized Ph.D.’s seldom venture outside of their narrow discipline, even though many current problems are broad and multi-disciplinary in nature. Modern revisionists have renewed the focus on broadening the Ph.D. degree in recent years (Nyquist and Woodford, 2000). Agriculture is particularly multidisciplinary in nature, because many of agriculture’s greatest challenges involve interactions between plant science, soil science, environmental science, animal science, biology, economics, and social science. Some in the agriculture industry have identified a need for more broadly trained graduates who can understand and communicate technical and researchbased issues, but who are comfortable communicating and working across multiple disciplines (Bawden, 1984). This demand contributed to West Texas A&M University’s (WTAMU) choice to adopt a multidisciplinary, systems approach for its first-ever Ph.D. program in agriculture. The program began in September, 2003. Enabling documents characterize the program as “a systems approach to the solution of agricultural problems”. The development of the WTAMU Ph.D. program was driven by a variety of ideological, financial, logistical, political, administrative, and other forces, including time constraints. The program continues to evolve, six years after inception. Case studies have gained favor in recent years as an educational tool. Case studies are common in business, law, and medical fields, and are increasingly adopted in other disciplines including agriculture. Case studies are intended to present enough information to allow the reader or audience to understand how the case subject functions or operates (Berg, 2001). Case studies may vary in purpose (Stake, 1994, 1995), design (Yin, 1994, Winston, 1997), scope, and specificity of subject. Cases may describe a situation for the purpose of understanding it more fully, or they may be useful to provide explanation of a theory or to explore an idea in anticipation of subsequent study. Case studies in higher education are often valued as teaching instruments. Doctoral programs require ongoing assessment in order to meet program objectives on a continuing basis. Case examples may provide a detailed yet easily accessible format for assessment. In addition, a case example of a unique situation provides insight that is potentially useful to others outside the case. The WTAMU Ph.D. program is a good candidate for a case example due to its unique nature and its newness. The objectives of this paper are to develop a case example of the WTAMU Ph.D. program for use at WTAMU and as a learning aid for others.

116


MATERIALS AND METHODS The case example presented herein may be classified as both intrinsic and instrumental in type (Stake, 1994, 1995). The case is intrinsic in that one purpose of this case example is to increase understanding of the WTAMU Ph.D. program per se. Development of this case will provide a record of the program’s initial years. This purpose is of importance primarily to WTAMU stakeholders. Additionally, the case is instrumental in type in that it seeks to provide insight into an issue, that issue being the merit of a systems approach to doctoral education in contrast to traditional discipline-focused doctoral programs.

Scope of the case The case example addresses the time period of September 2001 through December 2009. This time period includes two years of program planning and development that took place prior to the first course offerings in September 2003. Items included in the case are chosen based on available information and expected contribution to the case objectives. The focus of the case is the educational and managerial aspects of the program, therefore detailed financial, legal, or approvalprocess information is not included. The scope of the case is largely bounded by the Department of Agricultural Sciences (DAS) at WTAMU, and the Ph.D. program within the department. Information related to the region, university, and college is included to provide context.

Information Sources Information for the case is obtained from four primary sources, namely, programenabling documents, institutional data, a third-party program assessment, and key participant-observers. The document entitled “West Texas A&M University Request for Substantive Proposal, Doctor of Philosophy, Agriculture: A Systems Approach to the Solution of Agricultural Issues” provides the written proposal for the program. This document details the rationale and demand for the program, the program description, resource assessment, program potential, and evaluation procedures. The program description addresses educational objectives, admissions standards, curriculum, degree requirements, impact on the existing program, and accreditation. The document was completed in May 2002. Institutional data is provided by the WTAMU Office of Institutional Research, and includes enrollment and matriculation data for September 2003 through December 2009, and faculty ranks for the same period. A Ph.D. program review was conducted in 2008 by the West Texas Office of Evaluation and Research (WTER). The office provides professional, external evaluation services to educational institutions in Texas, including WTAMU. The WTER is not affiliated with or answerable to the WTAMU College of Agriculture, Science, and Engineering, or the DAS. The final report, therefore, provides a thirdparty, independent evaluation of the WTAMU Ph.D. program. The WTER review was commissioned by the Interim Department Head and Program Coordinator for the

117

Comm. Appl. Biol. Sci, Ghent University, 75/1, 2010 WTAMU Department of Agricultural Sciences. The review relied heavily on individual interviews of department faculty and Ph.D. students. The case author occupies a unique position as a participant-observer in the WTAMU Ph.D. program. The author has been a member of the Department of Agricultural Sciences faculty since 1992, serving as an Instructor until 2008. The author enrolled as a student in the WTAMU Ph.D. program in fall 2003, completed the degree in 2008, and has served in the department as an Assistant Professor since that time. This experience allowed the author to participate in program development discussions as a faculty member prior to program approval. In addition, the author experienced the program as a student, completing the admissions process, courses, administrative requirements, research, exams, and the dissertation. While a student, the author simultaneously continued duties as an instructor, including faculty meetings, faculty discussion of the Ph.D. program, and participation in the WTER assessment interviews as both a faculty member and a student. The author team-taught two Ph.D. courses in Fall 2009. This experience as a participantobserver provided a unique opportunity to observe the program from the perspectives of faculty developer, student, and teacher.

The WTAMU Ph.D. Case Example WTAMU Description West Texas A&M University is a small regional school in Canyon, Texas, a town of nearly 13,000 population located in theTexas Panhandle near Amarillo. The school began as a teachers college and retains a strong teaching culture. Prominent programs are Agriculture, Education, and Fine Arts. The school enrollment in the last 20 years has been stable, with a gradual increase to 7,000 students in 2003 (Table 1). Enrollment increased to almost 7,800 by 2009. The Ph.D. in Agriculture is the first Ph.D. program offered at the university. Table 1. Characteristics of West Texas A&M University Division of Agriculture upon implementation of a Ph.D. program in Systems Agriculture, August, 2003 Population of Canyon, Texas 12,951 Population of Amarillo, Texas 176,065 University enrollment, total 7,023 Division of Agriculture enrollment, total 391 Division of Agriculture enrollment, undergraduate 334 Division of Agriculture enrollment, graduate (M.S.) 57 Division of Agriculture faculty, total 25 Adjunct and affiliate faculty 21 Local agricultural scientists and engineers, university included 70+ Annual value of regional agricultural products, USD (billions) 3.2 The agricultural region served by the DAS at WTAMU rivals many states in agricultural productivity (Table 1). Specifically, irrigated crop production and intensive animal production are prominent. The region is a major center for intensive beef cattle, dairy, and swine production and processing. The regional geography is flat and semi-arid, with annual precipitation of less than 480 mm that is received primarily in a bimodal May-September pattern. Limited and variable

118

Comm. Appl. Biol. Sci, Ghent University, 75/1, 2010 precipitation encourages dependence upon Ogallalla Aquifer irrigation. Depletion of the Ogallalla aquifer is a concern of the region.

Department of Agricultural Sciences - Structure and Resources The Department of Agricultural Sciences at WTAMU is organized as a single administrative department under the guidance of a department head. This organizational structure results from the consolidation of the departments of Agricultural Business and Economics, Animal Science, and Plant Science into one unit in the late 1980’s. The DAS (formerly Division of Agriculture) offered these majors and several additional tracks or options within the majors during 2003-2009. A major in Agriculture was added in 2003 with the option for teacher certification. A major in Agricultural Media and Communication was added in 2009. Graduate degrees at the M.S. level are awarded in Agricultural Business and Economics, Animal Science, and Plant Soil and Environmental Science. Culturally, the DAS functions as a single department, with common and frequent interaction between faculty of different disciplines. Faculty appointments emphasize teaching and research, with a minority that are heavily weighted toward primarily teaching or primarily research. Faculty and other resources required for the inititiation of a Ph.D. program were assessed in June 2002 in the program proposal. The proposal indicates 23 faculty in the DAS with terminal degrees in 2002, and two faculty at the Instructor rank. A total of 12 faculty are identified in the proposal as graduate faculty approved for supervising Ph.D. dissertations. In addition, DAS is a founding member of the Cooperative Research, Education, and Extension Team (CREET), a regional consortium of institutions that includes DAS, Texas Agricultural Experiment Station -Amarillo, Texas Cooperative Extension-Amarillo, the Texas Veterinary Medical Diagnostic Laboratory, and the USDA-ARS Conservation and Production Laboratory. These entities, facilities, and personnel are all located within 40 kilometers of WTAMU and have a history of active collaboration. At the time of the program proposal, 8 faculty held joint appointments that included DAS, and an additional 21 faculty maintained adjunct and affiliate faculty status with DAS and the WTAMU graduate school. In all, CREET represented over 70 scientists and engineers active in agricultural research at the time of the proposal, and a capacity for research, teaching, and service comparable to that of many U.S. land grant universities.

The WTAMU Ph.D. – Program Description Program Objectives The enabling proposal describes the purpose of the WTAMU Ph.D. program as “...to prepare leaders for the agricultural industry that are trained in a multidisciplinary, research-based curriculum that emphasizes a systems approach to problemsolving.” Educational objectives stated in support of the purpose include: (1)Develop a rigorous course of doctoral study that integrates the various agricultural disciplines into a focus on contemporary issues in agriculture; (2) educate agriculturists that have a breadth of knowledge and experience in various agricultural and economic disciplines and the ability to apply a systems approach to

119

Comm. Appl. Biol. Sci, Ghent University, 75/1, 2010 the solution of challenges faced by agriculture; (3) provide the advanced multidisciplinary and industry interactions and education required to develop leaders capable of addressing social, economic, global, and environmental issues related to sustainable agriculture. Expected program outcomes are also indicated by the proposal’s discussion of potential career and employment opportunities for program graduates. The Ph.D. program is intended to produce graduates that: (1) become leaders in the agricultural industry prepared to make systems management decisions, (2) continue the systems application of basic research generated by traditional scientists, and (3) teach, especially in regional universities with agricultural science programs. Leadership is emphasized in the program. An independent consulting committee that reviewed the program prior to implementation recommended that the leadership aspects of the program be made more explicit. Leadership has been formalized in the program via the inclusion of a course, seminar, and annual leadership workshops, tours, or projects.

Admissions Standards Students must be accepted into the Graduate School prior to consideration for the Ph.D. program at WTAMU. Undergraduate and M.S. transcripts, Graduate Record Exam (GRE) scores, program application and essay, and reference letters are required before regular admission is granted. The M.S. degree must be completed, preferably in an agricultural or closely related field prior to admission into the Ph.D. program.

Degree Requirements The WTAMU Agriculture Ph.D. requires 64 semester credit hours beyond the master’s degree, including twelve semester credit hours of dissertation and one semester credit hour of seminar. There are five core courses (15 semester credit hours) required in addition to the dissertation and seminar requirements. The required courses include: Systems Agriculture I – A multidisciplinary introduction to key agricultural issues with emphasis on systems thinking and a systems approach to problem solution. Biotechnology in Agriculture – Technological, economic, and social issues surrounding the use of biotechnology in agriculture. Advanced Agricultural Statistics – Advanced statistical methods for analyzing research data from agricultural experiments in various agricultural disciplines. Agricultural Perspectives on Environmental Risk – Contemporary approaches in environmental and human health risk analysis, risk management, and risk assessment. Systems Agriculture II – Capstone course with focus on actual agricultural cases and problem solution.

120

Comm. Appl. Biol. Sci, Ghent University, 75/1, 2010 The program also requires 36 semester credit hours of prescribed electives. Two courses are required in each of the three primary disciplines. Courses were developed in each primary discipline to facilitate this requirement.

Other Program Procedures A multidisciplinary emphasis is embedded in various program elements. The program proposal was developed by a faculty and administrative committee that had equal representation from the three major disciplines of Agricultural Economics, Animal Science, and Plant and Soil Science. Student advisory committees are required to include faculty from each of these disciplines. In addition, team-teaching was employed for each of the newly developed Systems Agriculture courses, with the teaching team reflecting the three major disciplines in the DAS.

Program Performance and Development The program proposal projected enrollment of five new students during each of the first five years. Projected and actual program enrollment is shown in Table 2. Between 2003 and 2007, program enrollment exceeded original targets. A total of three students exited the program without completing the degree. Reasons for program exit have not been summarized formally, but include primarily personal reasons such as health, or career choices. Table 2. Projected and actual enrollment in the West Texas A&M University Ph.D. program in Systems Agriculture, 2003 -2009 Year Projected Projected Actual Graduates (Fall) Enrollment, New Enrollment, Total Enrollment, Total 2003 5 5 8 2004 5 10 11 2005 5 9 8 2006 5 12 17 1 2007 5 14 14 2 2008 NA NA 15 3 2009 NA NA 15 2 A total of eight students have graduated from the program as of fall 2009. Graduates each found employment in agricultural fields. Two graduates are employed in faculty teaching/research positions at regional universities. Two graduates gained teaching positions at regional universities. Additional graduates are employed in government research/administration, university research/consulting, industry technical service, and state extension/communication. Graduates gained employment in the fields of animal science, agricultural economics, environmental science, plant science, agricultural education and agricultural communications.

Program Context and Changes, 2003-2008 Several notable events and circumstances developed during 2003-2008 that provide context to the case. A new faculty position was implemented in the area of

121

Comm. Appl. Biol. Sci, Ghent University, 75/1, 2010 environmental science. The position is structured to contribute specifically to the Ph.D. program. The President of the University and the Provost/Vice-President for Academic Affairs, both involved in the planning and implementation of the Ph.D. program, left their respective positions and were replaced by new administration. The head of DAS, who was the primary author of the program proposal, was promoted to Associate Dean of the College in fall 2008. An interim department head was appointed from within the faculty until the successor began in January 2009. Faculty changes also occurred during 2003-2008. A degree program in Agriculture, with emphasis on Agricultural Education and teacher training, was implemented in 2003. The program and two accompanying faculty effectively added an additional discipline to the DAS, one not addressed in the Ph.D. program proposal. The addition brought new faculty interests and potential students to the Ph.D. program. Retirements also affected the program. Two faculty in Agricultural Business and Economics retired, one in 2007 and one in 2008. The positions remain vacant, with replacement anticipated in Fall 2010. These retirements reduced the faculty in the Agricultural Business and Economics discipline to a single faculty member, with limited ability to contribute to the Ph.D. program due to overload teaching requirements in the undergraduate program. Curriculum changes have been relatively minor. A course in Systems Methodology was added as a requirement in 2007 in response to student requests for more substantive instruction in systems research techniques. A formalized course in Leadership was added in 2008.

Program Evaluation and Observations Three distinct evaluations of the Ph.D. program during 2003-2008 help to illustrate the Ph.D. program, its implementation, and management. These include a studentfaculty assessment project performed by students in Spring 2006 and continued by faculty in 2007, a third-party assessment conducted in 2008, and observations from key program participants.

Student Project Students enrolled in the capstone Systems Agriculture course during spring 2006 developed models of the Ph.D. program as a class project. Students presented the results of the course project to faculty during seminars and at a faculty meeting. Faculty, administration, and student representatives continued development of the student model during fall 2006 and the DAS ultimately adopted the suggestion to add a course in Systems Methods as a program requirement. The course is a prerequisite to System Agriculture II, and focuses on systems modeling, mathematics, and research techniques. An excerpt from the students’ final report summarizes the project and illustrates student perspectives of the program in 2006: The six Ph.D. students enrolled in AGRI 8303 Systems Agriculture II during the Spring, 2006 semester began development of conceptual and iconic models of the WTAMU Ph.D. program. The choice to model the program was proposed for the

122

Comm. Appl. Biol. Sci, Ghent University, 75/1, 2010 following reasons: (1) Students have a vested interest in the success of the program, (2) Students have a desire to better understand the program they are in, (3) Students sought to develop a common vision of the program, and (4) Students sought experience modeling an actual system problem. Five conceptual models were proposed to describe different views of the WTAMU Ph.D. program. The models were termed the single-discipline (SD), the discipline-plus (DP), the tridiscipline (TD), the single-systems (SS), and the modified-agricultural-systems (MAS) models. It was determined that the WTAMU program was best fit by the MAS model. This model recognizes the importance of individual discipline principles, but emphasizes interactions among the disciplines as outweighing individual disciplines. The program was assessed to be focused on developing three distinct areas of competence: (1) Systems, (2) Leadership, and (3)Agricultural Disciplines. Each area of competence was ascribed three competence levels. These are from lowest to highest: (1) Awareness, (2) Methodology, and (3) Integration. Graduates of this program should have the highest competence levels in Systems, with Methodology levels in Leadership and Disciplines. Once the MAS model was more fully developed, it became apparent that the current curriculum offered few activities focused on systems methodology. Systems Methodology is viewed as a prerequisite to integration. It is proposed that the program be adjusted to strengthen foundations in discipline principles and systems methodology required for solving systems problems. Challenges in teaching students with varied backgrounds were addressed by proposing a restructuring of discipline-oriented courses to focus on the fundamental principles of the discipline. Future work to more fully complete the program model may include a focus on interactions between courses, disciplines, or research components.

Third-Party Review In 2008, the interim department head commissioned WTER to perform a third-party review of the program. Information was collected from faculty interviews and program documentation. Interview questions were developed by the WTER Associate Director, with input from program administrators. Based on faculty numbers at the time, 73% of WTAMU faculty participated in interviews. Program issues identified through faculty interviews are given in Table 3. Almost all faculty interviewed were in favor of the Ph.D. program, and 87.5% supported the program’s emphasis on systems agriculture. More than half of faculty interviewed described the faculty commitment to the program as variable.

123

Comm. Appl. Biol. Sci, Ghent University, 75/1, 2010 Table 3. Issues identified by faculty during the WTER third-party review of the WTAMU Ph.D. program, 2008. Concern about administrative support Faculty teaching overloads Program funding Unfilled faculty positions Need for a common vision for the program Emphasis changed from multidisciplinary to systems Faculty have a varied understanding of systems Faculty have different definitions of “systems” despite similar terminology Varied view of need for discipline-specific training (recruits and graduates) Need more flexibility in curriculum Leadership training important, format could be improved Student Recruitment Lack of common vision hinders recruitment Need “hard” money for stipends Ph.D. Program Policies and Procedures Improve and clarify application process Standardized scores (GRE and GPA) may not reflect student potential Assessment exam purpose not clear or not needed Assessment exams not administered as expected Non-homogeneous committee is novel; advisor/committee training suggested Committee control versus uniform departmental standards Departmental exams may not be necessary; should review purpose of exams Inclusion of systems concepts in dissertations is inconsistent Concern was voiced by 75 % of faculty interviewees regarding program factors that were beyond their control. These concerns related primarily to resources for faculty positions and stipends. The interview facilitator identified four issues important to program success based on faculty interviews: administrative support, vision for the program, recruitment, and program policies and procedures. The WTER review identified strengths and concerns related to the program. The emphasis on systems agriculture was identified as a strength of the program, along with the quality of the faculty and the geographic location of the program. Concerns about the program included the need for additional faculty, maintaining faculty commitment to the program, student recruitment and faculty development.

Participant Observations Key participant-observers recorded program observations throughout the period of 2003-2008. An audit trail was constructed consisting of course notes, email communications, faculty meeting minutes, and other written materials to verify and validate observations to the extent possible. In addition, the primary participant-observer met regularly with both students and faculty to perform bias-

124

Comm. Appl. Biol. Sci, Ghent University, 75/1, 2010 checks, providing assurance that the observations and issues identified were not solely those of the observer. Issues identified were similar to WTER results. The difficulty of balancing Ph.D.-level depth and rigor with the breadth of a systems program was noted by observers. In addition, the program attempts to match traditional, discipline-trained faculty to a broad, systems program. This dilemma is especially apparent in the classroom. Teaching of prescribed electives in discipline-specific areas presents challenges for teachers and students. Most students are trained at the M.S. level in a single discipline. Since applicants are accepted with a M.S. degree in any one of the primary disciplines, few are likely to have the typical preparation in the other disciplines. If three disciplines are equally represented among the students, this means that a faculty member teaching a discipline oriented course can expect two thirds of the students to be unprepared for graduate level work in his discipline. It was observed that faculty that are trained, practiced and committed in a single discipline may not easily relinquish their expertise in favor of adopting a systems approach to a course, or to graduate advising. The situation presented frustration to both students and faculty. Faculty sought to maintain rigor in courses, while recognizing that students did not have the background typical in a single-discipline program. Students are encouraged to learn and practice leadership skills in the program. On two occasions, students proactively developed modeling projects as part of class assignments, presented them to professional groups outside of the classroom boundaries, and ultimately convinced the respective groups to adopt at least a portion of their recommendations. The first example involved the modeling project noted previously that proposed a common vision for the WTAMU Ph.D. program and ultimately resulted in curriculum adoption. A second student project presented a systems approach to ethanol production and waste management to a multi-state research group. The presentation was so well-received that the student model became a point of reference for the remainder of the conference.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Information provided in the case obviously does not address every aspect of the program. Rather, case information is intended to provide enough information to allow some familiarity with the program, and to stimulate questions. An objective of the case was to identify questions and themes that may be instructive. A theme detected during development and analysis of the case is that of program success. The question, “Does this program approach work?” was identified as the basis for many program observations and responses. A second theme is that of program challenges.

Successes in the WTAMU Ph.D. program Success of a program may be evaluated in various ways. Indicators of program success identified as important to WTAMU stakeholders include the comparison of actual program growth to expected growth, the number, quality and diversity of students entering the program, graduation rates, and placement of graduates. Performance of the WTAMU Ph.D. program is encouraging for observers with interest in systems agriculture programs. The program has met growth objectives,

125

Comm. Appl. Biol. Sci, Ghent University, 75/1, 2010 and has become an established part of the university. Program growth has occurred despite having fewer faculty during much of the study period than were present at program inception. A key success of the program is that the systems approach to the degree has been largely embraced by students and faculty. Students with diverse backgrounds have entered the program. Several have stated their preference for the systems program. A sample of student profiles illustrates the diversity of background (Table 4). Students entering the program are qualified to enter other Ph.D. programs. In several cases, students were recruited or accepted into traditional Ph.D. programs at land grant universities prior to enrollment at WTAMU. Table 4. Profiles of selected WTAMU Ph.D. program students, 2003-2009 M.S. M.S. Ph.D. Dissertation Placement Disciplin Institution Advisor Topic e Discipline ANSC Land grant ANSC ANSC/PS Teaching/Research Academic ANSC Land grant AGBE ANSC/AGBE Teaching/Research Academic ANSC Regional ANSC Communication Extension AGBE Regional ENVSC ENVSC Teaching Academic PS International PS PS Research Govt AGED Non-LG* AGED AGED Teaching/Academic ANSC Regional ANSC ANSC Industry ENVSC WTAMU ENVSC ENVSC/ANSC Research/Consulting Academic/industry CHEM Regional ENVSC ENVSC NA Physics Regional ENVSC NA NA VMED Land grant ANSC ANSC NA ANSC Land grant ANSC ANSC NA ANSC Land grant ENVSC NA NA MBA WTAMU ENVSC Systems Ag NA ANSC – Animal Science* Large state university, non- land grant AGBE – Agricultural Business/Economics PS – Plant Science AGED – Agricultural Education ENVSC – Environmental Science CHEM –Chemistry or Biochemistry VMED – Veterinary Medicine MBA – Masters of Business Administration NA – not available, students have not yet completed the program Disciplines represented in student M.S. programs include animal science, plant science, soil science, agricultural business or economics, veterinary medicine, agricultural education, chemistry, physics, environmental science, business/finance, and business administration. In addition, some students and faculty have shown a willingness to develop advisor/advisee relationships with dissimilar discipline backgrounds.

126

Comm. Appl. Biol. Sci, Ghent University, 75/1, 2010 Graduates have obtained employment in academic and government research, academic teaching, extension, industry, and consulting. All eight graduates of the program have secured employment in their preferred field, and all remain engaged in agriculture. The program placements largely reflect those fields anticipated in the program proposal. Faculty have also largely accepted the concept of a systems approach to the Ph.D., despite concerns or reservations about program management. The WTER review revealed that nearly 90% of faculty supported the systems focus, or supported it with reservations related to execution. Few if any faculty are found to oppose the systems emphasis per se. This acceptance is significant in light of the traditional, discipline-based background of faculty. In addition, at least some faculty have proven open to accepting students from disciplines different than their own. The diverse mix of disciplines and backgrounds provides a stimulating and challenging environment for both students and faculty. While uncomfortable for some, the approach fosters intellectual risk-taking and encourages participants to explore unfamiliar subject matter.

Challenges for the WTAMU Ph.D. program Challenges may be a matter of perspective. In addition, challenges do not necessarily imply that an issue is negative, but simply that it demands effort. Therefore program challenges may be seen as a desirable part of program development. Challenges presented here are therefore not considered to be synonymous with failures, or in conflict with success. Key challenges to the WTAMU Ph.D. involve administrative support and development of a common vision. Additional challenges, such as recruiting and program policies, are closely linked to these two issues. The WTER review, along with participant observation, indicates that faculty are concerned about support for the program, especially in terms of faculty positions and funding Addition of a new Ph.D. program is a significant undertaking. Faculty directly involved in the WTAMU Ph.D. program developed and taught new courses, pursued new research funding and activities, developed and implemented new policies, and directed new students in order to begin the program. In addition, faculty maintain duties that existed prior to implementation of the program.. The number of faculty available to act as major advisors to Ph.D. students is limited by the number of graduate faculty, research funding, and faculty commitments to other activities. Therefore, recruiting to the program is a function of the number of faculty that are able to accept new Ph.D. students, regardless of program interest or student qualifications. Perceived program support influences both faculty and administrative morale, but is likely not unique to WTAMU or systems programs. Development of a common vision is an important component for any graduate program. A systems program, as opposed to discipline-specific programs, presents additional challenges. Relatively few faculty in agricultural universities are specifically trained in systems techniques, although many function as systems practitioners. Faculty and administrators, however, commonly define expertise or programs in familiar terms. The addition of a systems program to a discipline-

127

Comm. Appl. Biol. Sci, Ghent University, 75/1, 2010 trained faculty and administration is therefore a challenge, simply because it is unfamiliar. This situation should not be unexpected. Differences related to program vision are quickly revealed in policy, procedures, teaching, and committee decisions. The WTAMU program encountered healthy discussion of admissions policies, committee responsibilities, committee standards, department standards, exam formats, exam objectives, course objectives, teaching methods, and other program details, largely as a result of varied visions of the program. It is likely that single-discipline programs experience some similar issues at their inception. The WTAMU program is both a start-up program and a systems program. It may be difficult to determine whether program challenges are the result of the systems format, or simply the normal growing pains experienced by any new program. A common vision for the program is particularly important due to the effect it has on recruiting. Without a common understanding of the program, it is difficult to consistently explain the program to potential students. In addition, there is increased risk that individual students may perceive the program’s promise to be something different than the reality. The diversity of students entering the WTAMU program may be seen as a validation of the systems approach, or as the result of poorly defined or communicated program objectives and standards. The Ph.D. has long been a degree defined by individual disciplines, institutions, and ultimately, advisory committees. A systems approach to the Ph.D., involving multiple disciplines, is likely no different. Discipline representatives may be expected to champion the procedures and policies of their discipline. Many see this as a healthy, in fact desirable aspect of graduate education.

Conclusions It is likely that demand for graduates proficient in critical thinking and problemsolving will remain strong. The evolving marketplace will likely continue to value Ph.D. graduates that are comfortable functioning in multidisciplinary environments, and that are capable of understanding complex system interactions. Novel approaches to graduate education face expected and unexpected challenges, but may provide suitable alternatives to traditional programs.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT Funding for this effort is provided by the WTAMU College of Agriculture, Science and Engineering. The assistance of Judy Kelley, Associate Director of the West Texas Office of Evaluation and Research is gratefully acknowledged. The WTAMU Office of Institutional Research also provided valuable information.

REFERENCES •

BAWDEN, R.J., MACADEM R.D., PACKHAM, R.J., AND VALENTINE, I. (1984)l Systems thinking and practices in the education of agriculturalists. Agricultural Systems 13: 205-225.

128


BERG, B.L. (2001). Qualitative research methods for the social sciences. Allyn and Bacon. 4th ed. 225-237.

•

NYQUIST, J. AND WOODFORD, B. (2000). Re-envisioning the Ph.D. Center for Instructional Development. University of Washington.

•

STAKE, R.E. (1994). Case studies. In N.K. Denzin and Y.S. Lincoln (eds), Handbook of qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA:Sage.

•

STAKE, R.E. (1995). The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks, CA:Sage.

•

WINSTON, T. (1997). An introduction to case study. The qualitative report 3(2). Available online at http://www.nova.edu/ssss/QR/QR3-2/tellis1.html.

•

YIN, R.K. (1994). Case study research: Design and methods (2nd ed,) Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

129


130


NEW PHD STUDY PROGRAMMES IN WATER SCIENCES AT CZECH UNIVERSITY OF LIFE SCIENCES PRAGUE P. KOVAR Czech University of Life Sciences Prague, Faculty of Environmental Sciences, Kamycka 129, 165 21 Prague 620, Czech Republic

EXTENDED ABSTRACT The Czech University of Life Sciences (CULS) Prague’s roots go a long way back to 1906 when it was founded. But over the past twenty years the university has experienced the most dramatic changes in its one hundred years of history. In the field of research, every year CULS processes national and international grants worth about 7 to 9 million Euro, which represents some 20% of its annual budget. Currently, CULS Departments participate in three research projects of the 7th Framework Programme. The present development has an increased focus on external basic research as well as on market oriented long term issues both comprising safety in the food chain, sustainable development, renewable natural resources, environmental issues and ecology studies. PhD study-programmes development has already started in the 1980´s when the international postgraduate training courses in hydrology were running under the sponsorship of the UNESCO. The “Hydrological Data for Water Resources Planning” courses lasted three months each and served as an entrance gate to the CSc/PhD study for the best students. The structure of the courses was divided in four parts: 1. 2. 3. 4.

Data and Computing Hydrological Processes and Modeling Water Resources Management and Real Time Forecasting Case Studies, Hands-on Workshops and Projects

These courses required entry criteria for participants holding MSc level. This was also an excellent opportunity for international students from the third world to balance their study level in hydrology on the platform required as a starting point for PhD study. During the period from 1980 to 2004, when these course series finished, as many as 224 students from 48 countries took part. However, only 12% were registered into PhD programmes, either in the Czech Republic or elsewhere. The long history reveals that the postgraduate hydrology courses were well conceived, well received and highly reputed in the UN system. In 2004, due to changes in the UNESCO strategy, the Division of Water Sciences centralised education in specialised hydrology courses from the original five European locations to a central location situated in Delft, Netherlands. In that same year the last hydrological course was opened in Prague. A year later CULS Prague started to organise a series of summer schools focussing on hydrological extremes – floods and draughts – due to the growing interest of universities. This trend continues to this day. The increasing frequency of extreme rainfall-runoff

131

Comm. Appl. Biol. Sci, Ghent University, 75/1, 2010 events have obviously been caused by climate change combined with changes caused by direct human interventions. There is a long term tradition of cooperation, as well as twenty years of shared experience between CULS Prague, BOKU Vienna and WUR Wageningen Universities in the area of water-focused Master programmes, Summer Schools and Workshops, which are organised each year for our respective students. This created a background for future collaboration in joint scientific conferences and also in the exchange of students in PhD programmes. There are several doctoral study programmes in the field of renewable natural resources, but in particular, two water orientated programmes: Environmental Modelling (EM) and Water Regime, Improvements in Landscape (WRIL). The major courses of the EM study programme are mathematical modelling of hydrological and chemical processes, hydrology, hydraulics, geochemistry, transport processes, GIS, and numerical methods and it is more theory–based increasingly leading students towards hydrology research. In the first programme on Environmental Modelling (EM) lectures will be delivered by lecturers and professors from four Czech higher education institutions: Charles University Prague, Czech Technical University in Prague, HydroInform Prague and CULS Prague. Furthermore, WUR Wageningen and the Polish Academy of Science will also assist in the conception and implementation of this PhD study programme. Each PhD student is expected to spend at least three months at a partner university abroad. A two-week workshop on hydrological modelling is already organised annually for PhD students in the form of extra mural education, complemented by practical measurements in experimental catchments (in the Sumava-Bohmerwald Mountains) and hands-on modelling practice. The second programme (WRIL) comprises mainly courses in soil erosion control, soil hydrology, water streams, water storage and retention, soil water improvements, pedometrics and geostatistics and other courses, which are shared with the EM programme. The subsequent areas of specialisation in the WRIL programme are soil and water sciences. This PhD programme also has an international dimension, involving extensive mobility of students and teachers. Students are expected to share their experience by participating in workshops and conferences and by publishing. Focus is put on flood and erosion control, recultivation and restoration of landscape negatively altered by surface mining and on water accumulation retention on catchments. A good starting point for studying successfully in each of these PhD programmes is to communicate with our partner universities who already run similar MSc programmes through student/teacher mobility. Joint scientific conferences, e.g. the recent ICA/ APLU Water Policy Conference held in 2009 in Prague, provide a platform for acquainting teachers and researchers with recent trends in hydrology and water resources management. These conferences also provide a good opportunity to share water programmes for the purpose of future research. Summer schools, such as the “Natural Disaster Prevention Workshops“, which have been running at CULS for the past four years, offer another practical option to select future national and international PhD students, who are enthusiastic to study in a water-focused doctoral study programme.

132


TRAINING OF SCIENTIFIC AND PEDAGOGICAL PERSONNEL WITHIN DOCTORAL STUDIES AT MOSCOW STATE UNIVERSITY OF APPLIED BIOTECHNOLOGY PROF. G.V.SEMENOV1, T.V.IVANOVA² 1 Deputy Rector on Scientific work, ²Head of Department of Postgraduate study and doctoral studies,

Today specialists of high qualification should informed and able to isolate main things, analyze and generalize results, capable to solve difficult tasks of modern times. Moscow State University of Applied Biotechnology trains scientific and pedagogical and scientific personnel of high qualification through postgraduate study, doctoral studies within various branches of sciences: chemical, biological, technical, economic and veterinary (the amount of scientific specialties is 24). Continuing already developed traditions and strengthening available links, Moscow State University of Applied Biotechnology brings powerful contribution to the development of science and education in Russia and decision of problems connected with ensuring of population with healthy food. Scientific researches of MSAUB are directed on creation of safe foodstuff from animal raw materials; technical and hardware design of biotechnological processes; ways of resourcesaving and storages of raw materials and food production; methods of monitoring and express control of safety of raw materials and final production; preventive maintenance and treatment of agricultural animals. Research works being fulfilled within doctoral training form theoretical and methodological decisions in biological safety and healthy food, taking into account specificity of food sector in processing branches of agrarian and industrial complex, defining main principles of perfection of assortment, preservation of foodstuff, methods of physical distribution and price strategy. With view of integration of high school and academic science, professional training and reception of modern scientific and practical knowledge, development of perspective methods of research, interfaculty chairs and laboratories are created in MSUAB, such as: «Nanotechnology in food», «Theory and practice of scientific researches in processes of processing of meat», «Theory and practice of scientific researches in processes of processing of milk», «Theory and practice of scientific researches in processes of processing of poultry», «Theory and practice of scientific researches in refrigerating technique and technology», «Safety of products of animal origin, feed for animal and veterinary preparations». Preparation of doctors of sciences (doctoral studies at the university was opened in 1988) is carried out on technical and veterinary branches of sciences on 9 scientific specialties, in following directions:

133

Comm. Appl. Biol. Sci, Ghent University, 75/1, 2010 • •

theoretical bases of resource-saving technologies and technique of complex processing and storage of bio-raw materials of animal origin; scientific bases of veterinary and sanitary examination and hygiene of manufacture of non-polluting foodstuff.

Please, find some statistical data: over last 5 years appr. 20 doctor's and over 120 master's theses were protected in MSUAB. Graduates of postgraduate study and doctoral studies work at various institutes and organizations within Russia, CIS and abroad. Many became academicians, member-correspondents of Russian Academy of Agrarian Sciences and other academies, heads of industrial enterprises, firms and scientific institutions.

134


FROM NATIONAL GRADUATE SCHOOL TO EUROPEAN LEADERSHIP;THE CASE OF VLAG F. PEPPING1, V. PRSIC1 AND M.A.J.S. VAN BOEKEL² 1. Wageningen University, the Graduate school VLAG 2. Wageningen Universty, Product Design and Quality Management Wageningen University and Research Centre, P.O. Box 8129, 6700 EV Wageningen, the Netherlands.

INTRODUCTION Graduate schools were introduced in the Netherlands in 1992 by the Ministry of Education, Culture and Science (Rinnooy Kan Commitee, 1990). The idea was that graduate schools would; Contribute to the re-shaping of the research landscape (less fragmentation) Take care of the course work that was introduced in the PhD project An accreditation system with re-accreditation every 6 years operates under the Royal Academy of Arts and Sciences (KNAW). In the mid nineties some 125 schools had been accredited, in recent years this number has gone down mainly due to mergers of schools and a shift to so-called ‘graduate schools new style’ combining research masters and PhD programme within one university. The Graduate School VLAG (advanced studies in food technology, agrobiotechnology, nutrition and health sciences) exists since 1994 and in 2009 the third period of accreditation ended. VLAG is a national school and had till the end of 2009 four universities and five research organizations as members (see www.vlaggraduateschool.nl). Mid 2009 a team of 14 scientists from all over Europe did the third external peer review. The school has grown over the years and now some 25 academic research groups having in total 450 PhD students are affiliated with the school.

GRADUATE SCHOOLS AT WAGENINGEN UNIVERSITY In figure 1 the so-called matrix structure of Wageningen University & Research Centre is presented and this shows the spread of the respective graduate schools over the science groups. Next to VLAG there are five other graduate schools that have their administrative basis in Wageningen; • • • • •

Experimental Plant Sciences (EPS), Production Ecology & Resource Conservation (PE&RC) Wageningen Institute for Animal Sciences (WIAS) Mansholt Graduate School for Social Sciences (MG3S, incorporartes CERES as off 2010) Wageningen Institute for Environment and Climate Research (WIMEK)

EPS (experimental plant sciences) and VLAG (food science and nutrition) are schools with a national mandate in their domain, WIMEK is part of the Netherlands

135

Comm. Appl. Biol. Sci, Ghent University, 75/1, 2010 Research School for the Socio Economic and Natural Sciences of the Environment (SENSE). In a similar way the collaboration with Maastricht University within VLAG is organized within Maastricht under the umbrella of NUTRIM School for Nutrition, Toxicology and Metabolism. Figure 1: Matrix structure of Wageningen University with the BSc, MSc and PhD education

CHARACTERISTICS OF A GRADUATE SCHOOL, RESEARCH SCHOOL OR GRADUATE PROGRAMME Although the term ‘graduate school’ is still widely used a better description of the tasks of Dutch graduate schools or research schools might be ‘graduate programme’. This is because the degree awarded does not come from the graduate school. The suggestion to avoid confusion within Europe about the terminology stems from a report about PhD education in Denmark (A Public Good, 2006) Dutch universities receive € 80.000 from the government for each PhD thesis produced, within Wageningen University € 55.000 of this sum goes to the department. On average a PhD-project takes 58 months from the start of the appointment of the PhD-candidate until thesis defense. Essential for the PhD students is that they submit within 3 months after their appointment a Training & Supervision Plan (TSP) that describes the courses initially chosen. This TSP can be updated in later years during the PhD study. Completion of 30 ECTS, with a minimum of 11 ECTS to be devoted to discipline specific courses and a minimum of 6 ECTS for transferable skills, gives the PhD candidate the VLAG

136

Comm. Appl. Biol. Sci, Ghent University, 75/1, 2010 Education Certificate. The output financing system in use as outlined above includes a 30% lower payment to departments for graduations that do not comprise the Education Certificate. In 2008-2009 85% of the graduates obtained this certificate. The following characteristics are discussed in this article and, where appropriate, the link to European or worldwide efforts is outlined: • • • • • •

A commitment at institutional level and involvement in quality control Availability of core funds for fundamental research Challenging discipline specific courses Internationalisation Development of transferable skills The VLAG added value

A COMMITMENT AT INSTITUTIONAL LEVELAND INVOLVEMENT IN QUALITY CONTROL All graduate schools at Wageningen University receive funding from the central level for the following activities: • • •

A scientific director (half time) and management/secretarial support (around 1.5 fte) Post-graduate education (depends on the number of PhD students that are registered, budget around € 150.000) Workshops and sabbaticals (budget around € 50.000)

For VLAG the amount of money involved in these three activities is around €350.000 per year. This is a rather favorable situation compared to the financing of graduate schools elsewhere in The Netherlands. The Executive Board has not only delegated the quality control and progress monitoring of PhD projects to the graduate schools. Also a considerable part of the budget for strategic/fundamental research is allocated to research projects via the graduate school, see next paragraph. The quality control part implies that the scientific performance of the permanent staff is monitored to ensure that they meet the entry requirements set by the school and that all project proposals are evaluated on their scientific quality and feasibility by the school (if this evaluation is not done by others, for example funding bodies). Furthermore, the schools organize on behalf of the Executive Board the periodic external peer review. See: - Self-assessment report of Wageningen University part External peer review 2003- 2009 of June 2009, - Self evaluation Quality assessment of research 2008, NUTRIM School for Nutrition, Toxicology and Metabolism, Maastricht, and – Report of the International peer review of the Graduate School VLAG 2009.

137


AVAILABILITY OF CORE FUNDS FOR FUNDAMENTAL RESEARCH The Executive Board of Wageningen University makes available approximately 50% of the budget for strategic/fundamental research via the graduate schools. Within VLAG every 12 – 15 months an open call is announced for which proposals originating from two or more research groups are eligible. Through a system of preproposals and peer reviewed full proposals (having a 2/3 chance of success) the best proposals are selected. For winning proposals the research groups involved receive the salary for a PhD student (4 yrs) or a post doc (2 yrs). The five research organizations that participate in the school, next to the universities, and Maastricht University also contribute to this scheme. The annual budget for these projects is around € 600.000 per year and each year 5-7 projects can be funded and as a result of this early 2010 some 25 ongoing PhD projects are funded through this scheme. Within The Netherlands this approach is rather exceptional and this might be due to the fact that Wageningen University consists of one faculty.

CHALLENGING DISCIPLINE SPECIFIC COURSES The graduate school (co-)organizes each year 12 -15 discipline specific courses that vary in duration from 4 – 10 days. All courses have an international faculty and the proportion of participants from abroad varies between 20 and 60%. Fees are very low for the PhD-students from WU, modest for PhD students from elsewhere € 300 – 400 and rise progressively for participants from government/industry. An overview of forthcoming courses is available at www.vlaggraduateschool.nl/eduvlco.html. The aim is to add at least one new course to the programme each year. Courses are repeated annually or bi-annually. With three other graduate schools in Europe; 1. FOOD – Denmark 2. LiFT – Sweden 3. Applied Biosciences – Finland we have an agreement to facilitate participation in each other’s courses. For those topics that VLAG has no courses available the PhD students are stimulated to attend courses elsewhere nationally or internationally.

INTERNATIONALISATION The origin of the PhD students changed: A considerable proportion of the PhD students do not have the Dutch nationality. Fifteen years ago the non-Dutch PhD students were almost exclusively so-called sandwich PhD students, people from developing countries spending 4-8 months at the beginning and at the end of their PhD programme in The Netherlands and doing the field work in between these two periods in their home country. With the MSc programme in English since 2003 and as a result an international population of MSc graduates and ongoing internationalization, people from all over the world respond to job announcements, a considerable proportion of the regular PhD positions (four year contract with the university) is occupied by non-Dutch. That in some disciplines not enough qualified and/or interested national candidates are available (chemistry for example) also contributes to this development.

138

Comm. Appl. Biol. Sci, Ghent University, 75/1, 2010 Join VLAG and see the world! From the mid nineties onwards we have seen a steady increase in the number of research groups where the PhD students organize two week study tours to laboratories abroad. In 2010 this will result in study tours to Australia (Product Design and Quality Management), Japan (Food Physics), US (Food Process Engineering and Bioprocess Engineering), Switzerland & Italy (Food Chemistry) and Switzerland (Food Microbiology). Through these study tours several PhD graduates found a post doc position abroad.

DEVELOPMENT OF TRANSFERABLE SKILLS The skills-based courses are offered under the umbrella of Wageningen Graduate Schools, this joining of forces allows that several editions of these courses are held annually. Most important topics covered under this heading are; • • • • • • •

Scientific writing English for PhD students Presentation and publication skills Communication and management skills Career oriented courses PhD competence assessments Ethics

VLAG developed its own course titled ‘Philosophy and ethics of food science and technology’.

THE ADDED VALUE OF A GRADUATE SCHOOL AS VLAG Within Wageningen University each graduate school has a large degree of freedom to organize its work. Within VLAG we have made from the start as explicit choices: Internationalization of the course programme. From 1995 onwards all postgraduate courses were given in English and had an international faculty. At the start of 6th Framework Programme of the European Commission in 2004 we managed to build up a win-win relationship with several large EC-funded projects and for several topics special editions based on VLAG courses have been offered within such projects. The fact that we operated with an international faculty made this exercise possible. This might be an important lesson for others; join forces!! Cooperation with other organizations in Europe, got momentum after a meeting in Ghent in 2003, as an immediate spin-off of this meeting a Socrates Intensive Programme Food & Health for PhD students was established with annual sessions in France, Romania and Poland. This is another lesson learned; submit proposals and increase your visibility as school! Fostering ideas that live within the research groups and assist in getting funding for medium-sized research programmes (for example 3-5 PhD’s). Through a bottom-up approach multidisciplinary research programmes could be established in recent years on – bio(nano)technology, - water and energy reduction in food process engineering, - carbohydrates, - meat replacement, - nutrition & chronic diseases, -

139

Comm. Appl. Biol. Sci, Ghent University, 75/1, 2010 nutrigenomics, - from healthy food to healthy people (development cooperation), and - satiety and satisfaction. We do not accept a role just as an administrative centre and we try to show a leverage on the core funds received for fundamental research. The availability of a well-structured set of discipline specific and skills-based courses is not just an asset for the PhD-students affiliated with VLAG. It also makes both the school itself and the research groups attractive partners within projects. In various proposals for Marie Curie Initial Training Networks (for example in LEANGREENFOOD; Enzyme technology for lean and green food processing a collaboration between the Universities of Copenhagen, Wageningen and the Agricultural University of Athens) parts of the VLAG course programme could be incorporated in the training activities. It is our impression that this is evaluated positively by reviewers as it not only saves costs, it is also a vehicle to sustain the courses. So, make clear that you can contribute to an efficient execution of (inter)national projects. These choices resulted in an added value that is well-recognized by the participating groups.

EUROPEAN LEADERSHIP, LESSONS LEARNED AND POSSIBLE ACTIONS FOR THE COMING YEARS Important factors that contributed to the success and visibility of the graduate schools are: Adequate financial resources to establish a secretariat for each school including funds to compensate one of the full professors who takes up the role of scientific director for a period of 4 years A specific budget for each PhD student to attend and for the school to establish discipline specific courses at post-graduate level An explicit role of the graduate schools in monitoring of the quality of the research projects The availability of core funds to set up portfolio of research projects that can be really fundamental research projects without too much focus upfront on application Join forces nationally and internationally and submit proposals Possible actions for the future are to contribute to a harmonization of the ECTSsystem for postgraduate courses (European level) and to contribute to a reduction of the ‘time to graduation’ which is now still around 58 months (national level). The critical mass available in Wageningen (food science and nutrition) and Maastricht (nutrition) made it possible that we brought together the involvement in EC-funded projects and the availability of post-graduate training. For VLAG this implied that we could offer our courses more frequently as for example an annual ‘Masterclass Nutrigenomics’ (8 edition since 2002) and 5 editions (since 2005) of a ‘Hands-on advanced micro data analysis’ course in collaboration with the European Nutrigenomics Organization (NuGO: the European Nutrigenomics Organisation – linking genomics, nutrition and health research. Network of Excellence under FP6, contract nr. FP6-506360) .

140

Comm. Appl. Biol. Sci, Ghent University, 75/1, 2010 We could offer a tailor-made editions for Central- and Eastern Europe of our courses ‘Nutritional and lifestyle epidemiology’ and ‘Production and use of foodcomposition data’ for Eurreca (Eurecca: European micronutrient recommendations aligned. Preparing the way. FP6 network of Excellence (FP6-036196-2) and EuroFIR (EuroFIR: European Food Information Resource Network of Excellence (FP6513944). Given the importance of a well-defined training plan for the so-called ‘Early Stage Researchers‘ within Marie Curie Initial Training Networks we expect to be able to contribute to this important instrument for further harmonization and integration within Europe.

REFERENCES •

RINNOOY KAN Committee (1990) Adviescommissie Onderzoekscholen, ‘Vorming in Vorsen: van student tot zelfstandig onderzoeker. The Hague (Report Advisory Committee Graduate Schools)

•

A PUBLIC GOOD PhD Education in Denmark (2006) Report from an International Evaluation Panel. Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation. ISBN: 8797702-40-2

141


142


ACADEMIC PHD SCHOOL AT FACULTY OF AGRICULTURE IN TIRANA, ALBANIA B. BIJO, A. HODA AND F. THAMAJ Agricultural University of Tirana, Albania

SUMMARY Agricultural University of Tirana (AUT) is one of 12 public Universities in Albania. There are five Faculties within AUT. The study courses in AUT except of Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, are organized in three levels. Courses of the first level offer the fundamental knowledge. The students at the end of this cycle own 180 credits and obtain a first level diploma. In the second level study courses, the students get deeper theoretical and practical knowledge and modules are spread across 120 credits. At the end of this level the students obtain a second level diploma, according to the study course. In FVM, the study courses are organized as integrated program of second level that is spread across 300 credits. The students, who have finished the first level course, may go further in “Master of First level” for a professional training, where they do obtain 60 credits. The program of third cycle includes the courses of “Master of Second level” and the programs of PhD. The course of “Master of second level” is offered to the students who have achieved a Diploma of Second Level, and the students get deeper knowledge of scientific and professional character and do obtain at least 60 credits. PhD programs have totally an academic character. The principal aspect is the research and independent scientific activity. This program can be followed by the students who have a diploma of second level, or a diploma of “Master of Second Level”. The PhD program is organized in four years. The first year, consists of theoretical knowledge of the students. The second year is mainly research. The third year is research, data manipulation, publications, oral presentations and the last year is compilation of PhD thesis, its presentation and defense. Here is presented newly established doctoral school at Faculty of Agriculture and Environment.

INTRODUCTION In Albania there are 12 public Universities: University of Tirana, Agricultural University of Tirana(AUT), Polytechnic University, Academy of Arts, Fyschic Academy, University of Vlora” Ismail Qemali”, University of Korça”:Fan’S Noli”, University of Elbasan” Aleksander Xhuvani’, University of Durresi, University of Shkodra” Luigj Gurakuqi”, University of Gjirokastra” Eqerem Çabej”, University of Shkodra” Luigj Gurakuqi”, Agricultural University of Tirana is the only higher educational institution which provides and guarantees education and research in agricultural studies.

143

Comm. Appl. Biol. Sci, Ghent University, 75/1, 2010 AUT was founded in 1951 and until 2007 consisted of three faculties, Faculty of Agriculture, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine and Faculty of Forestry. Since two years, as a consequence of the reorganization of the Faculty of Agriculture and Environment two new faculties were created that of Biotechnology and Food as well as the Faculty of Economics and Agribusiness. AUT offers studies in three levels: Bsc, Msc and doctoral (PhD). Areas of research in AUT include applied biological sciences, animal and consumer health, Economical and agribusiness sciences, biotechnology and nutrition, environmental sciences etc. The mission of AUT is to deliver professional education and scientific research in the area of agriculture, food and environment. Its mission is related to the agricultural formation in terms of the development of a modern agriculture and guarantee of healthy and qualitative food. The achievement of this major objective is focused on the necessary production, sufficient distribution, high quality of the agricultural and livestock products, careful management of soil, water resources and air as well as the harmonized usage of the functions of the green and blue space. Agricultural University aims at being converted into the most excellent and largest center of graduate and post-graduate education, research and professional training of the professional workforce of agriculture, food and environment industry. By integrating education with the high level of research, it aims at preparing not only qualified specialists, but also responsible citizens, in service of the society, , especially in the area of the rural development, sustainable agricultural development, agritourism etc. AUT should see itself in the framework of a broader international perspective by launching its individuality in language and culture. The research is based on the Law (1) and Strategy of Higher Education which was established in 2007. The experience of the Faculty of Agriculture and Environment (FAE) (2) for the creation and organization of the PhD studies is presented here.

HISTORY AUT has traditionally offered PhD studies, where candidates usually had to apply at the specific Department which covers the research of their interest. The Department is obliged to appoint a PhD supervisor for each candidate. The supervisor and the candidate decide jointly on the research, the research methodology and the title of the research topic, which are approved after an open discussion in the Department. Following these decisions, the candidate would begin to perform the research of their chosen field. Continuing contacts were kept with their supervisor, therefore initial results were usually presented in the department, and after a period of not less than three years the candidate would present the PhD topic in front of a commission of five members. This commission evaluates the candidate based on his performed work and the candidate is awarded with the title of “Doctor of Sciences”. Albania signed the Bologna Declaration during Berlin conference, on 2003. Many efforts are done by the Ministry of Education and Science in order to implement the Bologna Declaration, including the study cycles, academic standards in higher education, teaching load, financial autonomy, and university admissions procedures. The establishment of the European Higher education Area as a result of the Bologna process have highlighted the crucial importance of doctoral

144

Comm. Appl. Biol. Sci, Ghent University, 75/1, 2010 education which has become a key policy issue for Albanian universities and for AUT as well. The doctoral studies are included as the third cycle as it was stated in Berlin communiqué of September 2003 and will contribute for the further development of the professions and will improve the professional development of doctoral students in a full range of careers. Currently a new model of PhD studies is being discussed, which is recently being implemented in Albania as well as FAE. The PhD school is entitled “Agriculture and Environment” which is consisted of five study programmes which correspond to the Department of FAE. The status of these studies was approved by the Council of Professors of the Faculty. Normal duration of PhD studies is three years, although certain candidates in specific conditions can extend their studies for more than one or two years, after they have strongly argued the extension of defending their PhD thesis. The research carried out by the PhD candidate is monitored by the appointed supervisor. During the research activity, each candidate must submit three scientific articles with initial results from the conducted research. The candidate is also required to publish and participate in international activities. The PhD studies use the credit system only during the first year of advanced studies. The main goal is to: • • • • • •

Merge different disciplines in a particular research filed. Encourage a multi-disciplinary approach to scientific issues. Offering students and environment to share their experience and expertise. To prepare the PhD students for entry in the market, and make their research more popular and more attractive to the job market. To follow professional integration of each student. To ensure international movements during and after the doctoral studies

ARGUMENT FOR OPENING OF THE NEW PROGRAME OF STUDY FAE has a long experience not only in teaching but also research. It has always had the primary role in forming the national level for specialists and scientists in the field of agricultural sciences. FAE has the capacity to guarantee the realization of this programme, through a highly qualified staff and equipped research laboratories that enable the formation of young scientists. As a rule, the University has to present a request to the Ministry of Higher Education and research (MHER) for opening of PhD study course. AUT have prepared all necessary documents, including the nomination of PhD program (Doctorate School “Agriculture and Environment”), scientific area, the PhD program that is approved by the Senate of University, academic staff who will be involved in the implementation of the program, regulation of the study course, previous experience, collaboration with other institutions for the completion of the program, infrastructure, laboratory etc. University has put forward the need for the opening of the program, requested from the labor market etc. The first proposal comes from the basic units (Departments) or from scientific groups within them. The decisions are approved for example by the council of Professors of the FAE and by the Senate of AUT. The academic structure that is responsible for the organization and leading of PhD program is Professor’s council of FAE. Professor’s

145

Comm. Appl. Biol. Sci, Ghent University, 75/1, 2010 council elects the program coordinator, who controls the completion of the program.

INSTITUTIONAL AND ACADEMIC RESPOSNIBILITY The proposed initiatives is composed of the basic units, hence the Department which has appropriate human, infrastructural and financial resources. The decisions are then approved by the Council of Professors of the Faculty and the Academic Senate. The PhD programmes are organized as a rule within a major research project. The academic structure responsible for the organizing and directing the programme of PhD studies is the Council of Professors of the Faculty. This Council appoints the Coordinator of the study programme, which follows and monitors the implementation of the programme. The Coordinator of the study programme is the vice dean for scientific research.

THE PROGRAMME OF DOCTORAL STUDIES The programme of study is known as the PhD studies of “Agriculture and Environment” at FAE, which corresponds to the third cycle of studies. These consist of five programmes of studies, which include: “Agronomic Sciences”, “Animal Production Sciences”, “Horticulture Sciences”, “Plant Protection Sciences”, and “Environmental Sciences”. The duration of the PhD programme in academic years should be at least three years more after the completion of the second cycle studies. The main objective is training young researchers in Agricultural Sciences, through acquisition and development of knowledge, capabilities and skills, necessary for planning, managing and conducting research activity individually and in group. The doctoral student must be able to conduct research, to present the obtained results, used methods in oral and written way. The first year is the year of the theoretical training which includes at least 60 ECTS. During this year most of the attention is based on the general knowledge, therefore the PhD candidates are obliged to attend two modules that are designed specifically for the general knowledge of the field. These modules are worth of 20 ECTS. The PhD candidate is also obliged to attend two specific modules which include information based on their research filed; these modules are worth 12-15 ECTS. Every student is supervised and supported by a supervisor that is selected at the start of the course, from among the professors of respective Department. The PhD candidate in collaboration with their appointed supervisor will choose, prepare and also will have to pass two specific modules that are related to their research field of study. These modules are worth 10 ECTS. Finally the PhD candidate will prepare the preliminary research work, which includes the methodology, the work programme, costs and research opportunities, bibliographic research, as well as preparation of a proposal of the research objectives. The supervisor and the doctoral student have continuous meetings. The doctoral student is supported by the supervisor in order to be able to carry out research activity, to prepare a presentation of the results of the research.

146

Comm. Appl. Biol. Sci, Ghent University, 75/1, 2010 The second year is mainly research/ creation. The students are responsible to attend two seminars which are organized by the Department, and estimated with ECTS. Finally 2 additional ECTS are achieved as a result of participation in national and international conferences. The third year is also mainly research/creation, as well as data processing, manuscript publications and referrals. The student will also be mobilized and the auditor, based on a specific programme in order to lead several laboratories, seminars etc with students of first cycle studies.

RESEARCH AT OTHER INSTITUTIONS WITHIN AND OUTSIDE THE COUNTRY In order to accomplish training and research objectives, there will be cooperation with other Universities within and outside the country, as well as other public and private non research institutions, which are interested to study and solve specific scientific problems. AUT which includes the FAE has several agreements and cooperates with many European Universities, such as Italy, Greece, Germany, Slovenia, Norway, France etc. It is the obligation of the supervisor to help and introduce the doctoral student to the international scientific world. The doctoral student have to spend a period of at least 3 months abroad at any research institution in frame of agreement between both institutions.

REGISTRATION AND SELECTION OF THE CANDIDATES All individuals possessing a Masters degree, a diploma of second level, an integrated diploma of second level or a diploma of former education system are eligible to be admitted to pursue the doctorate studies. Candidates owning only the Bachelor degree cannot be admitted to continue with doctorate studies. The candidates having a second cycle diploma or a diploma of former education system, which is not quite equivalent to the Master Diploma, have to take study courses in the first year of Doctoral school. A selection procedure is organized by a committee, in order to select the best among the students who have requested to pursue the doctoral school. This selection consists in the assessment of qualifications of the candidate. The faculty is responsible for the complete or partial acquaintance of the credits that the students have obtained in other programs of third cycle.

REFERENCES •

LIGJI, Nr.9741, datë 21.5.2007, PËR ARSIMIN E LARTË NË REPUBLIKËN E SHQIPËRISË I NDRYSHUAR ME LIGJIN, Nr.9832, datë 12.11.2007

•

SHKOLLA E DOKTORATÜS “Bujqüsia dhe Mjedisi”, Universiteti Bujqüsor i Tiranüs, Fakulteti i Bujqüsisü dhe Mjedisit.

147


148


EURODOC’AGRO, THE ILE DE FRANCE INITIATIVE FOR INTERNATIONAL DOCTORAL AND POSTDOCTORAL PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT IN AGRICULTURAL AND LIFE SCIENCES A. FRANÇOIS1, G. JEAN-JOSEPH², M. MAMBRINI³ 1

A AgroParisTech & ABIES doctoral school, 14 avenue du Maine, F-75732 Paris 15, ² STVE Cluster, Domaine de Vilvert F-78352 Jouy-en-Josas, ³INRA, Domaine de Vilvert F-78352 Jouy-en-Josas

THE FRENCH AND ILE DE FRANCE CONTEXTS In France, development of doctoral graduates and post-doctoral staff, besides universities, is undertaken by institutions specialized in the domain of agriculture and life sciences: the “Grandes Ecoles” for higher education in engineering and management, the veterinary schools and specialized research institutes and agencies. In absence of federative impulse, the support to early stage researchers’ careers and their implementation is split among the different actors. In the Ile de France region, in 2006, three graduate schools (the Grande Ecole AgroParisTech, Alfort National Veterinary School and Versailles National School of Landscape architecture) and research centers of national institutes (National Institutes for Agronomy, INRA, for Environmental Engineering, Cemagref, and the National Agency for Food Safety, AFSSA) have created a cluster in Life and Environmental Science and Technology (STVE cluster). They gather their expertise (1650 scientists, 410 PhDs, 96 research units, 2200 students) to i) improve the transdiciplinary and integrative approaches to unravel complex issues, ii) provide first-rate education and research and iii) strengthen their knowledge and transfer capacities, around four main axes: 1) agronomic and environmental sciences, 2) food, nutrition and health, 3) life science and applied engineering sciences and 4) sciences for complex systems and economic, social and management sciences. In 2004, a doctoral school (ABIES, 450 PhDs, 65 research teams) has been established, specialized in the same fields, which gathers in addition to the actors of the STVE cluster, three universities (Paris 7, Paris 11 and Paris-Est) and two research institutions (CIRAD and INERIS). This framework is a tremendous task force for implementing novel international careers and training future experts capable of tackling the next global challenges. However, doctoral and post-doctoral professional developments, increased mobility, cooperation among higher education institutes and exchange with non academic stakeholders rely also on the involvement of the research and support teams themselves. Therefore, the cluster STVE launched in 2009 the EuroDoc’Agro platform, an innovative model of support to scientists’ initiatives in doctoral training, which fulfils STVE strategic agenda and European Research Area quality standards.

149


AIM OF THE EURODOC’AGRO PLATFORM The core role of the platform is the incubation of European research training projects, using as levers the People actions of the 7th framework program and the Erasmus Mundus Joint Doctorate call of tender. It provides to: The scientist in charge of the project : collective, multi-sectorial and reflexive analysis of all the issues of the project : science and training programs, mobility, contract, security…, exchange of experience and good practices, opportunity to federate initiatives, quality control, support and insurance for “risk taking”, practical support and emulation. The STVE cluster: federation of bottom-up initiatives, at the core of its scientific strategy, collective dynamic in emerging science, European partnership and networks consolidated around a training and scientific objective, dynamic networks for supporting training and reinforcing career perspectives, coordinated actions of helpdesks from the different institutions, exchange of good practices. The PhDs, post-docs, institutes and ERA reinforcing and structuring of the European training, promoting mobility, improving career perspectives, and skills set development, acting for the development and recognition of double and joint inter-institution Doctoral degree programs, networking between academics, nonacademics in an international environment.

HOW EURODOC’AGRO IS WORKING The platform has been built on an initiative proposed by project leaders in 2007. The platform is today managed by a support team composed of representatives of the six institutions of the STVE cluster with complementary fields of expertise: project leaders, staff of European helpdesks, members of scientific direction of a doctoral school. They meet monthly to organize the activities of the platform. The activities are cadenced by the main deadlines of the call of tenders and can be grouped under three main axes: •

•

•

specific support to the project leaders and support staff: meetings for presenting the call of tenders, for a common analysis of the proposals, share of the best practices, improvement of our practices by the management of 5 permanent workshops gathering actors from the STVE cluster dedicated to i) mobility, welcoming of foreign researchers and management of their contract, ii) training and career plans implementations, iii) communication, iv) industry-academia partnership and v) quality and perspectives of the projects, brainstorming to develop innovative schemes for i) new career implementation and quality insurance and ii) new industry-academia partnerships for building research training programs.

150


Under development is the establishment and extension of a framework of monitoring and stakeholders networks.

SOME RESULTS AND KEY FIGURES Four Initial Training Network projects (ITN People program, 7th FP) have been incubated since 2007, one is financed, one is proposed in 2009, two are under preparation for 2010. Two Erasmus Mundus Joint Doctorates have been proposed in 2009, one as partner is financed, the second, as coordinator is in revision for 2010, along with three new projects. All together this represents 90 PhD projects, 12 post doctoral projects, 32 new training courses, 18 summer schools, 38 international partners, 6 private companies. A practical guide for Erasmus Mundus and ITN projects has been implemented.

PERSPECTIVES The platform has the responsibility of the productivity of the exchanges. Three levels of improvements have been identified: i) minimisation of the costs, redundancies and searching for novel schemes, ii) expanding the incubation activities by external peer-review of initiatives and orientation to the best funding program, iii) transcription and dissemination of novel know-how, iv) becoming the unique interlocutor of various stakeholders, regional, national and European involved in international training by and for research.

151


152


STANDARDIZATION OF DOCTORAL STUDY IN AGRICULTURAL AND EXTENSION EDUCATION: IS THE FIELD OF STUDY MATURE ENOUGH FOR ACHIEVEMENT OF THE OPTIMUM DEGREE OF ORDER? G. E. BRIERS1 J. R. LINDNER1, G. C. SHINN1, G. W. WINGENBACH1 AND M. T. BAKER2 1 Texas A&M University, College of Agriculture and Life Sciences Department of Agricultural Leadership, Education, and Communications, 2116 TAMU, College Station, Texas, USA 77843-2116 2 Texas Tech University, College of Outreach and Distance Education Box 42191, 605 Indiana Avenue, Lubbock, Texas, USA 79409-2191

SUMMARY Agricultural and extension education—or some derivative name—is a field of study leading to the doctoral degree in universities around the world. Is there are body of knowledge or a taxonomy of the knowledge—e.g., a knowledge domain—that one should possess with a doctorate in agricultural and extension education? The purpose of this paper was to synthesize the work of researchers who attempted to define the field of study, with a taxonomy comprising the knowledge domains (standards) and knowledge objects—structured interrelated sets of data, knowledge, and wisdom—of the field of study. Doctoral study in agricultural and extension education needs a document that provides for rules and guidelines—rules and guidelines that in turn provide for common and repeated use—all leading to achievement of an optimum degree of order in the context of academic, scholarly, and professional practice in agricultural and extension education. Thus, one would know in broad categories the knowledge, skills, and abilities possessed by one who holds a doctoral degree in agricultural and extension education. That is, there would exist a standard for doctoral degrees in agricultural and extension education. A content analysis of three previous attempts to categorize knowledge in agricultural and extension education served as the primary technique to create a new taxonomy—or to confirm an existing taxonomy—for doctoral study in agricultural and extension education. The following coalesced as nine essential knowledge domains for a doctorate in agricultural and extension education: (1) history, philosophy, ethics, and policy; (2) agricultural/rural development; (3) organizational development and change management; (4) planning, needs assessment, and evaluation; (5) learning theory; (6) curriculum development and instructional design; (7) teaching methods and delivery strategies; (8) research methods and tools; and, (9) scholarship and communications. Key words: agricultural and extension education, doctoral study, knowledge domain, knowledge object, standards, taxonomy.

153


INTRODUCTION Peoples, institutions, businesses, communities, and countries are interconnected culturally, environmentally, economically, even linguistically and temporally—by processes collectively referred to as globalization. Information, telecommunications, and transportation technologies, among others, have contributed to globalization. Further, interconnectedness has led to interdependence among entities. And interdependence has led to standardization. Interdependence requires standardization; thus, standards are a way of life today (2010). The International Organization for Standardization (ISO, 2010) has developed more than 17,500 international standards on a variety of subjects. More than 1,000 new standards are published each year. And while ISO may be the most active and widely known standardization body, it is certainly not the only such organization. The World Standards Services Network (2006) links international, regional, and national standardization bodies, including international and regional organizations that develop standards in their specialized subject areas. What is a “standard”? The ISO/IEC Guide 2:2004 defined a standard as “a document, established by consensus and approved by a recognized body, that provides, for common and repeated use, rules guidelines, or characteristics for activities or their results, aimed at the achievement of the optimum degree of order in a given context” (World Standards Services Network, 2006, para. 2.1). In higher education, the Bologna Process (Benelux Bologna Secretariat, 2007; Umeå University, 2007) is a multi-national (46 countries as of 2009) effort to create the European Higher Education Area (EHEA). The conditions (reforms) necessary to create EHEA—that is, the outcomes of the Bologna Process—include: •

• •

Easily readable and comparable degrees organized in a three-cycle structure (e.g. bachelor-master-doctorate): Countries are currently setting up national qualifications frameworks that are compatible with the overarching framework of qualifications for the European Higher Education Area and define learning outcomes for each of the three cycles. Quality assurance in accordance with the Standards and Guidelines for Quality Assurance in the European Higher Education Area (ESG). Fair recognition of foreign degrees and other higher education qualifications in accordance with the Council of Europe/UNESCO Recognition Convention. (Benelux Bologna Secretariat, 2007, “About Bologna”, para. 3)

Progress of the Bologna Process matches development processes for other standards: From 29 European country signatories in 1999 to 46 country signatories in 2009, with additional countries from around the world (Australia, Brazil, P.R. China, Egypt, Ethiopia, Israel, Japan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Mexico, Morocco, New Zealand, Tunisia, and USA) participating in the first Bologna Policy Forum in Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium in 2009, the Bologna Process has moved from a regional initiative to a global examination of guidelines for higher education. Thus, standardization in higher education is part of the current global landscape.

154

Comm. Appl. Biol. Sci, Ghent University, 75/1, 2010 The doctorate is the defined third degree using EHEA guidelines. Though the USA is not a signatory participant of the Bologna Process, U.S. doctoral education has a long history and wide recognition and support. Just as is true with other processes, doctoral education should be and is dynamic and continually under review and development. Golde and Walker (2006) and Walker, Golde, Jones, ConklinBueschel, and Huchings (2008) examined doctoral education futuristically; they contended that doctoral education is the process by which a field of study prepares new stewards of the discipline. A team of researchers in Texas has been examining doctoral education in the field of study of agricultural and extension education—and the outcomes of that education—on a systematic basis for almost 10 years. The work was begun by Lindner and Dooley (2001; 2002) and continued with Lindner, Dooley, and Wingenbach (2003). They examined agricultural and extension education competencies (knowledge, skills, and abilities) as acquired by U.S. doctoral students in the field of study. The work began with a Taxonomy of Agricultural Education Graduate Students’ Knowledge, Skills, and Abilities, a staff study completed through a review of literature, document analysis (e.g., of doctorallevel course syllabi), and interviews of faculty members who taught doctoral-level courses and supervised doctoral students (Lindner and Dooley, 2001). Then, using a questionnaire listing 22 knowledge items, 43 skill items, and 23 ability items, they surveyed “beginning, middle, and ending” doctoral students (Lindner and Dooley, 2002). Students were instructed to assess their own levels of knowledge, skills, and abilities (KSAs) as very low, low, average, high, or very high for each of the 88 items. The researchers theorized that, if these were the knowledge, skills, and abilities to be developed in a doctoral program, then beginning students on average would possess lowest levels of KSAs while students completing their doctoral programs would possess highest levels of the identified KSAs. The results confirmed their hypotheses, and the researchers concluded that these KSAs were, indeed, the KSAs being developed in the educational programs of these doctoral students. Lindner, Dooley, and Wingenbach (2003) expanded the study of 58 Texas doctoral students in agricultural education to a cross-national study of 166 graduate students from 23 countries. Students ranked several competencies (defined as a collective grouping of KSAs) consistently important, regardless of country of origin. Those competencies were applications knowledge, international knowledge, technical skills, systems skills, communication abilities, and attentiveness and quantitative abilities. The study showed that standardization of advanced degree programs, or at least students’ expected outcomes of such programs, provides understanding about cross-national norms of academic rigor and definable components of importance in agricultural and extension education doctoral programs.

155

Comm. Appl. Biol. Sci, Ghent University, 75/1, 2010 Table 1. 2003 Description of knowledge, skills, and abilities as agreed to by graduate students in a study to develop a cross-national agricultural education taxonomy (CNAET) Knowledge Teaching Strategies (TSK) Foundations (FK)

Skills Content (CS)

Abilities Communication (C)

Process (PS)

Applications (AK)

Social (SS)

International (IK)

Complex Problem Solving (CPS) Technical (TS) Systems (SysS) Resource Management (RMS)

Idea Generation and Reasoning (IGRA) Perceptual and Spatial (PSA) Quantitative and Attentiveness (QAA)

Shinn, Briers, and Baker (2008) continued to study doctoral preparation in the field of agricultural education. Using the Delphi method (Dalkey, 2002: Weaver, 1971), they engaged 17 active scholars in the US to define agricultural education and identify content for doctoral-level study in agricultural education. The Delphi panel reached consensus on defining of agricultural education as a field of study, on identifying 67 knowledge objects, and on categorizing those knowledge objects in 10 knowledge domains. The Delphi panel agreed that the knowledge base (standardized components) for doctoral study in agricultural education needed to include (1) planning and needs assessment; (2) curriculum development; (3) learning theory; (4) instructional design; (5) delivery strategies; (6) evaluation; (7) research methods and tools; (8) scholarship and writing; (9) history, philosophy, and ethics; and (10) contextual applications, culture, and diversity—all effecting continual improvement. However, as this study was derived from a “U.S.” perspective, the authors realized that panelists’ U.S.-centric culture and philosophies toward higher education influenced their perceptions of what knowledge content should be included in agricultural education doctoral-level study. Thus, the scope of this investigation was expanded to determine perspectives from an international panel of experts in agricultural and extension education. The expanded investigation of doctoral-level study in agricultural education (Shinn et al., 2008) was accomplished when Shinn, Wingenbach, Lindner, Briers, and Baker (2009) conducted a Delphi study with a panel of 15 active international scholars. The panelists’ task was to define agricultural and extension education as an international field of study. The scholar panel reached consensus on the following definition: “International Agricultural and Extension Education (IAEE) is a field of study in the social sciences, behavioral sciences, and natural and life sciences that is based on sound principles of teaching and learning and integrates the sciences relevant for the development of human capital and for the sustainability of agriculture, food, renewable natural resources, and the environment. International agricultural and extension education is a knowledge exchange system that engages change agents in a participatory persuasive process of educating global stakeholders and preparing

156

Comm. Appl. Biol. Sci, Ghent University, 75/1, 2010 future farmers, agricultural specialists, and agribusiness leaders in a changing world. International agricultural and extension education professionals conduct research, teaching, and outreach activities to improve the national agricultural extension system, the vocational and technical agricultural education system, and the people who work in the field of study. International agricultural and extension education includes the instruction in and acquisition of knowledge, attitudes, and skills related to natural and social sciences, globalization, and cultural diversity that produce healthy, socially responsible, ecologically-sound citizens relevant in the 21st century. International agricultural and extension education prepares people as global citizens to make better decisions and to be aware of the consequences of their actions and recommendations. International agricultural and extension education encourages innovation, seeks to bring about dissemination and adoption of best practices among stakeholders, and produces graduates who are open-minded, responsive, and who use advanced technology for system adaptation, operational and economic efficiency, social responsibility, and environmental stewardship. International agricultural and extension education is intended to develop agricultural leadership and to help people to identify and use knowledge to help themselves. As a professional society, international agricultural and extension education provides continuing education at the international level for agricultural and extension education professionals. The professional society serves a role in networking, social capital development, and the interactive emergence of a knowledge society” (p. 83). Then, Shinn, Wingenbach, Briers, Lindner, and Baker (2009), using the aforementioned Delphi panel, identified knowledge objects and knowledge domains for doctoral-level content in international agricultural and extension education. The researchers sorted the resulting 126 knowledge objects into 12 unique knowledge domains, all as agreed upon by the Delphi panel members. The 12 knowledge domains were (1) agricultural/rural development, (2) agricultural/biophysical systems, (3) change and technology adoption, (4) delivery strategies, (5) human resource development, (6) instructional design/curriculum development, (7) learning theory, (8) organizational development, (9) philosophy, history, and policy, (10) planning and needs assessment, and evaluation, (11) research methods and tools, and (12) scholarship and communications. The knowledge domains were listed alphabetical and without hierarchical structure or differential value.

PURPOSE The purpose of this paper is to analyze the findings of previous research identified here to develop a common or more nearly ubiquitous set of knowledge domains. The results will be posed, then, as a catalyst document for the development of an international standard for the outcome standards of doctoral students in agricultural and extension education and the credentials that doctoral graduates in agricultural and extension education should possess.

157


MATERIALS AND METHODS Findings from studies conducted by the researchers served as the basis for this paper (Baker, Shinn, and Briers, 2007; Lindner and Dooley, 2001; Lindner and Dooley, 2002; Lindner, Dooley, and Wingenbach, 2003; Shinn, Baker, and Briers, 2007; Shinn, Briers, and Baker, 2008; Shinn, Wingenbach, Briers, Lindner, and Baker, 2009; Shinn, Wingenbach, Lindner, Briers, and Baker, 2009). A content analysis of the findings was conducted by the authors to integrate the findings of the studies and to develop a set of knowledge domains. The eight papers referenced here yielded three different sets of knowledge domains; those three sets of knowledge domains are identified as follows: (a) international agricultural and extension education taxonomy (b) national agricultural education taxonomy, and (c) cross national agricultural education taxonomy. Below are the three taxonomies and lists of knowledge domains: Table 2.Original listings of three sets of knowledge domains/knowledge, skills, and abilities constituting taxonomies for agricultural education/agricultural and extension education International Agricultural and Extension Education Taxonomy (IAAET) (Shinn, Wingenbach, Lindner, Briers, and Baker, 2009)

National Agricultural Education Taxonomy (NAET) (Shinn, Briers, and Baker, 2008)

Cross National Agricultural Education Taxonomy (CNAET) (Lindner, Dooley, and Wingenbach, 2003)

Agricultural/biophysical systems (ABS)

Contextual applications, culture, and diversity (CACD)

Applications knowledge (AK)

Agricultural/rural development (ARD)

Curriculum development (CD)

Communications (C)

Change and technology adoption (CTA)

Delivery strategies (DS)

Complex problem-solving skills (CPS)

Delivery strategies (DS)

Evaluation (E)

Content skills (CS)

Human resource development (HRD) Instructional design/curriculum development (IDCD) Learning theory (LT)

History, philosophy, and ethics (HPE) Instructional design (ID)

Foundations knowledge (FK) Idea generation and reasoning abilities (IGRA)

Learning theory (LT)

Organizational development (OD) Philosophy, history, and policy (PHP) Planning and needs assessment, and evaluation (PNAE)

Planning and needs assessment (PNA) Research methods and tools (RMT) Scholarship and writing (SW)

International knowledge (IK) Perception and spatial abilities (PSA) Process skills (PS)

158

Quantitative and attentiveness abilities (QAA)

Comm. Appl. Biol. Sci, Ghent University, 75/1, 2010 Research methods and tools (RMT) Scholarship and communications (SC)

Resource management skills (RMS) Social skills (SS) Systems skills (SysS) Teaching strategies knowledge (TSK) Technical skills (TS)

Definitions and descriptions of the knowledge domains and categories of knowledge, skills, and abilities assisted the researchers as they strived for consensus on a set of knowledge domains and definitions/descriptions of those knowledge domains. International Agricultural and Extension Education Taxonomy (Shinn, Wingenbach, Lindner, Briers, and Baker, 2009) Agricultural/Biophysical Systems—“. . . the integrity of biophysical systems, in particular, are dependent upon their context, both spatially (across landscapes) and temporally (multi-generational). Thus, a landscape would have integrity if its ecosystems retain their complexity and capacity for self-organization, and sufficient diversity, within their structures and functions, to maintain the systems’ self-organizing complexity . . . through time” (Iverson and Cornett, 1994, p. 1). [ABS-IAEET] Agricultural/Rural Development—Processes for improving lives of individuals, families, and communities—meeting basic human needs, improving economic wellbeing, and allowing hope, promoting peace, and sustaining their environment (see Snapp and Pound, 2008; Wals and Bawden, 2004). [ARD-IAEET] Change and Technology Adoption—Processes by which individuals and social systems accept or reject innovations. Roles of the change agent in influencing acceptance or rejection (see Rogers, 2003). [CTA-IAEET] Delivery Strategies—Processes by which information is transferred (or transfer is influenced) to a learner by a teacher/facilitator/coach (see Tuttle, Lindner, and Dooley, 2007). [DS-IAEET] Human Resource Development—HRD is concerned with providing learning and personal development opportunities and conducting training programs. According to Rao (2004), “HRD is a continuous planned process by which employees are helped” (p. 291). [HRD-IAEET] Instructional Design/Curriculum Development - Processes by which information for learning is packaged, arranged, and presented for the learner (see Berger, 1996; Bruner, 1966; Rothwell and Kazanas, 2004). [IDCD-IAEET] Learning Theory— An attempt to describe how people learn, thus providing an understanding of this complex cognitive, emotional, and social process of change (see Bandura, 1977; Dewey, 1938; Knowles, Holton, & Swanson, 2005; Vygotsky, 1978). [LT-IAEET]

159

Comm. Appl. Biol. Sci, Ghent University, 75/1, 2010 Organizational Development - Organizational development is the process through which an organization develops the internal capacity to be the most effective it can be in its mission work and to sustain itself over the long term. This definition highlights the explicit connection between organizational development work and the achievement of organizational mission (see McLean, 2006). [OD-IAEET] Philosophy, History, and Policy— The epistemology, ontology, axiology, and universal science framed in past, present, and future contexts and that are integrated into a course of action designed to influence and determine decisions, actions, and other consistent patterns of activity (see Durant, 1961). [PHP-IAEET] Planning, Needs Assessment, and Evaluation— A comprehensive, systematic, and flexible approach to charting direction, determining the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, threats, and resources of an educational program, and determining the extent to which the purposes are being accomplished (see Witkin & Altschuld, 1995). [PNAE-IAEET] Research Methods and Tools— Processes of unusual persistence and systemacy whereby new knowledge is discovered (see Hamlin, 1966). [RMT-IAEET] Scholarship and Communications—Processes of preparing, packaging, verbalizing, depicting, and displaying information for new consumers of that information (see Boyer, 1990; Weiser, 1996). [SC-IAEET] National Agricultural Education Taxonomy (Shinn, Briers, & Baker, 2008) Contextual Applications, Culture, and Diversity—Understanding how teaching, learning, understanding, and change is affected by culture, diversity, and politics by embracing unique contributions in the form and function of the environments in which the field of study operates. [CCD-NAET] Curriculum Development—Curriculum theories, models, and design needed for the development of learning materials. [CD-NAET] Delivery Strategies—Using effective and efficient methods to engage learners in the instructional materials; incorporate research-based practice to disseminate and diffuse knowledge. [DS-NAET] Evaluation—The systematic process of using evaluation models and evaluation techniques to conduct formative and summative assessments, including outcome assessments, for program improvement and accountability using monitoring, measurement, and assessment theories and techniques that provide information from which to make educational decisions. [E-NAET] History, Philosophy, and Ethics—Understanding the historical philosophical underpinnings of the field of study that provide understanding the world’s cultures, religions, and traditions coupled responsibility, guided by professionalism, intellectual honesty, and ethics. [HPE-NAET]

160

events and a basis for with ethical professional

Comm. Appl. Biol. Sci, Ghent University, 75/1, 2010 Instructional Design—Principles and processes of learning and teaching to apply learning theory to use appropriate instruction methods in a variety of educational settings, both formal and non formal, with adult and youth audiences. [ID-NAET] Learning Theory—Knowledge, skills, interests, understandings, appreciations, values, ideas, levels and developmental phases—building from theories of psychology, cognition, sociology, teaching and learning, and taxonomy. [LT-NAET] Planning and Needs Assessment—Identifying the educational needs of learners, determining critical thinking skills in both formal and non-formal settings and organizing effective educational programs using principles of learning, technology transfer, and change theory is a range of cultural, societal, and environmental contexts. [PNA-NAET] Research Methods and Tools—Process of using appropriate research methods and tools to identify problems, initiate and sustain programmatic research, analyze, evaluate, and create knowledge, and make informed decision that improve theory and practice. [RMT-NAET] Scholarship and Writing—Preparing and communicating intellectual work that provides a basis for informed practice and is validated by peers and communicated. [SW-NAET] Cross National Agricultural Education Taxonomy (Lindner, Dooley, & Wingenbach, 2003) Applications Knowledge—Current trends, practices, and application that facilitate change and technology transfer: Includes distance education, technology transfer, contemporary issues, and technology application. [AK-CNAET] Communications—Written and oral communication are needed for the effective and efficient exchange of information and ideas: Includes oral comprehension, written comprehension, speech clarity, and written expression. [C-CNAET] Complex Problem-Solving—Information gathering and idea evaluation are necessary to solve real-world problems: Includes implementation planning, information organization, idea generation, and idea evaluation. [CPS-CNAET] Content Skills—Reading comprehension and mathematics provide a foundation for the acquisition of more specific skills: Includes speaking, active listening reading comprehension, and writing. [CS-CNAET] Foundation Knowledge—Methods, theories, principles, and practices that provide a foundation to guide the field of agricultural education; Includes history and philosophy, research theory, research methods, and policy development. [FKCNAET] Idea Generation and Reasoning Abilities—Inductive and deductive reasoning are needed to formulate logical conclusions: Includes fluency of ideas, deductive reasoning, inductive reasoning, and information ordering. [IGRA-CNAET] International Knowledge—Theories, principles, and practices related to agricultural development in cross-national settings: Includes international agricultural advising,

161

Comm. Appl. Biol. Sci, Ghent University, 75/1, 2010 international project management, and international agricultural development. [IK-CNAET] Perceptual and Spatial Abilities—Applying known solutions and identifying underlying problems and understanding how these problems fix into larger systems are needed to solve complex issues: Includes memorization, flexibility of closure, speed of closure, and perceptual speed. [PSA-CNAET] Process Skills—Critical thinking and active learning contribute to increased acquisition of additional competencies: Includes learning strategies, critical thinking, active learning, and monitoring. [PS-CNAET] Quantitative and Attentiveness Abilities—Understanding and organizing problems using logical and mathematical reasoning are needed to synthesize data while working towards solutions: Includes number facility, originality, mathematical reasoning, and time sharing. [QAA-CNAET] Resource Management Skills—Time management is needed to effectively and efficiently allocate resources: Includes time management, management of material resources, management of personnel resources, and management of financial resources. [RMS-CNAET] Social Skills—Persuasion and social perceptiveness are developed capacities that help individuals achieve objectives: Includes social perceptiveness, coordination, persuasion, and negotiation. [SS-CNAET] Systems Skills—Visioning and decision-making are needed to for people to work with others: Includes identification of key causes, systems perception, downstream consequences, and evaluation. [SysS-CNAET] Teaching Strategies Knowledge—Theories, techniques, and processes that enhance the teacher-learner process for adults and youth: Includes learning theories, youth leadership, adult education, and youth guidance and counseling. [TSK-CNAET] Technical Skills—Technology design and operations analysis are needed to use information technologies effectively: Includes installation, testing, equipment maintenance, troubleshooting, and repairing. [TS-CNAET]

METHOD The first analyses were to compare and contrast the national (U.S.) study of agricultural education with the international study of agricultural and extension education as these two studies were both informed by Delphi studies and used similar questions to elicit responses from engaged scholars. Next, Q methodology was chosen to examine content analysis of the three taxonomies by four of the five researchers and then negotiations to reach consensus allowed us as researchers to examine how to think about the structure and standardization of knowledge domains within agricultural and extension education. The 12, 10, and 15 domains/KSA categories—27 collectively from the three studies—were printed on 27 index cards; four sets of the 27 index cards were made. Then, four of the five researchers, each using his set of 27 index cards and

162

Comm. Appl. Biol. Sci, Ghent University, 75/1, 2010 the definition of each of the 27, sorted and categorized individually the 27 items. After sorting them into his categories, each researcher labeled each category with a name/description of the category. The four sets were recorded. Next, the researchers compared the four individual categorizations to assess commonalities and differences. Then, the researchers negotiated an agreed-upon set of knowledge domains. Finally, each of the emergent knowledge domains was described/defined. During the description, definition process, additional negotiations occurred, resulting in further identification and refinement of knowledge domains.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION In comparing and contrasting the IAAET with the NAET, the researchers determined that there are more commonalities than differences. In fact, there was a great deal of common ground: delivery strategies; instructional design and curriculum development; learning theory; philosophy, history, (ethics), and policy; planning and needs assessment and evaluation; research tools and methods; and scholarship and communications (writing). (See Table 3.) Table 3. Comparison of IAAET and NAET IAAET Delivery Strategies (DS) Instructional Design/Curriculum Development (IDCD) Learning Theory (LT) Philosophy, History, and Policy (PHP) Planning and Needs Assessment, and Evaluation (PNAE) Research Methods and Tools (RMT) Scholarship and Communications (SC)

NAET Delivery Strategies (DS) Instructional Design (ID) Curriculum Development (CD) Learning Theory (LT) History, Philosophy, & Ethics (HPE) Evaluation (E) Planning and Needs Assessment (PNA) Research Methods and Tools (RMT) Scholarship and Writing (SW)

On the other hand, there were differences as well. Contextual applications, culture, and diversity emerged as an area of seemingly more importance in the US than internationally. The international study found a larger emphasis on agricultural biophysical systems, agricultural and rural development, change and technology adoption, and human and organizational resource development. Table 4. Contrast of IAAET and NAET IAAET

NAET Contextual Applications, Culture, & Diversity (CCD)

Agricultural/Biophysical Systems (ABS) Agricultural/Rural Development (ARD) Change and Technology Adoption (CTA) Human Resource Development (HRD) Organizational Development (OD)

163

Comm. Appl. Biol. Sci, Ghent University, 75/1, 2010 Emerging from content analysis of the 27 domains and descriptions was a set of nine knowledge domains. Examination of the processes by which the researchers first independently categorized each of the 27 knowledge domains into the existing domains (see Table 2) reveals that each researcher categorized all 27 of the domains into a domain from either the National Agricultural Education Taxonomy or the International Agricultural and Extension Education Taxonomy. That is, none of the domains was identified by the names/descriptions of the domains from the Cross-National Agricultural Education Taxonomy. Actually, each of the placements of the knowledge domains as a consensus could have been labeled as IAEET because the two that were categorized by consensus as described by the NAET had identical categories in the IAEET (RMT in both the NAET and IAEET). From the NAET, two knowledge domains (planning and needs assessment and evaluation) were categorized and defined as one domain (planning, needs assessment, and evaluation) in the IAEET. Similarly, knowledge domains of organizational and human resource development and change and technology adoption merged into one domain labeled organizational development and change management in the final taxonomy. Table 5. Procedures and results leading to consensus for knowledge domains, their descriptions and definitions for a taxonomy of the knowledge base for doctoral study in agricultural and extension education Original Item

By

To

Consensus Placement

[FK-CNAET]

A B C D

[HPE-NAET] [HPE-NAET] [HPE-NAET] [HRD-IAEET]

[PHP-IAEET]

[PHP-IAEET]

A B C D

[HPE-NAET] [HPE-NAET] [HPE-NAET] [PHP-IAEET]

[PHP-IAEET]

[HPE-NAET]

A B C D

[HPE-NAET] [HPE-NAET] [HPE-NAET] [PHP-IAEET]

[PHP-IAEET]

[CCD-NAET]

A B C D

[CCD-NAET] [ARD-IAEET] [HPE-NAET] [DS-IAEET]

[PHP-IAEET]

[IK-CNAET]

A B C D

[CCD-NAET] [ARD-IAEET] [ARD-IAEET] [ARD-IAEET]

[ARD-IAEET]

Consensus Knowledge Domain Description and Definition Philosophy, History, Ethics, and Policy Examining philosophical foundations, historical events, professional ethics and standards, and policies that guide a professional code of practice in the field of study; takes into account culture and religions, politics, human diversity, integrity, intellectual honesty, and morality.

Agricultural/Rural Development Theories, principles, and practices of

164

Comm. Appl. Biol. Sci, Ghent University, 75/1, 2010 [ARD-IAEET]

A B C D

[ARD-IAEET] [ARD-IAEET] [ARD-IAEET] [ARD-IAEET]

[ARD-IAEET]

[ABS-IAEET]

A B C D

[ARD-IAEET] [ARD-IAEET] [ARD-IAEET] [ARD-IAEET]

[ARD-IAEET]

[SS-CNAET]

A B C D

[CCD-NAET] [ARD-IAEET] [LT-IAEET] [HRD-IAEET]

[HRD-IAEET]

[RMS-CNAET]

A B C D

[OD-IAEET] [ARD-IAEET] [HRD-IAEET] [PNA-NAET]

[HRD-IAEET]

[HRD-IAEET]

A B C D

[OD-IAEET] [ARD-IAEET] [HRD-IAEET] [HRD-IAEET]

[HRD-IAEET]

[OD-IAEET]

A B C D

[OD-IAEET] [ARD-IAEET] [HRD-IAEET] [PNA-NAET]

[HRD-IAEET]

[AK-CNAET]

A B C D

[HPE-NAET] [ARD-IAEET] [CTA-IAEET] [ID-NAET]

[CTA-IAEET]

[CTA-IAEET]

A B C D

[CCD-NAET] [ARD-IAEET] [CTA-IAEET] [CTA-IAEET]

[CTA-IAEET]

[SysS-CNAET]

A B C D

[PNA-NAET] [ARD-IAEET] [HRD-IAEET] [PNA-NAET]

[PNA-NAET]

[PNAE-IAEET]

A

[PNA-NAET]

[PNA-NAET]

165

biophysical systems that are then deployed—using theories, principles, and practices of natural sciences—in rural environments to improve the lives of people and their communities, whether in domestic, crossnational, or global settings. Organizational/Human Development and Change Management Theories, principles, and practices of social systems that are then deployed—using theories, principles, and practices of social sciences. Helping organizations and people understand theories and practices to diffuse information through a social system, encourage or discourage the use (adoption or rejection) of innovations, and strategies to establish and achieve their goals through organizations.

Planning, Assessment, Evaluation

Needs and

Identifying agricultural and educational needs

Comm. Appl. Biol. Sci, Ghent University, 75/1, 2010 B C D

[PNA-NAET] [PNA-NAET] [PNA-NAET]

[PNA-NAET]

A B C D

[PNA-NAET] [PNA-NAET] [PNA-NAET] [PNA-NAET]

[PNA-NAET]

[E-NAET]

A B C D

[PNA-NAET] [PNA-NAET] [PNA-NAET] [E-NAET]

[PNA-NAET]

[PS-CNAET]

A B C D

[PNA-NAET] [ARD-IAEET] [LT-IAEET] [LT-NAET]

[LT-IAEET]

[CPS-CNAET]

A B C D

[PNA-NAET] [ARD-IAEET] [LT-IAEET] [LT-NAET]

[LT-IAEET]

[PSA-CNAET]

A B C D

[RMT-IAEET] [ARD-IAEET] [LT-IAEET] [LT-NAET]

[LT-IAEET]

[LT-IAEET]

A B C D

[LT-IAEET] [LT-NAET] [LT-IAEET] [LT-NAET]

[LT-IAEET]

[LT-NAET]

A B C D

[LT-IAEET] [LT-NAET] [LT-IAEET] [LT-NAET]

[LT-IAEET]

[TS-CNAET]

A B C D

[OD-IAEET] [TS-CNAET] [IDCD-IAEET] [ARD-IAEET]

[IDCD-IAEET]

[IDCD-IAEET]

A B C D

[ID-NAET] [LT-NAET] [IDCD-IAEET] [ID-NAET]

[IDCD-IAEET]

166

of learners— individually and as members of families, communities, and organizations—to help all levels achieve their goals. Evaluating the contexts, constructs, goals, processes, and outcomes to guide continuous improvement and to provide accountability for actions and resources used in the processes. Learning Theory Using psychological, sociological, cultural, spiritual, and philosophical sciences, and experience in attempts to describe, understand, and explain how and why people learn in cognitive, psychomotor, and affective domains.

Curriculum Development and Instructional Design Applying learning theories and grounded practice to design and organize information in materials and

Comm. Appl. Biol. Sci, Ghent University, 75/1, 2010 [CD-NAET]

A B C D

[SC-IAEET] [LT-NAET] [IDCD-IAEET] [ID-NAET]

[IDCD-IAEET]

[ID-NAET]

A B C D

[ID-NAET] [LT-NAET] [IDCD-IAEET] [ID-NAET]

[IDCD-IAEET]

[TSK-CNAET]

A B C D

[ID-NAET] [LT-NAET] [LT-IAEET] [LT-NAET]

[DS-IAEET]

[DS-IAEET]

A B C D

[DS-IAEET] [LT-NAET] [CTA-IAEET] [DS-IAEET]

[DS-IAEET]

[DS-NAET]

A B C D

[DS-IAEET] [LT-NAET] [CTA-IAEET] [DS-IAEET]

[DS-IAEET]

[IGRA-CNAET]

A B C D

[RMT-IAEET] [ARD-IAEET] [RMT-NAET] [CTA-IAEET]

[RMT-NAET]

[QAA-CNAET]

A B C D

[RMT-IAEET] [RMT-NAET] [RMT-NAET] [RMT-NAET]

[RMT-NAET]

[RMT-IAEET]

A B C D


[RMT-NAET]

[RMT-NAET]

A B C D


[RMT-NAET]

[CS-CNAET]

A B C D

[RMT-IAEET] [SC-IAEET] [SC-IAEET] [HRD-IAEET]

[SC-IAEET]

167

technologies; describing, planning, and suggesting sequences of learners’ experiences to achieve learning.

Teaching Methods and Delivery Strategies Applying theories so that information is used to engage people in a learning process; increasing student engagement and interactions with subject matter content, instructor(s), other students, and technologies to facilitate learning. Research Methods and Tools Using logical and mathematical tools, quantitative and qualitative processes, inductive and deductive reasoning, careful observation and description, problemsolving and creative thinking to create new knowledge and make informed decisions that improve theory and professional practice.

Scholarship Communications

and

Preparing

and

Comm. Appl. Biol. Sci, Ghent University, 75/1, 2010 [C-CNAET]

A B C D

[SC-IAEET] [SC-IAEET] [SC-IAEET] [SW-NAET]

[SC-IAEET]

[SC-IAEET]

A B C D


[SC-IAEET]

[SW-NAET]

A B C D


[SC-IAEET]

communicating, both in writing and orally, information, research findings, and other intellectual work that provides a basis for informed practice; written work that is validated by peers and ultimately accepted and practiced by users.

CONCLUSIONS A taxonomy for doctoral study in agricultural and extension education comprises the following nine knowledge domains: (1) history, philosophy, ethics, and policy; (2) agricultural/rural development; (3) organizational development and change management; (4) planning, needs assessment, and evaluation; (5) learning theory; (6) instructional design/curriculum development; (7) teaching methods and delivery strategies; (8) research methods and tools; and, (9) scholarship and communications. These domains are most consistent with the more recent work in the field of study (Shinn, Wingenbach, Briers, Lindner, and Baker, 2009), similar though somewhat different from earlier work (Shinn, Briers, and Baker, 2008), and somewhat unlike though certainly related to even earlier work to identify competencies (Lindner, Dooley, and Wingenbach, 2003). A proposed taxonomy of knowledge domains and their definitions/ descriptions for doctoral study in agricultural and extension education Philosophy, history, ethics, and policy Examining philosophical foundations, historical events, professional ethics and standards, and policies that guide a professional code of practice in the field of study; takes into account culture and religions, politics, human diversity, integrity, intellectual honesty, and morality. Agricultural/rural development Theories, principles, and practices of biophysical systems that are then deployed— using theories, principles, and practices of natural sciences—in rural environments to improve the lives of people and their communities, whether in domestic, crossnational, or global settings. Organizational/human development and change management Theories, principles, and practices of social systems that are then deployed—using theories, principles, and practices of social sciences. Helping organizations and people understand theories and practices to diffuse information through a social

168

Comm. Appl. Biol. Sci, Ghent University, 75/1, 2010 system, encourage or discourage the use (adoption or rejection) of innovations, and strategies to establish and achieve their goals through organizations. Planning, needs assessment, and evaluation Identifying agricultural and educational needs of learners—individually and as members of families, communities, and organizations—to help all levels achieve their goals. Evaluating the contexts, constructs, goals, processes, and outcomes to guide continuous improvement and to provide accountability for actions and resources used in the processes. Learning theory Using psychological, sociological, cultural, spiritual, and philosophical sciences, and experience in attempts to describe, understand, and explain how and why people learn in cognitive, psychomotor, and affective domains. Curriculum development and instructional design Applying learning theories and grounded practice to design and organize information in materials and technologies; describing, planning, and suggesting sequences of learners’ experiences to achieve learning. Teaching methods and delivery strategies Applying theories so that information is used to engage people in a learning process; increasing student engagement and interactions with subject matter content, instructor(s), other students, and technologies to facilitate learning. Research methods and tools Using logical and mathematical tools, quantitative and qualitative processes, inductive and deductive reasoning, careful observation and description, problemsolving and creative thinking to create new knowledge and make informed decisions that improve theory and professional practice. Scholarship and communications Preparing and communicating, both in writing and orally, information, research findings, and other intellectual work that provides a basis for informed practice; written work that is validated by peers and ultimately accepted and practiced by users.

IMPLICATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS This taxonomy intends to provide a framework from which to develop interdependence and standardization for professional practice. The taxonomy does not intend to sequence domains or central knowledge objects, or to establish value of experiences. While others have defined agricultural and extension education or agricultural extension education (e.g., Mulder and Kupper, 2006), few if any other researchers have attempted to define and describe a taxonomy for standardization of study at the highest academic level—the doctoral level—even though there are many universities that offer doctoral study in agricultural and extension education. Like Shulman (2002), the authors hope that this work will serve “. . . as a set of heuristics, as a stimulus for thinking about the design and evaluation of education, and as the basis for creative narratives about the learning process” (para. 73).

169

Comm. Appl. Biol. Sci, Ghent University, 75/1, 2010 An implication exists that this research can serve as a catalyst to engage scholars and practitioners in systematic study about standardization of agricultural and extension education as a doctoral field of study. An overarching goal is to stimulate quality and consistency essential for agricultural and extension education to promote a professional code of practice—that is, to achieve “the optimum degree of order in a given context” (World Standards Services Network, 2006, para. 2.1). It is important to develop, examine, and agree on standards for the knowledge base for the field of study as the purpose of doctoral education is to prepare stewards of the discipline (Golde and Walker, 2006). Is the global community of scholars and practitioners who identify with the field of study of agricultural and extension education ready to engage in the dialogue? The ever-increasing connectivity between peoples, institutions, businesses, communities, and countries suggests this dialogue is needed sooner rather than later.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT This project received partial funding from the Department of Agricultural Leadership, Education, and Communications, College of Agriculture and Life Sciences at Texas A&M University and the College of Outreach and Distance Education at Texas Tech University. Research protocols were examined and approved by the Institutional Review Boards of both universities.

REFERENCES •

BAKER, M., SHINN, G., & BRIERS, G. (2007). Doctoral content in 2010: Perceptions of U.S. scholars engaged in agricultural education. Proceedings of the 2007 AAAE Research Conference, 34:168-180. Retrieved from http://aaae.okstate.edu/proceedings/2007/IndividualPapers/168Baker_etal.pdf

•

BANDURA, A. (1977). Social learning theory. New York, NY: General Learning Press.

•

BENELUX BOLOGNA SECRETARIAT. (2007). Towards the European Higher Education Area: Bologna Process. Retrieved from http://www.ond.vlaanderen.be/hogeronderwijs/bologna/

•

BERGER, C. (1996). Education 626: Educational software design and authoring. Retrieved from http://www.umich.edu/~ed626/define.html

•

BOYER, E. L. (1990). Scholarship reconsidered: Priorities of the professoriate. Retrieved from http://www.carnegiefoundation.org/publications/pub.asp?key=43&subkey=10 61

•

BRUNER, J. (1966). Toward a theory of instruction. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

170


CARLILE, P. R., & CHRISTENSEN, C. M. (2005). The cycles of theory building in management research. A working paper. Retrieved from http://www.innosight.com/documents/Theory%20Building.pdf

•

DALKEY, N. C. (2002). Toward a theory of group estimation. In H. A., Linstone & M. Turoff, (Eds.). The Delphi method: Techniques and applications. Retrieved from http://is.njit.edu/pubs/delphibook/delphibook.pdf

•

DEWEY, J. (1938). Experience and education. New York: Touchstone.

•

DOOLITTLE, P. E., & CAMP, W. G. (1999). Constructivism: The career and technical education perspective. Journal of Vocational and Technical Education, 16(1), 23-46.

•

DURANT, W. (1961). The story of philosophy: The lives and opinions of the world’s greatest philosophers from Plato to John Dewey. New York: Pocket Books–Simon & Schuster.

•

GOLDE, C. M., & WALKER, G. E. (Eds.) (2006). Envisioning the future of doctoral education: Preparing stewards of the discipline. Stanford, CA: The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.

•

HAMLIN, H. M. (1966).What is research? Not only to count, but to be willing to judge. American Vocational Journal, 41(6), 14-16.

•

ISO. (2010). International standardization and education. Retrieved from http://www.iso.org/iso/about/international_standardization_and_education. htm

•

IVERSON, D. C., & CORNETT, Z. J. (1994). A definition of sustainability for ecosystem management. Retrieved from http://www.fs.fed.us/eco/ecowatch/ew940701.htm

•

KNOWLES, M. S., HOLTON, E. F., & SWANSON, R. A. (2005). The adult learner; The definitive classic in adult education and human resource development. Burlington, MA: Elsevier.

•

LINDNER, J. R., & DOOLEY, K. E. (2001). A taxonomy of agricultural education graduate students’ knowledge, skills, and abilities (Department Information Bulletin No 01-4). College Station, TX: Texas A&M University, Department of Agricultural Education.

•

LINDNER, J. R., & DOOLEY, K. E. (2002). Agricultural education competencies and progress towards a doctoral degree. Journal of Agricultural Education, 43(1), 57-68.

•

LINDNER, J. R., & DOOLEY, K. E.& WINGENBACH, G. J. (2003). A cross-national study of agricultural and extension education competencies. Journal of International Agricultural and Extension Education, 10(1), 51-59.

171


MCLEAN, G. N. (2006). Organizational development: Principles, processes, performance. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler Publishers.

•

MULDER, M., & KUPPER, H. (2006). The future of agricultural education: The case of the Netherlands. The Journal of Agricultural Education and Extension, 12(2), 127-139.

•

RAO, T. V. (2004). Human resource development as national policy in India. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 6(3), 288-296. Retrieved from http://adh.sagepub.com/cgi/reprint/6/3/288

•

ROGERS, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of innovations (5th ed.). New York, NY: Free Press.

•

ROTHWELLL, W. J., & KAZANAS, H. C. (2004). Mastering the instructional design process: A systematic approach (3rd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Pfeiffer-John Wiley & Sons.

•

SHINN, G. C., BAKER, M. T., & BRIERS, G. E. (2007). Defining doctoral study in agricultural education—2010: The perspective of active scholars in the United States. 2007 Southern Region Conference, American Association for Agricultural Education. Retrieved from http://www.clemson.edu/agcom/saerc-2007/papers/e-1.pdf

•

SHINN, G. C., BRIERS, G. E, & BAKER, M T. (2008). Forecasting doctoral-level content in agricultural education: Viewpoints of engaged scholars in the United States. The Journal of Agricultural Education, 49(1), 121-131.

•

SHINN, G. C., WINGENBACH, G. J., LINDNER, J. R., BRIERS, G. E & BAKER, M T. (2009). Forecasting doctoral-level content in international agricultural and extension education—2010: Viewpoint of 15 engaged international scholars. Journal of International Agricultural and Extension Education, 16(1), 57–72.

•

SHINN, G. C., WINGENBACH, G. J., BRIERS, G. E, LINDNER, J. R., & BAKER, M T. (2009). Redefining agricultural and extension education as a field of study: Consensus of 15 engaged international scholars. Journal of International Agricultural and Extension Education, 16(1), 73–88.

•

SHULMAN, L. S. (2002, November/December). Making differences: A table of learning, Change, 34((6), 36-44. Retrieved from http://www.carnegiefoundation.org/elibrary/making-differences-tablelearning

•

SNAPP, S., & POUND, B. (2008). Agricultural systems: Agroecology and rural innovation for development. New York. NY: Academic Press-Elsevier.

•

TUTTLE, S., LINDNER, J. R., & DOOLEY, K. E. (2007). Delivery method matrices for selected villagers in Doctor Arroyo, Northeastern Mexico. Journal of International Agricultural and Extension Education, 14(1), 15-29.

172


UMEÅ UNIVERSITY. (2007). Important changes within higher education 2007–a short description of the new education system. Retrieved from http://www.umu.se/umu/eng/about/bologna.html#changes

•

VYGOTSKY, L. S. (1978). Mind in society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

•

WALKER, G. E., GOLDE, C. M., JONES, L., CONKLIN-BUESCHEL, A., & HUCHINS, P. (2008). The formation of scholars: Rethinking doctoral education for the twenty-first century. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

•

WALS, A. E. J., & BAWDEN, R. (2004). Integrating sustainability into agricultural education: Dealing with complexity, uncertainty and diverging worldviews. In A. E. J. Wals, (Ed.). Higher education and the challenge of sustainability. The Hague: Reed Business Information.

•

WEAVER, W. T. (1971). The Delphi forecasting method. Phi Delta Kappan, 11(5), 267-271.

•

WEISER, C. J. (1996). The value system of a university—Rethinking scholarship. Retrieved from http://www.adec.edu/clemson/papers/weiser.html

•

WITKIN, B. R., & ALTSCHULD, J. W. (1995). Planning and conducting needs assessments: A practical guide. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

•

WORLD STANDARDS SERVICES NETWORK. (2006). Frequently asked questions. Geneva, Switzerland: Author. Retrieved from http://www.wssn.net/WSSN/faqs.html#standards

173


174


PHD CURRICULUM DEVELOPMENT: AN AQUATNET CASE STUDY P. BOSSIER AND P. SORGELOOS Lab aquaculture and Artemia Reference Center Ghent University

INTRODUCTION Within the framework of the European Thematic Network AquaTNET, dealing with aquaculture, fisheries and aquatic resource management, a core group of institutes has designed questionnaires directed towards the European Universities and their PhD students and graduates involved in the AquaTNET domain. Based on the outcome of these questionnaires, this study formulates some ideas about the perceived strengths and weaknesses of the current PhD study programmes, the need for change and the need for new PhD courses. Identification of the perceived strengths and weaknesses of the current PhD study programmes in the AquaTNET domain Although the survey does not claim to be comprehensive, the gathered responses do provide a valuable pool of information upon which to draw conclusions on a number of core issues. Below, the apparent weaknesses and strengths of the current system are highlighted.

WEAKNESSES There is a degree of conflict between the increasing trend of including taught elements in the PhD curriculum and the notion that in some European countries the PhD period is limited to three years. It is argued that the full integration of taught elements in the PhD curriculum will require a European wide trend towards a 4year PhD period. Although larger research groups are present, some universities operate with relative low numbers of PhD students urging the need to increase the links across universities and research institutes. In these universities PhD students could also profit from the establishment of a supervising team rather then having to rely on a single supervisor/promoter. The involvement of the PhD student in developing the PhD topic (either by writing a research proposal or plan) seems to be limited. It is argued that such an involvement would greatly enhance the ability and skills at the scientific (writing) level. Also a requirement for peer-reviewed papers on the basis of the PhD research is not widespread. Also here it is argued that the taking a PhD student through such an experience might enhance considerably the required skills. In the research phase of PhD programmes, the data show that mobility is low: both in the context of pan-European and international university exchanges and through placements with industrial partners. Further, a significant majority of doctoral

175

Comm. Appl. Biol. Sci, Ghent University, 75/1, 2010 graduates take employment in the country of their PhD registration and remain there for considerable periods. In the context of the European Research Area this stands out as an issue for further attention. Analysis of the taught phase of the PhD cycle has raised many more issues that require progress in making the European PhD experience a more equitable, hence mobile, one. Respondents have highlighted issues such as limited funding for mobility (e.g. ERASMUS-equivalent), lack of a Europe-wide system for earning credits (i.e. dearth of ECTS-accredited training modules), and lack of systems for participation in generic skills courses across institutional, national and European levels. What is clear is that doctoral graduates have a strong recognition of the value of generic skills training to their employers and, de facto, to their own career development. There is less clarity, however, in the definition of appropriate skills programmes. Respondents have stated the desire for a balance between discipline-specific and transferable skills training, but request flexibility for the individual to make decisions on how and when these are accessed. The latter point is worth further comment. With the explosion of information and communications technology over the last 20 years, academic and non-academic organisations all over the world are having to adapt to new ways of working and delivering their products. What the AquaTNET domain must not do is ignore the phenomenal pace of change in the next phase of work. If we are to be successful at the ‘Europeanization’ of doctoral training we shall have to be mindful of, and fully engaged with, the opportunities that the ICT revolution provides. Doctoral graduates do not appear to readily find employment in the industrial sector; although there may be some specific exceptions (e.g. feed and pharmaceutical companies). This situation raises the pertinent question of whether PhD training across Europe is effectively meeting its purpose. It may be that industry has a poor understanding of the potential benefits of doctoral graduates to economic growth. Conversely, academia may be failing to engage with the needs of industry; rather producing a significant stream of highly qualified academics for the university sector. What is clear is that, in taking the work of Aqua-TNet forward, it will be timely to more thoroughly investigate the doctoralindustrial interface, with a view to defining core strategic elements (e.g. practical training, industrial placements, non-academic supervisors, industry-funded workshops/summer schools, etc.) of future European PhD programmes Finally, the diversity in the socio-economic status of a PhD student is huge and may require a certain degree of harmonisation across Europe, facilitating opportunities for mobility.

STRENGTHS Despite the many challenges to be faced in the goal of harmonisation the quality of the PhD experience, partners in the Aqua-TNet domain have considerable cause for optimism. In the first instance, the very nature of the disciplines brought together under this umbrella requires colleagues to work together in multidisciplinary teams to solve many of the problems; and collaborations between universities, research institutes and industry are equally well developed in many quarters, by necessity. Notwithstanding the acknowledgement that there may be some bias in the nature

176

Comm. Appl. Biol. Sci, Ghent University, 75/1, 2010 of the questionnaire and the respondents, our sample indicates strong supporting evidence in the high number of doctoral students who have actively participated in mobility activities, with over 50% of respondents indicating some period(s) working away from their host country. Although not explicitly apparent through the findings of the questionnaire, it is quite clear that the EU is an acknowledged centre across the world for the production of highly trained doctoral graduates in the Aqua-Tnet domain. Although some diversification in mechanics exists, one of the critical factors in maintaining this reputation is to further implement a robust quality assurance through supervision and examination systems, allowing at the same time space for local diversity in procedures. It is critical, therefore, that in taking the work of AquaTNet forward there should be due consideration of best practice in this area, to create a Europe-wide system that maintains international confidence. Analysis and the need for change of the PhD third cycle in the AquaTNET domain. The project focussed on increasing the quality of the PhD training period, irrespective of local customs and traditions in the administrative organisation of the PhD study. There is obviously a great diversity in habits and customs across Europe which should be nurtured as long as they do not prohibit the possibility for a further increase in quality of the PhD training. It is clear that in the future a lot more focus will be needed on the learning outcomes of the PhD study. In general these learning outcomes are poorly defined at the university level and hence there is also a lack of tuning in that sense across Europe. Although this statement is not a plea for strong harmonisation across Europe, the lack of tuning prohibits that progress is being made for instance at the mobility level (interuniversity and intersector mobility) in the taught as well as in the research phase. The organisation of the PhD study in ECTS in the taught as well as in the research phase would greatly help the mobility of PhD students, which ultimately could contribute to the quality of the study. It needs to be said that this tuning is extremely difficult to organise, and might need some financial incentives (e.g. EC grant for mobility) to gain larger momentum. The increased emphasis on the taught phase will require some adjustments. As in some European countries the PhD study is in principal limited to 3 years, it is believed that the combination of the taught phase with the research phase within a 3 year period is difficult to manage, if one does not want to jeopardise some of the learning outcomes of the research phase. With respect to the latter, the increasing and justified emphasis on peer-reviewed articles produced by the PhD candidate on the basis of executed research requires a 4-year study period if that needs to be combined with a taught phase especially in the AquaTNET domain, where experiments can last long and can sometimes be restricted to certain time windows. The research groups in the AquaTNET domain are sometimes small. Hence it is unlikely that every university will be able to develop and maintain courses at the PhD level as part of the taught phase. It is more feasible and desirable to organise that at the European level, especially for courses dedicated to the AquaTNET domain.

177

Comm. Appl. Biol. Sci, Ghent University, 75/1, 2010 In view of the fact that PhD student often contribute significantly to the advanced research, it is advisable to review the socio-economic status of the PhD student across Europe as it might contribute to the socio-economic mobility and hence the attractiveness of a scientific career. Finally it could be of interest to better map the societal requirements and skills of post-docs in the AquaTNET domain, so that the PhD programme can be better tuned in that sense. The need (content and organisational structure) of new PhD courses in the AquaTNET domain The outcome of the research done within the framework of the project has revealed that there is a considerable interest among students for dedicated and generic courses. Yet the interest is very diverse, especially when it comes to topics related to the AquaTNET domain. Hence the organisation of generic and specific courses might require a different approach. For generic courses (e.g. time management and statistics) it is likely that sufficient critical mass is available (both in terms of students and scholars) at the local university level or among a group of regional universities to organise this at the local level. For the specific courses a different kind of structure might be required. At the moment there is a need for mapping European experts and scientists that are willing to invest time and effort in the development and the maintenance of dedicated PhD courses. There is also a need for mapping, much more precisely than could be obtained by this project on the basis of the questionnaire, the topics of the specific courses and their format (e.g. theoretical or hands on). Finally in order to match supply and demand on specific courses, mobility of students and scholars will need to be organised, preferentially by the availability of competitive grants.

178


FOURTH SESSION INTERNATIONALIZATION OF DOCTORAL TRAINING PROGRAMS

179


180


AN EXAMPLE OF AN ERASMUS MUNDUS DOCTORAL SCHOOL IN FORESTRY AND NATURE MANAGEMENT – CHALLENGES AND SOLUTIONS N. STRANGE, C. SMITH-HALL AND F. HELLES University of Copenhagen, Faculty of Life Sciences, Centre for Forest, Landscape and Planning, Rolighedsvej 23, DK-1958 Frederiksberg C, Denmark

ABSTRACT The Erasmus Mundus Joint Doctorate (EMJD) PhD programme “Forest and Nature for Society” (FONASO), developed and implemented by a global consortium of 12 institutions including seven European universities, aims at building on all partners’ relative strengths to offer an integrated, globally attractive and competitive PhD programme within the scientific fields of forestry related i) economics and policy, and ii) ecology and silviculture. The first part of this presentation gives an overview of the innovative FONASO programme structure with emphasis on specification of common learning outcomes, joint obligatory activities, and joint academic regulations. The second part of the presentation then proceeds to identify and discuss general problems related to developing an international integrated PhD programme, with emphasis on nationallevel and institutional-level differences in doctoral candidates rules and regulations, including problems posed by differences in financial modalities and the importance of executive commitment. While there is a plethora of obstacles and challenges to establishing integrated international PhD programmes, their establishment is both possible and desirable. Keywords: Erasmus Mundus Joint Doctorate, Forests, Nature, Society

181


182


INTERNATIONALISATION AS STRATEGIC TOOL TO STRENGTHEN THE DOCTORAL EDUCATION AT THE FACULTY OF AGRICULTURAL SCIENCES, AARHUS UNIVERSITY E.NORBERG1, AND M. AARØ-HANSEN² 1

Head of Graduate School of Agriculture, Food and Environment,Faculty of Agricultural Sciences, Aarhus Université, Denmark 2 Special Advisor International Affairs, Faculty of Agricultural Sciences, Aarhus University, Denmark.

RISE TO SHINE The Graduate School of Agriculture, Food and Environment (SAFE) was established in 2007, when the Danish Institute of Agricultural Science merged with Aarhus University and became the Faculty of Agricultural Sciences (AU-DJF). After 3 years, about 150 Ph.D.-students are enrolled and the goal is to reach 200 enrolled Ph.D.students at any time. SAFE is a highly international graduate school, with 45% international PhD students coming from 25 different countries. As part of DJF’s Faculty Strategy and Strategy for Internationalization, all students are expected to spend a period in a research environment abroad and contribute actively at international conferences during the PhD.-programme. The Faculty is engaged in several international networks promoting mobility and internationalisation of research education, but in spite of that, it is a particular objective that the international aspect of the Ph.D.-programs is strengthened. Existing education networks and joint international scientific projects are point of departure for further development of the international aspects of SAFE. In this presentation, selected initiatives and involvement will be presented, illustrating status quo and addressing challenges and possibilities for further improvement.

INTERNATIONALISATION OF SAFE It is the strategy of Aarhus University to attract the best international researchers at an early stage in their careers. The university and its graduate schools thus focuses on recruitment and retention via proactive efforts, attractive career pathways and professional reception of international Ph.D.-students and researchers from abroad, including their families. It is the goal of Aarhus University to double the number of researchers educated and trained at the university in the strategy period 2009-13. SAFE has already secured doubling of these figures within life sciences at Aarhus University. As almost half of the enrolled students in SAFE are non-Danish, information, integration and development of an intercultural environment has had high priority. At Aarhus University, an International Help Desk and Staff Mobility Unit has been established due to the expressed need to ensure coordination within the whole university system and professional guidance to foreign students regarding questions related to visa, tax, housing etc that will contribute to smooth integration.

183

Comm. Appl. Biol. Sci, Ghent University, 75/1, 2010 At SAFE, Ph.D.-students from other countries are handled by a secretary trained to solve issues related to foreign students. Further, the Ph.D.-secretaries at the Departments where the students are employed are guided in how to handle issues related to employment. In addition to the introduction course for all new Ph.D.students, all international students are invited to an intercultural course held by ITIM International. The course deals with several aspects of being a foreigner in Denmark and is very well evaluated by the participants. SAFE contributes with economic support to the International Club at the Faculty, which offer a broad range of social and cultural activities, such as weekend outings, guided tours in Denmark, international parties, lectures etc. It is expected that all Ph.D.-students enrolled in SAFE spend a period of their study time in another environment, preferably abroad. In DJF’s Internationalisation Strategy, this aim is supported through the ambitions to sign strategic exchange agreements and enter a limited number of strategic alliances with strong partner universities and networks to facilitate a steady flow of students. This will also strengthen the students’ international networks and contribute to their scientific work. To ensure that it is economically possible for the students to go abroad, SAFE has developed a set of financial guidelines for stays outside the home institution. Guidance on tax and insurance issues is also given, as well as information on alternative sources on funding. The Faculty of Agricultural Sciences is a member of NOVA, which is a Network for the Nordic agricultural and veterinary universities. One of the goals is to promote mobility between the Nordic countries, and many of the students matriculated at SAFE spend time at one of the NOVA universities to do research or participate in courses. NOVA has been very successful in organising PhD courses for more than 15 years now. SAFE is also part of the NordForsk programme. In the future, SAFE will seek to be an active partner in Erasmus Mundus programs, as a mean to strengthen the quality in our research education programmes and attract top students to our Master’s and PhD programmes. At present, SAFE is involved in a Mundus Doctoral application in Animal Breeding and Genetics with partners SLU in Sweden, UMB in Norway, Wageningen UR in the Netherlands and AgroParisTech, France.

INTERNATIONALISATION OF RESEARCH EDUCATION PROGRAMMES The Graduate School host several research education programs within the Faculty’s core area. Some of theses programmes are joint programmes with other Danish Universities, while other has a strong international profile. An example of a highly international research education program at AU-DJF is STAiR (STAiR: International Research Education Programme for Soil Technology And interdisciplinary Research in Soil and Environmental Sciences). The STAiR research education programme is a formal collaboration between seven university institutes/departments in Denmark and eight international universities/research institutes, all with frontline expertise in soil and environmental sciences (see fig. below).

184


185

Comm. Appl. Biol. Sci, Ghent University, 75/1, 2010 The collaborating partners represent interdisciplinary research across faculties, universities, sciences as well as national borders. STAiR’s goals for collaboration within soil and environmental sciences are to strengthen research and research training, strengthen internationalization of PhD students enrolled in Denmark and strengthen internationalization of STAiR supervisors through supervision of visiting PhD students and by shorter or longer stays at partner institutions. Another research education program which has been initiated by AU-DJF is ABRED. The main aim of this program is to establish a strong European curriculum on postgraduate training within the area of animal breeding and genetics, by coordinating courses among partners, including coordination of course plans and utilisation of teacher resources among the partner institutes. At this stage 12 European universities/research institutions are assigned to the program. Furthermore, the program will stimulate student mobility among partners and create a scientific platform where PhD-students within the area of animal genetics can meet. As illustrated in this abstract, internationalisation is prioritised to strengthen the graduate school and SAFE will continue this work to ensure high quality Ph.D.programmes at Faculty of Agricultural Sciences, Aarhus University.

186


UNDERSTANDING INTERNATIONAL POSTGRADUATE STUDIES. DRIVERS FROM THE SUPPLY AND THE DEMAND SIDE1 M.M. DELGADO-SERRANO , J.L. GOMEZ-BRUQUE M.J. AMBROSIO-ALBALA & B. LLAMAS-MORENO University of Cordoba (Spain)

Department of Agricultural Economics, Sociology and Policy

ABSTRACT Changes in the global political and socioeconomic scenario are fostering the internationalization of master and doctoral programme as one of the current priorities for Universities. Changes in European higher education such as those stimulated by the Bologna process and the introduction of double, multiple or joint Master degree programmes together with the Erasmus Mundus programme are enhancing the competition of European universities in the global education market place. Universities compete to attract the best students, both national and international, to their postgraduate programmes. However, the design and launch of international masters or doctorates imply working with a different logic to the one used in national programmes. Complexity, diversity and differentiation are drivers of international education and as happens in complex systems the properties and features of the final products are different from the existing in the individual components. The aim of this paper is to understand international studies as complex systems and to analyze and identify factors affecting to the different components involved in the implementation of these programmes. The new approaches and the interrelations in aspects such as academic, administrative or economic management, quality assurance and marketing issues are examined and drivers, challenges and good practices where possible are identified. The analysis has been carried out considering the point of view of both Universities (supply-led approach) and students and employers (demand-led approach). From the analysis have emerged important questions that show the interrelation pattern and that can be useful when designing and implementing international postgraduate studies. Universities and students tend to agree about many issues however, some divergences have also been identified which make the results of the research more valuable.

INTRODUCTION European political strategies like Lisbon Strategy and its goal of promoting Europe as the most developed knowledge society, together to global socio-economic processes create a need for new generations of postgraduates (at master and doctoral levels) and policy-makers who can work in different cultural settings and

187

Comm. Appl. Biol. Sci, Ghent University, 75/1, 2010 analyse as well as resolve policy problems from transnational perspectives (De Rosa, 2008). European universities are committed to making Europe the destination of choice for students and scholars (EUA, 2007). This scenario opens new perspectives for Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) and led them to consider the internationalization of master and doctoral programmes as one of their current priorities. Other incentives for this trend can be: i) the changes in European higher education such as the creation of the European Higher Education Area or the European Research Area and the introduction of double, multiple or joint degree programmes; ii) the launching of Erasmus Mundus programme; iii) the increasing interest to attract the best students worldwide; iv) the growing opportunities for international linkages, partnerships and projects and v) the positioning of Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) in national or international rankings. However, quite often HEIs do a wrong approach to internationalization. To have an offer in international postgraduates studies can be a highly attractive idea for many universities and can bring a number of advantages to the institutions, but it should be considered that international education is rather different from delivering national education in English or adding different national masters or doctorates under a common umbrella or diploma. Internationalization is shaped by complexity, diversity and differentiation (Knight, 2009). The design and delivering of international masters and doctorates imply working with a different logic to the one used in national programmes. This rationale involves important changes in the academic and administrative procedures of the institutions, but also in the Educational Systems. These changes don’t happen overnight or without resistances, reason why they need to be fully accepted and embedded in the educational approach of the institutions and governments. Furthermore, when joint degrees are pretended, the harmonization of procedures in different institutions and countries is required. That means overcoming legal, institutional, administrative and also informally-established barriers, like the local educational culture or traditions. As EUA (2005) highlights ‘joined-up’ governmental thinking about international postgraduate studies and coordinated actions involving HEIs, government ministries for education and research, innovation and technology, national research councils and the European Commission are necessary. The aim of this paper is to analyze and identify factors affecting the different fields involved in international masters and doctorates, such as academic, administrative or economic management, quality assurance and marketing issues and to identify drivers and challenges. Proposals and good practices that can help to understand the functioning of the different components of these complex systems will be mentioned.

MATERIAL AND METHODS This investigation is the result of two research projects funded by the Spanish Ministries of Education and Innovation and Science: One of them dealing with the

188

Comm. Appl. Biol. Sci, Ghent University, 75/1, 2010 designing of international masters and the second one with international doctorates. The last is still an on-going research. In addition, some of the authors have long been involved in different projects and programmes dealing to internationalization of education, Erasmus Mundus masters and teaching and research in international settings. The research has been organized from a double perspective: the approach of universities offering international postgraduate studies (supply side) and the needs and expectations of students and potential employers (demand side). To analyze the supply of international postgraduate studies, the working method has been as follow: 1) searching of secondary information in web pages, internet sites, scientific publications and so on; 2) gathering of primary information through personal interviews with directors and coordinators of international masters and doctorates, academic staff, heads of international relations office and experts in the topic; 3) celebration of a workshop with representatives of different Erasmus Mundus masters to validate the results and to identify other good practices. The analysis of the demand for postgraduate studies has been done through: 1) personal interviews with international students, with a special emphasis on geographical diversity; 2) the realization of two workshops with international master students having followed studies in at least two European universities and 3) an on-line survey sent to the members of the Erasmus Mundus Association. Three more workshops will be held in the next months: the first with academic representatives of international doctorates, the second one with international PhD students and the third with companies and employers of doctors. After collecting all this information a report was written analyzing the different relevant issues when designing international masters studies and identifying, when possible, good practices. The final report on international doctorates will not be ready till summer 2010.

ACADEMIC ASPECTS To offer a joint international degree by different universities has a lot of advantages such as: i) to propose higher quality studies; ii) to do a more rational use of resources, avoiding duplication of specialists and making a cost effective use of staff and facilities; iii) to increase the capacity to attract the best students and academics and iv) to count with better teaching and research networks. These initiatives are an opportunity to combine the diverse strengths of individual institutions, increasing their critical mass of thinking, training and research. However, the final product should be a unique MSc or PhD and not the addition of several national degrees. International postgraduate studies face greater global competition and programmes should satisfy this environment’s requirements. A clear positioning facing internationalization of the participating institutions and an understanding of the strengths and weaknesses of any of them is necessary in order to offer a collaborative, international-quality programme that exploits the synergies of the system.

189

Comm. Appl. Biol. Sci, Ghent University, 75/1, 2010 The final decisions should reflect the position of the different partners and to be sensitive to their problems or needs, especially to those originated at levels in which HEIs have very few room for manoeuvre (like the national legal frameworks or the institution funding systems), but also to allow the emergence of a product of international relevance that is more than the addition of the different parts. The programmes’ contents and structure should be accepted and formally approved by all the partner institutions and to be recognized by the different national legal frameworks. Mutual recognition of qualifications, of quality assurance and of training and research methods are also an important requisite. The programmes have to fulfill high quality standards in order to attract the best students and the top employers. The first step is to create a consortium or an association of the different institutions participating in the programme. The selection of the different partners should be done using criteria such as rational use of resources, building of strong teaching and research teams, search of synergies and complementarities and enhance the opportunity to offer higher quality programmes. Once selected the partners, to create a structure of coordination that take decisions about the type of programme offered and its main features is very important. Not only academics should be part of this structure, also institutional and administrative representatives can be included in order to have a clear understanding of the different positions in the HEIs and also of the strengths or problems that could arise. Stakeholders’ inclusion can help to assure the matching of learning outcomes and sector’s needs and expectations and to increase the employability of future graduates. The functioning, membership and responsibilities should be clearly established and institutionally accepted by all the participating HEIs. The coordinator of this structure plays a crucial role. He is the maximum responsible of the programmes’ implementation and need to exert his/her authority, but on the other hand s/he needs to recognize that it is a peer decisiontaking process, so sensitiveness about the partners problems and limitations and consensus-reaching should be drivers of his/her strategy. The thematic of the programmes and the approach to the different subjects should be innovative, address real needs and be up to date in addressing the current developments in the sciences and the application of the science in practice. Academics should attempt to forecast the needs of the employment sectors in the next five to ten years in order to provide well-trained graduates who will be in demand in the market place (Delgado-Serrano, 2008). The general objectives of the programmes shouldn’t be too numerous and should be flexible enough to adapt to changes and new trends in the programme thematic. Contents should be designed with an international and prospective vision and matching avant-garde academic perspectives with stakeholder needs. Both, learning outcomes and specific subjects should be designed to satisfy these aspirations. Modules, subjects and research methods should be of international topquality level. To overcome possible difficulties derived of international students’ different backgrounds, basic modules can be offered. Also an on-line offer of transferable skill modules can be of interest.

190

Comm. Appl. Biol. Sci, Ghent University, 75/1, 2010 Planning the implementation of the curricula is essential. Different models exist. From the one in which the teaching and research plan mean to study in all the HEIs in the consortium, to the one in which every university has its individual offer and the students decide where to study according to their interests. In any case, the approach should be to have the best possible teachers and researchers in the different subjects. Staff mobility and ICT possibilities can be explored to assure quality and common outcomes in the students training. Academic staff involved in these programmes should have international experience in teaching, research and development in their fields. This experience will give them credibility in addressing learning outcomes designed to meet the needs of international students and employers, but also the necessary skills in dealing with the issues of cultural diversity. However, institutional support and institutional recognition of the extra work and difficulties associated to training in international programmes are necessary. Staff development plans adapted to their needs is a good and common practice. But also incentives and measures to engage academic and administrative staff in these programmes are required. This work is highly demanding and if the international setting in the different institutions is not stimulating enough it can lead to the withdrawal of the best professionals. When HEIs from different countries deliver a common programme, assessment requires a special attention not only to assure common assessment criteria for the final outcomes but also to have a good monitoring of the different course/module progress. Students highlight the interest of continuous assessment at various points during the process to reflect on what they have learned, what they still need to know, and how they might improve their outcomes. Prompt feed-back by the lecturers is essential to benefit and have time to respond to the exigencies. Grading scales or requisites to obtain a master or doctorate degree can widely differ among countries. To clearly understand the meaning of the scores and the requirements to obtain the degree is fundamental to make students comfortable with the training systems. ECTS system intends to overcome the diversity of grading scales existing in Europe and to relate them to a single scale. However, the system is not yet broadly adopted and fully understood. According to De Rosa (2008) ECTS should be designed as a system for credit accumulation, rather than a comparison of distributed teaching offers and transfer of learning outcomes. A relevant decision is to decide the training language. International student assume that international studies programmes have English as working language. However, the position of academics is not so defined. Quite often they defend better quality when training in their native language or the need to preserve other languages faced to the predominance of English. In any case, HEIs should provide adequate facilities both in the local and in the training language to facilitate the quality of the academic and local living experience. Some good practices related to language topics can be, when possible, to start the training in a HEI where the local and the training language coincide, in order to facilitate student adaptation to new environments. To make available a glossary of about 150 words (with its phonetic) in the local language comprising topics like basic needs, orientation and greetings is also very welcomed by students.

191

Comm. Appl. Biol. Sci, Ghent University, 75/1, 2010 To create and manage multicultural training environments and to integrate local and international students are too challenges in international postgraduate studies. Aspects such as multicultural communication techniques; cross-cultural exchanges; creation of favorable multicultural working environments and valuing the personal experience of each student can help in this task. The training staff should be aware of the consequences of geographical and cultural diversity and develop cultural integrative solutions that enhance internal cohesion and common respect of the others, to ensure that all students achieve their potential.

ADMINISTRATIVE ASPECTS The introduction of international postgraduate studies faces important administrative challenges. Chief amongst them can be mentioned the harmonization of the different legal frameworks. There is no common European framework for issues like joint degrees, degree recognition or diploma delivering and HEIs has little space for intervention on them. Additionally, the internal procedures and traditions in any of the institutions can create important problems. To avoid them, a key issue is to analyze the rules and regulations in every involved institution and to identify differences and inconsistencies. At least, the following aspects need to be analyzed: recruitment practices; application requirements; fees structure; enrolment and registration systems; teaching calendars; supervision, exams and evaluation procedures, and quality assurance systems. A good knowledge of the situation and measures to overcome existing problems are essential before taking decisions about the programmes. This analysis can lead to the establishment of common rules, regulations and guidelines that together with the academic programmes have to be accepted in written agreements approved and signed at the highest institutional level by all the partners. All the protocols and procedures have to be clearly defined and available for students in advance. Transparency and user-friendliness in methods are important features to attract the best students. A central administrative unit should be created to have the responsibility of the coordination of these common rules and procedures. This unit should be familiar with the internal operational logic and the constraints in each institution. Administrative local units, under the supervision of the central one should be created in every institution to do the working more effective. The central unit will deal with the common processes and the local ones with the adaptation and the implementation of them in any of the institutions. In addition, these local structures should be the students contact points. The local unit heads should be bureaucracy intermediaries (administrative staff of the institutions, with a deep knowledge of the rules and the formal and informal operational procedures, and with problem-solving capacities). In order to improve communication within the different institutions, coordination meetings between the central and the local structures should be held regularly.

192

Comm. Appl. Biol. Sci, Ghent University, 75/1, 2010 These meetings allow information update and exchange, problem solving and the establishment of strategies and action protocols to expedite decisions and actions when possible, but are also relevant to create personal links among the members. A key administrative issue is student selection procedures. The selection of the best students possible is essential to the success of an international master. Selection procedures and scholarship provision have to be transparent, expeditious and equitable to allow the selection of the best. Even, if the final decision will be taken by academics, the first screening of information should be done by administrative staff. The first point is to check the authenticity of the different documents. Administrative staff should be trained in document verification techniques to make these tasks easier and more reliable. To evaluate qualifications, academic knowledge and experience of students from different countries is also a complicated topic. Different university ranking and classifications help to catalogue the students according to the quality of the academic background. A good practice in order to avoid a huge number of non- acceptable applications is to design an electronic tool that according to the information introduced by students inform them about the possibilities of acceptation or granting in the programme. International students need to know well in advance about acceptance and study and leaving conditions, since the decision to leave their country for periods no shorter than two years and much longer for PhD, imply the organization of several aspects (jobs, family, housing...). To inform about selection results one year in advance can be a good practice. Another common problem stems from the difficulties for students in many countries, especially those considered as troublemakers, to obtain a visa that permits them to study in Europe. This situation is more complicated when the student have to study at several countries. A good practice is to send information via official channels from universities to embassies, in order to speed up visa procedures. However, it is important to know that a general acceptance letter with the logo and signature of the coordinating university is not valid if the student will start his/her studies in another university of the consortium. So, national letters are also necessary. Spain has made great progresses with reference to this issue. Thanks to collaboration between the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Ministry of Education, publicizing and informing Embassies about internationally recognized studies in the country, visa can be obtained in a ten days period, if students present all the required documents. Arriving to a different country causes a great stress to the students. So the most facilities provided by the institutions the better the first contact experience. Information and help in aspects such as housing, transport, living costs, local culture and traditions and so on, are highly appreciated by students, especially when they don’t master the local language. Arrival procedures are very important. As a student mention the last 2 kilometers in a trip of thousands one are the most complicated, because is when you arrive to the local airport, train or bus station and has no idea about how to safely arrive to your accommodation. To facilitate a personal welcome at arrival (at least for those

193

Comm. Appl. Biol. Sci, Ghent University, 75/1, 2010 students facing the greatest difficulties) is extremely appreciated by students. Local can students can be easily involved in these actions. Integration in academic and local life is also necessary to have a good study experience. To help in the integration of international and national students and to facilitate the first weeks of international students in a new environment, partnerships between local and international students (buddy system) should be organized. The buddies can be in charge of a wide range of activities varying from formal issues (such as administrative procedures at the universities) to the most informal ones (where to go shopping, places to go out, etc). The advantage of this system relies on the informal character of the relationship, which is not limited to office hours. In addition, is a peer relationship, which allows students to feel more comfortable to pose their questions, problems or concerns out of the academic environment. If well organized this strategy is highly effective, making the students feel comfortable and integrated not only in the academic aspects but also in their daily life. To do it attractive to local students, reward procedures should be defined.

ECONOMIC MANAGEMENT The analysis of economic aspects should serve to assess the viability and sustainability of the master. The costs associated with programme implementation and the chances of receiving incomes have to be known. The different HEIs have to do a reasonable analysis of the costs implicated in delivering the programmes, including the extra costs associated to international and to top quality education. The income possibilities should cover all these costs and normally generate benefits to the institutions. A fair sharing of costs and benefits among the partners should be done. In order to be cost-effective is interesting to split tasks among the partners considering where can be better and cheaper made. Incomes may come from the tuition fees of students and other external (public or private) sources of funding. Regarding tuition fees, the existence of governmentregulated prices in most countries and the large variations between them (since no tuition fees in some countries, up to the high prices charged in the United Kingdom) have to be taken into account. Possible actions to attract funds or to increase revenues are to offer programmes with objectives and learning outcomes really attractive to employers that invite them to sponsor the programme or to hire the students and to offer high quality programmes that can get international excellence awards and scholarships from different institutions. A good practice is to have a pool of scholarships negotiated with companies and institutions to provide opportunities for the best students. The effective management of grants also needs attention. Acceptance agreements establishing clearly the rights and obligations of each of the parties, the procedures that will regulate the payment of grants, the causes to lose the grant and the possible penalties have to be signed by both parties. Delays in the economic management of the grants can create important problems to the students. In addition, emergency procedures to help students arriving without

194

Comm. Appl. Biol. Sci, Ghent University, 75/1, 2010 money or insufficient money to meet the initial living costs until they receive the grant should also be considered. The proper control of the scholarships is essential. In most cases students obtaining a scholarship have undergone a thorough selection process and reach an appropriate academic achievement, but there are also cases of students with low academic performance. To avoid problems, some institutions after an initial payment to allow the settling of the students, tie future payments to students obligation attendance. Another option is to retain a percentage of the total grant (10-15%) which is only paid at the end when students obtained the expected results.

QUALITY ASSURANCE A culture of quality and excellence should be intrinsic to international study programmes. These features are essential to compete in the educational market. HEIs offering international degrees have to meet international criteria as well as the European and national ones. Design of Quality Assurance systems, which respond to the standards of quality and excellence established for the programme and that meet the requirements of all countries and universities of the Consortium should be done. The procedures for quality assurance should be known, understood, accepted and implemented by every institution involved. This work philosophy requires intense teamwork. The quality committee should be integrated by representatives of the different actors implied in the programme, namely, academic an institutional staff, administrative staff, students and stakeholders. All these actors must be integrated in each stage and committees established to monitor compliance and to ensure the subsequent decision making. International programmes should have mechanisms that guarantee the quality of all matters concerning the internal organization and the training and research aspects. Among the process subject to evaluation can be mentioned: the selection procedure of students, the academic standards, the financial issues, the problems of mobility, the coordination and internal organization, the quality standards for the courses, the appointment of supervisors and the monitoring of graduates. However, major attention should be paid to the individual assessment of training and research and to the achievement of the learning objectives and outcomes. Whatever the method used to assess, it is necessary to contrast the results with the goals and objectives initially proposed. At least these phases should be introduced in the plan: identification of indicators, systematic collection of data, analysis and discussion of information obtained and decision taking. Internal mechanisms for evaluation and quality assurance procedures should be established. Though to ensure minimum standards of quality, independent and external evaluations should be carried out. A good practice is to hire as evaluators academics with international experience that can make contributions on the most critical points of the courses. The internal and external evaluations should not be a mere formality, but use the results of this review to make decisions. This sometimes creates problems with the

195

Comm. Appl. Biol. Sci, Ghent University, 75/1, 2010 services or aspects that have not been at the expected level. To the system be effective is necessary that after careful and rigorous analysis of the existing situation, procedures to take decisions, corrective actions, changes or additions to implement continuous improvement processes are in place. Flexibility and incentives to implement actions and incorporate changes are also necessary. Students’ participation in quality processes and evaluation of the master is essential. This requires results discussions with students and that their role is not limited to complete a survey. Students must be sufficiently motivated and feel that their contributions can help to improve the programmes. A proper management of their complaints may be an incentive to become involved. In addition, to organize working groups with students to detect areas and opportunities for improvement and to increase awareness on the issues students care about can be good practices. Finally, the programme accreditation processes followed in a country should be recognized in the other countries and not to force the accreditation of the international programmes in all the countries in the consortium.

MARKETING AND PROMOTION The competition for international students and the need to improve the position in national or international rankings make necessary a greater orientation of institutions to commercial and market driven activities. The marketing strategies should focus on creating a positive image that builds trust, report on those aspects that really interest potential customers (students and stakeholders) and attract the best students. Marketing strategies have to be attractive advertising the programmes, but top international quality products have to be designed. There cannot be inconsistencies between the publicized quality of contents and services and the ones actually offered. According to students not always the international programmes’ image match the real offer. For a good marketing research it is essential to identify the target audience and their objectives and expectations. The second step is to define a marketing plan containing concrete, consistent, quantifiable and measurable objectives, both in the short and in the long term. The third step is to collect information about the expectations, concerns and motivations of students. A good understanding of other programme competitors and of its marketing, promotion and distribution techniques can be very useful. Finally, the fourth step is to identify the information seeking habits of students. In this sense electronic media are the most commonly used in addition to be the most powerful. International students usually seek high quality and employability, together to grant availability, in international programmes. Training by worldwide and recognized experts, developing training and research activities in international environments and multicultural settings and formal recognition of the degrees and award of joint diplomas are also important points for them. However, not only academics and administrative aspects are important to design, develop and foster an international program. Others aspects that determine the quality of an international program are the facilities offered by each university regarding to: accommodation, living costs and conditions in the host country, arrival procedures, coordination of mobility, language courses … attention in the

196

Comm. Appl. Biol. Sci, Ghent University, 75/1, 2010 first couple of weeks. Well designed information packages available in advance, in different languages and with useful information in these topics are also good practice. International programmes should use different publicity methods ranking from good information and promotional materials to presence in educational fairs, university portals, embassies, national education ministries, agencies, international conferences and seminars, international students associations…. Although there are a large number of channels, the most useful are those based on information technologies and communication. Potential students have to find all sort of information in an easy way and the Internet is probably the best. Thus a good web page is essential to achieve this goal, in addition with other tools like electronic publicity (in google adwords), insertion in young people searching channels and in search engine optimization techniques, social networks, institutional publicity, flyers… To involve students from past cohorts in the design of a web page that it is attractive and suitable to their needs and to translate the site to several languages are good practices.

CONCLUSIONS Internationalization and joint-offer of postgraduate studies is an aim for HEIs, but also for governments and the European Commission. However, it is necessary to understand that its rationale is rather different from the one for national studies. International joint programmes are complex systems derived of the interaction of multiple parts and based in the searching of synergies and complementarities of the best practices and components in any of these parts. However, the integration among these parts is not always a smooth process. Normally, frictions and resistances happen. Provided that these systems work with different rules to the existing in the national programmes that are their components, the analysis done of the different factors permit to extract some guidelines to facilitate the working of the system. A short summary of the most important ones follows. Academic and administrative procedures have to be adapted and different working logics have to be harmonized. Some of them are under the direct control of HEIs, but others, like legal frameworks or visa delivering overcome their acting possibilities. Concerning the aspects the universities can pilot, actions that should be considered are: i) the programme has to be jointly designed with common objectives and learning outcomes and its academic and administrative procedures have to be approved by all the participating institutions at the highest institutional level; ii) the whole university community should be conscious of the importance of internationalization and of the advantages in quality and prestige for HEIs of these programmes; iii) incentives and facilities to the involved staff should exist; iv) stakeholders and students should be included in the different structures and committees to guarantee the matching between the supply and the needs and expectations of the demand; v) international excellence awards should be searched as a guarantee of quality and sustainability of the programmes; vi) graduates employability has to be a driver in every programmes’ stage and decision; vii)

197

Comm. Appl. Biol. Sci, Ghent University, 75/1, 2010 actions to foster the development of multicultural settings and to profit of its advantages should be promoted and viii) the establishment of alumni networks and their insertion in the programme structures is also important for employability and long-term sustainability. As a final remark, just to mention that the success of international joint programmes is to design a system to attract the best students thanks to count on the best academics and experts, in a setting that allow all of them to give the best of themselves.

AKNOWLEDGEMENTS This paper is based in the results of two research projects funded by the Spanish Ministries of Education and of Science and Innovation, with references EA2008-0286 and EA2009-0046.

REFERENCES •

DE ROSA, A.S. (2008). New forms of international cooperation in Doctoral Training: Internationalization and the International Doctorate – One Goal, two Distinct Models. Higher Education in Europe, 33 (1): 3-25

•

DELGADO-SERRANO, M.M. (2008). Academic management of your Master degree programme – needs, aims and learning outcomes. In Handbook of good practice in the management of the academic studies and pastoral care of international Master students, 3-6. Association for European Life Science Universities. Gent.

•

EUROPEAN UNIVERSITY ASSOCIATION (2005). Doctoral Programmes for the European Knowledge Society. EUA. Brussels.

•

EUROPEAN UNIVERSITY ASSOCIATION (2007). EUA’s Contribution to the Bologna Ministerial Meeting. London 2007. EUA. Brussels.

•

KNIGHT, J. (2009). Internationalization: Key concepts and elements. In Internationalization of European Higher Education. An EUA/ACA Handbook. Raabe. Berlin.

198


AN INTRODUCTION OF INTERNATIONALISATION IN FOOD SCIENCE DOCTORAL PROGRAM: A CASE STUDY OF BOGOR AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY, INDONESIA D. HUNAEFI Bogor Agricultural University, Faculty Agricultural Engineering and Technology Dept. of Food Science and Technology, IPB Darmaga Campus, 16680 Bogor, Indonesia Berlin University of Technology, Faculty of Process Engineering Dept. Method in Food Biotechnology, Koenigin-Luise-Strasse 22, D-14195 Berlin, Germany

SUMMARY The Department of Food Science and Technology- Bogor Agricultural University (DFST-IPB), Indonesia is one of the oldest Departments of its kind in Indonesia. The Department has been founded since 1964 under the Faculty of Agricultural Engineering and Technology. The Department has a core competence in the area of food science and technology, particularly in the development of food chemistry, food microbiology, food process engineering, food analysis, food quality and safety. The Department offers educational programs: Undergraduate Program in Food Technology and Master as well as Doctorate Program in Food Science. The Master and Doctorate Program are enrolled by 35 students annually. Globalisation as a global phenomenon has been influencing DFST doctoral program as internationalization in response to globalization is a common feature in majority universities. Facing this challenge, DFST Doctorate Program’s has made some efforts to provide students with international atmosphere, including having international guest lecturers, inviting prospective international students, and initiating join program with international universities. In addition, research focusing in tropical food and collaboration with international universities may need to be improved to widen the network, increase publication and place DFST doctorate program visible in the international forum. This paper is intended to reveal the perceived challenges of globalization for food science doctoral program (DFST-IPB) and to what extent and in what form internationalization has been achieved. However, it should be noted that this article is selective rather than comprehensive in reflecting on the internationalization process of food science doctoral program (DFST-IPB).

199


INTRODUCTION Over decades, Indonesia is well known as agricultural country. Bogor Agricultural University (IPB) is one of the center universities for agricultural education. The Institut Pertanian Bogor (IPB) or Bogor Agricultural University (IPB), since its initiation in 1940 and its founding in 1963, has been growing into a diverse and innovative institution for higher education in agriculture and related areas including food science. In 2005, IPB has a student population of almost 25,000 and faculty member of 1,327. It currently consists of 9 faculties, 36 departments and offers diploma, and undergraduate, master and doctoral study programs (13, 34, 47 and 26 respectively) (Chozin, 2005). Ever since Graduate School of IPB was found in 1975, IPB has also been well-known as the pioneer of graduate program in Indonesia. With its wide range of contact and activities, supported by ample facilities and an excellent campus environment, IPB has become a leading player in nation building, especially in the area of agriculture of agriculture in a broad sense and rural development. The Department of Food Science and Technology (DFST) - Bogor Agricultural University (IPB), Indonesia is one of the oldest Departments of its kind in Indonesia. The Department has been founded since 1964 under the Faculty of Agricultural Technology and Engineering. The Department has a core competence in the area of food science and technology, especially in the development of food chemistry, food microbiology, food process engineering, food analysis, food quality and safety. The Department of Food Science and Technology offers educational programs: Undergraduate Program in Food Technology, Master and Doctorate Program in Food Science. Currently, we have approximately 450 undergraduate students and a hundred Master and Doctoral program students studying in various areas of food science. The doctorate program requires a master degree with a minimum GPA of 3.50. Master degree holders applying for the doctorate program with a GPA below 3.50 may be considered by submitting scientific publications written by the applicant. Student’ progress will be monitored and evaluated each semester. However, student receiving a GPA below 3.25 will not be allowed to continue their studies. Doctoral candidates in Bogor Agriculture University are required to take 3 semesters of fulltime courses prior to taking the final exam. They are also required to take preliminary examination in order to ensure minimal learning comprehension prior to conducting their research. The Department is supported by highly dedicated and experienced academic staff. We have 55 academic staff (11 professors and 26 PhD graduates) coming from diverse backgrounds and covering a wide range of specialties. The Department has experts in the areas of food chemistry, food microbiology, food processing, food engineering, food safety, food analysis, flavor chemistry, biotechnology and bioprocessing, food biochemistry and nutrition, and nutritional toxicology. Our academic staffs involve actively in teaching and research programs covering a wide range of topics relevant to food science, technology and nutrition. Some of our academic staffs are acknowledged by national and international through their contribution in diverse areas, such as food processing, food security and safety, nutrition, food analysis and as well as food law.

200

Comm. Appl. Biol. Sci, Ghent University, 75/1, 2010 Globalization as a global phenomenon has been influencing Indonesian doctoral programs like other education systems in the world. Internationalization in response to globalization is a common feature in majority universities. It is also a feature of Indonesian doctoral programs, yet so far it seems that the way in which Indonesian doctoral education is responding to globalization with internationalization of its universities is not well reported. Facing this challenge, Food Science Doctorate Program’s organization is in need of revitalization. The approaches to be considered include changing the mindset of all faculties, staff and the doctorate student as well throughout FST Department, by altering research internationalization concepts and structure and by applying multiple strategies for undertaking tasks that in the near future can achieve world recognition as one of the world qualities doctorate program in food science. Most important of all is the need to increase Food Science doctorate program’s capacity for innovation and change. This paper is intended to reveal the perceived challenges of globalization for food science doctoral program (DFST-IPB) and to what extent and in what form internationalization has been achieved. Particularly, it will analyze the relation between policies and practices and identify barriers to internationalization has been conducted. However, it should be noted that this article is selective rather than comprehensive in reflecting on the internationalization process of food science doctoral program (DFST-IPB)

INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION There are several meanings of internationalization. The term internationalization and globalization is sometime interchangeable, while in fact they have two different meanings. According to Albatch and Knight (2007), globalization is defined as ‘the economic, political, and societal forces pushing 21st century higher education toward greater international involvement’ while ‘Internationalization’ involves many choices. There are various motivations for internationalization including commercial advantage, knowledge and language acquisition, enhancing the curriculum with international content and it is represented with specific initiatives such as branch campuses, cross-border collaboration, programs for international students (Albatch & Knight, 2007). In term of internationalization of higher education in practical, the Australian ViceChancellors’ Committee (AVCC) (2001) cited in Soejatminah (2009) described that internationalization of Australian universities includes a range of activities such as formal agreements with other countries, participation in international organizations, offshore activities, student exchange, international research collaboration, internationalization of staff, internationalization of curricula and recruitment of international students. Moreover, Van der Wende (2007) further stated that there are at least 4 scenarios of Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) emphasized on their international aspects as follow: open networking, serving local communities, new public management and higher education inc. Moreover, Marginson (2007 cited in Soejatminah, 2009) explained further that globalization results in ‘the interconnected of universities around the world, world-wide research, cross borders education and share of the

201

Comm. Appl. Biol. Sci, Ghent University, 75/1, 2010 ideals of intellectual freedom and student security among academic around the world’.

CONCEPTUAL OF INTERNATIONALIZATION PROCESS From our perspective point of view, internationalization is a process that has taken on a more systematic and strategic approach. The issue of internationalization may be seen a long and hard effort for FSDP, DFST. However, in a world becoming increasingly internationalized, there is an urgent need to foster human resources to meet challenges of the current transnational, multicultural and multilingual environments of business, government and civil society exchange. Rationale framework of our international process can be seen in Figure 1. On condition that we are going to successfully cope with this long-term internationalization process successfully then we need to think very carefully about what internationalization means for our own institutions. We have to define the kind of doctoral program we want to be and define the kind of education we want to provide to doctoral students in order for them to achieve internationalization in our perspective. For the purposes of this initial internationalization process, we view internationalization of a doctoral study program as “an intentional, systemic and strategic process to university internationalization designed to provide an international education to its stakeholders, particularly students.” Thus our initial conceptualization of the concept of internationalization includes many elements and initiatives as shown in Figure 2 below. Figure 1. Rationale framework of internationalization (Adapted from Dawson, 1994 cited in IPPTN)

202

Comm. Appl. Biol. Sci, Ghent University, 75/1, 2010 Figure 2. Conceptualization of Internationalization (Adapted from IPPTN)

The formula for determining food science doctorate program has been changed to include internationalization as part of our milestone. Consequently, FSDP has started to integrate internationalization into their agenda. This approach had been preceded by our department, which included internalization issues in FSDP. Although at present, the level of internationalization process is still considered premature, however, a buildup of expertise on internationalization of FSDP is under way.

PROGRESS OF INTERNATIONALIZATION Discussing the progress of internationalization of FSDP, DFST could not be separated from Internationalization process in Bogor Agricultural University, Indonesia. Since the progress of internationalization in university contributes to the internationalization progress of study program. FSDP is one of the initiative and innovative doctoral programs to start international process in Bogor Agricultural University, Indonesia. And to date, the initial process of internationalization in DFST and Bogor Agricultural University, Indonesia is illustrated in Figure 3.

203

Comm. Appl. Biol. Sci, Ghent University, 75/1, 2010 Figure 3. Progress of DFST Internationalization

One way of internationalizing the campus and achieving this is for the home country to establish collaborative partnerships with host institutions overseas which are mutually beneficial. These partnerships will, for most part include universities and academic institutions, but need not be restricted to them alone. What is more important is to work towards the creation of a diverse menu of program, which can be shared by a consortium of like-minded partners who subscribe to the ideals of international student mobility described above. This could lead to establishing an international consortium for fostering international student mobility. Having realized the fact of internationalization, IPB’s vision has been modified accordingly. IPB’s vision now is ‘’IPB as a leading higher institution of international quality in the development of science, technology, art, and human resources with tropical agriculture as its core competence’’. Although agriculture is still the core competence, with the new vision IPB has a more flexibility to develop its program based on present and future needs of society (Chozin, 2006). In the level of department, DFST has also revised the vision, mission and objectives. The Department of Food Science and Technology has a vision to become a leading higher educational institution with international quality as well as a trendsetter in food science and technology. While the missions are as follows: 1). Performing effectively and efficiently a high quality and professional higher education to produce competent and international quality graduates in the field of food science and technology, 2). Conducting creative food-related researches which support the educational process and development of food science and technology, 3). Delivering outreach programs that contribute to the competitiveness and profitability of the food manufacturing industry and to the

204

Comm. Appl. Biol. Sci, Ghent University, 75/1, 2010 well being of the public. To reach its vision and carry out the missions, DFST has the following objectives: 1). Producing competent graduates in the field of food science and technology who are competitive in global markets with good technical, managerial, communication and entrepreneurial skills. 2). Developing innovative, basic, applied and strategic researches to support educational processes and the development of food science and technology while coping with practical problems and challenges of the society, 3). Implementing research findings in food science and technology in the society whilst enriching the educational process. In relation to the implementation of IPB's vision as a leading higher education of international quality in the development of science, technology, art and human resources with tropical agriculture as its core competence, IPB has established collaboration with foreign institutes of education, research as well as commerce. There are about 50 memorandums of Agreements spread in 15 countries in 5 continents (Asia, Africa, Europe, America and Australia). This is parallel with the concept that “knowledge knows No Frontiers”, this means no boundaries of countries to improve, develop and transmit the knowledge, wisdom, and values (Chozin, 2006). To accomplish its vision, IPB has set up in year 2007 as an embryo of Research University. International cooperation has been started since US government has provided assistance in implementing the concept of agriculture in the higher education. In the early 1970s, IPB was selected by South East Asia Minister of Education Organization (SEAMEO) as the location for the South East Regional Center for Tropical Biology. Soon afterwards with the University of The Philippines Los Banos, University Putra Malaysia and Kasetsart University, Thailand founded SEARCA (South East Asia Research and Graduate Consortium on Agriculture) for the promotion of human resources and technology for agricultural development in the region. The SEARCA University consortium was developed in 1989 providing student and faculty exchange. The University of Queensland, Australia, The University of British Columbia, Canada and George August University of Göttingen, Germany joined as associate members. Other important cooperation includes JICA, JSPS and Japanese Universities such as Tokyo University of Agriculture, Kyoto Universities and Tokyo University of Fisheries, and the current collaboration with Mie University and Tohoku University. At Bogor Agricultural University, nutrition and food research and education programs have been developed for over 30 years. Previously, there were several Centers associated with nutrition and food science and technology. Since 1979 Food Technology Development Center (FTDC) was established at IPB. In 1985; Inter University Center for Food and Nutrition was established and further developed into Center for Food and Nutrition Studies (CFNS) in 1992. Other centers related to nutrition, food science and technologies were also established; namely Center for Food and Nutrition Policy Studies (CFNPS; since 1987) and Center for Assessment of Traditional Foods (CATF, 1997) (SEAFAST, 2010). Due to the reorganization and consolidation process at IPB; at 2004, the centers were consolidated and merged into one center named Southeast Asian Food and Agricultural Science and Technology (SEAFAST) Center. The center is designed to develop a national and regional system of partnership in the area of food and agricultural science and technology development. In general, the SEAFAST Center is

205

Comm. Appl. Biol. Sci, Ghent University, 75/1, 2010 designed to bring together the university, governmental, donor and business sectors to focus on the improvement of food science and technology issues for Indonesia and where appropriate, in other ASEAN nations. IPB has mandated the SEAFAST center to be a regional center focusing on improving food quality, nutrition and safety through science and technology (SEAFAST, 2010). To achieve the target to be a regional center; SEAFAST center is actively seeking mutual partnerships and cooperation’s with many national, regional and international institutions. At national level, SEAFAST Center IPB (especially thru previous centers of CFNS, CFNPS; and CATF) has been actively involved in developing national policy, especially in food quality, safety, and nutrition aspect. Our national partner institutions include Ministry of Agriculture, Ministry of Industry, Ministry of Trade, Ministry of Health, Ministry of Research and Technology, and The National Food and Drug Control, and national food industries. Internationally, our Center also has strong association with top universities and other food related agencies in Asia, North America and Europe. Since 2004, IPB through SEAFAST Center has developed cooperation with Texas A&M University., Texas A&M University (TAMU) was awarded a USDA-Foreign Agricultural Service 416(b) grant since January 2005. The grant will assist in the development of the Southeast Asian Food and Agriculture Science and Technology Center (SEAFAST) in Bogor, Indonesia. Through the huge development of SEAFAST Center as one of the international center for food science and technology in South East Asia, many advantages such international research collaboration with Texas A&M and other international institution have numerously gained by food science doctoral students. Another important noted internationalization process of DFST is that our department is becoming a member of consortium partner of MoniQA (Monitoring and Quality Assurance in the Food Supply Chain) is an EU funded Network of Excellence aiming to make food safer by harmonizing worldwide food quality and safety monitoring and control strategies (MoniQA, 2010). As explained earlier that Bogor Agricultural University has collaborated with many international universities, this situation allow doctoral candidates of FSDP to undertake sandwich program for conducting their research at overseas university. This experience would allow doctoral students of food science to have international experience and culture that will eventually influence the FSDP academic environment. Another important indicator is web-site in English, since English is needed to engage globally, DFST has created user friendly English website (http://itp.fateta.ipb.ac.id/). Moreover, in move towards internationalization, DFST has created international program, a division specializing in the promotion of DFST for internationalization process. Also DFST mission is to carry out research and education of highest academic quality focusing on tropical food which is novel, challenging and relevant to users. Therefore, DFST has collaborated with food industries in doing the research for doctoral students. Certainly, there are several barriers identified in the process of internationalization of FSDP. The important one is lack of support from

206

Comm. Appl. Biol. Sci, Ghent University, 75/1, 2010 government, in particular, funding for the internationalization process. The only bottom-up initiatives no longer appear sufficient. Clear government policy is needed to stimulate activities directed to Internationalization of doctoral graduate program. Although government provides scholarships for doctoral students, for example, beasiswa dikti and beasiswa unggulan, for prospective academics to continue their study overseas, however, the government effort in facilitating internationalization such as more research funding for doctoral students through academic faculty and scholarship for foreign students in order to attract overseas student to come to Indonesia is apparently required. Lack of coherent national strategy of doctoral program is already suffering inconvenient outcomes of research grant for doctoral students as well as the research academic. Another important obstacle is English as language medium for academic activities. Although most of the teaching materials and some of lectures deliver in English, all international students who want to study postgraduate in Indonesia are required to learn Indonesian as medium of instruction. At the same time, very limited promotion might need to be put in place to foster and internationalization of FSDP. Despite some difficulties, to sustain competitiveness in teaching, research and outreach program of international postgraduate food science and technology, IPB and, in particular DFST and SEAFAST Center, consistently seeks to improve and expand its international programs. The process of internationalization process of FSDP would allow the doctorate’s student to have international competitiveness.

CONCLUSION REMARKS Internationalization is an on-going long-term project for the Food Science Doctoral Program, as it is for Bogor Agricultural University, Indonesia. Since the development and continuous improvement of doctoral education and research in food science and technology cannot be separated from the international linkages. To sustain competitiveness in teaching, research and outreach program of postgraduate food science and technology, IPB and, in particular DFST and SEAFAST Center, consistently seeks to improve and expand its international programs. Considering the complexity of internationalization process as well as several limitation faced by FSDP, many efforts, international research and cooperation programs for doctoral in food science need to be established with various parties. DFST Doctorate Program’s has made some efforts to provide students with international atmosphere, including having international guest lecturers, inviting prospective international students, and initiating join program with international universities. In addition, research focusing in tropical food and collaboration with international universities may need to be improved to widen the network, increase publication and place DFST doctorate program visible in the international forum.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT The author would like to thank Dr. Ir. Ratih Dewanti-Hariyadi, M.Sc and Dr. Ir. Dahrulsyah for advice and suggestions.

207


REFERENCES •

ALBATCH P.G. & KNIGHT, J. (2007). The internationalization of higher education: motivations and realities. Journal of Studies in International Education 11, 290 – 305.

•

BOGOR AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY, INDONESIA.(n.d).[on line]. Available: http://www.ipb.ac.id/eng/ (March 6, 2010).

•

CHOZIN M.A. (2006). An Introduction to Bogor Agricultural University, Bull.Facul.Agric.Niigata Univ., 58(2):155-159.

•

DEPARTMENT OF FOOD SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, BOGOR AGRICULTURE UNIVERSITY, INDONESIA (n.d). [on line]. http://itp.fateta.ipb.ac.id/ (March 6, 2010).

•

MONITORING AND QUALITY ASSURANCE IN THE FOOD SUPPLY CHAIN.(n.d).[on line].Available: http://www.moniqa.org/partnerlist (March 6, 2010).

•

NATIONAL HIGHER EDUCATION RESEARCH INSITITUTE (IPPTN).(n.d).[on line].Available: http://www.usm.my/ipptn/fileup/Internationalisation%20&%20International% 20Linkages.pdf (Februar 28, 2010).

•

SOEJATMINAH S. (2009). Internationalisation of Indonesian Higher Education: A Study from the Periphery. Asian Social Science Vol. 5, No. 9.

•

SOUTH EAST ASIAN FOOD AND AGRICULTURAL SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY (SEAFAST).(2006).[on line]. Available: http://seafast.ipb.ac.id/intro.php (March 6, 2010).

•

VAN DER WENDE M. (2007). Internationalization of Higher Education in the OECD Countries: Challenges and Opportunities for the Coming Decade. Journal of Studies in International Education; 11; 274

208


THIRD CYCLE UNIVERSITY STUDIES IN EUROPE IN THE FIELD OF AGRICULTURAL ENGINEERING AND IN THE EMERGING DISCIPLINE OF BIOSYSTEMS ENGINEERING F. AYUGA1, D. BRIASSOULIS2, P. AGUADO3, I. FARKAS4, H. GRIEPENTROG5, E. LORENCOWICZ6 1

Universidad Politecnica de Madrid, ETSI Agronomos, Ciudad Universitaria, Spain, Escuela Técnica Superior de Ingenieros A, 28040, Madrid (Spain) 2 Agricultural University of Athens, Department of Agricultural Engineering, Iera Odos 75, 11855, Athens, Greece (GREECE) 3 Universidad de León, Escuela Superior y Técnica de Ingeniería Agraria, Av. Portugal, 41, 24071 LEON (SPAIN) 4 Szent István University Department of Physics and Process Control, Pater K. u. 1, H-2103, , Godollo (HUNGARY) 5 The Royal Veterinary and Agricultural University, Dept. of Agricultural Sciences Environment, Resources and Technology Hoejbakkegaard Alle 9, DK-2630 Taastrup (DENMARK) 6 University of Life Sciences in Lublin, Department of Farm Machinery Exploitation and Management, ul. Głęboka 29, PL 20-612 Lublin (POLAND)

SUMMARY The main objectives of European Thematic Network entitled ‘Education and Research in Agricultural for Biosystems Engineering in Europe (ERABEE-TN)’ is to initiate and contribute to the structural development and the assurance of the quality assessment of the emerging discipline of Biosystems Engineering in Europe. ERABEE is co-financed by the European Community in the framework of the LLP Programme. The partnership consists of 35 participants from 27 Erasmus countries, out of which 33 are Higher Education Area Institutions (EDU) and 2 are Student Associations (ASS). 13 Erasmus participants (e.g. Thematic Networks, Professional Associations, and Institutions from Brazil, Croatia, Russia and Serbia) are also involved in the Thematic Network through synergies. To date, very few Biosystems Engineering programs exist in Europe and those that are initiated are at a very primitive stage of development. The innovative and novel goal of the Thematic Network is to promote this critical transition, which requires major restructuring in Europe, exploiting along this direction the outcomes accomplished by its predecessor; the USAEE-TN (University Studies in Agricultural Engineering in Europe). It also aims at enhancing the compatibility among the new programmes of Biosystems Engineering, aiding their recognition and accreditation at European and International level and facilitating greater mobility of skilled personnel, researchers and students. One of the technical objectives of ERABEE is dealing with mapping and promoting the third cycle studies (including European PhDs) and supporting the integration of research at the 1st and 2nd cycle regarding European Biosystems Engineering university studies. During the winter 2008 – spring 2009 period, members of ERABEE conducted a survey on the contemporary status of doctoral studies in Europe, and on a possible scheme for promotion of cooperation and synergies in the framework

209

Comm. Appl. Biol. Sci, Ghent University, 75/1, 2010 of the third cycle of studies and the European Doctorate in Biosystems Engineering in Europe. This paper presents the results of the survey. The legal regulations and their extent on the different countries concerning the third cycle are presented, along with the current structure of third cycle studies. The evolution and adaptation to the new EHEA in each country is also considered. Information was also gathered on the emerging topics of the Biosystems Engineering field and how these topics could be addressed by the new doctoral programmes at the European level. Key words: third cycle, Biosystems Engineering, thematic networks, European Higher Education Area

INTRODUCTION The evolution from Agricultural to Biosystems Engineering in Europe During the last decade, Agricultural Engineering University studies in Europe faced dramatic problems such as decrease of student enrolment, reduced prestige, declining funding, etc. The dramatic situation within this specific field of studies along with its chaotic state in terms of programme content (Briassoulis et al., 2001) was the motivation behind the establishment of the USAEE-TN project. It defined Agricultural Engineering as an application-based discipline related to the production and processing of goods of biological origin from the field and the farm to the consumer (i.e. plant and animal production, post-harvest technology, process engineering, etc.). Agricultural Engineering was traditionally related to the protection of the natural environment and the preservation of the natural resources (i.e. soil conservation, rational water management, air pollution control, waste management, preservation of natural habitats, etc.), but now it gradually evolves to the emerging discipline of Biosystems Engineering. The outputs of the USAEE-TN (USAEE TN) provided already evidence and identified new areas of the emerging Biosystems Engineering University studies in which coordinated work at European level is urgently needed. These developments proved that now, more than ever, there is a an urgent need for coordinated work at a European level towards a further systematic and harmonised restructuring of these programs of studies and of a parallel gradual transition from the classical Agricultural Engineering University studies to the emerging area of the Biosystems Engineering, in exploitation of the USAEE-TN results. This need is also justified from: •

•

An analogous transition of the Agricultural Engineering programs of studies and of the relevant professional activities now in progress world-wide (e.g. already established in USA and Canada), (The Canadian Society for Bioengineering, Wheaton et al., 2003) and The decision of the European Commission to support financially a two-year EU/USA project under "ATLANTIS (Actions for Transatlantic Links and

210


Academic Networks for Training and Integrated Studies)" entitled "Policy Oriented Measures in Support of establishing common policies regarding the Evolving Biosystems Engineering Studies in USA – EU (POMSEBES)" (Panagakis et al., 2008)

In fact, the major international political priority relevant to BE studies was set in USA and Canada back in 2003 by the American Society of Agricultural Engineers (ASAE) and the Canadian Society of Agricultural Engineering (CSAE), respectively. It regarded the change of the Societies’ name which was considered as a major issue. At that time it had become evident that traditional Agricultural Engineering curricula experienced a marked decline in students. Prospective students from rural backgrounds entering Universities to prepare themselves for jobs in agricultural related industries were largely replaced by students from urban areas. These students were interested in the interface of biology and engineering rather than agriculture and engineering, therefore defined their interest as Biological Engineering. Hence efforts evolved to move from the application-based Agricultural Engineering to the science-based Biological Engineering programs in which Agricultural Engineering would be included as a the main core. Since then most Agricultural Engineering Departments in USA and Canada have added a ‘bio’ modifier term (i.e. Bio-systems, Bio-logical, Bio-resources, Bio-engineering, etc.) in their tiles and aligned their academic programs with the biology-based curriculum (without neglecting agricultural engineering). The name and curriculum changes have led to increased enrolments in most cases. As a result in 2005 ASAE and CSAE decided to change their name to American Society of Agricultural and Biological Engineers (ASABE) and Canadian Society for Bioengineering (CSBE), respectively. Based on the above, the Thematic Network on Education and Research in Biosystems Engineering in Europe (ERABEE-TN) was established aiming at further developing the outputs of the USAEE-TN by restructuring the Agricultural Engineering programs of studies and contributing to the inevitable transition from the traditional Agricultural Engineering studies towards those of the broader Biosystems Engineering studies. To avoid a possible confusion with the terminology and the related definitions used with regard to Biosystems Engineering, the following definition has been adopted by ERABEE-TN: Biosystems Engineering is a field of engineering which integrates engineering science and design with applied biological, environmental and agricultural sciences. It represents an evolution of the Agricultural Engineering discipline applied to all living organisms not including biomedical applications. Therefore, Biosystems Engineering is ‘the branch of engineering that applies engineering sciences to solve problems involving biological systems’. In the context of this evolution, Biosystems Engineering should exclude Biomedical Engineering, Bioengineering and Biotechnology.

211


The Thematic Network ERABEE-TN The thematic Network ERABEE-TN consortium includes 35 participants from 27 European Erasmus countries and 13 other European participants from countries not participating in the Erasmus programme or non-eligible for funding. The organisation type of the consortium is 33 Higher Education Area Institutions & 2 Student Associations. A large percentage of Institutions / Universities involved, through their programs of studies and/or research activities, in the evolving field of Biosystems Engineering throughout Europe participate in the network. The thematic Network ERABEE-TN aims at the exploitation and expansion of the significant work already carried out in the framework of a previous Thematic Network USAEE-TN [(USAEE, Briassoulis et al., 2008], dealing with 1st and 2nd cycles of education in Agricultural, Biological and Biosystems Engineering in Europe. More specifically it aims to: • • • • • •

Develop the third cycle programs of studies in Biosystems Engineering Incorporate the Quality Assessment and Assurance Frameworks of European programs of studies in Biosystems Engineering into the European Engineering Quality Assessment scheme Integrate the Accreditation of European programs of studies in Biosystems Engineering into the European Engineering labeling scheme Establish an international attractiveness of European programs of studies in Biosystems Engineering Develop European degrees of studies (e.g. European doctorate) in the field of Biosystems Engineering Expand Biosystems Engineering programs of studies to include the emerging areas of bio-fuels and biomaterials along with products quality as related to the new CAP developments

THE RECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN DOCTORAL EDUCATION IN EUROPE The third cycle in the Bologna Process The third cycle of the European programs of studies has only recently caught the proper attention in Europe, following the relevant developments in the framework of the on-going Bologna process. The corresponding recent developments regarding the third cycle studies in Europe have been based on the Lisbon objectives aimed at the increase in the number of researchers and research related careers and in enhancing doctoral training programmes (EUA, 2005). The last is considered as a cornerstone in reaching the goal of increased number of researchers in Europe. As a result of this goal, and in the framework of the Bologna Process, doctoral training has gained recently greater importance on the European higher education agenda. More specifically, in the Berlin Communiqué in 2003, it is read: o

a new action line on higher education and research as two pillars of the knowledge society emphasised the importance of doctoral programmes as the third cycle in the Bologna Process.

212

Comm. Appl. Biol. Sci, Ghent University, 75/1, 2010 In fact, it is already admitted that the Bologna process was late in considering the impact of reform on the third cycle, and indeed only in the Berlin Communiqué in 2003 was the doctoral cycle brought into the reform of degree structures (Crosier et al., 2007). This delay is now experienced with many of the questions which have arisen with regard to first and second cycles being posed increasingly with regard to the third cycle. The reshaping of the third cycle in the Bologna process is based on the following principles (Crosier et al., 2007): o o

o

Doctoral programmes are not only the third cycle of higher education, but also constitute the first phase of a young researcher’s career. The core component of the third cycle is the advancement of knowledge through original research, and this makes the third cycle unique and different from the first and second cycles. The doctoral training phase constitutes the main link between the European higher education and research areas, and high quality doctoral programmes are therefore crucial in achieving Europe’s research goals.

During a Bologna Seminar in 2006 (EUA, 2006), it was pointed out that the starting point of the third cycle in the Bologna Process was the Bergen Communiqué: o

o

Ministers meeting in Bergen in May 2005 recognised that in order to improve the synergies between the higher education sector and other research sectors and between the EHEA and the European Research Area “doctoral level qualifications need to be fully aligned with the EHEA overarching framework for qualifications using the outcomes-based approach”. The core component of doctoral training is the advancement of knowledge through original research.

STRUCTURE AND ORGANISATION OF DOCTORAL PROGRAMMES Doctoral Programmes developed in the Bologna Process exhibit considerable diversity not only across different countries in Europe, but also across universities within the same country and across faculties within the same university. Because of this diversity, some common standards are necessary. According to (EUA, 2005), establishing common institutional guidelines, codes and regulations, defined clearly at the highest institutional level and providing rules on recruitment, supervision, exams, evaluation and defence of the thesis, can be proven to be a highly beneficial approach for universities in Europe. Individual study programmes (“apprenticeship model”) are questioned in the report of (EUA, 2005), as being appropriate to meet the new multiple challenges of research training for careers in a competitive labour market, with an increasing tendency in many European countries towards structured programmes with doctoral candidates grouped in research/graduate/doctoral schools. The introduction of the third cycle programs of studies in the Bologna Process has already resulted in some very interesting developments, as reported and discussed in (EUA, 2005): o Universities fully recognise that they have responsibility to offer doctoral candidates more than core research disciplinary skills based on individual training by doing research.

213

Comm. Appl. Biol. Sci, Ghent University, 75/1, 2010 o o

o

o

They are increasingly introducing courses and modules offering transferable skills training and preparing candidates for the careers in various sectors. Crucially, the reorganisation of doctoral training towards structured programmes and training in a wide range of transferable skills in courses or modules requires adequate financing. It should be emphasised that reforms of doctoral education are proceeding at varied paces and, in some countries the debate on reform is only at the beginning. (2004-2005) While the reform of the first two cycles is well underway across Europe, the transformation of doctoral education presents a different order of challenge.

Two new organisational /structural models are developed to meet the needs of the third cycle under development in various universities in Europe (Crosier, 2007): o

o

o

Graduate school – an organisational structure that includes doctoral candidates and often also master students. It provides administrative, development and transferable skills development support, organises admission, courses and seminars, and takes responsibility for quality assurance. Doctoral/ Research school – an organisational structure that includes only doctoral students. It may be organised around a particular discipline, research theme or a cross-disciplinary research area and/ or it is focused on creating a research group/ network and is project-driven. It may involve one institution only or several institutions in a network. Countries and even individual institutions may also adopt both models.

The distribution of the various schools offering third cycle programs of studies in Europe in 2007 is shown in Figure 1 (based on a survey of higher education institutions undertaken between November 2005 and March 2006). It is important to notice that almost half of the European doctoral programmes include now structured programmes of studies with advanced coursework in addition to tutoring.

214


Furthermore, 27% of the institutions use credits (ECTS) within the third cycle. There are several advantages and added value of Graduate/Doctoral schools identified in the report of (Crosier, 2007). Among them, the Graduate/Doctoral schools: o o o o o o o o o o o

o

Offer a framework for a shared mission or vision that facilitates the process of turning doctoral candidates into excellent researchers Provide a stimulating research environment and cooperation across disciplines Facilitate clear administrative structure for doctoral programmes, candidates and supervisors, and clear profile and status for doctoral candidates Ensure critical mass and help to overcome the isolation of young researchers Bring junior and senior researchers together Support and facilitate the task of supervising candidates and the role of supervisors Organise admission with transparent rules and regulations Provide an environment conducive to transferable skills training Enhance career development opportunities, including advice on funding opportunities (scholarships, projects) Guarantee quality assurance and monitoring Provide a framework for the development of codes of practice, procedures and mechanisms within the university structure and acting as a an independent arbitrator or ombudsman where necessary Enhance opportunities for mobility, international collaboration and interinstitutional cooperation

In parallel to the above promising developments with the establishment of new or the support of existing of Graduate/Doctoral schools, some new types of doctoral programmes have also appeared lately (Crosier, 2007). In particular, a range of innovative doctorate programmes are emerging to respond to the changing demands of a fast-evolving labour market.

215

Comm. Appl. Biol. Sci, Ghent University, 75/1, 2010 Employability of doctoral candidates within and outside academic institutions, as well as individual and societal needs for lifelong education and training, have acted as a catalyst to the development of such new programmes (Crosier, 2007): o o o

professional doctorates university – industrial collaboration based doctorates increased European and international cooperation, often leading to joint or European doctorates

The programmes known as “Professional doctorates” or practice-related doctorates focus on embedding research in a reflective manner into professional practice. According to the report of (Crosier, 2007), in order to develop a broad discussion on this topic, it will be important to ensure the dissemination of information from those European countries that have experience in this area, and particularly the UK, where the number of professional doctorates is growing rapidly Nevertheless, as stated in (Crosier, 2007): While they must meet the same core standards as “traditional” doctorates to ensure the same high level of quality, institutions involved in the EUA doctoral programmes project felt that it may be appropriate to consider using different titles to distinguish between this type of professional doctorates and PhDs. In the future, qualifications frameworks may help to clarify the relationship The diversity of the doctoral programmes, as in the case of the first two cycles of studies, reflects the increasing diversity of the European Higher Education landscape in which higher education institutions have the autonomy to develop their own missions and profiles and thus their own priorities in terms of programmes and research priorities (Crosier, 2007). According to the report of Crosier, 2007), the discussion on new developments on the doctoral education in Europe has led to the consensus that there should be no doctorate without original research - the main component of all doctorates - and that all awards described as doctorates (no matter what their type or form) should be based on core processes and outcomes.

A Survey of the doctoral programmes in Agricultural/Biosystems Engineering in Europe Good practices show that mobility can be an important strategic tool of doctoral training, leading to the wider research experience and career development opportunities of doctoral candidates. However, as reported in (Crosier, 2007), there are still numerous obstacles of a legal, administrative, financial, personal and cultural character that limit mobility throughout Europe, so the action of European thematic networks is a key element to tackle these problems. In the context of the ERABEE tasks and objectives (ERABEE TN), the third Workshop was devoted to have a picture of the situation of third cycle studies in Europe, and how the evolution to the new Bologna structures is implementing. All ERABEE partners contributed with data updated to May 2009. In this paper the main conclusions of the Workshop are presented (Briassoulis, 2009).

216


THE THIRD CYCLE OF STUDIES IN AGRICULTURAL & BIOSYSTEMS ENGINEERING IN EUROPE Legal regulations of the third cycle in Europe According with the ERABEE survey, almost all countries in Europe have some kind of national regulation of the third cycle completed with some rules of the University. This is the case in Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Turkey, Spain, Sweden and United Kingdom. In some case rules are provided only by the University such as in Flanders, Finland, Germany and Malta. In other cases national rules completely cover needs of regulation on the third cycle such as in France, Ireland and Slovakia. In the Netherlands the third cycle studies are formally regulated by the Higher Education and Research Act. However, there are only a few requirements related to third cycle studies according to this law and the rules are provided by the Graduate Schools that are not bound to one university The so-called “Doctoral Schools” are not yet very common in Europe. Only Flanders, France, Hungary and the Netherlands offer this kind of organization. In Italy it is permitted but is not the only system. Most of the European countries already offer structured third cycle studies, but under the organization of Schools or Faculties, offering also 1st and/or 2nd cycle degrees. Structured programmes include almost always some advanced courses. They usually are divided in compulsory and optional courses. Compulsory courses are mainly general topics regarding research principles or management, while optional courses usually refer to specific subjects on the research topic. Nevertheless, the main part of the training and research period is devoted to research activities and the completion of the original research work, the PhD. Thesis.

Students admission and recruitment for the third cycle in Europe Most European countries require a 2nd cycle or a traditional long cycle degree for admission to the third cycle program of studies. In a few cases this prerequisite can be waived by an entry examination, like in Flanders. Exceptions are Ireland and United Kingdom (Bachelors can be accepted based on honours), Turkey (Bachelors can be accepted after approval of a board) and Spain (Bachelors are accepted if they have completed 300 ECTS of 1st and 2nd cycle studies). In some cases additional prerequisites are expected, like some minimum grades, letters of recommendation, interviews, language skills, entrance examination, preliminary research activity or publications, etc. The ways to recruit candidates are diverse: advertisement, personal contacts, selection of the best students on the 2nd cycle In many countries scholarships are available (offered by the State, usually on a competitive basis, research projects or companies). This is a mode of entry to the third cycle studies, associated with part-time employment as a PhD student on a regular salary, such as in Denmark, Finland, France, the Netherlands, Norway, and Portugal. In other countries, both students with scholarships and students at their own expenses are common.

217

Comm. Appl. Biol. Sci, Ghent University, 75/1, 2010 The number of students of the third cycle programs of studies in Agricultural / Biosystems Engineering coming from industries is very high in comparison with other disciplines (15-20 %). The number of foreign students is low, with the exception of some Institutions, but in most of the countries some foreign PhD students are present.

STRUCTURE OF THIRD CYCLE PROGRAMS OF STUDIES ON BIOSYSTEMS/AGRICULTURAL ENGINEERING IN EUROPEAN INSTITUTIONS Structure of Third Cycle Study Programs in Biosystems/Agricultural Engineering Regarding Institutions providing degrees on Biosystems/Agricultural Engineering the structure of the third cycle could be summarized in Table 1:

Flanders 4 (Belgium)

Attend one seminar No

No

Deliver two seminars Teaching activities

Bulgaria

3 For Full Time 4 For Part Time

Structured Program Individual < 20 Yes Training Free PhD. Studies

< 24

Czech Republic

3-5

Yes

No

No

Yes

30

210-840 hours of teaching Presentations at practical science conferences 25-30 and doctoral seminars Pedagogy and teaching practice

Denmark 3

Yes

Estonia

4

Yes

18

Yes

Finland

3-5

Yes

P 15 Yes

218

≥45

Teaching activities

Publicatio ns

Training Activities

ECTS

Optional Courses

ECTS

Compulsor y Courses

Duration years

Country

Table 1. Structure of third cycle studies in the surveyed countries

At least one paper and active participation in an international conference At least 75 % of the work should be published before defending the thesis At least one paper in scientific journal 1 article in an ISI journal 2 articles published in peer-reviewed journals presentations at international scientific conferences Article based

Publicatio ns

Training Activities

ECTS

Optional Courses

ECTS

Compulsor y Courses

Duration years

Country


thesis. Typically 4 articles or conference papers

France

3

Germany 3-6

Greece

Hungary

3-5

3

Yes

No ECT S 2030 Hou rs/ Year

No

Yes

Yes

Dep endi ng on can dida te

30

3

No

Italy

>3 3 for full time 4 for part time

Yes

No

Yes

30 to 65

Lithuania 4

Yes

1 peer-reviewed paper

No

Ireland

Latvia

At least 1 peer review paper Participation 2-3 international into one local conference seminar papers It depends on University

Part of the thesis published or accepted for publication in a journal or conference

Yes

28

No Yes

Research activity (70 ECTS) Teaching activity (2 hours /week) (12 ECTS)

Publications are assigned with ECTS accordingly with a table. A minimum is required (40 ECTS)

Normally one year of teaching and educational training

Research based on papers or a written thesis

No

The main results of thesis must be published in scientific literature

Yes

Yes

219

Not required

> 30 Research ECTS activities comp

At least scientific articles

two in

ulsory and optio nal

Malta

3 for full time 6 for part time

Participate in the faculty’s research and teaching

Depending on the student

30 ECTS of educational activities

Netherlan 4 ds

No

No

Norway

3-6

Yes

Yes

Poland

3-4

Depending on the institution

Portugal

3

Yes

< 30

Romania

3

Yes

60

30-40

Research activities

Publicatio ns

Training Activities

ECTS

Optional Courses

ECTS

Compulsor y Courses

Duration years

Country


reviewperiodical scientific editions Deliver at least one presentation and present at least one poster. The thesis or parts thereof should be of peerreviewed publishable quality level The doctoral student is encouraged to have the work published in some major and relevant peer reviewed scientific journals Thesis based on 3 to 5 submitted and/or approved papers from high quality scientific journals Depending on the institution

Research reports

220

Research based on papers or a written thesis Evaluation based on the number of scientific papers published at international

Slovakia

Spain

3 for full time 5 for part time

2-5

Yes

Yes

>4

Yes

45

Turkey

4-6 3 full time Prorate part time

Yes

> 21

No

Yes

60120 consid ering Research comp activities ulsory and optio nal

Yes

Research 15-45 activities

Yes

Seminar

Publicatio ns

Training Activities

ECTS

Research activities

60

Sweden

United Kingdom

Optional Courses

ECTS

Compulsor y Courses

Duration years

Country


and national conferences Publications are assigned with ECTS accordingly with a table. A minimum is required (120 ECTS)

Not required

Thesis based on 3 to 5 scientific papers or a monograph Not required Strongly encouraged to deliver a paper to an international conference

In all countries the third cycle finishes with the public defence of the PhD thesis, which is an original and relevant research work. The thesis research work is supervised by one or more senior academic staff or researchers and there is a board of examination appointed by the University. Details on the structure of the PhD thesis and the exam are shown in the Table 2:

221


Flanders Monograph (Belgium) Bulgaria

Monograph

Czech republic

Monograph

Denmark Monograph

Professors, lecturers or doctorates Recomme 6-7 No with 3 years nded experience Two assessors 20 7 at least At least 3 from 3 associated other Oppone professor institutio nts ns 2-3 Evaluatio supervisors, n being the main Yes committe the leader of e the project

Finland

Article based or monograph

4-5

Usually

Estonia

1-2 supervisors, scientist/full Article based or associated Monograph professor – doctoral degree

PhD Committ ee Chair and 5 members

1 member Yes outside university

France

Monograph

Full professor

5-8

Full or associate or assistant professor

5 7, 3 of them full Possible professor s of the university 2

Germany Monograph

Greece

Monograph

Hungary

Monograph Article based One or several or supervisors 3-4 monograph and advisors Professor or 3; 2 of Monograph full researcher them

Ireland Italy

222

Yes

Supervisor in the board Preliminar y defence

Opponents

Foreign members

No of members of the board

Supervisor

Kind of thesis

Country

Table 2. Structure of the thesis and its defence in third cycle programs of studies in Europe

Yes

Yes

Yes but without Yes vote

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

Usually

No

No

No

Possible

No

No

No

Sometim No es No


Opponents

Foreign members


Supervisor

Kind of thesis

Country


external Latvia

Monograph

Doctor with scientific publications

5

Lithuania Monograph

Malta

Member of the academic staff 3; 1 of of the them university. external Co-supervisor or advisers

No

Poland

Portugal Romania

Article based At least 2 or researchers monograph

Monograph

Professor or doctor with habilitation

Article based Generally a or professor monograph Specialist Monograph confirmed by the national

No

Yes, the depart ment

No

No

Yes 4, membe rs of Yes the board

No

Yes, 2 membe No rs of the board

Yes

Possible

No

No

2 review ers, memb ers of the board

7-9, At least Half one external

No

No

No

5

No

No

No

Staff member Article based 5-8, Netherlan with doctoral or 2 of them Possible ds degree, or monograph external professor.

Norway

No Yes 2 scientis t from differen t instituti ons

At least 4, 2 of them external

Scientist. If needed, consultants

Monograph

Possible

Yes, 3 review ers

3

8

223

Possible

academic council. Approved by the scientific board of the faculty

Slovakia

Monograph

Spain

Monograph. Article based Researcher possible

Sweden

At least two, the main Article based supervisor or being monograph professor associate professor


Opponents

Foreign members


Supervisor

Kind of thesis

Country


No

3 review ers

5, At least 3 Possible external

No

No

Yes, 3 review ers

3 or 5 1 Usually external

Yes

No

No

5

Possible

Structured third cycle programs of studies in Biosystems Engineering in Europe Most of the countries of the survey have developed third cycle programs of studies in Biosystems Engineering or related disciplines. In Denmark there is a program approved but not yet started. There is no specialized third cycle degree in France tied to Agricultural or Biosystems Engineering because Engineering degrees are not provided by Universities. Nevertheless, the Agricultural Engineering area can be a support (or research work field) for PhD studies in other relevant disciplines. In Malta the development of a 1st and 2nd program of studies is currently under study while no specific third cycle of studies is present. In Norway some students of the Engineering third cycle choose the Biosystems Engineering field as their specialization. In Romania the situation is similar with respect to Mechanical Engineering. Some countries are involved in International agreements and educational networks, such as NOVA, BOVA, LERU, including 3rd cycle programs of studies.

Evolution of the structure of third cycle programs of studies in Europe Due to the fact that the third cycle studies have only recently been incorporated into the construction of the Higher Education Area in Europe, many European countries are still adapting their third cycle studies to the Bologna process. At this moment, Spain, Portugal, Flanders, Bulgaria, Hungary and Poland are introducing the new structured third cycle studies according with the Bologna Process. In addition, Doctoral Programmes developed in the Bologna Process exhibit considerable diversity not only across different countries in Europe, but also across universities within the same country and across faculties within the same

224

Comm. Appl. Biol. Sci, Ghent University, 75/1, 2010 university. However, in the majority of the countries the duration of the period for completion of doctoral thesis varies between 3 and 4 years. Besides, despite that the ECTS System was established in 1988 under the Erasmus Programme, there are some countries, like Germany or Czech Republic, were the ECTS credits have not been applied to the doctorate studies. All the countries that have been surveyed in the ERABEE Thematic Network are making big efforts to introduce European and international dimensions in the new third cycle programs of studies. Many universities are introducing new double or joint degrees with foreign institutions and increasing the number of international funded research projects. They are also enhancing the exchange of teaching staff and students between different universities by the way of Erasmus programmes or other possibilities.

THE THIRD CYCLE PROGRAMS OF STUDIES IN THE EMERGING FIELD OF BIOSYSTEMS ENGINEERING IN EUROPE Evolution of contents of the third cycle degrees in Biosystems Engineering in Europe Biosystems Engineering is a science-based engineering discipline that integrates engineering science and design with applied biological, environmental and agricultural sciences, broadening in this way the area of application of Engineering sciences not strictly to agricultural sciences, but to the biological sciences in general, including the agricultural sciences. Therefore, the programs of studies in Biosystems Engineering represent an evolution and an extension of the traditional agricultural engineering programs of studies. The rapid developments in the field of the bio-engineering science and technology in the sector of the agriculture lead to necessary changes in the research lines and in the contents of the third cycle studies introducing new topics about the new emerging disciplines. These emerging disciplines usually are based on biological sciences that are not limited to or do not correspond to the agricultural sciences. The transition from the traditional agricultural engineering studies to the new Biosystems Engineering studies is already at a very advanced stage in USA and Canada and in other countries. However, very few third cycle programs of studies in Biosystems Engineering have been initiated in Europe. Despite this lack of experience about third cycle studies in “Biosystems Engineering” in Europe many disciplines related to the Biosystems Engineering have incorporated in their programs of studies elements of Biosystems Engineering (e.g. third cycle of traditional Agricultural Engineering programs of studies). Some European countries have found some difficulties for the establishment of doctorates in Biosystems Engineering because of the lack of professors (experts) in these emerging fields. The evolution of the contents of the third cycle programs of studies and of the fields of research in the emerging field of Biosystems engineering in the different countries that have participated in the ERABEE Thematic Network is described below.

225

Comm. Appl. Biol. Sci, Ghent University, 75/1, 2010 In Flanders some examples of these contents include postharvest technology, food quality, mixture systems optimisation, control of imperfectly mixed fluids and monitoring and control of biological responses. Bulgaria has initiated training in the emerging fields of Biosystems Engineering like bio-fuels, bio-based materials and especially waste management in agriculture and forestry. In the Czech Republic the accredited fields of doctoral studies, which can be included in the Biosystems Engineering, are studied at the Faculty of Engineering of Czech University of Life Sciences Prague. This faculty is expanding new branches of environmental engineering technology, biomaterials, renewable energy sources, biofuels, and mechatronics partly in the co-operation with the research institutes and other faculties. In Denmark the new topics in third cycle programs include climate change, bioenergy and robotics. In Estonia a course of “Biosystems technology” has been included in engineering sciences (speciality study) in the third cycle studies. In Finland, during the last five years, agricultural doctoral studies have been completed on the following research topics: microclimate and gas emissions in dairy buildings, field scouts for wireless measurement, clean ability of modified surface materials in cattle houses, automatic lameness detection in a milking robot and dry-line method in bast fibre production. In the future probably will be incorporated subjects about energy (bioenergy and energy savings in agricultural production), the climate change (mitigation and adaptation), environmental technology (waste management, pollution reduction), biorefinery and animal welfare. In France new PhD research topics are the NTIC (particularly the GPS and the image processing and acquisition), the relation between Energy and mobile machines, biogas and methane production, the management of fertilizing and spraying as these operations have a significant impact on the environment, safety (for the machine and the operator), input management, IT (GPS, SIG, Vision)-aided crop management, vehicle guidance, environment and environmental friendly techniques. In Germany trends to a structured doctoral programme can not be foreseen because, at the moment, there are always individual ways for a doctoral qualification. In Greece, during the last years, several new PhD thesis or research projects have been carried out at the Agricultural University of Athens concerning environmental friendly materials, waste materials valorisation and bio-based materials for agricultural applications, renewable sources of energy including bio-fuels, biomass and quality of products concerning agricultural products. The relevant topics in Hungary are the following: water management and irrigation control, solar drying of material of biological origin, wellness control of greenhouse plants, use of renewable energy sources in bio-systems, development of biosensors and control issues of bio-system engineering.

226

Comm. Appl. Biol. Sci, Ghent University, 75/1, 2010 In Ireland the University College Dublin offer Bachelor, Master or PhD studies in Biosystems Engineering. Biosystems engineering graduate student programmes usually have upwards of 70 students enrolled. These studies are multidisciplinary incorporating Agriculture, Veterinary Medicine, Food Science and Engineering. This multidisciplinary approach has become incorporated into Biosystems Engineering allowing it to address the agri-food chain, from farm-to-fork. New topics like Food and Bioprocess Engineering, Mechanisation and Renewable Energy Systems and Environmental Engineering have been incorporated. In Italy there is some shift in research topics reflecting the evolution from the traditional Agricultural Engineering towards the emerging Biosystems Engineering discipline. For example, the PRO.GE.S.A. Department of Bari University offers the PhD curricula “Energy Use of Agricultural and Forestry Biomass” and “Use of Energy from Renewable Sources”, while the Department of Agricultural Engineering of Milan University offers a PhD program “Agricultural Mechanisation and Energy Sources”. In Latvia the third cycle research topics relevant to Biosystems Engineering are illustrated by the titles of defended theses in the Faculty of Engineering of the Latvia University of Agriculture in 2008: “Investigation of Biomass Properties and Production Process of Biomass Compositions”; “Mixture of fossil and vegetable oil for diesel engine, it’s research and estimation”; “Substation of optimum parameters of the plough bodies and the regimes of operation”; “Heating floors using flue gas”. In the final stage are thesis under the title “Mechanization of conditioning processes of straw materials”, which is devoted to elaboration of designing methods of mechanization means for biomass granulation and conditioning. In Lithuania the main topics of the PhD studies related with a new emerging area of Biosystems Engineering are as follows: Environmental Impacts of the Cultivation of Energy Plants, Biodegrable Lubricants from Biomass and Wastes, Electromagnetic Fields Application for Plant Seeds Treatment, Thermal Weed Control, Biological Waste Treatment, Application of Renewable Energy in Agriculture, Energy Conversion Technologies, Life Cycle Analysis, Control of Emissions from Stables, Machinery and Lands and Energy Conservation. In Malta Biosystems Engineering is still a very new concept, however, the Institute of Agriculture is actively promoting collaboration with the Faculty of engineering in this field of science. In the Netherlands a gradual change can be change can be seen to topics towards Biosystems Engineering. In more and more research topics a clear interaction between the biosystems (plant, animal) on one side and the engineering aspect on the other side can be seen. Some examples of research projects of the past five years that shown this change are as follows: “automated detection and removal of volunteer potatoes in sugar beets”, “Early detection of crop diseases through volatile metabolites”, “Robustness of animal production systems”, “Improvement of ecological sustainability of organic egg production” and “the adaptive greenhouse”. In Norway an increasing number of students study within bio energy and renewable energy.

227

Comm. Appl. Biol. Sci, Ghent University, 75/1, 2010 In Poland university activities show tendency to evolve towards changes introducing a new discipline such as agrophysics, biosystem engineering or bioengineering but taking into account the specification of the country and regional needs. In Portugal it is quite probable that in the following years there will be a transition phase between the Agricultural Engineering degrees to the Biosystems Engineering degrees. Topics related to soil and water resources; Energy and Bio-energy; Waste management and valorization will play a major role in this type of degrees. In Romania a continuous interest for these fields was observed in the past five years, especially in the following areas: Bioenergy (biofuel, solid and liquid bioenergy from agricultural and natural sources), Precision Farming and Environmental pollution (soil water and air). In Slovak Republic a slight shift is observed in research topics reflecting the evolution from the traditional Agricultural Engineering discipline towards the Biosystems Engineering discipline. For the academic year 2009-2010 the individual departments of the Slovak University of Agriculture in Nitra (the only faculty in Slovak Republic focused on the agricultural engineering) have submitted to the scientific board for the approval 31 topics of which 25 topics (80 %) have close relation to the Biosystems Engineering discipline. Some new research topics related to Byosistems Engineering are as follows: ecological and energy optimization, environmental effects of the agricultural technologies, biogas, biomaterials, georeferenced information applied to the agriculture, decreasing of the harmful gas emissions by adaptation of the technical and technological systems in animal husbandry, etc. In Turkey there are three Biosystems Engineering programme at undergraduate level in three universities but no 2nd and 3rd cycle degree programmes are offered at the moment. It is expected that the Biosystems Engineering programmes will be offered by universities that have the Faculty of Agriculture in the future for the 2nd and 3rd cycle studies. In the United Kingdom there has not been any marked shift in research topics from traditional agricultural engineering towards Biosystems engineering. However a current research project involves monitoring “the quality, combustion characteristics of agricultural residues (e.g. straw) is affected by storage time and method of pre-pellet production” and this is closer to Biosystems engineering than the other current research topics. The main research topics in the UK are currently soil dynamics, traction, traction implement dynamics and aspects of soil and water studies. In Sweden interesting new third cycle research topics could be: energy conservation and improved energy systems, questions related to climate change, new or improved agricultural production systems, integration of urban and rural activities, the rural development and reuse of existing rural structures. In Spain the only experience of the evolution of a Doctorate in Agricultural Engineering to a Doctorate in Biosystems Engineering is the recently verified research master linked to a doctorate about Biosystem Engineering of the University of Leon. The new research topics that are different to those of the previous program are: Quality, security and environment management, the local varieties of crops in eco compatible agrarian systems, numerical methods in engineering, experimental tests on new materials, recycling of materials, quality of the electric supply, technology in the agri-food industries, geomatic techniques

228

Comm. Appl. Biol. Sci, Ghent University, 75/1, 2010 applied to Biosystem Engineering, new technologies applied to the treatment of organic waste products, biotechnology applied to the agriculture, minimization of the environmental impact, genetic resources and genetic technologies, wood diseases, fungus and Mycorrhizes. DEVELOPMENT OF EUROPEAN OR INTERNATIONAL THIRD CYCLE STRUCTURED PROGRAMS OF STUDIES IN THE EMERGING FIELD OF BIOSYSTEMS ENGINEERING During the works of the ERABEE Thematic Network has been observed that there is a clear opportunity to promote new international doctorate programs taking advantage of the funding support of the European Union and many European countries, facilitating the students and professors mobility. In the area of Biosystems engineering it will be possible to achieve many combinations of third cycle programs to attract students from overseas. New technologies can be very helpful to develop these study programs in order to reduce or avoid the professors and students displacements. Some European countries like the United Kingdom, Ireland, France, Portugal, Germany and Spain can help to develop such programs due to the language opportunities. Other countries can exploit the rich European cultural diversity through such programs by including courses of learning of languages not widely spoken. The main difficulties to prepare a common international doctorate can arise due to the low language skills of professors and students, the limited financial support and the differences and rigidity of the internal regulations. Some universities, like the Czech University of Life Sciences of Prague, trying to overcome the difficulty of the language, are developing third cycle Studies programs on agricultural engineering in English language. There are also some European countries that have initiated European third cycle studies programs related to an agricultural or biosystems engineering. Italy, Greece and Spain have developed European studies about agricultural engineering oriented to the research. In Scandinavia (Denmark, Sweden and Norway) a network for cooperation between Nordic forestry, veterinary and agricultural universities (NOVA) exists. The task of this network is to initiate, administrate and promote cooperation between the member institutions in MSc and PhD education in the field of Biosystems Engineering.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT This work has been carried out in the framework of the Thematic Network project ERABEE (Education and Research in Biosystems Engineering in Europe - A Thematic Network project) which is co-funded by the European Commission (Education and Culture DG; 134306-LLP-1-2007-1-GR-ERASMUS-ENW). The contribution of al partners of the network is gratefully acknowledged.

229


REFERENCES

•

BRIASSOULIS D., PAPADIAMANDOPOULOU H. AND BENNEDSEN. S. B. (2001). Towards a European standard for Agricultural Engineering curricula. AFANET; Workpackage 3; Agricultural Engineering. KVL, Agrotechnology, Agrovej 10, DK-2630 Taastrup, Denmark

•

BRIASSOULIS D., PANAGAKIS P., NIKOPOULOS E., AYUGA F. (2008). The emerging evolution from agricultural engineering to biosystems engineering studies in Europe. Inted2008. International technology, education and development conference. Valencia (spain), March, 2008

•

BRIASSOULIS D., PANAGAKIS P., NIKOPOULOS E. (Editors). (2009). Proceedings of the third ERABEE workshop on “third cycle university studies in europe: current schemes and possible structured programs of studies in agricultural engineering and in the emerging discipline of biosystems engineering” UPPSALA, May 4-5, 2009

•

CROSIER D., PURSER L. & SMIDT H. (2007). Trends V: Universities shaping the European higher education area’. An EUA report, European University Association, European University Association ASBL, Rue d’Egmont 13, 1000 Brussels, Belgium http://www.eua.be/fileadmin/user_upload/files/publications/final_trends_rep ort__may_10.pdf

•

EDUCATION AND RESEARCH IN BIOSYSTEMS ENGINEERING IN EUROPE (ERABEE-TN), European Commission, Education and Culture DG; http://www.erabee.aua.gr/

•

EUA (2005). Doctoral Programmes for the European Knowledge Society, Final Report on the EUA Doctoral Programmes Project, 2004-2005, European University Association ASBL, Rue d’Egmont 13, 1000 Brussels, Belgium

•

EUA BOLOGNA SEMINAR ON DOCTORAL PROGRAMMES (2006) Final Conclusions - Preparing Recommendations for the London Communiqué “Matching Ambition with Responsibilities and Resources”, Bologna Seminar on Doctoral Programmes (Nice, 7-9 December 2006); http://www.dcsf.gov.uk/londonbologna/uploads/documents/NICE_Conclusions Recommendations_Final_9Jan07.doc

•

PANAGAKIS P., BRIASSOULIS D., NIKOPOULOS E., DOUZALS J. P., SCARASCIA-MUGNOZZA G., FEBO P., COMPARETTI A., FEHRMANN J., AYUGA F., MOSTAGHIMI S., WOLFE M. L., RISKOWSKI G., TING K. C. AND KANWAR. R. (2008). Policy oriented measures in support of the evolving Biosystems Engineering studies in USA – EU. PAPER OP-1885. IN: AGENG’08, Agricultural and Biosystems Engineering for a Sustainable World, Crete, Greece.

230


•

THE CANADIAN SOCIETY FOR BIOENGINEERING, http://www.bioeng.ca/

•

UNIVERSITY STUDIES OF AGRICULTURAL ENGINEERING IN EUROPE (USAEE) - THEMATIC NETWORK, European Commission, Education and Culture DG; http://www.eurageng.org

•

WHEATON F. AND VERMA L. (2003). NAME CHANGE: ASAE’S FUTURE. ASAE Re-source 10(6):10-11

231