No abstract

The decision to undertake a PhD in medical education could mark a critical point in defining your future career. Attaining the highest level of degree in such a diverse and rewarding area as medical education may not only provide you with an opportunity to undertake important new research, but could also unlock different job opportunities. As is often the case, such rewards are not gained lightly. There can be real challenges in making the decision to undertake and then to successfully navigate a PhD. The specific subject and process of each doctorate is unique, leaving many prospective and current students uncertain as to what to expect. We offer our 12 tips from the perspective of two current PhD students to help guide those who share our interest in medical education and are considering doctoral study.

Purpose The purpose of this study is to understand the interaction between the component domains of doctoral value to identify those which have a greater influence on overall perceptions of the value of a doctorate. This study also investigates what may lead an individual to say the doctorate was not worth doing. Design/methodology/approach Using Bryan and Guccione’s (2018) conceptual model of “doctoral value”, this study used a qualitative survey, to examine 261 perceptions of the value of the doctorate in a range of employment contexts. Findings Individual perceptions of value are dynamically influenced by the fulfilment of expectations, career achievements and the employer’s perception of the doctorate’s value. The authors found that the circumstances of respondents’ current employment are the most common predictor of overall perceived value and that those who reported that their doctorates were “not worth doing” attributed this to lack of a positive career outcome. Originality/value A recurring concept was that respondents considered that their doctorate had been “worth doing” for the value it conveyed to them personally, but not “worth having” because of its low value to employers. This new understanding illustrates the complexity of decision-making and the individual career timelines that influence value. This study positions the “career value” and “personal value” domains as determinant in informing individual value judgements. The findings of this study lend weight to calls for doctoral education to focus on non-academic careers and also inspire further investigation into how non-academic employers recruit, motivate and value doctoral graduates.

The transdisciplinary engineering project aims to transform the practice of engineering for more social benefit, and be agenda driven. For this to work, a key community of non-engineering actors needs to be effectively engaged: those working in public policy. Through data gathered for a project exploring interested in a career development scheme for policy officials offered by the UK’s Royal Academy of Engineering, we explore the opportunities and barriers to better engagement between engineering and this community. An explorative online survey with policy actors gathered views on the importance of (non-transdisciplinary) engineering to policy in different policy settings. While those who regard technical expertise as crucial to their policy are keen to engage with engineering, others find it more difficult to engage. We suggest this is down to three factors: narrowness in what ‘engineering’ is (so a failure to understand the ability to apply engineering concepts, e.g. systems thinking, in a variety of areas); organisational arrangements that split policy practice that might more readily connect to engineering from those who do policy design; policy analysis rooted in standard microeconomic forms of analysis. We suggest ways in which these issues might be addressed through education and research to enable the effective deployment of transdisciplinary engineering practice.

No abstract