22 SES 11 B, Development of Academics: Careers and Professions
In this paper, we present a study on doctoral education policy in Sweden from a govern(mentality) perspective (Foucault, 1991). We direct attention to doctoral supervision, specifically the supervisor-doctoral student relationship as a state formal offer of socialization (Durkheim, 1956; Popkewitz 1987) . We analyze national policy texts which have formed the basis for two major doctoral education reforms in Sweden (1960s and late 1990s). The overall objective is to develop knowledge about doctoral supervision as a means for professional socialization (becoming a professional academic). We identify and analyze national policy changes with regards to doctoral supervision as a key socialization component of doctoral education.
Doctoral education is an increasingly important institution for enculturation in all welfare states. Through doctoral education, highly qualified labor force is being educated for activities both within the Academy, public administration and the private sector. In Sweden the governing of doctoral education has been characterized by ideas typical for Nordic welfare states (Esping-Andersen 1990/2013). With a powerful State, elected representatives are strongly engaged in facilities that are considered to be of public interest, including universities and doctoral education. Doctoral supervision is a fundamental aspect of doctoral education, structurally, culturally and processually (Jansson al 2015 a) and has been (re)established as an object for State governing ever since doctoral education in the late 1950s really was made a political matter (Odén 1991). In this study, we are interested in the national framing of doctoral education, mainly through the way doctoral supervision is constructed at the policy level. In the light of the institutional setting (the doctoral education) we map and analyze what is put forward as (good) supervision (the comprehension of supervision), and how this is done, in order to identify and analyze changes in national doctoral education policy, and its formal consequences for doctoral supervision as an aspect of professionalization.
Partly, we draw on a foucauldian governmentality perspective (Foucault, 1991; Dean 2010). We analyze the content of socialization in terms of what is nationally constructed as an ideal doctoral supervision, and how this is done. We will in our concluding section discuss this in terms of the technologies for governing that are put forward to execute this ideal image and the governing techniques used for its staging (Foucault 1978). In this perspective, government statements (its language) are understood as a set of different manners for the intended State interventions.
Previous research on socialization through doctoral education has mainly been studied in Anglo-Saxon contexts and in relation to doctoral students’ experiences (Jones 2013; Jansson et al 2015 (b)).We intend to make a contribution to this research by investigating policy conditions for socialization through doctoral education, in a Nordic context. The empirical data consists of systematically selected national policy texts from the Swedish Parliament process (Committee reports, government bills and terms of references) produced within two major reforms (1963-69 and and 1996-98) Our research questions are:
- What is put forward as (good) doctoral supervision, and how is the institutional framework (doctoral education) described within which such (good) supervision is supposed to operate?
- How is the ideal doctoral supervision constructed? (What technologies are used in order to execute the ideal doctoral supervision?)
- How should the ideal doctoral supervision be materialized, according to national policy? (What techniques are in use for the staging of the ideal doctoral supervision?)
- What can be considered as changes/dislocations and what can be considered as recurrent over time?
Ball, S. J. (2005). Education policy and social class: The selected works of Stephen J. Ball. Routledge. Ball, S. J. (Ed.). (1990/2013). Foucault and education: Disciplines and knowledge. Routledge. Bacchi, C. (2000). Policy as discourse: What does it mean? Where does it get us?. Discourse, 21(1), 45-57. Dean, M. (2010). Governmentality: Power and rule in modern society. Sage publications. Durkheim, E. (1956). Sociology and education. New York: Amerirwah Book Comp. Esping-Andersen, G. (1990/2013). The three worlds of welfare capitalism. John Wiley & Sons. Foucault, M., Burchell, G., Gordon, C., & Miller, P. (1991). The Foucault effect: Studies in governmentality. University of Chicago Press. Jansson, J., Forsberg, E., Pettersson, D., & Román, H. (a) (2015). Targeted (re)-socialization in Universities and Prisons: A policy study concerning tutor and tutee. In Nordic Educational Re-search Association, NERA, Gothenburg. Jansson, J., Forsberg, E., Pettersson, D., & Román, H. (b) (2015). Socialisation in Correctional System and Doctoral Education–analyses of contemporary policy formation in Sweden. In ECER 2015. Odén, B. (1991). Forskarutbildningens förändringar 1890-1975 (Vol. 69). Lund University Press. Popkewitz, T. S. (Ed.). (1987). The formation of school subjects: The struggle for creating an American institution. London: Falmer Press.
- Search for keywords and phrases in "Text Search"
- Restrict in which part of the abstracts to search in "Where to search"
- Search for authors and in the respective field.
- For planning your conference attendance you may want to use the conference app, which will be issued some weeks before the conference
- If you are a session chair, best look up your chairing duties in the conference system (Conftool) or the app.