Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Factors fostering and hindering research collaboration with doctoral students among academics in Hong Kong

  • Published:
Higher Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This study explored factors that influence academics to collaborate in research with their doctoral students. It focused on Hong Kong academics, using data from the Academic Profession in Knowledge Society survey conducted in 2017–2018. The study found that academics’ research collaboration with doctoral students is influenced by several factors, including research and teaching styles and institutional conditions. Specifically, those academics whose research agendas were characterised by discovery and collaboration were more likely to report working with their doctoral students, whereas those whose research agendas focused more on convergence were less likely to do so. The more legislative the academics’ teaching style was, the less they collaborated with their doctoral students. Independence in research and institutional expectations of external funding increased the propensity to collaborate with doctoral students. Academics in the humanities were found to collaborate less with their doctoral students than those in other disciplines. The study suggests that the scholarly preference and styles of the academics, as well as their disciplinary and institutional backgrounds, need to be considered to improve research collaboration between academics and their doctoral students.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. For doctoral students, publishing is an essential part of their doctoral socialisation with future benefits for career development, but it may also influence time-to-degree completion. Recent empirical findings suggest that publishing during the PhD decreases time-to-completion of abler PhD students, but may increase time-to-completion of other students (Horta et al., 2019a, b). However, this outcome may also be influenced by other factors including the availability of PhD funding, involvement in related and unrelated scholarly tasks, the institutional environment and the expected outcomes of specific PhD programmes (traditional PhD vs PhD by publications, for example; Horta & Santos, 2016a, b; Larivière, 2012; Nettles & Millett, 2006).

  2. This study defines research collaboration as a broad set of collaborative activities that may be formal or informal. It refers specifically to research collaborations between PhD supervisors and their own PhD students, as perceived by the supervisors (i.e. academics).

References

  • Acker, S., & Haque, E. (2015). The struggle to make sense of doctoral study. Higher Education Research & Development, 34(2), 229–241.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Acker, S., Wagner, A., & McGinn, M. K. (2018). Research leaders and student collaborators: insights from Canada. In L. Gornall, B. Thomas, & L. Sweetman (Eds.), Exploring consensual leadership in higher education: co-operation, collaboration and partnership (pp. 113–128). New York: Bloomsbury.

    Google Scholar 

  • Åkerlind, G., & McAlpine, L. (2017). Supervising doctoral students: Variation in purpose and pedagogy. Studies in Higher Education, 42(9), 1686–1698.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arellano, E. C., & Martinez, M. C. (2009). Does educational preparation match professional practice: The case of higher education policy analysts. Innovative Higher Education, 34(2), 105–116.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Austin, A. E. (2002). Preparing the next generation of faculty: Graduate school as socialisation to the academic career. The Journal of Higher Education, 73(1), 94–122.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baker, V. L., & Griffin, K. A. (2010). Beyond mentoring and advising: towards understanding the role of faculty “developers” in student success. About Campus, 14(6), 2–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baker, V. L., & Lattuca, L. R. (2010). Developmental networks and learning: toward an interdisciplinary perspective on identity development during doctoral study. Studies in Higher Education, 35(7), 807–827.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baker, V. L., & Pifer, M. J. (2015). Antecedents and outcomes: theories of fit and the study of doctoral education. Studies in Higher Education, 40(2), 296–310.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Balduzzi, G., & Rostan, M. (2016). Organizing the ‘productive transformation of knowledge’: Linking university and industry in traditional manufacturing areas. Tertiary Education and Management, 22(1), 19–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baptista, A. V., & Huet, I. (2012). Postgraduate research supervision quality: Rethinking the value of doctoral supervision to design an integrative framework. The International Journal of Learning, 18(5), 175–194.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bastalich, W. (2017). Content and context in knowledge production: a critical review of doctoral supervision literature. Studies in Higher Education, 42(9), 1145–1157.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Becher, T., Henkel, M., & Kogan, M. (1994). Graduate Education in Britain. London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Becker, H. S., Greer, B., Hughes, E. C., & Strauss, A. (1961). Boys in white. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Benavides, M. D. R., & Ynalvez, M. A. (2018). Academics’ ‘“ambidextrous behavior”’ and doctoral science mentoring practices. Scientometrics, 115(1), 79–119.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Benmore, A. (2016). Boundary management in doctoral supervision: how supervisors negotiate roles and role transitions throughout the supervisory journey. Studies in Higher Education, 41(7), 1251–1264.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Billot, J., & Codling, A. (2013). Voicing the tensions of implementing research strategies: Implications for organizational leaders. Management in Education, 27(2), 75–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boehe, D. M. (2016). Supervisory styles: A contingency framework. Studies in Higher Education, 41(3), 399–414.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cattaneo, M., Horta, H., & Meoli, M. (2019). Dual appointments and research collaborations outside academia: Evidence from the European academic population. Studies in Higher Education, 44(11), 2066–2080.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chiang, K.-H. (2004). Relationship between research and teaching in doctoral education. Higher Education Policy, 17, 71–88.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cumming, J. (2010). Doctoral enterprise: A holistic conception of evolving practices and arrangements. Studies in Higher Education, 35(1), 25–39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deem, R., Hillyard, S., & Reed, M. (2007). Knowledge, higher education, and the new managerialism: The changing management of UK universities. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Delamont, S., Atkinson, P., & Parry, O. (1997). Critical mass and doctoral research: Reflections on the Harris Report. Studies in Higher Education, 22(3), 319–331.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deuchar, R. (2008). Facilitator, director or critical friend?: contradiction and congruence in doctoral supervision styles. Teaching in Higher Education, 13(4), 489–500.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Durette, B., Fournier, M., & Lafon, M. (2016). The core competencies of PhDs. Studies in Higher Education, 41(8), 1355–1370.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gardner, S. K. (2008). Fitting the mold of graduate school: A qualitative study of socialisation in doctoral education. Innovative Higher Education, 33, 125–138.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gardner, S. K., Jangsujwicz, J. S., Hutchins, K., Cline, B., & Levesque, V. (2014). Socialisation to interdisciplinarity: Faculty and student perspectives. Higher Education, 67(3), 255–271.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gibbs, K., Jr., & Griffin, K. A. (2013). What do I want to be with my PhD? The roles of personal values and structural dynamics in shaping the career interests of recent biomedical science PhD graduates. CBE-Life Sciences Education, 12(4), 711–723.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Golde, C. M. (1998). Beginning graduate school: Explaining first-year doctoral attrition. In M. S. Anderson (Ed.), The experience of being in graduate school: An exploration (pp. 55–64). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gopaul, B. (2019). Nothing succeeds like success: Doctoral education and cumulative advantage. The Review of Higher Education, 42(4), 1431–1457.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grigorenko, E. L., & Sternberg, R. J. (1993). Thinking styles in school settings. Unpublished manuscript, Yale University, New Haven, CT.

  • Hair, J., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2010). Multivariate data analysis (7th ed.). New Jersey: Pearson Education International.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hall, K. L., Vogel, A. L., Huang, G. C., Serrano, K. J., Rice, E. L., Tsakraklides, S. P., & Fiore, S. M. (2018). The science of team science: A review of the empirical evidence and research gaps on collaboration in science. American Psychologist, 73(4), 532–548.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Halse, C., & Malfroy, J. (2010). Retheorizing doctoral supervision as professional work. Studies in Higher Education, 35(1), 79–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hansson, F., & Monsted, M. (2008). Research leadership as entrepreneurial organizing for research. Higher Education, 55(6), 651–670.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Horta, H., & Santos, J. M. (2016a). The impact of publishing during the PhD on career research publication, visibility, and collaborations. Research in Higher Education, 57(1), 28–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Horta, H., & Santos, J. M. (2016b). An instrument to measure individuals’ research agenda setting: The multi-dimensional research agendas inventory. Scientometrics, 108(3), 1243–1265.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Horta, H. (2018). PhD students’ self-perception of skills and career plans while in doctoral programs: Are they associated?”. Asia Pacific Education Review, 19(2), 211–228.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Horta, H., Cattaneo, M., & Meoli, M. (2019). The impact Ph.D. funding on time to Ph.D. completion. Research Evaluation, 28(2), 182–195.

  • Horta, H., Jung, J., Zhang, L.-F., & Postiglione, G. A. (2019). Academics’ job-related stress and institutional commitment in Hong Kong universities. Tertiary Education and Management, 25(4), 327–348.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ion, G., & Ceacero, D. C. (2017). Transitions in the manifestations of the research culture of Spanish universities. Higher Education Research & Development, 36(2), 311–324.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jazvac-Martek, M. (2009). Oscillating role identities: the academic experiences of education doctoral students. Innovations in Education and Teaching International,46(3), 253–264.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jepsen, D. M., Varhegyi, M. M., & Edwards, D. (2012). Academics’ attitudes towards PhD students’ teaching: Preparing research higher degree students for an academic career. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 34(6), 629–645.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jung, J. (2014). Research productivity by career stage among Korean academics. Tertiary Education and Management, 20(2), 85–105.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Katz, J. S., & Martin, B. R. (1997). What is research collaboration? Research Policy, 26(1), 1–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kwan, B. S. C. (2010). An investigation of instruction in research publishing offered in doctoral programs: the Hong Kong case. Higher Education, 59, 55–68.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kwan, B. S. C. (2013). Facilitating novice researchers in project publishing during the doctoral years and beyond: A Hong Kong-based study. Studies in Higher Education, 38(2), 207–225.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Larivière, V. (2012). On the shoulder of students? The contribution of PhD students to the advancement of knowledge. Scientometrics, 90(2), 463–481.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Laudel, G. (2002). What do we measure by co-authorships? Research Evaluation, 11(1), 3–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, A. (2008). How are doctoral students supervised? Concepts of doctoral research supervision. Studies in Higher Education, 33(3), 267–281.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, A., & Kamler, B. (2008). Bringing pedagogy to doctoral publishing. Teaching in Higher Education, 13(5), 511–523.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, S., & Bozeman, B. (2005). The impact of research collaboration on scientific productivity. Social Studies of Science, 35(5), 673–702.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Legault, M.-J. (1993). Croissez et Multipliez-vous: la Formation de Chercheurs dans les Centres de Recherche en Sciences de l’Humain et du Social’ Revue Canadienne d’Enseignement Supérieur—Canadian Journal of Higher Education, 23(3), 129–162.

  • Löfström, E., & Pyhältö, K. (2017). Ethics in the supervisory relationship: Supervisors’ and doctoral students’ dilemmas in the natural and behavioural sciences. Studies in Higher Education, 42(2), 232–247.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • López-Yáñez, J., & Altopiedi, M. (2015). Evolution and social dynamics of acknowledged research groups. Higher Education, 70(4), 629–647.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lovitts, B. (1996). Who is responsible for graduate student attrition — The Individual or the Institution? Toward an Explanation of the High and Persistent Rate of Attrition. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Association for the Study of Higher Education (ASHE), New York, NY.

  • Lucas, L. (2006). The research game in academic life. Maidenhead, UK: Open University Press and the SRHE.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lunsford, L. G., Baker, V., Griffin, K. A., & Johnson, W. B. (2013). Mentoring: A typology of costs for higher education faculty. Mentoring & Tutoring: Partnership in Learning, 21(2), 126–149.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Macfarlane, B. (2017). The ethics of multiple authorship: power, performativity and the gift economy. Studies in Higher Education, 42(7), 1194–1210.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McAlpine, L., & Amundsen, C. (2012). Challenging the taken for-granted: how research analysis might inform pedagogical practices and institutional policies related to doctoral education. Studies in Higher Education, 37(6), 683–694.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McAlpine, L., Paulson, J., Gonsalves, A., & Jazvac-Martek, M. (2012). ‘Untold’ doctoral stories: Can we move beyond cultural narratives of neglect? Higher Education Research & Development, 31(4), 511–523.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McCulloch, A., Kumar, V., van Schalkwyk, S., & Wisker, G. (2016). Excellence in doctoral supervision: An examination of authoritative sources across four countries in search of performance higher than competence. Quality in Higher Education, 22(1), 64–77.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McGill, M. M., & Settle, A. (2012). Identifying effects of institutional resources and support on computing faculty research productivity, tenure, and promotion. International Journal of Doctoral Studies, 7, 167–198.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Melin, G. (2000). Pragmatism and self-organization: research collaboration on the individual level. Research Policy, 29(1), 31–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mowbray, S., & Halse, C. (2010). The purpose of the PhD: theorizing the skills acquired by students. Higher Education Research & Development, 29(6), 653–664.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moxham, L., Dwyer, T., & Reid-Searl, K. (2013). Articulating expectations for PhD candidature upon commencement: ensuring supervisor/student ‘best fit.’ Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 35(4), 345–354.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nettles, M. T., & Millett, C. M. (2006). Three magic letters: Getting to Ph.D. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

  • Paglis, L. L., Green, S. G., & Bauer, T. N. (2006). Does adviser mentoring add value? A longitudinal study of mentoring and doctoral student outcomes. Research in Higher Education, 47(4), 451–476.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Petersen, E. B. (2007). Negotiating academicity: postgraduate research supervision as category boundary work. Studies in Higher Education, 32(4), 475–487.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pinheiro, D., Melkers, J., & Youtie, J. (2014). Learning to play the game: Student publishing as an indicator of future scholarly success. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 81(1), 56–66.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Polanyi, M. (1958). Personal knowledge: Towards a post critical philosophy. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Postiglione, G., & Jung, J. (2017). The changing academic profession in Hong Kong: Challenges and future. In G. Postiglione & J. Jung (Eds.), The changing academic profession in Hong Kong (pp. 3–14). Cham: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Pull, K., Pferdmenges, B., & Backes-Gellner, U. (2015). Composition of junior research groups and PhD completion rate: Disciplinary differences and policy implications. Studies in Higher Education, 41(11), 2061–2077.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Richards, K.A.R., & Fletcher, T. (2018) Learning to work together: conceptualizing doctoral supervision as a critical friendship. Sport, Education and Society. https://doi.org/10.1080/13573322.2018.1554561.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rodricks, D. J. (2018). Methodology as a pedagogy of vulnerability: doctoral research with/in/from the borderlands. Qualitative Inquiry, 24(10), 786–793.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Santos, J. M., & Horta, H. (2018). The research agenda setting of higher education researchers. Higher Education, 76(4), 649–668.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schirato, T., & Webb, J. (2010). Bourdieu’s concept of reflexivity as metaliteracy. Cultural Studies, 17(3–4), 539–553.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shen, W. (2018). Transnational research training: Chinese visiting doctoral students overseas and their host supervisors. Higher Education Quarterly, 72(3), 224–236.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shibayama, S. (2019). Sustainable development of science and scientists: Academic training in life science labs. Research Policy, 48(3), 676–692.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sidhu, G. K., Kaur, S., Chan, Y. F., & Yunus, F. (2013). Postgraduate supervision: Exploring Malaysian students’ experiences. Procedia—Social and Behavioral Sciences, 90, 133–144.

  • Sinnewe, E., Charles, M. B., & Keast, R. (2016). Australia’s cooperative research centre program: A transaction cost theory perspective. Research Policy, 45(1), 195–204.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smeby, J.-C. (2000). Disciplinary differences in Norwegian graduate education. Studies in Higher Education, 25(1), 53–67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sternberg, R. J. (1988). Mental self-government: A theory of intellectual styles and their development. Human Development, 31(4), 197–224.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sternberg, R. J. (1997). Thinking styles. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Sternberg, R. J., & Zhang, L. F. (2005). Styles of thinking as a basis of differentiated instruction. Theory into Practice, 44(3), 245–253.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Szelényi, K. (2013). The meaning of money in the socialisation of Science and Engineering doctoral students: Nurturing the next generation of academic capitalists? The Journal of Higher Education, 84(2), 266–294.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • University Grant Committee (UGC) Hong Kong (2018). Statistics: Students (full time equivalent). Retrieved February 5, 2019, from https://cdcf.ugc.edu.hk/cdcf/searchStatSiteReport.action;jsessionid=2297739B37F5A41DF88DCDB8BA820D85 accessed in 5th. Feb. 2019.

  • Thune, T. (2009). Doctoral students on the university-industry interface: A review of the literature. Higher Education, 58(5), 637–651.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Rijnsoever, F. J., & Hessels, L. K. (2011). Factors associated with disciplinary and interdisciplinary research collaboration. Research Policy, 40(3), 463–472.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wichmann-Hasen, G., & Herrmann, K. J. (2017). Does external funding push doctoral supervisors to be more directive? A large-scale Danish study. Higher Education, 74(2), 357–376.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weidman, J. C. (2010). Doctoral student socialisation for research. In S. K. Gardner. & P. Mendoza (2010) (eds). On becoming a scholar: Socialisation and development in doctoral education. Virginia: Stylus Publishing.

  • Weidman, J. C., & Stein, E. L. (2003). Socialisation of doctoral students to academic norms. Research in Higher Education, 44(6), 641–656.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weidman, J. C., Twale, D. J., & Stein, E. L. (2001). Socialisation of graduate and professional students in higher education: A perilous passage? San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Winkle-Wagner, R., McCoy, D. L., & Lee-Johnson, J. (2020). Creating porous ivory towers: Two-way socialisation processes that embrace black students' identities in academia. In J. C. Weidman, & L, DeAngelo. (Eds.) (2020). Socialisation in higher education and the early career: Theory, research and application. pp. 73–89. Cham: Springer.

  • Young, M. (2015). Competitive funding, citation regimes, and the diminishment of breakthrough research. Higher Education, 69(3), 421–434.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhao, C., Golde, C. M., & McCormick, A. C. (2007). More than just a signature: How advisor choice and advisor behaviour affect student satisfaction. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 31(3), 263–281.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zheng, G., Shen, W., & Ca, Y. (2018). Institutional logics of Chinese doctoral education system. Higher Education, 76(5), 753–770.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zuo, Z., & Zhao, K. (2018). The more multidisciplinary the better? – the prevalence and interdisciplinarity of research collaborations in multidisciplinary institutions. Journal of Informetrics, 12(3), 736–756.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This research was funded by the General Research Fund (Grant number: 17604015) as administered by the Research Grants Council of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region. The authors are thankful for the valuables comments provided by the editor and referees, and the research participants.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Education, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, SAR, China

    Jisun Jung, Hugo Horta, Li-fang Zhang & Gerard A. Postiglione

Authors
  1. Jisun Jung
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Hugo Horta
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Li-fang Zhang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Gerard A. Postiglione
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jisun Jung.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Appendix

Appendix

Table A1 Factor analysis: teaching styles
Full size table
Table A2 Factor analysis: research agendas
Full size table

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Jung, J., Horta, H., Zhang, Lf. et al. Factors fostering and hindering research collaboration with doctoral students among academics in Hong Kong. High Educ 82, 519–540 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-020-00664-6

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-020-00664-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation