Search

Every year, around 35% of engineering graduates (mainly female and ethnic minority graduates) in the UK choose roles outside engineering. Given that engineering disciplines struggle to attract recruits, this represents a significant loss of qualified talent the profession can ill afford. A possible reason why engineers choose not to practise after qualifying may be that they have not developed a professional engineering identity during their engineering education. Research shows that engineering identity is an important indicator of persistence in both engineering education and the engineering profession. The purpose of this research is to gain a deeper understanding into the process of engineering identity formation in undergraduates studying for an engineering apprenticeship degree in England, with a view to proposing changes to engineering education that may better support the development of an engineering identity. A qualitative methodology is well-suited to the study of how engineering identity develops in engineering students, given that we are interested in the personal experiences of engineering students rather than in measuring standardised outcomes. This research is inspired by narrative inquiry through the use of life story interviews (LSI). This paper outlines the findings of a preliminary study with first and final year students. The findings presented are surprising in that they seem to indicate that the four years of a degree apprenticeship have little impact on students' identification with engineering. Going forward, engineering educators need to consider how the development of an engineering identity can be supported in engineering education.

As elsewhere across the globe, for the past two decades doctoral education in the UK has been in the throes of change. This article seeks to describe and analyse developments in 1) the national framework for doctoral education, 2) institutional structures, 3) doctoral programmes, 4) doctoral candidacy, 5) doctoral supervision and 6) doctoral examination. Multiple sources of evidence, including official documentation and the results of investigations of the public-facing websites of the 150 institutions providing doctoral programmes, are used. The conclusion shows that these changes have been far-reaching, particularly for supervisors, and a call is made for greater recognition of their contributions to doctoral education.

Editors of academic journals play a key part in the production of knowledge and the continuation of scholarly conversations about practical and intellectual issues of the day. While peer review, an essential part of journal processes, has received considerable attention in the scholarly and the popular press, much of it critical, the role of the chief editor remains rather shadowy and underexplored. Qualitative, semi-structured interviews with 11 editors of academic journals in the field of higher education probed for editors' thoughts about their work. The editors, located in seven countries, described dual roles as gatekeepers -- keeping up standards in the field -- and academic developers -- supporting and encouraging novice and other potential authors. They searched for balance between these often contradictory expectations amidst complexities and challenges of contemporary academia.

Many countries have doctoral viva examinations, mostly conducted in-person until the COVID-19 pandemic. This article explores the changing processes and experiences of doctoral vivas forced online, from the perspectives of three examiners (two Uk, one NZ) and one recent candidate (UK). It sheds light on remote viva examinations exploring experiences of examination rigour, opportunities to evidence 'doctorateness' and challenges and affordances of remoteness, home location and technology. We use autoethnography, focusing on our experiences including the personal, learning and institutional dimensions. We found virtual spaces had advantages (comfort) and disadvantages (emotional difficulties), and levels of worry were often higher, especially regarding IT. Online formats still enabled examiners to rigorously assess 'doctorateness', but duty of care is needed for candidates with anxiety exacerbated by the pandemic, or technology. Our study offers insiders' insights into the remote online viva itself with recommendations for candidates, examiners and institutions.

Much current debate about undergraduate student research involves a focus on 'students as partners' and co-constructors of knowledge (Healey, Flint & Harrington 2014, 2016). This debate reveals interesting tensions between student freedom and the role of structuring frameworks. Undergraduate lecturers and research supervisors might feel we are in a quandary concerning how far we can help manage a balance between supportive frameworks and the independence that student researchers need to develop. Will the use of the Research Skill Development (Willison & O'Regan, 2006/2018) framework and other frameworks at every step of the undergraduate research journey form a constraint, or an essential scaffold? This paper considers frameworks, scaffolds and the need for freedom and creative co-construction of knowledge to enable successful undergraduate research within the context of final year research and writing at undergraduate third year (UK), honours (Australia) or senior/fourth year (US and Canada).

The global pandemic has forced academics to engage in remote doctoral supervision, and the need to understand this activity is greater than ever before. This contribution involved a cross-field review on remote supervision pertinent in the context of a global pandemic. We have utilised the results of an earlier study bringing a supervision model into a pandemic-perspective integrating studies published about and during the pandemic. We identified themes central to remote supervision along five theory-informed dimensions, namely intellectual/cognitive, instrumental, professional/technical, personal/emotional and ontological dimensions, and elaborate these in the light of the new reality of remote supervision.

This article reports on a study that focuses on students from rural areas of South Africa and their experiences of higher education. These students have attracted little attention in widening participation research in South Africa, despite being one of the most marginalised groups. The article, drawing on the experiences of student co-researchers and using the concepts of decoloniality and curricular justice as a theoretical framework, argues for greater acknowledgement of epistemic reciprocity in curriculum development as a way to ensure more socially just curricula. Findings illustrate the importance that students attribute to being able to relate to curricula that reflect their experiences, curricula that they rarely experience in higher education. Students report feelings of marginalisation, lack of recognition of the importance of knowledge and skills developed in their communities and their relevance to higher education together with the challenges they face accessing and engaging with the curriculum.