“Within the South African higher education context, the most significant effort to align doctoral education with the world of work has been the introduction of Work Integrated Learning (WIL)” observe Treptow (2013: 83), who derived insights from employers through interviews. This blogpost builds on ‘work integrated research higher degree (WIRHD) studies’. Further to the integrative framework of the WIHRD context in which both Chen et al (2008: 133), as well as Stewart and Chen (2009: 162), illustrate the unique components; Bernhard and Olsson (2023: 517), in a manuscript aptly titled ‘one foot in academia and one in work-life’, illustrate with the bold arrow in the figure 1 below the required mutual relationships.
Bernhard and Olsson (2023: 517) assert that “the industrial PhD student should not alone be responsible of bridging academia and work–life”, but that “the interactions between these academia and industry need to be strengthened throughout the entire PhD education”. They remark that “both academia and industry must have detailed insights into industrial PhD education to recognize and fully exploit these learning benefits while building, sustaining and resilient collaboration over time promoting a future workforce of researchers with skills, practices and learning capabilities applicable in contemporary society”. In another manuscript the same two authors present (figure 2 below) a ‘WIL-based framework of industrial PhD education collaboration’ (Olsson & Bernhard, 2023: 532).
Olsson and Bernhard (2023: 526) report about “explorative qualitative research on industrial PhD student collaboration was conducted over a three year period (2019-2022)”. Their findings reflect the integrated perspectives “industrial PhD students (IPS), academia (A), and practice (P)” with WIL applied as theoretical lens to identify both benefits and challenges (p. 528). Table 2 (p. 529) illustrate the mutual benefits with selected quotes and categorised “in sub-themes: (i) access to practice – inclusion in networks, projects, and empirical data; (ii) understanding of practice – contextual understanding, inclusion, and tacit knowledge; and (iii) integration of theory and practice – multiple perspectives and knowledge creation” (p. 528).
Despite the benefits above, there are also challenges and tensions indicate Olsson and Bernhard (2023: 529-530). The identified challenges, illustrated by selected quotes in Table 3, “are categorized in the following sub-themes: (i) understanding and expectations of the collaboration; (ii) formal agreements for collaboration – administrative bureaucracy, financing, and conflicts of interest; (iii) inclusion and access; and (iv) integration of research in practice – societal impact”.
The significance of collaboration, mutual understanding, agreements, inclusion and integration are noteworthy. These are key success factors towards industry PhDs.
Bernhard, I. & Olsson, A.K. (2023). One foot in academia and one in work-life – the case of Swedish industrial PhD students. Journal of Workplace Learning, 35(6). 506-523. https://doi.org/10.1108/JWL-11-2022-0157
Olsson, A.K. & Bernhard, I. (2023). Transforming doctoral education: Exploring industrial PhD collaboration in Sweden. International Journal of Work-Integrated Learning, 24(4), 523-536. https://www.ijwil.org/files/IJWIL_24_4_523_536.pdf
Treptow, R. (2013). The South African PhD: Insights from employer interviews. Perspectives in Education, 31(2), 83-91,142.
Comments