doctoral studies in kenya

8/13/2019 Doctoral Studies in Kenya

1/18

Doctorate Studies in Kenya:

Issues on Quality

By

Laban P AyiroSenior Lecturer,

Education Leadership And Policy StudiesMoi University

Evelyn Jepkemei

Senior Assistant DirectorKenya Institute Of Education

James SangChief Admin Officer,

Moi University


2/18

oc ora e uca on an ua y ssurance :

Theoretical Underpinnings

A highly skilled workforce operating at the frontiers ofknowledge creation and professional practice is key to Kenyas

achievement of the Vision 2030

Expansion of the village: citizen participation, particularly from

underrepresented minority groups, should be a priority in fields

that are essential to our nations success.

Interdisciplinary research preparation and education are

central to future competitiveness because knowledge creation

and innovation frequently occur at the interface of disciplines.

Kenyan Universities must be able to tap and attract thebrightest and best talent globally.

Quality doctoral training is the driver of Kenyan Research

capabilities: success and efforts to evaluate and improve all

aspects of the quality of the doctoral studies must be

advanced and supported in order to foster innovation.


3/18

Introduction to study

Doctoral education, the highest level of academic qualification, is the foundation

for the research and development pursuits of a country.

The term doctorate comes from the Latin docere, meaning to teach, which in

turn comes from the Medieval Latin licentia docendi, or the license to teach.

it proclaims that the recipient is worthy of being listened to as an equal by theappropriate university faculty (Phillips and Pugh 2005:20-21). A PhD is therefore as

much about the learning experience as the production of a thesis

There is some demand, for rigid set of guidelines as to what a PhD should entail.

The number of graduates with a PhD qualification in Kenya and other countries has

grown exponentially in recent years and there is still the absence of a yardstick

against which appropriate success can be measured (Burnard 2001: 159).


4/18

Quality

The degree of excellence

The relative goodness cannot be described in a subtle wayusing quantitative data

can focus different aspects:

prerequisites, processes, results and effects

is a relative concept

- fitness for purpose

- value for money

will have different concrete meaning depending upon what you

focusHowever quality in this study adopts the meaning applied by

CHE, that is consisting of a synthesis of conformity,adaptability and continuous improvement. It is oftendefined as fitness for purpose and also standard

based.


5/18

Purpose of the PhD

PhD is inseparably related to training in research so assessment of the

creative output s includes a judgment in the candidates ability to

conduct independent research

successful research at doctoral level must result in a contribution toknowledge that is realised when it is communicated effectively to othersin the field.

Arguably, the acid test in this dimension might be that others working inthe field need to be able to learn from the creative output if it is to beacceptable as a contribution to knowledge (Jibril 2006).

a doctoral examination typically takes the form of the candidatedefending argument set out in the thesis. a distinction between acreative work that is presented without explanation or critique and onepresented with an attendant critical analysis (Ayiro, 2010)


6/18

Quality assurance Issues

Oral examinationo institutions vary in respect of their use of the viva as an essential or non-

essential component of the doctoral examination process

o the quality control of the examination process is its reliability and its fairness.

o the viva enabling the examiners to decide the viability of the intellectual

position and candidates understanding of it through oral, cross-examination

(Green and Powell, 2005).International perspectives

The processes of doctoral study differ across international boundaries that what

may be expected in terms of the actual examination, if not in terms of the

written submission, will also differ (Green and Powell, 2005)

guidance for external examiners would require greater contextualization.

In many European countries, a public defence of the thesis is required, assuringthe originality of the work and ability to defend arguments.

In most of the universities treat the final defence as a board room activity.

Taking an international perspective, it is not a universal requirement for doctoral

candidates to defend their thesis (either in public or in a closed examination) in

order to be awarded the degree.


7/18

Methodology

The research was carried over a period of six months,

designed as a qualitative study using semi-structured interviews

( 60 academics and 52 ongoing PhD and PhD graduates were

interviewed from 10 niversities in Kenya)

Secondary sources (relevant international and national

(Kenya) policy documents, and publications,

reports from CHE to generate data.

purposive sampling method was used to identify subjects for

interviews across four academic blocks of the university.


8/18

Methodology Data analysis and interpretation was done using the Interactive Model

of Qualitative Data Analysis (Miles and Huberman, 1994).

The data analysis was based on the study themes: context, supervision,

examination and oral defence of the PhD award in Kenya.

The process entailed drawing on institutional policy data concerning

the PhD from 10 Kenyan universities. Second, questionnaires were used

to collect data relating to the PhD award process from four

perspectives

Supervisors ( n=50, 20 women & 25 men )

Candidates ( n=52, 32 women & 20 men )

External Examiners (n=6, 2 women & 4men )

Examination Board members ( n=4, 1 man & 3women)


9/18

Methodology The four questionnaires were tailored to the respondent

groups, although the format of the questionnaires wasbroadly the same.

Information was ascertained relating to: background (gender, age, experience); selection of supervisors; thesupervision; selection of examiners; oral defence panelselection; vivas procedures; outcomes; perceptions ofthe purpose (s) of the viva; and for candidates, theirexpectations and experiences of the PhD process.

The questionnaires to candidates focussed primarily ontheir own PhD path.

The questionnaires to the lecturers focused primarily onthe PhD that they had supervised and examined mostrecently in Kenya.

1/2/2014


10/18

Findings (Context )

Despite the institutionalisation of PhD training in Kenyan Universities, and the apparent serious attentionfor the quality of supervision, PhD studies still face many problems in most of the universities (Kiamba,

For example, the percentage of non-completion is regarded as too high

there is a very long process towards completion, often more than six years, instead of the expectedfour years.

Furthermore fifty percent (50%) of the candidates and the supervisors identified the fact that therewas no contact with peers and the existence of parochial local research cultures as a runningimpediment. Lack of motivation, psychological stress due to isolation, feelings of uselessness and lackof possibilities to participate in a vibrant research culture was captured for both lecturers and students

at forty and seventy two percent (40% &72%) respectively.

Systemic issues also affect the quality of the awards of the PhD in universities in Kenya. The academic

staff raised the issue of uncontrolled growth of doctoral student numbers and the corresponding lack

of supervision capacity.

The students further felt that supervisors did not give due attention to planning and keeping within

time limits and exhibited lack of support for publishing beyond the PhD Thesis.

All these concerns and shortcomings no doubt bring to surface the need to amplify the quality

imperatives in the award of the PhD qualification.

It was stated that the supervisor training was nonexistent,

The examination board members said that appointed supervisors seldom have a conceptual map of

what constitutes acceptable supervision.


11/18

n ngs uperv s on an

Examinations)

Forty eight percent (48%) of the PhD candidates interviewed regard the PhDperiod of their life as a lonely and stressful episode, and without a mentor withwhom to discuss problems.

Both the students and lecturers admit that there is a host of supervision problems.

Lack of a criteria for selecting and training supervisors

meetings were inadequate and lacked depth, and often there were no regularperformance and progress reports.

lack of adequate research funding, and financial arrangements are unclear ornon-existent.

PhD supervision was a stressful and frustrating experience coupled with the factthat completed PhDs often have a low utilization return and so may be regardedas a rather wasteful way of spending research time and money.

poor research design,

lack of focus and

inadequate conceptualization of the research question by both parties.

strained relationship, and not aware of others working in the same field of studiesas one of the constraints.

Indeed it is reasonable to postulate that supervisors themselves are often theproducts of poor supervision, and do not therefore hold experience of whatconstitutes competent supervision.


12/18

Findings (Admission and method of study)

Most students have admitted have degrees below second class lower division)

Inadequate research background and lack of training in methodological and

writing skills (inadequate Bachelors and Masters training) were seen by eighty eight

percent (88%) of both the ongoing and graduated students as a major area of

difficulty.

problematic research facilities (time, office, computer, assistance, flexibility in rules,

under-funding of essential tasks), many competing tasks (teaching, consultancies,

family life) and bad planning along with poor time management as hindrances.

Sixty three percent (63%) of the supervisors conceded that there were majorproblems with writing academic English on the part of the students.

In addition, sixty four percent (64%) of both ongoing and graduated PhDcandidates complained about infrequent meetings with supervisors as well as notenough specific knowledge among supervisors with regard to the candidatesresearch topic.


13/18

Findings (Defense)o Kenyan universities vary in degree of openness of the PhD oral defence. four have public

defences, five have private or relatively private ones.

o not all Kenyan dissertation defences are public. As a result, students at universities

conducting private dissertation defenses may be less informed about this examination

than those at universities having a more open system.o the universities differ in details of the criteria for the choice of the external examiner,

especially regarding impartiality.

o At four universities (Kenyatta, Nairobi JKUAT & Maseno), the external examiners

opinion on the dissertation significantly influences the committees final decision.

o In contrast, the external examiner seems to have less power at Moi and Egerton. At some

of the universities, the external examiners opinion is not permitted to unduly influence

the committees decision.


14/18

Discussion and conclusion

procedure that revolves around the selection of new doctoral students (CHE2006) needs attention.

From our findings it is evident that admission criteria in most of the Kenyan

Universities is not stringent resulting in the admission of candidates for the

PhD lacking the ambition for withstanding the rigours of doctoral studies

(Adu and Orivel 2006). problems of supervision are compounded when the PhD student is clearly not

well-suited for advanced study at the level of the doctorate.

adopt as a best practice by Kenyan universities the use of a combination of

personal interviews, academic records and samples of formal writing in

making selection decisions, so as to bring into the supervision pool studentswho are supervisable(Jibril 2006).


15/18

Discussion and Conclusion

set up the criteria for the selection of supervisors, for poorsupervisors have been seen to be a major factor instudent completion rates, the quality of the thesis andthe overall supervision experience by student andsupervisor alike.

provide formal training for new and promising supervisors

on the technical, ethical, personal, legal, administrativeand professional aspects of supervision be taken onboard by the Kenyan Universities.

it should be standard procedure that faculty requires thedefense of a full PhD proposal at the end of the firstacademic year, this event would then determinewhether the student will be able to continue or not in thePhD programme; it will also bring to the fore problems ofinadequate supervision (Shabani 2006).


16/18

Discussion and Conclusion

having universities prepare an updateable Handbook for Supervision within therelevant department or faculty, so that every supervisor - and student - is aware

of, and familiar with, the often complex administrative regulations, requirements

and deadlines that accompany this process should be considered by the

Kenyan universities (Brossard and Foko 2006).

use a system of mentors to guide new PhD candidates (Materu 2006). It will be

important to have a requirement of at least two international examiners toreview and evaluate a completed thesis; these examiner reports should form

part of the annual evaluation of the capacity of supervisors and of quality

supervision within a School or Faculty or university.

A thesis must be satisfactory as regards literary style and presentation. It must

show that candidates have understood the nature and purpose of the

investigations, are sufficiently acquainted with the relevant literature, have

mastered the methods of research appropriate to the topic and their

application, and are capable of assessing the significance of their findings.

A Doctor of Philosophy thesis must constitute original researchand is expected

to make an original contribution to the field(Maxwell, 2005).


17/18

Quality is theSum of Many Parts


18/18

Thank You!

doctoral studies in kenya

Documents