目标课程与评估课程的比较
本章已经分析了博士生课程的相关文件，以描述其内容。总体的介绍性描述与评估标准是分析的两种关键资料。总的来说，这两方面的信息对博士生课程核心关注提供了一致性的描述。各高校的评估标准相对来说更加一致。在所调查的高校中，一多半的学校提到了40%以上的评估标准，而在总体的介绍中，仅有原创性最频繁地被提到。
正如所料，评估标准更为具体。在博士生教育目标中，第二个最常被提到的是“实施一个研究项目”，它在评估标准中被细分为更加具体的部分。另外，评估标准并没有涉及教育目标成果中有待评价的研究伦理或个人发展。
然而，这两组资料的共同之处在于高度的概括性。出于囊括大量研究背景、传统与方法的需要，博士生课程只能以概括性措辞进行表述；甚至是评估标准也依赖大量的解释和推断，并且这些解释几乎没有试图说明各种标准期望达到的水准。换句话说，尽管在一定的概括性程度上得到了相对一致的描述，但目标课程的实施在很大程度上取决于特定研究领域对科研和学术的理解与实践。
我们可以思考此处描述的预期课程在多大程度上呼应了前面提到的知识类型。知识类型的要素在分析的资料中不同程度地得到确认。抽象命题和程序性知识，以及隐性知识和嵌入式知识都体现于预期课程。然而，行动知识和文化理解未被提及，也没有提到创造性（creativity），而这是知识生产中创新（innovation）欲求的兴趣主题。与之相关的术语是原创性（originality），但由于它可以以多种方式得到解释，而并非所有释义都隐含着创新（innovative）之意，博士学位课程是否产生了创新的结果，问题依旧悬而未决。企业精神和公共参与同样在目标课程介绍中是缺失的。
这一对博士课程的分析，至少如它被描述和评估的那样，带来了一个问题，即它在何种程度上回应了本章开头所勾勒的争论。由于大量的博士生课程内隐于特定研究领域的实践中，因此更为广泛的相关问题需要在这些背景下进行探讨。这并非易事，许多学科的信徒，出于管理之责的理念和长期研究传统的使命感，可能会把此种需要视为干扰。
为了解决这一矛盾，就需要阐明学科的本质，并回答诸如“研究策略是否可在不同领域进行普遍化”之类的问题。本质主义的观点认为，不同的知识形式彼此是分隔的，它们之间存在深刻的结构差异。这种看法很难与通用的技能、跨学科性以及更激进的原创性概念相调和，正如Hodge 在人文学科博士生教育的案例中所指出的观点（Hodge，1995）。另一种观点认为，知识源于在实践的语境下问题产生和解决的过程，这种知识的创造更具工具性和实用性，正如吉本斯知识生产模式二中产生的知识（Gibbons，1998；Gibbons 等，1994）。这种更为开放的观点可能有利于原创性，至于识别通用技能或预先明确质量标准，并不会更容易。
正如前文已提到的，水准问题和澄清博士生教育成果原创性的需要在评估过程中最为人们关注。在很多方面，本章的研究发现证实了Tinkler 和Jackson 的观察：博士评估以多种方式概念化了（Tinkler 和Jackson，2000），英国拉格比团队（UK Rugby Team）最近也提出了此种观点。2005 年，英国GRAD 项目在罗伯特政策论坛之后成立了工作组，即为人所知的拉格比团队（以当年论坛所在地命名）。工作组的目标之一，即探究如何评估研究生科研人员与研究员技能发展的成效。他们在2006 年的罗伯特政策论坛上的报告中申明：
关于博士生评估，有哪些启示，要关注哪些通用技能，在我们的咨询中反复出现。相关部门应思考，启动对博士生评估的相关争论，是否是恰当的时机。
该论坛报告继续谈道：“这显然超出了拉格比团队的职责范围，但成员们希望公众意识到我们日益需要这场辩论的发生。”博士学位的评估显然关系着持续的监督，要澄清博士生评估，就需要一个比以往更为清晰和系统的博士课程观。
参考文献
[1] Adams, F. and Mathieu, E. (1999) Towards a closer integration of Ph. D. training to industrial and societal needs, Analytica Cbimica Acta, 393: 147-155.
[2] Association of American Universities (1998) Graduate Education Report, at http://ww.aau.edu/reports/GtadEdRp.
[3] Australian Vice-Chancellors’ Committee (2002) Code of Practice for Maintaining and Monitoring Academic Quality and Standards in Higher Degrees, Australian Vice-Ch-ancellors’ Committee at:http://www.avcc.edu.au/policiesactivities/ teachinelearning/ gudelinescodes/index.htm.
[4] Blackler, F. (1995)Knowledge, knowledge work and organizations: an overview and interpretation, Organization Studies, 16(6):1021-1046.
[5] Bourner, T. (1998) More knowledge, new knowledge: the impact on education and training, Education + Training, 40(1): 11-14.
[6] Burgess, R. (1997) The changing context of postgraduate education in the United Kingdom, in R. Burgess (ed.), Beyond the First Degree: Graduate Education, Lifelong Learning and Careers, London: Society for Research into Higher Education and Open University Press.
[7] Clegg, S.(1999) Globalizing the intelligent organization: learning organizations, smart workers, (not so) clever counties and the sociological imagination, Management Learning, 30(3): 259-280.
[8] Coate, K. and Leonard, D. (2002) The structure of research training in England, Australian Educational Researcher, 29(3):19-42.
[9] Collins, H. (1993) The structure of knowledge, Social Research, 60(1): 95-116.
[10] Connell, R. (1985) How to supervise a Ph. D., Vestes, 2:38-41.
[11] Deem, R, and Brehony, K. (2000) Doctoral students' access to research cultures-are some more unequal than others?, Studies in Higher Education, 25(2): 150-165.
[12] Delamont, S., Parry, O. and Atkinson, P. (1997) Critical mass and pedagogic continuity: Studies in academic habitus, British Journal Sociology of Education, 18(4): 533-549.
[13] Economic and Social Research Council (2001) Postgraduate Training Guidelines, Swindon: Economic and Social Research Council.
[14] Fleck, J. (1997) Contingent knowledge and technology development, Technology Analysis and Strategic Management, 9(4), cited in R.Jobnston (1998) The Changing Nature and Forms of Knowledge: A Review, Canberra: Common wealth of Australia.
[15] Gallagher, M. (2000) The challenges facing higher education research training, in M. Kiley and G. Mullins (eds), Quality in Postgraduate Research: Making Ends Meet, Proceedings of the 2000 Quality in Postgraduate Research Conference, University of Adelaide.
[16] Geiger, R. (1997) Doctoral education: the short-term crisis vs. long-term challenge, Review of Higher Education, 20(3):239-251.
[17] Gibbons, M. (1998) Higher Education Relevance in the 21st Century, Washington, D C: World Bank Human Development Network.
[18] Gibbons, M., Limoges, C., Novotny, H., Schwartzman, S., Scott, P. and Trow, M. (1994) The New Production of Knowledge, London: Sage.
[19] Gilbert, R. (2004) A framework for evaluating the doctoral curriculum, Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education.29(3):299-309.
[20] Gilbert, R., Balatti, J., Turner, P. and Whitehouse, H. (2004a) The generic skills debate in research higher degrees, Higher Education Research and Development, 23(3): 375-388.(https://www.daowen.com)
[21] Gilbert, R., Balatti, J., Turner, P. and Whitehouse, H. (2004b) The Doctoral Curriculum: Needs and Directions in Research Training, unpublished report for the Research Programmes and Policy Unit, Higher Education Group, Department of Education, Science and Training, Canberra, Townsville, James Cook University.
[22] Golde, C. M. and Dore, T. M. (2001). At Cross Purposes: What the Experiences of Doctoral Students Reveal about Doctoral Education, Philadelphia, PA: Pew Charitable Trusts (www.phdsurvey.org).
[23] Hamilton, D. (1987) Education: An Unfinished Curriculum, Glasgow: Department of Education, University of Glasgow.
[24] Hockey, J. (1995) Change and the social science Ph. D.: supervisors’ responses, Oxford Review of Education, 21(2):195-206.
[25] Hodge, B. (1995) Monstrous knowledge: doing Ph. D.s in the humanities, Australian Universities Review, 2:35-39.
[26] Johnston, R. (1998) The Changing Nature and Forms of Knowledge: A Review, Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia.
[27] Johnston, S. (1999) Postgraduate supervision in education: an overview of the literature, in A. Holbrook and S. Johnston (eds), Supervision of Postgraduate Research in Education, Review of Australian Research in Education No. 5, Coldstream, VT: Australian Association for Research in Education.
[28] Kemp, D. (1999) New Knowledge, New Opportunities: A Discussion Paper on Higher Education Research and Research Training. Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia.
[29] Kendall, G. (2002) The crisis in doctoral education: a diagnosis, Higher Education Research and Development, 21(2): 131-141.
[30] McWilliam, E. and Singh, P. (2002) Towards a research training curriculum: what, why, how, who?, Australian Educational Researcher, 29(3): 3-18.
[31] McWilliam, E., Taylor, P., Thomson, P., Green, B., Maxwell, T. , Wildy, H. and Simons, D. (2002) Research Training in Doctoral Programs: What Can be Learned from Professional Doctorates?, Canberra: Higher Education Division, Department of Education, Science and Training.
[32] Office of Science and Technology (1992) The Nature of the Ph. D.: A Discussion Document, London: Office of Science and Technology.
[33] Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (2000) Knowledge Management in the Learning Society, Paris: Centre for Educational Research and Innovation.
[34] Park, C. (2005) New variant Ph. D.: the changing nature of the doctorate in the UK, Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 27(2): 189-207.
[35] Pearson, M. (1996) Professionalising Ph. D. education to enhance the quality of the student experience, Higher Education, 32: 303-320.
[36] Pearson, M. and Brew, A. (2002) Research training and supervision development, Studies in Higher Education, 27(2):135-150.
[37] Phillips, E. (1993) The concept of quality in the Ph. D., in D. Cullen(ed.), Quality in Ph. D. Education, Canberra: Centre for Educational Development and Academic Methods and the Graduate School, Australian National University.
[38] Pole, C, (2000) Technicians and scholars in pursuit of the Ph. D.: some reflections on doctoral study, Research Papers in Education, 15(1): 95-111.
[39] Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education (2001) The Framework for Higher Education Qualifications in England, Wales and Northern Ireland, at: http://www.qaa.ac.uk/ academicinfrastructure/FHEQ/EWN I/default.asp.
[40] Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education (2004) Code of Practice for the Assurance of Academic Quality and Standards in Higher Education, Mansfield: Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education.
[41] Raber, L.R. (1995) Chemists give mixed review of NRC Report on doctoral education, American Chemical Society, 29 May, p. 44.
[42] Review Committee on Higher Education Financing and Policy (1998) Learning for Life Review of Higher Education Financing and Policy, final report, Canberra: Department of Education, Employment, Training and Youth Affairs (The West Report).
[43] Ross, A. (2000) Curriculum: Construction and Critique, London: Palmer Press.
[44] Sadler, D. R. (1987). Specifying and promulgating achievement standards, Oxford Review of Education, 13(2):191-209.
[45] Smart, J. and Hagedorn, L. (1994) Enhancing professional competencies in graduate education, Review of Higher Education, 17(3):241-257.
[46] Tinkler, P. and Jackson, C. (2000) Examining the doctorate: institutional policy and the Ph. D. examination process in Britain, Studies in Higher Education, 25(2): 167-180.
[47] UK GRAD Programme (2006) Report of Proceedings, UK GRAD Programme Roberts Policy Forum January 2006, at: http://www.grad.ac.uk/cms/ShowPage/ Home_page/PoIicy/National_ policy/Rugby_Team/pIekljFef.
[48] Wellcome Trust (2000) Career Paths of a 1988-1990 Prize Student Cohort: Review of Wellcome Trust Ph. D. Research Training. London: Wellcome Trust.
【注释】
[1]“科研训练（research training）”这一术语与英国及澳大利亚标准的政策用语相一致。围绕着这个用语，可以提出一些问题，例如训练是否可作为概括博士生教育整个过程的合适概念，不过本章并不打算处理这个问题。本书中的其他作者使用了与此相关的另一个术语——“科研教育”（research education）。