NETWORK CREATION FOR DOCTORAL EDUCATION: PRACTICAL CHALLENGES

1
NETWORK CREATION FOR DOCTORAL EDUCATIONPRACTICA
L CHALLENGES

• Marie-Laure DJELIC
• ESSEC BUSINESS SCHOOL
• Paris, France

2
NETWORKS WHY?

• For Schools and PhD Programs
• Creating synergies and sharing scarce material
  and intellectual resources
• Reducing costs
• We can all collectively benefit when we each do
  what we are best at classical division of
  labour argument
• For Faculty members
• Discussions and teaching experience are
  definitely more satisfactory in groups that are a
  bit larger
• Possibly associated with some mobility
• Access to a larger and more diverse intellectual
  community (students and indirectly their
  advisers)
• For Students
• Dynamics of learning are better in mid-size than
  in very small-size groups
• Getting access to a much richer pool of Faculty
  members
• Creating a community of peers and learning the
  ropes, early on of network and community
  functioning
• Learning from diversity but also meeting students
  working on parallel issues and overcoming
  intellectual  loneliness 

3
NETWORKS IN DOCTORAL EDUCATION WHAT?

• Completely externalized structured around hub
  organizations (EIASM, Edamba), professional
  associations and their conferences, research
  projects or funding programs (A)
• Adhoc networks of a given program to facilitate
  mobility during the dissertation writing period
  essentially (B)
• Structured network to share teaching resources
  (C)
• Joint PhD programs (D)
• gt Nationally based, regionally based,
  transnational

4
(A) EUROPEAN RESEARCH COLLOQUIUM

• Initiative from the Netherlands, with national
  money and then EU funding
• Objective going beyond a summer school
  creating a space through time for PhD students
  from diverse horizons to work together
• 15/18 PhD students, working on a related topic
  (Europeanization and Transnationalization), meet
  approximately every six months over a two-year
  period
• Selected at the end of their first year rather
  during the active phase of dissertation writing
• A common target an edited volume
• Wide diversity of countries (mostly European,
  East and West)

5
WHAT WAS GAINED?

• Learning by doing
• Through confrontation, diversity, debate and
  discussion
• A final process and final product
• A community between students but also between
  students and Faculty members
• The possibility to envision and launch new
  projects

6
(No Transcript)
7
(B) ADHOC NETWORKS FOR MOBILITY

• ENTER program in Economics
• Universitat Autonoma de Barcelona
• University College London
• Universitat Mannheim
• Université Libre de Bruxelles
• Stockholm Universitet
• CentER (Tilburg University)
• MPSE (Université des Sciences Sociales de
  Toulouse
• Doctoral students in the program spend one or two
  semesters in one or two institutions of the
  network on the same footing as local students
  take courses or pursue dissertation research
  under the additional supervision of faculty at
  the host institution. Typically first year of
  courses locally, then selection into the ENTER
  program on the basis of Academic excellence.
• Annual network-wide meetings  Jamborees .
  Presentation of current research by doctoral
  students and faculty.
• Both the exchange of students and the Jamboree
  have been funded under the European Union ERASMUS
  and TMR programs.

8
(C) STRUCTURED NETWORKS TO SHARE TEACHING

• SUBS Stockholm/Uppsala Business Studies
• Bringing together the two programs in 2008 a
  total of 19 students
• Common compulsory and elective courses, shared
  between Uppsala and Stockholm
• The thesis process remains associated with each
  Department

9
SUBS
10
(D) JOINT PHD PROGRAM

• CLEI /IEL International PhD program (Center for
  the Comparative Analysis of Law and Economics,
  Economics of Law, Economics of Institution),
  founded in 2004
• CRG Polytechnique, France
• Cornell University
• Law School at the Centre of Advanced Studies in
  Law and Economics, University of Gent, Belgium
• University degli Studi di Torino
• Joined later 5 other European programs
• First year compulsory course work in Turin with
  professors coming from all over the network.
  Preliminary exams.
• Second year development of the research at one
  of the schools depending on the topic/fields of
  their project. Mobility of at least 6 months
  within the network is compulsory
• Third year will be devoted to completion of the
  doctoral dissertation. PhD degree is granted
  formally by the University of Torino after
  decision of the Doctoral Board, which is
  completely multi-partner

11
CEIL/IEL PhD Program, Collegio Carlo Alberto,
Turin University
12
PRACTICAL CHALLENGES (1)

• Those networks imply collaboration when many of
  our programs are competing
• How do we overcome the sense of propriety that
  many of our institutions have on THEIR PhD
  program?
• How do we convince administrators of the
  usefulness of a process that is  costly  in
  many ways
• Agenda and logistics issues
• Courses organized over compact periods
  conflicts of agenda
• Budgetary issues for the travel of students
• Space availability
• Constraints on mobility
• Issues of measurability how do the programs
  compare how do they evaluate students, how do
  they reward Faculty members?

13
PRACTICAL CHALLENGES (2)

• Supervisor  susceptibility 
• Student  perplexity  - how do you ensure the
  continuity of supervision together with a
  diversity of experiences and inputs?
• Differences of context creating constraints that
  an external teacher may not be aware of
• How can this kind of experience become formally
  recognized, valued during and even more after the
  PhD? Postdoc opportunities, a real transnational
  job market.
• How do you choose your network strategy? What
  should be your criteria for choosing your partner
  institutions?
• How do you sustain such a resource consuming
  construction?