How Supervisors Can Support Doctoral Students to Publish and Not Perish in Academia: Comparison
View Latest Version
Please note this is a comparison between Version 2 by Jessie Wu and Version 1 by James Marson.

“Publish or perish” is a term used for the culture adopted in universities, whereby academic members of staff, typically although not exclusively on research and teaching contracts, are required to publish research. Minimum levels of quantity and quality may apply and these may be included in key performance indicators and annual staff reviews to ensure compliance. Whilst this culture has been reported in universities for nearly a century, most recently it has cascaded down to doctoral students who are increasingly expected to publish and otherwise disseminate research during their studies (i.e., research outside of that which is to be submitted in their thesis). This entry relates primarily to doctoral students in a UK setting and studying a monograph route (rather than a published papers submission) in the humanities. It further explores the role played by supervisors to help doctoral students to publish, and in turn the help and guidance supervisors need to offer as support. Many of the findings explored in this entry apply equally beyond the parameters noted above, and, as demonstrated in the literature, international students and institutions are facing similar issues.

  • early career researcher
  • dissemination
  • doctoral student
  • higher education institutions
  • PhD supervisors
  • publish or perish culture
The university sector is an evolving entity, moving from “pure” scholarly endeavours as produced by academics in their “ivory towers” to research that has impact and influence in communities beyond academia [1]. Despite this shift in focus, and an awareness that research must have some function beyond the confines of academic journals and publishing houses [2], there remains an emphasis on the true mark of an academic, and they being judged, at least in part, by their publication record. Indeed, research exercises, including the Research Excellence Framework (REF) [3] used in the UK, rank publications on a scale from 0–4 [4]. Those rated at level 4 are deemed to be “world leading”, those at level 3 to be “internationally excellent” and all the way to level 1 which is deemed to be “nationally recognised”. One of the reasons for the significance of this ranking system is the submission of these outputs to the exercise, with only those rated at levels 3 and 4 attracting funding for their institutions [5]. Research-active academics know how this system operates, how intrinsic it is to successful funding bids, to promotions, to their standing in the academic community and so on [6]. As such, academia can be identified as being powerfully underscored by the pressing need for continuous publication in leading and high-impact journals [7]. The consequence being that those academics contracted in research and teaching live according to the dictum “publish or perish” [8].
Doctoral students embody numerous aims and objectives for completing their studies. Evidently, not all of them wish to pursue a career in academia [9], but the process of undertaking study which is designed to establish original research [10] which contributes to the existing body of knowledge [11] lends itself to a system whereby these findings will be disseminated to as broad an audience as possible. In particular, those doctoral students who do intend to pursue a career in academia will find themselves very quickly drawn into the publish or perish environment, especially if they seek advancement in this sector [12]. Indeed, many such students experience the pressure of having to produce high-quality impactful research even before they submit their thesis for examination [13,14][13][14].
The focus of this entry is to explore the role of doctoral-student supervisors in providing the requisite support and assistance [15] to help develop doctoral students into academics that are producing, presenting and publishing work of a standard which is respected in academia [16]. The entry presents the contemporary academia [17], considering the process of doctoral training which has shifted in recent years from one which emphasises individual endeavour, to one of co-participation and shared responsibility between the student and the supervisory team [18]. In so doing, it recognises the pivotal role played by supervisors in shaping doctoral students’ research trajectories. They influence their publication strategies and outcomes. Supervisors can also play a pivotal role in facilitating the transference of tacit knowledge of academia, its unspoken and unwritten rules, its norms and its rituals, in respect of publishing to their doctoral students [19]. Such explicit academic “know-how” is invaluable in helping the doctoral student to develop into a fully fledged publishing academic [20].
The entry first explores the “publish or perish” phenomenon, its origins and implications for academia, particularly in doctoral education. Further, the benefits and potential negative effects this may have for doctoral students are identified.
The entry continues with an exploration of the culture of publishing and the broader systemic changes that are required in higher education to alleviate the pressures of the publish or perish culture. This includes the role of the doctoral supervisor and strategies that supervisors can adopt to better support their doctoral students. These include fostering a culture of early and regular publication, integrating the students into their academic networks, providing critical feedback on writing and presentation skills, and creating an environment conducive to resilience for coping with the potential for rejection in the academic-publishing sphere.
By focusing on the role of supervisors in supporting doctoral students to disseminate their research, the entry provides valuable insights into the literature and associated practical strategies that can be adopted to promote a more nurturing and supportive academic-publishing culture. Thus, a holistic understanding of the supervisor’s role, not just as gatekeepers, but as facilitators of knowledge dissemination in the realm of doctoral education is presented.
This entry is important to the existing scholarship as it focuses specifically on how the publish or perish culture impacts on, and guides, the supervision strategy for doctoral students. Much of the existing literature considers the phenomenon’s generalities or applies it to more established researchers. Yet, a growing literature is based on the phenomenon’s impact on doctoral students who, by their nature, are at a crucial and vulnerable stage in their academic career. This includes not just the doctoral students’ understanding of the concept of publish or perish in academia, but, and perhaps more importantly, the role of the supervisor in helping students navigate this culture.

References

  1. Bok, D.C.; Bok, D.C. Beyond the Ivory Tower: Social Responsibilities of the Modern University; Harvard University Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2009.
  2. Ari, M.D.; Iskander, J.; Araujo, J.; Casey, C.; Kools, J.; Chen, B.; Swain, R.; Kelly, M.; Popovic, T. A science impact framework to measure impact beyond journal metrics. PLoS ONE 2020, 15, e0244407.
  3. Available online: https://www.ukri.org/who-we-are/research-england/research-excellence/research-excellence-framework/ (accessed on 29 August 2023).
  4. Available online: https://www.exeter.ac.uk/media/universityofexeter/ref2021/Simple_Guide_to_REF2021.pdf (accessed on 29 August 2023).
  5. Available online: https://www.ukri.org/publications/explainer-qr-research-funding-and-the-ref/ (accessed on 29 August 2023).
  6. Niles, M.T.; Schimanski, L.A.; McKiernan, E.C.; Alperin, J.P. Why we publish where we do: Faculty publishing values and their relationship to review, promotion and tenure expectations. PLoS ONE 2020, 15, e0228914.
  7. Schimanski, L.A.; Alperin, J.P. The evaluation of scholarship in academic promotion and tenure processes: Past, present, and future. F1000Research 2018, 7, 1605.
  8. Rawat, S.; Meena, S. Publish or perish: Where are we heading? J. Res. Med. Sci. Off. J. Isfahan Univ. Med. Sci. 2014, 19, 87.
  9. Chen, S. Leaving academia: Why do doctoral graduates take up non-academic jobs and to what extent are they prepared? Stud. Grad. Postdr. Educ. 2021, 12, 338–352.
  10. Buirski, N. Is mindfulness a useful next trend in doctoral supervision? Austin Univ. Rev. 2020, 62, 61–68.
  11. Baptista, A.; Frick, L.; Holley, K.; Remmik, M.; Tesch, J.; Âkerlind, G. The doctorate as an original contribution to knowledge: Considering relationships between originality, creativity, and innovation. Frontline Learn. Res. 2015, 3, 55–67.
  12. Jalogo, M.R.; Boyer, W.; Ebbeck, M. Writing for scholarly publication as ‘tacit knowledge’: A qualitative focus group study of doctoral students in education. Early Child. Educ. J. 2014, 42, 241–250.
  13. Kwan, B. An investigation of instruction in research publishing offered in doctoral programmes: The Hong Kong case. High. Educ. 2010, 59, 55–68.
  14. Pasco, A. Should graduate students publish? J. Sch. Publ. 2009, 40, 231–240.
  15. Lee, A.M. Developing effective supervisors: Concepts of research supervision. S. Afr. J. High. Educ. 2007, 21, 680–693.
  16. Lei, J.; Hu, G. Apprenticeship in scholarly publishing: A student perspective on doctoral supervisors’ roles. Publications 2015, 3, 27–42.
  17. Deem, R. Rethinking doctoral education: University purposes, academic cultures, mental health and the public good. In Structural and Institutional Transformations in Doctoral Education: Social, Political and Student Expectations; Palgrave Macmillan: Cham, Switzerland, 2020; pp. 13–42.
  18. Abiddin, N.Z.; Hassan, A.; Ahmad, A.R. Research student supervision: An approach to good supervisory practice. Open Educ. J. 2009, 2, 1.
  19. Young, S.N.; VanWye, W.R.; Schafer, M.A.; Robertson, T.A.; Poore, A.V. Factors affecting PhD student success. Int. J. Exerc. Sci. 2019, 12, 34.
  20. Hockey, J. A complex craft: United Kingdom PhD supervision in the social sciences. Res. Post-Compuls. Educ. 1997, 2, 45–70.
More
© Text is available under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)
Video Production Service
Feedback