Potential challenges for graduate education created by this approach include contraction of the graduate research horizon, prioritisation of research with utilitarian relevance (as defined by short-term market needs), and more limited support for basic and blue skies research that is curiosity-driven. The implications for graduate education of this push towards industry-aligned programmes and training are usefully captured in De Boer et al.’s (2002) concept of ‘unbundling’ the PhD. Unbundling refers to incitements to reconfigure or repackage PhDs to meet changing policy and funding drivers. The National Doctoral Framework itself embodies an element of unbundling, advocating the mix of knowledge and professional skills that constitute the structured PhD model. Other unbundled PhD formats include professional doctorates that combine coursework and thesis, and thematic-cohort-based programmes with elements of industry-based placement and training. While it is undoubtedly possible to reconcile calls for applied, industry, or professionally informed research with a commitment to producing original knowledge, vigilance is required. Another core challenge for the Framework will be to balance calls for new-format European and national PhDs with existing conceptions of what constitutes a research policy PhD. New-format PhDs must be carefully scrutinised to ensure that the integrity of the award is not devalued increasingly constructs by a proliferation of programme varieties. And we must knowledge production not avoid the thorny question of whether we need as a stimulant of qualifications outside of the PhD to address increasing diversity of knowledge needs and career aspirations. economic growth,
innovation, and entrepreneurship.
Finally, we must consider the different value systems and experiences to which students may be exposed in programmes with increasing levels of industry collaboration. Research findings on these issues are mixed (Thune, 2009), suggesting a need for comprehensive monitoring of research training provided outside the academy. The Framework provides a context for addressing these inevitable challenges, which will continue to emerge in a policy context that is increasingly market-facing. CONCLUSION The National Framework for Doctoral Education, as a multi-stakeholder document, anchors a shared commitment to the cohesion and quality of the graduate research experience and the integrity of the PhD as an award. It serves as a launch pad for future innovation and evolution in the field. For it to continue as a living document, the principles underpinning it must be subject to ongoing and rigorous review, informed by a robust evidence base and systematic interrogation of the extent to which the integrity of doctoral research as deep engagement with a question at the frontier of knowledge is being upheld. REFERENCES Boud, D. and Lee, A. (2005) ‘Peer learning as pedagogic discourse for research education’, Studies in Higher Education, 30(5), 501–516. Cuthbert, D. and Molla, T. (2014) ‘PhD crisis discourse: A critical approach to the framing of the problem and some Australian solutions’, Higher Education, 69, 33–53.
IRELAND’S YEARBOOK OF EDUCATION 2018-2019 RESEARCH
423