A Survey of Doctoral Programs in IS in the USA and Canada

This paper contains the results of a survey of 126 doctoral programs in Information Systems in the USA and Canada. Each educational institution\u27s website was searched for applicable information about its doctoral program for information systems. This paper summarizes the similarities and differences of the programs of study, such as which college or school houses the program, prerequisites, foundational courses such as statistics and research methods, the number of core or concentration courses required, minor requirements, exam requirements, etc. The information gathered will be useful for institutions desiring to start a program or modify their existing PhD in Information Systems program, and for schools wishing to compare their program with other programs

Editorial - Academic Practice - how is it changing?

This special issue grew out of a Government-funded initiative in the UK, the formation of a number of five-year Centres for Excellence in Teaching and Learning. One of these, focused on Preparation for Academic Practice, is directed at better understanding and supporting the development of doctoral students and contract research staff for academic careers . This Centre, located at the University of Oxford, held its first conference in April 2007, and this special issue consists of papers contributed by conference participants

Training scholars in dissemination and implementation research for cancer prevention and control: A mentored approach

Abstract Background As the field of D&I (dissemination and implementation) science grows to meet the need for more effective and timely applications of research findings in routine practice, the demand for formalized training programs has increased concurrently. The Mentored Training for Dissemination and Implementation Research in Cancer (MT-DIRC) Program aims to build capacity in the cancer control D&I research workforce, especially among early career researchers. This paper outlines the various components of the program and reports results of systematic evaluations to ascertain its effectiveness. Methods Essential features of the program include selection of early career fellows or more experienced investigators with a focus relevant to cancer control transitioning to a D&I research focus, a 5-day intensive training institute, ongoing peer and senior mentoring, mentored planning and work on a D&I research proposal or project, limited pilot funding, and training and ongoing improvement activities for mentors. The core faculty and staff members of the MT-DIRC program gathered baseline and ongoing evaluation data regarding D&I skill acquisition and mentoring competency through participant surveys and analyzed it by iterative collective reflection. Results A majority (79%) of fellows are female, assistant professors (55%); 59% are in allied health disciplines, and 48% focus on cancer prevention research. Forty-three D&I research competencies were assessed; all improved from baseline to 6 and 18 months. These effects were apparent across beginner, intermediate, and advanced initial D&I competency levels and across the competency domains. Mentoring competency was rated very highly by the fellows––higher than rated by the mentors themselves. The importance of different mentoring activities, as rated by the fellows, was generally congruent with their satisfaction with the activities, with the exception of relatively greater satisfaction with the degree of emotional support and relatively lower satisfaction for skill building and opportunity initially. Conclusions These first years of MT-DIRC demonstrated the program’s ability to attract, engage, and improve fellows’ competencies and skills and implement a multicomponent mentoring program that was well received. This account of the program can serve as a basis for potential replication and evolution of this model in training future D&I science researchers

William (Bill) Peterson's contributions to ocean science, management, and policy

© The Author(s), 2020. This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License. The definitive version was published in Schwing, F. B., Sissenwine, M. J., Batchelder, H., Dam, H. G., Gomez-Gutierrez, J., Keister, J. E., Liu, H., & Peterson, J. O. William (Bill) Peterson's contributions to ocean science, management, and policy. Progress in Oceanography, 182, (2020): 102241, doi:10.1016/j.pocean.2019.102241.In addition to being an esteemed marine ecologist and oceanographer, William T. (Bill) Peterson was a dedicated public servant, a leader in the ocean science community, and a mentor to a generation of scientists. Bill recognized the importance of applied science and the need for integrated “big science” programs to advance our understanding of ecosystems and to guide their management. As the first US GLOBEC program manager, he was pivotal in transitioning the concept of understanding how climate change impacts marine ecosystems to an operational national research program. The scientific insight and knowledge generated by US GLOBEC informed and advanced the ecosystem-based management approaches now being implemented for fishery management in the US. Bill held significant leadership roles in numerous international efforts to understand global and regional ecological processes, and organized and chaired a number of influential scientific conferences and their proceedings. He was passionate about working with and training young researchers. Bill’s academic affiliations, notably at Stony Brook and Oregon State Universities, enabled him to advise, train, and mentor a host of students, post-doctoral researchers, and laboratory technicians. Under his collegial guidance they became critical independent thinkers and diligent investigators. His former students and colleagues carry on Bill Peterson’s legacy of research that helps us understand marine ecosystems and informs more effective resource stewardship and conservation

Should I Stay or Should I Go ... North? First Job Location of U.S. Trained Doctorates 1957-2005

Based on a survey of graduating PhD students in the U.S., we study the determinants of location of their first jobs. We consider how locating in Canada versus the U.S. for all graduates is influenced by both their background and time-varying factors that affect international mobility. We also study the choice of European graduates between North America and returning to Europe. We find that in many cases macro factors have the expected effect of choices after controlling for biases for home, which depend upon background variables in expected ways.Doctoral Education, International Mobility, Brain Drain

PICES Press, Vol. 21, No. 1, Winter 2013

•2012 PICES Science: A Note from the Science Board Chairman (pp. 1-6) ◾2012 PICES Awards (pp. 7-9) ◾GLOBEC/PICES/ICES ECOFOR Workshop (pp. 10-15) ◾ICES/PICES Symposium on “Forage Fish Interactions” (pp. 16-18) ◾The Yeosu Declaration, the Yeosu Declaration Forum and the Yeosu Project (pp. 19-23) ◾2013 PICES Calendar (p. 23) ◾Why Do We Need Human Dimensions for the FUTURE Program? (pp. 24-25) ◾New PICES MAFF-Sponsored Project on “Marine Ecosystem Health and Human Well-Being” (pp. 26-28) ◾The Bering Sea: Current Status and Recent Trends (pp. 29-31) ◾Continuing Cool in the Northeast Pacific Ocean (pp. 32, 35) ◾The State of the Western North Pacific in the First Half of 2012 (pp. 33-35) ◾New Leadership in PICES (pp. 36-39

How pluralistic is the research field on adult education? Dominating bibliometrical trends, 2005-2012

What the field of adult education research is and how it can be described has been a debated issue over the decades. Several scholars argue that the field today is heterogeneous, borrowing theories and methods from a range of disciplines. In this article, we take such statements as a starting point for empirical analysis. In what ways could it be argued that the field is pluralistic rather than monolithic; heterogeneous rather than homogenous? Drawing on bibliographic data of the top cited articles in three main adult education journals between 2005 and 2012, we illustrate how the citation patterns have tendencies of homogeneity when it comes to the geographical country of authorship, since the USA, UK, Australia and Canada dominate, as well as the research methods adopted, since qualitative approaches have near total dominance. Furthermore, there is a tendency to adopt similar theoretical approaches, since sociocultural perspectives, critical pedagogy and post-structuralism represent more than half of the articles in our sample. At the same time, the results of our analysis indicate signs of scholarly pluralism, for instance, in terms of authorship, since both early career researchers and established researchers are represented among the top cited publications. We conclude the article by arguing that empirical analysis of publication and citation patterns is important to further the development of reflexivity within the field, not least for early career researchers, who might benefit from knowledge about what has been recognized among peers as worth citing in recent times. (DIPF/Orig.

Mobility decisions of European doctoral researchers.

Student mobility remains an important component for the completion of a European Higher Education and Research Area. Two issues at the forefront are increasing student mobility within Europe as well as worries about a ‘brain drain’ of talented graduate students to North America. Unfortunately, there is still relatively little evidence and analysis available to support policy making. In this paper, using a large sample of European researchers, we analyse the decision of students where to pursue their doctoral studies: at home, in another European country or in North America. We find that students from countries with a weaker research and innovation system are more likely to seek their doctoral degree abroad, particularly within Europe. Graduate student mobility within Europe appears more driven by push factors in the home country, i.e. lack of opportunities for researchers, whereas mobility towards North America seems more driven by pull factors within the North American research and education system.

Research on approaches to public funding and development of tertiary education within selected OECD nations

No abstract available