Global Perspectives on Graduate Education: Proceedings of the Strategic Leaders Global Summit on Graduate Education

August 30 – September 1, 2007 Banff, Alberta, Canada

Table of Contents

Foreword The Honourable Doug Horner, Minister, Alberta Advanced Education and Technology, Government of Alberta Debra W. Stewart, President, Council of Graduate Schools

Acknowledgments

I. The Strategic Leaders Global Summit on Graduate Education: Purposes and Products Debra W. Stewart, President, Council of Graduate Schools

II. From National Best Practices to Global Leadership Strategies A. Best Practices at the Country Level Doctoral Education Richard Wheeler, Dean, Graduate College, University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign Susan Pfeiffer, Dean and Vice-Provost, Graduate Studies, University of Toronto Authors' Comments and Group Discussion

Transition from the Master’s to the Doctorate Jean Chambaz, Director, Institute of Doctoral Training, Universite Pierre et Marie Curie (UPMC)

Master’s Education Richard Russell, Dean of Graduate Studies, University of Adelaide Carol Lynch, Senior Scholar in Residence, Council of Graduate Schools and former Vice Chancellor for Research and Dean of the Graduate School, University of Colorado at Boulder Authors' Comments and Group Discussion

B. Best Practices in Cross-Border or International Program Partnering Joint and Dual Degrees Diana Carlin, Dean-in-Residence, Council of Graduate Schools and former Dean of the Graduate School and International Programs, University of Kansas Robyn Owens, Pro Vice-Chancellor, University of Western Australia Authors' Comments and Group Discussion

Other Structured and International Programs Karen DePauw, Vice Provost for Graduate Studies and Dean of the Graduate School, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State

iii

University

Inter-Institutional Agreements Karen Klomparens, Associate Provost and Dean of the Graduate School, Michigan State University Author Comments and Group Discussion

III. Meeting the Challenges of Global Collaboration Needs for Global Dialogue Priority Issues that Call for Discussion Suzanne Ortega, Vice Provost for Graduate Studies and Dean of the Graduate School, University of Washington Rune Nilsen, Professor at the Center for International Health, University of Bergen, Norway Authors’ Comments and Group Discussion

Trans-national or Trans-regional Models that “Work” Barbara Evans, Dean, Faculty of Graduate Studies and Professor of Zoology, University of British Columbia

Needs for Appropriate Platforms for Discussion John Hayton, Counsellor of Education, Science and Training, Australian Education International, Washington, DC, and Mary Ritter, Pro-Rector (Postgraduate and International Affairs), Imperial College London Authors’ Comments and Group Discussion

IV. Key Network Partners for Discussion of Graduate Education Globally Structures and Country Difference: Who Represents the Community? Lesley Wilson, Secretary General, European University Association (EUA) Moheb Ghali, Dean of the Graduate School, Western Washington University Authors’ Comments and Group Discussion

What Kind of Sharing Can Benefit All Players? Kebin He, Executive Dean of the Graduate School, Tsinghua University Fred Hall, Vice-Provost (Graduate Education) and Dean of Graduate Studies, University of Calgary Authors’ Comments and Group Discussion

What Venues Work? Mark Dale, Dean, Faculty of Graduate Studies and Research, University of Alberta Author Comments and Group Discussion

iv

How Should Employers be Engaged? James Moran, Vice Provost, Graduate Studies and Research, University of Denver, and Jeffery Gibeling, Dean of Graduate Studies, University of California, Davis Authors’ Comments and Group Discussion

V. Flow of Talent American and European Perspectives William Russel, Dean of the Graduate School, Princeton University Victoria Rodriguez, Vice Provost and Dean of Graduate Studies, University of Texas–Austin Rune Nilsen, Professor at the Center for International Health, University of Bergen, Norway Authors’ Comments and Group Discussion

VI. Conclusion Debra W. Stewart, President, Council of Graduate Schools

Appendices A. Banff Principles B. Participant Biographies

v

Foreword

Graduate education in a global context is all about learning and growing through discussion and partnerships. Sharing of ideas, experiences, challenges, and opportunities leads to greater understanding of mutual concerns and promotes collaborations for mutual benefit. The very productive partnership between the Council of Graduate Schools, whose members represent both U.S. and Canadian universities, and the Province of Alberta resulted in the first-ever Strategic Leaders Global Summit on Graduate Education. The proceedings of this summit tell the story of shared concerns about and new approaches to dealing with the challenges of a rapidly changing global environment. The proceedings also indicate the optimism these leaders hold for the power of partnership in effectively responding to the new demands on graduate education from within and outside the academy. It is the hope of both the Province of Alberta and the Council of Graduate Schools that this convening, held in one of North America’s most splendid environments, will launch an ongoing and sustained global conversation that will strengthen the graduate enterprise worldwide.

The Honourable Doug Horner Debra W. Stewart Minister, Alberta Advanced Education and President Technology, Government of Alberta Council of Graduate Schools

vi Debra W. Stewart

Acknowledgments

In addition to thanking each of the participants of the Banff meeting for their substantive engagement and intellectual contributions, I would like to thank those who helped to bring together the papers that informed the meeting and the discussions that these papers inspired for CGS publication: Eleanor Babco, for her work in preparation for the meeting, throughout the meeting, and for compiling the draft of the manuscript for this publication; Daniel Denecke and Diana Carlin for their work on the text and discussion summaries; and Daniel, Cheryl Flagg, and Emily Neubig for preparing the final manuscript for print.

Debra W. Stewart President Council of Graduate Schools

1

The Strategic Leaders Global Summit on Graduate Education

I. The Strategic Leaders Global Summit on Graduate Education: Purposes and Products

Graduate education is widely seen as the cornerstone of a country’s educational infrastructure, determining its degree of participation in the knowledge economy of the future. This perception is almost universally shared, despite the fact that graduate education means different things in different countries and regions, and despite the widely varying capacities of countries to deliver high quality graduate education within their borders. While higher education, generally, is essential for a nation to participate in the global knowledge economy, graduate education and advanced research training are key to establishing a leadership position in that economy.

Graduate education is a key driver in generating new knowledge and new ideas, cultivating new intersections between traditional disciplinary fields, producing and inspiring future generations of scholars and researchers, and translating the knowledge generated into human betterment. Clearly, the spectrum of graduate education includes countries that are just beginning to build systems of graduate education as well as nations and regions in the process of enhancing or reforming well-established graduate education systems. In the fall of 2006 the boards of the Council of Graduate Schools and the European University Association met in Salzburg, Austria to begin a discussion about reforms in doctoral education that were unfolding in both the U.S. and Europe. Among the goals of this transatlantic dialogue were to promote better mutual understanding of the transformations taking place in doctoral education in each geographic context and to ascertain their national, regional, and global implications. This extraordinarily productive dialogue motivated the next steps to broaden the scope of the discussion in two ways: first to expand the discussion to include master’s as well as doctoral education, and second to expand the participants to include a set of geographically dispersed countries with mature systems of graduate education at both the master and doctoral levels.

The Strategic Leaders Global Summit on Graduate Education, convened in Banff, Alberta, Canada, in September 2007 by the Council of Graduate Schools in partnership with the Province of Alberta, was designed to launch this global conversation about best practices in graduate education and, to the extent possible, map concrete directions for future collaborations. We invited leaders of graduate education from countries and regions with which CGS had been in active bilateral dialogue: Canada, Australia, China, Europe, and the United States.

We wanted to explore both the opportunities and the challenges confronting advanced systems of graduate education. With respect to the doctoral degree, we were particularly interested in developments in improving completion rates, facilitating interdisciplinary programs, and launching professional development programs for doctoral students. On master’s education we wondered about the evolution of the professional master’s degree in traditional arts and science fields as well as the role of the master’s degree generally as

Global Perspectives on Graduate Education 2 Debra W. Stewart preparation for the workforce. We also wanted to explore the way the master’s degree in each country serves as a transitional degree to the doctorate.

But beyond the best practices underway on individual campuses within each country, we hoped to share more about partnering with universities outside of one’s own country, at both the master’s and the doctoral level. We knew that joint and dual degrees were on the rise, but we did not have any insight into how different countries view the many agreements being struck. We invited participants to share stories about “what worked” in the crafting of such international cross-institutional arrangements. We asked specifically for principles that might underlie effective inter-institutional arrangements.

Moving from the opportunities to challenges, we invited participants to share perspectives on issues that call for global dialogue and to describe models or frameworks for making that dialogue meaningful and effective for all parties. Specifically we invited good examples of models for trans-national or trans-regional conversations that might be adopted to further the goals of sharing best practices in graduate education globally. And again we wanted to encourage discussion on the principles that undergird models that “work.” We knew that at the end of the day it would be important to begin discussion about a “platform” on which a truly global dialogue could take place. The platform can be virtual or face to face. Its rule of inclusion can be expansive or restrictive. But since no such platform currently exists, we thought that this global leaders summit might be seen as a very faint “first step” toward the creation of such a platform. Key questions here were: what kind of platform would be most useful? what principles must be honored in building such a platform?

Pursuant to this discussion of a possible global platform for dialogue, we knew, that for international dialogue to be ultimately effective, it is essential that the participants who drive decision making and change from each represented country or region be identified. So we invited participants to discuss the national structures that are in place that allow the graduate education community to have a voice. We entered the discussion knowing that in five of the countries participating there were associations of graduate schools or graduate deans in place, but we also knew that their scope of membership, organization, missions, financing and relationship to their governments differed. In countries where comprehensive associations of graduate schools existed, we wanted to know the kind of sharing deans have found most useful and what elements of these structures were scalable globally. On the assumption that some kind of global sharing of best practices is valuable to all participants, we wanted to explore the kinds of settings, fora, and structures that would be most helpful toward advancing that goal.

Next we wanted to explore practices and perspectives on graduate education’s relationships to the employers who hire the graduates of our programs. While we need ultimately to ask employers how they would like to be included in the kind of discussion begun in Banff, we thought it would be useful first to invite this discussion among national graduate studies leaders from the academy. We wanted to discuss differences in how employers are typically consulted on issues in graduate education in each country,

3

The Strategic Leaders Global Summit on Graduate Education

and to think about which of those practices might be scalable to a global dialogue on graduate education.

A final issue that resides just below the surface of any discussion about sharing best practices globally is the matter of global talent flow. On the one hand, our countries’ universities compete to attract the best and brightest students into our graduate programs, and our academic and non-academic employers compete to retain this highly trained talent. On the other hand, both graduate admissions and workforce recruitment of international talent take place within a broader policy environment, and these often involve the policies of two countries. There are also ethical implications to the import of international talent that must be considered, particularly when that talent comes to developed countries from developing countries. While the overarching purpose of this conference was to focus global discussion on international collaboration, we felt that ignoring the realities of this competitive dimension might diminish our collective capacity to share best practices effectively. So we solicited the leaders’ perspective on what is currently known regarding global talent flow with respect to graduate education. Recognizing that there are currently gaps in our knowledge of talent mobility, we wondered about whether we might reach agreement on principles that need acknowledgment in discussions of global talent flow. Recognizing that current trends in student flows hold implications for future cross-border partnerships, we invited discussion of how these trends might impact the sharing of best practices across institutions or graduate programs. This led to a discussion of both talent flow and barriers to talent flow.

This long list of topics and interests represented a very ambitious agenda. In order to successfully negotiate this agenda, and to accelerate the process of establishing a common vocabulary that can comprise such a large portion of any international meeting, we invited each participant to contribute a two-page paper addressing some aspect of the set of issues set forth above. Those papers provided the background text upon which the discussion proceeded. Each respondent was asked to address their assigned topic from his or her country’s point of view, since we recognized at the start that “where you stand depends on where you sit” geographically and nationally. Both the context and the content do matter in discussions about the structure and the implementation of best practices in graduate education. But we proceeded from the viewpoint that difference must not deter sharing, learning, and building in ways that will strengthen the entire enterprise globally.

The report is organized to represent the spirit and structure of the conference. We include all of the short papers, as well as summaries of both speakers’ oral comments and the free-ranging discussion among panelists and attendees that ensued. In any conference where multiple participants actively contribute to the discussion, topics will surface and resurface in a cyclical manner that does not always correspond to the more linear agenda that structures the overall meeting. In some instances, where the comments of individual participants addressed themes and issues that were more explicitly addressed elsewhere on the conference agenda, we have moved those comments to the appropriate section to better convey in print the coherence that participants experienced in the discussion.

Global Perspectives on Graduate Education 4 Debra W. Stewart

At the end of the day we hoped to achieve four core outcomes from the summit. We believed that we could target “best practice” topics most amenable to global sharing and dialogue. We wanted to understand the limits and scope of productive sharing, including articulation of conditions that work for all parties. We hoped to be able to describe a series of next steps that address appropriate platforms for continuing the conversation begun in Banff. Finally, and perhaps most ambitiously, we aspired to come to a consensus on a statement of principles emerging from the summit that could guide future discussion and assist local efforts to improve the practice of graduate education globally. The nine Banff Principles that resulted from the consensus are included at the conclusion of these proceedings.

The following chapters are a testimonial to the effort of all participants, in their papers and their words to achieve these objectives.

Debra W. Stewart President Council of Graduate Schools

5

II. From National Best Practices to Global Leadership Strategies

Following a September 2006 transatlantic meeting on doctoral education in Salzburg, Austria, graduate education leaders from Canada, Australia, Europe, China, and the United States met in September 2007 in Banff, Alberta to continue and expand the discussion on graduate education to both the doctoral and master’s level. National opportunities for enhancing doctoral education were first addressed, prompted by presentations by speakers from the United States, Canada, and France. Topics discussed included: Ph.D. completion rates, and strategies for increasing doctoral degree completion; professional development programs for students aspiring to academic and non-academic careers; the creation and support of sound interdisciplinary programs; facilitating student transitions from master’s to doctoral education; and international collaborations. These topics were viewed from the vantage point of the graduate school and graduate deans who have demonstrated strategic leadership in responding to those opportunities. Opportunities for advancing master’s education were also addressed, prompted by presentations from Australia and the U.S. Issues examined included efforts to develop professional master’s degrees, the role of master’s education in workforce development, the role of the master’s degree as a transitional degree for international students or for students from underrepresented groups, and the role of the graduate school and its deans in responding to these issues. National differences in the context and structure of graduate education served to illuminate those areas that are unique and those that might prove fruitful for future collaboration and mutual exchange of best practices.

A. Best Practices at the Country Level

Doctoral Education

Each of the first two papers that stimulated discussion in this session addressed the current country-level opportunities for enhancing doctoral education, including the author’s understanding of the role of the graduate school and its deans or other senior administrative leaders in the university in responding to those opportunities. Both authors, one from the U.S. and one from Canada, elected to focus on the issue of doctoral degree completion. As was apparent by comments from multiple presenters throughout the conference, completion is widely recognized as one of the most tangible means of assessing the outcomes of a doctoral program, its impact on the broader society and economy, and the administrative support structures that are available to Ph.D. students. Together, these two papers demonstrate that, while the completion issue provides a common ground for mutual improvement, there are differences of context that must first be understood.

5 Doctoral Level

Best Practices at the Country Level – Doctoral Level

Richard Wheeler Dean, Graduate College University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign

U.S. graduate schools characteristically control an extensive set of policies and rules that regulate graduate education. Much of the work of a graduate school, however, resides less in enforcing the rules that regulate graduate education than in shaping the practices that constitute it. Promoting “best practices” is a large part of the responsibility of a graduate school.

Graduate schools engage in best practices, but the term more often refers to practices that graduate schools encourage their various graduate programs to adopt. The dissemination and promotion of best practices across the range of graduate programs are key reasons for having a graduate school centered amidst the dispersed graduate programs of a major research university.

There are powerful trends toward isolation in graduate education, contributing to the notorious “silo” effects of graduate programs insulated, in effect, from a deep understanding of how things are done in other programs—whether across the campus or right down the hall. Often the only vantage point from which to view all these programs is that of the graduate school. Different pieces of graduate education are done better in some silos than others. One powerful way in which graduate schools engage graduate education is to identify those programs that are doing certain things exceptionally well and to use the examples they set as models for other programs to adapt and modify to meet their own distinctive needs.

At a different level, graduate deans learn a great deal about what works best in graduate programs at other universities through national and regional meetings. Often these meetings provide exemplary instances of how various graduate programs across the whole range of member institutions have developed effective practices that can be adopted and modified for other graduate programs.

Promoting best practices calls for a different sort of authority than does the enforcement of rules. It relies on an inclination among graduate programs to believe that the graduate school would not urge them, unless there were good reason for it, to adopt a practice that will likely cost them some labor, or at least some rethinking of their ordinary ways of doing business. In short, it relies more on trust than authority. Within that zone of trust— never quite stabilized, since the academic fear of bureaucratic meddling can never quite be banished from it—it calls for mechanisms that enable the graduate school to put these practices on view for graduate programs in ways that present their virtues persuasively. The promotion of best practices will typically make up a large part of a graduate school’s effort to communicate with the faculty, staff, and students in graduate programs. Workshops, tutorials, bulletins, newsletters, symposia, and, increasingly, the web site do much of the work of promoting best practices.

Global Perspectives on Graduate Education 6 Richard Wheeler

For a graduate program, the range of activities in which “best practices” can make a significant difference in the program’s success begins with the first contacts made with a student to the awarding of the degree – and beyond, since one excellent “best practice” is to keep close track of those who leave with the degrees they came for (and, for that matter, of those who do not). In those initial phases, for some examples, it is important to have a compelling web site in place, possibly to advertise the program strategically, to manage the initial exchanges that follow from requests for information, to have a good application program in place, to develop procedures to stay in touch with each student from first contact through to decision time. Competition for good graduate students, and especially for the very best of them, is increasing, and is likely to go on increasing for some time. A program that succeeds in this competitive arena will have thought through very carefully the way it uses its resources to make the most favorable impression possible on those prospective students the program is eager to enroll. Urging graduate programs to do so is a best practice for graduate schools, and holding up effective procedures for these programs to adapt will disseminate best practices in a dimension that many programs, including many excellent ones, would not be inclined to explore without a little coaching. This is particularly true in the increasingly important areas of recruiting students from underrepresented groups and recruiting women in male-dominated fields of study.

Still more important are those best practices that contribute to success in the experience of enrolled students. There remains some uncertainly, for example, about just how long it typically takes doctoral students to complete their degree study, and how many of them actually do complete it. But few believe that the average time to degree for our doctoral students is too short, and I doubt if anybody believes that too large a percentage of students beginning doctoral programs in U.S. universities complete them. What can we do to decrease time to degree and increase completion rates?

The CGS Ph.D. Completion Project has for the past three years addressed those issues that frame an intelligent discussion of completion/attrition in doctoral programs. Out of the experience of the universities participating in this study, and of many others that are engaged in the issues upon with the Ph.D. Completion Project is focused, has emerged a clearer sense of those practices that prove to have beneficial effects both for doctoral students and doctoral programs.

One simple benefit of the CGS program is the heightened awareness of completion as an issue it has encouraged. Providing graduate education through the mechanisms already in place is sufficiently demanding that it often takes a special effort to get programs to stand back from their ordinary practices to think hard about them. Unless a program has reason to believe low completion rates are a problem, it is unlikely to develop procedures that address factors that affect the completion success of its students. It is important for the graduate school to develop practices that encourage individual graduate programs to think carefully and creatively about their own practices and the assumptions that underwrite them. One way to do this is to provide formal venues for a discussion of pressing issues that are crucial to a wide range of graduate programs.

7 Doctoral Level

It is particularly important to make certain that all graduate programs have complete, reliable data that enable clear understandings of how long it takes for their successful Ph.D. students to complete the degrees, and how many fail to complete the degree in which they enrolled. It is not always immediately obvious what the data mean, but the data will often reveal dimensions of a graduate program that the program itself will not see clearly without it. Graduate schools must stress the need for each program to understand and be accountable for important dimensions of their success as revealed by the pertinent data.

The database compiled collectively through the Ph.D. Completion Project points to differences across areas that should shape the implementation of best practices. Doctoral students in the humanities, for example, tend to drop out later in their programs than many other students, suggesting the need for special attention to the stage of moving from course work toward the research designed to lead to a dissertation. Best practices can be developed that help students demystify the research and writing processes that clarify the expectations for Ph.D. research that set appropriate deadlines and that encourage timely feedback. In other fields of study, different pressure points can be addressed with best practices. The goal is first to identify those points, then devise practices that address them effectively.

Other dimensions of successful graduate study seem to apply across the board. Good mentoring and annual reviews are two examples. A graduate school cannot mandate good mentoring, but it can publicize its importance and can develop models adaptable across broad ranges of programs. Clear instances of what makes a successful annual review can be collected, synthesized, and promulgated. Through the Completion Project it has become more apparent that many students just get lost in their programs, and don’t know how to understand the current situation in relation to the overall goal. The annual review is a very effective way to address this issue, an exemplary “best practice” for graduate schools to encourage.

Global Perspectives on Graduate Education 8 Susan Pfeiffer

Canadian versus American Doctoral Completion and Time-to-Degree Comparisons

Susan Pfeiffer Dean and Vice-Provost, Graduate Studies University of Toronto

One aspect of a graduate dean’s role is that of monitoring current practices and assessing the ways in which they link with the objectives of the institution and of society. The graduate dean should then stand ready to contribute a clear articulation of good practice, in the context of institutional mandate and priorities. I present here an example of such an assessment. A comparison of data from Canada and the U.S. suggests that Canadian doctoral students have higher rates of completion than U.S. students, in some fields. It appears that they complete faster, but this conclusion is based on information that is less directly comparable. As a point of discussion, I suggest that the reason for the higher completion rates is Canada’s maintenance of the research (doctoral stream) master’s degree as a distinct and valued milestone.

Canadian universities are aware that their American neighbors have tended to strongly direct students into direct-entry Ph.D. programs. They are aware that the master’s degree has developed a negative connotation in many fields, as a marker of a “failed Ph.D.” Nevertheless, the Canadian professorate and their institutions have maintained and expanded their MA and MSc programs. The rationale is often that of societal benefit, especially in the context of laboratory sciences (CAGS 2006).

Doctoral (Ph.D.) times to degree and completion rates are of sustained interest to people in both the United States and Canada. In Canada, a group of research intensive universities known as the G10 (recently expanded to the G13) have worked to develop performance indicators that include these two measures. These institutions host over three quarters of doctoral registrants in Canada. In the United States, the CGS Ph.D. Completion Project has engaged the participation of a significant number of large, research-intensive universities. The methodologies for measuring10-year cohort attrition are very similar. Information on the time to degree, taken from the U.S. Survey of Earned Doctorates, differs in its format from the Canadian G10 data. The SED data count from completion of the baccalaureate and the G10 data count from completion of the prior degree, which may be baccalaureate or master’s.

9 Doctoral Level

Completion Rate:

Table 1: Ph.D. completion rates (% complete after 10 years), comparing G10 and CGS results

Canada (G10) USA (CGS) 1993 1994 1992-94 pooled Humanities 45.3% 50.7% 47% Social Sciences 52.7% 52.3% 55% Life Sciences 73.3% 74.8% 62% Physical & Applied Science 67.5% 71.4% 64%: Engineering 55%: Phys. Sci/Math TOTAL 60.2% 62.9%

Time to Degree:

Table 2: G10 (Canada) 1996 doctoral cohort, as of fall, 2005

Terms Converted to years Humanities 18 6 Social Sciences 17 5.7 Life Sciences 16 5.3 Physical & Applied Science 15 5 TOTAL 16 5.3

The SED 2005 median time to Ph.D. from baccalaureate was 9.9 years, and the median duration between starting and completing graduate school was 8.2 years. These numbers can be compared, in a general way, to the G10 data on duration between starting and completing a doctoral degree. Those results are expressed as terms registered and there are three terms in a year. Thus, 15 terms is taken to be equivalent to five years.

A master’s degree normally takes between three and six terms to complete. If six terms are added to the longest program, humanities, it tallies to a total of 24 terms, or eight years. This is comparable to the SED value for median time in the doctorate. Since this is the academic field with the most prolonged program in the Canadian data, I conclude that Canadian doctorates take less time, no matter how the numbers are approached.

Canada and the U.S. share many challenges. For example, in both countries, disciplines in the humanities show the longest time to completion and the lowest completion rates. Nevertheless, the statistics appear to show better outcomes in all fields in Canada. It is possible that an undervalued benefit of the research (doctoral stream) master’s degree is the “trial” effect. Experience with the master’s can help students self-select out, if they conclude that they are ill-suited for doctoral work. In Canada, graduate admission is strongly based on letters of reference from academics and much less commonly uses test scores, like the GREs. Experience with the applicant as a master’s student allows a

Global Perspectives on Graduate Education 10 Susan Pfeiffer referee to comment on the skill set that is directly linked to successful doctoral study. Strong master’s programs also provide advanced training and social benefit, for a relatively modest commitment of time and resources. They can be mounted by smaller institutions, making them geographically accessible to more learners.

Broader availability of internationally comparable data on rates and times to completion would be very helpful. In the meanwhile, this information can help administrators and policymakers to appropriately position graduate education within institutional and governmental discussions of the role of new knowledge in generating jurisdictional well- being and creativity. There is a tendency to see master’s and doctoral study as distinct, but data appear to indicate that the former enhances success in the latter. Learners should have access, within a jurisdiction, to both levels of study, and graduate deans should stand ready to make the case.

NOTES AND REFERENCES

Canadian Assn for Graduate Studies 2006 A Profile of Master’s Degree Education in Canada. http://www.cags.ca/Portals/34/pdf/CAGS-Master.pdf

Daniel D. Denecke, “Ph.D. Completion Project: Preliminary Results from Baseline Data”, Council of Graduate Schools Communicator, Vol. XXXVIII, Number 9 (November 2005): 1.

Information on G10 performance indicators is provided by the G13 data repository, University of Toronto.

11 Doctoral Education

Doctoral Education

Authors’ Comments and Group Discussion

Dr. Wheeler used his paper on Ph.D. completion and attrition as a springboard for a much fuller discussion of joint and dual degrees at the doctoral level, because the ability to address completion issues is increasingly becoming a measure of a doctoral program’s competitiveness in the U.S. and because any future international collaborations at the doctoral level will need to recognize the different cultures and expectations that are reflected in national differences. [Because the substance of Dr. Wheeler’s remarks on joint and dual degrees contributed to the larger discussion of joint and dual degrees at the conference, the summary of his presentation appears in Chapter II, section B.]

Dr. Pfeiffer said that the “take home message” from her paper is that there are national characteristics to doctoral education, and as the maturation of institutions results in more internationalization of institutions and perhaps even more standardization of the graduate enterprise, there are two things to keep in mind. First, it will be important to be sensitive to diversity and to incorporate this diversity within a structured framework. Second, there is great value in establishing criteria for developing national performance measures that can be adapted globally. While Canadian deans and graduate schools tend to leave the counting problem to another part of their institution, it is useful to identify ways to maintain and share internationally-based measures, since numbers are a part of every argument in conversations with national governments. This will be challenging, but extremely important.

In general discussion, the issue of the movement toward establishing international performance quality assurance standards arose. It was the general consensus that if institutions want to build linkages with other international institutions, these quality assurance measures be identified so that respective governments are given some insurance that this is a good linkage. There was general agreement that quality assurances will play an increasing role in the development of “best practices” in international collaboration. However, the details of how quality will be measured and deemed comparable will still have to be worked out before international performance standards can be widely adopted.

Subsequent discussion focused on time to degree, how different countries approach the issue, and the different national contexts for prioritizing action on time to degree differences. While there are some countries that track time to degree nationally and link standards to the main sources of government funding (such as England and Australia), Dr. Wheeler pointed out that in the U.S. the many sources of funding, each with different goals and objectives, has prevented any stringent articulation of standards for minimum “time to degree” from taking shape.

In order to identify best practices in the management of students’ time to degree, participants were agreed that metrics need to be consistent, but also that norms for time to

Global Perspectives on Graduate Education 12 Author Comments and Group Discussion

degree must respect the diversity of institutions and students. Some prior efforts to measure time to degree in the U.S. have met with challenges, as different institutions may track students and label their status in different ways. Substantial discussion ensued about the differences among institutions both in the U.S. and Canada as to what constitutes reasonable time to degree, especially when disciplinary differences are considered. It was suggested that the “timeliness” of the research is among the most important aspects of the “Time to Degree” agenda. It was suggested that graduate deans need to take leadership in proposing metrics on which everyone can agree.

13 Transition from Master to Doctorate

Best Practices at the Country Level (continued)

Transition from the Master’s to the Doctorate

Three papers addressed master’s education and new trends in delivery of master’s degrees resulting from higher education reform, in the case of Europe, and from workforce demands, internationally. These papers served as the springboards for discussion in the next session of the conference. In the first paper, Jean Chambaz used France’s experiences to address questions related to current practices in moving students from master’s to doctoral education, degree articulation and variance of articulation by field, and the role of senior administrative leaders in the university in responding to those opportunities.

Global Perspectives on Graduate Education 14 Jean Chambaz

Transition from Master to Doctorate in France

Jean Chambaz Director, Institute of Doctoral Training Universite Pierre et Marie Curie (UPMC)

The organization of higher education has dramatically changed in France, following the framework of the European Bologna process, in an effort to answer the chronic weaknesses of French universities. As in other developed countries, French universities have experienced a massive increase of students, mostly in humanities, with a chronically insufficient funding. In addition, the long-lasting policy of French governments (from Napoleon!) to develop professional education mostly out of universities (except in law and medicine) led to a poor recognition of academic degrees on the job market and to a poor representation of university alumni among business leaders and policy makers. Standing their ground, French universities were long coming to face their responsibility and to address the employability of degree holders in all sectors of economy and society.

Before 2000, French higher education was organized as a highly fragmented and scattered continuum made of a two-years initial training (DEUG), a one-year licence (bachelor level), a one-year “maitrise,” then a one-year predoctoral course (DEA) ending in doctorate which could last for a long time. The professor heading a DEA was administratively in charge of the thesis carried on by his students. Academic liberty sometimes became the justification for institutional failure to live up to its responsibilities.

The implementation of the Bologna process in France

In 2000, a new regulation on doctoral schools aimed at two major objectives. The first was to stress that training by research requires a high quality scientific environment ensured by a critical mass of strong research groups or scientific milieus, far from the old-fashioned one-to-one person relationship. To achieve that, doctoral schools were defined as a site and/or discipline-based group of research teams, and possibly affiliated

15 Transition from Master to Doctorate

to several higher education institutions. The second objective was to develop complementary training on transferable skills and job opportunities for doctorate holders. The doctoral school defines its policy concerning enrolment, supervision, funding, duration, complementary training and follow up; according to the recommendations of the national regulation. At this early stage, doctoral schools were in charge of doctorate and of predoctoral courses DEA, and were mostly built by combining several DEAs.

In 2004, the shift into the Bologna frame aimed at a clarification of the higher education reform objective and at its professionalization goal in the broadest sense, i.e., to provide key competences, skills and vocational guidance at each level, improving employability of degrees’ holders at licence (bachelor), master or doctorate level. Accordingly, predoctoral courses were included in master’s and, consequently, doctoral schools only focus on doctorate. For example, before 2004, Universite Pierre et Marie Curie, a science and medicine university in Paris, offered 106 narrowly-specialized predoctoral courses and also was in charge of enrolment and progression of doctoral students in their field and 30 profession-oriented “master” courses. After 2004, we now offer 10 master’s, comprising 60 specialties, and 20 doctoral schools.

The partition of predoctoral courses from doctoral schools has profound consequences.

• The broader scope of master courses allows students to progressively orientate within a two-year program, as a result of an informed choice, either towards professional training to exit university with a master’s degree or research training to enter a doctoral school, once they get their master’s degree. Indeed, more than 85% of master’s degree holders find a permanent position within six months of leaving UPMC. As a consequence, and considering the poor recognition of doctorate on the job market in France (“too narrowly specialized people”), more top students choose to leave university with a master’s degree rather than enrolling for a doctorate. The figures are, unfortunately, less favourable in human and social sciences.

• Initiation to research is provided within master’s through courses, workshops on tools and methods, and a comprehensive scholarly report from a six month research project performed under supervision. Therefore, doctoral schools now focus on the doctorate, by providing the best conditions to fulfill an original research project as a professional experience and by developing awareness of doctoral candidates on career opportunities and development across sectors, by an individual follow up, and seminars and workshops.

• In this context, of course, the transition from master’s to doctorate becomes crucial. The criteria for doctoral candidates’ recruitment are defined by each doctoral school, but require, as stated by regulation, a master’s degree with initiation to research or an equivalent training or experience. At UPMC (in experimental sciences), funding of the candidate is mandatory. Recruitment criteria, training program, details of follow-up policy, figures on funding,

Global Perspectives on Graduate Education 16 Jean Chambaz

supervision, and duration of thesis are publicized by doctoral schools to attract best students. It is the most efficient incentive to develop best practices!

• The risk of divergence between master’s programs and doctoral schools resulting from this partition could be efficiently prevented by a dialogue ensured by the participation of the head of the corresponding doctoral schools in the academic staff of the master’s program, and conversely.

• The 2006 regulation on the doctorate clearly assigned responsibilities to doctoral schools, rather than universities, though doctoral schools are defined as light functional structures, without walls and means to fulfill such heavy tasks. In keeping with the long-lasting suspicious policy of French governments towards universities, this weakens the capacity of research-intensive universities to embed doctoral programs in their institutional strategy. Hopefully, this will be corrected under the new law introducing university autonomy. To overcome these weaknesses, many French universities have set up a committee of doctoral schools. At UPMC, we decided to crossbreed the French and British/U.S. structures by creating an overarching administrative structure, the Institute of Doctoral Training. The Institute is in charge of: harmonization of doctoral education and follow up in the different doctoral schools; mutualisation of training resulting in a larger and more diverse offer; quality assessment based on indicators; and development of candidates, supervisors and employers on transferable skills and employability of doctorate holders. In this scheme, doctoral schools, still organized as a critical mass of research groups in a broad scientific field, and not on a faculty or department basis, are closer to doctoral programs.

17 Master’s Education

Best Practices at the Country Level (continued)

Master’s Education

The next two papers comprise the authors’ responses to an invitation to reflect on opportunities for advancing master’s education in their countries. Again, we asked authors to include in their response the role of the graduate school and its deans or other senior administrative leaders in the university in responding to those opportunities.

Global Perspectives on Graduate Education 18 Richard Russell

The Master’s Degree – An Australian Perspective

Richard Russell Dean of Graduate Studies University of Adelaide

The nature of the master’s degree has changed rapidly and substantially in Australia and overseas. The master’s offered entirely, or primarily, by coursework is now a prominent feature of Australian higher education. Coursework master’s programs are the most rapidly growing courses in the country … In almost all discipline areas, the coursework master’s attracts more students than the research master’s, an indication of the attraction that it holds for students, industry and the professionals. Though the factors influencing this growth have not been the subject of detailed study, they are clearly a complex mix of market forces and social trends, including the influence of mass undergraduate education, the knowledge and skills required to adapt to social and technological change, the growth in specialized professional career positions, and, not least, increasingly competitive labour markets. The growth in the coursework master’s has challenged traditional assumption about the form and purpose of the master’s degree. (Department of Employment Education and Training Canberra 1995)

Introduction

In starting this discussion it is best to begin by saying something about the Australian education system at least as it pertains to universities.

• Australia like many other parts of the world has undergone a change from an elite university system to one of mass education prompted by the Dawkins review of 1987-8. Indeed the period 1983-2005 saw an increase of total enrolments of 171% from 348,600 to 945,800. In 1985 postgraduate enrolments accounted for 16.5% of all enrolments and this had grown to 27.3% by 2005. • Free education has been abolished and students either pay fees or fund their study through government loans known as the Higher Education Contribution Scheme (HECS). • The larger universities have income streams of 50-60% non-government funding and the gap is widening. • Federal government regulation of universities has steadily increased and presently has the objective of creating diversity across the sector. This drive for diversification of universities and their offerings is highlighted by the recently announced “Melbourne Model” which has taken the major step of moving away from existing degree structures and moving more closely towards a North American model of a generalist qualification followed by a professional degree

Australian Degrees

Postgraduate qualifications in Australia consist of graduate certificates, graduate diplomas, master's degrees, junior doctorates including the Ph.D. and professional doctorates, and the higher doctorates.

Our undergraduate degree structures differ significantly from those commonly understood in Europe or North America and are derived historically from the old Scottish education system.1

19 Master’s Education

However as the quotation at the top of page one indicates the master’s degree has undergone a dramatic reconfiguration and is no longer a significant research qualification and to begin to understand the reason for this change it is best to look firstly at the following two extracts from the Australian Qualifications Framework.

1. Bachelors degree and honours.

There are a variety of bachelor degree programs, including • The three year degree • The three or four (or longer) professional degree • Combined or double degree programs • Graduate entry degrees and • The bachelor honours degree which may be taken as an additional year following the three years degree or is awarded on the basis of meritorious achievement in degrees of four or more years.

The three plus one model provides the introduction to research training by making the fourth year a research intensive year where outcomes are judged, to a significant extent, on a dissertation based on individual research. To achieve this level of research focus the three-year bachelor’s degree is strongly discipline oriented and is not a generalist introduction to higher learning.

In keeping with the English honours award, the Australian degree is divided into classes 1, 2A, 2B and 3. Honours 1 and 2A have become direct entry levels for a Ph.D. and in so doing have substantially replaced the research master’s degree in this role. Candidates with a 2B honours degree may progress to a master’s and then to a Ph.D. although the lack of scholarships available to this group significantly limits its size. Indeed enrolment trends in research master’s have remained remarkably static (see figure below).

Load Australian Masters Research vs Coursework Degrees 90,000

80,000

70,000

60,000

50,000

40,000

30,000

20,000

10,000

0 2002 2003 2004 2005 Go8, Research Go8, Coursework National, Research National, Coursework

Global Perspectives on Graduate Education 20 Richard Russell

2. Master’s degrees

Typical programs and entry pathways are:

• The coursework master’s degree program—comprised of coursework, project work, and research in varying combinations—with entry from a bachelor’s degree, a bachelor honours degree, or graduate diploma. • The research master’s degree program, comprised of at least two thirds research with a substantial, often externally assessed, thesis outcome with entry from a bachelor honours degree or master’s preliminary year, a research based graduate diploma, or equivalent research experience. • The professional master’s degree program, which may involve a work-based project with entry from a relevant professional qualification and professional experienced or extensive relevant professional experience.

Depending on the university and the program, a master’s degree can range from 100% coursework to 100% research.

Recently universities have been offering combined Ph.D./master’s programs, especially where the master’s component has a strong professional bias, e.g., Clinical Psychology, Forensic Science etc. and this is something well worth reflecting upon at this meeting.

Whilst the three plus one model has worked well for those disciplines that follow this pattern there are some key exceptions—law, medicine, and to a lesser extent engineering—which do not fit smoothly into this mould. They each have their own individual work-arounds.

Funding of Master’s Degrees.

In general coursework master’s degrees are full-fee programs in which the student is individually responsible for all the fees unless they win a scholarship. However this is about to change as some HECS load may now be assigned to coursework master’s programs and this will most likely occur in areas of national importance.

In contrast the majority of master’s by research students do not pay fees and are supported by scholarships of one type or another.

How Are Master’s Degrees Managed?

Master’s degrees by research are generally managed through graduate schools whereas the management of coursework master’s may either be achieved centrally or at faculty level depending upon the university

Articulation from a Research Master’s Degree to a Ph.D.

Most universities in Australia do allow for a upgrading of a research master’s candidature to a Ph.D. candidature where there is clear evidence that the candidate is capable of meeting the

21 Master’s Education required standard. The reverse is also true in that students who are not achieving at Ph.D. level may be downgraded to a master’s degree. In either case, the usual route is a significant review of candidature by the supervisory team followed by a recommendation to the dean of graduate studies by the appropriate head of school. A few schools still insist that candidates enroll in a master’s and upgrade to Ph.D. candidature, although in most institutions direct entry to the Ph.D. is via provisional candidature followed by confirmation of candidature following a major review of progress at the end of the first 12 months. Whether or not this constitutes best practice is open to question as it depends significantly on the quality of the review process, and training of supervisors is an important aspect of their professional development.

Why Does the Master’s by Research Degree Have Such a Minor Status OR Why Are the Coursework Master’s Degrees So Popular?

The answers to these questions are multidimensional;

• The Introduction of the Research Training Scheme (2001) placed tight time restrictions on funded candidature and drove universities to ensure that undergraduates entering research degrees (Ph.D. or master’s) were in fact “research ready.” Indeed for this reason many universities do not accept coursework master’s degrees as an entry pathway to a Ph.D. although things are more relaxed in terms of professional doctorates.

• Australia has for a long time been able to draw quality master’s graduates from abroad into Australian Ph.D. programs, and for these students the introduction to research has fallen offshore. Competition for international scholarships is fierce so that this remains a strong market.

• In the international context, most sponsoring nations now require admission to a Ph.D. and have serious qualms about issues of articulation from a master’s degree. This can and does limit recruitment in some markets and is a matter that cannot be ignored.

• Coursework master’s have evolved to fill two roles: retraining for graduates moving into new areas (conversion master’s) and the provision of advanced professional or academic knowledge (professional master’s). As we have seen above, the load for coursework master’s degrees isn’t evenly distributed across disciplines, a fact which frequently causes internal tensions in research intensive institutions. Both types of programs have found popularity amongst a generation of students who value job flexibility and prefer part-time study and flexible delivery. In addition, professional coursework degrees have found appeal in the AusAid program for international students, which had in the past focused to a considerable degree on research based programs.

Coursework Master’s and Disciplines.

In the heady days of rapid expansion, coursework master’s degrees became a must have for most faculties. Now that the market is more clearly understood it is obvious that whilst this area of education remains of crucial importance to universities, it is not an economic proposition for many disciplines and consequently courses with low enrolments are subject to close scrutiny.

Global Perspectives on Graduate Education 22 Richard Russell

Table 1. Postgraduate Coursework Enrolments, By Field of Study, International Enrolment, Mode of Study, and Level of Course, Australia, 2005 % % % % Field of Study Enrolments FOS Int'nal Int'nal P/T P/T Masters Masters Agriculture etc 2767 1.3 561 0.2 1960 71 1739 63 Architecture etc 2894 1.3 637 22 1856 64 1637 57 Creative Arts 6220 2.9 1637 26 3410 55 3699 59 Dental Studies 237 0.1 51 22 48 20 93 39 Education 26489 12.3 4883 18 17833 67 12465 47 Engineering etc 9632 4.5 5292 55 5297 55 7180 75 Information Tech 18506 8.6 13101 71 5921 32 15964 86 Law 8875 4.1 1072 12 5696 64 5884 66 Mgt & Commerce 88812 41 44999 51 50932 57 70438 79 Medical Studies 1556 0.7 235 15 1239 80 792 51 Nat & Phys Sc 4213 2 1546 37 2964 70 2239 53 Other Health 17926 8.3 2605 15 13215 74 9068 51 Social, Cultural St 27030 12.6 5327 20 19394 72 15000 55 Vet. Studies 141 0.06 27 19 99 70 101 72 ALL 215,303 100 81973 38 129,893 60 146 299 68

Best Practice in Research Master’s Degrees.

For what are now clearly obvious reasons, Codes of “Best Practice” for master’s degrees by research have followed the extensive work done around Ph.D.s and have been adapted by universities as seemed appropriate. Further details may be found at http://www.ddogs.edu.au/cgi- bin/index.pl.

What Is the Future for Master’s Degrees in Australia?

It is almost certain that the imperative to fit the international educational environment will see some change in degree structure within Australia. The debate to date has been one which has shown little inclination to move away from the honours degree as we know it but rather to accommodate that as best as possible within, particularly, the European Bologna framework. Notwithstanding some professions have started a movement towards professional master’s qualifications. Architecture has moved to three-year bachelor degree followed by a professional 2 year master’s that defines the entry to the profession. There are certainly opportunities, which arise from joint Ph.D./master’s programs, but these tend to be master’s, which are significantly coursework or professionally oriented.

In the mean time what is clear is that

• The conversion or professional coursework master’s programs continue to provide a lucrative market for Australian universities especially outside the science and engineering areas.

23 Master’s Education

• Nothing is new and the nature and definition of a master’s degree remains very much open to question2

NOTES AND REFERENCES

1. “At the Ancient Universities of Scotland (St Andrews, Edinburgh, Glasgow, Aberdeen and Dundee) a BSc (Hons) indicates a four year course being equivalent to the Scottish MA for science degrees” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_degree_abreviations

2. J-P.V.M. Hérubel “Contextual Culture of the Master’s Degree and the Decline of the M.L.S Thesis—An Exploratory Review Essay” Libraries And Culture 40(1), 2005, 63-84.

Global Perspectives on Graduate Education 24 Carol Lynch

Master’s Programs in the United States

Carol Lynch Senior Scholar in Residence Council of Graduate Schools

The master’s degree constitutes by far the largest portion of U.S. graduate degree production and is the primary driver of growth in graduate enrollments. While Ph.D. degrees have shown modest increases over the past ten years, participation by U.S. domestic students in Ph.D. programs has actually dropped, although participation in graduate education by women and traditionally underrepresented minorities has increased over that time. Currently, more than ten times as many master’s as doctoral degrees are awarded annually. While this figure is somewhat skewed by the very large proportion of master’s to doctorates in professional fields such as education, business and public administration, master’s production exceeds that of Ph.D.s across all fields of study.

Demand for master’s-educated individuals and reforms in curriculum have been driven by policy and workforce imperatives. Reports from the National Academy of the Sciences and the National Science Foundation have supported the reshaping of graduate education in the sciences in particular, emphasizing the need to prepare students for the jobs they actually take, including more interdisciplinarity and ability to work collaboratively. Actual experience with real-world projects and problems is highly desirable. Many have argued that the Ph.D. is not necessarily the best terminal degree and that employers in business, industry, government, and the public sector may come to rely increasingly on scientists with “professional” master’s degrees.

Curricular change is also a response to a variety of other social and economic forces. The research and development needs of industry have changed as firms downsize and restructure in the face of globalization and increased demands for short-term profits. Master’s-level scientists with laboratory skills, but without research agendas, are viewed as valuable assets in the product development process. Furthermore, public universities are increasingly held accountable by state legislatures for faculty productivity and student assessment. Among the indicators are assessments of student outcomes, including job placement. Other forces for change include students themselves, including the demographic shifts in the graduate school population, especially the growing share of women in the sciences. Some argue that the arduous 80-hour weeks required of Ph.D. academic scientists conflict with equally compelling needs of the family.

The social sciences have experienced similar pressures. There has been a growth in social science master’s degrees awarded over the last two decades, relative to Ph.D. degrees, and there is some indication that employer demand may warrant this increase.

A growing trend in master’s programs that reflects these imperatives is increased “professionalized” curricula across all fields, and the growth of a new degree called the “Professional Science Master’s (PSM).” Professional Science Master’s (PSM) programs were originated in 1997 by the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation with grants to research

25 Master’s Education universities. Beginning in 2001, the Council of Graduate Schools partnered with the Sloan Foundation to extend the development of PSM programs to “master’s focused” institutions. Currently a CGS project consolidates multiple PSM expansion and promotional activities under one umbrella with the goal of institutionalizing and promoting the PSM degree as a regular feature of graduate education. Our experience with this project has shown that the early involvement of graduate deans in program development enhances the potential for sustainability.

Although the master’s degree will continue to serve as a transitional degree and potential preparation for a Ph.D., there is a need for a self-contained degree designed to prepare students for a variety of career options in business, government or non-profit organizations. The PSM combines advanced science/math coursework with an appropriate array of professional skill-development activities, resulting in graduates highly valued by employers and prepared to progress toward leadership roles. The PSM differs from alternative options in that it contains considerably more science and/or mathematics than does the MBA, is often interdisciplinary, includes more professional development training than a Ph.D., and typically involves students in a “real-world” capstone project (sometimes as a member of a team) in lieu of a research thesis. Additional professional development skills, often called the “plus” components, may include such things as business basics, project management, teamwork, non-technical communication, research/business ethics and regulatory issues.

Representatives from the targeted employment sector are much more involved in PSM programs than in traditional graduate programs. They advise PSM faculty so that the degree requirements meet the needs of the employers, they may mentor PSM students either formally, as a co-advisor or internship supervisor, or informally. In addition, they may provide tuition for current or prospective employees, they provide internship opportunities for students, and as they get to know the program and the faculty, they serve as champions for universities in terms of a commitment to local and regional economic and workforce development.

The bulk of new job creation is outside academia, and PSM programs prepare students for work in emerging and existing technical fields. In addition, PSM programs fall within the increasingly important outreach mission of universities, as they provide well educated graduates who possess skills to fill critical jobs. PSM programs contribute to local economic development because master’s degree recipients are typically less mobile than are Ph.D. recipients. Nationally, about two-thirds of science and engineering master’s degree graduates are employed within the state in which they earned the degree, whereas only about one-fourth of science and engineering doctoral recipients stay in the state where they received their degree. PSM programs provide a way for motivated science students to remain in their field without getting a Ph.D., and the university can both provide students with rewarding career options while addressing local workforce needs.

Global Perspectives on Graduate Education 26 Author Comments and Group Discussion

Transition from the Master’s to the Doctorate and Master’s Education

Authors’ Comments and Group Discussion

Dr. Chambaz’s comments set the stage for the emphasis all three papers placed on professionalization of higher education training and the challenge it poses for universities. This professional training provides key competencies, skills and vocational guidance for two purposes: 1) to develop a professional career in a changing environment, and 2) to prepare for life-long learning. Additionally this professionalization allows “an exit by success at each level”—based on informed choice of the needs of European economy and society. Professionalization of training is a “mass issue,” not a “small elite” issue.

Dr. Chambaz pointed out how the “Bologna” process has been implemented in France. Before 2000 (i.e. before Bologna), higher education was a fragmented and scattered organization, comprised of some 106 narrowly-specialized pre-doctoral courses and 30 professional-oriented courses. After Bologna, there were three levels: license (bachelor), master, and doctorate (similar to the U.S. system). In 2004 (after the shift to Bologna) there was a broader scope of predoctoral courses at 20 doctoral schools. There were 10 master’s with 60 specialties.

During the master’s degree in France, one makes a choice to enter the job market with the master’s or to get further training in research in a doctoral program. The master’s degree, which includes an introduction to research, can be: 1) a research only degree; 2) a coursework and a dissertation degree (this option is very multi-disciplinary, e.g. forensic science); or 3) a coursework only degree (e.g. executive MBA). The doctorate is dedicated to 3-4 year original research project as well as development of doctoral competencies and career development through complementary training, but not taught courses.

However, he acknowledged that there are some weaknesses in the French system: 1) the 20 doctoral schools are often connected to several universities and have research groups from many different research institutions; and 2) without having a specific institution, these doctoral schools do not have the means to become imbedded in the institution and thus weaken the capacity of research-intensive universities to embed these doctoral programs in the institutional strategy.

Dr. Chambaz’s institution, The Institute of Doctoral Training, has an overarching administrative structure which is a combination of the old French system as well as the structures in Great Britain and the U.S. They have about 3,500 Ph.D. candidates. He noted that Europe has already attained significant progress in developing a framework and habit for global dialogue in graduate education, since the respective national systems participating in the Bologna Process are already so different.

27 Master’s Education

When asked whether students who want a doctorate in France enter at the doctoral level or must go through the master’s level first, Dr. Chambaz’ explained that the master’s is the entry point for the doctorate. During the master’s degree in France, one makes a choice to enter the job market with the master’s or to get further training in research in a doctoral program. The master’s degree includes an introduction to research and can be a research only degree; coursework and a dissertation (this option is very multi- disciplinary, e.g., forensic science); or coursework only (e.g., executive MBA). The doctorate is dedicated to 3-4 year original research project. Dr. Chambaz noted that sometimes the best students choose to leave at the end of their master’s degree because of career enticements, as commonly happens, for example, in engineering. There are no tuition fees in France for higher education, so funding is a problem for some disciplines.

Robyn Owens, Pro Vice-Chancellor of the University of Western Australia, presenting on behalf of Dr. Russell, pointed out clear differences in global practices relevant to master’s degrees. In Australian higher education, the first cycle is comprised of the bachelor’s degree which is a three-four year degree (although in some fields, such as medicine, is longer). Generally, if students want to go into Ph.D. programs, then honours is added on or is included in the final (i.e., fourth) year. The honours designation includes a year of training involving advanced level coursework plus a research dissertation.

The second cycle is the master’s degree. Australian master’s programs are very diverse in nature, and students pursue these degrees for different reasons. The degrees can be research only; research and coursework; coursework and dissertation; and/or coursework only. This is similar to what is available in France. The number of research master’s in Australia has declined while the number of coursework master’s has grown.

To transition from the master’s to the doctoral degree, one is required to have pre- existing research training, which can be honours or any master’s program that includes a research dissertation, and performance at a 70%+ level of achievement. However, most Australian graduates would do the “3+2” (three-year bachelor’s + two-year master’s) model. Most international students who enter doctoral programs in Australia already possess a master’s degree. Coursework master’s degrees in Australia, such as in architecture, used to be all-fee paid, but now are being funded by the government. Also in Australia, students can use relevant professional experience along with the three-year bachelor’s degree to be admitted to a master’s program.

In Australia, there is a seamless “articulation” from the master’s research degree into the doctoral program, assuming that there was appropriate supervision and resources. Candidates for the doctoral programs are chosen in two ways: 1) examination of the qualifications and performance of the students and 2) the performance of the research environment where the students are going. Most Australian graduate schools do not administer the coursework components of master’s or doctoral degrees—this is done by the faculties, but they do work harmoniously with the faculties.

However, in Australia, the master’s degree needs clarification and codification. Degrees can vary from six months to many years. They serve too many purposes – i.e., advanced

Global Perspectives on Graduate Education 28 Author Comments and Group Discussion training, the professions, and multidisciplinary research purposes. And the government funding for such programs needs clarification.

Dr. Lynch compared master’s education in the U.S. with Canada and Australia and noted that the number of master’s degrees has been increasing in the U.S. as well. As in Australia where the “coursework only” master’s degree is particularly expanding, the big expansion in the U.S. is in the business and education areas—similar to the coursework only. In the U.S. the research master’s is often used as a pathway into or out of the Ph.D. —i.e., the so-called consolation prize. France has some degrees for both functions. Dr. Lynch acknowledged that the U.S. may actually lag behind Canada and Australia in recognizing the value of the master’s degree.

Currently in the U.S. there are many forces that are demanding enhancement of master’s programs and therefore master’s degrees. First, students are tending to opt out of the Ph.D. track. White male citizens are especially choosing this path and are less and less likely to go on to doctorate. Overall in the U.S., fewer than 20% of STEM majors at the undergraduate level go on to graduate education in STEM fields. Second, there is increasing global competition for international students, with the U.S. market share of Ph.D.s declining. This may lead to a potential negative impact on research in U.S. universities and on the U.S. economy especially in technical fields. Third, U.S. policymakers have been criticizing graduate education for more than 10 years for their tendency not to train Ph.Ds. for jobs outside academia, or even for those inside, especially “training to teach.” The CGS Preparing Future Faculty project has been addressing that issue. The growth in jobs is not in the academic sector; the growth is primarily in the business, government and nonprofit economy which are all fueled by the “knowledge economy.” And finally, there is the trend among universities, particularly public universities, to become engaged in local and regional economic development (i.e., the “engaged university”) which includes demands for accountability at all levels, especially student outcomes (i.e., employment).

Another trend in the U.S. is changing demographics in the student population—more women and more minorities are going to colleges. There are more issues of “family” in the graduate student population. The massification of higher education means that our universities are less the realm of the privileged class. More students are returning to graduate school for further education.

There has been growth in the development of professional master’s programs—specific training for careers. The most visible of these new degrees is the PSM, which allow the most talented students to remain in science without getting the Ph.D. Funding from the Sloan Foundation has helped move this effort first from the research institutions and then to the master’s focused institutions. These programs have produced very successful graduates and have also addressed the needs of business, industry and nonprofit employers for advanced training. These degrees have 2/3 advanced science/math skills, and 1/3 appropriate professional-level skills. For example, these skills are business basics. They are generally non-thesis, but include some kind of “real-world project” sometimes an interdisciplinary team project.

29 Master’s Education

Dr. Lynch also noted that in the U.S. there is also professionalization in many areas of social sciences and humanities and is illustrated by professional master’s degrees in public history, GIS in geography, and applied political science. We see this as the major growth area in graduate education today in the U.S.

In the discussion following these three presentations, there was agreement that in all parts of the world there are a number of professions that are demanding life-long learning. This provides motivation for many students to pursue a master’s degree after having been in the workforce. It was also noted that the same is true for doctoral students who are on the average older than they were in the past. In response to Dr. Chambaz’s comments about Europe, other European representatives pointed out that the number of master’s programs across Europe is growing very quickly, but solid data on the extent of the growth is limited. It was agreed that because of the growing importance of the second cycle degrees, more effort must be made to track enrollments across Europe in a systematic way.

Dr. Evans asked, “How do we really distinguish between master’s and doctoral education?” She stated that at the doctoral level, we have to advance knowledge and that should be its distinguishing feature. Graduate education has many parts—coursework, professional training and research. When assessing graduate education, the quality of outcomes should be foremost. Graduate dean associations should also train graduate leaders.

Global Perspectives on Graduate Education 30

B. Best Practices in Cross-Border or International Program Partnering

The “Findings from the 2007 CGS International Graduate Admissions Survey Phase II” report issued three days before the Banff meeting began provided some baseline data about the scope and definition of international collaborations in the U.S. graduate enterprise. When asked about the types of international activities they had undertaken within the past two years, 29% of all responding institutions reported one or more joint or dual degree programs with international partners. Of the 50 institutions with the highest enrollments of international students, 56% have such collaborative programs.1 These data suggest the importance of formal international partnerships and of opportunities for strategic graduate education leaders to work together to overcome the challenges that often accompany the initial development of such partnerships. As a result of the clear importance to these programs conveyed by the recent data, CGS has made the decision to follow up with a multi-year study of trends in international collaboration.

This session of the conference covered more traditional alliances such as degree programs and how they are approached in various countries. It also explored research and teaching collaborations and international study for graduate students and provided practical advice on the technical aspects of establishing international collaborations.

Joint and Dual Degrees

The authors of U.S. and Australian perspectives on joint and dual degrees were asked to consider: the lessons learned from the practice of joint and dual degrees in their country; “best practice” principles that might be derived from their experience; and the obstacles that institutions still face.

1 Council of Graduate Schools. (2007, August 28). Research Report Findings from the 2007 CGS International Graduate Admissions Survey Phase II: Final Applications and Initial Offers of Admission, p. 7.

31 Joint and Dual Degrees

Joint and Dual Degrees—A U.S. Perspective

Diana Carlin CGS Dean-in-Residence Former Dean of the Graduate School and International Programs, University of Kansas

The need for graduate students to conduct research and work in a global society has generated interest in joint and dual degree programs. Traditional study abroad has focused on undergraduates, but more graduate students perceive the need for international experiences. With promotion of joint and dual degrees through FIPSE/Atlantis and PIRE (Partnerships for International Research and Education), U.S. graduate deans often find themselves facing the need to support grant applications prior to degree programs being finalized or being delivered a fait accompli to establish such degrees because a grant was received.

At the 2007 CGS Summer Workshop the topic of joint and dual degrees was discussed in “hot topics” sessions specifically on such intra-university, inter-university and international degrees and in a session on the Bologna Process. Discussion centered on five major points: (1) differences between joint and dual degrees, (2) benefits of joint/dual degrees, (3) quality assurance—program approval and review, (4) selection of partners, (5) sustainability of degree programs, and (6) best practices. This paper summarizes the content of the sessions and considers additional perspectives from my work with international collaborators and my experiences at the University of Kansas.

Joint vs. Dual Degrees

It was agreed that a joint degree is a single degree jointly designed and awarded collaboratively by two or more universities that involves coursework taken at two or more institutions. Typically one committee member for a thesis or dissertation is from the partner university or a joint qualifying examination is required. A dual or double degree results in separate degrees awarded by each partner after students complete a defined curriculum within each institution. Typically, students complete all of the requirements for a degree at the home university and then a core of those courses are counted at the partner institution as meeting part of their core or elective requirements and additional elective or core courses are taken for the second degree.

Two concerns relate to joint/dual degrees: whether or not both universities’ seals and signatures would or even could appear on the U.S. diploma and in the absence of two seals how to indicate the international component and whether or not a sufficient number of unique courses were taken at the partner university to warrant receipt of two unique degrees. No one wanted two degrees given without extensive coursework, internships, and exams at both institutions.

Benefits

Global Perspectives on Graduate Education 32 Diana Carlin

Providing an international experience at the graduate level that replicates the existing realities of international collaborations, especially in the STEM disciplines and in business, was seen as the greatest advantage. Additional benefits are exposing students to world class faculty and facilities and providing an opportunity for courses and facilities that don’t exist at the home institution.

Quality Assurance

Since U.S. graduate schools are typically charged with quality assurance through program approval and program review processes, graduate deans expressed several concerns related to quality control (1) how to determine the quality of partner institution’s programs, (2) impact accreditation, (3) how to conduct program reviews, (4) how to impact needed improvements based on program reviews, (5) how to approve programs that include more transfer credits than policies allow, and (6) how to end a non- productive or inadequate program.

Selection of Partners

Quality assurance is largely a matter of knowing the partner institutions. Deans wanted to know how to assess potential partners and with whom they needed to partner institutionally in vetting programs.

Sustainability

The sustainability issue is also related to how partners are chosen. If degrees are based on faculty-to-faculty rather than institution-to-institution relationships, the likelihood of long-term sustainability is reduced. It is also difficult to get support from other faculty to advance the program approval.

Best Practices

At the CGS Summer Workshop in July 2007 best practices were shared throughout the discussion. The following address the salient issues raised by participants and discussed in this paper:

• Most participants with joint degrees did not have a diploma that included an international university’s seal. There was usually something on the transcript that indicated that the degree was offered jointly with the partner institution.

• Develop degree programs with existing partners, especially those with whom an exchange agreement exists—this helps with tuition issues as well.

• Sustainability is better ensured if the agreement includes periodic evaluations and has a sunset provision in case there is insufficient interest in the program or conditions change.

33 Joint and Dual Degrees

• Most deans believe that the best degrees result from long-term relationships with an institution rather than from an individual faculty member with a personal collaboration. It is usually necessary to collaborate with the international office and other faculty in the discipline to determine appropriateness. Faculty and graduate deans involved in planning joint/dual degree programs need to work with the international office and general counsel to ensure that all university procedures are followed in setting up the degree and accompanying MOU or exchange agreement if they do not exist.

Global Perspectives on Graduate Education 34 Robyn Owens

Joint and Dual Degrees

Robyn Owens Pro Vice-Chancellor University of Western Australia

There is a vast variety of postgraduate joint and dual degree programs operating between Australia and other countries. These include coursework master’s programs, research master’s, professional doctorates (which include a coursework component) and double- badged Ph.D. programs (also known as co-tutelles in France). Joint degrees are becoming accepted practice across Asia-Pacific and North America, and particularly in Europe where the Bologna Protocol and Erasmus program encourage global recognition, credit transfer, and student mobility.

Some examples of joint programs include the Joint Master’s in Computer Science and Information Technology offered by James Cook University in Queensland, partnering with either the University of Applied Sciences in Darmstadt, Germany, or the University of Wisconsin in the U.S. In this program, students must spend one semester at the international partner organisation, and two semesters at James Cook University. The University of Western Australia offers a joint coursework master’s degree with Shanghai Maritime University in Logistic Engineering and Management. This course is taught entirely in Shanghai. Many Australian medical schools are working with developing countries to offer joint master’s programs, such as Flinders University’s Master in Hospital Management degree, offered in association with Nankai University in China. Melbourne University has a number of joint degree programs established with its partners through the Universitas 21 network.

Thus, while there are many programs, they all fall into two categories: those undertaken as exchange programs, where the students benefit from the cultural experience of both nations, and those undertaken collaboratively between two institutions, where the students are only exposed to one of the partnering countries. Generally in this latter case, institutions will claim that the students receive a joint university experience, but it could be argued that they do not reap the full educational and cultural benefits of a collaborative exchange program.

Transnational courses are another example of partnerships, not always with another university, but more often with a private college or private provider. Large distance- online providers like the Open University demonstrate a further model of the globalisation of university education and can affect the capacity for other institutions to create partnerships.

From the research perspective the most popular joint programs are the double-badged Ph.D.s. These have been in place in a number of universities for many years, most commonly with France but increasingly with other European nations and elsewhere globally. The French co-tutelle program is supported within Australia by the French Embassy, which provides additional funding to students undertaking the joint program to

35 Joint and Dual Degrees

facilitate travel, and arrangements with the local Alliance Francaise offices to provide free language training. Such support arrangements greatly enhance the success of the program.

Best Practice Principles

The key to a successful joint degree program is having a reliable, quality partner, and preferably one with an established reputation who knows the local market well.

The quality assurance procedures that must be put in place are absolutely essential to the success of a joint program. There are too many places for misunderstandings and disputes when partners set out to establish a joint program.

Double-badged (two institutions grant the degree) Ph.D. programs work well when they are based on existing research collaborations and where there is a real possibility for true exchange, with students from both countries participating in the joint research-training environment. These arrangements are generating the global researchers needed for some of the world’s current big research questions that can only be tackled by the collaborative efforts of large teams. Particularly noteworthy are the research programs in bio- informatics and large-scale physics where team work is the norm. Financial support from governments, universities and research groups contribute to the success of these programs.

Some countries actively support their students traveling abroad, such as the China Scholarship Council, which awards living allowances to thousands of Chinese postgraduate students for overseas training. These stipends provide an opportunity to build joint programs, but as yet joint programs have not been greatly taken up by the Chinese universities.

The development of Diploma Supplements for degree programs, as suggested in the Bologna Protocol, should greatly improve possibilities for international cross credit and exchange, and thus joint or double-badged programs.

Obstacles

The world is a diverse and wonderful place, so that joint programs that cross international borders are bound to face a number of problems. Some of these include the following:

• Substantial cost-of-living differences between countries mean that additional funding may be required for stipends when the student is in the more expensive country.

• Substantial differences between the various postgraduate degree programs (including entry levels, duration, coursework requirements, thesis requirements, publication requirements, and examination procedures) create complexity and administrative hurdles.

Global Perspectives on Graduate Education 36 Robyn Owens

• Credit recognition for prior work can be a limiting factor in establishing partnerships, with many universities being very strict about exact comparability of cross-credited subjects rather than the level of the work done or the outcomes achieved.

• Differing requirements for language skills arise when the partnering institutions come from different linguistic backgrounds.

• Many so-called “exchange” programs eventuate as a uni-directional flow of students, especially from developing countries and non-English speaking countries. Getting students out of Australia on double-badged programs is often seriously hindered by the lack of language, whereas getting students into Australia on double-badged programs that are fee-exempt is relatively easy.

• Differing levels of research preparation mean that in some programs students may be required to undertake substantial coursework components before being eligible to undertake any research.

• Differing understandings of the research culture mean that expectations relating to the balance between skill and fact acquisition, and criticism and creativity may not match.

• Students at the cutting edge of degree program developments can find themselves isolated, being the “only” student in the institution undertaking a particular kind of program. There is a need to establish strong communities of students in joint degrees in order to facilitate problem solving and peer-to-peer learning.

• Inadequate quality assurance procedures, including choice of satisfactory partners (which requires due diligence in many cases where it is not a well known and established university), can result in poor partnerships.

The Way Forward

There are many opportunities for improvement offered by the examples of best practice and the examples of obstacles, outlined above. Many disciplines now have the potential to establish master’s and Ph.D. programs running across groups of partner universities. These would be in areas of research strength and collaboration. Such programs would build on established research strengths and would benefit from accreditation by an external review panel.

37 Joint and Dual Degrees

Joint and Dual Degrees

Authors’ Comments and Group Discussion

The CGS data results on the shape and scope of such formal international partnerships served as a springboard for both speakers’ presentations.

Dr. Carlin summarized key issues from the CGS report and discussions at the CGS Summer Workshop during “hot topics” sessions on joint/dual degrees and the Bologna Process. She indicated that participation in international partnerships is still relatively new in the U.S. and that the U.S. can learn from other countries, especially those in Europe. While U.S. deans are still becoming comfortable with definitions of dual and joint degrees and are developing procedures for approval of programs, Europe has already embarked on cataloguing existing programs and determining assessment strategies. There are several factors that are motivating U.S. graduate programs to develop joint/dual degrees: 1) the growth of international research collaborations, especially in the STEM disciplines; 2) the role of graduate education to better serve the public good in a global society; 3) the need to continue to attract international graduate students; and 4) maximization of university resources and talent.

While the motivation to grow these degrees is high, U.S. graduate deans express concerns about transfer of credits, sufficiency of program requirements to warrant two distinct degrees, country differences in structuring degree programs, and quality assurance especially where program review is concerned. Deans with experience in negotiating joint/dual degrees emphasize that it is very important to know the partner institution. Those institutions with which a university has a long-standing relationship for study abroad, graduate exchanges, or faculty scholarly exchanges better ensure ease in negotiations, quality assurance, and sustainability. This requires institutional processes and international offices to work with the graduate dean. A final point regarded the funding is needed to support students because research and teaching assistantships may not be available.

Dr. Owens drew on Australia’s more extensive experience with joint and dual degrees in summarizing her paper and noted that while the CGS survey indicated that the majority of joint degrees were at the master’s level and in the professional schools, Australia has a wider range of degree programs and partners. Partnerships began with French universities and expanded.

Addressing the issue of motivation, Dr. Owens noted that Australian universities identify benefits for both students and institutions in what are referred to as “double-badged” programs. Among the benefits to the students are enhanced supervision, international experience, and enhanced opportunities for post-doctoral positions. Institutions benefit from strong research collaboration, access to more research funds, and international exposure.

Global Perspectives on Graduate Education 38 Author Comments and Group Discussion

Joint programs require an exchange agreement. Institutional exchange agreements provide more flexibility and a better opportunity for sustainability because exchange balances can be spread across many programs and disciplines rather than rely on a single degree program. As Dr. Carlin also indicated in her remarks, Dr. Owens cited the need for “best practices” when establishing degrees and the importance of selecting quality partners.

In the Australian model Dr. Owens presented, candidates spend at least one year in each institution and receive a single degree with the seals or “badges” of both universities on the diploma. This practice is not common in the U.S. and is often an issue that requires considerable negotiation when setting up a joint degree. This is a best practices area in which U.S. institutions can develop models based on international partners’ experiences.

Using the Australian experience, Dr. Owens noted that there are obstacles such as funding, language, and research preparation. In terms of quality assurance, she suggested that a diploma supplement modeled after the Bologna Process document might serve as a measure of what actually is included in the degree program. Dr. Owens concluded her remarks by encouraging participants to think carefully about the marketplace for the Ph.D. graduates we are producing and how important globalization is to that marketplace.

Discussion after the two presentations began with consideration of the need to find common terminology or at least establish an understanding of each country’s or region’s vocabulary. For example, presenters defined “joint” and “dual,” and the definitions were commonly accepted. Other terms such as “seals” or “logos” used by the Americans are referred to by other terms such as “badges” by the Australians. The pros and cons of having two universities’ seals or badges on a diploma were discussed, with no consensus emerging. Developing wider agreement on this issue in a multinational context was identified as a best practice area for U.S. deans to explore further.

Other participants elaborated on Dr. Owens’ comment about the need to prepare the next generation of faculty and researchers as global citizens. It was agreed that failing to address this need is not an option. Discussants agreed that a 21st century knowledge economy will require more global collaborations and sharing of resources to produce joint/dual degrees to enhance knowledge production and dissemination. One challenge for deans will be balancing individual faculty member’s specific research and collaboration interests with those of the larger university to maintain quality and sustainability. There was also support for the suggestion for diploma supplement-type information to accompany transcripts for degrees as well as a way to indicate within U.S. institutions that it is a joint degree since the diploma will not directly reflect it absent two university seals.

Dr. Wheeler described some of the current challenges he and other deans face as graduate programs at his institution become more internationalized and require negotiation of joint and dual degrees. He explained that there are about 300 graduate education programs at the University of Illinois at Champaign–Urbana, of which about one third are doctoral, each shaped by its own history and a culture, which is affected by

39 Joint and Dual Degrees the funding streams, both external and internal, external needs, and by the approval chains to the Board of Trustees. U.S. Graduate deans, he suggested, are often in the middle of this type of exercise.

When U.S. graduate education engages with graduate education in other countries, these are very complicated arrangements. For example, the joint doctoral degree between the University of Illinois and National University of Singapore in biomolecular and chemical engineering was a long time-consuming process. The collaboration started with a master’s degree, and then moved to a Ph.D. degree, where it became even more complex. There were very creative people in both Singapore and Urbana–Champaign who worked to make the program responsive to the needs of both institutions. The final result was that graduates were awarded one degree from the home university as well as a certificate documenting the joint degree, which was administered by both institutions.

He cautioned that U.S. graduate institutions still do not know how to do joint degrees well because they are so complicated. With the joint degree program, graduate deans are dealing with programs from not only one chemical engineering department, for example, but two—both of which are very different programs housed at very different departments. These programs have different expectations, different administrative rhythms. But the effort of working through this process will provide a prototype that can be shared with other universities around the world—a “how to develop a joint or dual doctoral program.” A “best practices” of how to develop joint and/or dual degrees is absolutely necessary for, as Dr. Wheeler asked rhetorically, “What would happen if all 300 of these programs [at the University of Illinois] wanted to have joint degree programs?” The issues that Wheeler raised were addressed in the next session. The individual units are responsible for what is required for the particular degree, but the graduate college has oversight for all these programs.

Mohab Ghali, Dean of the Graduate School at Western Washington, pointed out that much of the discussion thus far has focused on bilateral collaborative agreements between universities of developed countries, and expressed a viewpoint that was heard at several other points in the conference about the importance of also devoting serious thought to our collaborations with and responsibilities to developing countries. He asked, “How do we prepare faculty from developing countries for graduate education? How do we instill in them ‘best practices’ in research, integrity/ethnics, publishing?” As more developing countries seek to have joint/dual degree programs with universities in developed countries, it is important to establish common understandings and practices related to research integrity and program quality. Dr. Ghali stated, “The U.S. must consider the ‘world outside’ as worthy partners.” Participants discussed several existing programs such as the U.S. State Department’s Junior Faculty Development Program for faculty in the New Independent States and the work of the U.S. Civilian Research and Development Foundation as models to examine for best practices in answering the question regarding developed countries’ responsibilities to developing countries to improve their graduate education. Also discussed were the possibilities of using existing exchange agreements or research collaborations to strengthen the role of researchers,

Global Perspectives on Graduate Education 40 Author Comments and Group Discussion

faculty, and students who visit the developed countries to help establish best practices for what constitutes quality research upon their return.

Overall, it was agreed that joint and dual degree programs are a positive element in the changing landscape of graduate education, and that this is an arena in which the U.S. can learn from other parts of the world. These degrees are valuable to students, to faculty, and to the research enterprise, but they require careful planning and considerable oversight and maintenance.

41 Other Structured and International Programs

Best Practices in Cross-Border or International Program Partnering

Other Structured and International Programs

In addition to joint/dual degree programs, there are numerous other ways to develop international partnerships at the graduate level and graduate deans can provide campus leadership to these efforts as well. The next two presenters in the session on “Best Practices in Cross-Border or International Program Partnering” presented models and addressed some of the more technical aspects related to collaborations such as memoranda of understanding and exchange agreements and the role the graduate dean plays in negotiating agreements.

Karen DePauw, for example, addressed in her paper the question of what kinds of structures or international programs arrangement are typically in place between universities in the United States and universities (or other entities) abroad in structured international program arrangements (such as memoranda of understanding, student exchange programs, campuses or labs abroad; and collaborative research projects), and what trends may be evident in such arrangements.

Global Perspectives on Graduate Education 42 Karen DePauw

Other Structured and International Programs

Karen DePauw Vice Provost for Graduate Studies and Dean of the Graduate School Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University

Most U.S. universities have acknowledged the importance of a global perspective in higher education and many graduate schools are developing international partnerships to provide opportunities beyond dual or joint degrees. These include graduate student exchange programs, graduate student/faculty research collaborations, graduate degrees offered abroad, international experiences and much more.

Programs and Opportunities

The organizational structure for these international efforts varies across institutions but has been historically housed within an “international affairs” or “study abroad” office. In the U.S., the typical exchange programs or study abroad programs were primarily focused on an undergraduate student population. Although these programs are also available to graduate students, many graduate students have not taken advantage of the opportunities. Recently, the opportunities have been expanded to attract and encourage graduate students to participate. Thus it is important that U.S. graduate schools not only become involved with and support these efforts, but assume a leadership role. Examples are included below:

• Individually arranged research collaboration for faculty and graduate students. These are often possible due to the collaborations between labs or research interests of faculty and extended to graduate students.

• International experiences for graduate students included in their graduate degree plans formally encouraged by individual faculty members, academic units and even externally funded grants (e.g., Integrative Graduate Education & Research Training [IGERT] through National Science Foundation [NSF]).

• Formal degree programs with international experience offered to graduate students (e.g., Executive MBA program with required international component).

• Collaborative degree arrangements with official Memoranda of Agreement (MOAs) that allow transfer credit between degrees offered by U.S. and international partner institutions. Satisfying all requirements at each institution, two degrees earned with key collaborations with faculty serving on graduate student committees, research topics, and more. These exist as “sandwich” program (master’s at one institution, doctoral at a partner institution) or at one level usually doctoral degree program.

• University graduate degrees that are delivered on-site at international locations. These could include on-site and distance delivered coursework, commonly at the

43 Other Structured and International Programs

master’s level (e.g., business, information technology, engineering, teacher education). The issue of doctoral residency requirements affects delivery of doctoral degrees internationally.

• Paid teaching experiences at international partner university for doctoral students nearing completion of their studies prior to entering the job market.

• Post doctoral appointments at international partner institutions.

• Summer or semester “practicum” at international partner institution for citizen scholar engagement experience.

• Graduate courses offered at international partner institution of country primarily for research purposes and field experiences.

• Preparing the Future Professoriate: Global Perspectives graduate course offered by the graduate school as an enhancement to the Preparing Future Faculty programs. The course should include graduate students across the disciplines, engage participants in active discussion of globalization and higher education around the world and of differing university structures, and involve actual visits to international partner institutions. In order to develop, implement, and administer these opportunities effectively, the following strategies are suggested:

• Inclusion of the graduate school dean in the approval process of all Memoranda of Understanding (MOUs) and especially MOAs that include a graduate education component.

• Involvement of graduate deans in the process of developing international partnerships.

• Utilization of an Institutional Plan for Graduate Education (IPGD) that includes the extension of existing degrees to international locations and development of new graduate degrees with international partners. This can be part of the institutional planning process.

• Consideration of a regional center approach to development of international partner institutions that reflects key interest areas for graduate education matched with strengths and expertise of international partner. This approach provides regional focus and utilization of local expertise and assists with research exchanges and recruitment of graduate students.

Trends and challenges

Although the inclusion of graduate education more formally into the global arena is relatively new, some foundational trends can be identified. First and foremost, there has been increasing awareness that the responsibility of U.S. graduate schools must move

Global Perspectives on Graduate Education 44 Karen DePauw beyond international recruitment and admissions. Second, graduate deans in the U.S. have increasingly acknowledged the need for a global perspective in graduate education as well as undergraduate education. And third, there has been an increase in the number and variety of opportunities for graduate students from U.S. institutions.

As universities and especially U.S. graduate schools embrace a global perspective for graduate education, it will become increasingly more important that graduate deans acknowledge and promote the value-added of globalization of graduate education. A basic challenge will be to confront traditional notions of graduate education within our institutions. Additional topics to be considered include: language skills among graduate students, reward structure for faculty, requirements including doctoral residency, institutionalization of a global perspective within graduate education and, of course, policies and procedures. To be effective, graduate deans will need to assume the responsibility for leading global perspectives for graduate students at their institutions, working more closely with International Affairs offices as well as the institutional structures supporting graduate education (e.g., graduate commissions, academic units, graduate faculty), and with colleagues at international partner institutions.

As an integral part of the globalization effort, U.S. graduate deans must also work to increase the visibility of international programs and opportunities but perhaps more importantly to build a graduate community that embraces and truly represents an international perspective promoting cultural understandings and diversity.

45 Inter-Institutional Agreements

Best Practices in Cross-Border or International Program Partnering

Inter-Institutional Agreements

The final paper, prepared to stimulate discussion in this session of the conference on collaboration, provided practical suggestions in negotiating inter-institutional arrangements that define and support international partnerships between universities and principles that underlie effective institutional arrangements.

Global Perspectives on Graduate Education 46 Karen Klomparens

Inter-Institutional Agreements

Karen Klomparens Associate Provost and Dean of the Graduate School Michigan State University

Detailed inter-institutional agreements undergird all successful international partnerships.2 These agreements must carefully and explicitly define all of the fundamental parameters of the partnership to ensure mutual understanding of the expectations, policies, procedures, and outcomes. There should be no unpleasant surprises later. Agreements between U.S. institutions, usually in the form of a memorandum of agreement (MOA) can be challenging, even with similar language and culture, and manageable geographic distances. Nevertheless, successful and long- standing international agreements do exist that serve to expand the educational and research opportunities for faculty and graduate students within and between institutions and countries.

Joint and/or dual degree programs, satellite campuses, and other international programs, details of which are discussed elsewhere in this set of papers, are formally established via inter-institutional agreements. There may be a consortium of institutions that wish to enter into an academic partnership, usually requiring a more complex set of discussions to reach an agreement. In addition, third-party agreements exist that may include not only academic institutions, but an additional partner/agency (e.g., governmental agency), that may fund the partnership and/or project.

A successful agreement follows a set of general principles that includes: 1) consultation with appropriate faculty governance groups—this is very important for U.S. universities, 2) discussion and coordination amongst all of the relevant academic support offices on each campus, 3) explicitly-defined financial arrangements for each institution (and agency), and 4) a termination plan.

Consultation with Appropriate Faculty Governance Groups

Even though the chief academic officer (e.g., provost) and/or president/chancellor may sign a final agreement signaling university commitment, on most U.S. campuses, the faculty members control the curriculum and degree requirements. This may be centralized (a general committee of faculty that oversees all unit/college decisions) and/or decentralized (a program faculty committee) authority. A state board of education and/or regional accrediting commission may also have a role in final approval. Most international agreements must first be discussed with the appropriate faculty committee(s) in either a consultation or delegated authority (final vote) mode. Faculty responsibility in these deliberations includes a careful consideration of effort, capacity,

2 Dean Klomparens gratefully acknowledges Dr. John Godfrey, University of Michigan, for many helpful discussions on this topic.

47 Inter-Institutional Agreements and quality of a particular graduate program to engage in an international endeavor, reputation of the institution, and the goals/advantages of the partnership.

Individual or program faculty interest and commitment matters. This is not easy to explicitly describe in an inter-institutional agreement, but is often a key factor in the long-term success of any program. For example, Michigan State University actively participates in the German Studienstiftung fellowship program largely because our Chair of Physics/Astronomy and the Director of our Cyclotron both participated as students.

Coordination Amongst Relevant Academic Support Offices

A key element of success is the advice and commitment of the offices that support and monitor the academic enterprise. For example, in the U.S. this may be the admissions office, registrar (enrollment, student records), controller or bursar (tuition and fees, fellowships), graduate school/college (policies and procedures related to graduate education), general counsel (legal advice and institutional risk management), international programs office (expertise on international issues), and the research office (library and computing facilities, compliance with Federal regulations, issues related to intellectual property, laboratory safety, responsible conduct of research).

For example, a master’s and doctoral degree program in nuclear physics at MSU operates with the explicit cooperation of a number of particle beam-accelerator facilities around the world. Partner faculty and facilities provide on-site education and research guidance, while MSU provides on-line graduate courses. The commitment of a small group of faculty at MSU’s Superconducting Cyclotron Lab is the key to the success of this program. The program was approved by faculty at the department, college, and university levels. The expertise and support of most of the offices mentioned above were critical to program development and continue to play a role.

Financial arrangements

Each institution clearly has an interest in carefully establishing the financial commitments to and possible risks of a potential agreement. If the appropriate university offices were consulted early in the discussions/negotiations, the financial arrangements will have been carefully considered, tuition and other models explored, and a consensus on acceptable outcomes reached. For example, in addition to participating in Vietnam Education Foundation activities, MSU also participates in the Mekong 1000 and the Can Tho University 150 programs. In each, financial commitments of MSU and the partner university and/or governments are carefully defined in an inter-institutional agreement.

Termination plan

It may be unpleasant to discuss closure of a program before it even begins, but this step is essential to ensure that each institution can protect the educational and research interests of its students and faculty, as well as its finances, should circumstances change regarding program or agreement viability. For educational programs, alternate plans for student

Global Perspectives on Graduate Education 48 Karen Klomparens

degree completion should be described. For research programs, similarly, a plan for a phased closure and/or other alternatives should be considered and explicitly defined. Financial agreements should include a description of procedures in the event of termination of the agreement.

49 Other Structured and International Programs and Inter-Institutional Agreements

Other Structured and International Programs and Inter- Institutional Agreements

Authors’ Comments and Group Discussion

Dr. DePauw took the position shared by conference participants in later discussion that the graduate dean has to take an active role in finding opportunities for collaboration so that institutional planning for graduate education includes internationalization and so campus internationalization plans include graduate education rather than exclusively emphasize traditional undergraduate study abroad or area studies programs. DePauw agreed with other presenters that collaborations should grow from expertise and institutional history rather from a single faculty member or research project. She emphasized that in developing agreements of any type for international collaborations, there should be three levels: institutional, program, and student. Each has a set of responsibilities for program development, delivery, and quality, and each stakeholder needs to be actively involved in maximizing the collaboration’s potential.

Dr. DePauw noted that while international collaborations might result in two distinct degrees or a joint degree, a formal outcome is not always necessary to have a meaningful collaboration. She cited programs in the U.S. such as the IGERT (Integrated Graduate Education, Research and Training) program at the National Science Foundation that now requires an international experience. Other programs mentioned in discussions included the GK–12 (Graduate/Kindergarten through 12th grade) science partnership grants that have added an international component. The U.S./European Atlantis/FIPSE (Fund for the Improvement of Postsecondary Education) grants and PIRE (Partnerships for International Research and Education) provide opportunities for joint degrees as well as for multi-country research collaborations. Dr. DePauw cited new content in many Preparing Future Faculty (PFF) programs that include a global perspective. The program that Dr. DePauw developed for PFP (Preparing the Future Professoriate) students at Virginia Tech building on existing university international facilities and partnerships is an example of how to incorporate a significant experience to increase international awareness into a graduate program without a formal degree component.

Dr. DePauw further emphasized the need to know your partners but to also know your existing strengths and suggested a regional approach to developing partnerships. Building on areas where the university has research strengths and existing interests as well as formal relationships benefits students, faculty, the institution, the partner, and the larger society.

Dr. Klomparens’ presentation underscored the practical details and issues related to initiating, completing, and monitoring international collaborations that were raised by all of the previous speakers on the topic of collaborative agreements. Dr. Klomparens described the Michigan State process in her remarks and indicated that the university has a number of inter-institutional agreements which are signed by the graduate dean along with others at the university. She stressed that inter-institutional agreements require

Global Perspectives on Graduate Education 50 Author Comments and Group Discussion

negotiations and collaborations among stakeholders within a university as well as between those at the partner institutions. She provided a sample of the types of information included in a Memorandum of Understanding that accompanies collaborative programs. The following outline addresses the major components of most international agreements at Michigan State:

Inter-Institutional Agreements—The Details

Title: Addresses the topic as a summary Preamble: General, short statement: context, history, background information Statement of purpose: The goals of the activities, mutual benefits (e.g., curriculum, research) Specific activities: Detailed information on exactly what the nature of the activities will be. Implementation plans. Roles and responsibilities of the institutions. University units involved: List of which units or programs will participate. Who may be included at a future date and on what criteria. Legal parameters of the agreement: What is it and what is it not (e.g., entire agreement, legal contract or not). Statements of indemnification. Funding arrangements: These should be carefully specified and linked to the roles and responsibilities, as well as the purposes. Duration of the agreement: Specify a date and whether/if/how an agreement will be renewed. Termination: The exit strategy if circumstances change or if the partnership does not work. A length of time should be specified. Review and evaluation of the agreement: Specific date(s) for an assessment of whether the partnership achieves its goals. Nondiscrimination or other university policies that need to be explicitly stated: As appropriate Communication between the institutions: Contact persons and appropriate information and methods of communication. Signatures

Dr. Klomparens pointed out that the generic list developed at MSU was designed to ensure that fiscal and legal issues were considered along with academic when developing agreements and joint programs. She also noted that some degree programs need to consider the accreditation process and the impact they will have on the program. If an international campus is involved, the regional accrediting agency must be notified and a visit to the facility may take place. Because of the complexity of partnerships the MSU list of issues to be included in agreements is available to all faculty; however, faculty cannot unilaterally negotiate any type of agreement. There is a list of individuals who have to be contacted before any agreement is signed.

While the faculty have to drive collaborations, it was emphasized that there has to be a balance between institutional and faculty agendas. A graduate dean should ask two questions when presented with an international collaboration proposal: How strong is the program and does the program have the capacity to actually pull off the collaboration. By

51 Other Structured and International Programs and Inter-Institutional Agreements asking such questions, graduate deans often clash with other deans or faculty. Thus, it is important to have institutional criteria for determining which collaborations go forward. Agreements have to be spelled out very precisely and should include details on scheduling, funding, individual education plans, advising, and exams. There should be built-in reviews and exit strategies since circumstances may change. These institutional level agreements must be inclusive and it becomes necessary that there be leadership development to avoid discrimination in policies.

Three issues dominated the group discussion following Dr. DePauw’s and Dr. Klomparens’ remarks. The first related to the technical aspects of international agreements. Dr. Wilson noted that the EUA has a list of “Golden Rules” (i.e., “nuts and bolts”) addressing the structure of international agreements. Consideration of what goes into an agreement led to the second discussion topic which dealt with issues that are often not found in agreements but need to be considered such as student rights and responsibilities. Dr. Wilson indicated that all universities that signed onto the Bologna Process agreed to a certain set of standards. However, Europe is encountering some problems with Russian universities mixing politics and academics by dismissing or expelling Georgian and Belarus students. The point was further made that disability issues also need to be considered on both sides of an international collaboration, that some systems have admissions requirements that discriminate against disabled students, and that students in joint/dual degree programs should have the same rights and responsibilities as domestic students. This is typically assumed, but in reality it may not occur. A final area of rights and responsibilities discussed was intellectual property rights. This issue is especially salient when joint research is involved and can lead to protracted negotiations up front. Dr. Nilsen summarized some of the rights issues raised in discussion by noting that we need leadership programs for faculty and administrators in developing countries to better prepare them to play on a global stage.

The final topic for discussion was presented by Dr. Rodriguez from the University of Texas–Austin who cited an example of a collaborative program between junior faculty at UT–Austin and at partner institutions in Mexico. The program brings Mexican faculty to UT where individual agreements for each Mexican faculty member are developed that enable them to pursue doctoral degrees or engage in research or study.

Global Perspectives on Graduate Education 52

III. Meeting the Challenges of Global Collaboration

While all participants recognized the importance of international collaborations, and the opportunities for learning from each other in the areas of best practices, they also recognized that the practice of global graduate education is not without challenges. The next group of papers that was used to frame discussion examined the implications of the knowledge economy and how it is changing the way that graduate education needs to be delivered as well as its potential to further separate the developed and developing world. In addressing the challenges, presenters were asked to consider effective models for promoting dialogue to address the pressing issues facing global graduate education.

Needs for Global Dialogue

Priority Issues that Call for Discussion

This session moved from the opportunities that international collaboration create to the challenges of global graduate education. Suzanne Ortega from the U.S. and Rune Nilsen from Norway were asked, as graduate education leaders in their countries, what they believe the graduate (or post-graduate) education issues are that demand discussion across national borders. These papers addressed many current trends in graduate education such as interdisciplinary study, the international nature of research, and the overall costs of maintaining a knowledge economy to which graduate education makes significant contributions.

53 Priority Issues that Call for Discussion

Priority Issues that Call for Discussion

Suzanne Ortega Vice Provost for Graduate Studies and Dean of the Graduate School University of Washington

For a whole host of reasons, the very ways that knowledge is being organized and produced are undergoing rather dramatic transformation. To give but one example, the enormous and rapidly escalating costs of “big science” mean that university researchers must forge new partnerships, not only among themselves, but with private donors, government agencies, and business. These new partnerships increasingly cross disciplinary and national boundaries, and thus call for new skill sets that prepare individual researchers to work within them. Importantly, these changes in the structure of scholarship are taking place at a time when 1) there is increased awareness around the globe of the importance of research and development in insuring national economic competitiveness, and 2) there are strong calls for increased accountability in the expenditure of all too limited public funds. This pressure—to produce research that leads to economically important products/outcomes or has other measurable impacts on the quality of life of the constituents who pay the bills—means that individual scholars not only need an expanded repertoire of knowledge and skills, but that universities must also be organized in ways that allow departments, colleges, and research teams to rapidly realign themselves to meet new research funding opportunities. Furthermore, universities must meet this demand to develop more agile and entrepreneurial administrative structures while simultaneously satisfying ongoing instructional needs, maintaining appropriate protections for the integrity of the curriculum and degrees, and preserving the possibility that at least some scholars, some of the time, have the resources and the time to conduct high risk research.

In order to produce the intellectual leaders this changing global research and development environment demand, universities will need to prepare a new kind of citizen scholar. Advanced degree recipients will need to have mastered the most sophisticated conceptual and analytic tools of a field, but also be capable of working productively and imaginatively in the much more fluid disciplinary and organizational contexts that are likely to characterize the 21st century. Furthermore, given near ubiquitous funding constraints, universities will need to do so with as much flexibility and cost efficiency as possible. Competency-based approaches to delivering graduate education and evaluating the qualifications and achievements of degree recipients may be among the most valuable tools that universities have at their disposal to help prepare the next generation of intellectual innovators and leaders—leaders who can work (and be hired) productively in different employment sectors, collaborating with shifting combinations of colleagues (who themselves were trained in a broad range of disciplines) to address an evolving mix of problems, identified as being of both immediate and longer term interest to potential corporate partners, mission-driven funding agencies, regional economies, and nation states.

Global Perspectives on Graduate Education 54 Suzanne Ortega

Although a number of experiments for documenting graduate-level skills are underway, there is only a rudimentary understanding of what the fundamental competencies of this new citizen scientist/scholar should be and how best to educate for them. Even skill sets that many agree are important—teamwork, interdisciplinarity, global competence, creativity and innovativeness, for example—have not yet been parsed in ways that graduate faculty and programs can readily translate into the pedagogical and assessment strategies that could more efficiently promote their development. Consequently, one of the most important “first orders of business” is creation of an ongoing forum that allows graduate leaders from across the globe to come to some common understandings of the core competencies of the 21st century graduate degree recipient. With regard to the Ph.D. or research doctorate, early discussions should focus on questions related to the following set of possible new core competencies:

1) Does the concept of interdisciplinarity fundamentally refer to subject matter, an analytic approach, or a habit of mind? If it is an analytic approach or a habit of mind, what are its essential elements, how would we measure acquisition of these skills and what are the educational best practices that promote their development? If interdisciplinarity refers to subject matter, where/what are the key disciplinary interstices in which transformative research is likely to occur? How will we create graduate degree programs that balance depth of knowledge in a field and breadth of knowledge associated with interdisciplinarity and do so in ways that do not unduly prolong time to degree or create scholars/scientists who are “locked in” to an interdisciplinary subject area that may, itself, be reorganized over the course of a degree recipient’s career?

2) A number of scholars have suggested that information technology and the associated knowledge explosion are fundamentally transforming the intellectual skills that will be most important to the creation of “value-added” products and jobs. Some writers (Daniel Pink, for example) roughly characterize this as a shift from a focus almost exclusively on deductive or analytic modes of scholarship and science to a renewed importance of synthetic or inductive research approaches. If this is so, what research experiences or pedagogies are most likely to promote the development of this latter skill set? What research or related products would we expect to see as a result of mastery of this skill set and how would we measure and document its quality and impact?

3) If “innovativeness” and “design” are the hallmarks of both cutting edge basic research and development of “high end” industries and products, what skills do these suggest our graduate degree recipients will need to successfully compete? Can we teach students, for example, how to ask interesting questions? If so, are there research pedagogical best practices that facilitate its development? What additional skills will students, particularly those in the sciences, need to master in order to translate their work at the bench into products that are both financially viable and meet an important “consumer” need? Are there analogs in the arts and humanities to the translational research paradigm now being developed and promoted in the life sciences? If so, what are the educational best practices associated with them and what advocacy and communication strategies have been effective in building the case for public and private investments in these degree programs?

55 Priority Issues that Call for Discussion

4) What cultural competencies must graduate degree recipients have to work effectively in teams composed of individuals from different disciplinary, racial, ethnic, religious, or national backgrounds? Are international internships and study abroad programs the only way to foster these skills or are there alternatives that may be less costly in terms of student time or money? How important is fluency in another language to the development of globally competent scientists/scholars? To what extent do the skills necessary to function as a productive member of an international team overlap those necessary to work cross-culturally within a nation or region? What criteria will we use to document skills mastery (as opposed to program participation)?

Addressing these questions, I believe, will move us a long ways towards developing a common understanding of the core competencies our doctoral students will need to function as scholars, scientists and leaders, in an economic environment that is increasingly global and in careers that will be marked by multiple changes in employers and career demands. Our conversations must be tempered, of course, by recognition that across many Western nations there is increasing variability in the age of incoming graduate students, the educational and career pathways these students bring to their studies, and in the career trajectories they will follow as they exit our programs. These students will ask that we provide the same high level educational experience that has characterized graduate education of the past, but do so in ways that recognize that not all learning occurs either in a classroom or at the “feet of a mentor” in carefully circumscribed blocks of time. Their employers, in turn, will ask us to certify that these graduates have all of the strengths associated with our more traditional degree recipients plus many of the new skills identified here. All of this makes development of a competency-based and learning outcomes approach to graduate education the more urgent.

In the preceding remarks, I have tried to identify those definitional and measurement issues related to core competencies—primarily of the research doctorate—that I believe call for continuing global dialogue; of course, a parallel set of questions regarding core competencies of master’s degree recipients should also be addressed. However, in closing, I would like to raise one additional question that I believe universities at large, and the graduate community in particular, must collectively address. The question is simply this: What role does graduate education have and what role should it have in nation building and the reduction of global inequality? This is a tremendously complicated question, one that calls for far reaching economic and sociopolitical analysis. Certainly our attempts to answer it will have implications for the way major research universities conduct “business” at all levels—from standards for tenure and promotion through private development and governmental relations. Yet it is precisely this kind of question—empirically complex, replete with interpretative ambiguity, but carrying considerable ethical or moral weight—that scholars and scientists, among them our newly minted Ph.D.s and master’s students, must strive not only to answer but also help translate into public policy. We owe the next generation our best current thinking and leadership on this issue. In our attempts to begin addressing this issue, perhaps we can model modes of inquiry that are based on the new core competencies we believe will

Global Perspectives on Graduate Education 56 Suzanne Ortega

characterize 21st century graduate education: the capacity to frame important new questions, in ways that grow out of existing paradigms; are tested by newly recognized patterns in existing data or by the fresh evidence we collect; that recognizes that interpretation of results is always constrained by the limits of our methodologies and by the organizational and political contexts within which we work; that seeks to identify common underlying trends or “truths” while recognizing that many, if not most, are modified by the diversity of culture and individual experience; and asks, in the end, how will we translate the facts we have uncovered into a set of policies, products, or actions that will improve the quality of life for all of Planet Earth’s denizens.

57 Priority Issues that Call for Discussion

Priority Issues that Call for Discussion

Rune Nilsen Professor at the Center for International Health University of Bergen, Norway

Norway is a small country with few researchers, and limited culture for and in research, and rather numerically few Ph.D. candidates. In some fields however there are excellent and internationally oriented research environments, and not at least internationally active research training. In the context of this meeting some experiences from Norway may be of importance. I will point out two main fields where Norwegian experience and profile may have contributed in the context of doctoral training: • Increased focus on quality of doctoral training • International solidarity and partnership in a global setting as a basis also in research and capacity building Active and dedicated national participation in both the Bologna Process (http://ec.europa.eu/education/policies/educ/bologna/bologna_en.html), with a particular focus on doctoral training, and the EU process for a “The European Charter for Researchers and The Code of Conduct for the Recruitment of Researchers” (http://ec.europa.eu/eracareers/pdf/am509774CEE_EN_E4.pdf).

These two areas are given high priority both by the Parliament and the Ministry of Education and Research, and Norway has thus participated actively in the process of the “Salzburg indicators for doctoral training” and the EU process for the Charter for Researchers and Code of Conduct, and incorporated experiences from these processes into the national and institutional strategy and framework for doctoral training.

The main reasons for this active profile are: • The importance of harmonizing the quality assurance for doctoral degrees in a European and hopefully in a global context • The importance of harmonizing the framework of doctoral training to enable stronger and more dedicated partnerships on doctoral training and research both in Europe and in the global networks. An active participation in The Bologna process, third cycle (Ph.D.) • A main global concern has been addressed as part of the “90/10 dilemma” discussion in the UN and Norway, and in the Bologna process. The Minister of Education Research thus presented the perspectives on “The Global Bologna” at the ministers’ meeting of Bologna in May 2007. • Ph.D. training of candidates from developing countries has thus had a main focus on high quality doctoral training, relevance and flexibility, institutional building, and high rate of return back of candidates. In the main scholarship programme, more than 90% return after completing the Ph.D.

Globally there are very different structures, quality indicators and cultures for doctoral training. This is first of all hampering mobility and accreditation of researchers. In addition this is directly creating different segregation of degrees and status of doctorates.

Global Perspectives on Graduate Education 58 Rune Nilsen

Part of this is caused by conservative attitudes and cultures within academia itself at institutional and national level. This is adding up with the structural elements to a segregated world academically where some are inside the good and acknowledged system, and those others are outside. This academic divide globally is acting against the global development of knowledge societies which is fundamental for economic development, but also for democracy, peace, and climate development globally. “Academic Apartheid” is rapidly developing globally. Doctoral training and partnership in research are [crucial for] combating the rapidly growing “Academic Apartheid.” In Norway there is a joint partnership between the Ministry of Education and Research, Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Ministry of Development which incorporate the higher education and doctoral training policies into the framework of foreign and development policies.

The new Erasmus Mundus programme of the EU is an interesting development in Europe, taking seriously the institutional responsibility towards third countries, focusing on institutional partnership and capacity building, and not at least emphasizing quality of Ph.D. level.

The two main issues of importance for discussion in a global dialogue are from my perspectives therefore: 1. The value setting of doctoral training. This raises the following questions: Why are the main research issues of importance in marginalized and poverty-stricken areas of the world not of high priority in the research agenda of rich countries with resources allocated accordingly? Should there be other indicators of quality of research and doctoral training in poor and marginalized countries than in rich countries? 2. The quality indicators, framework, and research culture profile in doctoral training, raising the following questions: Are there needs to keep disciplinary differences on the quality indicators? How could credit be shared between institutional partners in joint-degree programmes? Are multidisciplinarity and multipartners in research groups around the doctoral candidates, and multi- authorships a general quality facilitating indicators for all sectors?

There are needs for global perspectives in doctoral training, with harmonization and joint quality criteria, openness for interdisciplinarity, collaboration and partnerships as key elements.

59 Priority Issues that Call for Discussion

Priority Issues that Call for Discussion

Authors’ Comments and Group Discussion

In her comments, Dr. Ortega predicted that over the next few decades there will be a major change in higher education and in graduate education that will produce a shift from degree/course-based systems of delivery and credentialing to competency-based delivery and credentialing Such a shift, she maintained, should compel us to determine what are the competencies that we believe graduate education develops. Dr. Ortega projected that over the next several decades, with the shift from a set of course-based (i.e., set by the disciplines and the degree) competencies to competencies based on credentialing—what students will need to know will change dramatically. We need to find a way for graduate committees and future employers to recognize the skills that students have acquired through their coursework not just a list of courses. It will be necessary that the graduate school helps determine what the competencies are that all graduate students will need regardless of discipline and how to measure whether students have acquired these skills. All of this means that leadership is necessary to begin the process of change now and the starting point for change is discussion.

Dr. Ortega set the context for her conclusions by introducing the challenges facing those engaged in global dialogue on graduate education. She referred to what students need to know to adapt to a changing environment as “Habits of Mind.” These “habits” reflect the dynamic environment in which today’s students are educated and in which they will apply their degrees. She suggested that, “They will practice their craft in an environment we cannot even imagine.” Students will make five career or job changes. They will move, the labor market will change, and the knowledge economy will continue to explode. As students’ life courses have changed, they are more diverse and market driven. “Future Shock” (Alvin Toffler) is here and the shelf life of knowledge is about three months. Life courses are not as predictable as they once were, and students must be prepared for multiple careers. That preparation must align roughly with the goals of those who fund our universities. The changing landscape in which graduate education operates requires that over the next two decades today’s students and those of the future will require new competencies. Our challenge is to determine what they will be and how to measure acquisition. Dr. Ortega identified two things that all students will need regardless of what other elements develop: deep research skills in the discipline and agile degrees that change as circumstances and demands change and that enable students to work across traditional disciplinary lines. Current disciplinary lines and other organizational structures will not respond to the need for an “agile” institution. The latter means that institutions need a system of credentialing across interdisciplinary lines.

Dr. Ortega commented that while we can’t imagine today what work will be required in a new era, we should ask and answer the question: What do students need to know to cross lines? She provided some answers: how to work in teams, how to be global, how to develop multi-cultural competencies. She also suggested that we need to find a new way of approaching data, innovation, and risk taking. Students need a chance to fail and

Global Perspectives on Graduate Education 60 Author Comments and Group Discussion

recover. This means that we need a new way to assess success within a program, and Dr. Ortega suggested that we might want to consider a U.S.-style diploma supplement.

Dr. Nilsen provided personal background to set the context for his remarks. He noted that he collaborated with Africa and Asia in the area of global health for 25 years, started the first research school in Norway in 1990, and was involved in the Bologna Process for Norway and in projects for EUA and in mobility programs within Europe. His interdisciplinary research group was one of the first in Norway and it was also somewhat revolutionary at the time.

Dr. Nilsen’s work in Africa framed his thinking about the challenges and he picked up on the quality of life issue that concluded Ortega’s paper. He asked the group a series of questions beginning with whether or not “a knowledge society and a knowledge economy are only a goal for the rich part of the world.” He asked that we consider that if the rights and needs of a knowledge economy are being limited to the developed world, then we are creating academic apartheid because others have different quality indicators than the knowledge society. This form of apartheid will only increase the knowledge gap, he suggested.

Dr. Nilsen noted that it is important at meetings such as the summit that we understand and discuss our responsibilities as leaders in the global graduate community to ensure that all share in the benefits of the new economy. He indicated that future global needs should lead to harmonizing strengths and quality assurance in a global market. This will require a culture of dedicated global partners engaged in research and collaborations to work on the problems that the world faces. The Bologna Process provides one means of achieving these degrees and the quality assurance system. Dr. Nilsen underlined the importance of having the same goals for quality and possibilities to achieve these goals for universities in developing countries as for universities in “well off” countries. If this is not ensured, we are exhibiting the same attitude that was adopted toward the local black “homeland” in the previous apartheid South Africa. In order for the dialogue to be truly global, candidates from developing countries should have high quality training, reliability and flexibility, disciplinary borders should be reduced, faculty within partner institutions need to be highly involved, and we should strive for a high rate of return of students from developing countries to their home countries. If we do not encourage return to home countries, then we should not involve them in our graduate programs. We have to harmonize the framework for research and that has to include considerations of poverty in the world. We also have to ask ourselves if we work on subjects that are important worldwide. If we are not addressing those issues, then we are not doing our job.

61 Priority Issues that Call for Discussion

Needs for Global Dialogue

Trans-national or Trans-regional Models that “Work”

The Banff conference was devoted both to identifying the graduate education issues that need global dialogue and to describing models or frameworks for making that dialogue meaningful and effective for all parties. In order to stimulate discussion on models for effective dialogue, we asked one graduate dean with particular experience and expertise in facilitating trans-national partnerships and dialogues to respond to the following questions: From your experience what are good examples of models for trans-national or trans- regional conversation that might be adopted to further the goals of sharing of best practices in graduate education globally? What are the principles that undergird models that “work”? What obstacles remain?

Global Perspectives on Graduate Education 62 Barbara Evans

Qualities of Effective Graduate Studies Networks

Barbara Evans Dean, Faculty of Graduate Studies and Professor of Zoology University of British Columbia

1. Examples of Effective Collaborative Models

I am familiar with a number of trans-national, regional, and special interest networks that have proved to be highly effective in advancing various aspects of graduate education. Many of these have an international perspective because of the increasingly global nature of this level of education. Meaningful dialogue and effective conversation require a level of personal interaction leading to trust, collegiality, and understanding rather than defensiveness and competition.

Dialogue is required for different reasons in the different levels and kinds of graduate programs. There are two distinguishable academic levels of graduate education (which come after the first cycle or bachelors/undergraduate degree): the second cycle (or master’s level) and the third cycle (or doctoral level). And within these there are three kinds of graduate education programs:

Coursework (taught) programs—(second or less often third cycle)—where dialogue is needed to facilitate mobility and credit transfer.

Professional degrees—(which can be first, second or third cycle)—where dialogue is often associated with mobility and professional accreditation within and across borders.

Research degrees—(second or third cycle) – where dialogue is important because of the international currency of these degrees, the mobility of researchers and academics (faculty) and the widespread use of international examiners of doctoral theses. a. Trans-national models/frameworks Many countries have national graduate studies networks that work more or less effectively to enhance the national quality and outcomes of graduate education. For example, the ones that I have interacted with are: • Aus DDOGS – Australian Council of Deans & Directors of Graduate Studies • CAGS – Canadian Association of Graduate Schools • CGS – Council of Graduate Schools • UKCGE – United Kingdom Council of Graduate Education • Go8 group – Group of Eight Australian research intensive universities, and in a different but valuable context: • CAPA – Council of Australian Postgraduate Associations (Australia).

These networks typically have one or more meetings of members each year, with additional working groups to progress particular projects between meetings. Also there is

63 Trans-national or Trans-regional Models that “Work”

often regular interaction with governments to advise, facilitate, and sometimes fund various initiatives.

I will use the group with which I am most familiar to exemplify the features that appear to characterize these groups. Australian doctoral education has overtly benefited from a spirit of great co-operation in research training through Aus DDOGS, which meets twice a year, has about 35 member universities and is an extraordinarily collegial group. It has been very effective in sharing experiences and in ensuring greater consistency and coherence of practice with regard to research degrees (largely the Ph.D.) across Australian universities. This enhances opportunities for student mobility within the country. Sharing best practice has led to more equitable provision of facilities and resources to students across Australian universities, and to support, guide, and train supervisors. The DDOGS network provides an excellent professional development environment for deans and administrators, and has developed a highly constructive lobbying/advisory relationship with the Education section of the Commonwealth Government.

DDOGS has a close working relationship with our national graduate student association, CAPA (Council of Australian Postgraduate Associations), which is a highly professional body that conducts research into postgraduate education and lobbies strongly on behalf of all graduate students. Australian doctoral education has also benefited from university and government oversight of doctoral programs and qualifications and the relatively uniform levels of funding support to students across the sector.

Some examples of the added value in Australia acquired through this national sharing of good practice are provided in Appendix A. b. Regional models/frameworks Examples of these from my experience include: • EUA – European Universities Association • U 21 DDOGS – Universitas 21 • APRU – Association of Pacific Rim Universities

Used effectively, these networks can promote international mobility of both students and staff, ensure global perspectives in educational programs, support smaller and developing graduate education systems, promote good administration practices, and provide opportunities for students to develop global leadership qualities and cultural sensitivities. They can also be used to facilitate benchmarking for improved practice and quality assurance (e.g., the Aus DDOGS and U21 benchmarking project—see appendix B). Another excellent outcome can be the development of innovative programs and support materials that have added value from the international context and which would be otherwise be more difficult to produce.

c. Special interest/purpose-driven networks

• CGS Globalization of Graduate Education – this meeting

Global Perspectives on Graduate Education 64 Barbara Evans

• Forms & Forces of Change in Doctoral Education Internationally – through CIRGE at the University of Washington

In addition to the many opportunities and outcomes from the wider regional groupings, special interest networks can be nimble and focused—producing rapid responses to particular issues. They are often characterised by bringing together a diversity of participants from different occupations and with various responsibilities to provide encompassing conclusions. They have the potential to be highly influential at the global dimension and are often promoted/supported by governments and funding agencies. Positive outcomes are then taken back to ‘home’ countries or institutions.

2. Underlying principles – what makes these groupings ‘work’

a. Size Groups of 30–40 appear to work well with good team dynamics, easy collegiality, and personal connectedness. Groups of a hundred or more have a different character, they more often have annual fees and a constitution, meetings are more conference-like, more inspirational, academic, and theoretical but with the opportunity to network. Smaller working groups are effective for special projects. Work is most productive when members see themselves as representing graduate education and students generally rather than individual institutions.

b. Purpose The logical basis or reason for a group existing is important. There needs to be a perceived and real value to be gained from meeting together—a shared ownership. This can be reinforced by shorter terms for conveners and holding meetings around the country. For example, the U21 DDOGS group asked early on: “What are we meeting for? What EXACTLY do we want to get out of this group?” This led to an explicit discussion of our aspirations and the particular projects we wished to progress. Overt acceptance of diversity is important. Successful outcomes also need adequate resourcing—whether from universities, governments, other funding agencies or business and industry.

c. Qualities of the group Probably the most important aspects of a successful group are focused around collegiality, sharing and lack of competitiveness. Members also need to have sufficient time to actually get to know and trust each other. The most successful programs I know are explicitly student-centric with an emphasis on equity and quality. As leaders in graduate education we should recognize that we are accountable not only to our students, but also to governments who provide financial support and to the wider community.

65 Trans-national or Trans-regional Models that “Work”

3. The need for meaningful dialogue at the global level

There are many interacting international trends in graduate education, including shifts from ‘elite’ to ‘mass’ education, from local to global orientation, from narrow and discipline-guided to multidisciplinary research, from small labs to larger research institutes and programs, and from liberal/academic focus to more professional/applied courses.

There is also a shift from ‘master-apprentice’ to structured doctoral programs, from curiosity-driven to result-oriented research (both relevance and impact), from personal fulfillment to more accountable outcomes – e.g., ‘completions’, from collegial to managerial governance of institutions and from predominately government funding to increasing private/industry funding. Plus there is an ever-increasing proliferation of, and increased accessibility to, knowledge.

There is also significant change in the curriculum content of graduate programs because students are more culturally diverse, and there are increases in non-local content, cross- national comparisons and consciousness of global systems. There is more flexible course delivery and on-line virtual courses. More breadth is increasingly required in doctoral programs, including generic skills and competencies, such as leadership, collaboration, problem solving, time management and teamwork.

International activities include development of partnerships and collaborations in research, teaching and scholarship, including cooperative groups, twinning and co- tutelles.

Cross-cultural experiences for students, international networks and alumni groups, and staff/student exchange are more frequent and effective. Quality assurance and benchmarking are aiming towards raising international standards not ranking.

Against this background I believe we should also consider questions such as: • What do we mean by ‘globalisation’ in the context of graduate education? • Why do/should ‘we’ aspire to globalisation? • What are challenges and opportunities that shape the influence of globalisation on graduate education? • Are there potentially winners and losers and how should we handle this? • How would we measure progress? • What are the effects of globalisation (intellectual, scientific, cultural and social) on graduate education in developing regions and of graduate education on developing regions?

Global Perspectives on Graduate Education 66

Needs for Appropriate Platforms for Discussion

Needs for Global Dialogue

Needs for Appropriate Platforms for Discussion A truly global dialogue must occur on some “platform,” which is to say a routinized and transparent opportunity for sharing and improving our enterprises as a result. Routinized means a regular opportunity for convening and re-convening key partners, and for building upon the ideas and relationships established in prior meetings, as we have done at this Banff conference by building upon the 2006 Salzburg dialogue. Without this important characteristic, every new international meeting would threaten to devolve into a kind of graduate education “Groundhog Day,” where the process of defining one’s own national and institutional priorities and of establishing a common international vocabulary and frame of reference would have to start anew on every occasion. Transparent because it is only in an environment where we are able to candidly share our limitations and ambitions, as well as our acknowledged strengths, that we are all able to mutually benefit from the exchange. Currently no such platform exists, although this global leaders summit is an important first step toward the creation of such a structured forum. The first paper that we invited to help structure discussion in this session combined European and Australian perspectives to address the needs for such a platform; the principles that must be honored in building such a platform; and, whether it be virtual or face to face, expansive or restrictive, how such a platform could best interact with other platforms, and what we can learn from existing national and international platforms.

Global Perspectives on Graduate Education 67 Needs for Appropriate Platforms for Discussion

Needs for Appropriate Platforms for Discussion

John Hayton Counsellor of Education, Science and Training Australian Education International, Washington, DC

Mary Ritter Pro-Rector (Postgraduate and International Affairs) Imperial College London

The following paper is in two parts: the first, a consideration of the issues at a generic level; the second, a presentation of two existing platforms – one an ‘expansive’ national and one a ’restrictive’ European – as examples of core structures that might be adapted to a global context.

1. What might a global platform look like? Addressing the issue of a global discussion about graduate education requires consideration of who holds a stake in the future of graduate education and what topics might benefit from a global discussion. Proposing such discussions, especially where they involve non education institution actors, is likely to require assurance that what is envisaged is the exchange of information, especially about best practice, and the elaboration of frameworks that might assist academic, student and graduate mobility and not a process that will reduce institutional diversity and autonomy.

Does the platform need to be global? Global discussion of graduate education could be considered important because of the significant and growing levels of international student mobility, a desire by business to fill skills gaps that occur from time to time in local areas, and a desire by government to support innovation and economic growth including through assuring that its financial support is directed at quality provision.

The 2006 edition of the OECD’s Education at a Glance points out that 2.7 million tertiary students were enrolled outside their country of citizenship in 2004 and this represented an 8% growth on the previous year. International graduates contribute 20% or more of the graduate output for tertiary-type A or advanced research programs in Australia, Canada, Switzerland and the United Kingdom. The same holds for foreigners graduating from advanced research programs in Belgium, France, and the United States.3

A quick look at educational rankings4 demonstrates that over time, no doubt following investment and maturation, institutions from a broader range of nations are represented in the listings. While acknowledging that the methodologies associated with educational rankings leave much to be desired it would not be unreasonable to conclude that we

3 OECD, Education at a Glance, OECD Education Indicators 2006, OECD, 2006 4 http://www.thes.co.uk/downloads/rankings/worldrankings2006.pdf and http://ed.sjtu.edu.cn/rank/2006/ARWU2006TOP500list.htm

Global Perspectives on Graduate Education 68 John Hayton and Mary Ritter

might see greater numbers of non-North American and non-European institutions in the listings in the future. The top thirty in the Times Higher Education World University Rankings include institutions from China, Australia, Singapore and Japan. The top 200 listings augment this representation to include New Zealand, India, Thailand, Malaysia, Korea, and Mexico.

Who are the stakeholders? Major stakeholders in the future of graduate education include the institutions providing graduate education, governments both from the point of view of economic growth and as funding providers, the employer community and students. Topics of interest to them will include access to and the quality of graduate education including effective measurement of the value added between entry and exit, and the mobility of qualifications.

The Bologna Process provides us with a model for widespread education consultation and reform involving all stakeholders. The Council of Graduate Schools’ work with the European Universities Association on the role of the third cycle is an example of North American and European collaboration. The Australian sponsored Brisbane Communiqué meetings are an example of Asia-Pacific governments coming together with the aim of increasing coherence and cooperation on education and training related issues in that region. The OECD is working on the assessment of undergraduate education and has held an expert group meeting to consider the issues involved. These examples are all limited by geography or particular type of participant.

What views might guide our thinking? • Do we think that education is both a good in and of itself as well as a significant contributor to the economic well being of the places we reside and those our graduates choose to live and work in? • Do we think that a quality education can be provided anywhere in the world as long as the institution is committed to and has the resources required to invest in it? • Do we see value in exchanging best practice and disseminating best practice to those who seek to build quality provision? • Do we think that graduate education should prepare students to undertake careers in locations away from the locale of their graduate institution?

If our answers to these questions are in the affirmative then we will seek to choose a method of discussion that is inclusive both geographically and of the stakeholders involved. However developing new international machinery is often a recipe for failure because the machinery gets caught up in process rather than responding to real need.

How might global consideration be done without making process prominent? If we were for a moment to consider the primary invitees to be graduate schools we could avoid the machinery risks by holding a gathering perhaps every two years over the next six years in each of the major geographies. These meetings could focus on a particular issue and be held in conjunction with a regional meeting so that extra-regional visitors

69 Needs for Appropriate Platforms for Discussion

could have the option of attending the regional meeting and the regional meeting attendees would be exposed to a more international range of responses.

Such an approach could be geographically inclusive ensuring that all graduate schools recognized as members of national groupings of graduate schools could attend. However when the issues under discussion effect the non-institutional stakeholders significantly ways need to be found to include them in the discussions. This could be done in one of several ways. The easiest would be to invite them along. It would be easy for example to contemplate having national quality agencies represented in discussions about quality. However many graduate student organisations and governments may not have the resources available to assist representatives to attend meetings or indeed the interest. In those cases the national representatives need to ensure that the nature of the discussions are fed into national discussion.

2. A discussion of two existing platforms We have chosen two platforms to discuss—the lessons that have been learnt and their potential to act as a model for the creation of a global platform. The first, UK GRAD is a UK national higher education platform that is ‘expansive’ in membership in that it involves all UK universities; its remit is focused on doctoral training. The second, the IDEA League, is a European platform composed of five universities who share a common focus in science and engineering; it therefore represents a membership that is ‘restrictive’. Doctoral training is one key part of a broader mission covering research, education and innovation.

A national platform: the UK GRAD Programme The UK GRAD Programme is UK's main platform that supports the development of personal and career management skills for postgraduate researchers. It is primarily funded by the UK Research Councils, and hence ultimately, the UK government. The platform’s structure comprises a Centre for Excellence, responsible for bringing together partners, stakeholders and supporters of the Programme, together with eight Regional Hubs that provide a network covering the entire UK. These hubs are hosted by eight regional university partners; the role of each hub is to support local universities to embed personal and professional skills development into research degree programmes. From 2008, the structure will also be used to support and disseminate skills development for postdoctoral researchers. An advisory board, the ‘UK GRAD Steering Group’, representing universities and employers, provides stakeholder advice.

UK GRAD Centre for Excellence—The Centre for Excellence is the core driving force of the UK GRAD Programme. It: • Works with national organisations to develop the future shape of postgraduate research training • Identifies areas for innovation and supports design and delivery of new initiatives • Undertakes research into key areas of interest in postgraduate research training and subsequent employment • Reviews and develops quality assurance mechanisms for evaluating the impact of training programmes

Global Perspectives on Graduate Education 70 John Hayton and Mary Ritter

• Disseminates good practice through national events, for example good practice workshops and conferences • Creates networks and linkages between academia and employers • Supports the network of regional hubs to provide institutions with local access to resources, support and networking activities • Helps universities meet specialist training needs, for example, through bespoke training packages and materials • Provides access to a programme of national and local GRAD courses designed specifically for postgraduate research students • Provides postgraduates access to advice and resources through Just for Postgrads.

Regional Hubs—the role of the Regional Hubs is to: • Build and engage regional networks of stakeholders in the personal and professional development agenda for researchers, in particular those stakeholders with responsibility for or interest in researcher support • Add value by acting as a hub for the regional knowledge-base, enabling collaborations, building communities of practice and promoting regional activities that forward the objectives of the Researcher Development (RD) programme. • Interact with RD programme national network and build links with other regional networks and organisations • Act as a conduit for dialogue between the RD programme/national network and the regional networks around policy development and the sharing of practice and for the dissemination of information • Recognise and understand regional needs. Respond by facilitating regional activity to meet need and/or by feeding into national programme and network activities • Act as a catalyst for debate, thinking, ideas and innovation, enabling network members to engage with appropriate areas of the programme • Lead and stimulate thinking in the region around the needs of all researchers • Help to identify where and how the programme is making an impact and how we should measure this, particularly on a regional basis.

Evolution—The UK GRAD Programme started many years ago as an organization that provided residential workshops for a relatively small number of UK doctoral students. In response to the growing role of universities in transferable skills training and national awareness and funding following the Roberts review, UK GRAD developed the hub structure. To illustrate recent evolution: in 2002 UK GRAD reached 1,599 researchers and 50 HEI employees (via national conference and working directly with 4 HEI); by 2006 UK GRAD reached >6,000 researchers and >7,300 HEI employees (via expanded national conference, 8 regional hubs, regional and local events, hub mailings, and Database of Practice registrations).

Some key features of the UK GRAD platform: • Inclusive within a national context

71 Needs for Appropriate Platforms for Discussion

• Diversity within the membership e.g. larger institutions can share expertise and support smaller ones • Support from the top (in this case, UK Government and Research Councils) • Linked to key sector stakeholders • Flexibility to adapt – changed from single centre to national network platform, from doctoral students only to doctoral students plus postdoctoral researchers • Global potential: could link with similar national networks around the globe – leading to an ‘inclusive’ global platform

A European platform: IDEA League The IDEA League is a focused group of five European universities—Imperial College London (UK), TU Delft (The Netherlands), ETH Zurich (Switzerland), RWTH Aachen (Germany) and ParisTech (France)—with a seven-year track-record of collaboration between five university partners, each of which is a leading institution for engineering and technology within its respective country and prominent in other global scientific and industrial networks. These IDEA partners share a common culture of first-class research that is science led and technology driven, and building on this, an agenda is shaped by the needs and demands of society and industry.

Research—the research activities of the IDEA League cover the Knowledge Triangle of Education, Research and Innovation, with a particular focus on: • Energy—to meet the increasing demands of the developed and developing nations; • Environment—to develop sustainable modes of existence and industrial processing, and better understand the complex mechanisms that support us; • Healthcare—to address the new demands that the demographic shift brings.

In these key areas, the IDEA partners have academic partnerships with a number of other world-class academic institutions, and strategic collaborations with a large number of leading partners in key industries. The joint commitment within the League to share large scale research facilities will further strengthen its ability to achieve its goals.

Education—the educational portfolio is focused on IDEA’s science and technology strengths with training at bachelors, master’s and doctoral levels. Collectively, the IDEA League has more than 60,000 students of whom well over 12,000 are registered on doctoral programmes.

In addition to the intrinsic high quality of the academic and technical aspects of the training, membership of the IDEA League provides students at all levels with the opportunity to interact with their counterparts throughout the League—enhancing both academic and social mobility, and encouraging interdisciplinarity and intercultural understanding. The member universities have jointly developed and implemented a number of quality standards and academic activities including: • A set of common education quality management principles; • Academic profiles for graduates; • Mutual recognition of degrees (first, second and third Bologna cycle);

Global Perspectives on Graduate Education 72 John Hayton and Mary Ritter

• Student interchange via IDEA League scholarships, whereby students can attend a partner institution for an entire master’s course or spend several months to study or undertake research in a partner institution during the course of their bachelors, master’s or doctoral studies; • Joint master’s both within the IDEA League and through the Erasmus Mundus scheme; • Joint Summer Schools for doctoral students—focused particularly on transferable skills.

Pan-European integration is additionally enhanced by student-led summer schools, and sporting and social events.

Innovation—In keeping with the Lisbon Agenda, all of the IDEA League partners give great emphasis to the importance of knowledge and technology transfer. All of the IDEA universities are committed to a research agenda that emphasises the application of research in industry, commerce and healthcare. Collectively, IDEA has links to more than three quarters of the European Round Table of Industrialists, and with many more industries beyond this organisation. The League also has close links with governmental organisations, such as the national health services. To further ambitions and effectiveness in this area the IDEA League has established a Technology Transfer Group within the IDEA League, and knowledge and technology transfer form an integral part of collaborative doctoral and early researcher training programmes.

Structure/evolution potential • ‘Restrictive’ membership • Crosses borders of five countries • Core nucleus of five institutions with a shared core academic mission, focused on science, technology/engineering and medicine • Small size enables very close collaboration, joint degrees, joint doctoral skills programmes etc. • Although ‘restrictive’ membership, the network involves additional partners in other ways: o Flexible partnerships for specific projects o Linkages with other similar networks (limited to Europe at present but potential for global linkages) o Global network planned (U.S., Europe, India, SE Asia) • Global potential: potential for a global ‘restrictive’ platform – linking universities that share common mission. Doctoral training closely linked to this.

73 Trans-National or Trans-Regional Models that “Work” and Needs for Appropriate Platforms for Discussion

Trans-National or Trans-regional Models that “Work” and Needs for Appropriate Platforms for Discussion

Authors’ Comments and Group Discussion

Dr. Evans commented that in reading all of the papers prior to the conference she found herself agreeing with all of them and recognized that we do have common issues. She made the point that in order to address these common issues we have to meet face-to- face. Dr. Evans reminded us that students should be the focus of what we do since they will impact the knowledge, the economy and the society of the future. The collegial nature of graduate deans’ associations and networks leads to personal dialogue that does center on what is best for students as compared to other groups that tend to compare and compete by focusing on research dollars of publications. She urged participants to strengthen ties with students and gave the example of DDOGS (Deans and Directors of Graduate Studies) in Australia that works closely with graduate student associations and asks the students what they need. The program includes assessment and has shown evidence of immediate and sustained learning. She stressed the importance of recognizing that if graduate leaders work to do the best for the students, the other things will take care of themselves. If you do the best you can for students, then you are doing the best for the university, the government, or society.

In addition to working closely with students to foster change, Dr. Evans also emphasized the importance of maintaining close cooperation with the government at all levels. Governments need our research and we need to share it with them. As governments throughout the world become more involved in promoting higher education as a means of maintaining competitiveness and solving societal problems, linkages should and will grow. It is important, however, to focus on tasks that are achievable and desirable. Having noted that the participants’ systems are different, Dr. Evans also made us aware that our basic goals for graduate education are the same and that international collaborations can assist each of us in achieving our goals. Dr. Evans commented that in Australia national scholarships for graduate schools are tied to benchmarking to identify best practices or programs that are out of step. Benchmarking is not used for rankings but to identify best practices. This approach emphasizes quality and actual achievement rather than reputation or other factors that may have less to do with student outcomes. She urged the group to leave with a set of goals and how to achieve them.

Mr. Hayton raised an important question as to what advice might we give university presidents and government policymakers, the business community and the student community. All are important and must be involved, and the outside stakeholders are as important as graduate leaders. We need to consider what role they play in the ability to provide effective graduate education. Our thinking needs to be broad enough to encompass all of the stakeholders. The other stakeholders need to help define what the international perspective of graduate education should include. It would be good for one country’s government and business leaders to know what the problems are in other part

Global Perspectives on Graduate Education 74 Author Comments and Group Discussion

of the world just as it is important for the deans to gather for such discussions. It was also suggested that as we expand the number of countries and regions participating we should ensure that similar universities are represented.

One Australian model gathered leaders from the Pacific Rim to discuss the common educational issues they need to address. Among the issues discussed were the barriers that stood in the way of student mobility, quality assurance, recognition of qualifications for academic and professional standards, and teacher qualifications. The discussion of post-graduate education was not considered at the time because they felt they could discuss it appropriately. One thing we need to consider is having [other academic administrators] together with graduate deans. There is need for additional international machinery for meetings. Mr. Hayton concluded by raising a question related to the definition of globalization and whether or not we had a common understanding. He suggested that we also needed to determine what is the culture of working together since that is what globalization requires.

Dr. Ritter explained that her paper was designed to select two models and consider whether they can inform the design of a global platform. She urged the group to learn from existing platforms as we move the dialogue forward. She gave an example of UK GRAD programme (run by CRAC). All UK universities can belong and 94 now do; thus, it is very diverse. GRAD is funded by the government through the UK Research Councils and, as a result, has close contacts with the government. It concentrates on transferable skills and although up to now has focused on doctoral students, with its new contract it is moving into the post-doctoral stage as well. GRAD guides the training and also is a lobbying group. It is five years old in its current iteration but has evolved from other groups over the past forty years and has a new five-year government contract commencing in 2008.

Her second example was the IDEA League which is European and is comprised of five science and technology research universities and is supported by the heads of the universities with a scientific research basis of a similar size. They cover over 12,000 Ph.D. students. It covers research, education, and innovation. Doctoral training is a key component. One of the initial aspects IDEA focused on was education and benchmarking. Focus groups compared syllabuses in order to have mutual acceptance of others’ degrees and help establish joint and dual degrees. There is full involvement of the heads of the institutions, and the major focus now is collaborative research and knowledge transfer. There is a movement to set up a similar structure on a global level.

Dr. Ritter noted that it is important to understand why you have the platform, design the size and structure to meet the purpose, and select the membership carefully. It has to be of mutual benefit. While everyone is in competition, there has to be collaboration. Dr. Ritter asked if belonging to more than one platform creates a conflict of interest. The right people have to be in key posts. Appropriate resources are needed for the collaborations to succeed. UK GRAD, for example, includes funds for both the structure (Centre of Excellence and Regional Hubs) and for the actual graduate training. One other important factor to remember in developing international models is that cultural

75 Trans-National or Trans-Regional Models that “Work” and Needs for Appropriate Platforms for Discussion

differences will result in differing approaches to communication. Some representatives will be more forthright than others, so intercultural awareness is essential. It is important to continually review and change the platform. The structure should not govern what is done, but should be driven by the strategy. It should be there to support the work not to dictate it. For example, don’t meet if there is really nothing to discuss even if the structure says it is time to meet.

Next the group turned to general discussion. Here one point, made repeatedly throughout the conference, surfaced again: the importance of personal interactions to produce change and quality programs. Several individuals agreed with Dr. Evans’ suggestion that we need to be involved with government leaders and provide advice for them, for members of the business community and for presidents, rectors, and provosts. It was suggested that the next global gathering should include government representatives as we had in Banff. However, it was acknowledged that such representatives may not have first hand experience of graduate education and providing context will be important. While there was some discussion about how effective conversations between deans and government leaders actually are, it was generally felt that if the right people are at the table and they take the conversation back, then such conversations can be effective.

The suggestion raised several questions about how we identify the stakeholders and how we get them together for a meaningful dialogue. Dr. Chambaz asked how we take the conversation that we have been having to the other stakeholders who are so vital? How do we get representatives from the government together? It was noted that in Europe, it is at the regional level that all the stakeholders can effectively work together.

Dr. Nilsen returned discussion to the topic of winners and losers in globalization, and expressed his view that perhaps we should consider compensating a home country if a student doesn’t return and that we should consider the effect of recruitment of students on the capacity building efforts of other countries. This would require considering applications within agreement structures rather than accepting individual applications. While some participants sympathized with Dr. Nilsen’s view that it is important to acknowledge the potential impact of our international student recruitment efforts, others felt strongly that individual students from other countries should have choices, just like their domestic counterparts, and that many excel in their studies and leave their countries to study elsewhere because they want to expand their opportunities. Respecting the rights of individual students, on the one hand, and helping to foster an equitable flow of talent that would benefit developing countries on the other will create tensions that many universities will respond to in their own way. Of course, some countries place return conditions on funding for students to study abroad, and all students may return to their home countries after beginning careers in developed countries.

Several participants discussed the importance of creativity in the process—how to encourage it, how to identify it, how to teach it, and how to assess it. Dr. Ortega suggested that the research model is one way, but her experience indicates that creativity is not necessarily produced. Overall, the issues of assessment and the difficulties of developing effective instruments for assessing the types of skills future students need is a

Global Perspectives on Graduate Education 76 Author Comments and Group Discussion common concern. Dr. Evans described a new program in Australia that provides a retreat environment for first-year Ph.D. students to begin to steep them in the traditions of ethical research that also included am emphasis on intercultural training

Other topics raised in general discussion included ways to work with students and measure their outcomes. Participants discussed the importance of early and clear communication about expectations, or “the rules of the game.” Examples discussed included guides for a student´s program at the time of enrollment and regular checks on the progress.

Also emphasized was the importance of building an international network and expanding the conversation, even beyond those represented here, for all of us to be effective, given the increasing mobility and internationalization of our graduate students.

77

IV. Key Network Partners for Discussion of Graduate Education Globally

For international dialogue to have tangible, long-lasting results, it is essential to identify the participants in each country who really have the capacity to effect change. Those entities include universities, higher education organizations, government, business, and the not-for-profit sector. This final segment of the summit emphasized the need for dialogue among the various stakeholder institutions. The papers in this section make clear that the relationship between higher education governance and government plays a large role in how that dialogue takes place.

Structures and Country Difference: Who Represents the Community?

Two different structures that allow graduate education to have a voice were represented at this conference: one from the European community and one from the United States. The scope, organizational set-up, mission, financial support, and the relationship of these graduate education structures to their respective governments were discussed in the papers below and the marked differences between European and American approaches become clear in the papers and the discussion.

Global Perspectives on Graduate Education 78 Lesley Wilson

Structures and Country Difference: Who represents the community?

Lesley Wilson Secretary General, European University Association (EUA)

Higher Education and Research in Europe

Europe is difficult to define geographically—the enormous changes taking place in European higher education are happening in two different geographical and political spaces—a European Higher Education Area (the ‘Bologna process’) that covers 47 countries and a European Research Area that is focused on the 27 member states of the European Union plus a number of other highly developed European countries that take part in EU higher education and research programmes (Iceland, Norway, Switzerland).

Higher education remains predominantly a national responsibility in Europe. The Bologna process is an intergovernmental process covering 47 countries. The universities and students are included in the decision making process. The goal is to seek convergence through common structures (introduction of bachelor’s–master’s–Ph.D. structures) and tools (credits, qualifications frameworks, jointly agreed quality standards etc.). Reform at master’s and Ph.D. level plays an important role in this process. The EU 27’s Lisbon Strategy relates to a smaller geographical space but has more ambitious economic and social goals. The focus is increasingly on investing more in education, skills development, research and innovation as the only way to make Europe more competitive. The EU is committed to increasing significantly the number of researchers in Europe and to improving the situation and career prospects of young researchers. While the EU has limited responsibility for higher education, its competence is growing in relation to research.

‘Graduate Education’ in Europe

In Europe each national higher education system is structured in a different way—there are unitary and binary systems; some countries have a tradition of specialised institutions. The process of diversification of European HE is well advanced in some countries, in its infancy in others.

It is impossible to know how many universities there are in Europe, let alone how many offer graduate programmes in terms of master’s and/or Ph.D. programmes. This is because the European landscape is changing so rapidly at the moment with the implementation of the Bologna reforms. Focusing purely on Ph.D. programmes, a best estimate for the 47 Bologna countries is that there are some 4500 HEIs (of which 1,300 are in Russia & 1,000 are in the Ukraine), of which around one half are Ph.D. awarding institutions (including around 700 in Russia and 300 in the Ukraine).

In many places in Europe the Ph.D. was until recently solely on the “apprentice model” with no taught courses and one supervisor. Thus, the growing attractiveness of graduate schools while at the same time there is no common model. The concept does not mean

79 Structures and Country Difference: Who Represents the Community?

the same as for instance in the U.S., and, in fact, covers a variety of different ways of doing things: one of the key questions under debate at present is that of the choice of structures within the institution best suited to providing high quality programmes. The goal is to identify structures/responsibilities that demonstrate added value for the institution and for doctoral candidates, in particular in seeking to counteract the isolation of the early stage researcher from other disciplines, or from the larger peer group, or the larger scientific community; to improve transparency, quality, and admission and assessment procedures; create synergies regarding transferable skills development; give more emphasis to training supervisors and evaluating them etc. It is becoming clear that different solutions may be appropriate to different contexts and the choice of structure is a matter for each institution, based upon the specific institutional aims which these structures are supposed to meet.

At the same time recent developments and an analysis of practice across Europe points to the emergence of doctoral/graduate/or research schools. The EUA TRENDS V Report (2007) reports that 30% of European higher education institutions surveyed say they have now established some kind of doctoral, graduate or research school. This question was also asked in an EUA survey of Bologna Process member countries. Out of the 36 countries that responded, 16 countries reported that their institutions have introduced doctoral, graduate or research schools, alongside existing models such as traditional individual training or ‘stand alone’ structured doctoral programmes.

The responses thus show a trend towards the development of structured programmes and doctoral/graduate/or research schools in addition to individual training. However, a mix of different organisational types seems to be common practice in most countries. This reflects the need to achieve a critical mass of doctoral candidates in many cases, but also the existence of disciplinary differences that need to be taken into consideration in the organisation of doctoral training.

Who represents the community?

National level Discussions are ongoing in almost all European countries on how to structure and/or best (re)organise doctoral education. Similarly in those countries that traditionally offered long first degrees, followed by the possibility to undertake doctoral research, the introduction of master level qualifications (type, length, focus, link to both the bachelor and the doctoral level, etc.) is a major question. There is little concrete data on master’s level degree programmes being offered across Europe, although studies show that interest in the development of joint master’s programmes across institutions continues to grow. Nevertheless, it is probable that there are more divergences across countries and institutional types in relation to master qualifications than at doctoral level where it is clear that the core component is research.

These discussions generally take place between the national Rectors Conference and national Ministries of Education, and increasingly also in a European context. Thus, although many different national traditions exist across Europe, the existence of common

Global Perspectives on Graduate Education 80 Lesley Wilson

European reference points in relation to master’s and Ph.D. degrees means that increasingly there are common European principles and guidelines underlying national discussions. While there are different networks of universities that work together across borders on issues related to doctoral education, other than in the UK, there does not seem to be a dedicated structure that seeks to support universities in issues related to graduate/doctoral education.

European level The European University Association (EUA) is the representative body of both national Rectors Conferences—there are 34 at present—and individual Ph.D. awarding universities in Europe. EUA has 780 individual university members in 47 countries, thus covering the same geographical territory as the Bologna Process. The goals of the association are to both represent European universities at European level and to support members in their development.

EUA represents universities in the decision making bodies of the Bologna Process and also works together closely with the services of the European Commission responsible for research policy affecting universities.

EUA has taken responsibility for furthering the debate on doctoral education at European level in recent years through a number of projects involving universities that resulted in the adoption of 10 principles on doctoral education (the “Salzburg Principles”) that have found wide acceptance across Europe. EUA has also presented regular reports to the biannual ministers’ meetings on the Bologna process, the latest in May 2007, setting out the position of European universities, also in relation to funding issues. In parallel the association organises regular seminars for its members on different aspects of doctoral education.

Given the enormous diversity in Europe in the organisation of doctoral programmes and the importance of ensuring institutional involvement and commitment, the EUA Board has recently decided to establish a EUA Council on Doctoral Education as an independent structure within the association.

Global level One of the reasons for the growing movement towards structuring graduate education in Europe is to facilitate international cooperation. Moreover, one of the express aims of the fledgling EUA Council on Doctoral Education is to act as a strong European voice, enhancing also the international dimension of European doctoral research training by establishing closer dialogue with similar bodies internationally and thus encouraging mobility and the exchange of good practice.

81 Structures and Country Difference: Who Represents the Community?

Structures and Country Differences: Who Represents the Community?

Dr. Moheb Ghali Dean of the Graduate School Western Washington University

In discussing structures that serve graduate education in the United States, I will abstract from many details that make for significant variations in the structures and simply concentrate on their main features. As a background, it is important to point out that the higher education system in the U.S. is highly decentralized and diverse. Of the 2,654 universities and four-year colleges that existed in 2005/06, only 656 or 25% were public (government supported) institutions while 1,584 or 60% were private not-for-profit institutions (supported by tuition revenues and endowments). The remaining 414 colleges and universities were private-for-profit. Not all institutions offer graduate education. In 2005/06 institutions offering the master’s degree as the highest degree numbered 854 and those offering the doctorate as their highest degree numbered 696.

Institutional Level

In universities that offer graduate education in the U.S., the common structure includes a senior officer for graduate education (titled a dean, sometime a vice president or a vice provost) who leads the graduate college and is advised on graduate policy by a graduate council. The graduate community includes the graduate college, the graduate programs, the graduate faculty, and the graduate students. Under the leadership of the graduate dean, the graduate council has jurisdiction over all graduate curricular and degree programs. The graduate council consists of a number of graduate faculty members elected or appointed for fixed terms, graduate students elected or chosen by the student governing body, and the dean of the graduate college who, at many institutions, chairs the council.

The duties of the graduate council include: periodic review of existing graduate programs; review of proposed new programs; approval and review of graduate faculty; approval of graduate courses and degree requirements for graduate programs; adoption and review of policies affecting graduate education; and advocacy for graduate education.

The graduate council is the structure whose sole focus and interest is graduate education and its health at the university level. As an institutional structure, the graduate council is funded by the institution and relates only to the university governance system.

State Level

In each of the states there are a number of universities, public and private, and in some states more than one multi-university system, that offer graduate education. Graduate deans in many states have found it useful to form state-wide structures that bring together the deans, associate deans, and assistant deans for periodic meetings to discuss issues

Global Perspectives on Graduate Education 82 Moheb Ghali

affecting graduate education in the state, to advocate for graduate education and to collaborate on policy or program initiatives.

The value of these structures emanates from the fact that for state supported (public) universities, in particular, policy and budget issues are common to all. The policy advocacy and policy reforms supported by the state-wide group of graduate schools carry more weight than those supported by the individual institutions. Similarly, program initiatives are more likely to be realized if they are backed by the group. The state-wide structure enables graduate colleges to share their solutions to state-wide issues and to collaborate in developing institutional policies and procedures. The collegiality that develops within these structures promotes efficiency in as much as solutions developed by one university are available to all in the group. The state level structures serve graduate education in the state and often represent graduate education in the state. They are financed by the individual institutions participating in the group.

Regional Level

There are four regional graduate education structures, or associations of graduate schools. Each covers a number of states. These regional associations are not “branches” of the national organization, indeed some of them existed before the national organization was formed. But each regional is an “affiliate” member in the national organization, the Council of Graduate Schools. In the Western states the regional structure is the Western Association of Graduate Schools (WAGS) which has 90 member institutions from 15 states and three Canadian provinces. WAGS purpose is: “the consideration of mutual problems … relating the graduate studies and research. It will cooperate with other agencies for this purpose by dissemination of information, improvement of standards, and encouragement of research and assistance to institutions embarking on graduate programs” [http://www.wiche.edu/wags/, retrieved 2/8/08].

Another example is the Midwestern Association of Graduate Schools (MAGS). Dean Klomparens recently described some of the functions of MAGS as: The place to test new ideas, share strategies, discuss concerns, and discuss programs and best practices. The meetings address the challenges of the economic situation in the Midwest and how graduate education can have a positive impact. [63rd Annual MAGS Meeting, April 2007]. In addition to the two regional associations mentioned here, there is the Conference of Southern Graduate Schools (CSGS, over 200 member institutions from 15 states) and the Northeastern Association of Graduate School (NAGS, 142 members from 12 states and 6 Canadian provinces).

The regional structures represent and serve the graduate community in the region. Membership includes graduate colleges within the region. They are financed through membership dues and are governed by executive boards elected by the membership. The regional structures do not relate to the government nor do they advocate for graduate education issues at the state or federal government levels.

National Level

83 Structures and Country Difference: Who Represents the Community?

At the national level the structure that represents graduate education is the Council of Graduate Schools (CGS). The CGS membership includes over 480 universities in the United States and Canada, and 13 universities outside North America. Collectively, CGS institutions award more than 90% of all U.S. doctorates and over 75% of all U.S. master's degrees. CGS has been the national voice for the graduate education community as it is the only national organization dedicated solely to the advancement of graduate education and research. CGS states its mission as: “to improve and advance graduate education in order to ensure the vitality of intellectual discovery and to promote an environment that cultivates rigorous scholarship.” “CGS serves as a national clearinghouse for information and research on graduate programs by providing original research, white papers, testimony and legislative analyses to key stakeholders, Congress, federal agencies and the media. CGS serves the graduate community by focusing on important issues affecting all aspects of graduate education and offering recommendations and proven solutions to address these issues” [www.cgsnet.org, retrieved on 2/8/08.]

CGS is governed by a board elected by the membership, and each of the four regional structures has a representative on the board. It is financed by membership dues, revenues from meetings, proceeds from services to members (such as publications) and grants both from the private sector and from government that fund new initiatives and best practices in graduate education. CGS speaks for the graduate community and advocates for graduate education at the national level. It relates to the government in a number of ways: it is the organization from which both the legislative and the executive branches of government seek input on issues affecting graduate education. Government agencies look to CGS as the organization that explores and disseminates best practices in graduate education. It is the organization that coordinates the graduate community responses to regulatory initiatives.

Global Level

From this brief description of structures that serve graduate education in the United States, it is clear that at each level the structures perform distinct and valuable functions and that the functions of the structures at the various levels are complementary. This leads us to the question: is there a role for a global structure that would represent, support and promote graduate education beyond national boundaries? I believe that the growth of international joint and dual degree programs, the desirability of encouraging international mobility of graduate students and post-doctoral trainees, and the benefits of learning best practices in various countries do call for a structure that would provide graduate deans with a forum to share best practices and to explore initiatives that serve graduate education globally.

Global Perspectives on Graduate Education 84 Author Comments and Group Discussion

Structures and Country Difference: Who Represents the Community?

Authors’ Comments and Group Discussion

To provide the European perspective, Dr. Wilson noted that currently a number of uncertainties in the European sphere exist, including whom it encompasses, what the graduate community includes, and who represents higher education in Europe. To shed light on some of these uncertainties, the EUA role becomes very important.

The EUA represents and supports higher education institutions in 46 countries in Europe, providing them with a forum to cooperate and keep abreast of the latest trends in higher education and research policies. It also plays an essential role in shaping European higher education and research thanks to its knowledge of the sector and the diversity of its members. The EUA also functions in quality development as it can speak across all the various academic cultures in Europe. The potential benefits and challenges of effective quality assurance become paramount since the Bologna process and appear to be replacing degree structural reform as the main topic of interest. And, as an umbrella organization, the EUA has also been able to affect policy.

Over the past seven years (i.e., since Bologna) with the establishment of the three degree cycles–bachelor’s, master’s, and doctoral—dramatic change is occurring in graduate education in Europe in three areas: First, at the master’s level with the different types of degrees being developed—academic (coursework) versus professional qualifications; second, in the increasing numbers of joint degree programs; and third at the doctoral level. But there is also concern because of the continued coexistence in some countries of the old and new degree structures.

The level in European higher education where the most rapid changes are occurring is in doctoral education. This is primarily because Bologna has decided to go global and graduate education is becoming internationalized. And, there are considerable worries and much debate across Europe about this “standardization” of doctoral education.

There is growing concern in Europe over the need to increase its research potential. Therefore, the role of the universities not only as the provider of doctoral programs but also as the setting where young researchers are trained becomes crucial. Doctoral education, the third cycle of higher education since Bologna, is also the first stage of a young researcher’s career, and becomes very important at the institutional level in order to properly interface that education with the research training.

Because of the increasing internationalization of higher education, it becomes important that European universities compete and attract the best doctoral candidates from around the world. This can be fostered by encouraging mobility within doctoral programs across Europe and by maintaining flexibility in admissions. Mobility should be viewed as having an added value for the career development of early researchers, particularly for

85 Structures and Country Difference: Who Represents the Community? those countries where there are few doctoral candidates. However, with increasing mobility, it will be necessary that universities monitor carefully the time to degree span for doctoral candidates since funding for doctoral programs is limited. Currently, full time doctoral programs in Europe are usually 3-4 years, while part-time studies take longer.

Europe needs to pay more attention to master’s education since it does have a mandate to do so. Both master’s and doctoral degrees are collected and reported in the EUA report, Trends Report ’07. Additionally, all kinds of collaborative degrees are becoming increasingly important in Europe.

There has been very little discussion across Europe of creating a position of the graduate dean, except perhaps in the United Kingdom or Ireland. It is a difficult concept for Europe to grasp. However, a EUA Council on Doctoral Education is being created since there is need for more consistency in structure in Europe. Overall, across Europe there is no longer discussion of whether the Bologna reforms will be fully implemented, but rather how the implementation is taking place.

Dr. Ghali provided the U.S. perspective that deans represent the graduate community and described the structures in place in the United States that allow the graduate education community to have a voice. Multiple layers of effective organization at the university, state, regional, and national levels have resulted in fruitful national discussion of best practices The logical next step would be a global structure to facilitate such a discussion on an international scale. If there were such a global structure, it would afford opportunity to transfer some best practices, facilitate the growth of international joint and dual degrees, and encourage international mobility of graduate students and postdoctoral fellows. All this would benefit the global graduate community.

In the discussion that followed, Dr. Dale noted that the Canadian graduate education structure was very similar to that of the United States. There is a national organization, the Canadian Association of Graduate Schools (CAGS), which is comprised of 52 Canadian universities with graduate programs, three national graduate student associations, and three federal research-granting agencies and organizations having an interest in graduate studies. It is located in Ottawa, Canada. Canada also has regional sub- organizations similar to those in the United States.

Dr. Wilson stated that other than the UK, there are no national support structures for graduate education in Europe. Dr. Nilsen suggested that UNESCO might support a global graduate education organization. As long as we believe that international mobility of graduate students is a priority that will benefit us all, this might be a goal to work toward.

Dr. Ortega called attention to other national organizations, such as national student organizations and the National Postdoctoral Association, which would be helpful in development of a global structure in graduate education. In Europe, Dr. Wilson noted that the EUA joins with the graduate student organizations to do national lobbying on behalf of graduate education, presenting a stronger argument. She noted that there still is little

Global Perspectives on Graduate Education 86 Author Comments and Group Discussion

standardization of graduate education in Europe—some countries will not even accept the term graduate education—calling it research training instead. Debra Stewart noted that the oversight of the postdoctoral population in the United States is becoming increasingly the responsibility of the graduate community, partly because no one else would assume that responsibility, partly because responding to this kind of need is highly compatible with the overall role of the graduate dean in a U.S. university.

87 What Kind of Sharing Can Benefit All Players?

What Kind of Sharing Can Benefit All Players?

In some countries or regions comprehensive associations of graduate schools exist. This section provides perspectives from two different countries—China and Canada—with two very different histories of graduate education delivery and governance. The papers address the kinds of sharing that were found most useful nationally and/or regionally; describe the extent to which this sharing is scalable to a global level; and looks at the kind of sharing that can benefit all participants.

Global Perspectives on Graduate Education 88 Kebin He

Experiences and Lessons from Chinese Universities in Globalization of Graduate Education

Professor Kebin He Executive Dean of the Graduate School Tsinghua University

The restoration of graduate education in China in the late 1970s marked a tremendous step in China’s higher education. The past twenty-five years from 1978 to 2003 witnessed a flourishing of China’s graduate education with a conspicuous increase in the total enrollment of graduate students and the number of master’s and doctoral degrees awarded.

In China, globalization of graduate education goes hand in hand with development of an innovative country. It is universally recognized that higher education institutions are the source of national innovations. It has been made a national policy to meet the demand of top professionals engaged in innovative activities in the mid- and long-term development of the country through educational and research collaborations with renowned universities in the world. We perceive globalization of graduate education as a platform to expose our students to the international academic culture, to accelerate the growth of junior faculties, to promote the development of disciplines, and to make world class open universities.

It has been a general concern of higher education institutions engaged in the globalization of graduate education to achieve substantial and fruitful teaching and research collaborations between colleges and universities. We insist that common interests, favorable policies, sufficient funding and benefit to all participants should be the fundamental requirements for such collaborations.

It takes two to tango. Common interests safeguard the investment of time and energy of partner universities in teaching and research collaborations. And collective efforts in collaborations will triumph in student training, exchange of teaching experience, and innovations in cutting-edge research. We place great emphasis on active engagement in international collaborations of both partner universities and believe that lack of interest on one side will definitely bring collaborations to a dead end.

With the increasing globalization of higher education, many problems have been generated in the implementation of university collaborations. To encourage exchanges between universities worldwide, it is urgent for governments and universities in particular to bring forth policies to clear away impediments in university collaborations. For instance, Chinese universities are not able to deliver joint degrees to students in joint education programs as Chinese degrees are national and universities are not authorized to do so. Nevertheless, it is fair and reasonable to give credit in a degree certificate to the partner university for its involvement in the process of student training. Right now, Tsinghua University is endeavoring to achieve this by giving clear indication of a joint program with the partner university through a certificate.

89 What Kind of Sharing Can Benefit All Players?

Lack of funding has been one of the bottlenecks in international collaborations between higher education institutions. It is the responsibility of partner universities to raise money through various channels for the operation of collaboration programs. It should be part of the university’s development strategies to build close links with government organizations, industries, and enterprises since they constitute the main funding sources. And it is a necessity for government organizations, industries, and enterprises to make greater investment in education for the long term development of the nation.

Globalization of graduate education has an enormous influence on the development and policy making of institutions of higher learning. We firmly believe graduate education in the world will have a bright future through collective efforts of all universities worldwide and substantial collaborations among universities.

Global Perspectives on Graduate Education 90 Fred Hall

What Kind of Sharing Can Benefit All Players?

Fred Hall Vice-Provost of Graduate Education and Dean of Graduate Studies University of Calgary

On the basis of personal experience with a variety of national and regional associations of graduate schools, I believe that most of the fruitful sharing that has taken place in those is scalable to a global level. Those issues that are most transferable (or scalable) are those to do with the student experience and with student-faculty interactions. The issues that are least transferable tend to be those that pertain to governmental issues. On the other hand, my experience has not been widely cross-cultural, so there may be barriers to transferability of which I am not yet aware.

Over the past eight years, I have participated in two regional associations and three national ones: Ontario Council on Graduate Studies; (U.S. and Canada) Northeastern Association of Graduate Schools; Canadian Association for Graduate Studies; (the US) Council of Graduate Schools; and the (Australian) Deans and Directors of Graduate Studies. In all of these, there has been a fruitful exchange of ideas and experience among the deans (and those with other titles) regarding common issues. Some of those that have been discussed include data on completion rates and times to completion of degree programs; best practices for improving either of those; handling conflicts between students and faculty, and teaching both of them how to handle or avoid such conflict; program structures; short-course workshops to develop “transferable” or “professional” skills in graduate students; and even issues to do with unionization of graduate students in their roles as employees of the university. Most of these issues transcend regional and national boundaries. Insights from both the U.S. (through NAGS and CGS) and from Australia (through DDOGS) from meetings and from material on their websites have proven as helpful to matters I have been dealing with as have the meetings of OCGS and CAGS.

On the other hand, there are issues that have been discussed at CGS or DDOGS that pertain to specific national legislation that do not transfer well. In Australia, for example, the central government is responsible for university education. In Canada, responsibility for education at all levels has been given by the Constitution to the provinces, and each of them treats graduate education differently. Hence the commonality of purpose shown by graduate deans in Australia relative to government is absent in CAGS meetings, and some of the lessons that could be learned from DDOGS do not transfer well. Similarly, in the U.S., members of CGS have concerns about federal funding through a variety of specific programs that do not have any equivalence in Canada. In addition, an issue that continues to be a focus for CGS members is racial and ethnic diversity, on which data must be collected and reported annually. In Canada, it is illegal to collect the same kind of data that in the U.S. is mandatory! While it is interesting to learn about these kinds of U.S. issues, it is often not useful information. In these regards, the benefits of a regional (or provincial, such as OCGS) association of graduate schools do not scale to national or cross-national associations.

91 What Kind of Sharing Can Benefit All Players?

There may well be other hurdles to overcome in cross-national associations of graduate schools, such as might develop from this meeting. There can be major cultural differences in the overall structure of graduate programs. This was brought home to me in discussions with a German colleague in my disciplinary field. As part of a research visit to his institution, I gave a presentation on the structure of graduate education in North America, and how it might relate to the Bologna (and successor) accords and their effect on German graduate education. Afterwards, he said that now he finally understood why at technical meetings we North Americans spoke of work “our students” had done. He did not have graduate students: he had assistants, or colleagues (basically, employees on his research grants and contracts), who could submit the results for some completed research project to be assessed for a doctorate, but they were not students in the meantime, and it made no sense to him for us North Americans to be speaking of our co- workers on research as if they were students. Granted, the Bologna accords will change that. Nevertheless, there are likely to be a number of such cultural and practical differences across countries that need to be made explicit to avoid misunderstandings.

A second example of cross-cultural differences arises in one of the foci of this Banff meeting: the master’s degree. The initial description for the conference said that this degree “is a degree of emerging importance in all of the highly evolved systems.” But the nature of that importance varies even within North America. Professional master’s degrees are indeed increasing in importance in a variety of fields, but they are usually seen to be terminal degrees, not leading to a further degree. In much of Canada, it is still expected that a student entering a research doctorate will have first been enrolled in, and often have completed, a research master’s degree. In much of the U.S., the research doctorate is entered directly from the baccalaureate; a research master’s degree is not expected. As a result, a master’s degree is often awarded as a consolation prize to someone who will not be completing a Ph.D. The master’s degree thus has different meanings within the same discipline across countries, and different meanings in different disciplines within one country. The label alone is insufficient to clarify what is under discussion.

Despite the potential pitfalls, there is considerable scope for fruitful sharing of ideas and experience on many issues related to the student experience. We need however to ensure that we understand the structure of the graduate programs, and graduate support, for those with whom we are exchanging information.

Global Perspectives on Graduate Education 92 Author Comments and Group Discussion

What Kind of Sharing Can Benefit All Players?

Authors’ Comments and Group Discussion

Dr. He discussed the experiences and lessons learned over the past 20 years from Chinese universities following the Cultural Revolution of the 1960s and 1970s. The first period from 1978-1985 was the restoration of graduate education; the second period from 1985-1999 was the installation of reforms and innovations in graduate education and the third was the enlargement and challenges period beginning in 1999 and continuing to today.

In the restoration period, all the faculties and researchers had to be trained anew for the higher education and research institutions and graduate students had to be selected and admitted. Since the graduate degree is a national degree in China, in 1985 the Academic Council issued the regulations concerning the issuance of these degrees.

In the reforms and innovations period from 1985-1999, the government enhanced research competence and improved graduate education. Because of the growing industrialization in China, the government decided to transition master’s education from academic degrees to professional degrees. There are currently 11 professional degree programs in China at the master’s level. Additionally, the government decided that the way that China could compete globally was through science and education and initiated frequent exchanges with overseas universities, including faculty collaborations and institutional partnerships.

From 1999 until today, total enrollment in China has soared with the number of graduate students quadrupling. The achievement in graduate education has played a vital role in China’s modernization, but has also created problems and challenges. There is a scarcity of educational resources—not enough space to accommodate all the students—and the quality of graduate programs remains an issue and must be improved to allow the students to be able to meet the requirements of global competition.

China has been increasing its participation in joint education programs. Examples of these programs involving Tsinghua include:

• A joint master’s program in industrial and automotive engineering with Aachen (Germany). Both institutions designed the curriculum, which is taught in English; there is exchange of graduate students between the institutions; and the faculty of both institutions collaborate in both teaching and research. It is relatively new and currently there are 30 students at Tsinghua and 20 from Aachen enrolled in the program. • A joint master’s program in nanotechnology and biotechnology with the Tokyo Institute of Technology. The curriculum was designed by both institutions and the faculties of both institutions are engaged in teaching. There are regular bilateral

93 What Kind of Sharing Can Benefit All Players?

workshops and symposiums aimed at increasing the collaboration between the faculties. • A joint international MBA program with MIT. This program is accredited by AACSB International—the accrediting agency for MBA programs. In addition to the student exchange with MIT, Tsinghua also has student exchange with 44 other business schools worldwide. • A joint education program in architecture with MIT which has been going on for nearly two decades. • A new combination bachelor’s and master’s degree with UIUC as well as a joint program with Stanford in information science and technology

Additionally, Tsinghua has joint programs with nine universities in China, including Peking, Nanjing, and Fudan.

Much time and effort has been devoted to curriculum development. Some of the initiatives include the offering of 125 short courses by overseas guest professors, and chairing of curriculum via distance learning. Additionally, a special series of lectures by top global leaders in academe, industry and politics has been instituted.

Currently, there are 10 international master’s programs in English offered by Chinese institutions. These include the international MBA program, and master’s programs in Chinese law, in global business journalism and communication, in public administration, in industrial engineering, in environmental engineering and in architecture. Additionally there are a number of other individual courses that are taught in English.

China currently affords doctoral students an opportunity to attend international symposia at least once during their educational experience. From 2001-2006, of 1,500 doctoral students, 400 were funded by the International Symposiums Foundation to attend these symposia where a number earned prizes.

To summarize, there are three key factors for successful collaborations: common interests, cooperative policies, and continuous funds. These three factors have far reaching influence on the overall development of the globalization of graduate education for higher education institutions.

Dr. Hall drew on his paper to emphasize the main message that should be considered as we continue to build the network for dialogue among international partners. He noted that we first must define what we mean by the globalization of graduate education. We must determine the kinds of collaborations we are considering. We must decide what kind of “best practices” we can share globally since there are considerable differences from country to country as well as differences among institutions in country.

As viewed from his experiences with a number of regional and national associations of graduate schools, the issues that are most transferable or globally scalable are those having to do with the student experience and with student-faculty interactions, for example, data on completion rates and times to completion of degree programs. Gleaning

Global Perspectives on Graduate Education 94 Author Comments and Group Discussion

best practices from examination of the data for improving either of these issues and sharing this information globally is possible. Short courses to develop professional skills in graduate students or information on how to handle conflicts between students and faculty as well as how to avoid conflict can be shared globally.

The issues that are least transferable are those that pertain to governmental issues. For example, graduate education is not so focused nationally in other countries as it is in the United States, so while the graduate schools in the U.S. are concerned about federal funding through a number of specific agency programs, these programs do not exist in other countries and are of no concern, for example in Canada. While the collection of racial/ethnic data is illegal in Canada, it is a primary concern in data collection for CGS members in the United States. In Canada, issues of graduate education are much more provincially focused.

There is also the problem of “language.” For example, there are great differences in what terms mean as our discussions have illustrated. While there are graduate students in the U.S., in Germany they are not called graduate students, they are referred as assistants or colleagues—really employees who worked on research grants and contracts. This is just one example of problems in terminology, and effort will need to be directed at making certain that we are all speaking the same language across countries in order to avoid misunderstandings.

However, there are numerous opportunities for globalization of graduate education, including not only sharing best practices but also expanding joint and dual degrees and other collaborations. While the master’s degree may be too short for a significant international experience, a survey by the Council of Graduate Schools finds that most joint/dual degrees are at the master’s level.

So what should the next steps be? What size effort should be tried? The Banff conference is a very good beginning and affords many ideas and experiences on issues that can be shared. But, we need to be careful that we are all talking about the issues using the same language, since there are considerable country differences.

95 What Venues Work?

What Venues Work?

As the global dialogue on graduate education expands, designing future meetings requires consideration of structures that promote dialogue. Mark Dale from Canada focused on the need for some kind of global sharing of best practices is valuable to all participants and specifically addressed the questions of what kind of setting, fora, and structures would be most helpful toward advancing that goal?

Global Perspectives on Graduate Education 96 Mark Dale

What Venues Work?

Mark Dale Dean, Faculty of Graduate Studies and Research University of Alberta

The structure for sharing best practices cannot be easily separated from the subject, so that the most effective venue may vary with the focus of the discussion, and that “global” must refer to more levels of meaning than just geography. We wish to share the message that graduate research and education are more than just investment in the creation of new, exciting, and effective knowledge, it is also investment in the development of skilled personnel who represent the future intellectual and economic leaders of our own society and of the global commonwealth. We need, therefore, to provide an environment that supports the creation and transfer of knowledge and also the development of professional skills that will facilitate contributions both in an academic environment and in broadly based partnerships for industry, public policy, and national and international organizations.

Global communication, therefore, does not mean merely sharing amongst leaders in the field of graduate education, no matter how far-distributed their places of origin. We need to create the opportunities for a very broad range of participation and understanding, reaching “up” and “down” within our institutions and political jurisdictions, as well as “out” through regional and national structures to the international community. The sharing must be designed to include graduate students and graduate supervisors as well as department chairs and faculty deans, employers from industry, research establishments, and those responsible for the public application of knowledge generated by research. Clearly, politicians, policy makers, and opinion leaders at all levels and of all stripes must be included, as well, and so the task before us is not an easy one; in fact, it is more than a little daunting when we stop to think about it. What is the answer?

The mantra of “Think globally. Act locally” is not a foolish place to begin.

At the very local “in house” level, my personal experience is that it is not a trivial task to persuade your own (a) research interest group (b) department (c) faculty (d) university leaders (choose whichever you will) to take seriously these concerns about investing in our future, in order to find the best practices so that attitudes change and action is taken. The important fora here are almost any meetings on related topics or resolutions or at which policy may be formed or debated. Look to graduate student involvement; graduate students are our best allies to bring appropriate attention to the importance of knowledge creation, knowledge transfer and the development of sophisticated professional skills in the generations that follow.

At the next level (city, province or state, region), again the graduate students may well be our best ambassadors, but we also need the more senior members of the university community (vice-presidents and above) to be involved in the communication. I always reflect on, and point to, the success of Martha Piper when she was Vice-President at the

97 What Venues Work?

University of Alberta, in persuading elements of our provincial government of the importance of research and graduate training as part of the overall provincial enterprise. Organizations at the regional (or state or provincial) level may be the most effective because of the directness of access and ease of potential impact (“people we know”). This is a level at which inter-jurisdictional comparisons, pressure, or competitiveness of spirit can be very effective (“if there, why not here?” or “This is an area in which this government can provide leadership for the whole country/hemisphere”).

At the national or “locally international” level, the argument and context is similar, but while the number of “us” is much larger, I think that the impact is actually more diffuse because of the spatial scale and range of issues available to divert the focus. At the international level, there is the potential for large gains based on inter-jurisdictional pressures and comparisons, (e.g. “Australia and the UK are doing X” (whatever X may be)… “We will be left behind…” “We need to ensure that the students we are training continue to have the advantages that will give this country a competitive edge”). Through international organizations, we can learn the best practices of success (e.g. “The EU’s program in student mobility is a model from which the Canada/U.S./Mexico trading partnership should learn…”). We need to learn from what has worked elsewhere, thinking globally, to design and implement what will work here, acting locally. The fora appropriate for this activity range from the one-on-one discussion to large international congresses.

I would argue that, based on the experience that the most work gets accomplished by the smallest committees, the most effective structures for communication and sharing will be small but diverse groups such as this one: personal, interactive, and sufficiently constrained to require thoughtful preparation but sufficiently open to hear and understand and accept new ideas. We shall see how we do, but one answer is that all venues can work, if the topic, mode and messenger align. The goal, however, is not just communication; the goal is persuasion and it must be persuasion that leads to action.

Global Perspectives on Graduate Education 98 Author Comments and Group Discussion

What Venues Work?

Author Comments and Group Discussion

Dr. Dale looked at what kind of settings and structures would be most helpful toward advancing the goal of global sharing. There can be two different answers. The first is very brief. It would be to employ the mantra of “think globally, act locally.” The other answer is that that all venues can work if the topic, the mode, and messenger are in alignment. The goal, however, is not just about communication; it also about using persuasion that leads to action.

Perhaps it is better when we talk about the internationalization of graduate education to use the term “universally” which addresses all levels of the hierarchy and all kinds of hierarchies with which we deal, rather than “globally,” which is a geographical concept. If we are thinking about the graduate education/training/research enterprise across the world, we must include all the stakeholders. Dr. Dale reported that at his university, there are Presidential Goals which are called “Dare to Discover” about what we should be doing and then there we have our strategic plan which is the academic plan, called “Dare to Deliver.” His message to this group was “Dare to deliver.”

He then asked, “So what should we deliver and how should it be delivered?” His answer was that it should be delivered up and down the food-line. We want to effect our presidents, provosts, deans, policymakers, politicians other deans, department chairs, individual faculty and certainly our graduate students who are our natural allies. So what do we want to deliver to all stakeholders? At least a statement of principles, not just anecdotal evidence, our purposes, a list of do-ables, or as Dr. Stewart called them a list of Monday-morning activities. We want to emphasize the importance of globalization to our graduate students and ask our doctoral students not just to discover facts, but to synthesize the facts. We want to include postdocs in the discussion and we want to think about preparing future global citizens.

99 How Should Employers be Engaged?

How Should Employers be Engaged?

While discussion to this point in the summit proceeded to address activities and priorities internal to the global higher education community, the next session of the conference addressed those that might involve employers who hire the graduates. Ultimately, if addressing the needs of employers is a priority for the providers of graduate education, employers must be a part of the global discussion: National graduate studies leaders from the academy gathered here took this opportunity, however, to reflect together on the issue of how employers should be incorporated; how they might be included in the kind of discussion begun in Banff; how they are typically consulted on issues of graduate education in the U.S.; and which of those practices are scalable to a global dialogue on graduate education.

Global Perspectives on Graduate Education 100 James Moran and Jeffrey Gibeling

Key Network Partners for Discussion of Graduate Education Globally

James Moran Vice Provost, Graduate Studies and Research University of Denver

Jeffery Gibeling Dean of Graduate Studies University of California, Davis

In addressing English graduates at the University of California at Berkeley, New Yorker staff writer Mark Danner titled his talk “What are you going to do with that?” (New York Review of Books, June 23, 2005). “That” being the degree in English. And, of course, the question could apply to degrees across the span of graduate education from art history to sociology to engineering to neuroscience. While perhaps not the key question regarding the fundamental purpose of education, it is nevertheless an important one. It is important on both the individual and the societal level. For the individual it speaks to the ability to earn a living and hopefully contribute to the public good in some meaningful way. For society it relates to the larger impact of graduate education on meeting the need for a highly skilled labor force that can address national and global issues. If graduate education is to serve both the individual and the society in these ways, there is a need for dialogue between graduate education and those that employ our graduates.

That being said, it is important to note that there are many perspectives on graduate education, each influenced by an individual’s experiences and an institution’s culture. Among graduate programs there are traditional academic programs such as philosophy or French, there are applied programs such as engineering or education, and there are professional programs such as social work or business. These categories are generally more distinct at the master’s level compared to the doctoral level. In the first category, the master’s degree is seen mainly as a step towards the doctorate, whereas in the latter two categories the master’s degree enables the recipient to engage in the profession. It is within the applied and professional areas that there are the principal needs for and opportunities for interactions with employers.

The primary employers of graduate students in the United States include industry, higher education institutions, national laboratories, state and federal governmental agencies, and other policy and nongovernmental organizations. There are a number of direct and indirect strategies for engaging these groups of prospective employers. Perhaps the most direct is through a research contract that typically would be used to support a graduate student who is performing the research. Often this provides opportunities for graduate students to interact with and be mentored by researchers at the sponsoring organization. In scientific disciplines, it is common for researchers at national laboratories and governmental agencies to serve on dissertation committees. In these ways the potential employers help shape the research agenda and have opportunities to interact with graduate students who are prospective employees. Alternatively, a graduate student may be offered a short-term internship at a prospective employer’s location. Another way in

101 How Should Employers be Engaged? which prospective employees engage with graduate students is to offer fellowships for graduate student support, although this mechanism generally results in less direct contact.

An indirect strategy to gain employer involvement in graduate education is through use of employer surveys. These can be mail or telephone surveys of select employers or focus groups. Generally these approaches seek information on employment needs and projections along with desired skill sets of new employees. In fact, many institutions require such surveys to demonstrate the need for graduates before a new graduate program is approved.

Advisory boards are generally a direct way for employers to become involved in graduate education, typically at the graduate program level. These boards often include representatives from the various categories of employers and the type of employer representation is an important consideration. Generally, it is desirable to involve those knowledgeable about the qualities most wanted in new hires and/or the employee skills that will be needed to move the employer’s organization forward. Typically people with such knowledge are from human resources and/or are middle to high level managers within their companies. Generally, in order to keep people involved, there must be considerable effort made to effectively communicate with the advisory board members and even more important to make sure that board activities are meaningful. In other words, while advisory, input from the board must be seriously considered and responded to respectfully and in a timely manner.

A concrete and fairly direct example of an advisory board can be found in the CGS Professional Master’s Education Initiative. This effort includes both the Professional Science Master’s that was funded by the Sloan Foundation and the Ford Foundation– funded Professional Master’s in the Humanities and Social Sciences. Typically these programs are structured to include advanced disciplinary course work along with training in business, ethics, communication, and workplace skills. An important point is that these professional programs are seen as producing terminal master’s degrees rather than as a step towards a doctorate degree. In other words, graduates of these programs typically move directly into the labor market. This creates the need for an interface between the graduate programs and potential employers.

A key factor in the professional master’s programs is the involvement of external advisory boards that include employers from areas that are related to the specific focus of the master’s program. For example programs focused on biotechnology would draw on a different employment sector than a program focused on applied gerontology. Across these programs advisory board members are typically involved in a range of activities including, at times, the planning, implementing, delivering, and evaluation of the programs. The involvement of employers is seen as a two-way interaction whereby the programs gain valuable knowledge as to the needs of employers and conversely, the employers gain knowledge as to the skill sets and experience of the program graduates.

With increasing international diversification of companies, new opportunities are emerging for them to partner with universities in their home country and to partner with

Global Perspectives on Graduate Education 102 James Moran and Jeffrey Gibeling universities around the world. Of the various opportunities for interacting with employers, some appear to be more readily scalable to the international level than others. For example, international internships would serve to promote interaction between the prospective employer and a graduate student while also serving to broaden the student’s social and cultural perspectives. Similarly, advisory boards with international membership would broaden the perspective of the individual graduate program. These and other opportunities should be explored more fully.

103 How Should Employers be Engaged?

How Should Employers be Engaged?

Authors’ Comments and Group Discussion

Dr. Moran noted that there are a couple of assumptions one must accept. First, that employers should be consulted and second that this is a good thing. He emphasized that one has to address this from personal experience, concentrating on the culture within your own universities. There is no one way to do this, since not all institutions are the same and not all programs are the same. For example, some programs are applied, such as engineering, business, social work, where employer input can more properly be applied. Additionally, there is likely more input at the master’s level than at the doctoral level, particularly in the Professional Science Master’s programs. Another issue is the role of education as a private interest versus a public good. Involving employers should include both aspects: preparing students for the jobs that are available (including having a good quality of life when they are finished), and serving the employers by having a workforce possessing the needed skills to compete.

Dr. Gibeling discussed a number of ways that employers can be involved in graduate education. First, through executive programs, since employers are paying the way for students to seek the degrees. The MBA program is the most common, but there are other examples as well, including engineering master’s program. A second opportunity to involve employers is through having scientists from industry, from our national laboratories or from government agencies serve on doctoral examination committees if there is a close connection to one of those entities. Another fairly direct way to involve employers is through support of graduate students via business-oriented fellowships or through direct research support to universities. While the direct support may go to the faculty member, it provides support for graduate students. Finally, employers can provide internships for graduate students. One prime example of this is the internships of the Professional Science Master’s programs.

One key question that both speakers raised was, “How can we address business and industry to be more engaged in addressing challenges facing graduate education globally?” One way suggested by Dr. Gibeling is that as businesses become more global, graduate schools must work to develop global partnerships with these companies since they have a global perspective. One such way is through the development of international internships. Another way is through the use of Employer Advisory Boards. However, the members of these advisory boards must have specific knowledge of the skills needed by graduates in the workplace as well as where the field is going. Additionally, when involving employers, graduate schools must be prepared to respond to their recommendations. Again, the PSM is a very good example where Employer Advisory Boards help in the planning and evaluation of the programs, some are even involved in teaching, and a number of the members provide a site for internships and later jobs.

Global Perspectives on Graduate Education 104 Author Comments and Group Discussion

When asked whether the doctorate degree can serve both academic and industrial needs, it was suggested that perhaps there should be a professional doctorate degree, such as the professional degrees in engineering in China which are designed for a particular industry.

A question was raised during the discussion as to whether we need an alternative to the Ph.D. given that it might not be able to serve both academic and industrial needs. In the discussion that followed, it was noted that there should not be two kinds of research doctoral degrees, but we must engage employers in thinking about the long-term needs, not just the immediate needs. All employers, whether public or private, want the “best” graduates at the doctoral level—they want those who have breadth as well as depth, and they want those who are able to work in groups.

Several participants commented on the value of external advisory boards and the PSM advisory boards were identified as a good model. However, concern was expressed about being co-opted by business. Dr. Lynch commented from her PSM advisory board experience that there is a need to be flexible when crossing business and academic cultures and as a result meetings have to be well planned and meaningful with clear outcomes articulated. Advisory boards can be helpful in helping to identify and define the skills students need.

105

V. Flow of Talent

The international graduate education community has long acknowledged that the flow of students across national borders carries risks as well as benefits. Graduate study at a university outside one’s country of origin may open career pathways whose returns to one’s home country may not be either immediate, direct, or certain. Therefore, some have spoken of longstanding mobility patterns in terms of “brain drain” and “brain gain.” And there are serious ethical questions behind policies that support or inhibit student mobility that require decision makers to recognize the importance of high-level talent to every country’s economic development. But in a climate where university education and research as well as job opportunities in all sectors increasingly reflect an international and multinational character, and where a university’s thriving research enterprise may soon be measured by the extent to which it prepares students for scholarship and practice in a global community, many believe that overcoming barriers to student mobility and increasing the international flow of students results in a net gain for all.

American and European Perspectives

The final three presenters considered the 21st-century reality that international student mobility is simultaneously a key to global competitiveness and an incentive—even a mandate—for greater levels of global collaboration. Within this context, presenters addressed the questions: What do we currently know about global talent flow with respect to graduate education? What are the principles that need acknowledgment in discussions of global talent flow? What do you see as the implications of current trends in student flows for future cross border partnerships? What are the implications of these trends for sharing of best practices across institutions or graduate programs? What barriers remain that impede international talent flow?

Global Perspectives on Graduate Education 106 William Russel

Flow of International Talent

William Russel Dean of the Graduate School Princeton University

Clearly more is known about the flow of international students into graduate programs in the United States than the ultimate destination of those students after graduation. Reports on scientific manpower in the United States post-9/11 have described convincingly the contributions to the national economy over the past many decades by students from abroad who earned Ph.D.s in our universities and remained to pursue successful careers. Likewise the dependence of graduate programs in many research universities on a steady flow of highly qualified students from abroad, particularly from Asia, has been amply documented. We all appreciate that the goal of many of these students upon graduation has been to either pursue a career or gain postdoctoral experience in the U.S. before returning home. More recently, as opportunities at home have increased for these graduates, U.S.-based multinational companies have been expanding their operations abroad and realizing the advantage of hiring these Ph.D.s either here or in their home country. So, the situation is both poorly documented and changing rather quickly.

Of course, an influx of students from abroad is not a new phenomenon. Cambridge and Oxford have educated undergraduate and graduate students from the (former) colonies for several centuries. Even now many of us know Australians who embarked on successful academic careers in countries around the world after gaining graduate degrees in Britain. At Princeton the percentage of “foreign” students in the Graduate School exceeded 10% in 1938 and has climbed more or less continuously over the decades— reaching 20% in 1961 and 30% in the early 1970s before settling down at 40% in the mid to late 1990s. While almost half of the current total are enrolled in the sciences and engineering, the social sciences account for more than a third and the humanities for the other 10-15%. While the largest national contingent through the ’60s may have been Canadians, Asians are the most abundant today. Among private research universities Princeton may lie toward the high end of the range, but in large strong state universities such as the University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign, in which the bulk of the graduate students are in the sciences and engineering, international students constitute close to 75% of the student body with two-thirds of those from Asia.

A bit more detail on the demographics may be of interest. For example, at Princeton the international population is roughly 20% from Europe, 60% from Asia, about 15% from the rest of the Americas, and 5% from Africa and the Middle East. Stanford, on the opposite coast, is not that different with an international enrollment that increased from 22% of the total in 1991 to 33% in 2003 with 55% of those from Asia and 10% from Canada. At Princeton the bulk of the Chinese students from the People’s Republic graduated from eight universities [Tsinghua, Peking, USTC, Fudan, Zhejiang, Nanjing, Jilin, and Shanghai Jiao Tong]. Of those 45% are in the sciences, 45% in engineering, and 5% each in the humanities and the social sciences. International students are typically

107 Flow of Talent

over-represented in the top half of the admit lists across the divisions. So, clearly academic preparation and quality are the primary factors.

Not surprisingly international students perform well in the academic programs by almost any measure. Cohort analyses at Princeton dating to 1970 quantify the fact that international students complete their Ph.D.s more quickly than the general population of graduate students and with less attrition. Placement is more difficult to parse, though the majority of the international students graduating in the past have sought positions in the U.S. The only data close at hand comes from my own (35) Ph.D. students in chemical engineering, of whom thirteen came to the U.S. either as an undergraduate or a graduate student. Of these only five have left the U.S.—one (English) for an academic position in the UK, one (French) only briefly for a two-year assignment in France, a third (Indian) for an executive position with a multinational in Switzerland, and two (Indians) to return home and eventually undertake entrepreneurial pursuits.

Encouragement for international students receiving Ph.D.s in the United States to return home comes in a variety of forms. Relatively recent examples include the A*STAR Fellowships offered by the Singapore government and the new fellowships of the Chinese Scholarship Council, both of which stipulate that the recipient return after graduation. These can succeed when reasonably comparable opportunities exist in the home country. In parallel, research networks or partnerships that exchange students for purposes of the research or education are beginning to proliferate as common global interests develop, e.g., around issues of climate, energy, policy, hunger, inequality, and a variety of other critical issues. Through these partnerships best practices become known and, in some cases, shared naturally. Here again several institutions and governments are encouraging the process by creating partnerships to advance practices in research and education and importing faculty as well as graduate students as examples or advisers.

Global Perspectives on Graduate Education 108 Victoria Rodriguez

Flow of International Talent

Victoria Rodriguez Vice Provost and Dean of Graduate Studies University of Texas–Austin

What do we currently know about global talent flow with respect to graduate education? First, it’s impossible to separate education from economics. The United States is the leading destination for international students with the major fields of study being business and science related fields. International students in the U.S. have historically contributed to the global knowledge-based economy which translates into a source of talent and innovation for the business and science communities. The knowledge capital produced by the international student population is a source of economic capital for U.S. based industry.

Statistics show that students come to the U.S. not only for a graduate education but then to transition their education into employment in the U.S. Employers in the U.S. are increasingly implementing global business strategies and thus are seeking multi-cultural employees who can add a global perspective to the workplace. Surveys show that more than 75% of foreign nationals educated in U.S. graduate programs are seeking employment in the U.S. which generally offers higher wages and better living conditions than found in their home country. Also, many U.S. based employers desire to staff overseas offices with U.S. educated foreign nationals and consequently the graduate international student pool is a logical choice for staffing satellite operations.

Per Richard Florida’s book, The Flight of the Creative Class, we know that countries and regions that attract students have an advantage in retaining them and attracting additional pools of talent. International students and workers gravitate to diverse regions with a strong global marketplace with a strong higher education base. The flow of global talent between the educational and private sector is a key factor that attracts international graduate students when making both academic and career choices.

The second major feature of the flow of global talent is that it has been a one way street with North American students electing to stay in North America. During the 2006–2007 academic year the number of international students studying in the U.S. increased for the first time since 2001. At the same time, a growing number of Americans are electing to study in overseas degree programs (the number of American studying in Canadian and UK degree programs has doubled in the past 10 years). However, the number of U.S. students seeking degrees overseas remains relatively small.

Foreign born scientists and engineers made up a quarter of the science and engineering workforce in 2000 (a sharp increase since 1990); foreign born engineers make up 40% of the faculty in U.S. institutions. In the sciences and engineering, international student made up more than 30% of the master’s degree seekers and half of the Ph.D. seekers studying in the U.S. Foreign-born students with permanent visas earned roughly 25% of science and engineering degrees in the 1990s, double the rate from the 1970s.

109 Flow of Talent

More than half of all international Ph.D. recipients are still in the U.S. ten years after they finish their degrees. International post-doctoral scholars make up a large percentage of the American science and engineering workforce. This is driven by the perception and reality of greater access to research opportunities and funding offered by American industry.

In discussing global talent flow there are some principles that need acknowledgement. One of the primary principles is that each country has a different agenda. Asia is currently feeling the brain drain and needs to respond.

Approximately 90% of Chinese and Indian Ph.D.s remain in the U.S. after completion of degree. Also, recent graduates of Chinese universities are electing to immigrate to the U.S. for employment opportunities. A 2001 article by Henry Rowen in “The International Economy” stated that one third of the graduates of Tsinghua University, China’s most elite technology institution have immigrated to the U.S. The Asian migration pattern is closely tied to educational and job opportunities in the medical, high tech, science and engineering sectors in the U.S.

The U.S. is facing increasing global competition both educationally and economically due to a subtle shift in their previous market advantage (the reverse brain drain). From 2001 to 2006 the benefactors have primarily been educational institutions in Australia, Canada and the United Kingdom. However, recent currency exchange rates might possibly fuel a return to pre-9/11 international graduate application numbers.

A second principle is that business and government entities have a larger stake in the recruitment of global talent in graduate education. U.S. immigration policies, fact, and perception, play an important role. Logistical problems, added bureaucracy, and more governmental constraints on the visa process played a key role in the decline of international applicants to U.S. graduate program post 9/11. The number of students whose visa applications were rejected has increased since 2001. Likewise the number of F-1 student visa applications dropped by nearly 100,000 between 2001 and 2004. The largest decrease was seen among students from the Middle East, North Africa and some Southeast Asian countries.

Visa delays and perception of difficulty to obtain a student visa for study in the U.S. is causing students to look elsewhere (Canada, UK, Australia are main benefactors). Also, rising tuition costs in the U.S. was cited as another deterrent for international students. U.S. policies and anti-immigrant perceptions are a deterrent. However, recently the State Department has responded by attempting to improve the visa process for students. Expediting the schedule for student visas by increasing the consular staff overseas was recently called a “top priority” by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.

The forecast of a looming talent shortage will create greater competition in both the educational and business marketplace. In the past the U.S. cornered the market on high- end creative class of innovators and thinkers. Slowly U.S. dominance is being dispersed

Global Perspectives on Graduate Education 110 Victoria Rodriguez

overseas as countries have taken the initiative to invest in higher education and research in an effort to recruit those who previously would have considered no other destination than the U.S.

The demographics of loss of baby boom generation, who make up 60% of the current workforce, is an added issue facing the U.S. labor market. A skilled worker gap started to form in the U.S. during the early 2000s and is expected to increase to approximately 14 million by 2010.

Richard Florida’s 3 T’s of economic growth as applied to higher education (Technology, Talent and Tolerance) and how we use them to our benefit provide some key ideas we should consider as we discuss talent flow. The first is that technology is the key to growth. International graduate students are drawn to educational entities that can offer access to cutting edge technology. According to Florida, the “power of the place” is seen as a primary factor for attracting the creative educational class. A dynamic, diverse, open and creative community will do more to attract global talent than the presence of job prospects.

Second, talent follows technology (growth is the consequence of human capital). Florida refers to the “global Austins” to illustrate the effect of cities that have transformed and marketed themselves as “cool” and progressive centers of industry, technology, and education that are now the epicenter of the creative class in the U.S.

Third, Florida claims that tolerant, open and diverse societies attract and breed innovation. Florida asserts that this translates into economic growth and prosperity.

What, then, are the implications of these trends in student flows for future cross border partnerships and for sharing of best practices across institutions? Collaboration with partners (business and governmental) will be key for future success of recruiting and retaining global talent. Creating programs that address the needs of both communities will be at the forefront. Enlisting partners in the community and in local industry and government and those who can incorporate the varying interests into innovative programs will be success in recruiting and retaining global talent.

In addition to collaborations, creative funding models for recruitment of global talent, both student and faculty, will be imperative. Business must partner with their educational institutions for the greater good of both. As educational funding models become less tax based, increasing private participation in new funding models is paramount.

All of this depends on changing the mindset of those in higher education regarding collaboration with government, business and community interests. But, how do we do that? Those in higher education need to recognize that we are the magnets for our community’s future economic successes and to leverage our position. The stakes are high for all groups and all must reach out to make connections that have not previously existed. Creative degree programs that combine the resources and needs of the business community must be explored and expanded.

111 Flow of Talent

We can expand partnerships with overseas entities, both educational and commercial, to increase global talent flow. Dual degree programs, sponsored student initiatives, educational exchanges, and commercial opportunities for students will stimulate the flow of ideas, commerce and talent.

Global Perspectives on Graduate Education 112 Rune Nilsen

Flow of International Talent

Rune Nilsen Professor, Center for International Health University of Bergen

Knowledge societies are central political goals in the most modern societies, and are becoming an important element in several emerging and developing economies world wide. Flow of talents globally has for the U.S. and Europe very often meant that talents are moving to those areas. With the new global setting the competition for academic skills have become harder, and thus calls for new ways of securing flow of talents. To address a new way of thinking and acting on this issue there are several items which have to be addressed:

1. Who should benefit from a flow of talent? The ethical challenges of moving, often actively, talent from developing countries to the rich countries are obvious. The questions are: Does the rich part of the world have policies and tools to prevent this flow? Are there possibilities for sharing talents for the best of both home and recipient countries and institutions? Are the research agendas in the rich part of the world relevant for the majority of the big problems globally? Why is it that the most part of medical research is not addressing the globally biggest health problems?

2. How can knowledge be a global open and free good? Free access to knowledge is a precondition to prevent exploitation of young academic talents. Why is it so that talent in developing countries cannot find access to research publications related to their own area, or important subjects for own research? The Open Access movement in Europe, the U.S., and Australia should be made a top priority in order to ensure proper access to knowledge and right conditions for mobility.

3. How can mobility of young talent be facilitated without ensuring global common criteria for degrees, and not at least common criteria for doctoral training and doctoral degrees? Processes like the Bologna process, and the EU charter for researchers, and the dialogues like the present in Banff are fundamental for equity in the flow of talent, and not exploitation. It is alarming that the African countries are loosing talent to rich countries in very high numbers.

The solutions for an ethically academically sound flow of academic talent must reflect: • The global network of joint thinking on degrees and quality assurance • A global perspective on research agendas • A partnership between institutions facilitating joint degrees, joint research agendas and programmes, and open access to knowledge.

113 Flow of Talent

Two examples from Europe are: 1. From Norway, a Partnership programme with equity and institutional commitment, NUFU (www.siu.no/NUFU) in which a flow of talent between Norway and developing countries have demonstrated that almost all of the “flow of talent” has at the end remained in their home country and not Norway.

2. From the EU, the Erasmus Mundus programme of the EU is now established as a dynamic global programme for young academic talent also including a long-term institutional partnership collaboration.

Global Perspectives on Graduate Education 114 Author Comments and Group Discussion

Flow of International Talent

Authors’ Comments and Group Discussion

Dr. Russel focused his comments on three issues: (1) there is limited knowledge of flow, (2) each country has its own needs, (3) the impact of university deans on the flow of talent is important, but limited. Dr. Russel noted that there has been an increasing trend in the U.S. of the inflow of international graduate students as well as in the proportion of the global talent who remain in the U.S. after graduation, although the last several years has seen some decline in the overall numbers. But, our overall knowledge of the international flow of talent is limited, since we only know the incoming flow with any degree of certainty. Each country has its own agenda and the talent flows impact each country in different ways. Dr. Russel suggested that the questions we need to ask are: What are the implications of the trends in student flows? Will they impact future partnerships and the sharing of best practices across institutions? What is the role of the graduate deans in this? In addition to his formal paper, Russel provided the following diagram to better explain the complexity of the issue of flow:

115 Flow of Talent

I. What do we currently know about global talent flow with respect to graduate education? U.S. Doctorates in the 20th Century – National Science Foundation 2006

Ph.D.s Granted to Non-Citizens - Plans after Graduation 40,000 Temporary Residents - staying

35,000 - returning

Permanent Residents- staying 30,000 - returning

25,000 Non- citizens 20,000

15,000

10,000

5,000

0 1970-74 1975-79 1980-84 1985-89 1990-94 1995-99

U.S. after graduation by region of origin 1970-74 1995-99 Asia 4,078 61.0% 17,233 76.0% Europe 1,357 57.0% 4,241 74.0% Americas 1,120 32.0% 2,263 51.0% Africa 406 43.0% 653 52.0% Australasia/Pacific 189 37.0% 237 58.0%

Global Perspectives on Graduate Education 116 Author Comments and Group Discussion

Dr. Rodriguez emphasized that the increasingly global flow of talent may have its short term challenges, but that overall it is a good thing. From the perspective of sending countries, we might think of this flow in terms of brain drain, but for the individuals from those countries who are now pursuing all of the academic opportunities that developed graduate education systems make possible, and for the countries that host those systems, this is brain gain. She gave her own example of having come to the U.S. as an international student, having met her husband abroad, and then settling in to successful careers at a U.S. university. Dr. Rodriguez also urged participants not to limit discussion to the STEM disciplines, given the importance of opportunities (and of addressing challenges) for international collaboration in the social sciences and humanities, as well.

She referred to researcher and author Richard Florida who spoke at the 2006 annual CGS meeting about the issue of tolerance. He used Austin as an example of a city that is tolerant of differences on many levels and has thrived economically and culturally as a result. Austin has what Florida calls a “creative class” that is moving the city forward. This has, in turn, made the university an attractive place for scholars and students to be.

Since many international students do return home, Dr. Rodriguez reminded participants that it is important to stay in touch with international alumni who do go back home or to another country. They are a source of students, internships, dollars, and opportunities. It is important to remember, she emphasized, that when we talk about flow we are talking about more than simply those students who are currently enrolled in or in the process of applying to graduate programs. At the University of Texas, Austin, the international talent flow is a part of the inseparability of the education and economy in the area. Dr. Rodriguez outlined several key ideas to consider when discussing international talent flow.

Dr. Nilsen began with a series of questions to consider in discussing talent flow: Who should benefit from these flows of talent? How can knowledge be global, open and free for the common good? How can mobility of young talent be facilitated? Can mobility of talent be facilitated without ensuring global common criteria for degrees and quality; without ensuring partnerships in good research environments; without confronting “braindrain” and brainwaste” or without creating global “Academic Apartheid?”

In discussing who should benefit from a talent flow, Dr. Nilsen agreed with Rodriguez that we should think of talent flow as “brain sharing” or a network of joint thinking on degrees and quality assurance. Sound talent flows must reflect partnerships between institutions facilitating joint degrees, joint research agenda, access to good research facilities and bi-directional “brain sharing.”

General discussion centered on three major issues: the benefits of a free flow of global talent; the need for information on trends and patterns in student mobility and talent flow, more generally; and how to influence and optimize the flow of talent in positive ways. Dr. Owens noted that the benefits of international flows can be summarized by the three “c’s”—calibration, competence (i.e., cultural competency), and creativity. Dr. Nilsen pointed out a couple of examples of sound international flows that met Dr. Owens’

117 Flow of Talent criteria. In Norway, there is a partnership program in which 98% of the 1,400 candidates (both master’s and Ph.D.) return to positions at their home institutions (www.siu.no/NUFU). And the Erasmus Mundus program, which started almost as a brain draining program, now has global responsibility. Dr. Nilsen also raised the question of who should benefit from talent flow and suggested that we need to think of talent flow as “brain sharing” or a network of joint thinking. Currently, only 10% of the research in health affects 90% of the population.

In regards to information on flow, Dr. Stewart noted that we need more information on flow out of our countries and into other countries. For example, we know that the U.S. had 25% of all international students 5 years ago but it has gone down each year according to OECD. IIE has tracked undergraduate and graduate flows with Ford Foundation. Mr. Rizzoli reinforced the need to have information on international flows to give to politicians who are concerned about paying for the education of someone who leaves. He stressed the need to be able to document the gains from flows to use with politicians.

The final topic related to provision of leadership to encourage a positive flow of international students. Dr. Ortega asked the group to consider several questions: What is the institutional leadership role in creating circulation? Is it based on personal relationships? How do we find good research partners? We need a brokering system. What do we have to do at home? What are the internal connections we need to make? How do we connect with international partners on a campus? Dr. Carlin responded that international alumni can help with development of sound international flows. She said that U.S. universities have successfully used them to network, find students, and provide collaborative research opportunities and funding. There was some sentiment in the general discussion that international research collaborations may provide one source of models for optimizing talent flow. The group agreed that international flow is a leadership responsibility and it is or should be important for the charters of a university.

Global Perspectives on Graduate Education 118

VI. Conclusion

Debra W. Stewart President, Council of Graduate Schools

The core goals of the Strategic Leaders Global Summit on graduate education were to advance capacity to share best practices globally, to understand the preconditions of effective sharing, to map the path forward in terms of how to continue the conversations begun in Banff, and, finally, to articulate a set of operational guidelines or principles that could assist in navigating through local and international discussions about the global graduate. I conclude with a reflection on just how far we progressed toward achieving these goals.

From a CGS perspective I would declare that the convening exceeded our expectations on many fronts. The precondition for effectively sharing best practices is a willingness to engage in thoughtful, open and unguarded dialogue about challenges and opportunities in the current practice of graduate education in one’s own country. Conversation of this quality clearly happened whether participants were discussing doctoral education, master’s education, or joint and dual degrees and other forms of international collaboration. The particular preconditions for authentic sharing across national borders surfaced and were considered deeply in the discussions about frameworks and platforms for global dialogue. Participants directly confronted topics on which there were differences of opinion, such as in the arena of ground rules for international student flow. And all participants “hung in there” to work through knotty topics on which cultural differences challenged us, even down to the language used in describing practices in different countries: as in the case of how employers worked with graduate programs and graduate schools in different cultural, political and economic settings.

The Banff Summit was designed to convene individuals who play significant leadership roles in “advanced systems” of graduate education globally. While there was much to be gained and shared from creating this kind of level playing field, all participants felt the absence of major regions of the world that would have to be included in any fully global dialogue. Participants recognized that societal needs in every country will be most effectively addressed within a knowledge-based economy and that graduate education is simply the key to creating that economy everywhere. The fact that different countries and regions are at different stages in the evolution of graduate education systems is reason, looking forward, for a more inclusive conversation.

In the end, the measure of our success is: do we have sufficient enthusiasm for and directions to move forward the conversation about improving and advancing graduate education globally? To this question I think we can answer as resounding yes! The strategic leaders from the countries and regions represented in Banff enthusiastically endorsed finding ways to continue the kind of productive dialogue reflected in this document. The enthusiasm went so far as to translate into a consensus around a set of nine core principles that will guide the future collective and collaborative work to improve and advance graduate education globally.

119 Conclusion

It is in special recognition of our co-hosts, the Province of Alberta, that we named these core guidelines, the Banff Principles. We look to the following principles to guide our work in the future.

Global Perspectives on Graduate Education 120

APPENDIX A

Banff Principles

The Banff Summit was an important step toward establishing the potential effectiveness of inclusive and global collaborative action to support and strengthen graduate education through sharing of best practices. As a result of the deliberations, nine core principles (general guides) to guide future collective and collaborative work to advance and improve graduate education globally were developed with the goal to produce graduates with the knowledge and behaviors appropriate to a global citizen of the 21st century, capable of understanding and contributing to the advancement of all peoples.

1. Respect and learn from the differences in programs and their modes of delivery directed towards our common goal.

It must be noted that structured diversity is a strength, preparing researchers for diverse careers. Therefore, diversity should be respected both within and across regional and national boundaries. We should work towards an understanding and harmonization to enable qualifications to be recognized in a global context.

2. Promote the quality of graduate programs

It is important to promote openness and share results from ongoing activities to evaluate and assure quality in graduate education. A shared set of performance indicators must be developed. It is necessary to include and share research related to improving the process and outcomes, and particularly share best practice in quality assurance. All of these efforts lead to enhanced recognition of and confidence in qualification and collaborative programs in graduate education.

3. Develop global career competencies and awareness in graduates

Graduate education should encompass not only high quality research training and scholarship, but also the ability to apply these to highly competitive, diverse, and rapidly changing global careers. It is essential that training should promote core competences (i.e. transferable skills) which include leadership, teamwork, communication, innovation, and professional ethics.

4. Encourage innovation in programs and graduates

For education programs, it is necessary that innovation and sharing of ideas and good practice be supported. For example, professional master’s programs match the demands of the workplace. For students, an environment that allows innovation and give students the chance to take risks, fail and learn from the experience must be fostered. And for both

121 Conclusion programs and graduates, interdisciplinary exposure internationally and creative thinking must be encouraged.

5. Clarify and strengthen the role of the master’s degree

Master’s programs form a key articulation point between bachelors/master’s and master’s/Ph.D.s. Master’s programs are rapidly evolving to provide a range of different outcomes and deserve to be studied by the graduate leadership community. Master’s programs need to serve the professions.

6. Promote high-quality inter-university collaborative programs across national boundaries

Collaboration between universities across national boundaries is an effective mode of delivery of a global graduate education, but requires strong leadership within the universities involved. These programs can lead to a qualification from one of the partner institutions or to a double or joint degree from both partner institutions. However, collaboration works best when the partners know each other well, when long-term relationships between the partner institutions have been promoted by collaborative research and when the relationship is strengthened by mutuality and complementarity. It is also important for stronger institutions to consider how best to assist those with less well developed programs.

7. Review and understand the global flow of graduate students and postdoctoral fellows (early stage researchers)

The flow of international research talent across national borders as well as the first and subsequent destinations of trained researchers should be monitored. A set of best practices in data collection and exchange should be developed.

8. Engage stakeholders, e.g. employers, policy makers and universities, to improve and advance graduate education in a global context

It is essential that all voices be heard in improving and advancing graduate education. This is important not only to guide the relevance of training programs, but to ensure information flow between all stakeholders—i.e., governments, industry, business and students.

9. Establish an inclusive global platform for discussion of best practices in graduate education

The discussion should involve all continents and the global platform should be linked to national, regional and institutional platforms to ensure continuity and integrity. The platform must include a diversity of models to suit a diversity of purposes. It is essential

Global Perspectives on Graduate Education 122

that we are all using the same terminology—a shared lexicon—to avoid misunderstanding, i.e., the development of “global English.”

123

APPENDIX B

Participant Biographies

Eleanor Babco currently serves as Senior Consultant for the Professional Masters Programs and co-director of the Professional Science Master’s (PSM) project at the Council of Graduate Schools. Ms. Babco also works with the Government Relations staff and the CGS President on special projects. She is the former Executive Director of the Commission on Professionals in Science and Technology, a nonprofit corporation in Washington, DC that collects, synthesizes, analyzes and disseminates reliable information about the science and engineering workforce in the United States. She received several grants from the Sloan Foundation and the National Science Foundation for special studies at CPST.

She was educated as a chemist at Immacula College and Catholic University, but has devoted her professional career to the analysis and interpretation of education and employment data about scientists and engineers and has written and published extensively on these issues. She received the WEPAN-sponsored Betty Vetter Award for Research in 2001, was named an AWIS fellow in 2002, and is currently a member of the Advisory Board for the Project Working WISE—Intergenerational Voices On Women in Science and Engineering.

Diana Carlin is currently serving as Dean in Residence at the Council of Graduate Schools after seven years as Dean of the Graduate School and International Programs at the University of Kansas. During her tenure at Kansas she developed certificate programs, created Preparing Future Faculty and Preparing Future Professionals Programs, centralized graduate admissions, assisted in creating a program to showcase graduate student research at the State Capitol, assisted faculty in securing grants to support graduate students including a GAANN (Graduate Assistance in Areas of National Need) at the School of Nursing, began the first fundraising efforts for graduate education, and developed a Responsible Conduct of Research Program that received funding through CGS from the Office of Research Integrity and the National Science Foundation and from NSF for a $300,000 EESE grant (Ethics in Engineering and Science Education). Her office assisted the Schools of Business and Engineering in creating dual and joint degree programs with international universities and provided support in establishing dual degrees as part of a FIPSE/Atlantis grant submitted by the School of Pharmacy and the Department of Chemistry.

As international dean she expanded agreements that would include opportunities for graduate student exchanges. She chaired a NAFSA: Association of International Educators international task force on the Bologna Process and co-chaired NAFSA's joint symposium on Bologna with EAIE (European Association for International Education). Carlin served on the CGS Board of Directors and on the CGS Government Relations

124

Advisory Committee. She is currently president-elect of the Midwestern Association of Graduate Schools (MAGS).

Jean Chambaz, MD and Doctor ès sciences, is currently professor of cell biology at the Faculty of Medicine of the Université Pierre et Marie Curie (UPMC) in Paris. He leads an INSERM-UPMC research unit in the field of metabolism and intestinal differentiation. He is director of the doctoral school of physiology and pathophysiology and since 2006 has also been director of the Institute of Doctoral Training at UPMC which has about 3500 doctoral candidates in sciences and medicine from mathematics to public health. He coordinated a network of the EUA doctoral programmes project in 2004-2005. He is Vice-President of the Scientific Council of UPMC.

Mark Dale, (Faculty of Graduate Studies and Research and Department of Biological Sciences) received B.Sc. and M.Sc. degrees from the University of Toronto and completed a Ph.D. at Dalhousie University in 1979. His area of expertise is statistical plant ecology and his students have worked on range of related subjects from pattern development during primary succession to the interaction of competition and environmental stress. He has served on a number of university committees including the University Research Policy Committee and Academic Planning Committee. Past administrative positions include Chair of the Department of Botany, Associate Chair (Undergraduate Studies) in the Department of Biological Sciences, Acting Dean of the Faculty of Science, and Associate Dean in FGSR. Dr. Dale has served as Dean, Faculty of Graduate Studies and Research, since 1998. He has been a member of the Executive Committee of the Canadian Association for Graduate Studies for several years and is now Past President of that organization.

Karen P. DePauw is Vice Provost for Graduate Studies and Dean of the Graduate School at Virginia Tech and tenured Professor in the Departments of Sociology and Human Nutrition, Foods & Exercise. Throughout her academic career and especially in her administrative positions, she has been a strong advocate for diversity and equity in higher education and has spoken at national conferences on changing roles and responsibilities of faculty, global perspectives of higher education, change facing the 21st century university and institutional transformation.

At Virginia Tech, her major accomplishments include success in building a strong graduate community, the establishment of the innovative Graduate Life Center (GLC), the implementation of an imaging system (Nolij) and the signature initiative known as Transformative Graduate Education (TGE). TGE provides courses and programs such as: Preparing the Future Professoriate (PFP), PFP: Global Perspectives, Preparing the Career Professional (PFPro), Graduate Education Development Institute (GEDI) (with VT Learning Technologies), and Citizen Scholar Engagement program (CSE).

125 Appendix

Dr. DePauw has held several leadership roles in graduate education. She was a founding member and Facilitator/Chair for the Virginia Council of Graduate School (VCGS), serves as President (‘07-‘08) of the Council of Southern Graduate Schools (CSGS) and is currently Chair-elect of the Council of Graduate Schools Board of Directors. She has been a panelist, speaker and presenter at regional affiliates (CSGS, WAGS) and national meetings and workshops (CGS, NSF IGERT, NSF Advance).

Barbara Evans assumed the position of Dean, Faculty of Graduate Studies and Professor of Zoology, University of British Columbia in 2007. Prior to this, as Pro Vice-Chancellor (Research Training) at the University of Melbourne, she had particular responsibilities for the oversight of policy, management and quality assurance for research higher degree programs, postgraduate generic skills training and research supervision. From 1997 to 2007, Professor Evans was also Dean of the School of Graduate Studies (SGS), which provides for over 3,000 Ph.D. students and 10,000 postgraduates across the University. In addition to administering the Ph.D. degree program, the School provides a broad range of academic support and professional skills programs for all postgraduate students. SGS is committed to quality assurance and is actively involved in national and international benchmarking of research higher degree practices. Professor Evans was elected Convenor of the Australian Deans and Directors of Graduate Studies for 2005–06, and in early 2006, was nominated by her peers as Convenor of the Universitas 21 Deans and Directors of Graduate Studies. She has been an invited speaker at many international conferences in the U.S., Canada and Asia focused on postgraduate and research higher degree education and has been invited to review the research training programs at several Australian and international universities. In March 2007, the School hosted the second of three international workshops “Forces and Forms of Change in Doctoral Education” organised through the Center for Innovation and Research in Graduate Education at the University of Washington, and funded by the Ford Foundation for 35 invited attendees, representing 16 countries.

Originally a zoologist, Professor Evans’ research was concerned with the development of a broad understanding of the biology of a wide range of animal species. Her work was characterised by an interdisciplinary approach using a wide range of experimental techniques ranging from histology, biochemistry and organ physiology through to the physiology of freely-moving animals and animal behaviour. During this period she undertook several overseas appointments in the UK and Canada to work with international collaborators in the field of comparative zoology and her research resulted in the publication of over 100 book chapters, research papers and conference proceedings. Professor Evans is also the author and editor of three award-winning Biology textbooks for senior secondary and tertiary students, each now in their fourth edition.

Moheb Ghali has been Vice Provost for Research and Dean of the Graduate School and Professor of Economics at Western Washington University for 14 years. Prior to that, he served as the University of Hawaii’s Director of Research and as Professor of Economics.

Global Perspectives on Graduate Education 126

He received Master’s degree from the University of California–Berkeley, and his doctorate from the University of Washington. He taught at Rice University, the University of Washington and the University of Hawaii. He authored and edited three books and published more than 50 papers in academic journals.

Ghali was selected as a Senior Fulbright Scholar three times, and received Fellowships from the National Science Foundation, the governments of Egypt and the government of Italy. He currently serves on the CGS Board of Directors and the Board of Trustees of St. Paul’s Episcopal School. He has served the GRE Board, and it’s Executive Committee, as President and member of the Executive Committee of the International Society for Inventory Research, and was President of the Western Association of Graduate Schools.

Jeffery C. Gibeling was appointed Dean of Graduate Studies at the University of California, Davis in August 2002. In this capacity, he oversees 85 graduate degree programs, of which more than one-half are organized as interdisciplinary graduate groups. He previously served as Chair of the Academic Senate at UC Davis from 1999- 2002 and Executive Associate Dean of Graduate Studies from 1996-1998. He joined the faculty at UC Davis as an Assistant Professor of Materials Science and Engineering in 1984. Professor Gibeling holds degrees in Mechanical Engineering and Materials Science and Engineering from Stanford University. He also worked as an Acting Assistant Professor and Senior Research Associate at Stanford from 1979 through 1984. Professor Gibeling is the author or co-author of more than 85 scholarly publications on the mechanical properties of materials and has guided the thesis and dissertation work of 25 graduate students throughout his career

During his tenure, Dean Gibeling has promoted continuous improvements in information technology to enhance the ability of the Office of Graduate Studies to serve its clientele. He is also deeply committed to increasing the diversity of the graduate population at UC Davis. Under Dean Gibeling’s leadership the Office of Graduate Studies has developed a comprehensive Professional Development program to ensure that graduate students complete their degrees and are prepared for successful careers. He has also devoted significant attention to the needs of postdoctoral scholars and established an annual award for Excellence in Postdoctoral Research. In addition to serving on the CGS Board of Directors, Dean Gibeling is a member of the Western Association of Graduate Schools Executive Committee and the GRE Board.

Fred L. Hall started August 1 as the Vice-Provost (Graduate Education) and Dean of Graduate Studies at the University of Calgary. Prior to July 1, he had been the Dean of Graduate Studies at McMaster University in Ontario for eight years, and had earlier served six years as an Associate Dean of Graduate Studies. He also holds a tenured appointment in Civil Engineering at Calgary, and has numerous publications in the areas of freeway traffic flow theory and operations, and earlier on the impacts of transportation noise on residential communities. His most recent research leave was spent in part at the

127 Appendix

University of Melbourne’s School of Graduate Studies where he conducted research on cross-national comparisons of aspects of doctoral education.

John Hayton was appointed Counsellor (Education, Science and Training) at the Australian Embassy in Washington DC in February 2007. Prior to Mr. Hayton’s appointment he was a Director of the Americas, Europe, Multilateral and VET Sector Policy Section, International Co-operation Branch within DEST since January 2004. Mr. Hayton 's career has spanned 18 years with the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade including postings in Bangkok and New York and three years leading and implementing an information technology industry development program in Tasmania (2001-03). Until recently Mr. Hayton was Presiding Member of the Board of The Friends’ School in Hobart Tasmania. The Friends’ School, with 1300 students from K- 12, offers the IB as a program option for Year 11 and 12 students and uses the PYP.

Doug Horner was elected to his second term as Member of the Legislative Assembly for Spruce Grove-Sturgeon-St. Albert on November 22, 2004, and on November 26, 2004, was sworn in as Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Development, a position he held until December 15, 2006, when he was sworn in as Minister of Advanced Education and Technology. He also serves as vice-chair of the Agenda and Priorities Committee and is a member of the Treasury Board and the Cabinet Policy Committee on Managing Growth Pressures. Born in Barrhead, Alberta, to Jean and Dr. Hugh Horner, Mr. Horner has spent most of his life in rural Alberta. Mr. Horner also has a solid business background, graduating from the Southern Alberta Institute of Technology (SAIT) with a diploma in business.

After completing further studies, he was accredited by the Institute of Canadian Bankers. Before being elected to the Alberta Legislature, Mr. Horner had extensive experience in the private sector, including banking in southern Alberta and a sound understanding of the value-added sector of agriculture. He was integral in the start-up and operations of his family’s barley and oat processing mill. Later, he became responsible for international marketing and sales of specialty grains for ConAgra out of its Nebraska office. After three years he moved back to Canada and established a trading company for agri-foods and agri-feeds for domestic and international markets.

Mr. Horner is an active member of his community. He is currently a member of the Spruce Grove and District Chamber of Commerce, the St. Albert Parkland Rotary Club, the Royal Canadian Legion, the Loyal Edmonton Regiment Association as well as several other service and community organizations.

Mr. Horner has previously served as a member of the Standing Committee on Law and Regulations, the Special Standing Committee on Members’ Services and the Standing Policy Committee on Justice and Government Services. He has also served as chair of the Alberta government’s Information and Communications Technology Implementation Committee and vice-chair of the Alberta Grain Commission.

Global Perspectives on Graduate Education 128

Karen Klomparens has served as Dean of the Graduate School and Associate Provost for Graduate Education at Michigan State University since 1997. She is a Professor of Plant Biology and is on leave as Director of MSU’s Center for Advanced Microscopy. With her graduate students, Dr. Klomparens published 60 peer-reviewed articles and 3 books on the topic of ultrastructural development of sporulating structures in fungi. Prior to becoming Assistant Dean for Graduate Student Welfare in 1994, Dr. Klomparens was on a Fulbright-supported sabbatical at Cambridge University. Dr. Klomparens’ passions as a graduate dean focus on completion issues for doctoral students, interdisciplinary graduate education, and inclusive excellence. Klomparens and her colleagues developed a FIPSE (U.S. Department of Education) and Hewlett Foundation- supported program on “Setting Expectations and Resolving Conflicts between Graduate Students and Faculty.” The program uses interest-based approaches to resolving conflicts and has been used in a variety of settings inside and outside of academe for the past 9 years. Klomparens served a 2-year term as the Chair of the Big Ten (CIC) graduate deans group and is currently serving on the CGS Board of Directors and Executive Committee, the AGS Executive Committee, and the GRE Board of Directors.

Carol B. Lynch is a Senior Scholar at the Council of Graduate Schools, where she directs the professional master’s initiatives. She is on leave from her position as Professor of Ecological and Evolutionary Biology, and Fellow of the Institute for Behavioral Genetics at the University of Colorado at Boulder, where she served as Dean of the Graduate School and Vice Chancellor for Research from 1992-2004.

Dr. Lynch received her B.A. from Mount Holyoke College, her M.A. from the University of Michigan, and her Ph.D. from the University of Iowa. She held an NSF Postdoctoral Fellowship at the University of Colorado. From 1973–92 she was at Wesleyan University in Middletown, Connecticut, rising through the ranks to Professor of Biology, and later Dean of the Sciences. She held a Research Career Development Award from NIH, is a Fellow of AAAS and was President of the Behavior Genetics Association. She was the Program Director in Population Biology and Physiological Ecology at the National Science Foundation in 1990–91.

Dr. Lynch was President of the Western Association of Graduate Schools and has served on the Board of Directors of the Council of Graduate Schools and on the Executive Committee of the Council on Research Policy and Graduate Education of NASULGC (two terms). She is currently a member of the GRE Board of Directors, chairs the TOEFL Board (ETS) and is a member of the NRC committee on the assessment of research doctoral programs. She served as the inaugural CGS/NSF Dean in Residence, and later reprised that role.

A biologist by training, Dr. Lynch has held research grants from NIH, NSF, and NATO, has published on evolutionary and behavioral genetics, was Co-PI on an NSF AGEP award and is currently Co-PI on an NSF ADVANCE award.

129 Appendix

James R. Moran is currently the Vice Provost for Graduate Studies and Research at the University of Denver. He has oversight responsibility for all graduate programs (over 100 master’s plus 21 doctoral degrees), the University Office of Sponsored Programs, and the University Student Health and Counseling Center. In addition, several interdisciplinary graduate programs and research centers report directly to him. He holds a bachelor’s degree in sociology, a graduate diploma in sociology and social welfare from the University of Stockholm, and a master’s degree in social work from the University of Washington. He received his Ph.D. in social welfare from the University of Wisconsin- Madison where he worked as an investigator at the Institute for Research on Poverty studying the impact of child support policy changes on the poverty status of families. He has received over $2.5 million in research grants and has published numerous articles and book chapters on subjects ranging from child support and poverty to substance abuse prevention among American Indian youth. The majority of Dr. Moran’s research has focused on preventing alcohol problems among American Indians. His most recent externally funded research project was a Center on Substance Abuse Prevention study of the relationship between family strengths and the prevention of substance abuse among American Indian families

During his tenure as Professor of Social Work at the University of Denver, Dr. Moran served as the American Indian Representative on the Council of Social Work Education Board of Directors, Vice Chair of the Group for the Advancement of Doctoral Education and as a member of the Scientific Advisory Committee of the Institute for the Advancement of Social Work Research. At the University of Denver he has chaired the University Institutional Review Board for the Protection of Human Subjects and worked on several university-wide committees focused on research and scholarship. He currently serves on the University Planning Advisory Council that is charged with strategic planning for the university and he is co-chair of a university-wide task force on Scholarship and Research.

He has participated on several National Institutes of Health (NIH) study sections and as a cultural consultant to the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (NIAAA) and the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA). He served as Chair of the Council of Graduate Schools Advisory Committee on Minorities for three years and was recently elected to the Council of Graduate Schools Board of Directors. Dr Moran also serves on the Executive Committee and is President of the Western Association of Graduate Schools.

Rune Nilsen is Professor of International Health in the Centre for International Health at the University of Bergen. His research is in immune-pathology, tuberculosis, nutrition and cancer and smoking. He collaborated for 25 years with institutions in Africa in research and capacity building. He is Initiator and Director of the Centre for International Health at the University of Bergen, and since 1988 has been involved in building up an interdisciplinary research school in international health and, nationally, the Norwegian

Global Perspectives on Graduate Education 130

Programme of Development Research. Dr. Nilsen serves as the Advisor to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs on Development on Research and Higher Learning in developing countries. He has played a central role in developing the new national Ph.D. regulations and the new concept of research schools in Norway and in building the new Ph.D. degree and the research schools at the University of Bergen. He was a Leader of the Network of “Innovation in Ph.D. training” in the EUA project 2002-2004. He is also active in the OPEN ACCESS policy and institutional repositories for research publications in Norway, and sits in the Committee of EUA on Open Access.

Suzanne Ortega was appointed as the Dean of the University of Washington Graduate School and Vice Provost in August 2005. Prior to her appointment at the University of Washington, she served five years as the Vice Provost for Advanced Studies and Dean of the Graduate School at the University of Missouri–Columbia (MU). Dr. Ortega's masters and doctoral degrees in sociology were completed at Vanderbilt University. She served as assistant/associate graduate dean from 1994-2000 at the University of Nebraska, where she was also a faculty member for 20 years.

With primary research interests in mental health epidemiology, health services, and race and ethnic relations, Dr. Ortega is the author or co-author of numerous journal articles, book chapters, and an introductory sociology text, now in its 7th edition. Dr. Ortega, an award winning teacher, has served on a number of review panels for NSF and NIH and has been the principal investigator or co-investigator on grants totaling more than $6 million in state and federal funds. Her work to secure funding for and develop successful Ronald E. McNair Post-baccalaureate Degree, Preparing Future Faculty, Ph.D. Completion, and Diversity Enhancement programs, including the CGS/Peterson’s Award for Innovations in Promoting an Inclusive Graduate Community are among her most important administrative accomplishments. Dr. Ortega is active in her national disciplinary association, having served on the American Sociological Association (ASA) Advisory Board for Preparing Future Faculty, the ASA Executive Office and Budget committee and currently serving as a member of the Journal of Health and Social Behavior editorial board. In addition, she has served on the Executive Board of the NASULGC Council on Research Policy and Graduate Education and is a past-Chair of the Midwestern Association of Graduate Schools and Council of Graduate Schools' Boards. Dr. Ortega currently chairs the GRE Board and serves as a member of the National Academies of Science Committee on the Assessment of the Research Doctorate.

Robyn Owens is the Pro Vice-Chancellor for Research and Research Training at the University of Western Australia in Perth, Australia. She obtained a BSc (Hons) in mathematics at UWA in 1974 before going to Oxford to complete an MSc (1976) and a DPhil (1980), also in mathematics. She then spent three years in Paris at l'Université de Paris-Sud, Orsay, continuing research in mathematical analysis before returning to UWA in 1982 to work as a research mathematician.

131 Appendix

Since then, she has lectured in mathematics and computer science at UWA, as well as for short periods at Berkeley, The University of Canterbury in Christchurch, and Prince Songkla University in Thailand. Her research has focused on computer vision, including feature detection in images, 3D shape measurement, image understanding, and representation. From 1998-2002 Robyn was the Head of the School of Computer Science and Software Engineering. She is a Fellow of the Australian Computer Society.

Susan Pfeiffer is Dean of Graduate Studies and Vice-Provost, Graduate Education (2004-2009), and Professor in the Department of Anthropology, University of Toronto. As Dean of SGS, she is responsible for institutional oversight of all graduate programs at U of T, in which over 12,000 graduate students are enrolled. She serves on the executive committees of the Ontario Council for Graduate Studies (OCGS) and the Canadian Association for Graduate Studies (CAGS), and is a Member of Corporation of Massey College. She is a member of the Research Council of the Canadian Institute for Advanced Research (CIFAR). Previous administrative positions include Associate Dean and Acting Dean of Graduate Studies at the University of Guelph (1992-97), Acting Chair of Anthropology (2002), and Vice-Dean for Graduate Education and Research (2003-04) in the Faculty of Arts & Science at University of Toronto. She holds degrees from University of Iowa (Religion, B.A.1968) and University of Toronto (Anthropology, Ph.D. 1976). Her research in biological anthropology focuses on the reconstruction of past human adaptations, through analysis of the human skeleton. A member of Phi Beta Kappa and Sigma Xi honorary societies, she is an honorary research associate of the Department of Archaeology at the University of Cape Town. She has served as research advisor to over 40 graduate students and has received an Arts & Science award for outstanding teaching. She has published one authored and three edited books, plus over 70 book chapters and refereed journal articles. Her most recent book, co-edited with R.W. Williamson, is Bones of the Ancestors: The Archaeology and Osteobiography of the Moatfield Site (2003), published by the Canadian Museum of Civilization.

Mary Ritter was appointed Pro-Rector (Pro Vice-Chancellor) for Postgraduate Affairs at Imperial College London in October 2004, and added the International portfolio in October 2005. She headed the Department of Immunology from 2004-2006, and from 1999 to February 2006 was Director of the Graduate School of Life Sciences and Medicine (GSLSM) at Imperial. After a BA in Zoology and DPhil in Immunology from the University of Oxford, and Research Fellowships at the University of Connecticut, USA and Imperial Cancer Research Fund, London UK, she took up an academic post at the Royal Postgraduate Medical School—now the Hammersmith Campus of Imperial College London, following the 1997 merger. Her research programme centres on the development of the immune system, and she has supervised more than 40 Ph.D. and masters’ students, all of whom have successfully gained their degree.

She was the founding Director of the GSLSM at Imperial College, steering the Graduate School through from inception in 1999 to its current overarching role providing interdisciplinary research activities, an extensive skills training programme and quality

Global Perspectives on Graduate Education 132

assurance for all the postgraduate students in the Faculties of Life Sciences and Faculty of Medicine. She subsequently helped to establish Imperial’s second graduate school, of Engineering and Physical Sciences, launched in 2002. She initiated and is closely involved in both the design and delivery of the graduate schools’ postgraduate skills training programme. In addition, she has established new academic taught courses at both bachelor’s and master’s level and regularly teaches undergraduate and postgraduate students in her specialist area of immunology as well as running workshops in transferable skills. She is Chair of the current ‘initial’ INSPIRE Programme Board.

She sits on a number of national and international committees including the UK Medical Research Council’s Non-Clinical Careers Training and Development Panel, the UK Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council’s Modular Training for Industry Panel, The Academy of Medical Sciences’ Academic Careers Committee (non- clinical) and the Programme Review Committee for the Cambridge-MIT Institute. She chairs the UK Research Councils’ “UK GRAD” Steering Committee and the UKIERI Evaluation panel, and has been a member of external evaluation and review panels for universities in Finland, Germany (as part of the Federal German Government’s Strategic Excellence Awards) and France.

Mary Ritter’s research has focused on the control of T cell development within the thymus, and in particular the role of the thymic epithelial cell microenvironment in this process and the mechanisms that control thymic loss with ageing. Contributions to our understanding of the thymic microenvironment, include: the concept of the microenvironment itself; the morphological and molecular diversity that defines distinct microenvironmental niches; the development of this diverse microenvironment from a common thymic epithelial stem cell; the dependence of the ‘steady state’ diverse microenvironment on intrathymic ‘crosstalk’ between epithelium and developing thymocytes; and, most recently, the identification and function of key microenviromental molecules. In the clinical context, this work is aimed at improving immune recovery following clinical bone marrow transplantation and to the possibility of arresting/ameliorating immune decline in the elderly. Her research has been supported by funding from the UK Research Councils, The Wellcome Trust, The Leukaemia Research Fund, Action Research, other UK Research charities and Industry. She have published >100 peer reviewed research papers on this work.

Dan Rizzoli is currently the Director of International Education with the Government of Alberta’s Ministry of Advanced Education and Technology. Mr. Rizzoli’s role with the Province of Alberta has provided him the opportunity to travel within Australia, China, Japan, Korea, Mexico, Vietnam, the United Kingdom, Germany and the U.S. Prior to joining the province of Alberta in 2001, Mr. Rizzoli was employed with the Higher College’s of Technology in Dubai, United Arab Emirates. Mr. Rizzoli has been working in education since 1985, as a teacher at the primary and secondary levels, a college instructor, program Chairperson, and as Acting Dean of an Academic and Career Program division within one of Alberta’s Community College’s.

133 Appendix

Victoria Rodriguez is Vice Provost and Dean of Graduate Studies at the University of Texas at Austin and Ashbel Smith Professor at the Lyndon B. Johnson School of Public Affairs. Her scholarly work has focused on governance, democratization, and political change in Mexico. Her current work includes path-breaking research and two books on women in Mexican politics: “Women's Participation in Mexican Political Life” (1998) and “Women in Contemporary Mexican Politics” (2003). The latter was also published in Spanish.

Dean Rodríguez has also served as a consultant for the World Bank. In 2000 she received the Ohtli Medal, the highest honor granted by the Mexican government outside Mexico. Hispanic Business named her as one of the 100 most influential Hispanics in the United States in 2002. In April 2007, Dr. Rodríguez received the Margaret C. Berry award for her valuable contributions and support of higher education at The University of Texas at Austin. She also was named one of the 20 Elite Women of 2007 in the country by Hispanic Business magazine.

Richard Russell graduated from the University of Tasmania and subsequently obtained his Ph.D. from the Research School of Chemistry at The Australian National University in Canberra. An author of some 170-research papers in Organic Chemistry he holds a DSc and is a Fellow of the Royal Society of Chemistry and the Royal Australian Chemical Institute. He has held visiting faculty positions at Imperial College London and Texas A and M University. He has held two chairs of Chemistry in Australia the most recent being at Deakin University in Victoria. During his time at Deakin he served as a Head of School and an Executive Dean of Faculty. Dr. Russell is presently Dean of Graduate Studies at the University of Adelaide in South Australia.

Apart from his research Dr. Russell has been an enthusiastic teacher and has been awarded numerous teaching prizes including a prestigious Australian Award for University Teaching. In 2001 was made a Member of the Order of Australia for his contributions to Chemistry and Chemical Education. He has long held an interest in encouraging academic excellence at all levels and has lectured extensively to high school students around Australia. He was founder and, for a decade, director of the Australian Chemistry Olympiad as well as president of the 30th International Chemistry Olympiad held in Melbourne in 1998. He is presently Honorary Secretary to the Rhodes Scholarship Selection Committee of South Australia and regularly acts as a reviewer for teaching prizes and scholarships.

William B. Russel, the A.W. Marks ’19 Professor in the Department of Chemical Engineering, was appointed dean of the Graduate School at Princeton University in 2002. The Graduate School supports more than 2,300 graduate students pursuing masters and doctoral degrees in 39 departments and programs in all aspects of the endeavor— including both academic and student life responsibilities from recruiting through graduate alumni relations. He continues to pursue research that includes the crystallization of

Global Perspectives on Graduate Education 134

colloidal dispersions (akin to the formation of opals), theory and fabrication of micro- patterns in thin polymer films, and the drying and cracking of paint films. He is the author or coauthor of two books, the Dynamics of Colloidal Systems and Colloidal Dispersions and the Debye Lectures on The Phase Behavior and Dynamics of Colloidal Dispersions.

After receiving his B.A. and M.Ch.E. degrees from Rice University and a Ph.D. from Stanford, he held a NATO Postdoctoral Fellowship in the Department of Applied Mathematics and Theoretical Physics at Cambridge University and joined the Princeton faculty in 1974. At Princeton he has served as chairman of the Department of Chemical Engineering and director of the Princeton Materials Institute. His 35 Ph.D. graduates now pursue careers in academia, industry, law, management consulting, and finance. Dean Russel is a member of the National Academy of Engineering and the American Academy of Arts and Sciences and serves as chair of the board of directors of the Council of Graduate Schools.

Debra W. Stewart, a national spokesperson for graduate education in America, became the fifth president of the Council of Graduate Schools in July, 2000. Prior to coming to the Council, Stewart was Vice Chancellor and Dean of the Graduate School at North Carolina State University. She also served as Interim Chancellor at UNC-Greensboro (1997) and as graduate dean and then vice provost (1988-1998) at N.C. State. The Council of Graduate Schools is the leading organization dedicated to the improvement and advancement of graduate education. Its over 475 members award over 95% of all U.S. doctorates and approximately 70 percent of all U.S. master’s degrees. Among its 24 international members the Council includes 11 major Canadian universities.

Stewart's service to graduate education includes chair of the Graduate Record Examination Board, chair of the Council on Research Policy and Graduate Education, chair of the Board of Directors of Oak Ridge Associated Universities, and chair of the Board of Directors of Council of Graduate Schools. She also served as vice chair of the ETS Board of Trustees, as Trustee of the Triangle Center for Advanced Studies, as a member the American Council on Education Board and several National Research Council Committees. She currently serves on the National Research Council Board on Higher Education and the Workforce, the National Research Council Committee on Educational Paradigms for Homeland Security, and advisory boards for the Carnegie Initiative on the Doctorate, the Responsive Ph.D. Project, and the Task Force on Immigration and America’s Future.

During her 12 years in leadership positions in North Carolina, Stewart worked to mobilize stakeholders inside and outside the university to advance university programs. She spearheaded a strategic plan for graduate education at N.C. State that created a framework for interdisciplinary curriculum, significantly enhanced financial support for graduate assistants, and solved a long term problem with tuition remission. These changes transformed the competitive position of the university for the top students

135 Appendix

internationally. She lectures nationally and internationally on graduate education issues and challenges.

Stewart received her Ph.D. in Political Science from University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, her master's degree in government from the University of Maryland, and her B.A. from Marquette University where she majored in philosophy. She is the author or coauthor of numerous scholarly articles on administrative theory and public policy. Her disciplinary research focuses on ethics and managerial decision making. With sustained support from the National Science Foundation, she has conducted research on political attitudes and moral reasoning among public officials in Poland and Russia.

Richard Wheeler is Vice Provost and Dean of the Graduate College at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. He joined the Illinois Department of English in 1969, and served as department head from 1987-97. Before joining the Graduate College as dean in 2000, he was acting head of the Department of Anthropology for a year. His publications include Shakespeare’s Development and the Problem Comedies: Turn and Counter-Turn (U of California P, 1981), The Whole Journey: Shakespeare’s Power of Development (co- authored with C. L. Barber, U of California P, 1986), Creating Elizabethan Tragedy (ed., U of Chicago P, 1988), Critical Essays on Shakespeare’s Measure for Measure (ed., G. K. Hall, 1999), and articles on Shakespeare, Elizabethan drama, literary theory, and modern British literature.

He has been chair of the executive committee of the Midwest Association of Graduate Schools and chair of the Committee on Institutional Cooperation graduate deans’ group, and he is a former chair of the Board of Directors of the Council of Graduate Schools (CGS). He has served on several national panels on graduate education, including the National Research Council’s Committee on an Assessment of Research-Doctorate Programs, the CGS Government Relations Task Force, and Graduate Education 2020.

Lesley Wilson joined the EUA at its creation in 2001 and formally took over as Secretary General in 2002. Previous to this she held a number of senior positions in higher education and research management at European level, in particular as Director of UNESCO’s European Centre for Higher Education in Bucharest (UNESCO-CEPES) from 1995 to late 1999, Head of the newly established Science Policy Unit at the European Science Foundation in Strasbourg (1994/1995) and Director of the EC TEMPUS Office in Brussels from 1990 to 1994. A graduate of the University of Glasgow and the Institut des Hautes Etudes Européennes at the University of Strasbourg she spent her early career as a scientific staff member of the German Science Council in Cologne before moving to Brussels in 1988 to join the newly established ERASMUS Bureau.

Global Perspectives on Graduate Education 136