the role of honours in contemporary australian higher education

THE ROLE OF HONOURS IN CONTEMPORARY AUSTRALIAN HIGHER EDUCATION

MAY 2009

Australian National University The University of Newcastle The University of Queensland University of Technology, Sydney

Project Leader Margaret Kiley

Research Team David Boud Robert Cantwell Catherine Manathunga

With assistance from Merrilyn Pike Ida Nursoo Elizabeth Evans Anicca Main

www.aushons.anu.edu.au

This report was commissioned by the Australian Learning and Teaching Council, an initiative of the Australian Government Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations. The views expressed in this report do not necessarily reflect the views of the Australian Learning and Teaching Council Ltd. This work is published under the terms of the Creative Commons AttributionNoncommercial-ShareAlike 2.5 Australia Licence. Under this Licence you are free to copy, distribute, display and perform the work and to make derivative works. Attribution: You must attribute the work to the original authors and include the following statement: The original report was commissioned by the Australian Learning and Teaching Council Ltd, an initiative of the Australian Government Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations. Noncommercial: You may not use this work for commercial purposes. Share Alike. If you alter, transform, or build on this work, you may distribute the resulting work only under a license identical to this one. For any reuse or distribution, you must make clear to others the license terms of this work. Any of these conditions can be waived if you get permission from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.5/au/ or send a letter to Creative Commons, 543 Howard Street, 5th Floor, San Francisco, California, 94105, USA. Requests and inquiries concerning these rights should be addressed to the Australian Learning and Teaching Council, PO Box 2375, Strawberry Hills NSW 2012 or through the website: http://www.altc.edu.au May 2009

THE ROLE OF HONOURS IN CONTEMPORARY AUSTRALIAN HIGHER EDUCATION - AUSTRALIAN LEARNING AND TEACHNG COUNCIL

i


ii

Table of Contents Table of Contents Executive Summary 1.

ii 1

Introduction

3

1.1

3

Background to the Project: Aims and research questions

2. The Honours Landsape: Concerns from the sector

6

2.1 2.2

Study of two waves of sector reviews on Honours Uncovering a policy dilemma: Key concerns about Honours

3. Project Conceptualisation and Methodology 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.3 3.3

6 7 10

Issues Paper Research site selection Interviews Student survey Findings Paper and state-based workshops

10 11 11 12 12

4. Project Findings

14

4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.5 4.6 4.7 4.8 4.9 4.10

‘Honours’ meanings and models Core characteristics for ‘Honours programs Honours pedagogy Honours graduate pathways Location of Honours Standardising initiatives and PhD benchmarking Deficits in Honours statistics Honours enrolments Resourcing Honours Honours in the globalising environment

14 15 16 17 17 18 20 21 21 21

5. Deliverables

24

5.1 Project Website 5.2 Scholarly journal papers 5.3 Presentations

24 24 24

6. Reflections

25

6.1 Implications: The state and future of Honours 6.2 Recommendations to the sector: Recasting the Honours debate References

25 25 27


iii


iv

Executive Summary This study, which set out to map the variation of Honours in Australian Higher Education has resulted in substantial debate and interest in the question: What role does Honours have in contemporary Australian higher education? Over the last ten to fifteen years, Australian universities and discipline clusters have been reviewing the direction that Australian Honours degrees are taking and in many cases have, revised their Honours practices. This scoping project into the Roles and Practices of Australian Honours Degrees aimed to provide the higher education sector with a comprehensive account of the current status of Honours and the issues surrounding it, from disciplinary to policy levels. In addition to generating national interest, as demonstrated in the following report, our study identified limitations in the current thinking on Honours and has contributed to sector debates with an examination of the often overlooked complexity of Honours. This Report provides an overview of the Project’s aims, conceptualisation, methodology, findings, outcomes and resources. The Project was commissioned by the Australian Learning and Teaching Council. It was conducted over a period of eighteen months by a multi-institutional team of researchers. The Project identified and responded to key concerns about Australian Honours Degrees. These included: • Whether Honours is an adequate benchmark for PhD scholarship allocation, and whether it should continue to be a benchmark for PhD entry and scholarship; • Whether Honours programs should include a set of core features; • How is Honours positioned in the academy? • What graduate attributes and destinations are enabled by Honours? and • What place does Honours have in a global environment? The central aim of the Project was to map variations in Honours degrees with respect to: • • • • • • • •

The use of the term Honours; Institutional and disciplinary contexts; Structure and curricula; Enrolment; Pedagogy; Resourcing; Outcomes; and Evaluation.

The Project’s investigative design involved key stakeholders, such as senior academic managers, Honours convenors, disciplinary organisations and students. Its scoping activities drew upon a sample of seven universities and six disciplines. Its investigative methods included: • Development of an Issues Paper on Honours circulated throughout the sector; • Interviews with Honours convenors from the research site sample; and • An online survey of the 2008 Honours students of the interviewees.


1

The Project’s key findings are as follows: • ‘Honours’ has multiple meanings and models and the privileging of any one tends to undermine the others. • Honours has a pivotal location between undergraduate and postgraduate degrees. • Changes to one of the three levels of the overall higher education curriculum will have effects on the others. • Honours encompasses a diverse set of practices that have developed to meet the needs of students, staff expertise, the discipline, relevant employers and professional associations. • There is general agreement by stakeholders on three core curriculum features for programs deemed to be ‘Honours’. • Honours offers graduates various pathways. • Many Honours programs are under pressure from outside and within the academy. • Honours degrees are highly valued within the Australian higher education sector but under-marketed outside of it. • Honours practices are often a creative and delicate balancing act as a result of limited resources and competing demands. • Appreciation for the varying forms and purposes of Honours has to be factored into policy considerations regarding or effecting Honours. • The national government statistics can be very misleading if one does not seek expert advice from those managing the data base as the ways in which Honours students are identified and counted varies across programs and universities. • Given the variation in statistics it is difficult to identify strong trends in enrolment, but there does appear to be reductions in Honours enrolments, particularly where there are double-degrees. • In most cases, Honours convenors expressed considerable pride and enthusiasm in their programs citing examples of successful graduates and positive feedback from employers. The Report sets out two major outcomes resulting from these findings: • Implications for the current state and future of Honours; and • Recommendations for recasting the Honours debate. The framework for thinking about Honours developed during the Project was presented to the sector through six workshops attended by 227 staff from 33 universities in February 2009. It is outlined in the following Report and will be developed in higher education academic journal articles. More details of this study, findings, outcomes and resources are available on the Project’s website http://www.aushons.anu.edu.au/. This Report (Part 1) provides information into our study of Honours including its background, aims, methodology, findings and outcomes.


2

Introduction Australian Honours degrees began evolving from various British models in the late 19th Century. As the Australian curriculum developed to reflect the culture of the emerging nation and to serve its educational and employment demands, so did Honours. ‘Honours’ is used in Australian higher education in a variety of ways. It may refer to a specific degree that follows an undergraduate program. It may be a name given to a level of achievement. It may be awarded primarily on a thesis, or entirely on coursework. Degrees may be ‘Honours degrees’ or ‘degrees with Honours’. To add to the complications, variation in naming and practice even occurs within institutions as there are radically different practices in different disciplines. Honours degrees fall between undergraduate courses and Research Higher Degrees (HDR). It is worth noting that in some cases Honours has been awarded at the postgraduate level, often as a component of Masters Degrees, but in this paper we are only referring to ‘undergraduate’ Honours. Honours does not fit readily in quality assurance processes for coursework or research programs and it is mostly ignored by research into higher education. These problems might not be significant if it were not for the fact that the First Class Honours degree tends to be treated as the ‘gold standard’1 of undergraduate education within the Australian higher education sector, even though there has been disagreement on this practice. Honours has been the most commonly cited entry requirement into the PhD and has set the standard for most postgraduate scholarships. But Honours

is not only a pathway to PhD. Our study finds that ‘Honours’ is not fully understood and the extraordinarily diverse range of practices covered by Honours programs are generally unacknowledged. It also finds that there are some broad areas of agreement about its aims and outcome underlying the variation. This Report sets out the complexity of Honours uncovered in our Australian Learning and Teaching Council Project, The Role of Honours in Contemporary Australian Higher Education. 1.1 Background to the Project: Aims and research questions It can be said that Honours, particularly in comparison to other degree and doctoral programs, has generally been a neglected area in higher education research. The most extensive recent review of Honours was undertaken in the early 1990s by the Australian Vice-Chancellors’ Committee (AVCC) involving Physics, History, Economics, Psychology, Biochemistry, Computer Science and English programs across Australian universities (AV-CC, 1990, 1991, 1992a, 1992b, 1993a, 1993b, 1994). These reviews identified considerable variation within single disciplines and significant variation between different disciplines in the way that Honours programs were developed, taught and assessed. Nulty (1992) examined the enrolments in Honours and again found substantial disciplinary variation. Such findings suggest that using Honours as a source of data for decisionmaking across universities (e.g. for scholarships, which are centrally ranked), are likely to pose considerable difficulties.

1 It has been claimed, in a recent House of Representatives inquiry into ‘Building Australia’s Research Capacity’, that “the ‘honours pathway to a PhD is an Australian story’ that has been labelled ‘internationally…an anachronistic gold standard’” (House of Representatives Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Innovation 2008 p.14).


3

A small number of research studies have also been undertaken in Australia over the past ten years. For example three studies, Conrad (1995), Ingleton (1996), and Prestage and Lichtenberg (1996), identified women and mature age students as disadvantaged when it came to being selected to undertake Honours. Hawes (2000) examined students’ motivations for undertaking Honours which, in the main, were to improve job opportunities and interest in the subject. On the other hand Mullins (2004; 2006) looked at the reasons for students not attempting Honours, with the main reason being students’ perceptions that the Honours year was very difficult and stressful because a First Class Honours was seen as the only successful outcome. A study of Honours in Nursing in Tasmania by McInerney and Robinson (2001) found that students experienced considerable difficulty with their ward supervisors’ lack of understanding of the program. Similarly, Romano and Smyrnios (1996) found that academics had a substantially different view of Honours compared to employers. The role of Honours supervisors, and Honours pedagogy more generally, is a substantially under-researched area with only a handful of reported studies. For example, Armstrong and Shanker (1983) found that students considered their Honours supervision in a positive light with most supervisors taking a ‘resourcing’ role. Similarly, Kiley and Austin (2000) identified the Honours supervisor as the most significant source of information for students making decisions regarding enrolment in a research degree. Furthermore Kiley and Mullins (2004) discussed the role of supervising and examining in Honours as a useful training opportunity for later supervision and examination of doctoral theses. Shaw and

Holbrook (2006) and Bourke, Holbrook and Lovat (2006) have undertaken research regarding the relationship of Honours and research degree success. Their evidence suggests that while Honours might not be a predictor of HDR outcomes, there is a predictive relationship with completion. In a more general approach, Kiley, Moyes and Clayton (2009) reported a pilot study where they aimed to identify changes and developments in Honours programs. In addition to the limited direct research on Honours there is a growing body of work on research education that has implications particularly for research curriculum and pedagogy (for example, Boud and Costley, 2007, Boud and Lee, 2005; Cantwell and Scevak, 2004; Kiley and Mullins, 2005; Manathunga, 2005; Manathunga, Lant and Mellick, 2006; Manathunga, 2007). Curriculum and pedagogy were two areas that were under-reported in the interviews and raised questions and concerns with the researchers and those to whom the research has been reported. The first national symposium on Honours degrees was held at the 2006 Quality in Postgraduate Research conference (http:// qpr.edu.au). Reports of small-scale studies within institutions were given. It was clear from that discussion how little work had been done on Honours compared with other undergraduate or research degrees. Some of the issues discussed were: • Variation in the types of Honours programs and in the curriculum within and across disciplines and universities; • The continued use of Honours results as a major criterion for the selection of candidates for Higher Degrees by Research (HDR) despite evidence that more students were entering HDRs without Honours;


4

• Lack of rigorous, contemporary research on Honours; and • Confusion over where, and how, Honours programs are managed and how students and staff are supported in universities. Our original Project proposal emerged from that symposium and our research team included some of the participants and/or their colleagues. We identified a pressing need to pursue a study that mapped Honours in terms of the variations in context, structure and curriculum, enrolment characteristics, outcomes and evaluation processes. Much of the existing research relating to Honours has not been able to address a number of recent developments that have affected it. The Bologna Process, for example, has the potential to substantially influence Australian program structures at the undergraduate and postgraduate levels. Furthermore credential creep leading to the need for additional qualifications for employability, and changes from enrolment in Honours from ‘by invitation’ to ‘by student request’, have led to changes in student intentions regarding Honours and the design of many Honours programs (Kiley, Moyes, and Clayton 2009).


5

The Honours Landscape: Concerns from the Sector Although the Project was initially intended as a scoping study aiming to map the range and diversity of Honours programs in different types of universities and disciplines across Australia, within the early stages of conducting research we discovered that Honours was a pressing area for higher education policy and practice. Locating the study in this policy context enabled the formulation of a reflexive research design which both articulated the areas of concern and enabled us to push the debates forward. The result was that we identified significant factors, policies and practices, generally arising from disciplinary, professional, employment and higher degree variations, and further, that they have an important impact upon quality learning and teaching in these programs. 2.1 Study of two waves of sector reviews on Honours The first stage of our research explored reviews of Honours undertaken within the Australian higher education sector and identified that they occurred in two significant waves. The first wave consisted of a series of studies conducted by the Australian Vice-Chancellors Committee (AV-CC). In 1988 the AVCC established the Academic Standards Program to advise selected disciplines on standards in Honours Degrees. The chosen disciplines were Physics, History, Psychology, Computer Science, Economics, Biochemistry and English. A panel of academics from each discipline was appointed to visit the pre-1987 Australian universities and advise on the standards of Honours programs in their respective discipline. Each of the studies was conducted over a three year period. They were a response to a general policy concern about evaluating quality standards

in Australian higher education and to recognition that little attention had been paid to Honours degrees in this area. The Program specifically sought to address the question of comparability of Honours standards between different disciplines especially with regard to the awarding of Commonwealth-funded scholarships for doctoral education. Following the studies, in 1995 the AV-CC issued the Fourth Year Honours Programs: Guidelines for Good Practice in an attempt to formulate a measure of comparability across Honours programs. ‘The primary goal of Honours’, it stipulated, ‘should be on research training’ and, further ‘Honours programs should contain a mix of advanced theory, professional training (where appropriate), research training, and a research project leading to a thesis (in some fields, for example the performing arts, an alternative form of presentation may be appropriate). Although the 1995 Guidelines were aimed at achieving consistency across specifically ‘add-on’ fourth year Honours programs (i.e. the 3 + 1 model of Honours described below), they suggested that they may be applied to other types of Honours programs. In 2005 the AV-CC replaced the 1995 Guidelines with the Universities and their Students: Principles for the Provision of Education by Australian Universities guidelines. They set out general guidelines for undergraduate and postgraduate education, but do not make specific provisions for ‘Honours’. Many universities adopted the 1995 Guidelines and continue to incorporate them into Honours policies even since their replacement. Notably, even the suggestion to adapt the goals for ‘add-on’ year programs to other types of Honours programs has been followed, particularly in cases where universities are grappling with


6

a desire to achieve comparability between ‘add-on’ and ‘embedded’ or ‘on-course’ types of Honours program. For instance, in 1995 at the University of Newcastle, the Academic Senate endorsed a policy on Fourth Year Honours Programs which incorporated the 1995 Guidelines on Honours (University of Newcastle, 1995). Then in 2008 they resolved that embedded Honours programs would follow the same Guidelines and stipulated that they must include a research training related course and thesis/dissertation component in order to be deemed ‘Honours’ (University of Newcastle, 2008). The second and more recent wave of sector reviews of Honours has occurred over the last five years. It includes reviews of Honours by individual universities, university groupings and disciplinary associations2. For example, in 2003, the University of Queensland conducted a review of the ‘purpose and intent’ of Honours programs across all disciplines with a view to establishing ‘consistent, university-wide guidelines for graduate attributes, entry, content, criteria for award of Honours and standards for the award of classes of Honours’. This resulted in a substantial revision of University of Queensland Honours policies, including the introduction of requirements for all Honours candidates, including those in the on-course category, to undertake a ‘substantial piece of research and/ or research training equivalent to a minimum of 4 units’ (Report of Honours Working Party, University of Queensland, 2003, pp. 4 and 2). The University of Melbourne in its shift to fewer and broader undergraduate degrees and to

postgraduate professional training—the “Melbourne model”—has been revisiting the articulation of training through Honours in a number of disciplines. Late in 2008 the University of Western Australia announced a comprehensive change to its degree structure, also broadening its undergraduate degree structure and moving professional training to postgraduate degrees, again with implications for Honours. Analysis of two waves of Honours reviews offered a historical insight through which we could see developments in Honours, changes in attitudes to Honours, persistence of some of the same issues of concern and the emergence of new ones as a result of shifting social, economic and policy contexts. For instance, concerns about whether Honours is an appropriate benchmark for entry into and scholarship selection for HDR and balancing research training with professional training in Honours programs prevail in both waves; while the recent Bologna developments, concerns about globalization and changes to undergraduate and postgraduate curricula are a particular feature of the latest wave of Honours reviews. 2.2 Uncovering a policy dilemma: Key concerns about Honours After analysing various reviews on Honours, we identified six main areas of concern about Honours being debated in the sector and summarise each as follows. 2.2.1 Is Honours an adequate benchmark for PhD scholarship allocation?

2 The research team was privileged to be sent a number of confidential, or semi-confidential reports of Honours’ reviews. Where appropriate reports have been listed in the references and on the web site, however, several have been omitted for obvious reasons.


7

Considering the radical diversity of Honours and the proliferation of other entry pathways to the PhD, the traditional practice of using First Class Honours as the relevant benchmark for deciding PhD scholarships is a longstanding subject of debate. However, the debate has tended to centre on the question of whether Honours programs should be standardised to achieve comparability across different programs, and thus has been framed as if the overarching considerations are the advantages and disadvantages of uniformity. As it has taken shape, this concern with Honours standards is predominantly one about the equivalence of the Award of First Class Honours Degrees in the distribution of PhD Scholarships, than it is about the pedagogical dimensions of Honours. The use of Honours for future PhD selection provided to be one of the more vigorously discussed topics in the state-based dissemination workshops. 2.2.2 To be deemed ‘Honours’ does a program have to include a set of core features Debates about standardising Honours occurring pursuant to considerations of PhD scholarship allocation raise issues about standardisation of Honours in other domains such as curricula. In particular, the question confronting the sector is whether there should be a common set of characteristics for a program or award to be deemed ‘Honours’ and should a common purpose for Honours programs be agreed upon between different disciplines? 2.2.3 What is the institutional positioning of Honours? Some of the questions raised relating to the institutional positioning and administrative aspects of Honours include

the following: is Honours the responsibility of disciplines, programs or a centralised unit in the university? Should it be administered by that part of the university that is responsible for coursework programs or that which controls research degrees? Why does it appear that enrolments are dropping, or at least becoming a smaller percentage of the total pool of students, and further, that fewer students are entering PhDs from Honours? Do alternative fourth year programs or double degrees present a competition for student enrolment into Honours? 2.2.4 What graduate attributes and destinations does Honours offer? Although Honours has traditionally been the feeder into doctoral education we found in our survey of reviews that the question of where Honours fits in the research training environment today is of concern to the sector. Is Honours a reasonable indicator of higher research degree capacity? If so, why is there a shift to Masters qualifications in entry to doctoral programs? What other possible pathways result from an Honours qualification and what are the skills attributes obtained from Honours? 2.2.5 What is the place of Honours in a global environment? The global environment has demanded greater compatibility and comparability between different national higher education systems. This has implications for the mobility of students, transferability of skills, recognition of qualifications and growing research agendas in new regions like Asia. European nations have responded to the competitive demands by embarking on the ‘Bologna Process’ which seeks to create a transnational environment for higher education. Its initiatives include


8

the adoption of the following features: a comparable degree system; a ‘three-cycle degree system’ (3 year Bachelors, 2 year Masters and 3 year Doctorate); a common credit system to enable mobility; and common quality assurance systems (see Bologna Declaration 1999 and London Communiqué 2007). Many countries are aligning their higher education systems with the Bologna reforms. Key groups within the Australian higher education sector have identified that the Bologna developments will have implications for Honours (Australian Technology Network of Universities, 2005; Innovative Research Universities, 2006) and further topics for debate have been raised for the sector. These include:

post-Bachelors qualification? 2.2.6 What are the teaching and learning dimensions of Honours? A final set of questions pertain to the teaching and learning dimensions of Honours. These include: how do students experience Honours? What constitutes appropriate Honours level pedagogy? Can Honours act as a training ground for supervision and thesis examination? What support and training exists for Honours supervision?

a. Should Honours translate to the Bologna environment? Can it? b. Does the one-year Honours degree make the Australian system less competitive in comparison to the twoyear Masters program in the Bologna model and will Australian students be disadvantaged? c. What is the effect of coursework Masters degree programs with Honours (research) components already offered by some universities as an alternative pathway to the PhD to the traditional Honours route? d. Considering that the closest overseas equivalent, the traditional Scottish Honours degree, has been aligned by the Scots with the undergraduate level in the Bologna framework, the key question for Australia raised by the Bologna Agreement is will the Bologna developments encourage consideration of a two-year Masters degree, rather than the one-year Honours degree, that is, if Honours really is seen as a THE ROLE OF HONOURS IN CONTEMPORARY AUSTRALIAN HIGHER EDUCATION - AUSTRALIAN LEARNING AND TEACHNG COUNCIL

9

Project Conceptualisation and Methodology It was not the aim of the Project to provide normative answers to each of these questions. Rather, the six areas of policy concern offered a basis for designing a conceptual framework for our Project that would not only map the variations in Honours practices, but would also contribute to debates occurring in the sector. The strategy we adopted for mapping was to locate the task in this climate of tensions and concerns around the purpose of Honours and build them into the Project’s investigation. We found that what was integral, but lacking so far, to thinking through these policy dilemmas, was an appreciation for the plurality in meaning of ‘Honours’ at the very onset of the investigation. Thus, in order to pursue a rigorous and comprehensive attempt to understand the complexity of Honours, we had to problematise the presumptions about Honours that had become so entrenched in the field in order to create spaces for identifying and exploring dimensions to Honours that had otherwise gone unnoticed. In other words, rather than approaching our subject with an a priori conception of Honours, the ‘discovery’ of meanings, roles and practices of Honours became a key feature of our Project. But although our study was carried out with a flexible definition of ‘Honours’, its design was constrained by research site and discipline to constitute a sample that would produce the most comprehensive set of findings within the resources and timeframe of the Project. Furthermore, in an effort to involve the sector throughout the various stages of the Project, we built into our research design mechanisms for receiving ongoing participation, feedback and evaluation from key stakeholders. 3.1 Issues Paper Through a broad review and analysis of

the historical and policy background of Honours and recent reports on Honours produced around the sector, the Project Team developed an Issues Paper at the end of the first phase of research to obtain the responses about Honours debates from key stakeholders across the country (see http://www.aushons.anu.edu.au/ sites/default/files/Issues_Paper_Final. pdf). It was designed to capture current perceptions from academic managers, Deans and Directors of Graduate Studies, leaders of discipline associations, Coordinators of Honours programs and students’ associations in an attempt to map the current and likely future terrain. Following a summary of each of the issues we had identified, we posed a series of questions for them to respond to. The paper was posted in hard copy and emailed to 160 targeted key stakeholders. They could choose to respond online, by fax or pdf in longhand, by email, or to give their responses over the phone. All of these methods were used by respondents. We discovered that various recipients referred it on to at least a total of 50 or 60 additional people, and we received 47 very full responses. The responses came from 17 universities and included senior academic managers (15), honours convenors (21), staff with high-level discipline ranking (13), representatives of peak discipline organisations (3) and student representative bodies (1). (There was overlap in some of these categories). The Issues Paper captured interest across the sector and we received a substantial number of responses and ongoing enquiries and requests for copies. The level of responses validated the value of the Issues Paper itself as a crossdisciplinary vehicle for eliciting views on Honours from various levels of academics in teaching and management positions.


10

The responses to the Issues Paper were analysed in terms of the extent to which they validated or questioned our identification and framing of the issues, added specific disciplinary perspectives, and extended the range and number of issues raised in it. 3.2 Research site selection The second phase of our research continued our investigations amongst a sample of stakeholders. Our study focused on seven Australian universities representing each of four university groupings: Group of Eight (Go8), Australian Technology Network of Universities (ATN), Innovative Research Universities (IRU), and a grouping we classified as ‘Regional Universities’. We chose two universities from each of the first three groupings and one university from the Regional grouping. Given the nature of the universities, not all had the same range of discipline offerings. This was an interesting finding in itself, suggesting that there is a growing trend in universities to orient themselves to particular markets, for instance professional training or research training, and we found that this orientation was often mirrored in the types of Honours programs offered. We selected six disciplines which offered different types of programs in their fourth year: • Physics and History were selected as two of the disciplines known to offer a more traditional Honours program generally aimed at preparing students for a higher research degree. • Economics was selected as being one of the disciplines which straddled both a professional and research

focus. While not required as part of accreditation, Honours in Economics is nevertheless known to provide significant employment advantages. • Psychology was selected as a professional area that has a requirement for registration upon the successful completion of a fourth year of undergraduate study that includes a focus on research skill development and achievement. • Engineering was the other professional area selected, but in this case, Honours is usually achieved within the ordinary degree time-frame, thus selection into, and assessment for Honours is substantially different from the other disciplines in our sample. • Environmental Studies was selected as a multi-disciplinary area in order to understand developments in some of the newer areas of study. These disciplines were selected to cover the classifications suggested by Becher (1989) which addresses the hard/soft/ pure/applied characteristics of disciplines. These disciplines also existed in some form in most of our research sites. Additionally, some of them were covered in the Australian Vice-Chancellors’ Committee (AV-CC) studies of the early 1990s and, although not part of our initial research aims, the selection creates an opportunity for further study to glean how Honours has been developing over the last twenty years. 3.3 Interviews We undertook forty-five semi-structured interviews with the designated convenor of the respective Honours program in each of our selected disciplines and research sites.


11

Each interview took 30-60 minutes. The interviews were transcribed and returned to the interviewee for comment and any modification prior to analysis. By the time the interviews took place (between July and September 2008), the interview protocol was able to be built on several firm bases: The range of questions outlined in the original Project proposal; • The further development of issues as outlined in the Issues Paper and the responses to it; • The main interviewer’s own research background in issues of postgraduate research providing the broad context into which the Honours issues could be placed; and • In addition, as the interviews progressed, the interviewer fed into the later interviews insights from the earlier ones. The interviews were analysed for common themes and practices both intradisciplinary and cross-disciplinary, and to identify ways in which, for instance, the range of Honours models the Project had identified play out in particular practices. 3.4 Student Survey Our third source of data came from 87 students responding to a voluntary, online and anonymous survey of the current Honours students in the disciplines where the earlier interviews had been conducted with Honours convenors (http://www. aushons.anu.edu.au/sites/default/files/ Survey.pdf). The survey aimed to discover students’ motivations for doing Honours, how they were recruited to Honours, what aspects of Honours teaching and learning they valued, what Honours students’ needs are, the extent to which they felt they

were being supported and their aspirations following completion of Honours. Analyses were limited to descriptive statistics only. These were conducted using SPSS v 16.0. Given the limited size of the potential survey population as a result of our site and discipline-restricted approach, and the workload current Honours students were under when surveyed (September 2008) the response rate was within expectations. 3.5 Findings Paper and state-based workshops In February 2009 we conducted six workshops for Honours coordinators, faculty and senior academic administrators in Adelaide, Brisbane, Canberra, Melbourne, Perth and Sydney. A total of 227 staff from 33 universities and two peak education bodies participated. The three hour workshops included a presentation of findings from our study and discussion with key stakeholders about the present and future of Honours, facilitated in each case by a member of the Project Team. Notes were taken summarizing the discussions. Each workshop was set up and hosted by a senior member of each of the university sites in our sample, (apart from Canberra, where The Australian National University was the host). Since these workshops there have been two university-specific workshops at the request of key individuals within those universities. In preparing the workshops, the material that had been produced through the Issues Paper, interviews and student survey were used to write a preliminary findings paper Honours: Where does the future lie? This paper placed the findings and issues in a broad framework in order to inform the discussions on Honours practice and approach currently taking


12

place within disciplines and universities around Australia. This summary paper formed the basis of the presentations at the workshops. The workshops provided a further opportunity for feedback and evaluation of our Project findings from the sector. They provided a lively interactive forum for otherwise absent cross-institutional and cross-disciplinary reflection on Honours. For instance Monash University, which hosted the Melbourne-based workshop, has been reconsidering and reworking its Honours programs across the institution in the last few years, and had these experiences to share at that meeting. Examination of the workshop discussions was undertaken by the Project Team to establish how far our thinking in the preliminary findings paper was validated, questioned or extended by the participants.


13

Project Findings In the course of mapping the roles and practices of Australian Honours degrees, our study found that Honours is an organic construction. It continues to evolve in relation to what happens in undergraduate and postgraduate contexts overall as well as industrial and professional demands and the emergence of multidisciplinary fields of study where new Honours programs are being constituted. ‘Honours’ encompasses a diverse set of meanings and practices that have developed to meet the needs of students, staff expertise, the discipline, employers and professional associations. 4.1 ‘Honours’ meanings and models ‘Honours’ has multiple meanings and is delivered through a variety of models. Lack of consideration of its plurality of meanings and designs has contributed to its ambivalent and often ambiguous position in the higher education sector. For example, ‘Honours’ can refer to a level of qualification or a kind of degree program, a particular kind of undergraduate experience or learning process, and a level of intellectual outcome. Honours as a qualification can occur in 3 ways: a. Where it is found internationally, ‘Honours’ is usually an accorded qualification, that is, where the ‘Honours’ in a degree title denotes the quality of achievement in a common program with Pass graduates. This is also common practice in many professionally oriented courses in Australia. b. As an end-on year (3+1model) where ‘Honours’ is a separate and additional year of study following a Bachelors Degree (e.g. BA (Hons), BSc (Hons)). This is the form of Honours that is

often considered to have uniquely Australian characteristics. c. As an embedded program, where specific ‘Honours’ requirements are embedded into and awarded within the same time frame as the Pass degree (examples can be found in Engineering and Law). Our study also found a fourth form of Honours degree design in the Australian context: d. Undergraduate research-oriented degrees for outstanding students (recognised on entry into the undergraduate program usually from final year high-school performance), where students undertake researchfocussed and closely supervised Honours level programs throughout their undergraduate degree, (e.g. Bachelor of Philosophy (Hons) ANU and similar degree proposed at UWA). Within the first three forms of Honours, we found five different models of Honours program structure: a. End-on-Honours year within a discipline following the completion of an ordinary degree at a high level of achievement (usually Credit average or higher). b. End-on-Honours year within a discipline into which students are streamed through successful completion of ‘Honours’ pre-requisite units during the ordinary degree. c. End-on-Honours year which has been designed explicitly to meet the requirements of the profession. d. Embedded model where the selection of extra Honours components (e.g. thesis, research methodology) are


14

included in the time frame of the ordinary degree to qualify for Honours. e. Accorded model where the Honours grade is awarded based on high levels of achievement (usually Credit average or above) across the whole program or more specifically in the fourth year. Honours also occurs in composite degrees, for example in crossdisciplinary joint end-on Honours, one Honours end-on year is taken within two Honours programs. The disciplinary mix, coursework, thesis and supervision are negotiated between the programs. Double Degrees can raise a number of possibilities for Honours, including one crossdisciplinary year or satisfying the Honours requirements in one or both degrees. We found that the different Honours program structures have evolved to serve the particular needs of disciplinary and/or professional training. The variations also cater to the pursuit of alternative career and higher education pathways for Honours degree holders in their respective fields of study. The development of niche Honours degrees have enabled universities to cultivate new areas of study (e.g. health sciences and environmental sciences). Less explicitly articulated in the field is a concept of Honours as an ‘experience’ and a ‘process’ of learning wherein students may be enabled to acquire and transfer a range of knowledge and skills and to pursue a range of pathways as indicated below. A further meaning of Honours is that of the intellectual level at which students are engaged—in many disciplines ‘doing Honours’ implies a qualitatively different, more sophisticated level of

intellectual engagement from that of normal undergraduate study. Whilst there is a limited amount of research (and speculation) in the literature relating to the presumed level of intellectual quality associated with ‘Honours’ study, our data was less definitive in this respect. It was common for interviewees to suggest that a ‘good Honours’ was a desirable outcome. However, there was no explicit discussion of what that meant in terms of a definable quality of intellectual functioning. It was also apparent in the data that there was no meaningful distinction being drawn between what may be considered exceptional within the bounds of a normal pass degree and what constituted exceptionality beyond the bounds of the normal pass degree. Given the structural variation reported earlier, this issue becomes important to the sector when evaluating the claims of accorded, embedded and end-on programs to Honours status. 4.2 Core characteristics for ‘Honours’ programs In addition to structural variations, Honours programs have developed discipline-specific identities reflecting the diversity of what is referred to as ‘Honours’. Our study found that there nevertheless seems to be a shared, albeit tacit, understanding, at least at the discipline level, of what Honours is and what its goals are. While differences are apparent in the detail, there are consistencies in the objectives being pursued and in the means of incorporating these into the curricula within each discipline. From our study of sector reviews on Honours we drew out three core curriculum features of Honours and defined them as follows:


15

Advanced disciplinary knowledge: Includes disciplinary study in which the level of learning expected of Honours students is greater than that of a pass degree. It may or may not involve additional coursework units. Research training: This may include research methodology, theory development and material about research practice. There is a consistent theme of a capacity to engage in higher-level (relative to the Pass degree) discipline problemsolving. A substantial independent research thesis/ project: A project for which students take significant responsibility for planning and conducting research, leading to an extended piece of work usually presented in the form of a thesis or dissertation and, in a growing number of reported cases, journal manuscript. We offered these characteristics of Honours to the sector in our Issues Paper and asked participants to what extent the Honours programs that they were familiar with reflected them, whether any were unnecessary and whether there were any additional characteristics they thought should be present for an award to be classified as Honours? Their responses show that there is general agreement that any Honours curriculum should include these three elements. However, while many respondents reported that all three elements were present in the programs they were familiar with, a few others reflected that not all of them were fully present in their programs. Particularly for the advancement of debates on standardising Honours and for the consideration of what graduate attributes it provides, it is useful to know that there appears to be broad agreement

that Honours curricula should contain a set of core elements and, at the same time, that the weighting given to these elements will vary across Honours programs because of their specific disciplinary goals. 4.3 Honours pedagogy Given the findings of previous studies into Honours, it was not surprising that issues related to teaching and supervision in Honours were absent or only raised when explicitly probed. It is not clear why our and other investigations have consistently found a lack of explicit focus on pedagogical issues in Honours. One possible explanation is that, as in the case of most higher education pedagogy, the knowledge is implicit or tacit. Very rarely do non-education specialists verbalise a coherent explanation of teaching and learning, despite, in many instances, reflecting it in their practice. So too, in common with HDR supervisors, many Honours supervisors may still regard supervision as primarily being about research rather than being a form of teaching. More particularly, the uncertain pedagogical status of Honours as lying between more directive undergraduate teaching and less directive HDR supervision may bias commentators towards a less pedagogically centred account of Honours practices. What is clear, however, is the very positive way that those involved with Honours students reported their involvement with these, usually, motivated and talented students. In most cases, Honours convenors expressed considerable pride and enthusiasm in their programs citing examples of successful graduates and positive feedback from employers. Our survey of students suggested that their experience of Honours extended past the learning of content, whether that was learning research skills or discipline


16

knowledge, to a more sophisticated understanding of research in the discipline. For many students, Honours gave them a sense of identity and belonging to a discipline and its research culture. 4.4 Honours graduate pathways ‘Honours’ encompasses a diverse set of practices that have developed to meet the needs of students, staff expertise, the discipline, relevant employers and professional associations. Although it has been traditionally regarded as a feeder to doctoral education, Honours offers graduates various pathways. These fall under two general areas: • The Research Pathway: Where programs are generally designed with the intention that most students will use their Honours award to progress, at some stage, to a research degree, typically a PhD. • The Professional Pathway: Where the curriculum is designed with the intention of assisting graduates to meet professional requirements and/or enhance employment prospects. Our research suggested that some Honours programs fulfil a third purpose and that is: • Academic Enrichment: Where the aim is to allow the student the opportunity to study a subject in more depth and obtain advanced knowledge in a discipline otherwise not available in an ordinary undergraduate degree. Our study found that the incorporation of each aim and the emphasis placed on it often depends on a discipline’s needs and its students’ motivations. For instance,

Physics programs generally emphasised the research pathway, expecting most of their Honours students to pursue doctoral education. Academic enrichment was a strong feature of History Honours programs as they regularly enrol students who are motivated to study further by their interest in the field, without specific regard to employment or further study. Economics Honours programs by contrast tended to be more professionally oriented because students were mostly pursuing Honours for entry into graduate placements at prestigious organisations and higher salaried positions than Pass degree holders. Psychology Honours programs incorporated aspects of each pathway to enable a variety of career possibilities for graduates. 4.5 Location of Honours between undergraduate and postgraduate degrees In the disciplines studied, we found that Honours programs play an important role between undergraduate degrees and various graduate destinations. Located on that middle rung of the Australian higher education system between undergraduate and postgraduate degrees, Honours occupies a pivotal place between undergraduate degrees and research higher degrees in particular. Yet, in light of the sector concerns about Honours identified above and our examination of the administrative treatment of Honours in our research sites, our study observed that the position of Honours is largely ambiguous. It is visible, concrete and highly valued at a departmental and discipline level; inadequately understood and difficult to regulate and classify at a cross-disciplinary and institutional level; and largely invisible outside the Australian higher education sector.


17

Notably, changes to the undergraduate curriculum and compression of PhD programs to increase completion rates have added pressures to the Honours curriculum. Some Honours convenors reported having to pack more in to their Honours curriculum or having to trade off aspects, like research training, in order to fit in content training that keeps up with disciplinary advances and prepares students in advanced knowledge for the PhD. The trend demonstrates that changes to one level of the higher education curriculum, such as the Bachelor’s Degree or the Doctorate, will have consequences that ripple through to the other levels. At the same time, our research found that the flexibility of Honours in its current position remains an attractive feature of the Australian higher education system, providing a site for new and innovative teaching and learning activities. For instance, it has enabled the creation of new programs providing further training in growth areas such as the health sciences and multidisciplinary fields such as environmental sciences. 4.6 Standardising initiatives and PhD benchmarking Where universities are looking to standardise aspects of Honours for particular purposes, such as PhD scholarship benchmarking, mutual constraints can arise. On the one hand standardising initiatives can mean that individual programs have to be restructured. This presents a range of dilemmas for Honours convenors, particularly when changes interfere with discipline-specific purposes for which a particular Honours degree design was adopted. On the other hand, policy development around Honours can be inhibited by the range of diverse programs

and risk impinging on some programs at the expense of others. In our study, in so far as the relationship of Honours to the PhD is concerned, respondents appeared to less concerned about the ‘standard’, and even ‘standardisation’, of Honours degrees, than they were about the system that is used for allocating PhD scholarships using Honours as the benchmark. The finding indicates that perhaps the more relevant question to ask is whether consideration of the diversity of Honours degrees should be built into the methods used for allocating PhD scholarships? And further, should we consider revising our systems of allocating PhD scholarships rather than immediately directing our thinking to the option of restructuring Honours programs? As part of our research we examined the PhD scholarship policies, where available, of several universities, including our seven research sites, and found that it is standard practice to treat ‘1st Class Honours (or equivalent)’ as the basic eligibility requirement for Commonwealth and university-funded doctoral scholarships. Notably, Honours is recognised in the legislative framework for Commonwealth scholarships as a benchmark for basic student eligibility for an Australian Postgraduate Award. The Minister is authorised under s238-10 of the Higher Education Support Act (2003) (Cth) to make Commonwealth Scholarship Guidelines. These Guidelines may provide for ‘the eligibility requirements for each kind of scholarship’ (s46.20). Under the current Commonwealth Scholarships Guidelines it is specified that: to be eligible for an APA a student must have completed a Bachelor Degree with First Class Honours,


18

or be regarded by the provider as having an equivalent level of attainment.3 In deciding what is an ‘equivalent level of attainment’, the provider may take into account previous studies, relevant work experience, research publications, referees’ reports and research experience. Ultimately, the interpretation of relevant qualifications for a Higher Degree Research scholarship and the allocation of scholarships are made by the ‘provider’. DEEWR states that: Applications by students for an APA should be made directly to a participating provider. Each provider has responsibility for determining the selection process by which awards are allocated to applicants. Where point scoring information for the allocation of doctoral scholarships was available, we observed that Honours results received the highest points of the range of factors taken into account. We also observed that, in these documents, distinctions were not made in between the different models of Honours that we identified in our study.4 There was a dominant view amongst respondents to our study that Honours was still the appropriate standard for PhD aptitude against which equivalence of other entry routes could be formulated. Many recognised problems with treating different types of Honours

recipients the same way for allocation of PhD scholarships, but opined that a degree of fairness could be achieved by developing benchmarking systems that take into consideration the variations. However, what these systems would look like and whether they could be made consistent across institutions were not made explicit in our data. Further sector thinking on benchmarking could pay some consideration to what is currently described as ‘Honours equivalence’, i.e. a demonstrated potential to undertake research that features the three basic characteristics of Honours outlined above (advanced disciplinary knowledge, research training and a substantial independent research thesis/project) as being the norm for PhD entry rather than an Honours degree as such. The idea of ‘Honours equivalence’ has generated considerable discussion and interest in the workshops and presentations undertaken by project members. Of particular note was a very lively discussion at the recent Deans and Directors of Graduate Studies meeting. The Deans are planning a lengthy workshop session at their next meeting in November. It became clear in many of the workshops that many of the ‘issues’ related to honours would disappear if there was an alternative set of criteria of PhD entry and scholarship allocation. The issue of ‘standardisation’ is a complex one that requires teasing out a distinction between standardisation defined as homogenisation, or as the pursuit of

3 s3.10.1 Commonwealth Scholarships Guidelines 2007, http://www. comlaw.gov.au/ComLaw/Legislation/LegislativeInstrumentCompilation1. nsf/0/50C30C7CEF5228CFCA2572C9000B5912/$file/2007CSGuidelinesConsolidationAPACorrectedCopy20March2007. pdf 4 http://www.dest.gov.au/sectors/research_sector/programmes_funding/programme_categories/fellowships_awards_ prizes/australian_postgraduate_awards_scheme.htm


19

common goals. Our responses indicated that its consideration also requires distinguishing ‘program structure’ from ‘program objectives’. Many respondents perceived Honours to be a discipline-based practice and remarked that it would be difficult to agree on standardising Honours programs because of disciplinary variances at the structural level. Furthermore, several disciplines have developed collaborative cross-institutional approaches for benchmarking Honours in their particular discipline (see Beck and Clarke 2008).5 To address these difficulties at a broader institutional level some Universities are looking for alternative criteria for determining HDR selection. For instance, after our data was collected, the University of Queensland moved to change their approach to the selection of HDR candidates and to the allocation of scholarships. Instead of defaulting to ‘Honours 1 or Equivalent’, The University of Queensland has developed a process of using graduate attribute categories to determine research potential and the capacity to undertake HDR research. It is worth pointing out that, in our study, participants reported being less concerned about whether Honours was still an appropriate benchmark for awarding PhD scholarships or even if it was a relevant pathway to a PhD, than they were about a noticeable decline in the flow-on of Honours students to PhDs. 4.7 Deficits in Honours statistics Commonwealth statistics are marred by different interpretations of the categories of data submitted by institutions and used

for searching the data. Thus it is difficult to make generalisations about Honours enrolment, attrition rates, and progression of graduates to a PhD, graduate destinations and demographic profiles of students. The original proposal for this Project made an assumption that meaningful statistics on Honours enrolments and/or completions could be extracted from the DEST (now DEEWR) student statistics data, and one of the Project’s first undertakings was to employ Dr Kevin Ryland, an expert in educational statistics, to extract these data for us. Analysis of these statistics, we imagined, would contribute in a major way to our Project design—which universities and disciplines to look at for instance. Once Dr Ryland had given us the data though, it became clear immediately that there were limitations to the statistics thus obtained, simply from our knowledge of some of the disciplines and universities involved. The discrepancies suggest that any use of these data should be done with care, including deciding whether or not there has been an overall decline in Honours enrolments, and whether any increases are occurring in some fields, questions which people across the sector were very eager to have answered. As an outcome of the project the Research Leader and Project Manager met with two representatives of the data section of DEEWR and discussed the various issues. The suggestion made to potential users is that they work through their respective Statistics Offices and, if need be, contact the DEEWR statisticians directly.

5 Examples of discipline-based initiatives for cross-institutional benchmarking can also be found in the AV-CC Academic Standards Panels studies on Honours conducted in the 1990s.


20

4.8 Honours enrolments Despite anecdotal evidence of concerns about declining Honours enrolments, this was not such a pressing concern for the majority of respondents to our Issues Paper. Claims about Honours numbers tend to be speculative or based on the independent efforts of disciplines or programs to monitor their numbers. However, the trend was neither consistent across all disciplines nor across Honours program structure. While there are perceived recent declines in some traditionally strong Honours areas of Bachelor of Arts degrees, at the same time, new Honours programs are being set up, e.g. in the Health Sciences. Respondents attributed the perceived decline to funding pressures (HECS debt, lack of scholarships for Honours students, lack of resources within programs e.g. availability of supervisors, competing postgraduate options, student preference to enter employment), enrolment of likely Honours students in lengthy and demanding double degree programs, and a general lack of incentive for undertaking an extra year of study. The strong employment economy, which was the context during the first year of this Project, was identified as a factor, particularly pronounced in the miningrich states of Queensland and Western Australia for deterring additional year Honours study. That context is now changing rapidly and it remains to be seen what effect it has on Honours enrolments. Participants’ suggestions for improving enrolments included increasing the numbers of Honours scholarships (a number of universities have been establishing or increasing their Honours scholarships in recent years), offering pre-Honours summer schools (a longestablished practice in some places, e.g.

Astronomy and Astrophysics at the ANU), national Honours workshops (see Banking and Finance at UNSW), re-marketing Honours to school leavers (e.g. The University of Sydney, Flinders University) and generally for universities to create incentives for undertaking Honours studies, make their Honours programs more visible within and outside the university and more actively promote the benefits of Honourslevel study. 4.9 Resourcing Honours Our research discovered that concerns about the resourcing of Honours were prevalent in some disciplines and some universities. Participants reported that reductions in staffing affect the supervisory capacities of programs so that staff either take on a heavier workload or, in some cases, the intake of Honours students is restricted. Often, rather than receiving more resources, programs have been redesigned to adapt to the pressures. Their responses convey that Honours practices are often a creative and delicate balancing act as a result of limited resources and competing demands. Resourcing of Honours at institution, program and especially student level has been identified by our study as an area requiring further investigation. 4.10 Honours in the globalising environment A key observation that surfaces when considering the Australian Honours system in a global context is that the uniquely Australian Honours qualification is highly valued within the Australian higher education sector but poorly understood outside of it6. Besides sharing the same classifications (i.e. H1, H2A, H2B, H3) there are significant differences in meaning


21

and structure between contemporary Australian and English Honours Degrees that renders the British heritage effectively unnoticeable now. In England, Wales and Northern Ireland at the time of writing this Report, a three-year Honours Bachelor degree is a standard ‘basic first degree’. The Honours classification refers to completion of the degree at a sufficient level of academic achievement, as opposed to an ‘Ordinary’ or ‘Pass’ Bachelor Degree, which is achieved at a lower level. By contrast, in Australia, absence of an Honours classification in a student’s Bachelor’s Degree award does not mean an insufficient or inferior level of undergraduate academic performance as implied by the English, Welsh and Northern Irish models and is, with the exception of some embedded models of Honours, quite distinct in structure and pedagogy from a Pass Degree. In fact, an Australian ‘Honours’ conveys quite the contrary, usually requiring high-level academic performance for admission and graduation. At the same time a highachieving student in an Australian Pass Degree who has not taken up the Honours study option where ‘Honours’ is an additional year of study (e.g. in a Bachelor of Arts Degree), does not have their level of achievement recognised in the Pass Degree. Thus, without an understanding of the structures and meanings of ‘Honours’ in essentially incomparable systems of Honours, both Australian Honours and Pass Degree holders are disadvantaged when compared to graduates of English, Welsh and Northern Irish systems. It appears that New Zealand and South Africa are the only other systems that

have an Honours qualification similar to Australia’s. In New Zealand Honours, the implementation of Honours varies according to university and in some cases incorporates the British (with distinction) model and in others the Australian (additional year of research training and preparation) model. South Africa has a variation wherein Honours is generally an additional year of advanced study but it is offered as a postgraduate rather than undergraduate qualification which can be awarded separately or as the first year component of a two year Masters Degree (Bawa 2008). The Bologna Process, described earlier, does not recognise a separate Honours qualification either. Notably in its ‘threecycle degree system’ (3+2+3) a two year Masters sits between a three-year undergraduate and three year doctorate. The structure implies that a two year Masters is the pathway to a PhD. The new developments at The University of Melbourne have adopted, in some cases, an alternative (3+2+3) degree cycle, to the common Australian (3+1+3) degree cycle. The changes at The University of Melbourne have encouraged reflection on the place of Honours, if it still has a place, in a higher education structure that looks much like the Bologna model. Thus Melbourne ‘problematises Honours in a new way’ as one interviewee put it, that has created an impression for some in the sector that Melbourne is replacing Honours with a Masters as the pathway to PhD to align with many universities abroad. Certainly, from discussions with staff at Melbourne, the frequently head statement/question ‘Melbourne’s getting rid of Honours, isn’t it?’ can be answered

6 In the recent House of Representatives Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Innovation (2008 p13 and 14) Inquiry into Research Training and Research Workforce Issues in Australian Universities submissions on Honours highlighted its internationally unfavourable status. THE ROLE OF HONOURS IN CONTEMPORARY AUSTRALIAN HIGHER EDUCATION - AUSTRALIAN LEARNING AND TEACHNG COUNCIL

22

with something along the lines of ‘It is far from being as simple as that, but rather, Honours, in some cases is changing to accommodate university and discipline requirements’. The question of the place of Honours in a global environment received mixed responses in our study. Where it was felt that the Australian Honours qualification was being challenged by global developments, some of the respondents to our Issues Paper argued that the conditions demanded further thinking on the direction Honours is taking. Within this group, some saw it as an opportunity for the sector to raise international awareness of Honours and take steps to recognise its equivalence abroad, while others considered that transformation had to occur locally. Given global developments at the doctoral level, it is likely that, at least for programs with a strong pathway to research degrees, there will need to be a closer examination of Honours programs. Other respondents did not express any concerns about global factors having an effect on Honours but held instead that Honours is fulfilling its needs and there were no reasons necessitating a change to the current system.


23

Deliverables Further information on this study can be obtained from the following resources developed by the Project: 5.1 Project Website We have developed an ‘Australian Honours’ website to serve as a repository for information about our Project as well as a resource for a comprehensive understanding of Australian Honours degrees and issues concerning them. It offers those involved in the policy and practice of Honours education a dynamic and interactive arena for sharing information and ideas. It will include Project reports and articles as well as resources for educators including models of Honours curricula, examples of best-practice in Honours education and networking opportunities. The website can be accessed at http://www.aushons.anu. edu.au/ The Issues Paper and preliminary findings report Honours: Where does the Future Lie? are also accessible from the website 5.2 Scholarly journal papers The following four papers are being prepared for submission to international journals. The issue for publication is that, given the unique nature of Honours, any scholarly work needs to be located within a broader curriculum pedagogy or policy context to make it attractive to editors of international journals. Kiley et al. Honouring the incomparable: Honours in Australian universities Manathunga et al. From knowledge acquisition to knowledge production: issues with honours curricular Boud et al. Resolving the contradictions of

Honours degrees: Policy challenges of a distinct qualification Cantwell et al. Experiences of fourth year of undergraduate students: Honours programs in Australian universities. 5.3 Presentations Cantwell, R. et al. (forthcoming) Presentation at the European Association for Research and Learning and Instruction Conference, Amsterdam, August 2009. Kiley, M. et al. (2009). Honours in Australian Higher Education. Presentation to the Australasian Deans and Directors of Graduate Studies at the University of Melbourne. Kiley, M. et al. (2009). Honours in Australian Higher Education. State-based workshops in: • Canberra/ACT region universities (February 2009); • Melbourne and region universities; • Perth universities; • South Australian universities; Kiley, M. et al (2009). Honours in Australian Higher Education. State-based workshops at: • The University of Newcastle (May 2009); • The University of Adelaide (May 2009); and • Kiley, M. et al. (2009) Honours: What are the curriculum implications? Higher Education Research and Development conference, Darwin, July 2009. Manathunga, C. et al. (2009). Honours in Australian Higher Education. State-based workshops in: • Canberra/ACT region universities (February 2009); and • Melbourne and region universities.


24

Reflections 6.1 Implications: The state and future of Honours From this scoping exercise, the picture that emerges is that ‘Honours’ is a unique, innovative and diverse area of Australian higher education with variations and innovations that occur across institutions, disciplines and programs that serve multiple, and sometimes competing, interests. Our study has shown that there is considerable agreement within the sector on the following issues: • ‘Honours’ has multiple meanings, pathways and structures and any discussions of Honours need to take into account this complexity. • The complexity and variation in current Honours programs is seen as positive by convenors and students, whereas at some organisational and institutional levels it is seen as negative. • The changing global context is challenging higher education internationally and Australia is not immune to these challenges. Given the pivotal role of Honours in the Australian higher education curriculum, it is not surprising that the challenge is quite acute at this level. • The three main curriculum features of Honours (advanced disciplinary knowledge, research training and a substantial independent research thesis/project) are central aspects of what is valued, as well as the pedagogical practice of working with one academic member of staff to one, two or three students, rather than larger lecture and tutorial groups as experienced at the undergraduate level. Our study also uncovered a number

of questions and concerns, the most significant of which address a paramount tension within the field of Honours. The findings suggest that the nature of the Honours curricula (with the exception of the ‘accorded’ version) has imposed a structural dilemma for institutions in terms of where Honours fits in the broader academic scheme. The ‘bridging’ role between undergraduate and higher degree by research implies a foot in both camps. Without doubt, and particularly so in the more traditional models, this has been (and continues to be) an effective role for Honours. We do see, however, a potential fragility to this role in light of mooted changes to undergraduate and postgraduate degree structures, particularly in the context of global considerations. Whilst an argument has been mounted by our respondents for a ‘pivotal’ position for Honours, other events and priorities at the international and national institutional levels may take precedence in shaping the future of Honours. 6.2 Recommendations to the sector: Recasting the Honours debate We have commenced presenting recommendations to the sector regarding Honours practice and policy based on our Project findings. They have been presented at our national workshops and in the publication of our report Honours: Where Does the Future Lie? The most significant of our recommendations include articulation of the various Honours models, curriculum features and pathways; recasting the Honours debate and shifting the way the sector thinks of Honours to take into account the issues uncovered in our research. They will be developed further in the proposed journal articles listed below.


25

The major recommendation concerning policy and practice resulting from this study is that the future of Honours begins with a recasting of the debate on Honours so that the diverse and dynamic nature of Honours is incorporated into Honoursthinking and policy development. Taking as a point of departure for this venture the six sector concerns about Honours outlined, our study finds that their formulation and attempted resolutions have been generally premised upon a limited conceptualisation of Honours whereby: • The end-on form of Honours is privileged over other forms of Honours. • The relationship of Honours vis-àvis the PhD is privileged over other Honours pathways. • The pedagogical dimension of Honours is relatively invisible and relatively unarticulated, given its pivotal role in the higher education landscape. • In the context of globalising higher education, the diversity and particularity of forms of Honours is seen as a drawback, rather than an asset. • Its ambiguous status between undergraduate and postgraduate education leaves Honours in an unrecognised and invisible third dimension, which can disadvantage the resources allocated to Honours. We suggest that investigations into Honours cannot treat Honours in isolation, but encounter a broader set of questions impinging on the culture, policies and practices of higher education. Our research suggests that in recasting the terms of the Honours debate we in fact ask questions from a different perspective that captures the variation of forms that Honours takes and the breadth of roles that it plays. For instance to push the Honours debate

further we could ask: Are there alternative and effective forms in which the essential aspects of Honours (advanced discipline knowledge, research training and the opportunity to undertake a sustained piece of scholarly research) can be provided to: a. b. c. d.

Students; The Discipline; The Institution; Professions / Industry.

in an integrated fashion similar to the way in which many of our current programs do? Hence, and more specifically, • How might Australian higher education promote to future students a program which introduces and develops research knowledge and skills as a basis for future employment, community involvement and preparation for research degrees? • How might employers view graduates from a variety of programs which attempt to identify those classified as high achievers? Where does the Australian Higher Education Graduation Statement fit within these discussions? • How might institutions support diversity, which meets the needs of students, the disciplines and employers, and yet maintain quality and standards? • How can Australia participate within the globalised environment and yet at the same time retain the unique qualities of Honours that are so valued? • A more detailed discussion of the implications of these recommendations and our Project generally will feature in the forthcoming academic journal articles listed below and summarised in the attached article abstracts.


26

References Armstrong, M., and Shanker, V. (1983). The supervision of undergraduate research: Student perceptions of the supervisor role. Studies in Higher Education, 8(2), 177-183. Australian Technology Network of Universities (2005) The Bologna Process and Australia: Next Steps—Response form the Australian Technology Network. Retrieved 4 March 2008 from http://aei.dest.gov.au/AEI/GovernmentActivities/BolognaProcess/ATN_pdf.pdf AV-CC. (1990). Report of the Academic Standards Panel, Physics. Canberra: Australian Vice-Chancellors’ Committee. AV-CC. (1991). Report of the Academic Standards Panel, History. Canberra: Australian Vice-Chancellors’ Committee. AV-CC. (1992a). Report of the Academic Standards Panel, Economics. Canberra: Australian Vice-Chancellors’ Committee. AV-CC. (1992b). Report of the Academic Standards Panel, Psychology. Canberra: Australian Vice-Chancellors’ Committee. AV-CC. (1993a). Report of the Academic Standards Panel, Biochemistry. Canberra: Australian Vice-Chancellors’ Committee. AV-CC. (1993b). Report of the Academic Standards Panel, Computer Science. Canberra: Australian Vice-Chancellors’ Committee. AV-CC. (1994). Report of the Academic Standards Panel, English. Canberra: Australian Vice-Chancellors’ Committee. AV-CC (2002) Universities and their Students: Principles for the Provision of Education by Australian Universities. Retrieved on 25 February 2008 from http://www. universitiesaustralia.edu.au/documents/publications/Principles_final_Dec02.pdf Bawa, A. (2008) South Africa. In M. Nerad & M. Heggelund (Eds.), Toward a Global PhD? Forces and forms in doctoral education worldwide. Seattle: University of Washington. Beck, W. and Clarke, C. (2008) Benchmarking Archaeology Degrees at Australian Universities. Retrieved 25 March 2009 from http://www.altc.edu.au/carrick/webdav/site/ carricksite/users/siteadmin/public/grants_pp_report_archaeology_une_mar09.pdf Becher, T. (1989) Academic Tribes and Territories: Intellectual enquiry and the culture of disciplines, Society for Research into Higher Education, Open University Press, Milton Keynes. Bologna Declaration (1999) The European higher education area: Joint declaration of the European Ministers of Education, convened in Bologna on the 19th of June 1999. Retrieved 24 March 2009 from http://www.bologna-bergen2005.no/Docs/00-Main_ doc/990719BOLOGNA_DECLARATION.PDF THE ROLE OF HONOURS IN CONTEMPORARY AUSTRALIAN HIGHER EDUCATION - AUSTRALIAN LEARNING AND TEACHNG COUNCIL

27

Boud, D. and Costley, C. (2007). From project supervision to advising: new conceptions of the practice, Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 44, 2, 119 - 130. Boud, D. and Lee, A. (2005). ‘Peer learning’ as pedagogic discourse for research education, Studies in Higher Education, 30, 5, 501-516. Bourke, S., Holbrook, A., and Lovat, T. (2006, 27-30 November). Relationships of PhD candidate, candidature and examination characteristics with thesis outcomes. Paper presented at the Paper presented at the AARE Conference, Adelaide, December. , Melbourne. Cantwell, R. and Scevak, J. (2004). Discrepancies between the “ideal” and “passable” doctorate: Supervisor thinking on doctoral standards. Fully refereed paper accepted for presentation at the Annual Conference of the Australian Association for Research in Education. Melbourne, December. Available online at http://www.aare.edu.au/04pap/ can04980.pdf Conrad, L. (1995, September 14-20). Of women, study and support: Postgraduate survey—A special Campus Review report. Campus Review, pp. 11-15. House of Representatives Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Innovation (2008) Building Australia’s Research Capacity, Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra. Available online at http://www.aph.gov.au/house/committee/isi/research/report/fullreport.pdf Ingleton, C. (1996). Who makes Honours Economics? Research and change in an economics department. Paper presented at the Different Approaches: Theory and Practice in Higher Education conference Perth, Western Australia. Innovative Research Universities (2006). Harmonisation without Homogenisation: The IRU Australia Response to the Discussion Paper - The Bologna Process and Australia: Next Steps. Retrieved 4 March 2008 from http://www.irua.edu.au/news_archive/2006/ news_item-20060430.pdf Hawes, C. (2000). Honours study at Flinders University: Perspectives of students and coordinators. HERDSA News, 22(3), 28-29. Kiley, M., and Austin, A. (2000). Australian postgraduate students’ perceptions, preferences and mobility. Higher Education Research and Development, 19(1), 75-88. Kiley, M., and Mullins, G. (2004). Examining the examiners: How inexperienced examiners approach the assessment of research theses. International Journal of Educational Research, 41(2), 121-135. Kiley, M., and Mullins, G. (2005). Supervisors’ conceptions of research: What are they? Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 49(3), 245-262.


28

Kiley, M., Moyes, T., and Clayton, P. (2009). ‘To develop research skills’: Honours programs for the changing research agenda in Australian universities. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 46(1), 15-25. London Communiqué (2007) Towards the European Higher Education Area: responding to challenges in a globalised world. Retrieved 24 March 2009 from http://www.dcsf.gov.uk/ londonbologna/uploads/documents/LondonCommuniquefinalwithLondonlogo.pdf Manathunga, C. (2005). Early warning signs in postgraduate research education: a different approach to ensuring timely completions. Teaching in Higher Education,10:2, 219-233. Manathunga, C., Lant, P., and Mellick, G. (2006). Imagining an interdisciplinary doctoral pedagogy. Teaching in Higher Education. 11-3, 365-379. Manathunga, C., Lant, P., and Mellick, G. (2007). Developing professional researchers: Research students’ graduate attributes. Studies in Continuing Education. 29(1), 19-36. McInerney, F., and Robinson, A. (2001). Honours in nursing: The struggle of students as clinicians/researchers in practice. International Journal of Nursing Practice, 7, 214-220. Mullins, G. (2004). Progression from Honours to postgraduate research. Unpublished report to the Board of Research Degrees, University of Adelaide). Adelaide. Mullins, G (2006) What prompts honours students to go on to postgraduate research? Presentation to the Quality in Postgraduate Research: Knowledge creation in testing times conference, Adelaide. Prestage, M., and Lichtenberg, A. (1996). Reluctant researchers: The loss of a potential pool of female research degree students. Paper presented at the Different Approaches: Theory and Practice in Higher Education conference (pp. 8-12 July). Perth, Western Australia. Romano, C., and Smyrnios, K. (1996). Accounting Honours programmes: Perceived benefits. Accounting Education, 5(3), 233-244. Shaw, K., and Holbrook, A. (2006). An investigation of the nature and contribution of Honours programs in Australia. In K. Margaret and G. Mullins (Eds.), Quality in Postgraduate Research: Knowledge creation in testing times (pp. 15-27). Canberra: CEDAM, The Australian National University. The University of Newcastle (1995) Fourth Year Honours Programs – AVCC – Guideline 00128. Retrieved on 25 February 2008 from http://www.newcastle.edu.au/ policylibrary/000128.html The University of Newcastle (2008) Embedded Honours Models Structures – Policy 000743. Retrieved on 25 February 2008 from http://www.newcastle.edu.au/ policylibrary/000743.html THE ROLE OF HONOURS IN CONTEMPORARY AUSTRALIAN HIGHER EDUCATION - AUSTRALIAN LEARNING AND TEACHNG COUNCIL

29

www.aushons.anu.edu.au

the role of honours in contemporary australian higher education

the role of honours in contemporary australian higher education

Suggest Documents

Higher Education - Australian Education International

Underfunding Australian Higher Education

The role of gratitude in higher education

Transnational education in the higher education sector - Australian ...

Markets, Distance Education, and Australian Higher Education

Setting standards in Australian higher education? - Eric

Widening Participation in Australian Higher Education: Report ...

Equity Student Participation in Australian Higher Education

Australian higher education institutions transforming the ... - Ascilite

the role of higher education in national development - Education Arena

Review of Australian Higher Education - Macquarie University

Review of Australian Higher Education - Macquarie University

Situating and Interrogating Contemporary Australian Rural Education ...

Mnemonics for Higher Education Using Contemporary Technologies

What Is the Role for Effective Pedagogy in Contemporary Higher

The Role of Higher Education Institutions in the Development of ...

The Role of Higher Education Institutions in the Entrepreneurship of ...

Higher Education in Uganda: The Role of Community Colleges in ...

Gender Disparities in the Australian Higher Education System

The role of higher education institutions in shaping the ... - cejsh

Challenges for Australian higher education in the Asian ... - ANU Press

an education in complexity. the role of contemporary ... - Musica Docta

The Role of Higher Education Institutions in the ... - Covenant University

Mapping Australian higher education 2016 - Grattan Institute