PDP is a continuous cycle of critical reflection (self evaluation), planning (setting goals), doing (undertaking a course of action), reviewing
(monitoring progress) and recording (achievements). Based on the learning cycle developed by Kolb (1984), the fundamental purpose for engaging in this cycle is to derive some benefit for self improvement. However, ways in which this cycle is incorporated into the academic setting, the modes of delivery and the infrastructure designed to support it varied from institution to institution.
In developing an infrastructure to support PDP for the GMP PDP group, I started with looking at how the underpinning support worked in the UK PDP models, and then compared that to what resources we had (that were built into the GMP project), what we did not have, and what we could likely build in. For this, the work of Atlay (2006) into the modes of delivery and types of support within various PDP models was very informative. Atlay
124
discrete, linked, embedded, integrated and the extended; and within each of these models are related types and levels of provision for PDP support. Although the work of Atlay focused on integrating PDP into the
curriculum of a Higher Education Institution (HEI) in the UK, and therefore was not directly relevant to the needs of the GMP PDP group, whose PDP programme sat outside of an HEI it nevertheless was still useful in that it not only provided me with an insight into how the PDP system might operate with the GMP PDP Group and what level and types of support might be needed, but also how the existing built-in support mechanisms in the GMP PDP project could be best utilised. In looking at which of Atlay‟s models might best serve the purpose of the group, it became apparent that none of the models fitted exactly, but all had good elements to them which could be used with some minor modifications. For the GMP PDP Group, we did not have a curriculum or modules that we could link or embed our PDP programme into, so the most obvious choice of model for the group would be the first one that Atlay (2006) describes – the “Discrete Model” that sits outside of the curriculum. However, the level of support and commitment within this model did not fit with how PDP for the GMP PDP Group was envisaged – which was a structured and highly supported PDP that would help the group enhance and progress their career development. But with some modifications to these elements, it could serve a purpose. As part of the project, the programme had me as a PDP advisor / researcher who would be available
125
to provide individual support to the members of the group, so the group could be provided with more than just minimal support. In terms of commitment, this “discrete model” suggests that the PDP activities are optional and that students are encouraged to undertake them. With this group of individuals, the fact that they had asked for help with their career development (at the workshop on their support day in Yaoundé), suggested a strong personal commitment to PDP. Moreover the PDP activities that the GMP PDP Group would be undertaking would be their own identified, non-mandatory activities, so it would be hoped that the optional aspect of the model would be more a case of the group members opting in rather than opting out of undertaking any of their own individually planned PDP activities.
The “Linked Model” where PDP is parallel with the curriculum, has an explicit and supported relationship between the two; and that PDP activities are linked to the student‟s portfolio or progress file, was of interest to me. The GMP PDP system intended to get the individual to link their PDP activities and achievements to their CV development, rather than to use portfolios or progress files
One of the challenges that presented itself with this model was the requirement for support elements such as, induction programmes, compulsory personal tutor sessions and optional or compulsory skills weeks. Given the geographical location of the group and the
126
would be difficult to support them with their PDP using a face-to-face induction programme or skills weeks.
The GMP built-in support mechanisms
The common theme that emerged from these models and their associated support systems was that HEIs should provide a structured and supportive infrastructure, with resources and training courses to support PDP. With the GMP PDP Group, all of them were registered jointly with institutions in the UK and Denmark and their home institutions – which ranged from universities, research institutions and development organisations, such as the United Nations (UN), African Medical and Research Foundation (AMREF). While the group had access to a supportive environment, either from their northern partner institutions and/or their home
institutions, the amount and level of this support varied. But the built-in support system that was provided through the GMP project went some way to addressing this inequity.
Supervisory support
The project had a built-in support system to help the GMP PDP Group through their doctoral and postdoctoral research studies and projects. Each had the support of two supervisors, one from their northern partner
institution and one from their affiliated home institution. Their northern partner supervisor was also someone who not only had a shared research interest but also (in some cases) links and collaborations with their home
127
institutions, and would visit the researcher and their research sites and projects in their home country.
PDP advisor
GMP also provided the expertise of a PDP advisor to help support the group with planning, developing, implementing, reviewing and evaluating their PDP. This was an important and much needed support (as the research later shows) as PDP was a concept new to the majority of the GMP PDP Group. Quinton and Smallbone (2008) make reference to the importance of the “people aspect of PDP implementation” which they see as “far more significant” than the technological aspects. The people they refer to are the champions and the enthusiasts, and also the personal tutors, who both Stevenson (2006) and Strivens (2006) highlight as playing an important role in the PDP process. The work of the latter authors also helped with shaping the role and responsibilities of the GMP PDP advisor.
Included in the role of the PDP advisor was an annual PDP monitoring and support visit to each of the researchers in their home institutions. These visits also provided me (the PDP advisor) with an opportunity to meet with the directors and colleagues at their home institution, and to visit their research project sites. It also gave me the opportunity (in my role as researcher) to collect data – in the form of field notes and from the semi- structured interviews.
128 Financial support
Each PDP group member was also provided with a small budget to help purchase the resources needed to achieve their PDP objectives. The idea was that the budget, as far as possible, would be used to purchase resources locally, nationally or regionally, as opposed to internationally. The
rationale for this was that it would help the researcher to build up African networks (for example through meeting experts and peers on training courses); and also finding resources closer to home would cut down on travel and accommodation costs, and therefore help their budget go further.
Annual “PhD days”
Annual support days (called “PhD days”) were two or three additional days attached to an international conference. The rationale for these days was to bring the group together in a forum to exchange experiences, practices, lessons learned, and to discuss and get some advice on their research from senior researchers, supervisors and peers within the GMP network. The days also served a PDP purpose, in that they not only provided an opportunity for a face-to-face PDP support but also helped with promoting endorsement from the senior staff; which Quinton and Smallbone (2008) see as helping to facilitate successful engagement with PDP. The days were planned prior to the conference and composed of a series of
presentations from the doctoral, postdoctoral and senior researchers; and also provided the opportunity to take into account any other business, such as officially launching the PDP programme. The timing of these days
129
(prior to the conference) and the content, which gave the researchers the opportunity to spend the time more closely engaged with their research, appeared to help the early career researchers go on to the conference with increased confidence.
SETTING UP AN ELECTRONIC DISCUSSION FORUM FOR PEER