2. Dual Career PhD Programme in Governance and Policy
Analysis (GPAC)
Working Professionals writing
(part-time) their PhD (n = 22)
• International
• Diverse Background
• (Very) Experienced
Participants’ Goal
”Synthesize past practical
experience within a structured and
theoretical framework”
9. Participants’ Impressions
• “Choice of articles was very good and
provided a comprehensive overview of
current topics and issues”
• Participants appreciated the possibility to
engage into discussions with peers
• “Posting proposals was useful” see how
other’s did it
11. Maths / Stats: Active Participants
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Participation
Inactive
Active
12. Expectations (before the start)
Question M SD
This team believes it can become exceptionally good. 6.00 0.76
This team expects to be known as a highly performing group. 5.75 1.04
I would want to work with this team in the future. 5.75 1.04
In this team I will share all relevant information and ideas I have. 5.63 1.19
I expect team members to carefully listen to each other. 5.50 1.20
I expect that comments on ideas are acted upon. 5.38 1.19
As a team we will learn a lot. 5.38 0.52
I expect it to be difficult to ask other members of this team for
help. 2.50 0.76
Likert Scale (1: completely disagree - 7: completely agree)
13. “Nobody else [except the
facilitators] seemed to start a
discussion, so I also did not
feel the need to start off”
18. • [Further] minimize obligatory readings (only one
academic paper per week)
• Improve practical case examples linking the
theory/evidence learned from the course materials
• Refine the narrative of the problem statements from
“neutral” to “your problem”
• No generic literature, but rather applied research papers
• Combining GPACers with incoming (full-time) PhD
fellows (n = 12)
• Simplifying the layout of the online platform
22. Facilitators’ Impressions
• participants do not illustrate their ideas with examples from
their own countries or working experiences discussions
remained mostly in an abstract academic way
• some participants left the discussions when others with more
comprehensive analyses entered
• participants read and found useful the material for their own
purposes, but decided not to join the discussions
• user-friendliness of the chosen platform might not have been
high enough
• the courses turned out to be very useful for those participants
who were specializing in topics related to the course contents.
