1  

       Review of Postgraduate Research Student (PGR) Provision – Hilary Term 2012 Contents

1. Introduction 2 2. Methodology 4 3. University-wide Key Issues 8 4. Humanities Key Issues 17 5. Social Sciences Key Issues 21 6. Mathematical, Physical and Life Sciences Key Issues 27 7. Medical Sciences Key Issues 32 8. Focus Group Structure 37

  2  

1. Introduction  1.1 Over the past two academic years, OUSU has conducted focus-group based

research projects looking at academic provision firstly for undergraduate students and then for postgraduate taught students. The reports these exercises produced were largely well received, and it was felt that a report based on the experiences of postgraduate research students would be similarly useful.

1.2 This report is based on 29 focus groups conducted with PGR students in

departments and colleges, plus an online survey, at the start of Hilary Term 2012. It aims to give a snapshot of PGR students’ experiences, perceptions and attitudes regarding the academic provision they receive at Oxford. In so doing it touches on a number of related areas, such as the College experience and the importance of funding.

1.3 The findings of the exercise are presented below. First, issues common

across the University are presented, and the key issues found in each of the four academic divisions follow.

1.4 Many of the findings were remarkably consistent across the University,

although it was naturally often the case that different issues manifested themselves in different ways depending on the nuance of studying in a particular division.

1.5 The findings for each division are deliberately not presented using standard

headings. Rather, they are presented as far as possible in keeping with the way students in that division articulated the situation as they saw it.

1.6 More generally, the findings presented here aim as far as possible to mirror

the way PGRs talked about their experiences, and the way they conceptualised DPhil study.

1.7 There are a number of unsurprising findings, and perhaps a few more

surprising ones. The sheer demand for both teaching opportunities and a sense of community was perhaps unexpected. Students’ fears about supervision were perhaps to be expected, but the way in which these were articulated (almost always in terms of worries about a ‘safety net’ if supervision was not working) was more surprising.

1.8 Many of the students who participated, if not most, expressed very positive

attitudes towards their academic experience of Oxford. Care has been taken to itemise what students really value in their provision and to convey where there has been positive feedback. Arguably in contrast to OUSU’s PGT Teaching Review Report last year, there are not too many areas of

  3  

consistent concern across the University. However, there are clearly students who are not having a positive experience. The findings below therefore seek to accurately capture this variability of experience, and to describe where possible what students appreciate and what they do not appreciate, so that this can be noted in future planning.

   

  4  

 2.  Methodology 2.1 The methodology of the PGR Provision Review used a similar methodology to last year’s PGT Teaching Review, with some important differences. It was felt that the PGT Teaching Review and the previous Undergraduate Teaching Review produced unique sets of data. The exercises allowed students to discuss their academic experience of Oxford and articulate their attitudes towards the provision they receive from the collegiate University. 2.2 29 focus groups were conducted over the opening four weeks of Hilary Term 2012. Focus groups were run in departments and also in Colleges through MCRs, in roughly even numbers. The rationale for organising focus groups in this way was threefold. First, holding focus groups in departments and Colleges was a matter of expediency, to make sure we had the opportunity to speak to as many PGRs as possible. Second, holding focus groups in both allowed for intense discussion of department or faculty provision on the one hand, and on the other for interesting cross-divisional perspectives. It was often the case that PGRs in a College focus group would share similar experiences or attitudes, but build on each other’s responses with nuance relevant to their department. Finally, holding focus groups in Colleges allowed students the chance to express negative sentiments about their department or faculty without fear of it being shared around the department/faculty (and vice versa). The following Colleges held focus groups: Lady Margaret Hall St Catherine’s St Antony’s Magdalen Queen’s Lincoln Regent’s Pembroke University Linacre Green Templeton Kellogg St John’s Worcester The following departments and faculties held focus groups: Department of Politics and International Relations Queen Elizabeth House

  5  

Faculty of Law Department of Education Department of Sociology Faculty of History Department of Social Policy and Intervention Department of Primary Health Care Department of Materials Department of Pharmacology Department of Physics Nuffield Department of Orthopaedics, Rheumatology and Musculoskeletal Sciences Department of Physiology, Anatomy and Genetics Department of Mathematics Department of Oncology 2.3 Focus groups averaged an attendance of six. Focus groups were organized through the Department/Faculty PGR Representatives, or through College MCR Presidents. All focus groups were run by a member of the OUSU Executive, or by the Representative or Common Room President who organized them. 2.4 As can be seen, Social Science and Medical Science departments were over-represented compared to MPLS and Humanities departments/faculties. However, the College focus groups contained fairly even splits, with Humanities, Social Sciences and MPLS students slightly overrepresented compared to Medical Science students. 2.5 In keeping with last year’s PGT Teaching Review, an online survey was also made available that consisted of the structure used for the focus groups, with text fields for responses. The virtue of this survey was twofold, in that it allowed access to give feedback to those unable to attend focus groups, and aside from information on gender and division feedback on the survey was completely anonymous. 190 students participated in the online survey. 2.6 Again in keeping with previous years, the set of questions for the focus groups were prepared after consultation with the Oxford Learning Institute, the PVC (Education), the Head of Education Policy Support and the Director of Student Administration and Services. 2.7 This report has been prepared independently of research into the DPhil experience conducted by the OLI. It will be instructive, therefore, to compare this report’s findings with the results of the OLI’s work. 2.8 A key point to note is that findings are presented by division, and where respondents are quoted every effort is made to conceal which department or faculty they are in. This was explained to focus group participants and

  6  

participants in the survey, in order to assuage concerns that any feedback they might give would lead to negative repercussions. Hence, there is a wealth of free and frank comments on academic life for PGR students. However, this is balanced by a degree of generality. This report does not usually, therefore, itemise specific examples of good practice (or less good practice) in terms of supervision, progression, taught courses or skills training except where there is no chance of comments being traced (for instance, OUCS courses got very good feedback across the board and there is no risk in saying so). Rather, this report seeks to give an account of what PGR students value in their academic provision and what they do not value. In order to make concrete improvements in provision, results of this report need to be considered in conjunction with sensitively-obtained local feedback. 2.9 It will be noted that this exercise is a large-scale qualitative exercise, and as such we have not sought to find statistically significant trends in responses. Rather, we have sought to look beyond a straightforward ‘satisfaction survey’ to gather students’ insights into how they regard the provision they receive, and their perceptions of the ways in which it shapes their experience of Oxford. 2.10 With this in mind, the key findings below are those issues that were raised by students across different divisions, and/or were cited as key elements of their experiences as research students at Oxford. The issues are not, in comparison to those presented in the PGT Teaching Review last year, issues that can be immediately regarded as ‘concerns’. Whilst there is cause for concern in response to many of the points raised by students (and these unequivocal concerns are clearly flagged), equally there were many occasions where students voiced words to the effect of ‘Issue X is like this. It works very well for some people and very badly for others.’ There were also, of course, many instances of students expressing positive sentiments about aspects of their provision. These sentiments were explored as often as possible to find out why students regarded a particular system or way of working as positive, so students’ views of good practice can be noted and shared. 2.11 The issues presented here are not policy recommendations, and are not accompanied by policy recommendations. What is aimed for is a snapshot of the PGR experience across the University, and not a platform advocating particular changes. Students clearly want full funding and 24 hour libraries. It does not follow that these goals are feasible in the near term (although hopefully they are in the medium- to long- term!), and so this report should not be seen as a list of policy demands. Naturally there are policy recommendations that follow from the issues raised here, and OUSU and others will bring these forward in due course.      

  7  

  8  

3. University-wide Key Issues Raised by PGR students 3.1 Induction and the Standard Required 3.1.1 Students across all four divisions regularly expressed a lack of understanding over what standard of work is expected of them. Questions such as ‘What is DPhil standard?’ were common. It appears that many PGR students learn the kind of written work required of them through interactions with peers or through gradual processes, especially where supervisors do not ask for written work to be submitted on a regular basis. 3.1.2 Students cited a number of very well received initiatives to address this issue. The Humanities Divisional ‘What is a DPhil?’ workshop received particular praise, as did a number of similar department or faculty based events. 3.1.3 Concerns over the standard of work required were the focus for concerns about induction more broadly. Other than this area, students often felt induction processes worked well. However, students often expressed a desire for induction, particularly in the area of clarifying (or discovering) the nature or standard of work required, to be ongoing as opposed to a one-off process. Many felt a second induction during Hilary of the PRS year, or an induction at the start of the second year, would be valuable for consolidating progress to date and introducing or re-emphasising what work is expected. 3.1.4 In a significant minority of students, concern over not understanding the standard of work required extended further to a deeper lack of understanding of the purpose of their degree. For these students, it seems intuitive to infer an effect of this lack of understanding on likely completion time.

3.2 Community

3.2.1 A major, and slightly unexpected finding was the emphasis DPhil students place on academic community. In most focus groups students mentioned that they felt it important to have a sense of community, with regular interactions with peers and with academics, through (for instance) seminars. Whilst the desire was primarily for academic interaction, many also valued purely social interaction (MPLS and MSD students in particular liked the notion of Christmas parties), and many clearly valued academia as a social, as opposed to an individual pursuit. 3.2.2 This was true for students across all four academic divisions. In the sciences, students wanted opportunities for social and academic interaction across lab groups. In the social sciences and humanities, students valued seminars and chances for social interaction. Particularly, however, they felt

  9  

that seminars should feature as many academics as possible from the full range of subfields encountered in a department or faculty. Current graduate seminars were in many cases criticised for being student-dominated as opposed to being an academic opportunity for all scholars in the department or faculty. Alternatively, PGR students were also critical of academics only attending seminars on their own field, as opposed to bringing their insights to bear on the work of colleagues. 3.2.3 The desire for community was often, but by no means always, articulated in response to worries about isolation. One student spoke of the ‘silent atmosphere’ in the lab, for instance. However, it was clear that students valued community apart from as an antidote to fears of isolation. 3.2.4 Interestingly, there was little sense that Colleges provide the kind of community PGR students are looking for (although they do provide a different kind of community that is valued by many). There was a limited recognition that Colleges could be places for interdisciplinary discussion and debate. However, what students expressed most often was a desire for community at the department or faculty level. 3.2.5 Related to the issue of academic community, students repeatedly stated that a simple but very useful innovation would be a central database of all the talks, speaker events and seminars on offer across Oxford. 3.3 Variable Supervision and fears over an effective Safety Net 3.3.1 At nearly all focus groups the first comments made in response to questions of supervision were to the effect that supervision (and supervisory relationships) are wildly variable. This is of course understandable, and not cause for concern. Students recognised that supervisors are different, and different students have different styles of working and different needs. 3.3.2 The most consistent concern expressed in relation to variability of supervision was a perceived lack of an effective safety net. A very common response was of the nature ‘my supervisor is fantastic, but I know others who have had difficulties and I worry there’s nowhere to go in that situation’. Many of those who gave feedback with negative experiences were apprehensive about accessing currently advertised avenues of support, such as the College Advisor. Whilst there were instances where students cited the positive role a College Advisor could play in resolving problems, there is widespread consensus amongst PGR students that a perceived lack of an effective safety net is a cause of worry. 3.3.3 This issue, similarly to many of the issues uncovered by this Review, presents itself slightly differently in the Humanities and Social Sciences to MPLS

  10  

and Medical Sciences (and in particular, to lab based research in the latter two). In the former two cognate divisions, the often more individualised nature of research places great emphasis on the individual relationship between student and supervisor, and on the potential for that relationship to fail. In MPLS and Medical Sciences, the more group-based nature of research provides more of an inbuilt safety net, in that there are often postdocs available in lab groups who students can find a very effective source of support. Students in large lab groups are often more worried about potential disappointment in the amount of contact they get with their officially designated supervisor. Many reported their supervisor as a distant figure. 3.4 Critical Engagement in the Supervisory relationship 3.4.1 Students value two attributes over others in the supervisory relationship: critical engagement with their work and administrative ability and understanding. Many students reported a lack of critical engagement on the part of the supervisor with their work, whereas others praised their supervisors for what they saw as ‘taking my ideas and shaping them’. 3.4.2 A lot of emphasis was placed on the role of the supervisor in administrative tasks, often but not always linked to progression stages. Students expressed frustration when supervisors were not aware of what administrative tasks were required at what times. In certain cases, students valued administrative ability over critical engagement in terms of attributes they valued most in their supervisors. 3.5 Progression and role of supervisor in the same 3.5.1 Perhaps the key theme to emerge on the issue of progression was how students often saw it as closely connected to their supervisor, with the supervisor performing a gatekeeping function to Transfer and Confirmation. Students often reported their supervisor as having the key role in making clear the purpose and structure of both progression processes. Students with good experiences of supervision were more often than not happy with how progression stages were handled. 3.5.2 The Supervisor-led model of progression stood in slight contrast to the cohort based approach to Transfer used, for example, in English or Engineering. The benefits of such an approach, students felt, was that it enabled consistency in what was expected of all students and clarity in what was meant to happen, and when. This was balanced with concerns over Transfer timing, particularly from the experimental sciences, where students worried that their research might not produce results in time for a fixed Transfer date.

  11  

3.5.3 More broadly, students often saw the value in the progression stages as a point to work towards, which provided motivation. The ability to receive feedback from someone coming to the project with fresh eyes was valued, often expressed in terms of providing a check on the guidance of the supervisor. However, a fair few respondents saw either or both of Transfer and Confirmation as box-ticking, bureaucracy, or a distraction from research. 3.6 Teaching Opportunities 3.6.1 Students expressed a consistently strong desire for teaching opportunities to be available, and transparent in how they are rationed. Students very often articulated the desire for teaching opportunities in relation to their career prospects, and also often cited PhD programmes in the US as an unfavourable comparison. 3.6.2 Calls for teaching opportunities were strong across all four divisions, and often repeated for emphasis. Those students who had access to teaching experience often recognised that they had gained that experience through informal channels. Such processes were generally seen negatively by their peers, with many calling for open advertising of teaching opportunities. 3.6.3 There is not much further analysis to be done on Teaching Opportunities, except to state again that demand for more, and more transparent, opportunities was repeated and vocal. 3.6.4 Students who taught sometimes had further concerns about being paid poorly for the amount of work they did. 3.7 Degree structure 3.7.1 PGR students at Oxford are aware of how the DPhil differs in structure to its American counterparts. This difference was often seen as positive, allowing for faster entry to research and faster completion overall. However, many saw the American model of starting with taught courses as having something to offer as well. 3.7.2 Students in particular were apprehensive about the ‘sink or swim’ nature of the DPhil, which was perceived as contrasting with more structured programs in America that perhaps offered more security. This apprehension often sat in tension with students’ recognition that the intellectual freedom often offered by the DPhil is hugely valuable. Students in many cases articulated this tension very eloquently, for instance along the lines of ‘we want freedom but need consistency’ or calling for ‘the best of both worlds’.

  12  

3.7.3 In this context, there was a sense that the first year was particularly important in equipping students with the necessary methods training, skills and direction to flourish subsequently. Clearly, in many cases there is a role for a Master’s year here, whether as part of a 4-year undergraduate programme or a standalone qualification. However, students saw the ‘direction’ gained from the first year of the DPhil as vital (and lack thereof as detrimental). Students often expressed a bound up desire for direction in the context of their proposed area of study, and equipping themselves with the particular tools required to succeed in pursuing that direction. 3.7.4 The Doctoral Training Centres, in their various incarnations, are clearly very relevant here. Students on the whole expressed satisfaction with DTC programmes. Related to the community point above, students valued the cohort aspect of doctoral training. They appreciated starting and continuing their studies alongside a group of others in the same situation, with whom they could build social and academic bonds. Furthermore, DTC students did not tend to express concerns over a ‘sink or swim’ culture, or a lack of direction and appropriate preparation. 3.7.5 DTC students valued the more extended induction they got to doctoral life, particularly for those in the sciences the chance to do rotations in order to clarify expectations and the likely direction of potential programmes of study. Some reported potential pitfalls with rotations, such as a perceived incentive on supervisors to persuade students to stop rotating. 3.7.6 DTC students were also notable in reporting a sense that their programme directors (or equivalent) were willing to ‘stick up’ for them, making clear that if students developed any problems they should not hesitate to come forward. This was regarded positively. 3.7.8 Some DTC students on particular programmes expressed frustration with the way courses had been organised and pitched to them. This frustration extended to many other students when contemplating compulsory courses or optional skills training were regarded as too easy, too difficult, poorly organised or simply irrelevant. PGR Feedback on other key issues 3.8 Role of the College 3.8.1 PGRs often value the College link. In particular, College is valued as a social hub, with PGR students often eager to engage in College life. One

  13  

interesting phenomenon that emerged was the use of College as a refuge from the degree, in two senses. Students who were not comfortable or thriving as much as they could in their academic studies often valued College life as the saving grace of the Oxford experience. Alternatively, students often saw the attractions of socialising in College as an important part of work-life balance during the course of their degree. The extent to which the social element of the College experience is important to those PGRs who are engaged in College life should not be underestimated - Colleges are and MCR communities are well loved. 3.8.2 There is little sense that College holds an academic function for PGRs. Many felt that College Advisors, and in particular Tutors for Graduates, could play a vital role in resolving difficulties with a student’s department or supervision. However, this was balanced by many students who felt that the College Advisor system was extraneous, irrelevant, or not an appropriate source of support. Particular issues cited with College Advisors were a lack of contact, or with a College Advisor being too close to the supervisor or department for the student to feel comfortable approaching them with problems. 3.8.3 There was a not insignificant number of participants who felt entirely disengaged from College life. This was often the case for students who worked in Headington (as a matter of physical and time constraints), but also held for students across the other divisions. Unsurprisingly for these students, disengagement was often expressed alongside negative sentiments towards the College Fee. 3.9 Funding 3.9.1 Students by and large saw funding as a key issue affecting their academic studies, and were generally resigned to either having funding or not. 3.9.2 Two groups of students in particular expressed worries about money. Self funded students often expressed fears about debt or about cash in hand, indicating that the financial guarantee system does not guarantee students will have no money trouble during their course. Those students into the fourth year also frequently responded with concerns. Many of these responses are quite forceful, and indicate a likely effect on ability to complete. A range are produced here, as they very much speak for themselves: “The fact that most international scholarships are for three years only makes it extremely difficult and stressful in the writing up stages. Unlike home students, foreign students are often restricted from working to support themselves via visa requirements. Obviously this is not something that will

  14  

easily change but I think more information needs to be provided on sources of emergency funding in the later stages.” “I was not able to secure full funding to come here and I think that has affected my experience a bit as I am quite conscious that the course is costing me a lot of money. This does provide a certain amount of pressure to complete the course as soon as possible, and also things like, trying to find the cheapest accomodation etc” “I am self-funded. Worth it but terrifying.” “I am self-funded and struggling very much. Unfortunately there is no access to major funds once you are enrolled at Oxford University.” “Yes, scholarship though things have been tight due to the cost of housing.” “Something must be done about the fourth year though, not least the fact that some colleges will demand that new doctoral students with three-year funding prove they will be able to support themselves privately in a fourth year, while others assume (perhaps sensibly) that students will muddle along. This is surely a serious inequality in procedure and a bar to access.” “Getting enough funding for Oxford has been a stretch. I have had to cover most of my living expenses myself, which makes it very difficult.” “[I’m] self-funded - can't afford to borrow - at the moment it's a struggle, but for me it's worth it because I'm doing real research. whether it'll pay off in career terms remains to be seen.” “The university devestates people financially. This is totally irresponsible.” Such responses were reasonably frequent. 3.9.3 Aside from angst about money at this big-picture level, students expressed a range of concerns about finding smaller amounts of money to fund fieldwork, conferences, and so forth. The place of College in providing funds to meet these kinds of expenses was often valued, although in many cases students expressed disappointment that there were not clear departmental processes for applying to and accessing funds for these purposes. 3.10 Skills Training 3.10.1 Students expressed a range of views on the skills training available to them. ‘Skills training’ was free for respondents to interpret for themselves – when students asked for more detail, focus group facilitators suggested a very

  15  

general definition covering research methods and skills, more career-oriented training programmes, and training offered by the Language Centre and OUCS. 3.10.2 Perhaps the most important point to note on skills training is that there is not a general sense from students that it is an ingrained part of the DPhil experience. Most training is seen as an optional extra, and there is not much of a sense that skills training is something that PGR students should or are expected to engage in. In this sense, there is an extent to which training has yet to permeate the culture around research degrees. 3.10.3 Having said this, students are consciously aware of the structure of American doctoral programmes, and often perceive the place of skills training in part as being a response to this model. Moreover, many students articulated demands for thorough taught introductions to the research methods and academic skills required by their field, and appreciated efforts (particularly those connected to the DTCs) to ensure these are available. 3.10.4 Many students were more sceptical however, particularly when they had been made to attend compulsory courses that they saw as being not relevant or poorly organised. Some students expressed a feeling that in many cases, such courses were ‘training for training’s sake’, and did not appreciate instances where academics appeared to not take doctoral courses seriously. 3.10.5 Students often questioned how skills training was meant to sit with the rest of the DPhil project, and in particular many raised concerns over the attitudes of supervisors towards permitting students to take training courses (particularly in MPLS and MSD). 3.10.6 Students expressed a range of attitudes towards individual courses they attended. Many received positive feedback, particularly when the courses demonstrated a) a clear value and b) were pitched at a level appropriate to the student. Students commented reasonably often that courses were too easy or too difficult, indicating either that the courses are catering for a wide range of students with differing needs, or they have yet to be pitched at the correct level. 3.10.7 Students were also naturally concerned that course organisers follow the feedback students gave at the end of the course. 3.10.8 OUCS in particular got near-universal positive feedback on its courses. Many students across the University commended the courses OUCS provide, and these were often felt to be of a higher standard and more useful than courses based in the department or division. 3.11 Language training

  16  

3.11.1 In terms of language training, with an eye in particular on provision for academic English, not a huge amount of feedback was received. When students did give feedback, it tended to be directed towards two areas. 3.11.2 First, students often indicated they saw language requirements in terms of a spectrum – ranging from those who would like assistance on how to write or prepare a DPhil thesis (with many native English speakers in this group), through those who required a more extensive introduction to academic English, to those who required remedial language training. Slightly off this spectrum, a number of students related their need for more niche language training – for instance, in medieval Lithuanian or similar. 3.11.3 Second, the feedback students gave on provision from the Language Centre largely reflected the capabilities of the Language Centre given its finite resources. Whilst many were very happy with the provision it offers (particularly for academic English courses), students generally recognised its limitations – particularly that it was unable to cater for niche or more particular language needs.

  17  

4. Humanities – Key Issues 4.1 Isolation and lack of structure. 4.1.1 Some students in the Humanities clearly benefit from what they perceive to be a very well structured induction to DPhil study. This is addressed below. In contrast, other students in the Humanities were the most vocal across the four divisions in pointing out where there was a lack of structure in their DPhil programs, often but not universally in negative terms. This was connected to a perception of doctoral study in the Humanities as potentially isolating. A typical comment capturing these points was for instance ‘I did not realise the extent to which it would be primarily a self-motivated learning environment. I expected a bit more structure to the process.’ Another student commented that ‘DPhil research is probably more isolating than I imagined though.’ The most widely felt negative aspect of life as a PGR in Humanities was perhaps that ‘it’s a bit sink or swim’. 4.1.2 Many students clearly thrive in an unstructured environment of academic freedom, with lots of students reporting positive overall experiences. However other students did question that they might benefit from a more ‘taught’ start to the DPhil. For instance: ‘a bit more of a taught bit at the start would have been good’ was one comment that had many nodding. The tension between the virtues of self-driven and unstructured academic exploration and the benefits of rigorous introduction to a field were often at the forefront of students minds – often articulated in the form of a mid-Atlantic synthesis between US-style doctoral programmes and a ‘pure’ form of the DPhil. For instance, one student said (with explicit reference to the US) ‘there are two paradigms – going it alone versus being more structured. You get the best of both worlds if your supervisor knows how to do their job.’ Another commented that ‘I would say it is really surprising how little obligatory training there is. While I value the freedom this gives graduate students, the downside is that training has been very patchy. Some of the voluntary sessions I have been to have been excellent; others a waste of time…’ 4.1.2 Students in humanities emphasised the value they placed on academic community, often in reference to the perceived potential to be isolated. A typical comment here was ‘I have much less “community” in my area of specialisation than I would have expected. But then DPhils are known for being a bit isolating.’ Students stated strongly that they value interacting with each other’s work, and the work of academics. One student had his DPhil explained to him in terms of ‘I was essentially told to go read books and come back in three years with something’ – an experience many felt they could relate to. In direct contrast another student suggested that ‘they could do more to help us meet other people in the field. A few of us have formed our own discussion group because we feel the faculty isn’t providing this’.

  18  

4.1.3 Students valued the attempts of faculties to bring them into closer contact with each other and with academics, with a positive comment being ‘it has been a wonderful experience. Weekly seminars of all kinds provide wonderful opportunities to engage in cutting-edge research. The engagement between both graduate students and with faculty has been on a high level.’ 4.1.4 Plenty of students, by contrast to many of those cited above, felt there was a very good structure in place to induct students into DPhil study, if not to give them the kind of grounding in a field or lengthy methods training that students perceive would happen in US PhD programmes. The inductions offered by some faculties, and in particular the Humanities Division itself through its ‘how to do a DPhil’ seminars, were singled out for particular praise. 4.1.5 Some on the other hand reported that what was expected of them seemed to be vague, with the question of the standard required familiar from other divisions being fairly recurrent in Humanities. 4.2 Supervision 4.2.1 Humanities students’ perceptions of supervision were for the most part unsurprising. In keeping with the other divisions, but perhaps more pronounced, Humanities students reported concerns that firstly, supervision was often variable, and secondly, there would not be an effective safety net if something went wrong with the supervisory relationship. 4.2.2 Comments of the form ‘If you have an unhelpful supervisor, what do you do?’ were common. In college-based focus groups (where there was a mix of students from different divisions), Humanities students would often say that in their view there was a bigger risk to themselves compared to students in other divisions of adverse effects if the supervisory relationship did not work, because of the perceived more isolated nature of Humanities doctoral study. 4.2.3 Students generally appreciated frequent and regular meetings, although many felt that in some cases it was more appropriate for the student to drive the quantity of meetings based on their need (as opposed to having a fixed regime). Humanities students were perhaps more likely to report not seeing their supervisor for long stretches of time than students in other divisions. One Humanities student probably attained the record, stating that they had not seen their supervisor for approximately 10 months, and in fact only spoken with the supervisor for a total of less than two hours during their entire DPhil. Happily, such stories were rare (although definitely present). 4.2.4 Many students made comments such as ‘she is very generous with her time. I really appreciate it’. Students very much valued supervisors who they

  19  

saw as generous with time, and those students who reported such generosity were often the happiest. By contrast, those who felt their supervisor was ‘too busy’ to give them the attention they required were often those with more negative, or difficult, experiences. 4.2.5 Humanities students offered differing, and very interesting, views on what constituted ‘good’ supervision. Students often perceived a tension between a system of interaction where students submitted draft written work for comment, versus a system where students talked more freely with their supervisors about more general ideas. Students did not agree on if one should be more appropriate than the other, and if so which. Some students valued the structure afforded by handing in regular draft written work. Others felt that this often led supervisors to give the same feedback on successive iterations of work. Comments such as ‘he always tells me the same thing, I don’t know what more he wants’ were reasonably common with such students. Some students felt that submitting drafts that were successively expanded and refined lost some element of the DPhil experience, and reduced it to an ‘Ofsted’ like or ‘compliance’ based exercise. 4.2.6 As for students across the University, Humanities students valued supervisors who critically engaged with their work and were saddened by those who did not seem to engage with the material as much as they could. Beyond this, students often articulated a desire for ‘direction’ from their supervisor and a sense that this might be lacking. One for instance wondered ‘I’d appreciate more direction. Should I have set ground rules on this?’ Such students often felt the supervisor saw themselves as a resource, in comparison to the student’s wish for the supervisor to ‘steer’ the project. Other students, however, were fine using their supervisor as a resource, or felt that the relationship was more co-equal and based on ‘exchanging ideas’. 4.3 Teaching Opportunities 4.3.1 Demand for teaching opportunities in Humanities was very strong. Students often cited the need for teaching opportunities in order to make them competitive in the labour market after leaving Oxford. Almost invariably, students cited the example of PhD programmes in the US as an unfavourable point of comparison. 4.3.2 As in other divisions, the problem students had with access to teaching opportunities was twofold. First, there was the perception of a simple lack of available opportunities. Second, and often the source of stronger feeling, was a widespread perception that opportunities are not allocated fairly, but rather on the basis of patronage or expediency. One student summed these attitudes up well, saying ‘the teacher training is unpaid and there’s no guarantee it will lead to any teaching. Allocation of teaching jobs is nepotistic and arbitrary’.

  20  

Many students suggested that it would be preferable to allocate teaching opportunities on the basis of open competition. 4.3.3 Students also held on to the potential of teaching opportunities as sources of income to help with funding one’s studies. Many Humanities students, reporting an inability to access teaching opportunities for either experience or funds within the University, reported seeking wider opportunities – for instance, summer schools, language courses, or A Level tutoring. 4.4 Progression 4.4.1 Students in Humanities reported widely varying experiences of Transfer and Confirmation. Beyond this, there were few generalisable conclusions to draw, except to note that students often regarded the progression stages in the context of their wider PGR experience – marked for most by the loneliness of Humanities PGR study and the importance of the supervisor to the process. For many students then there were few sui generis features of their experience of Transfer and Confirmation. 4.4.2 Students in faculties that had made some effort to standardise Transfer did note this, and often appreciated it – particularly where a clear process for Transfer was accompanied by, for example, PRS seminars that explained what it was for and advised the best ways of preparing.

  21  

5. Social Sciences – Key Issues 5.1 Clarity of Expectations – especially varies with supervisor 5.1.1 Perhaps more so than in other divisions, students in Social Sciences reported concerns over clarity of expectations. A notable proportion of respondents felt what was expected of them was unclear. Further to this, many felt that the best source of information clarifying expectations was from peers. 5.1.2 Students reporting a lack of clarity in what was expected might be interpreted to relate to the induction process. However, when Social Science students responded to that question negatively they reported more troubles with their supervisor clarifying expectations rather than problems with the induction process per se. A fairly typical comment was ‘expectations aren’t explcit. It all comes down to the personality of your supervisor’, or ‘It’s not always clear within the department. Different supervisors have different requirements. That’s the Oxford way’. Hence, in many cases where there are problems there might be an issue of a failure to establish and maintain clear expectations within the supervisory relationship, on issues such as what, how much, and what kind of written work is required, and what the student is supposed to get out of the supervisor. It might also be the case that it is often down to supervisors, rather than departments, to induct students academically. 5.1.3 Often Social Science students were particularly unclear about progression stages, and the administrative element required (in particular deadlines, and what is required to be handed in and when). This point is covered more extensively below. 5.1.4 An important caveat to note is that, whilst students expressed important concerns, many others also expressed a positive understanding of what was required of them and how they had learned this. 5.2 Students expected and desire a stronger sense of academic community. 5.2.1 As in other divisions, students expressed a desire for a strong academic community at the departmental level. In Social Science departments, there are often seminars open to all. In many cases, these are seen as being hugely useful for the bonds of intellectual community they create. In other departments, this appears to be absent. One student for instance commented sadly that ‘my department doesn’t have a distinctive DPhil community’. 5.2.2 A number of shortcomings were identified with departmental seminars in the division. In particular, PGR students wanted seminars to be situations where all, or most, members of a department came together to engage with

  22  

ideas and bring their own expertise to a topic on a regular basis. Insofar as students had their expectations of Oxford disappointed, it was often in this area. One student commented that ‘elsewhere they have big events, that were well advertised and hyped. That doesn’t happen here.’ Students often expressed an expectation of regular interaction with multiple academics on a peer basis in seminar-style environments. One student offered that ‘in my last University, we had seminars at a convenient time for everyone. Everyone in the department came along and brought their particular experience.’ Standing events such as PRS seminars and discussion groups were felt to be valuable when they included this element. Events that only featured students presenting to each other, or one academic presenting to students, were not felt to be as worthwhile. 5.2.3 Having said this, there was widespread recognition that many departments were becoming responsive to this desire for community, with departments for instance recently introducing colloquia for precisely this purpose. 5.3 Supervision – variability. 5.3.1 Connected to the issue of clarity of expectations and how this is established through the supervisory relationship, students in the Social Sciences reported more variability in supervision (or at least reported this in different ways) to the other divisions. As one student put it ‘the messiness [of Oxford’s way of working/governance] allows people to fall through the cracks but creates positive spaces’. Students were often keenly aware that academic freedom for supervisors came with significant advantages but also the possibility of significant drawbacks. 5.3.2 Many students reported very positive experiences of supervision. These positive experiences often featured clearly structured interactions where it was clear to both parties what was expected of the other – an element students saw as being important for a productive academic relationship. For instance, one student commented that ‘My supervisor is very responsive. Everything I could ask for and more. I send work two days prior to meeting, she reads it and makes effective comments. We meet every other week.’ Another student commented that ‘I think she’s managing me very well and she thinks I’m doing a great job managing her!’ Such responses indicated that, where relationships were productive, they were often productive due to the conscious effort of both parties. 5.3.3 As in the other divisions, students in the Social Sciences valued supervisors’ critical engagement with their work. In particular, however, students in Social Sciences perhaps more so than in other divisions expressed a desire to be ‘pushed’, ‘steered’ or ‘guided’ by their supervisor – for instance,

  23  

with the supervisor suggesting research directions and monitoring the student as they follow up on those suggestions. A common negative comment was to the effect ‘he makes suggestions, I do it, then at our next meeting he just suggests something completely different’, or alternatively ‘I want feedback from my supervisors. They have to read and engage with the work.’ For many, a lack of critical engagement on the part of the supervisor was a serious concern, often creating worries of a false sense of security. 5.3.4 In common with students in other divisions, Social Sciences students often expressed the view that there was not an effective safety net to protect students from problems with supervision. ‘It all depends on your supervisor, on the personalities’ was a common response, or ‘you need basic training for supervisors’. Social Sciences students also occasionally advocated regulation of supervisors in order to maintain minimum standards. 5.3.5 Students in the Social Sciences were sometimes concerned that where supervision was ineffective, there were often issues of differing approaches to research and/or differing approaches to a subject, between student and supervisor. The bluntest manifestation of this worry was where a student favoured qualitative methods whilst the supervisor favoured quantitative methods, but the worries of this nature extended beyond this straightforward example. 5.3.6 Many worry supervisors are not good at administration and navigating students through the bureaucratic procedures required (for instance, timings and procedures for progression). Students often expressed a feeling that they were on their own with respect to monitoring deadlines and complying with the administrative requirements of deadlines. It was interesting to note that students often expected more from their supervisor in this area. In extreme cases, students stated that they would much prefer a supervisor who knew what forms had to be handed in at what times, with what pieces of work (if required), over a supervisor who was intellectually engaged with their work. 5.3.7 Frustration at changes to formal regulations and requirements, and in particular at supervisors failing to monitor and explain those changes, was also expressed. 5.4 Course Structure 5.4.1 Social Science students expressed a range of views surrounding what might be loosely termed ‘course structure’. Many valued the freedom that comes with being able to focus more or less solely on the thesis. Many others, however, felt that a more structured start to their DPhil programme would be (or was) beneficial, in that it gave them the skills and direction to do well, as well as inculcating a strong cohort bond. One student commented that ‘I did a

  24  

very structured PGT in my first year. We developed a sense of community, and a sense of structures that have been preserved.’ 5.4.2 The sense that a 1+4 structure was the ideal one for a DPhil (where the two programmes are seen as very much linked) extended further, with students commenting that ‘the best way to do a DPhil is to do an MSc first and get the classes out of the way. The requirement to do classes is very intense’. However, other PRS students did comment that ‘I felt I could have used more structured teaching this year’. 5.4.3 As with other divisions, recognition that a taught component to provide a grounding in research in a field was useful, was balanced by other students criticising ineffectual taught elements of the DPhil. For instance, one student commented ‘the compulsory courses were not useful or relevant’. 5.4.4 Students recognised the potential of the DTC in Social Sciences, and the associated efforts to make training available across the division. This was generally received favourably by those who were aware of these efforts, with the only complaints being from those students whose departments had not allowed ready access to courses across the division. 5.5 Library Opening Hours 5.5.1 Students across the Social Sciences (including in subjects not covered by the Social Sciences Library) expressed strong demand for libraries to be open for 24 hours a day. 5.6 Teaching: Opportunities, transparency, exploitation 5.6.1 Students in the Social Sciences, in keeping with their peers in other divisions, regularly expressed particularly strong views on their opportunities to teach (or lack thereof). 5.6.2 Aside from frustration at lack of opportunities, students were often excised by the means of allocation. The familiar patterns of ‘it’s who you know’ and ‘opportunities are not equally available’ or ‘the department is disorganised about how it allocates opportunities’ were present in Social Sciences. 5.6.3 More so in Social Sciences than in the other divisions, students cited concerns that their experience of teaching was in some cases exploitative. Concerns were expressed that PGRs’ remuneration did not reflect the amount of preparatory work that went into delivering undergraduate tutorials. Students felt that departments were in a position of power over them in this respect,

  25  

because departments know that students require teaching experience in order to make competitive job applications. 5.7 The MPhil-DPhil transition 5.7.1 One very interesting point to emerge from the Social Sciences was a concern over the MPhil to DPhil transition. DPhil students who had transferred from the MPhil observed a number of issues with the transition. However, perhaps the most important of these issues as far as the division is concerned is the worry that, for many transferring from the MPhil, there was not a structured transition or induction into DPhil study. Many of these students reported ‘drifting’ for a year or more post MPhil, and many also reported having to change direction or topic fairly substantially. 5.7.2 Students transferring from MPhil to DPhil also reported that the lack of a transfer viva disadvantaged them compared to their PRS peers, as they felt the feedback they would get from assessors would contribute greatly to their DPhil project. 5.7.3 A further issue with this kind of transfer is the delay in making a firm offer until the MPhil results are released in the summer. As one student claimed ‘I was forced to accept offers for PhDs at other institutions in bad faith, because I had to wait until my MPhil results before I knew I had got back in to Oxford.’ 5.8 Expectations for Progression 5.8.1 As touched on above, Social Sciences students emphasised the important role the supervisor currently plays in students’ experience of the progression stages. Students typically reported relying on their supervisor for guidance about Transfer and Confirmation, with less emphasis placed on other sources of information. Given this, students’ experience of Transfer and Confirmation often matched or tracked their experience of the supervisory relationship. 5.8.2 Where a supervisor’s guidance was seen as insufficient, students often turned to peers to talk over what they felt was required. 5.8.3 Students did not generally relate a strong sense of the role of the department in setting expectations and running the procedures for Transfer and Confirmation, apart from where they perceived the department as having changed the rules during the course of the year. This was generally met with irritation, for instance ‘they shouldn’t change the Transfer or Confirmation rules during the year – it should be consistent for each cohort. This isn’t what I signed up for!’ Some students did, however, note positive experiences of

  26  

departmental discussion groups where they got to discuss their preparations for Transfer in peer groups. 5.8.4 Where students reported a lack of clarity, it was often around what is and is not expected, or what is or is not important for Transfer and Confirmation. As one student put it ‘The red lines aren’t clear. Do you choose your assessors or not? When actually is the deadline?’ 5.8.5 Many Social Science students reported positive experiences of Transfer vivas, on the grounds that they got useful feedback from assessors who had not been too preoccupied with the work and were ‘coming to it fresh’. One reported ‘Confirmation has been very useful. You get different voices.’ Other students also appreciated how the progression stages focus the mind.

  27  

6. MPLS – Key Issues 6.1 Organisation/Structure – valued at the start of the DPhil and when made clear what structure there is on offer 6.1.1. MPLS students value well organised and structured programmes at the start of their DPhil, to equip them with the research methods, skills and understanding needed to set them on the right direction for their time as a DPhil student. One student commented ‘In this respect I had a good, detailed induction’. They also appreciate when useful courses are well advertised and their value is clear. One student commented that ‘It’s become clear there’s some structure there – skills, lectures, feedback… but this wasn’t made clear at the start’. Another student commented that ‘they need more direction and organisation at the start before you go off. It took a month for the department to know I’m here.’ 6.1.2 In keeping with students in other divisions, students expressed dissatisfaction with courses that they saw as irrelevant, poorly organised or not pitched to the right level. There was a particular concern that statistics courses available in the division were either too easy or too hard. 6.1.3 DTC students gave very positive feedback about their experience of the start of the DPhil, citing thorough induction into the nature and purpose of the programme, and clearly organised, useful courses as particular strengths. One DTC student commented that ‘The DTC set very clearly laid out objectives.’ Another said ‘I don’t have complaints about the DTC programme. There are good collaborative seminars’. 6.2 What’s the expected standard? 6.2.1 Again similarly to other divisions, MPLS students were often concerned that they had not grasped what was expected of them, and in particular there was confusion over the standard of work required of them. One student commented that ‘I still don’t know what’s expected of me. Any DPhil is different, but some corners of the department are forgotten about. No one is monitoring my supervisor and his students.’ Another student wondered ‘What’s the expectations for a thesis? Most feel they receive minimal guidance on the expected standard.’ 6.2.2 In MPLS the worry over the expected standard of work was often connected to observations from students that their day-to-day research tasks would often not relate to the process of writing up the DPhil thesis. For many this problem was obviated through honing writing skills in the course of writing working papers and conference papers, but there remained a concern from

  28  

many that they were unclear what would be required for the thesis. One student commented ‘I feel I have a good grasp of the everyday tasks I’m expected to perform. But for the whole DPhil, it’s less clear what they want me to produce.’ 6.3 Supervision 6.3.1 MPLS students hugely valued the open-door policy of many supervisors. Naturally in lab or office based research environments it is going to be easier to access one’s supervisor. However, students very often felt positive about how welcoming their supervisors were, and how open they were to informal questions and approaches for help. Responses along the lines of ‘I’m really happy. I see my supervisor every week. She has an open door policy where we’re free to come to her with problems. I wish she was my aunt!’ were not uncommon. 6.3.2 MPLS students expressed concerns about the variability of supervision, and in particular over who would be ultimately responsible if supervision went wrong. This view has a couple of broad variations as far as MPLS is concerned. For those students with a more or less one to one supervisory relationship with their supervisor (ie those in smaller groups), the situation is fairly straightforward – students would be apprehensive about what would happen if the key relationship went wrong. Students said, for instance, ‘Supervision’s a lottery. We need to remove the wild variability of experience based on supervisors.’ 6.3.3 On the other hand, those in larger groups and lab based research groups whilst in the main satisfied with supervision arrangements did express worries about who in the lab was ultimately responsible for them, and who to go to if something went awry. 6.3.4 One trope that was reasonably frequent across both MPLS and MSD followed the form of ‘One of my supervisors is a more junior academic, who gives me a lot of attention and provides excellent feedback. The other is a more senior academic who I rarely see and interact with.’ It is not a matter for immediate concern if the student is getting good supervision from somewhere. However, there is a potential issue of disappointed expectations, particularly if supervisory arrangements in larger labs (where day to day supervision is often devolved from the PI) are not made clear to the student. Students also had further worries that in this kind of arrangement there could be room for excessive informality. One student remarked apprehensively ‘Official meetings aren’t that often. Much of it is delegated to postdocs.’

  29  

6.5 Community within and across lab/research groups and fear of the ‘silent atmosphere’ 6.5.1 Students in MPLS as much as those in other divisions valued community strongly, for academic and pastoral reasons. One student eloquently stated that ‘The problem in the sciences is you haven’t got a consistent group to interact with. This is so important. You should never have a situation where DPhils aren’t interacting with others.’ It was not clear if that particular student was based in a lab group or not, but the prevalence of answers expressing concerns on this point, including from those based in groups, indicates that even with the group-based approach to research within MPLS it is not a given that students will have access to the community support they value. 6.5.2 The kind of communal interaction students valued varied between, for example, supervisors arranging for students to give talks, to one student simply saying that ‘the Coffee Morning is good. It makes the department seem less scary. It would also be good to meet people from related departments.’ 6.5.3 Some students spoke movingly of a perceived ‘silent atmosphere’ within the Lab, which held them back from interacting with others and asking questions. Whilst this is clearly an issue that cannot quite be addressed by department-wide coffee mornings, it is interesting to note that the perceived distinction between the Humanities/Social Sciences lonely DPhil and the more interactive Sciences doctorate does not necessarily hold. 6.6 Relationships within the Lab/Department 6.6.1 Some students felt that the way they were used by academics to perform research tasks bordered on exploitation. This was not, however, a widespread view. 6.6.2 Disdain for departmental politics was more widespread. Understandably, students did not go into detail on this issue, but often commented to the effect that, through the course of office or lab politics it was often the case that PGR students were left in a difficult situation. 6.6.3 An issue raised more frequently was the question of who was to pay for materials and equipment required for experiments and research. Students often felt that there were not clear processes for this, and in extreme cases students reported shouldering the cost of materials from their own pockets. A wider point was raised, to the effect that applying for and managing money for research was a useful career skill.

  30  

6.7 Teaching and other Academic Opportunities 6.7.1 It was often the case that MPLS students felt they had more access to teaching opportunities than students in other divisions. However, students did raise the issue of how teaching opportunities were allocated, with a general recognition that they were often allocated on informal bases. Students commented that in some cases this led to students with very high teaching loads whilst peers had little to no teaching at all. 6.7.2 Students in MPLS often hugely valued teaching opportunities, mainly for career experience but also for the financial gain. There were some concerns around demonstrating in particular (which was seen as worthwhile if not as useful as tutorial teaching) that students were not paid for preparatory work, and so incentivised to do a less ‘polished’ job on the experiment involved. 6.7.3 In terms of other opportunities, such as attending conferences or publishing papers, students raised two broad points. First, they emphasised that access to these opportunities was hugely dependent on the supervisor and as a consequence quite variable. Students recognised that to a large degree taking these opportunities required self-motivation, but they nevertheless noted that with some supervisors it was easier to publish or to attend conferences than with others. 6.7.4 The second point students noted in this area was a question as to how taking advantage of teaching, publishing and other opportunities for academic development was meant to fit in with the process of researching and writing up the DPhil thesis. Students saw that these imperatives would potentially (but not always) conflict, and observed that the attitude of the supervisor to this tension was crucial in determining what the student could do. 6.8 Progression 6.8.1 Students’ attitudes to Progression stages varied more across MPLS than in any other division. These attitudes varied from what was described as ‘terror’ to a view that Transfer and/or Confirmation were a ‘formality’ and a ‘waste of time’. In between these extremes was recognition that Transfer in particular could be a great source of feedback and at focusing the direction of a DPhil project. However, MPLS was notable in that the extreme opinions were more frequent than in other divisions. 6.8.2 In contrast to students in other divisions, MPLS students often felt that the timing and procedure for Transfer was well explained to them. Many students felt that their departments had good, clear processes in place. For

  31  

instance, one student commented that ‘in my department, we all go through transfer at the same time. The DGS checks all the reports to make sure they all meet the requirements. It’s very clear, and there is a level playing field.’ 6.8.3 If students were unclear on any aspect of Transfer, it was generally on what content was required for the Report and what standard that content should aspire to. On this issue, again in keeping with other divisions, students emphasised the crucial role of the supervisor in preparing them for progression stages and guiding them through the processes. One student for instance commented ‘Transfer is unnecessarily terrifying… The expectations were poorly communicated to my by my supervisor, resulting in the assessors receiving written work that was significantly different from what they expected to see. This caused problems for me.’ Another commented in this vein, ‘I had no support. It was very, very hard.’ 6.8.4 A further recurrent concern of students in MPLS was that preparing a too onerous Transfer report would hold up their research. A related concern was that fixed deadlines for Transfer might not be too appropriate in many cases in MPLS, as students might not have gained useful experimental results within the specified timeframes (however, this concern was more pronounced in MSD). 6.8.5 Some students did however respond that they felt that preparing a longer report was worthwhile, in that it ‘focused the mind’, was ‘motivating’ and potentially laid the key groundwork for the final thesis’ literature review. 6.8.6 A further concern was noted over the timing of Transfer for some students, who worried that they would have to Transfer before completing meaningful experiments. One student commented that ‘I feel like it’s scary. I work hard and for long hours, but I don’t feel that my tangible output is comparable, and I worry this will be received poorly at the Transfer of Status’.

  32  

7. Medical Sciences – Key Issues 7.1 Expectations of students and the required standard 7.1.1 In keeping with feedback in other divisions, a substantial minority of students reported worries over not grasping what was expected of them. One student remarked ‘I’m not sure if much was expected of us in the first year. It seemed like all we had to do was go to lectures.’ Other students reported similar experiences, with what was required of them ‘never really explained’. Confusion over what was expected generally varied between those who felt they were not provided with enough information, and those who felt they got too much. One student pointed out ‘they throw a lot of stuff at you at the start. It’s difficult for international students.’ 7.1.2 Having said this, many students did report feeling that they had a good understanding of what was required of them. In particular, students reported positive experiences where one individual had taken charge of co-ordinating the induction process and making sure clear expectations were established through face to face meetings. ‘In our institute, we have someone who makes all this clear’ reported one student. 7.1.3 Following on from this, students reported positive experiences of ongoing inductions that were clearly linked to monitoring progression, with one helpful comment being ‘Things were explained well. The programme director had a meeting with us, with the department and with the supervisors to make clear what was expected. We have follow up progress meetings each term.’ 7.1.4 In keeping with experiences reported in MPLS, students in the larger DTC cohorts in MSD particularly reported good, clear inductions were what was expected of them was firmly established. The rotations system for DTC first year students was noted as being particularly helpful for this. 7.1.5 The confusion over “DPhil standard” familiar from other divisions was also present in Medical Sciences. Unlike MPLS, students in MSD did not so much cite the pressures of day to day research tasks as a reason why they felt they lacked a grasp of what was required for the DPhil as a whole. The concerns they expressed were perhaps broader, for instance ‘I would like to know what PG standard is. Is what I’m doing good enough?’ was not an unusual response. Plenty of other students, however, did not express worries over this issue. 7.2 DPhil structure 7.2.1 Some students did, however, feel that a whole DPhil plan was lacking. Responses to this effect were often linked to feelings that the research they

  33  

were undertaking did not seem clearly linked to a defined DPhil project. This lack of focus was often a source of anxiety. 7.2.2 Similarly to students in other divisions, some (non-DTC students) expected more structure in first year. One said ‘I expected more structure in the first year, a bit more rigorous training. I guess that’s normal. I wasted some time.’ On the other hand, many students reported positive experience of first year taught work. Comments such as ‘The first year research methods course was very good. It was useful and gave me a chance to meet others’ were typical reactions to positive experiences of the first year, encapsulating good doctoral training and a positive reaction to community and cohort development. 7.2.3 In keeping with students across the University, MSD students disdained taught courses or training programmes that they saw as poorly organised, not relevant or ‘training for the sake of training’. There was some, but not universal, feeling that useful methods training should be compulsory. 7.3 Supervision 7.3.1 Students reported many similar responses to supervision in MSD to those expressed across other divisions, with a few notable differences. 7.3.2 As in other divisions, students value above all else intellectual engagement with their work. One MSD student put it very eloquently, saying they appreciated it when their supervisor ‘takes my ideas and shapes them’. Often this was put in terms of ‘guidance’ – generally understood to be where a supervisor makes suggestions to a student about a particular course of action, or gives advice on courses of action proposed by the student. Some students reported not having enough guidance from supervisors to meet their needs, for instance one remarked ‘I expected a bit more detailed guidance’. 7.3.3 Many reported positive, layered systems of supervision. ‘I see my supervisor everyday. We have lab meetings every two weeks, and you can always knock on their door.’ 7.3.4 The reverse of students reporting positive experiences of being supervised in a research group was a recurrent response similar to the one found in MPLS – instances of students reporting a good supervisory relationship with postdocs in the lab, but a more distant relationship with the PI. One student reported for instance talked of a ‘poor response’ from the PI in their lab, with other students talking of how their named supervisor would often not be present in Oxford.

  34  

7.3.5 Some students expressed worries that senior PIs did not have to undergo training as supervisors, leading to variability of supervision. This was often linked to worries (recurrent in other divisions) of a lack of a safety net if supervisory relationships went wrong. This latter concern was widespread. One typical suggestion was we need a way of ensuring good supervisors dominate. We need some monitoring, but not bureaucratic hoops. Maybe a more fluid way of changing supervisors.’ 7.3.6 To this meet this need for a safety net, MSD students often valued the role of the DGS where they were seen as being effective. Traits valued in DGSs were their important administrative and co-ordinating functions, and in particular a willingness to make clear they were approachable with concerns. Students cited DGSs who advocated coming to them with any supervisory problems as being well thought of. 7.3.7 Finally, many MSD students reported an unwillingness or a reluctance on the part of supervisors to allow the student time away from the lab to undertake skills training, teach, or attend seminars or conferences. For instance, a fairly typical comment was ‘The stats course is encouraged, but supervisors see it as a waste of time. I could have used it though.’ 7.4 Department and Community 7.4.1 As in MPLS, students reported a dislike of departmental or lab politics. Students relating experiences of being caught in a dispute between academics (whether an intellectual dispute or simply a personal one) felt that they were most likely to lose out. More generally, students often spoke about politics in a way that made it clear it had an alienating affect, deterring students from making the most of being part of a department. 7.4.2 Similarly to the other divisions, students articulated a strong desire for departmental-level (or at least cohort-level) academic or social community. One commented sadly that ‘there’s not a lot of sharing between groups’, a sentiment that was often echoed. Another simply said ‘a Christmas party would be good’ – a suggestion that was initially greeted with some mirth. However, after a moment of reflection other students agreed that the student had an important point, in that currently the department was not the kind of social space where a Christmas party would be natural. 7.4.3 Students in Medical Sciences often expressed the view that, in their mind, they were doing a job as opposed to being a student. This was expressed primarily in terms of lifestyle. It was not unusual for students to report working long hours and as a result not being able to take up opportunities such as teaching, seminars and skills training. This attitude also had an affect on how students regard College. Those who regarded their life as one of work as

  35  

opposed to study often did not see a need to engage with College. Students who had negative attitudes towards their experience often articulated those attitudes as though they had a unfulfilling job. 7.5 Teaching Opportunities 7.5.1 Students in MSD often expressed a view that teaching opportunities across the division were sorely lacking, particularly given the narrow range of undergraduate courses taught and the dominance of senior academics in teaching undergraduates. More so than in other divisions, MSD students were less concerned about the way teaching opportunities were allocated and more about the simple number of opportunities available. For instance, students commented that ‘It’s not clear how to get teaching. We don’t have contact with undergraduates.’ One commented that in their department ‘there’s not much teaching, but it is advertised.’ 7.5.2 For many students, this was not seen as a big problem as they prioritised their research and intended to do so throughout their careers. However, many students were concerned that future job prospects might be limited without teaching experience. 7.6 Progression 7.6.1 MSD students had a lot to say about how the progression stages work in the division. Students often reported that Transfer in particular was a very useful process, with useful feedback from assessors on the substance and direction of the DPhil project. However, aside from that there were a number of concerns raised. 7.6.2 Students reported that there was a strong emphasis on them tracking their own progression, often independently of a clear framework for doing so. One comment reflective of this view was ‘My department’s rubbish. There’s two sentences in the handbook and not much beyond that. The graduate studies assistant is helpful though.’ Students were frustrated by departmental guidance that differed from divisional guidance, and were frustrated by changes to the Transfer rules. 7.6.3 A particular issue that came up often in MSD surrounded the divisional word limit for Transfer reports of 3000 words. Students often reported that their assessors expected longer reports, of in the region of 8000 or 10,000 words. Students would submit a 3000 word report only to be told that this was insufficient. Some students expressed more general concerns about their assessors, and particularly over how aware they were generally of the procedural (as opposed to academic) requirements of Transfer.

  36  

7.6.4 Further concerns were raised over the timing of transfer. Many worried that the timing might be too rigid for some people, as they might not have gathered useful experimental data by the deadline. 7.6.5 Confirmation was generally felt to be pointless and bureaucratic by MSD students. Regular comments went along the lines of ‘Confirmation is pointless form filling’ or ‘there’s lots of signing forms, but no-one actually reads anything’. 7.7 Negative Feedback 7.7.1 One issue to note is that, whilst there were many positive responses from students in Medical Sciences, there were a notable number of negative responses, particularly through the online survey. Perhaps slightly more so than in other divisions, there appears to be a non trivial proportion of DPhil students in Medical Sciences currently having a negative experience. Concerns ranged across feeling there was a lack of effective supervision, lack of success in research, or worries about whether undertaking the degree was going to be worthwhile for the future. Negative comments of this nature tended to not be constructive.

  37  

8. Focus Group Structure  Pre-arrival, Expectations and Induction 1. What were your expectations of the academic life you would enter before you started your course at Oxford? 2. a) How have these been met? (by college, by department/faculty) b) Have they been largely met or have there been significant differences between your expectations and your experience? (prompts: written work, skills training, work/life balance, expectations of dept/fac and college…) 3. Looking back at the start of your course, do you feel that you gained a sound understanding of what was/is expected of you? Supervision 4. Describe the academic/working relationship you have with your supervisor. (prompts: quantity and quality of interaction, how do they provide guidance) 5. What about the interaction with your supervisor works well? What would you change, if anything? Progression (where appropriate) 6. What are your perceptions of the Transfer and Confirmation processes? (prompts: personal experience, expectations, do you feel supported) Department/Faculty 7. Thinking about your relationship with your department/faculty, what about the provision your receive works? What, if anything, would you change? (Prompts: lectures, seminars, classes, library, labs, IT provision, equipment) 8. What is it like to work in the department? How do you find working relationships with academics, technical staff or other students? 9. How do you feel about the opportunities offered in your department to participate in the academic community? (prompts: teaching opportunities, publishing opportunities, conferences, etc) Skills Training

  38  

10. How do you feel about the relevance/value of skills training which has been offered to you? Why? (Prompts: research methods, footnoting, avoiding plagiarism, English Language) College 11. What role has your college played in your experience at Oxford? (Prompts: accommodation, pastoral care, social environment, academic environment) Funding 12. Have you had access to appropriate funds to support your study at Oxford? (prompts: adequate funds, has it been worth it) Misc. 13. If you ran into difficulties while studying at Oxford how would you respond to them? (Prompts: supervisor, Disability Advisory Service, college advisor, counseling service, Student Union) 14. How well do you feel your current course is preparing you for what you want to do after Oxford? (Prompts: postdoc, academic career, other careers) 15. If you could recommend one change which would have improved your time as a postgraduate in Oxford, what would it be?