EXPERIENCES OF PHD SUPERVISION AT SOKOINE UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURE

F. P.Lekule

Conception: Effects of inefficient PhD training systems

Poor teaching capacity

Inefficient PhD training systems

Few publications

Low quality of academic staff

Prolonged period from admission to completion

Low quality of PhD training

Lowreputation

Best candidates go elsewhereLower no. of PhD applicants

1.Insufficient skills for job markets

2.Lower capacity to solve society problems

3. Retarded development

Inconsistent supervision

Inefficient PhDTraining

Poor supervision

Poorly prepared students

Inadequate supervision

Poor research

methodology

Poor writing skills

Lack of clear guidelines

Low motivation/ Low benefits

Inadequate preparation at MSc level

Low access to

information

Low competence

of supervisors

Too few supervisors

Poor analytical

skills

No experience in proposal

writing

Guidelines are not clear

Inconsistent PhD

programs

Inflexible PhD format

Unclear PhD format

Guidelines are not broadly known

Ineffective mechanisms to track student

progress

Not reward/penalty

Inadequate PhD

Administration

Poor discipline of PhD

supervisors/examiners

Slow liaison procedures

External thesis examination too

slow

Poor follow up on progress/ No mechanism

Low motivation

Institutional limitations

Poor Research Support Facilities Inadequate Infrastructure, Poor maintenance,

Lack of funds, Poor culture of maintenance, Low/expired training, Difficulty to maintain

qualified staff, Poor quality support staff Insecure Finance:

Low public Scholarship, Most PhDs are donor funded, Staff Promotion based on PhD acquisition

Baseline studies: Respondents involved in the study (SUA) (%)

On going PhD students 20.9

PhD students on sandwich programme 4.5

Recent PhD graduates (< 5 yrs) 11.8

Recent PhD graduates (< 5 yrs) of sandwich prog

2.7

Academic Staff 44.5

Academic/Administrative staff 12.7

Administrative 2.7

TOTAL 100

 Level of awareness of Postgraduate rules and regulations (SUA)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

PhD students Recent PhDgraduates

Academic staff Administrativestaff

Total

Respondents category

Perc

ent

of

Very poor

Poor

Good

Very Good

 Sources of information of PhD rules and Regulations

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Sources of information

Perc

ent of re

spondents

Percentage of repondents

 Accessibility of sources of information of the PhD rules and regulations

01020304050607080

Respondents category

Per

cent o

f res

ponden

tsVery difficult

Difficult

Easy

Very easy

 Level of relevance of PhD rules and Regulations 

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

PhD students Supervisors Administrators

Level of relevance

Per

cent of re

sponden

ts

Somewhat relevant

Relevant

Highly relevant

Rating of knowledge of the supervisory procedures for PhD programmes

0

1020

3040

5060

7080

90

Respondent category

%

Poor

Good

Very Good

 Satisfaction with regularity of student/supervisor contact

If satisfied with the regularity of contact with student/supervisor

0

20

40

60

80

100

PhD student Recent PhDgraduates

Academicstaff

Total

Respondent category

%

Yes

No

Current situation of contribution of publication to PhD

If publication contribute to final evaluation of PhD

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

PhD student Recent PhDgraduates

Academicstaff

Total

Respondent category

%

Yes

No

 Publication to contribute to final evaluation of PhD

If publication should contribute to the final evaluation of PhD

0

20

40

60

80

100

PhD student Recent PhDgraduates

Academicstaff

Total

Respondent category

%

Yes

No

 

 If Compulsory courses should be introduced in PhD programmes

If compulsory courses should be introduced

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

PhDstudent

Recentgraduates

Academicstaff

Admin.Staff

Total

Respondent category

%

Yes

No

Outcome of the project on the University

Revision of Existing rules and regulations. Options for PhD thesis- papers or manuscript Introduction of compulsory Ph D courses for

some programmes Several PhD courses developed-voluntary 4 day training course for supervisors

Obligations of academic boards

Can we work together?

What you do is so important for the success of my work

Challenges:We can do this if: Support for the trainers in supervision is

sustained A significant proportion of the

supervisors are trained in supervision. The remaining supervisors get training

and information during the coming years.

Current Characteristics of supervisors a very diversified group. Many have had to take part or all of their education abroad Lack enough authority to foster the changes that are now

needed Too busy or are inadequately motivated to devote time to

supervision excellence Unaware of or lack clear appreciation of rules and

guidelines on supervision modalities, frequency, deadlines, milestones and examination

The results Inconsistency due to lack of effective quality

assurance. Poor or no supervision delays, prolonged studies and, at times,

avoidable failures. Waste of both human and financial

resources. Additional delays from examiners

Observations and Implications Supervisors are the primary target group Most supervisors have never received any formal

training in supervision, but rely on a mixture of experience, routine and flair.

Many tend to supervise the way their own supervisor or mentor supervised them.

Some supervisors are gifted and brilliant supervisors, others are not.

Outstanding students might perform regardless of the quality of the supervision they get but many do not

What do we want our Universities to do? Raise standards for Ph.D. education that are

internationally competitive Make our Universities an attractive study

environment for researchers from the region Attract donor-funded Ph.D. scholarships to

the university rather than at other universities

WHAT DO WE EXPECT TO ACHIEVE?

Enhance PhD training supervision to produce more consistent and quality thesis produced on time.

Minimize delays, prolonged studies, avoidable failures and waste of both human and financial resources.

Why the universities took to the project

Timeliness of the project: there was general commitment to enhance performance in PhD training

Anchoring the project at TOP university administration

Continuous participation of TOP university management in implementation

STRAPA: cooperation of TOP university managers in annual review and planning meetings

SOKOINE UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTUREFACULTY OF AGRICULTURE DEPARTMENT OF ANIMAL SCIENCE

Organisation: Annual Joint STRAPA Steering Committee Meetings

SOKOINE UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTUREFACULTY OF AGRICULTURE DEPARTMENT OF ANIMAL SCIENCE

PREPARE PhD-project

Acknowledgements Prof. Raphael Wahome- University of

Nairobi for contribution to the presentation