A few slightly different observations, if I may.

Comparing like with like is difficult here, because some people might say that a PhD is valuable because the PhD programme might include an active engagement with a preparation to teach, in which case it would only be those without a PhD who would need to undertake that separately.  However, some people might be arguing – as I think is implied in Paul’s original email – that the PhD itself is a preparation to teach because knowing a lot about a subject is fundamental – at least in a university – and being an active researcher is the best way for students to be orientated to the kind of engagement with knowledge that a university demands. And, in general, the PhD can be viewed as the best induction into academic - and specific discipline - life, which someone would lack if they haven't undertaken one. Like many others I have doubts about all this, but I see that there is some merit here, so it can’t be dismissed out of hand.  And the argument is further compounded by the casual observation that many new academics often don’t get the chance to teach their research specialism, but have to engage with a much wider range of subjects and students (often first years) who may well need a lot more support than the obvious enthusiasm for their knowledge and the research process that a new academic might bring to the table (even though students do seem to rank these things highly when asked what they want from lecturers).  And then there’s the question of putting a curriculum together…. and so on, and so on.

John

John Lea 
Learning and Teaching Enhancement Unit 
Canterbury Christ Church University 
North Holmes Road, Canterbury, CT1 1QU 
Telephone: 01227 767700 ext 3850 

PGCLT(HE) administrator: 
Nicky Galer [log in to unmask] 
Telephone: 01227 782952



-----Original Message-----
From: Probyn, Paul [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Fri 2/18/2011 09:58
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: PhDs and Learning & Teaching
 
Given the recent discussion on this forum about the possible use of the
proportion of staff who are operating at UKPSF standard 2 or equivalent
as a PI in the information to be provided to prospective students, it
was interesting to read in this week's Times Higher the comments of the
Director General of the Russell Group:
"The vast majority of our academics have doctorates......academics
without a doctorate would be very much in a tiny minority.  This has
been the case at Russell Group universities for many years.  Providing a
first-class teaching and learning experience is vitally important to our
universities."  
I'm aware of the considerable research conducted into research-informed
teaching, however defined, but this is the first time I have seen the
research-led universities proposing that the quality of teaching and
learning is directly correlated with the proportion of staff holding a
PhD.  Is anyone aware of any research that underpins this contention?

Thanks.

Paul Probyn