Uppsala University Political science C Bachelor thesis
Autumn semester 2014
The Road Towards a Dissertation
A comparative study of working regulations for PhD students in Sweden and the United Kingdom
Author: Ella Brodin
Supervisor: Christina Bergqvist
Type of paper: Bachelor thesis, 15 credits
Pages: 41 including list of references and two appendixes
Title: The road towards a dissertation – a comparative study of working regulations for PhD students in Sweden and the United Kingdom
Author: Ella Brodin
Supervisor: Christina Bergqvist
Date: October 2, 2014
Abstract: The purpose of this thesis is to investigate the differences between the working regulations for doctoral students at British and Swedish universities. Through a policy analysis of university and policy documents, laws and other regulations, the main differences are mapped out. The study reveals that there are major differences in the working conditions in the two countries, with the British doctoral students having significantly fewer rights and a high level of financial insecurity. The thesis demonstrates how the differences affect doctoral students differently depending on gender, and how this correlates to the social democratic and liberal welfare regimes.
Keywords: Higher education, PhD students, labour law, gender studies, doctoral studies, political science, policy analysis, Sweden, United Kingdom, welfare regime, social democracy
Table of contents
Translations, phrases and abbreviations 4
Introduction 5
Purpose 6
Background 7
The Swedish Situation for Doctoral Students 7
Theory 9
Introduction 9
Comparing Sweden’s Social Democratic Welfare Model with the United Kingdom’s Liberal
Regime 9
Gender, Welfare Models, and the University Setting 11
Method 14
Aims, Special Considerations, and Overview 14
University Rankings and Sample Selection 14
Policy Analysis at National and Institutional Levels 16
Results 18
Overview of the Regulations for Doctoral Students in the United Kingdom and Sweden 18
Viewing the Doctoral Candidate as a Student or an Employee 19
The Doctoral Students’ Roles as Teachers or Researchers 20
Financial Security 20
Gender and The Right to Parental Leave 21
Analysis and conclusions 23
General Discussion 23
Analysing the Impact of Differences in Social Rights for Doctoral Students in Sweden and the
United Kingdom 23
Exploring Gendered Dimensions to Regulatory Discrepancies and their 25
Impacts 25
Exploring Policy Divergences in Relation to Welfare Models 26
References 28
Appendix 1 34
The Universities’ Rights to Terminate Doctorate Studies 34
The Research Councils’ Policies on Terminating Funding 37
Paternity Leave Regulations of Different Research Councils 38
Overview of Policies Regarding Parental Leave at Specific Universities in the United
Kingdom 39
Appendix 2 42
Translations, phrases and abbreviations
Statistics Sweden = Statistiska centralbyrån, SCB
The Swedish National Agency of Higher Education = Högskoleverket, HSV Swedish Higher Education Authority = Universitetskanslersämbetet, UKÄ Försäkringskassan = Swedish Social Insurance Agency
Postgraduate programme, doctoral programme and PhD programme are used interchangeably and have the same meaning.
Doctoral student, doctoral candidate and PhD student are used interchangeably and have the same meaning.
The Swedish word högskolan, often used by Statistics Sweden, is in this text translated to higher education and should be understood as all universities and university colleges in Sweden.
The six research councils that fund doctoral studies in the United Kingdom can be abbreviated in the following ways:
Arts and Humanities Research Council, AHRC
Biotechnology and Biological Science Research Council, BBSRC Medical Research Council, MRC
Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council, EPSRC Natural Environment Research Council, NERC
Science and Technology Facilities Council, STFC The European Higher Education Area, EHEA
Introduction
Society has gone through a significant transition towards a knowledge-based economy, and the educational system has transformed together with it. Research and education are becoming more essential parts of everyday life in society. Sweden is at a historic peak in regards to the number of students enrolled in our universities1, and today, approximately 45%
of Swedish youth enrol in universities within three years after finishing their upper secondary education2. In the time period between 1982 and 2002, the number of PhD students in Sweden more than doubled.3 It is not necessary to look far into the past in order to find tremendous differences in the regulations and conditions surrounding university studies. Up until 1982 all Swedish students holding an undergraduate degree were allowed to pursue doctoral studies, and it was not until the end of the 1980s that the universities had a responsibility to provide acceptable conditions in regards to supervision and general study conditions.4 Since 1998, students can only be accepted to PhD programmes in Sweden if funding for living expenses is provided throughout the period of their studies.5 With more people involved in the educational system, it is becoming more important and relevant to have a broad and open understanding of the educational system and university policies.
The Swedish government states that working with gender equality is a matter of quality assurance—that using and adapting to the competences, values, experiences and general situations in life of both genders is vital for meeting society’s need for high quality research.6 With the current regulations and funding situation for doctoral students, is it fair to say that the universities in the European Union are open and equal? This is a central question to this thesis that I am trying to answer.
The Bologna Process is a series of agreements between European countries designed to ensure comparability and quality of higher education qualifications. From this process stems the fundamental view that the segmentation of the European higher education sector is out- dated and harmful for educational and research quality.7 Are policy makers in Europe working towards a more coherent system in how and why PhD students are accepted into universities? Some of the explicit goals of the Bologna Process are to work towards equal access and to broaden participation in higher education including increased flexibility in the academic programmes.8 Looking at the PhD programmes in Europe, are those goals being reached? With the Bologna Process in mind, I want to investigate how different the regulations for doctoral students are and in what way, using Sweden and the United Kingdom as examples.
1The Swedish National Agency of Higher Education. Trots smärre minskning – fortsatt historiskt många studenter på högskolan [Despite minor decrease – still historic amount of stents at university]. 2011.
2 Statistics Sweden, Övergång från gymnasieskola till högskola 2010/2011 [Transition from upper secondary school to higher education 2010/2011], 2012
3 Statistics Sweden. (2005) Universitet och högskolor - Forskarutbildning [Universities – Postgraduate education]. Utbildningsstatistisk årsbok 2005, p. 284
4 Swedish Higher Education Authority, Högre utbildning och forskning 1945-2005 – en översikt, 2006, p 33
5 Swedish Higher Education Authority, ibid, p. 36
6 Jacobsson and Gillström, Kvinnor och män i högskolan [Women and men in higher education], The Swedish National Agency of Higher Education, 2008, p. 7
7The European Higher Education Area, History, http://www.ehea.info/article-details.aspx?ArticleId=3, (Retrieved 2014-09-04)
8 an Haack, Braun et al, Mapping the goals of the Process, Aachen University, 2013, p. 6477 [p. 6]
Purpose
The purpose of this bachelor thesis is to investigate the differences that exist between the regulations for doctoral students at British and Swedish universities.
With my contribution to the research about higher education, the goal is to illustrate the effect that the national welfare system and labour market policies have on the working conditions for doctoral students. My contribution also has the goal to increase the understanding of the two educational systems’ similarities and differences.
In this thesis, with the Bologna Process and discussions about streamlining the educational systems in mind, I have tried to find out if the doctoral students, as a group, have more in common with each other, regardless of which EU country they are active in, or if their working conditions are more related to the country in which they are active with their research. With this thesis, I also hope to raise questions regarding who are welcome to do research at European universities and for what purpose.
The questions I am investigating are the following:
1. Which differences exist between Swedish and British doctoral students in regards to which social rights they have?
2. In what ways do the two systems treat their students equally or unequally based on gender?
3. How can these differences be explained?
Through the use of policy analysis, I will, in this thesis, present the laws and regulations that control the working conditions and social rights for doctoral students at the universities in the two countries.
Background
Throughout the last few years, heavy criticism has been directed towards the treatment of postgraduate students in the United Kingdom, as many students have been taken advantage of for unpaid work. The doctoral students are in a very vulnerable situation, as they often work under short-term employment contracts, and are to a large extent expected to work without pay. The students who do get paid for tutoring and teaching rarely get paid for the work they do preparing to teach, which leads to very low actual hourly wages.9 A study done by University and College Union, published in UCU Survival Guide for hourly-paid staff, reveals that the teaching salary for doctoral students averages less than £5 per hour, compared to the British minimum wage of £7.20 per hour.10 Jenny Thatcher, a PhD student at University of East London, is highly critical towards the system, and claims it only benefits the research students who are privileged enough to be able to work for free. She also is of the opinion that it disadvantages women, as many women tend to work part-time due to domestic responsibilities and are less able to work for free.11
The notion that female doctoral students in the United Kingdom are especially vulnerable is confirmed by research being conducted within the field. In the article “Understanding the experiences of female doctoral students”, Brown and Watson conclude that female researchers often feel marginalised and excluded within academia, which has led to high levels of stress and low confidence.12
Motherhood has a great influence on the doctoral studies in the United Kingdom. This is mainly due to two reasons: First, because the time for studying is dictated by the demands of the household, and secondly because balancing academic life and domestic life has led to further stress and worry.13 Women in the United Kingdom are significantly more likely to conduct their research on a part-time basis and are older than men when enrolling in PhD programmes. Due to the late start of their studies, women have fewer years overall as employees within academia.14 Similar research done in the United States shows that women with a child under age 6 are 22% less likely to obtain a tenure-track position after graduating with a PhD.15
The Swedish Situation for Doctoral Students
In Sweden, there is also a high discrepancy between the working situation for men and women. The Swedish National Agency of Higher Education’s report Doktorandspegeln 2008 reveals that women are discontent with their studies to a higher extent than men and that 25%
of women have experienced that they have been treated in a negative way due to their gender.
Only 6% of men have experienced the same thing.16
9 Couvée. (2012-05-27). Postgraduate students are being used as 'slave labour'. The independent
10 University and College Union. (2011). UCU Survival Guide for hourly-paid staff. p. 9
11 Couvée (2012-05-27)
12 Lorraine Brown & Pamela Watson (2010) Understanding the experiences of female doctoral students, Journal of Further and Higher Education, p 387
13 Brown & Watson, p 387
14 Brown & Watson, p 392
15 Brown & Watson, p 387
16 The Swedish National Agency of Higher Education. (2008), Doktorandspegeln 2008, Rapport 2008:23 R
Something that should be noted about Sweden’s doctoral education is that a large majority of the PhD students are satisfied with their education. 80% of the PhD students in The Swedish National Agency of Education’s survey, where more than 6,000 students from Swedish universities participated, gave their doctoral education the grade good or very good. The proportion of satisfied students was higher among international students, which could be interpreted that the Swedish regulations and working conditions are better than expected given the academic environment that the doctoral students previously have studied in.17
Men feel accepted by the research community to a higher extent than women do. Regarding doctoral studies in combination with parenthood, the following can be read:
“Approximately seven out of ten are married or co-habiting with a partner – 74% of the women and 72% of the men. Four out of ten doctoral students states that they have children under the age of 18 living with them (42% of the women and 38% of the men).
On the question “To what extent do you perceive that parental leave is generally accepted within your doctoral education?” nearly two-thirds answer “to a high extent” or “to a very high extent”. There are, however, doctoral students who don’t experience that parental leave is generally accepted – 3% answer “to a very small extent/not at all” and 12% “to a small extent”. 21% answers “don’t know”. There are no large differences between the genders, but among men 35% answered “to a very high extent”, compared to women’s 31%, while there are more women who answered “to a small extent”, 13% of the women compared to 10% of the men.”18
In Sweden, the female doctoral students are typically older than men, but the difference in age is smaller in Sweden compared to the United Kingdom. The median age for female doctoral students in Sweden is 34, while the median age for men is 32. Stress levels do not seem to be correlated with how their studies are financed in Sweden. The exceptions are the few PhD students with assistant employment (“assistenttjänst”) or studiemedel (from CSN), who in a higher extent experience stress.19
A report published at Uppsala University shows that female doctoral students are expected to do more uncompensated administrative work than their male colleagues, something that contributes to stress. International doctoral students at Uppsala University are surprised by the possibilities that exist that would allow them to have children during their studies, something that would not have been possible in their home countries.20
17 The Swedish National Agency of Higher Education. (2008), Doktorandspegeln 2008, Rapport 2008:23 R
18 The Swedish National Agency of Higher Education. (2008), Doktorandspegeln 2008, Rapport 2008:23 R
19 The Swedish National Agency of Higher Education. (2008), Doktorandspegeln 2008, Rapport 2008:23 R
20 Appel, Monika. (2008). Arbetsförhållanden för doktorander som är kvinnor: En intervjustudie, Uppsala:
Enheten för kvalitet och utvärdering. Uppsala universitet, p 13-15
Theory
Introduction
Undertaking this exploration requires either the invocation or development of robust, empirically validated, theoretical frameworks. This task is somewhat more challenging than it might appear at first glance: because it is the aim of the thesis to make a novel research contribution with respect to variations in students’ experiences in graduate school, and the analysis must necessarily take on something of a multidisciplinary character. After all, it is not only politics, policy, and legislation that shape these experiences, but, indeed, market forces informed by a range of micro-and-macro-economic factors appear to play a determining role as well, particularly with respect to work, competition, and (of course) compensation. Yet another layer is added when gender is considered as a central variable.
Thus, it is not unreasonable to question whether, and how, this array of narrative threads can by synthesised into a rigorous analysis that is, if not totally comprehensive, at least meaningful.
In order to address this difficulty, the current thesis employs a unique approach, grounding its analysis in theoretical frameworks derived from the study of welfare states. After all, the disparate experiences of doctoral students in the United Kingdom and Sweden can be conceptualised as derivative effects of social spending paradigms.
The theoretical discussion begins with background and contextualisation in the form of an exploration into the respective welfare models of the United Kingdom and Sweden, using the welfare state typologies of Esping-Andersen (1990). Next, a comparative critical analysis of these two welfare regimes is undertaken. Invoking Diane Sainsbury’s groundbreaking work brings the topic into a surprisingly crisp focus by adding a gendered dimension to the discussion. Drawing upon her 1996 Gender, Equality, and Welfare States (among other works), it is arguable that university dynamics—especially those related to the rights, obligations, and compensation of graduate students—reflect larger variations in state welfare models and labour markets.
Comparing Sweden’s Social Democratic Welfare Model with the United Kingdom’s Liberal Regime
In his book The Three Worlds of Welfare Capitalism (1990), Esping-Andersen argues that contemporary conceptual approaches for comparative welfare state research are fundamentally lacking—particularly with respect to a nagging inability to present consistent and reliable criteria for distinguishing between different types.
“The welfare state cannot be understood just in terms of the rights it grants. We must also take into account how state activities are interlocked with the market’s and the family’s role in social provision. These are the three main principles that need to be fleshed out prior to any theoretical speciation of the welfare state.”21
21 Esping-Andersen. (1990).The Three Worlds of Welfare Capitalism, p. 163
Thus, Esping-Andersen proposed a formulation of social rights, measurable by three variables: the elimination of a citizen’s dependence on the market (i.e., “a de- commodification of the status of individuals” vis-a-vis the market)22, class stratification as a function of social spending policy, and the way in which states and markets intersect. He concluded that modern capitalist nations could be broadly grouped into one of three regime types: liberal market, social democratic, or corporatist-statist. Sainsbury offers an eminently functional summary of these categories, one much more concise than Esping-Andersen himself:
“Very briefly, the liberal welfare state regime is characterized by heavy reliance on means tested programs, modest social insurance benefits, market solutions in the form of occupational welfare... and private insurance. In the conservative welfare state regime, social insurance schemes are central but they are differentiated according to class and status [and are] designed to maintain the status quo... The social democratic regime is typified by universal benefits and services covering the entire population, a weakening of the influence of the market in distribution, and a strong commitment to full employment.”23
By wide agreement, Sweden’s welfare regime is generally considered to fall under the social democratic heading. Rothstein, for instance, argues that no other Western country has been as strongly shaped by the political influence of social democracy as Sweden.24 Meanwhile, Lindbom holds pre-1980’s Sweden up as “the most highly developed welfare state,” and notes that its major attributes of “generosity, universality, and developed welfare services” showed an astounding resilience even in the wake of the budgetary crisis of the 1990’s.25
“As a consequence [of the political influence of social democracy], Sweden stands out as an extreme on many standard measures used in comparative politics, such as public spending, degree of unionization, and voting turnout. One of the more important features of [the Swedish model] was an unusually close collaboration between the state and major interest organizations in the preparation as well as in the implementation of public policies.” 26
As it turns out, this state of affairs makes for a highly coherent, organised and intelligible welfare apparatus.27The Ministry of Employment is tasked with regulating the labour market, which unabashedly seeks to achieve full employment for its citizenry by engaging active labour market measures.28 Similarly, education—notably including the public university system—falls under the purview of the Ministry of Education and Research. While each of these bodies is tasked with upholding and enhancing the well-being of the public, welfare, as colloquially defined, tends to imply specifically social welfare—health care, financial safety
22 Esping-Andersen. (1990). The three worlds of welfare capitalism, p. 163
23 Sainsbury. (1996). Gender, equality and welfare states, p. 12
24 Rothstein. (2001).Social capital in the social democratic welfare state, p. 171
25 Lindbom. (2001). Dismantling the Social Democratic Welfare Model? Has the Swedish Welfare State Lost Its Defining Characteristics?, p. 171
26 Rothstein. (2001). Social capital in the social democratic welfare state, p. 208
27 Sainsbury describes Sweden as “the comprehensive welfare state.” (Gender, equality and welfare states, p. 31)
28 Sainsbury. (1996). Gender, equality and welfare states, p. 32
nets, and disability assistance. The Ministry of Health and Social Affairs administers these areas.
Describing the organisational scheme of the Swedish regime, however, fails to demonstrate the sheer scale of these programs, which are so comprehensive and well-integrated that
“medical services, education at all levels, day care, family services, and transport have largely assumed the character of public goods” in Sweden.29 In sum, the Swedish welfare system is renowned for its sheer scope - it is generous, universal, and deeply egalitarian.
Like the Swedish welfare regime, that of the United Kingdom comprises labour and education in addition to direct social welfare spending as classically conceived. Indeed, the United Kingdom’s approach to these first two areas bears a surprising degree of similarity with that of Sweden’s. “With respect to services,” Sainsbury notes, “the UK and Sweden revealed similarities in the marginal role of private provision in education and the health services.” 30 Furthermore, the two systems closely resemble one another “in the extent to which state institutions have been responsible for the administration and delivery of services.”31
Despite these homologies, a closer examination reveals structural discrepancies as well. The British model relies on a sometimes-contested combination of national insurance and social assistance in order to achieve its universally available healthcare. This opens the door not only to bureaucratic red tape but for private marketplaces to occasionally intrude as well.
Furthermore, rather than striving for the egalitarianism of the Swedish model, the United Kingdom employs a welfare paradigm based on the assumption that the state should act as a safety net, catching those in need, rather than actively and universally seeking to enhance the quality of life for all citizens. As a result, insurance benefits tend to provide low levels of assistance, and benefits, in kind “have generally been targeted to low income groups and the socially deprived.”32 Furthermore, the British welfare model has undergone considerable alteration since the 1980’s, with a significant shift in the direction of private and means-tested benefits, that has had a largely negative effect on national insurance benefits. (As mentioned previously, the Swedish welfare regime faced a budgetary crisis in the early 1980’s, and serious cuts in funding were made; even so, its level of benefits dwarfs that of the United Kingdom).
Gender, Welfare Models, and the University Setting
These structural differences take on a new salience when viewed through the lens of gender, particularly because of a growing body of literature suggesting that men and women access different types of welfare benefits at different rates. In the United States and United Kingdom, for instance, men are more likely to receive social insurance benefits than women, while women “often must rely on means-tested programmes, and frequently their claims to insurance benefits are via their husband.” 33Sweden’s profound commitment to equality and universality of access has resulted in a break in this pattern of segregation—which is to say, men and women enjoy access to benefits in a more egalitarian way. This underpins Sweden’s appeal as a subject for the current analysis.
29 Sainsbury. (1996). Gender, equality and welfare states, p. 32
30 Sainsbury. (1996). Gender, equality and welfare states, p. 24
31 Ibid
32 Ibid
33 Sainsbury. (1993). Dual welfare and sex segregation of access to social benefits: income maintenance policies in the UK, the US, the Netherlands and Sweden, p. 69
There are historical as well as cultural reasons for these phenomena, of course. “In most modern Western welfare states, women have historically received benefits and provisions as wives and mothers (i.e., as unpaid workers)”.34The etiology of this state of affairs is complex, but the fact of its existence is profoundly relevant. After all, expanding access to social services draws women into the labour force and bolsters economic development.
“Increasing female enrolment in higher education... has been positively associated with each of these factors. The reason for the link is the change in attitudes toward working women that accompanies expansion of higher education, a change that goes beyond the participating women themselves” 35
At the same time, the problem must be analysed from the perspective of the individual:
differential access to social services and benefits leads—perhaps unsurprisingly—to different behaviours. If gender is the variable mediating this differential access, then it is reasonable to expect that a difference in behaviour might be observable between men and women in the context of higher education.
Although the connection might appear circuitous at first, it is actually fairly intuitive.
Sweden’s social democratic welfare model is highly inclusive, and access is granted on the basis of citizenship, whereas the United Kingdom’s liberal model is marginally less coherent.
As a function of these different approaches to social welfare (as distinct from educational policy itself), the participation rate of women in higher education in Sweden has historically exceeded that of the United Kingdom—a state of affairs that is precisely reproduced in the respective labour markets of these countries.36
The issue of the exploitation of graduate students in the United Kingdom, meanwhile, occurs at this very intersection: that between educational institutions and the labour force. Consider the use of postgraduate students as “slave labour” in the United Kingdom, which was briefly referenced in the background chapter of this thesis. Labour market dynamics limit the availability of workers in a certain category (e.g., those with terminal degrees). Universities struggle to keep costs down, but limited supply and growing demand makes employing these workers costly. Doctoral students have skills that approximate those of the employed professors, but they also constitute a vulnerable population that has invested a substantial amount of time in pursuing education rather than accruing income, and are therefore leveraged into the unenviable position of working long hours for substandard pay. The degree to which this cost-cutting strategy is effective is, of course, contingent on the willingness of doctoral candidates to participate, a function of this population’s perception of its own vulnerability—which is, in turn, influenced by the availability of social services.
In review, there is a substantial body of theoretically grounded, empirical evidence indicating the that features of a given state’s welfare model can influence the participation of women in both the labour force and higher education. Doctoral students serving in poorly compensated, quasi-professorial capacities effectively constitute a labour force within higher education—a labour force whose availability is determined by the vulnerability of its members.
34 Fink & Clarke. (2001). Rethinking European welfare: Transformations of European social policy
35 Ruggie. (1984). The state and working women: A comparative study of Britain and Sweden, p. 31-2
36 Ibid. p. 33
Thus, a comparison of the experiences of graduate students in the United Kingdom versus those in Sweden can be used to shed light, not only on obvious factors, such as the relative strength of the educational systems themselves, but also on subtler ones. One such factor is the impact gender has on graduate students’ perception of their own vulnerability in each context, especially as a function of the welfare regimes that define and determine that vulnerability.
Method
Aims, Special Considerations, and Overview
The interdisciplinary nature of our exploration has raised interesting issues for the development of a research methodology. At the same time, the existence of these challenges serves to highlight the importance of designing a systematic, coherent, and theoretically grounded research methodology in order to obtain results that are consistent, valid, interpretable, and, above all, meaningful. “Although the utility of comparative policy studies is generally acknowledged,” writes Leichter, “no such agreement has developed concerning the best way to approach the matter.”37 The line of inquiry relies heavily upon a mixed- method evaluation design, and, as such, owes a debt to the work of Greene, Caracelli, and Graham, which begins to develop and present possible frameworks capable of guiding mixed- method research.38
To this end, a multi-pronged research methodology was constructed, the core of which is grounded in the theory and methods of comparative policy analysis. An instant problem that occurred when trying to compare the national policies of the two countries, was the perhaps obvious realisation that the United Kingdom – being a liberal, decentralised welfare regime – has a pronounced absence of the type of national regulations that pervades the academic world in Sweden. In order to gain an understanding of which regulations actually govern the doctoral students at British universities, it became necessary to look at the policies on an institutional level. Research occurred in several distinct phases; these are described in greater detail below, but in the interest of context, an overview is provided here. First, relevant national regulations, both general regulations and those from specific research councils, were selected. Second, universities were ranked by four distinct methods; those consistently identified as high-performing institutions were selected for data collection. Next, the range of variation in regulations governing doctoral studies in the United Kingdom and Sweden was examined. At the national level, policies surrounding maternity and paternity leave, employment, funding and termination were compared. The policies regarding parental leave allowed for the introduction of the dimension of gender into the analysis. Next, a comparison was made of how, and to what extent, these policies were replicated at the institutional level, by examining individual universities’ policies.
University Rankings and Sample Selection
Considering the relatively high level of decentralisation that permeates British universities, it was necessary to look at specific universities for additional data collection. Rather than making a random sample of universities, it was decided that a purposeful sample would examine data from top institutions. By doing so, it ensured that the data that was obtained was from institutions of comparable calibre, as several Swedish universities (whose regulations are indirectly looked at) also qualify as “top universities” by the same definitions. Another appeal of looking specifically at top institutions is the relevance – because they are top institutions, they are more interesting for both the world of academia as well as the general public.
37 Leichter. (1979).A comparative approach to policy analysis: health care policy in four nations.
38 Greene, Caracelli, and Graham. (1989). Toward a conceptual framework for mixed-method evaluation designs. Educational evaluation and policy analysis
But how does one define a “top” university? A hybrid ranking system comprised of multiple scales was created. First, the system combined the results of three independent, private university ranking organisations: QS, the Times Higher Education, and the Shanghai Rankings. These ranking systems are reviewed briefly below; please see appendix 2 for a more comprehensive discussion of specific features of their methodologies, as well as for figures illustrating relative score category weights.
QS employs both survey-based and research methodologies. Universities are scored in five weighted categories (academic reputation, employment reputation, student/faculty ratio, citations per faculty member, proportion of students that are international, and proportion of faculty that are international), which are then combined into an aggregate score. Academic reputation, for instance, is assessed based on survey responses by academics from around the world, which are asked to identify the institutions where the best research in their field is occurring. Employment reputation is also based on global survey data, where employers are asked to comment on their perceptions of the quality of graduates from various universities worldwide. With respect to assessing citations per faculty member, QS uses Web of Science Thomson Reuters, Scopus from Elsevier, and Google Scholar; self-citations are excluded.
The Times Higher Education rankings employ a closely related approach. Scores are broken down into five weighted categories: teaching, research, citations, industry income, and international outlook. The broad “teaching” and “research” categories are broken down into multiple component sub-indicators, comprising survey results as well as published statistics, such as student to teacher ratio and total institutional income scaled against academic staff numbers. Industry income measures the university’s capacity to help industry with innovations, consultancy, and inventions.
Shanghai Rankings break their scores into six categories: quality of faculty (awards), quality of faculty (highly cited), research output in the natural sciences, research output in the social sciences, per capita academic performance, and alumni. Unlike the two ranking scales listed above, Shanghai Rankings place an emphasis on formal accolades for achievements: the
“alumni” category, for instance, gauges the number of alumni who are either Nobel Laureates or who have received field medals, while the quality of faculty (highly cited) category contains the total number of researchers across 21 subject categories who have the distinction of being the most cited in their subject.
In order to further strengthen the case for universities’ relevance to academic as well as in the popular consciousness, one more data source were incorporated into the ranking scheme of the current research. First, top-performing universities that consistently appeared on lists generated by the three ranking systems discussed above (QS, Times Higher Education, and Shanghai) were ranked. Next, a Google search using these universities’ names as key words was performed. The number of hits returned again ranked the universities, and the numbers show a distinct difference between the universities that are defined as top universities by all three ranking systems and those who are not.
Name of British university Google Hits on September 3, 2014
University of Cambridge 80.3 million
University of Oxford 63.8 million
Imperial College London 12.5 million
King's College London 16 million
University of Edinburgh 39.4 million
University of Sussex 1.59 million
Royal Holloway 1.04 million
Queen Mary University of London 5.76 million
University of East Anglia 9.3 million
This mixed-method design incorporates survey data with a range of quantitative performance and visibility measures. Thus, it demonstrates multiplicity, a key aspect of mixed-method research wherein the results of different but conceptually related avenues of inquiry are integrated in order to enhance the validity of results. The degree to which the design takes advantage of triangulation (“the designed use of multiple methods with offsetting or counteracting biases”39) is debatable. While the method for identifying high-profile, top-tier research universities appears to be robust and reliable, there is a possibility of minor distortion of rankings due to combining multiple measures of the same phenomenon—for instance, an institution’s size necessarily impacts its student to teacher ratio, but it also impacts the likelihood that the institution will generate a Nobel laureate.
Policy Analysis at National and Institutional Levels
Armed with a sample, vetted for relevance as well as academic performance, the task of comparative policy analysis bears discussion. The core of the analysis is on financial security and social mobility, with parental leave and paid leave in special focus. This facilitates the introduction of gender as a dimension along which analysis can occur. For completeness, the analysis is undertaken in two scales, comparing policies at both the national and institutional levels.
The regulations for PhD candidates has been analysed along five dimensions: student or employee, teacher or researcher, financial security, gender, and finally, as a parent. This analysis examined the degree to which teaching responsibilities are contained within the curricula of a PhD programme, as well as how funding is obtained. Funding policies form the crux of the current exploration. The guidelines surrounding funding function as part of very different systems in Sweden and the United Kingdom, making comparative analysis an interesting task. The five dimensions have therefore functioned as an appropriate framework when approaching the differences.
The different national research councils’ policies on parental leave were examined. Special attention was paid to divergence from each other, level of detail, and gender-based limitations of qualifications. Wide variation in the treatment this situation received at the both council and institutional level made this level analysis particularly challenging. Thus, Yanow’s important qualification with respect to a focus on hard procedures in policy analysis was kept in mind:
39 Greene, Caracelli, and Graham. (1989). Toward a conceptual framework for mixed-method evaluation designs. Educational evaluation and policy analysis
“There has been a tendency in some discussions of symbolic politics to treat that concept as distinct from ‘real’ politics, as if symbols and their meanings were not ‘real’ or as if material redistributions and instrumental actions were the only ‘real’
elements of policy and policy acts. The distinction is erroneous and misleading. Policies and political actions are not either symbolic or substantive. They can be, and often are, both at once.”40
Thus, it is important to keep in mind that there is a potential for deliberate vagueness with respect to parental leave policies, allowing both universities and funding councils to demonstrate certain values symbolically without providing strict frameworks for their implementation. Because of this, the research design incorporates room for comparative critical analysis that is more verbal than quantitative as well.
40 Yanow. (2003). Deliberative policy analysis: understanding governance in the network society, p. 244
Results
Overview of the Regulations for Doctoral Students in the United Kingdom and Sweden
Dimensions Sweden The United Kingdom
Student or employee The majority of PhD students are employed directly by their universities, and they have many of the same social rights as other university employees.
It is very difficult for a university to get rid of a PhD student, while funding in some cases can be cut.
PhD students are never employed to do their research, and work on a short-term basis with unreliable work contracts.
There are many ways for a university to get rid of or fire a PhD student, and the research councils can easily cut funding.
Teacher or researcher Teaching is an integrated part of the studies, with 20% the PhD programme dedicated
towards teaching
undergraduate students.
The PhD programmes are more aimed at research.
Teaching is an ”added bonus”, needed for the experience for a post doc but something that most doctoral students undertake outside of their ordinary studies.
Financial security The universities are legally responsible for ensuring that the doctoral student has funding covering living expenses throughout their studies.
The universities offer both funded and unfunded PhD programmes, meaning that some students have financial security while others do not.
Funding rarely cover the entire period of studies.
Gender Men and women have equal
regulations regardless of gender, and equal access to paid parental leave.
Men and women have different regulations for leave and absence depending on gender. Only women have a guaranteed right to be on paid parental leave.
As a parent Both employed students and those on education grant get the same benefits as employees when it comes to parental leave. Parents are treated equally regardless of gender.
The possibility to be absent from studies varies greatly.
Some fathers only have access to unpaid leave. All parents have unpaid leave if they want to care for their child longer than 6 months.
Research councils are not required to extend the funding according to the length of absence.
Viewing the Doctoral Candidate as a Student or an Employee
In the United Kingdom, the doctoral students are not employees. The students are doing their degree with a focus on research studies and paid work is not included in the degree programmes. Some doctoral students are even subject to paying tuition fees.41 Most universities offer possibilities for the individual doctoral student to pursue work that is academically related, teaching undergraduate students being the most common one. Other academically related work includes supervising undergraduates, working in the university library, monitoring exams, or demonstrating in a laboratory. However, it is not a right of the doctoral student to pursue these jobs or other forms of employment. The student will often need approval from their supervisor, and does the work outside of the scope of their full-time education.42
In Sweden, many doctoral students are full-time employees of the universities. In 2013, the universities directly employed 63% of all doctoral students in Sweden.43An additional 6% are currently funded by an educational grant, which means that they will progress into employment within a year.44 Only 8% of the doctoral students are funded by scholarships, while the remaining students most commonly are funded through externally paid employment.45The employed PhD students can teach or do other administrative tasks up to 20% of their employment, while the remaining time is focused on their own education. Their employment is always a full-time position unless the student requests otherwise, and the minimum employment is 50% of full-time.46
The working regulations for doctoral students in Sweden give them many rights of a normal university employee. The salary for an employed student usually varies between SEK 23,000- 26,000 (approximately £2000-2200) a month, with an annual increase as they progress in their studies. They also receive pension, paid sick leave, unemployment insurance and a minimum of 28 days of paid vacation.47Swedish doctoral students can also stay home on a temporary basis in order to care for sick children and extend their graduation date accordingly.48 The Swedish universities have very few possibilities to prematurely terminate the studies of a doctoral student. The law only allow it in cases where the student in question is mentally ill, abuse drugs, or has been convicted of a serious crime.49 In the United Kingdom there are several possibilities for the universities to let go of a PhD student that they are unsatisfied with. At British universities, a probation period for all PhD students is standard.50
41 The Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education. (2011). The UK doctorate: a guide for current and prospective Doctoral candidates. http://www.qaa.ac.uk/Publications/InformationAndGuidance/Documents/Doctorate_Guide.pdf (Retrieved online 2014-02-20)
42 University of Cambridge. (2014) Prospective Graduate Students. http://www.admin.cam.ac.uk/students/gradadmissions/prospec/
43 Swedish Higher Education Authority, Ekonomiska villkor,
http://www.doktorandhandboken.nu/attdoktorera/ekonomiskavillkor.4.1f7a9c7912be2e5415380001781.html (Retrieved 2014-09-30)
44 Ibid
45 Swedish Higher Education Authority, Finansiering,
http://www.doktorandhandboken.nu/finansiering.4.1f7a9c7912be2e5415380001171.html (Retrieved 2014-09-30)
46 Högskoleförordningen SFS 1993:100, Förordning (2002:139), Förordning (2014:1012)
47 Swedish Higher Education Authority, Löner och avtal,
http://www.doktorandhandboken.nu/finansiering/anstallningsomdoktorand/lonerochavtal.4.3e31964212bf6bc75be80001195.html (Retrieved 2014-09-30)
48 Lund University, Föräldraledighet
http://www4.lu.se/internt-biologi/personaladm-/ledighet/foeraeldraledighet (Retrieved 2014-09-30)
49 Swedish Higher Education Authority, Avskiljande
http://www.doktorandhandboken.nu/rattigheterochstod/avskiljande.4.1f7a9c7912be2e5415380002421.html (Retrieved 2014-09-30)
50 See Appendix 1
The Doctoral Students’ Roles as Teachers or Researchers
The view on the doctoral students’ roles as teachers or researchers correlates with their form of employment. As most of the doctoral students in Sweden are employed by their universities, teaching is a highly integrated part of their education. The national regulations of doctoral students set by up the Swedish government allocate a maximum of 20% of the students’ working hours towards teaching and other administrative tasks. It is, therefore, very common at Swedish universities that PhD students are active in undergraduate teaching.5152In the United Kingdom, many PhD students are involved in undergraduate teaching, but it varies greatly depending on institution. For some, it is only an extra-curricular activity that is encouraged by the departments. For others, it is integrated into their degree but payment varies. Unpaid teaching, as a part of the PhD programme, is not uncommon. 5354
Financial Security
In Sweden, doctoral students are guaranteed funding throughout the time of their studies. If a student were to lose his or her funding, the university would be obligated to stand in and offer other forms of funding to the student.55 Doctoral students who receive their funding in the form of educational grants, utbildningsbidrag, will earn a minimum of SEK 15,500 (approximately £1300) per month, and will become employed by the university when less than three years remains of their studies.56 In comparison, the annual national minimum doctoral stipend in the United Kingdom is £13,796 (approximately SEK 161,500), which equals to £1144 per month (approximately SEK 13,460).57
In the United Kingdom, doctoral students are personally responsible for paying both their own living expenses as well as tuition fees. These fees, if existing, can vary between universities.
The individual institutions are able to advise their students on different forms of funding possibilities – this includes research council funding, institution funding, charitable or private funding, collaborative funding, employer funding, and self-funding. Some students pursue PhD studies without any funding, meaning they support themselves in other ways throughout their studies. The doctoral students can work at their institutions, but the work is often limited to a maximum of 6 hours per week, in order to not interfere with their studies. As a result, working to support oneself during one’s doctoral studies is difficult.58 International overseas doctoral students are not allowed to work more than 10 hours a week according to regulations set by United Kingdom Border Agency.59
The national research councils in the United Kingdom are responsible for investing public money into research. They are governmental organisations, classified as Non-Departmental Public Bodies, which allows them more freedom than being a part of a government
51 Swedish Higher Education Authority, Hur är det att doktorera?
http://www.doktorandhandboken.nu/omutbildningen/hurardetattdoktorera.4.3e31964212bf6bc75be80001558.html (Retrieved online 2014-09-25)
52 Högskoleförordningen SFS (1993:100), Förordning (2014:1012)
53 The Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education. (2011). The UK doctorate: a guide for current and prospective doctoral candidates.
http://www.qaa.ac.uk/Publications/InformationAndGuidance/Documents/Doctorate_Guide.pdf (Retrieved online 2014-02-20)
54 University of Cambridge. Guidelines on teaching experience for PhD students
http://www.mml.cam.ac.uk/german/courses/pgrad/tchgexp.pdf (Retrieved online 2014-09-25)
55 Högskoleförordningen SFS (1993:100), Förordning (2010:1064)
56 Förordning (1995:938)
57 Research Councils UK. (2013). Research Councils UK Doctoral Stipend Levels and Indicative Fees for 2013
58 Quality Assurance Agency For Higher Education. (2011), p. 9
59 University of Cambridge. (2014). http://www.admin.cam.ac.uk/students/gradadmissions/prospec/
department.60 Most of the PhD students with funding are funded through them and they currently fund 19,000 PhD students throughout the United Kingdom.61They offer funding between three and four years62, while the majority of other studentships remain fixed at three years.63 Most doctoral students need a minimum of four years to complete their degree.64This means that most students, whether they are fully funded or not, are likely to have financial difficulties in their final year of studies.65 This period is commonly referred to as the “write- up period”, as the students are expected to be done with lab work and research and should focus their time on writing or finishing their dissertation.66 In the United Kingdom, there are several charity organisations, for example the Allan and Nesta Ferguson Trust and the Gilchrist Educational Trust, which exist for the sole purpose of helping students with the completion of their postgraduate courses.67 In Sweden, on the contrary, the students are never at risk of losing their funding if they follow their individual study plan and are guaranteed funding throughout the entire degree.68
Losing Funding During the Doctoral Programme
Swedish universities are subject to strict, national regulations of how and why to remove funding, or other resources, from a doctoral student, and the students are eligible to re-qualify for the resources when sufficient academic requirements have been met.69The research councils all follow certain national regulations set up by both the Quality Assurance Agency For Higher Education and Research Councils UK, but their policies vary slightly and are less protective of students’ rights than the Swedish regulations.70 Overall, the research councils have the possibility to withdraw funding from a doctoral student at any time.71
Gender and The Right to Parental Leave
When applying for parental leave in the United Kingdom, doctoral students are subject to both the regulations of their universities, and the research councils that are funding them. The research councils are, at the same time, subject to national regulations set up by Research Councils UK.72 All research councils in the United Kingdom offer paid maternal leave for up to six months and an additional 6 months of unpaid maternal leave.73The date for leaving and returning to their studies must be decided in advance. Doctoral students may lose their place in the PhD programme if they do not return within those 12 months74, and some of the research councils will demand full restitution for the funding given throughout the maternity leave if the student does not return to her studies.75
60 Research Councils UK. (2014). Governance. http://www.rcuk.ac.uk/about/aboutrcs/governance/
(Retrieved 2014-09-25)
61 McDonnell, S. (2011, February). PhD funding - a checklist of possible funding sources
62 EPSRC.GUIDANCE FOR EPSRC STUDENTS http://www.epsrc.ac.uk/skills/students/help/guidance/
(retrieved online 2014-09-25)
63 Blaxill and Zhou. (2013). The alternative guide to postgraduate funding, p. 49
64 Quality Assurance Agency For Higher Education, 2011, p. 3
65 Blaxill and Zhou, 2013, p. 49
66 Quality Assurance Agency For Higher Education, 2011, p. 10
67 Blaxill and Zhou, 2013, p. 49
68 Högskoleförordningen SFS (1993:100), Förordning (2010:1064)
69 Förordning (2010:1064) 6 kap. 30 §
70 Research Councils UK. Conditions of research council training grants, p 6
71 See Appendix 1
72 Research Councils UK. Conditions of research council training grants, p 2
http://www.rcuk.ac.uk/RCUK-prod/assets/documents/documents/TermsConditionsTrainingGrants.pdf
73 See Appendix 1
74 BBSRC, Research council maternity, adoptive, maternity support (paternity) and parental leave policy, p 9
http://www.bbsrc.ac.uk/web/FILES/EmploymentCode/maternity-adoptive-maternity-support-and-parental-leave-policy.pdf
75Research Councils UK. Conditions of research council training grants
http://www.rcuk.ac.uk/RCUK-prod/assets/documents/documents/TermsConditionsTrainingGrants.pdf
