Teaching and Learning > DISCOURSE

Feasibility of a Cross-Institutional Doctorate in Practical Theology

Author: Zoe Bennett

Journal Title: Discourse

ISSN: 2040-3674

ISSN-L: 1741-4164

Volume: 6

Number: 2

Start page: 55

End page: 77

Return to vol. 6 no. 2 index page

This article was written in conjunction with colleagues who took part in this project: Mark Cartledge (then University of Wales, Lampeter), Elaine Graham (University of Manchester), Stephen Pattison (then Cardiff University), Gordon Lynch (then University of Birmingham), James Sweeney (then Heythrop College) and Kevin Ward (University of Leeds).

Introduction

In October 2006 a significant and long-awaited meeting took place in the University of Manchester. It was the first residential meeting of the first cohort of the new Professional Doctorate in Practical Theology1: fourteen staff and students from Anglia Ruskin University and the University of Manchester, together with Rev Dr Kenneth Leech, Samuel Ferguson lecturer and residential study leader. This baby had been gestating since April 2003, when at a fringe meeting of the International Academy of Practical Theology (IAPT) the British participants first conceived the idea.

This paper is an attempt to tell the history of those three and a half years of work, and in particular to draw out the significance of the inter-institutional collaborative dimension. The significance of the launching of a Professional Doctorate in Practical Theology, as a contribution both to pedagogical practice and to the discipline of practical theology itself, has been explored elsewhere and will inevitably continue to be explored as the project grows2. This paper will touch on these issues tangentially, but its main focus is our attempt to forge a collaborative venture within the context and constraints of current UK university practices, protocols and priorities. We were awarded a grant in 2004-5 by the Subject Centre for Philosophical and Religious Studies in order to 'evaluate the feasibility of a cross-institutional Professional Doctorate in Practical Theology'.

History

The history of this project falls into three distinct phases. First there was a period of maximally wide consultation among potentially inter- ested parties. Then there was a phase of investigative development involving six institutions, during which both draft specifications for the degree and general possibilities for collaboration were hammered out. During this phase some institutions left the project, often in the hope of rejoining within a few years, and others considered joining, one of whom did in fact do so. Finally there was a phase of putting together the precise arrangements for collaboration, and producing validation materials.

Phase 1

Meeting of UK practical theologians at IAPT (April 2003, Manchester)

Those who met on this initial occasion included university teachers of practical theology and also those concerned with continuing professional development issues for pastoral practitioners. The root issues which provoked their seminal thinking were:

The Professional Doctorate, rooted as it is in reflective practice, professional development, applied research, enquiry-based learning, and specific contexts of practice, seemed to offer an excellent model to explore.

Meeting of interested parties (January 2004, Manchester)

After the IAPT discussion we decided to call a meeting, casting the net as wide as possible, of those working in UK universities who might be interested in this venture. It is important to clarify who 'we' denotes. There exists in Britain and Ireland an association which mirrors IAPT, the British and Irish Association of Practical Theology (BIAPT). It seemed appropriate that the development of a Professional Doctorate should take place under the auspices of BIAPT, a view which the BIAPT committee endorsed, appointing at a later stage a representative to the Liaison Group of the PrD. The then Chair of BIAPT, Zoë Bennett, was present at the original meeting, and was invited by the ad hoc group to convene a meeting of potentially interested parties. Association with BIAPT in this way would give an open, broad and established professional base for the venture rather than its becoming a brain-child of a self-selecting clique. Furthermore, association with a national professional body would link the academic and the professional at the heart of the enterprise and expose students to the widest possible range of contacts.

Those who came to that first meeting in January 2004 included representatives from the universities of Durham, Manchester, Birmingham, Anglia Ruskin (then APU), Edinburgh, Cardiff, and Heythrop (London). The discussion revealed:

Already at this first meeting we invited a member of the Learning and Teaching Support Unit in one of our universities to join us, who sounded notes of both enthusiasm and caution in respect of our collaborative plans. The enthusiasm focused on the benefits for students of peer group support in a structured programme involving group progression, with attendant transferability and immersion in a collaborative research culture. The caution focused on the need to be precise about how the quality control issues and the finances would work out in a collaborative programme. These two issues, especially quality control, would become increasingly significant as we worked towards a feasible model of cooperation. One way of describing this story is to tell it as a group of idealistic academics gradually coming to terms with the realities of validation in the modern university. What was made absolutely clear to us at this meeting was that for a non-traditional doctorate of this kind delivered through collaborative means to have any chance of success what we most needed was to grasp, to elaborate and to articulate a clear alternative philosophy of pedagogy appropriate to our discipline which made it worth while overcoming the obstacles. Primarily, we needed to work out what we wanted to do academically, and make a very good case for it, because such collaborative programmes are always more costly to institutions.

By the end of this meeting we had agreed to work together to develop a national professional doctorate syllabus with a view to this being delivered in individual institutions but also with a view to collaborative arrangements. We agreed that we would need to look at various possible models of collaboration, taking into account those already existing at Masters level, those in operation in a European context, and also importantly the fact that we might want to collaborate with those delivering professional doctorates in other disciplines as well as across the field of practical theology.

Phase 2

Meetings of initially committed parties (March and June 2004, Birmingham)

At this point representatives of six universities opted into serious engagement with the task of creating this professional doctorate - they were Anglia Ruskin, Birmingham, Cardiff, Heythrop (London), Leeds and Manchester. This in no way was seen as either committing those universities to offering the PrD or excluding others from joining later. It was a crucial part of the process that it was an open process, designed to be as flexible and inclusive as possible.

A further significant feature of the process at this stage was that it was driven by academics, and indeed all the representatives were academics. This had the positive effect that what the Learning and Teaching Unit representative had encouraged us to do came to pass— we concentrated intensively at the first stage on what we wanted this programme to be, academically and pedagogically.

Who would the programme be for?

One of the driving forces behind the development of this PrD was the rapidly increasing number of candidates graduating from MA programmes in pastoral and practical theology and related fields.3 We wanted the PrD to be available to as wide as possible a range of professionals who might be interested in looking at their working context from a theological point of view, and so described our potential recruits as follows:

As one of our subsequent validation documents put it,

typical profiles of potential candidates for the award would include: an ordained Christian healthcare chaplain; a Jewish social worker; a humanist youth worker wishing to reflect on the intercultural and interfaith nature of her clientele; a nun who directs a retreat centre; a religious studies teacher.

What would differentiate this programme from existing DMin programmes?

While we were clear that this programme differed from existing DMin programmes in two or three ways, it was thought that there would be sufficient commonality that a flexible approach might allow some collaboration with DMin programmes which our colleagues were embarking on. Specifically we differentiated the professional doctorate from what is commonly known as a DMin in the British context on three grounds. First, a large number of DMin programmes operate with significant overlap with M level. The professional doctorate is entirely at doctoral level throughout. Second, the DMin focuses specifically on Christian ministry (often though not exclusively ordained Ministry) as the profession in which it is rooted. The professional doctorate is designed for a much wider range of professions and religious commitments. Third, the PrD, by contrast with the DMin, is a research-only degree, with no subject-based taught components.

What would be the shape of this programme?

We then turned our attention to the design of the programme and the shape of the portfolio of work which would be expected of candidates.

The expected mode of attendance would be part-time: six years maximum and three years minimum (exceptional cases of full-time study). Emphasis would be placed on the value of cohort identity for participants, and collaborative research (such as group work or joint publications) was to form a significant part of the assessment.

We were convinced that whatever model of collaboration we eventually opted for we would need to have close adherence from all participating universities to the specifications for the degree (aims, learning outcomes and assessment tasks for each part and unit) which we had devised together.

How would the programme be delivered?

The programme would not be a distance- or distributed-learning programme but delivery would be through seminar and other group work, supervision and independent research. Notes from the 7.6.04 meeting state:

Some initial discussion took place of how this programme might be delivered. A provisional model is for each module to consist of around 60 hours contact time, with these hours made up of 24 hours from a two-day summer school and one-day regional event, and a further 40 hours made up of fortnightly or monthly group seminars and individual tutorials. This structure is clearly suitable primarily for part-time students and it would be anticipated that this would be the normal pattern of delivery—though in certain cases full-time registration may be feasible.

This leaves a certain amount of flexibility for different institutions to operate in different ways, and that is in practice what has happened. The crucial points of collaborative national delivery are currently:

What were the perceived benefits of collaboration?

It was felt at this stage that 'development of a national framework would seem to require two things: (a) devising a programme which allowed for diversity of provision within a common framework of credit transfer, [credits were later dropped as inappropriate to doctoral level, though the discussion about this nationally in Higher Education has since been revived] shared learning outcomes, etc. (b) developing a set of (financial) agreements between HE institutions which would enable course participants to transfer between institutions, some degree of collaborative provision, e.g. summer schools etc.'

The benefits of collaboration were seen to be manifold. These became increasingly clear as the working group continued its explorations. They are:

Birmingham 6.9.04—reality begins to bite

This meeting was marked by two new features. First, we were joined by representatives from Oxford Brookes and from Lampeter, who were interested in finding out more about this venture; Lampeter subsequently became one of the three initial validating universities. Second, we had begun the process of consulting our universities' Registries and QA organs and committees, and most of the meeting was taken up in reflecting soberly on what they had said to us. The meeting itself was still comprised entirely of academics.

It is important to note that at this stage the model we were working on was that we should come up with a degree, whose specifications and regulations all participating universities would agree at a jointly held validation event. We were quite clear that each university would have to enroll and be responsible for its own students, and award them their degrees, but we thought it desirable for parity of student experience and for working relationships between staff to have a single degree validated by a multiplicity of universities.

At this meeting the following issues raised the spectre of serious differences between universities:

It was agreed that our development group needed to expand to include representatives from the Registries (or equivalent) of seriously interested institutions. On reflection, that we did the first half of the work with academics only meant we had later to do some retrenchment and some of us had to do some hard persuasive work. But this was outweighed by the benefit we had of dreaming dreams and of putting that crucial question about our academic and pedagogical philosophy at the heart of the development of the professional doctorate.

Meeting moving towards a consortium? (January 2005, Birmingham)

For the first time at this meeting we were joined by members of our universities responsible for administration and/or quality assurance procedures. In advance we produced a comprehensive paper outlining our proposals, and in particular addressing the sorts of QA issues necessary for validation of the degree, and the suggested model for collaboration.

The QAA Code for Practice for the Assurance of Academic Quality and Standards in Higher Education, section 1 Postgraduate Research Students (September 2004), with the 'Joint Statement' of the Research Councils/AHRB of skills training requirements for research students as its appendix 3, was the yardstick by which we commonly agreed to work. It should be noted that throughout our deliberations it was immensely helpful to have this common set of standards to which all our universities were committed to adhere. Likewise the Quality Assurance Qualifications Framework (November 2000) helped us to formulate our understanding of the nature of the research degree we wanted to offer, and also the aims we had for it and the outcomes we expected.

These shared values and protocols were helpful, both constructively in providing genuinely well thought-through and challenging content for our intended products and processes, and also pragmatically in providing shortcuts to commonly agreed procedures and standards which all our universities trusted.

At this stage in the development of the project we envisaged the collaborative consortium as having a 'Management and Progressions Board' which would:

One issue which constantly threatened the possibility of close collaboration was finance, and the complexities of delivering a programme through a consortium. The budget considerations for costing this programme involved the determination of:

All these required that either we had a simple pro rata system for reconciling costs, or that we worked on a quid pro quo basis. The latter would be simpler and could be reviewed after a set time to see whether it was working fairly.

It is clear from the preparatory paper in which we set all of this out that we were at this stage hoping for a common set of regulations, a commonly administered programme and a common validation.

Common set of regulations
This award will need a common set of regulations which guard its legal status and act as final arbiter in matters of dispute.These will need to be drawn up when all matters in this document are agreed and in such a way as is compatible with the current regulations for comparable degrees in the participating universities.
Validation
It is proposed that the most efficient way forward is to constitute a Panel to validate this degree comprising members of all the initial participating universities at the highest level. Each university would then clearly have to confirm this validation, but difficulties should have been already dealt with at the joint validation panel level.The Team proposing the new award would effectively be the practical Theology teachers involved in running it. There should be at least one if not two external subject experts on the Panel.

Responses to this paper revolved around practical issues of cost and delivery, and pushed us to be clearer about the nature of the collaboration we were seeking. Was this a common programme delivered in several places with common regulations, a common Board etc, or a more harmonized, confederal relationship between individual institutions? The possibility was briefly canvassed that BIAPT corporately should see itself as the customer for the programme, buying services from the different universities. The degree would then be owned by the academic community. Academics could be hired in to teach the courses. The major problem in principle to this solution was that it did not really help develop local research communities in the different universities. Colleagues were clear that this local base was essential.

From this point on, both in our communal and in our individual institutional discussions it became clear that a confederal/harmonization pattern would be better—simplifying administration and saving on administration costs, meeting the stringent QA concerns of our universities which centred on the issue of retaining control absolutely of all QAmatters, and still delivering what we wanted academically and pedagogically of the programme.

Harmonisation mean[t] having the same programme but validated separately in each institution.A common external assessor could be appointed.There could be cross-representation on each institutional board. Co-operative arrangements would be set up to support the programmes together in a steering group. Students would belong to the institution which they enrol at, but services would then be purchased from 'recognised lecturers' in confederate institutions, possibly with joint supervision from home institution.

It is interesting to note how even this degree of harmonisation was modified later in the process; the common external assessor is nowhere enshrined in any agreement, there is not cross representation on institutional boards, the 'steering' group has become a 'liaison' group, and it is now proposed that joint supervision is by the normal external supervisory arrangements of institutions. The real meat of collaboration is in the working relationships of the academic/ teaching staff and in the way the residential meetings allow the students to form a national cohort, but that is to anticipate a later stage of the story.

We agreed at this stage that a confederal/harmonisation model was the one we want to pursue and that validation would be within individual institutions guided by a steering group.

Moving towards validation (June and November 2005, Birmingham)

We reconvened with fresh paperwork. Three universities were moving towards validation for a 2006/7 start: Anglia Ruskin University, the University of Manchester, and the University of Wales, Lampeter, although the latter would delay intake for at least a year because of staff changes. Those who felt that they would not go forward at this stage did so for a variety of staffing and timing reasons, but most remained seriously interested in the possibility of joining at a later stage.

With much discussion still centering on the nature of the collaboration, a certain 'neurosis' was manifest over where control would lie. One representative asked to what extent 'fiddling with commonly agreed regulations' was legitimate; another suggested the consortium should be 'on a loose model to make our lives easier'. Although we had agreed to locate ourselves in relation to the QAA Code of Practice on Collaborative Provision it became clear that our circumstances did not fit this model of collaboration.

Our eventual model of collaboration is focused in the 'Liaison Group'. This is the group which started out as the 'Management and Progressions Board' and its progression from this, to 'Steering Group' to 'Advisory Group' then to the final 'Liaison Group' tells a story in its own right. It is all a question of who has control and, crucially, who is seen to have control. This is ultimately a question of finance, and of QA, insofar as QA is indeed separable from finance. This is not necessarily unfortunate. It has left the academics/teachers of the degree in a position to expend their collaborative energies on actual delivery of good quality training and supervision, joint staff development, serious consideration of the research and professional issues raised by this innovative programme, and dissemination through publications and other means. Collaboration at the grass roots level has not been hampered, as will be shown below.

The composition and terms of the Liaison Group are currently:

Composition
An academic member of each of the participating institutions, normally the academic programme leader. Also a person appointed by the Committee of the British and Irish Association of Practical Theology.
Terms of Reference
The Liaison Group has three key areas of work: to agree membership of the consortium, a liaison role in respect of the participating universities, and a management role in respect of activities jointly undertaken by the consortium.
In respect of the consortium it will:

In respect of liaison between participating universities:

the Liaison Group recognises the academic autonomy of the participating universities in the conduct of the various parallel programmes. However, it will endeavour to facilitate the exchange of information and good practice between the participating universities in order to enhance the quality of the student experience in each university. To this end it will:

In respect of the management of collaborative activities it will:

It can be seen that the sort of control envisaged in the Management and Progressions Board has disappeared; the feel is much more about liaison in good practice, and about management of communal aspects of delivery. Furthermore, the composition envisaged even at the 7.6.05 meeting which included QA administrators from every institution and a student representative, has been changed to reflect less power and more staff liaison.

A crucial addition, however, has been the BIAPT representative. This represents the intention that this professional doctorate should be situated in association with the major national professional body which covers the professions from which candidates are likely to come, and the academic communities which address practical theology. It is recognized that BIAPT does not have a monopoly of interest either in these professions or these academic communities, but it is widely representative and it is the constituency in which the idea was conceived and the programme born.

Furthermore, as we stated that the Liaison Group would have the key role in defining membership of the consortium we were concerned not to perpetuate a self-serving clique. Who would regulate the consortium? Who would recognise a course as legitimately belonging— whether in terms of the nature of the course or of the weight pulled by its academics in the delivery of communal aspects of the programme? The presence on the Liaison Group of a representative appointed by the BIAPT committee would bring an external perspective and some sense of accountability.

There were two further documents that we proposed at this stage would enshrine our collaboration. One was a Consortium Handbook. This has not yet been done but is a clear duty of the Liaison Group and is still very much intended. The other was a Memorandum of Agreement to be signed by each participating university—a 'service level agreement' to give the Liaison Group 'some teeth'. At the point at which this was suggested the projected group was an 'Advisory Group'. Interestingly this dropped off the agenda during the various validations, and this may well have been in line with the move to a 'Liaison Group'. Whether or not it will be revived remains to be seen. The actual outworking of the Liaison Group has not hitherto required it, but it remains a possible route to follow for the future.

Comment

As this narrative has proceeded history has merged into evaluative comment. The process of designing and implementing a cross-institutional professional doctorate inevitably involved a continual assessment of its feasibility, and the factors affecting this have emerged as the story has progressed. It remains to select, highlight and comment on a number of issues which can be identified as particularly significant in such a venture, and which should be taken into account by anyone looking at a similar project. As was stated earlier, many interesting and important issues surrounding the design of a professional doctorate in practical theology are treated elsewhere; this paper is concerned specifically with the issue of collaboration between universities on such a project.

A 'Virtual Faculty'?

Networking, personal relationships and a spirit of co-operation have characterized this project from the start. The project arose from a face to face conversation, in which common needs and concerns were voiced: concerns for our discipline, for students and practitioners, and for our own isolation as practical theologians in university contexts where theology is often marginalized and subsumed under wider umbrellas, and where practical theology can be the 'Cinderella' subject within the theological disciplines. Those whose work was more at the interface of professional practice shared these concerns. We had strong motivation to work together.

At first we had a vision which was akin to that of a 'virtual faculty'. Marketing, curriculum design, teaching/supervision resources, administration, and vision for this programme would all be held in common for the benefit of the discipline and of its associated professions. This vision we found, or thought we had found, was incompatible with the financial concerns and the QA concerns of our different universities. For a while it seemed that the vision of the academics was to be sabotaged by the concerns of the bureaucrats. But in retrospect that is too pessimistic a view. The bureaucratic underpinning has in practice enabled those of us who have validated the degree to work in beneficially collaborative ways. The question remains, and is a serious one, whether others who dropped out of the project, at least pro tem, did so for bureaucratic rather than academic reasons.

Fluidity, flexibility and partnerships

A closely allied characteristic of the project has been its fluidity and flexibility, its openness to new developments and associations. Within the aims of offering a fully doctoral degree entirely by research (as opposed to a taught doctorate or equivalent), and of enhancing the dis- cipline of practical theology, we have been open to whatever might help us in this. Thus, one partner who also offers a DMin proposes some synergy with this, and in this spirit we are open to collaborating, for example, in seminars with other DMin programmes, and also including in our seminars practical theology students doing PhDs by the traditional route. In another direction, the university of a different partner has already a strong commitment to PrD programmes, and here opportunities are taken to enhance staff development and good practice through interdisciplinary routes. A further partner is deeply involved in the developing Enquiry-based Learning programme within their university, to the benefit of the whole consortium.

We have started with three universities validating a PrD (Practical Theology) as members of the consortium. There are several others seriously interested in joining. The final form of the agreed collaboration was designed to make it relatively simple for new members to come on board, and includes:

We would be glad to hear from interested parties.

Parity of student experience

An issue of key importance is that students on this programme get comparable experiences. We did not achieve our original aims of running a single programme offered by a variety of universities, so what is left of parity? Taking a snapshot through a typical student's projected career on the programme it would look like this:

'An alternative philosophy of pedagogy'

At our very first meeting the challenge was thrown out that if we wanted to make this idea work we must offer 'a clear alternative philosophy of pedagogy appropriate to our discipline'. One of the benefits of this cross institutional project, which has involved considerably more people than strictly the representatives of the currently validating institutions, has been that we have had the opportunity to examine our discipline and the pedagogy appropriate to it. Practical theology has long claimed an association with disciplines such as sociology and psychology, as well as the traditional close allies of theology such as languages, history and philosophy. But this project has enabled us to connect with the professional disciplines, with healthcare, social work, education, business, built environment and so on. We have been able to learn from them, but also to challenge them, for example with our more fluid notions of practice and less 'effectiveness oriented' temper.4

Furthermore we have begun to explore the potential which practical theology has as a practice-oriented discipline5 for the work of the 'researching professional' as opposed to the 'professional researcher'.6 Various forms of postgraduate work (MAs and DMins) in practical theology have emphasised the reflective practice element inherent in the discipline. Our hope is that this further turn towards the researching professional will be a movement of importance for our discipline, and the fact that it has begun in this nationally collaborative way will increase its influence and significance. There are already signs of international interest.

HEA Subject Centre

Finally we would like to record our thanks to the HEA Subject Centre for Philosophical and Religious Studies for their interest and encouragement in this project. This has been through an initial grant to do the feasibility study, and also through the presence of a staff member at the first 'taster' summer school for the PrD in 2006. We hope what we have done will be of help and encouragement to practical theologians and also to anyone in any discipline who is thinking of working collaboratively across institutions.

Further information

For further information see:

http://www.theofed.cam.ac.uk/professionaldoctorate.html http://www.lamp.ac.uk/trs/Postgraduate/Degrees/dpt.html http://www.arts.manchester.ac.uk/subjectareas/religionstheology/ postgraduatestudy/practicaltheology/whatisthedpt/

Endnotes

  1. Throughout this article the terminology of 'Professional Doctorate' is used. It is within the family of professional doctorates that this programme finds its ethos. However, an alternative terminology, favoured by the University of Manchester, is DPT—Doctor of Practical Theology.
  2. See Elaine Graham 'The Professional Doctorate in Practical Theology: an Idea whose Time has Come?' International Journal of Practical Theology Vol. 10, Issue 2, March 2007 pp.298-311
  3. In 2001 Paul Ballard, Professor of Practical Theology from Cardiff University, conducted a survey of taught postgraduate courses in Practical Theology, published as Proliferation and Performance (HOLI 10 Religious and Theological Studies Cardiff:2001) in which he identified 58 MA /MTh courses in Practical Theology in the UK (18-21), all of which would feed a Professional Doctorate programme. Ballard discusses in detail the proliferation of such courses in relation to the growth of the discipline since the 1960s.
  4. See a paper given by Zoë Bennett and Elaine Graham at the HEA Conference Teaching Practical Theology in Higher Education, at Oxford Brookes University, March 1st-2nd 2007, to be published in JATE forthcoming.
  5. See for example John Swinton and Harriet Mowat Practical Theology and Qualitative Research (SCM: London 2006) pp.4-10
  6. See 4 above and further T. Bourner, R. Bowden and S. Laing ('Professional Doctorates: The Development of Researching Professionals', in T. Bourner, T. Katz and D. Watson, eds. New Directions in Professional Higher Education, (Buckingham: Open University Press 2000), pp. 214-225.

Return to vol. 6 no. 2 index page

 

This page was originally on the website of The Subject Centre for Philosophical and Religious Studies. It was transfered here following the closure of the Subject Centre at the end of 2011.

 

-
The British Association for the Study of Religions
The Religious Studies Project