Paradoxes of Doctoral Studies in Education Sciences in the Czech Republic

• Authors: Miroslav Dopita , Jana Poláchová Vašťatková
• Languages of publication: EN

Abstracts

EN

Adequate staffing of university studies with qualified academics was completed thanks to the reimplementation of three-stage university education during the post-socialist restoration of higher education in the Czech Republic. Thus, the doctoral degree of education has been attained by more than four-fifths of academic staff, with over two-fifths of them being aged 50+. The current course of university studies, including doctoral study programs, is influenced by their focus on educational and research strategy. With regards to the regulations for graduating in doctoral studies, doctoral candidates act as homo oeconomicus following neo-liberal educational policy. The conditions for doctoral studies, namely, those in educational sciences, thus lead to paradoxes caused by the current higher educational policy. The objective of the paper is to analyze the neoliberal set-up of the higher education policy of the Czech Republic in the field of doctoral studies in educational sciences in particular and its possible impacts in the area of labor-market integration of graduates and university training of academics.

Keywords

EN

Higher Education Policy; Neo-Liberalism; Doctoral Studies; Educational Sciences; Paradox

• Publisher: Uniwersytet Łódzki. Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Łódzkiego
• Journal: Qualitative Sociology Review
• Year: 2021
• Volume: 17
• Issue: 1
• Pages: 60-71

Dates

published

2021-02-08

Contributors

author

Miroslav Dopita

• Palacký University Olomouc, Czech Republic

• https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5742-0968

author

Jana Poláchová Vašťatková

• Palacký University Olomouc, Czech Republic

• https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0031-6385

References

• Altbach, Philip G. 2007. “Doctoral Education: Present Realities and Future Trends.” Pp. 65-81 in International Handbook of Higher Education. Springer International Handbooks of Education, vol. 18, edited J. J. F. Forest and P. G. Altbach. Dordrecht: Springer.
• Archer, Louise. 2008. “The New Neoliberal Subjects? Young/er Academics’ Constructions of Professional Identity.” Journal of Education Policy 23(3):265-285.
• Ball, Stephen J. 1994. Education Reform: A Critical and Post-Structural Approach. Buckingham: Open University Press.
• Ball, Stephen J. 2016. “Neoliberal Education? Confronting the Slouching Beast.” Policy Futures in Education 14(8):1046-1059.
• Baltodano, Marta. 2012. “Neoliberalism and the Demise of Public Education: The Corporatization of Schools of Education.” International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education 25(4):487-507.
• Beneš, Josef, Jan Kohoutek, and Michaela Šmídová. 2017. Doktorské studium v ČR [Doctoral Studies in the Czech Republic]. Prague: Centrum pro vysoké školství.
• Burawoy, Michael. 2007. “Open the Social Sciences: To Whom and for What?” Portuguese Journal of Social Science 6(3):137-146.
• Burford, James. 2018. “The Trouble with Doctoral Aspiration Now.” International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education (QSE) 31(6):487-503.
• Burns, Tracey and Florian Köster. 2016. Governing Education in a Complex World. Educational Research and Innovation. Paris: OECD.
• Connelly, John. 2000. Captive University: The Sovietization of East German, Czech, and Polish Higher Education, 1945–1956. Chapel Hill, NC: The University of North Carolina Press.
• Czech Republic. 2017. Act No. 111/1998 Coll., On Higher Education Institutions and on Amendments and Supplements to Some Other Acts (The Higher Education Act). Retrieved November 14, 2018 http://www.msmt.cz/areas-of-work/tertiary-education/the-higher-education-act?lang=2
• Durkheim, Émile. 1922. Éducation et sociologie. Paris: Librairie Félix Alcan.
• EUA. 2007. Doctoral Programmes in Europe’s Universities: Achievements and Challenges Report Prepared for European Universities and Ministers of Higher Education. Brussels: European University Association.
• Evans, Matthew. 2020. “Navigating the Neoliberal University: Reflecting on Teaching Practice as a Teacher-Researcher-Trade Unionist.” British Journal of Sociology of Education 41(4):574-590.
• Foucault, Michel. 1981. “The Order of Discourse.” Pp. 51-78 in Untying the Text: A Post-Structuralist Reader, edited by R. Young. Boston: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
• Foucault, Michel. 1988. “Technologies of the Self. Lectures at University of Vermont Oct. 1982.” Pp. 16-49 in Technologies of the Self, edited by L. H. Martin, H. Gutman, and P. H. Hutton. London: Tavistock Publications and University of Massachusetts Press.
• Foucault, Michel. 2008. The Birth of Biopolitics. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
• Gibbons, Michael et al. 1994. New Production of Knowledge: Dynamics of Science and Research in Contemporary Societies. London: Sage.
• Goode, William J. 1960. “Encroachment, Charlatanism, and the Emerging Profession: Psychology, Sociology, and Medicine.” American Sociological Review 25(6):902-914.
• Government of the Czech Republic. 2016a. Government Regulation No. 274/2016 Coll., of 24 August 2016 on Standards for Accreditation in Higher Education. Retrieved October 15, 2018 http://www.msmt.cz/file/43798/
• Government of the Czech Republic. 2016b. National Research and Innovation Strategy for Smart Specialisation of the Czech Republic (National RIS3 Strategy). Retrieved October 15, 2018 https://www.mpo.cz/assets/en/business/ris3-strategy/2018/6/National-RIS3-strategy-approved-by-the-government-July-2016.pdf
• Gulbenkian Commission on the Restructuring of the Social Sciences. 1996. Open the Social Sciences: Report of the Gulbenkian Commission on the Restructuring of Social Sciences. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
• Hakkarainen, Kai et al. 2016. “Extending Collective Practices of Doctoral Education from Natural to Educational Sciences.” Studies in Higher Education 41(1):63-78.
• Hancock, Sally, Gwyneth Hughes, and Elaine Walsh. 2017. “Purist or Pragmatist? UK Doctoral Scientists’ Moral Positions on the Knowledge Economy.” Studies in Higher Education 42(7):1244-1258.
• Humboldt, Wilhelm von. 1970. “University Reform in Germany: On the Spirit and the Organizational Framework of Intellectual Institutions in Berlin.” Minerva 8(2):242-267.
• Jaspers, Karl. 1959. The Idea of the University. Boston: Beacon Press.
• Kascak, Ondrej. 2017. “Communists, Humboldtians, Neoliberals and Dissidents: Or the Path to a Post-Communist Homo Oeconomicus.” Journal of Education Policy 32(2):159-175.
• Kotarbiński, Tadeusz. 1965. Praxiology. An Introduction to the Science of Efficient Action. Oxford: Pergamon Press.
• Mareš, Jiří. 2013. “Neviditelná skupina aneb co s postdoktorandy [An Invisible Group or What about Postdoctoral Students].” Pedagogická orientace 23(1):5-26.
• Ministry of Education, Youth, and Sports. 2018. “Výroční zpráva o činnosti 2017 [Annual Activity Report 2017].” In Výroční zprávy o činnosti vysokých škol [Annual Reports on University Activities]. Prague: Ministry of Education, Youth, and Sports. Retrieved October 31, 2018 http://www.msmt.cz/vzdelavani/vysoke-skolstvi/vyrocni-zpravy-o-cinnosti-vysokych-skol
• Newman, John H. 1886. The Idea of a University: Defined and Illustrated. London: Longmans, Green.
• OECD. 2019. Education at a Glance. Paris: OECD Publishing.
• Olssen, Mark and Michael A. Peters. 2005. “Neoliberalism, Higher Education and the Knowledge Economy: From the Free Market to Knowledge Capitalism.” Journal of Education Policy 20(3):313-345.
• Pabian, Petr, Karel Šima, and Lucie Kynčilová. 2011. “Humboldt Goes to the Labour Market: How Academic Higher Education Fuels Labour Market Success in the Czech Republic.” Journal of Education and Work 24(1):95-118.
• Podgórecki, Adam, Jon Alexander, and Rob Shields. 2014. Social Engineering. Montreal: MQUP.
• Pratte, Richard. 1987. “Schooling and Society: Then and Now.” Theory into Practice 26 (Special 25th A nniversary I ssue, 1 962-1987: Educational Perspectives, Then and Now):469-471.
• Pritchard, Rosalind. 2005. “Education Staff and Students under Neoliberal Pressure: a British-German Comparison.” Beiträge zur Hochschulforschung 27(4):6-29.
• Raaper, Rille. 2016. “Academic Perceptions of Higher Education Assessment Processes in Neoliberal Academia.” Critical Studies in Education 57(2):175-190.
• Raaper, Rille. 2018. “‘Peacekeepers’ and ‘Machine Factories’: Tracing Graduate Teaching Assistant Subjectivity in a Neoliberalised University.” British Journal of Sociology of Education 39(4):421-435.
• Schultz, Theodore W. 1968. “Resources for Higher Education: An Economist’s View.” Journal of Political Economy 76(3):327-347.
• Skelton, Alan. 2005. Understanding Teaching Excellence in Higher Education. Towards a Critical Approach. Oxon: Routledge.
• Skelton, Alan. 2012. “Teacher Identities in a Research-Led Institution: In the Ascendancy or on the Retreat?” British Educational Research Journal 38(1):23-39.
• Skelton, Alan. 2013. “Positively Transformational or Poisoned Chalice? The Impact of a Course on Higher Education Teaching at a Research-Intensive Institution.” Teaching in Higher Education 18(8):908-919.
• Stehr, Nico. 1994. Knowledge Societies. London: Sage.
• Štech, Stanislav. 2011. “Bologna Process as a New Public Management Tool in Higher Education.” Journal of Pedagogy 2(2):263-282.
• Torka, Marc. 2018. “Projectification of Doctoral Training? How Research Fields Respond to a New Funding Regime.” Minerva: A Review of Science, Learning and Policy 56(1):59-83.
• Trow, Martin. 2007. “Reflections on the Transition from Elite to Mass to Universal Access: Forms and Phases of Higher Education in Modern Societies since WWII.” Pp. 243-280 in International Handbook of Higher Education. Springer International Handbooks of Education, vol. 18, edited by J. J. F. Forest and P. G. Altbach. Dordrecht: Springer.
• Trowler, Paul. 1998. Education Policy: A Policy Sociology Approach. Eastbourne: Gildredge Press.
• Walker, Jude and EeSeul Yoon. 2017. “Becoming an Academic: The Role of Doctoral Capital in the Field of Education.” Higher Education Research and Development 36(2):401-415.

Identifiers

DOI

10.18778/1733-8077.17.1.5