400 word Discussion and 3-5 Page Paper

Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 174 ( 2015 ) 3557 – 3564

Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

ScienceDirect

1877-0428 © 2015 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/). Peer-review under responsibility of the Sakarya University doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.01.1072

INTE 2014

Individual potential of doctoral students: Structure of research competences and self-assessment

Eridiana Olehnovicaa, Ingrida Bolgzdaa, Mārīte Kravale-Pauliņaa,*

aDaugavpils University, Parades 1-415, Daugavpils, LV5400, Latvia

Abstract

Doctoral students, being researchers to be, play a significant role in the sustainable development of society. At present doctoral students are expected to achieve a certain result, and in order to attain it, adequate research competencies are needed. This article can be considered as the analysis of one stage of a pilot study, in which the structure of doctoral students’ research competencies are set, and the development tendencies can be acquired in the context of qualification and research competence theories. With the existing range of competency theories, the authors emphasize an approach, where competences are oriented at a definite aim- to obtain the degree of doctor of sciences, being the most acceptable for research competence analysis. In the pilot study doctoral students at Daugavpils University (Latvia) and candidates for a scientific degree (N-64) were questioned, who completed a self— assessment of research activity competencies. Three competency groups were identified: informative, communicative and instrumental. In order to assess the effect of support of the ESF (European Structural Funds) Project “Support to the implementation of Daugavpils University doctoral studies” in the improvement of research competences, the competence groups identified were analyzed like are/are not in the context of the ESF Project. Conclusions depict the strong and weak sides of doctoral students’ research potential, as well as the most significant research activity competences of the researcher to be. © 2014 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. Peer-review under responsibility of the Sakarya University.

Keywords: research potential; doctoral students; competencies; competence structure

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +371 29739686; fax: 371 654 22890.

E-mail address: [email protected]

© 2015 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/). Peer-review under responsibility of the Sakarya University

3558 Eridiana Olehnovica et al. / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 174 ( 2015 ) 3557 – 3564

1. Introduction

Between the concepts of education and competences exist cross-correlations because the public development, to a great extent, depends on the ability of the education system to provide adequate competences. One of the main priorities mentioned in the strategy approved by the European Commission “EU 2020” – is the provision of sustained development on a value-creation basis by means of the knowledge, including in education, research, innovation and creativity (Kravale-Paulina, Iliško, & Oļehnoviča, 2013). One of the conditions of the development mentioned in the final higher education stage is that doctoral studies are interrelated in a single research environment. Thus, the research potential of doctoral students and quality become of strategic importance. Research potential as a set of abilities involves a correlation of several objective and subjective factors.

Therefore research competences are considered as a characterizer and driving force of doctoral students’ research potential. In the field of education the research themes more commonly deal with the aspects of doctoral students’ career and relationship to the academic and professional environment, but are less connected with doctoral students’ research competences, which are of importance in every context (Oļehnoviča, Kravale-Pauliņa, & Bolgzda, 2013; Bolgzda & Olehnovica, 2012). The aim of this study is to determine tendencies in the development of doctoral students’ research competences, which would further allow to predict and plan preventive events so that strategies of knowledgeable society would take action and not just become declarative.

One cannot find a single view on the content, structure and classification of doctoral students’ competences in the relevant scientific literature. It is therefore essential to set the limitations of the pilot study conducted here: (1) analyzing the doctoral students’ research competences by taking into account the formal requirements – qualification criteria of the doctor of sciences, which are determined by the education standards and qualification framework; (2) the study emphasizes those competences from the authors point of view, promote the implementation of these criteria; (3) a scientist’s individual competences are developed in a interrelationship with the social and cultural environment, with different support systems. In this study, ESF financial support is evaluated as one of the external support factors. Several activity programmes have been carried out in Latvia since 2009 within the framework of the European Social Fund,such as, “Human resources and employment” 1.1 priorities “Higher education and science” 1.1.2.1.2. subactivity “Support to the implementation of doctoral study programmes”. Its aim is to increase the number of the type of specialists in all educational thematic groups, which have acquired the higher qualification ( a PhD degree) and are able to plan, to create and introduce the high tech products in production, as well as products and services of high value , promoting the development of national economy on the innovation basis; (4) doctoral students’ research activity, to a great extent, is self-organized. The ability to carry out an adequate self-assessment is one of the essential competences; therefore the level of competence development in the study was determined by the respondents themselves.

2. Normative framework of research competence structure

The fundamental context of competences is made of the qualification indicators to be acquired, each education process is subordinated to them. What qualification is expected from doctoral students or future researchers, which in the profession classificator are mentioned as “scientists”? In Europe the scientist’s and research work framework are determined by the definition from “Frascati Manual” 2002, where all professionals with an academic degree or higher education diploma are called scientists, and who deal with fundamental or applied sciences, as well as experimental research to get new knowledge, products, processes, methods and systems. On the other hand, research work is understood as creative work which is done systematically to increase the scope of knowledge and promote the application of this knowledge into new and improved products (goods and services) (Bolgzda & Olehnovica, 2011). The fundamental context of competences mentioned is the expected outcome, which states what competences are necessary in order to achieve them. Considering the variety of competence theories, one should take the standard of the respective area as the basis. In Europe the future researchers’ qualification should correspond to the 8th level of European Classifications Framework (EQF), which was approved also by Bologna process of Bergen conference in May, 2005. But, according to the European Higher Education Area (EHEA) criteria, the qualification of the doctor of sciences is awarded if the candidate possesses (1) systemic understanding of the subject and application of corresponding research methods (2) abilities to perceive, to change, to integrate into practice theoretical knowledge

3559 Eridiana Olehnovica et al. / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 174 ( 2015 ) 3557 – 3564

(3) original thoughts, one’s own contribution which exceeds the previous level of the development (4) innovative publications at the international or national level (5) critical analysis, ability to evaluate, synthesize complicated ideas (6) skills to communicate with colleagues, scientists and the public in general (7) to promote the unity between the academic and professional environment.

The fundamental competences included into the international education documents are interpreted and supplemented in national qualification systems and future researchers’ association documents. Latvian Young Researchers Association (LJZA), on the basis of the guidelines of the European Council for Doctoral Candidates and Junior Researchers (EURODOC), offers their own vision on competences, classifying them into seven directions: research work skills; understanding of the research environment; personal efficiency and work in groups; communication skills; career management; ethics and social understanding, and extra competences – management skills, pedagogical skills and writing skills. The EURODOC approach pays special attention to doctoral students’ career development and their ability to integrate into the working environment. It is worth mentioning that the normative framework determines only the achievable outcome, not the research work competence structure. In order to understand the content of the competence structure and its components, one must analyze the most essential competence theories.

3. Theoretical framework of competence structure

Taking into account that doctoral students’ research is target-oriented (to acquire a PhD qualification), and this aim has certain criteria which are determined by respective standards, in the current study the definition “competence” is described as interrelationships of aims and criteria or as a cross-section of qualification. It allows the researcher to evaluate and predict the level of competence improvement (Spencer, 1993).

The context of the idea “competence” has changed from a single-dimensional understanding, when competences were attributed only to a narrow professional activity to an open and dynamic multidimensional system. Competence models are getting more and more complicated. Erpenbeck (2003) defines the competence model as a system, in which the necessary competences are defined and which is supplemented by historically determined conditions, national cultural traditions and specificities. Scott (2006) considers the notion “competence” as a dual nature of a man’s abilities: skills to use and to perfect the acquired ones.

In scientific literature, competences by their contextual similarities, using different approaches, are classified into larger groups. The most characteristic principles of choosing competence structures are summarized (see Table 1).

Table 1 Principles of choice of competence structures

Principles of choice of competence structures Authors

Compilation of various systems Weinert, 2001;Straka, 2002

Approach to the process Cheetham, 1996; Chivers, 1996

Personality actualization Hodkinson, 1995; Issitt, 1995

Career or professional context Hsing-fen Leea, Miozzoa, & Laredob, 2010

Historically determined national tradition Delamare Le Deist & Winterton, 2005

General and specific principle Project TUNING,2000

One can also observe other examples in the competence theories, such as skills to work productively; professionally significant personality features; mental maturation; competence to do planning and make decisions; socially communicative competences (ability to work cooperatively, communicatively, empathy); management of knowledge; initiatives; ability to change; ability to offer a social benefit effect.

By summarizing and generalizing the variety of competence theory content and approaches in the classification, we can identify two competence categories: professionalism and personality; by the way, each of these categories can be viewed from the level of comprehension or activity (see Table 2).

3560 Eridiana Olehnovica et al. / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 174 ( 2015 ) 3557 – 3564

Table 2 Generalization of competence theories and classifications, constructed by authors.

Levels of usability Professional competences Personality competences

Comprehension Cognitive competences Meta competences

Activity Functional competences Social competences

The empirical competence analysis of this study is based on approaches, which are target-oriented and interpreted in the context of the acquired (PhD) qualification criteria. These examples from the theories discussed in scientific theories are encountered in F. E. Weinert’s (2001) competence system, where he points to such competences as: (1) specific cognitive abilities and skills (2) objective (compliance with standards) and subjective self-concept (3) activity competences (4) social competences. Like another prototype for the chosen competence analysis, the European Education Structure Project TUNING competence classification (instrumental, interpersonal, systemic competences) is used. Separate components of the before mentioned competence classification are adapted and contextually widened in correspondence with the study objectives: interpersonal competences are called the communicative competences and systemic competences are called informative competences.

It is worth mentioning that in this study the greatest attention is paid to specific research competences, and lesser to those, which refer to the personality traits. Although the personality traits cannot be separated from the rest of competences, to analyse them correctly however, a different methodology is needed – the qualitative competence, which in this research stage was not used.

4. Methodology of the study

In 2013 a study was carried out at Daugavpils University, surveying doctoral students and candidates for scientific degrees of various study programmes and various study years (N=64). Of them 11 were men and 59 were women. 11 of the respondents belonged to the study programme “Economics”, 5 to the doctoral study programme “Psychology”, 39 to the doctoral study programme “Pedagogy”, 8 to the doctoral study programme “Biology” and 6 to other study programmes.

The first part of the questionnaire included the most essential competences that are necessary to the doctoral students and candidates for scientific degrees in order to conduct their research successfully. The competences chosen depict the research potential’s cognitive, functional and behavioural dimensions and answer the questions - what? how? In what way? Respondents did their self-assessment of informative, communicative and instrumental competence development level of 38 research activities according to a 5 point score. Each score in the scale determines the competence development level in percentage: 1 point – 0%, 2 points – 25%, 3 points – 50%, 4 points – 75%, 5 points – 100%. The self-assessment was done in two groups: group A – present competence development level and group B – the necessary competence development level for research activity. Such an approach allows the researcher to find out what competences are identified by the respondents as important in their research and to what extent they have improved. In the second part the respondents’ competence to choose and to use the most useful methodology for achieving their research aims was identified. Respondents were asked to mark the nearest research approach for them in the scale – qualitative or quantitative from (-) 3 till 3. In the measurement scale from 0 till (-)3 corresponded to the research approach I or the qualitative research methodology, but from 0 till 3 research approach II or quantitative research methodology; (0) – hard to answer. For the measurement they were offered 13 statements, which marked the differences between the qualitative and quantitative methodology. The results give the answer to the question: what methodological approach in the research is chosen more commonly by the doctoral students? It also give an indication as to whether the adequate instruments are chosen to be used in their research methodology. The conclusions point to the doctoral students’ potential to undertake an integrative research, which can be considered to provide the most perspective in the future.

Daugavpils University doctoral students have at their disposal the funding from the ESF project “Support to implementation of Daugavpils University doctoral studies”, the aim of which is to render support to the creation of innovative research, thus opening wider possibilities to improve the research competences. In order to determine the practical effectiveness of the project, the competence development level in the study position was chosen: participation in the project/ no participation in the project.

3561 Eridiana Olehnovica et al. / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 174 ( 2015 ) 3557 – 3564

From the study data processing a semantic differentiation scale, factor analysis and cluster analysis was used, which allowed the researcher to group and mutually compare two independent selections (participation in the project/ no participation, doctoral student/candidate for scientific degree) and to determine the competence development level for each of these groups.

The type of research competence classification was determined by: conclusions of theoretical analysis of competences (Weinert, 2001; TUNING) and the research aim to assess competences, which for the doctoral students are needed to achieve the research aims. The authors of this study chose to classify the competences into three groups: (1) informative competences (F1), which are important for determining the research structure, content and strategy; (2) communicative competences (F2) states the ability to cooperate and get included into the research environment in the local and global context; (3) instrumental competences (F3) as the determinant of the order research data would be correspondingly processed and interpreted.

5. Analysis of research results

Using the factor analysis the competences were grouped into three groups, demonstrating a different significance level. Factor weight intervals: F1 from .402 till .757; F2 from .413 till .686 and F3 from .404 till .682.

Comparing the competence development level between the three, before-mentioned research competence groups of the doctoral students and candidates for scientific degree (see Table 3), it is clear that the candidates of scientific degrees show a higher informative and instrumental competence level than the doctoral students, while the communicative competence group develop slightly more evenly. It is quite logical that the competences improve in the study process due to experience. In the aspect of the project one can notice a positive influence on the competence level both for the doctoral students, and candidates for a scientific degree. Candidates for a scientific degree, participating in the project, were seen to have a significantly higher level of all competence groups.

Table 3. Factor analysis of competence groups between different values: participation in the project/ no participation, doctoral student/candidate for a scientific degree

Doctoral student Candidate for scientific degree

Is ESF project grant-holder

Is not ESF project grant-holder

Is ESF project grant- holder

Is not ESF Project grant-holder

F1 – informative

competences -0.16 -1.22 0.50 0.35

F2 – communicative

competences 0.23 -0.49 0.43 -0.37

F3 – instrumental

competences 0.09 -0.29 0.59 -0.18

The possible reasons for this could be several: the best were selected for the project , financial support gives greater possibilities to achieve the doctoral student’s aim – to create an innovative study and to acquire a PhD qualification, perfecting such competences as mobility, presentation skills, and ability to integrate into the international environment. It is seen in the differences of perfection of communicative competences between the respondents who receive support to the project, and those for whom it is not available. Conditions of the project motivate and mobilize both respondent groups, but especially candidates for scientific degree. It might prove the effect of synergism principle, when personal growth, experience and external support are summed up.

The evaluation of respondents’ competences is summarized in three cluster groups – NF1 group – low (result – 39.1%), NF2 – moderate (result – 32.8%) and NF3 high (result – 28.1%) competence development level. In the highest cluster group all competence groups are developing comparatively evenly. As a result this respondent group is considered to be best prepared for research work. In the moderate evaluation group, the answers of the respondents included, one can see a wide amplitude range between the informative and instrumental competence group development levels, which proves an insufficient ability to process the acquired data in order to continue to do

3562 Eridiana Olehnovica et al. / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 174 ( 2015 ) 3557 – 3564

a correct interpretation (see Table 4). It is important to mention, that part of respondents demonstrate the lowest measurement of informative competences, but these are the competences which play a significant role in the development of the doctoral student’s research.

Table 4. Cluster analysis of competence groups

1st cluster group 2nd cluster group 3rd cluster group

(low evaluation) (moderate evaluation) (high evaluation)

NF1 – informative competences -0.886 0.36 0.811

NF2 – communicative competences -0.238 -0.185 0.547

NF3 – instrumental competences 0.205 -0.73 0.567

We have to conclude that uneven development of informative and instrumental competence groups include a risk factor – insufficient research capacity in some of the respondents. One can see such a common tendency – the higher is the research competence measurement, the more effective is scientific communication. Evidently, in order to successfully cooperate in the scientific environment, it is important to know sufficiently well the scientific subject a person is interested in itself.

In the second part of the questionnaire the respondents, the scale from (-)3 till 3 determined the closest qualitative or quantitative approach to research methodology for them. In the scale from 0 till (-)3 research approach I or qualitative research approach methodology was depicted., but from 0 till 3 – research approach II or quantitative research methodology. Consequently, the acquired data provide the information on the respondents’ competences to choose and apply the most suitable methodology for achieving the research aims.

In general, the respondents’ answers on methodological approaches are divided as follows: qualitative research methodology is chosen by 46.2% respondents, but the quantitative one – 53.8%.

However, when comparing the mean measurement of statements between all respondents, one can notice a contradiction – many respondents consider their promotion work as a qualitative study, while wishing to process the research data by quantitative methods. As a result, it is not clear whether the research will be based on empirical data or on a researcher’ own individual experience.

Using the t-test method, the scale readings were compared between two selections “doctoral students” and “candidates for scientific degree”. The first ones were more positioned in the qualitative research, while the second ones – in quantitative. Evidently, the candidates for scientific degree deal more with the necessity to process the acquired data, to measure and visualize them. Although the candidates for scientific degree and the project participants, in general, understand the basic notions of the quantitative research, in the statement, however, whether the indicators of the phenomenon under study and its parameters are measurable, the scale reading (-1.4) is markedly on the side of qualitative research. The quantitative methodological approach, which is markedly more expressed in the candidates for scientific degree, is, however, based on measurability principle. The measurement observed can be interpreted as incoherence between the chosen approach and how to realize it. Limitations of the conducted study (the survey method) do not allow performing a correct, more in-depth interpretation of causes.

Doctoral students, on the contrary, position themselves in the middle between the qualitative and quantitative approach. A comparatively balanced view between the qualitative and quantitative methodological approach cannot be estimated unequivocally. It does not yet show the ability use both research approaches, but it could mean lack of confidence or uncertainty in one’s choice of research method as well. Using the cluster analysis, the acquired measurements were grouped into three cluster groups of different level of awareness of the research position: 1st group – low, 2nd group – moderate 3rd group – high awareness. The data of the cluster analysis show that 75% quantitative and 25% qualitative position supporters demonstrate a more convincing research approach (high awareness) and adequate understanding of methodology, however, sufficiently many respondents, or 58.33% of qualitative and 41.67% of quantitative approach researchers have an unclear understanding on their methodological approach. Thus, we can conclude, that respondents with a marked quantitative approach in their research are better prepared for conducting research work rather than qualitative researchers.

In this study we see different choices between the doctoral students and candidates for scientific degree, the latter more often, and more successfully use the quantitative approaches, while the doctoral students use the qualitative

3563 Eridiana Olehnovica et al. / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 174 ( 2015 ) 3557 – 3564

methodological approach. Perhaps at the beginning of research the doctoral students are concentrating more on qualitative study of the problem and only then think how to ground it with quantitative methods. In this contradiction between the methodological approach and its corresponding way of implementation, we can observe the lack of research competence. In scientific discussions on the usability and validity of quantitative and qualitative methodology, such a basic criterion for choice is there to set the aim of the study, as a result, a poor understanding of the research methodology causes the ground for the discussion on the clarity of the study aim and corresponding research competences. The lack of research purposefulness is a risk factor in research.

6. Conclusions of study and discussion

The emphasis in the competence analysis of doctoral students’ research activities was put on specific competences, a characteristic of research activities. The study data depict the dynamics in the improvement of doctoral students’ research competences. Study results show the weak and strong sides of doctoral students’ and candidates for scientific degree research competences.

With the growth of research experience, the rate of informative competences increases in the total competence structure, for instance, the ability to analyze the object of study from different points of views, the ability to link the acquired study results with practice. In candidates for scientific degree the informative competences are more fully developed than in doctoral students, but they are more essentially aware of insufficient development of instrumental competences. In general, in the structure of doctoral students’ research the most poorly developed are the instrumental competences, which can potentially cause problem situations, for instance, if a candidate for scientific degree is not competent to choose the research strategy and its corresponding methodology, the research can lose its scientific validity. Insufficiently developed instrumental competences are considered a significant risk factor in doctoral students’ research work.

ESF financial support of the improvement of doctoral students’ research is very significant, yet, in the long-term one should think about the parallel state-funded support systems. Conclusions of the study indicate to the fact that the attempts to implement the research methodology like a separate study course in a certain period of time have not been sufficiently efficient. Updating of research methodology issues within the whole study process would help harmonize the levels of instrumental and informative competence performance. For the perfection of communicative competences, in its turn, it would need the study environment which would address the diversity of cooperation and mobility.

The aim of the study has been to assess the research competences as an instrument for achieving the result, and yet, it is hard to answer the question whether it characterizes the research potential of doctoral students and candidates for scientific degree to a full extent, as well as its adequacy to knowledgeable society and sustainability targets. The answers to these questions would be found by conducting qualitative content analysis of theses – doctoral students’ research outcome. Thus, the first stage of the study has marked the next directions of study – the necessity for a deeper analysis of the causal relationship of incompletely developed research competences, which would, perhaps, deal with the continuity of different education stages, as well as interrelationship of the level of competence improvement with research result. The sustainability context, in turn, does not allow it/the researcher to ignore the environmental aspects (needs, values, economic and social conditions, etc.), which interact with the processes of research competences.

References

Bolgzda, I., & Olehnovica, E. (2012). Structure of doctoral student’s research competences in sustainability context. World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology (WASET), 66, 438–441.

Bolgzda, I., & Olehnovica, E. (2012). Self-assessment of doctoral students’ competences for creation of innovations in research, 5th international scientific conference Rural Environment. Education. Personality. Jelgava, Latvia.

Bolgzda, I., Olehnovica, E. (2011). The relation between the doctoral students’ research freedom and institutional responsibility in Latvia: The definition of innovation in research. EUA-CDE-news, 13, 54-62.

Cheetham, G., & Chivers, G. (1998). The reflective (and competent) practitioner: A model of professional competence which seeks to harmonise the reflective practitioner and competence-based approaches. Journal of European Industrial Training, 22(7), 267– 276.

3564 Eridiana Olehnovica et al. / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 174 ( 2015 ) 3557 – 3564

Commissions of the European Communities (2009). EU 2020 Strategy. Retrieved November 11, 2010, from http://ec.europa.eu/eu2020/pdf/eu2020.pdf

Erpenbeck, J., & Lutz, R. (2003). Handbuch Kompetenzmessung. Stutgart: Schaffer-Poeschel Verlag. Hodkinson, P., & Issitt, M. (1995). The challenge of competence. London: Cassell Education. Leaa, H., Miozzoa, M., & Laredob, P. (2010). Career patterns and competences of PhDs in science and engineering in the knowledge economy:

The case of graduates from a UK research-based university. Research Policy, 39, 869–881. Le Deist, F. O. D., & Winterton, J. (2005). What is competence? Human Resource Development International, 8(1), 27–46. OECD, Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (2002). Frascati manual, proposed standard practise for surveys on research

and experimental development, § 206. Retrieved December 28, 2010, from http://data.csb.gov.lv/DATABASE/zin/Ikgad%E7jie%20statistikas%20dati/Zin%E2tne/ZI01.htm#_Definīcijas

Kravale-Paulina, M., Iliško, D., & Oļehnoviča, E. (2013). Values orientation approach to the educational process: The temporal dimension. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 3, 3285–3290.

Oļehnoviča, E., Kravale-Pauliņa, M., & Bolgzda, I. (2013). Doctoral students’ competences of using online resources for research purposes in network society. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 1, pp. 896–900.

Scott, P. (2006). The global context of doctoral education. Bologna handbook, 3-5. Straka, G. A. (2005). Measurement and evaluation of competence. Retrieved January 15, 2011, from

www.cedefop.europa.eu/EN/Files/BgR1_Straka.pdf TUNING, Retrieved December 16, 2010, from http://www.tuning.unideusto.org/tuningeu/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=173[In

Russion] Weinert, F. E. (2001). Concept of competence: A conceptual clarification. In D. S. Rychen, & L. H. Salganik (Eds.), Defining and selecting key

competencies (pp. 45–65). Seattle, WA: Hogrefe & Huber.