Search

In this essay, the authors consider the unique position of honours within undergraduate programs in Australian universities and the consequent implications for constructing pathways to research. A tension arises in academic disciplines that see honours as a fourth-year skilling program focused on the workplace when, at the institutional level, honours is positioned as the prerequisite for entry to a PhD. What emerges are competing pressures for advanced vocational training and preliminary research training for doctoral research. The tension is exacerbated by the need for universities to generate research cohorts in order to attract the funding that such cohorts bring to a university.

This paper focuses on discursive practices of postgraduate research as a crucial element in constructs of international student subjectivities when they undertake postgraduate studies in Australian universities. As such, it focuses on a discursive field emerging within domains of internationalisation, globalisation, and resistance. It examines processes and protocols in a number of Australian universities' postgraduate divisions' practices in the conduct of postgraduate supervision, in the context of increasing pressures towards internationalisation within frameworks of globalising influences. It takes issue with Western custom and tradition as privileged within the field of supervision of postgraduate research studies and suggests a model of postgraduate research supervision as intentional and systematic intervention, based on literature deriving from research in postgraduate supervision which acknowledges the problematic natures of cultural relationships as to teaching and learning and knowledge production, and student resistances within these fields. In doing so, it examines issues of discursive practices and the problematic natures of power relationships in supervisor-supervisee protocols and possibilities suggested by alternative models of postgraduate supervision of international students. (Contains 1 table and 1 endnote.)

Purpose: The purpose of this paper is to focus on pedagogy as a crucial element in postgraduate research undertakings, implying active involvement of both student and supervisor in process of teaching and learning. Design/methodology/approach: Drawing on Australian higher degree research supervision practice to illustrate their argument, the authors take issue with reliance on traditional Oxbridge conventions as informing dominant practices of supervision of postgraduate research studies and suggest pedagogy as intentional and systematic intervention that acknowledges the problematic natures of relationships between teaching, learning, and knowledge production as integral to supervision and research studies. Findings: The authors examine issues of discursive practice and the problematic nature of power differentials in supervisor-supervisee relationships, and the taken-for-grantedness of discursive practice of such relationships. The authors do this from the perspective of the student involved in higher degree research programs, a departure from the bulk of the literature that has as its focus the perspective of the supervisor and/or the institution. Originality/value: The paper examines the perspective of the student involved in higher degree research programs, a departure from the bulk of the literature that has as its focus the perspective of the supervisor and/or the institution.

In this paper we examine variations in Honours programs in Australian universities and the consequences that this has for students who wish to undertake higher degrees by research after their undergraduate programs have been successfully completed. Our review of universities' Honours programs across rural, regional, and urban Australia has indicated that there is a degree of variation that is localised as far as each university is concerned, and that there is a lack of consistency in various universities' application of policies or procedures in the implementation of their Honours programs. We conclude by calling for greater consistency across universities in Australia in the awarding of Honours, certainly, but also suggesting that a review needs to be undertaken as part of national, systematic and orchestrated project.

In the relatively new discipline of design education we have the opportunity to frame the way that design education is formulated. The relative lack of theorists in the field of design education studies leaves unquestioned the relevance of conventional practices of design education that are premised on only tangentially relevant Art, Science and Information Technology models. There is a gap in design education development regarding how to mediate ecological concerns with techno-scientific imperatives. Environmental education researchers can influence this new field by challenging existing approaches to design education with particular attention to the ways design either contributes to or hinders the development of a sustainable society. In order to enter this discussion with environmental education researchers we identify three ecological issues faced by designers and design educators, here we pay particular attention to Industrial Design. The question for this paper is, can environmental education researchers offer advice to the design education area that may help us develop ecologically sustainable design-based programs. The newness of ecological concerns in the design research and design education areas means that we have a great deal to learn. If environmental education researchers are able to assist us with our reflections on designing curricula that in turn encourages a more ecologically aware design profession then this would be a worthwhile contribution to design practice in Australia, and indeed the world.

There is a long history of humans attempting to understand what drives aesthetic preference. One line of inquiry examines the effects of typicality and novelty on aesthetic responses to designed products. There is currently a wide support towards the 'Most Advanced Yet Acceptable' (MAYA) principle, and studies underpinning this have focused on everyday objects. Despite the differences in the function of everyday objects, what they all have in common is their visibility. This do not tell us whether the aesthetic processing will be the same when applied to less visible objects. A study was undertaken using industrial boilers as stimuli and conducted on 7-point Likert scales with participants from Australia and China. The results are unequivocal: novelty makes a medium contribution, while typicality makes a low contribution. This is inconsistent with the notion that typicality is a major determinant of aesthetic preference, suggesting that the current models of aesthetic preference need elaboration. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses discursive practices of research higher degree supervision in western higher education studies in Australia. It examines postgraduate teaching and supervision of international students. It also observes the globalization of research higher degree studies which becomes the focus of universities around the world. The massification of higher education in the country was also highlighted. Based on the article, the valuing of diversity through the contribution of a wide range of perspectives is one major possible advantage of opening university doors to international students.

Global student mobility has placed pressure on western universities to recruit students from non-western, non-English-speaking backgrounds. In this article, we argue that language requirements such as the International English Language Testing System bands are underpinned by discourses that privilege western modes of thought. We go on to argue that English language proficiency underpins discourses of deficit that construct non-western students as less able to undertake research programmes. In exploring pedagogical possibilities, we draw on a published story of an international higher degree research student, called Mei, at an Australian university. We question the idea that a research higher degree is more about linguistic skills than it is about research skills, and we argue that rigour, scholarship, and new knowledge constitute the assessable factors in what international higher degree research students produce. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]