IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0103075.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Biomedical Ph.D. Students Enrolled in Two Elite Universities in the United Kingdom and the United States Report Adopting Multiple Learning Relationships

Author

Listed:
  • Matthew W Kemp
  • Benjamin M Lazarus
  • Gabriel G Perron
  • William P Hanage
  • Elaine Chapman

Abstract

Objective: The ability to form multiple learning relationships is a key element of the doctoral learning environment in the biomedical sciences. Of these relationships, that between student and supervisor has long been viewed as key. There are, however, limited data to describe the student perspective on what makes this relationship valuable. In the present study, we discuss the findings of semi-structured interviews with biomedical Ph.D. students from the United Kingdom and the United States to: i) determine if the learning relationships identified in an Australian biomedical Ph.D. cohort are also important in a larger international student cohort; and ii) improve our understanding of student perceptions of value in their supervisory relationships. Study Design: 32 students from two research intensive universities, one in the United Kingdom (n = 17), and one in the United States (n = 15) were recruited to participate in a semi-structured interview. Verbatim transcripts were transcribed, validated and analysed using a Miles and Huberman method for thematic analysis. Results: Students reported that relationships with other Ph.D. students, post-doctoral scientists and supervisors were all essential to their learning. Effective supervisory relationships were perceived as the primary source of high-level project guidance, intellectual support and confidence. Relationships with fellow students were viewed as essential for the provision of empathetic emotional support. Technical learning was facilitated, almost exclusively, by relationships with postdoctoral staff. Conclusions: These data make two important contributions to the scholarship of doctoral education in the biomedical sciences. Firstly, they provide further evidence for the importance of multiple learning relationships in the biomedical doctorate. Secondly, they clarify the form of a ‘valued’ supervisory relationship from a student perspective. We conclude that biomedical doctoral programs should be designed to contain a minimum level of formalised structure to promote the development of multiple learning relationships that are perceived as key to student learning.

Suggested Citation

  • Matthew W Kemp & Benjamin M Lazarus & Gabriel G Perron & William P Hanage & Elaine Chapman, 2014. "Biomedical Ph.D. Students Enrolled in Two Elite Universities in the United Kingdom and the United States Report Adopting Multiple Learning Relationships," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(7), pages 1-9, July.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0103075
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0103075
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0103075
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0103075&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0103075?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0103075. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.