Quis custodiet: who helps the research supervisors?
April 2008
Anne LeeUniversity of Surrey
• Is there a framework that can help to expand the range of approaches that a supervisor can use?
• Do different disciplines supervise differently?
• What are the implications for supervisor development?
Data usedLITERATURE SEARCH
• Functional approach (Wisker 2005, Eley and Jennings 2005 Taylor and Beasley 2005)
• Qualities approach (Wisker 2003a, Zuber Skerrit & Roche 2004)
• Critical thinking (Barnett 1997, Wisker 2005)
• Enculturalisation (Leonard 2001, Pearson & Brew 2002, Lave & Wenger 1991)
• Mentoring (Pearson & Kayrooz 2004, Brew 2001)
• Feminist approach (Leonard 2001)
INTERVIEWS• Interviews with PhD
supervisors across a range of disciplines
• Interviews and focus groups with students
SURVEYS55 supervisors in UK and
Sweden
INTERACTIVE POSTER SESSION
A framework for concepts of research supervision
Functional Enculturation Critical Thinking
Emancipation Relationship Development
Supervisors Activity
Rational progression through tasks
Gatekeeping Evaluation Challenge
Mentoring, supporting constructivism
Supervising by experience, developing a relationship
Supervisor’s knowledge & skills
Directing, project management
Diagnosis of deficiencies, coaching
Argument, analysis
Facilitation,
Reflection
Emotional intelligence
Possible student reaction
Organised
Obedience
Role modelling
Constant inquiry, fight or flight
Personal growth, reframing
Emotional intelligence
Functional approach
• “I have a weekly timetabled formal slot for them and follow-up if they do not turn up”
• “3 months: literature search
6 months: focus fixed,
12 months transfer report completed…”• “In the 2nd year we see them monthly and they
produce 5000 words before each meeting”• Regular pair or small group meetings with
supervisor to present findings
Enculturation • I would feel I had failed if they did not stay in the
field• My students all know their academic grandfather• I give my book to all my students• Students need to know what ‘good enough’
looks like• You need frequent meetings for international
students• The international student especially can
implement all your corrections and think that is good enough.
• Some cultures expect you to tell them what to do
Critical thinking• “I avoid dependency by getting them to think
about some problems and giving them resources”
• “I want them to stand on their own feet and challenge the thinking”
• “My tutor was not confrontational, she encouraged me to be critical of my own ideas”
• “They need to explain to me why, what and how”• “I ask them to email me a question about their
project every week”• “I use ‘magic’ words to help them identify the
thread in their argument eg arguably, conversely, unanimously, essentially, early on, inevitably etc”
Emancipation
• “Your job as a supervisor is to get them knowing more than you”
• “I try to get the students to take the initiative”• “My supervisor encouraged me to read widely,
think critically, find examples in newspapers”• “I try to get them to admit and confront their
problems”• “You get a lot of satisfaction, you have facilitated
that growth in them”
Developing a relationship
• Enthuse: You need to fire the imagination, it is different for different students
• Altruism: My supervisor helped me with my writing but never pressed me to publish.
• Encourage: Need to inspire and encourage them to be brave in what they are thinking
• Recognise achievement: I wanted to call my supervisor the moment I solved the tough maths
• Pastoral support: this was as important as intellectual support to get me through
Problems students face: the supervisor’s view
• Dependency
• Not admitting to problems
• Poor progress. Not understanding required standard of work. Insufficient initiative
• Supervisor not interested in topic
• Conceptual difficulties
• Differences between supervisors
Problems: student view
• Loneliness• Not enjoying the topic• Not knowing what is expected• Practical issues: money, lifestyle, getting hold of
the supervisor• Ethical issues: are we being used?• Stress (especially at transfer and viva)• Supervisor being too prescriptive ‘my way is the
only way’.
,
TOPICoccupational
fertility
UNIVERSITY PROCEDURES
recruitment, upgrading, networking
financial support
SUPERVISOR’S CONCEPTIONScontacts, own PhD
experience
METHODS OF SUPERVISIONdepartment norms,
co-supervision, team supervision, group supervision
Occupational influences
STUDENTprevious experience, contacts, knowledge
aptitude, skills, financial aims
SAMPLE WORKSHOP ACTIVITY
• Describe a problem you have encountered as a supervisor
• Where was/were the supervisor(s) in the framework?
• What might the student’s expectations have been?
Analysis of dependence to independence
Functional Enculturation Critical thinking
Emancipation Relationship Development
Dependence Student needs explanation of stages to be followed and direction through them
Student needs to be shown what to do
Student learns the questions to ask, the frameworks to apply
Student seeks affirmation of self-worth
Student seeks approval
Independence Student can programme own work, follow own timetables competently
Student can follow discipline’s epistemological demands independently
Student can critique own work
Student autonomous. Can decide how to be, where to go, what to do, where to find information
Student demonstrates appropriate reciprocity and has power to withdraw
HOW DOES KNOWLEDGE APPEAR IN YOUR SUBJECT?
Results of interviews with doctoral supervisors and students: Anne Lee [email protected]
experienced, risky, exciting, transforming Useful when
applied
Constrainedby procedures
Controversial,contested, provisional,
Emerging,moving, growing
unbounded Constructed
through dialogue
Can be absolute, verfiable
Differentin different contexts,
eg: cultural
Creative
Measured differently in arts
and sciences
Hidden, Tacit
CHARACTERISTICS OF SUBJECTS
HARDSimilar paradigm for content and
research methods. More co-authors, more influences on research. Subjects
more physical. Reality is more objective.
SOFTSimilar paradigm for content and research methods. Research more independent.
Subjects more relative/relational. Reality is more subjective
PURE Biochemistry, Botany,
Chemistry, Maths, Microbiology
Physics, Physiology
Dance, English, Languages, Linguistics, Political science, Philosophy, Psychology, Sociology, Theology, Translation, Music
APPLIEDMore time
spent on
service activities
Econometrics, Engineering (inc Chemical, Civil, Structural, Electronic, Materials etc)
Computer science,
Environmental science,
Food and nutrition,
Medicine
Space technology
Business Studies,
Accounting, Finance,
Economics, Education,
Educational development
Law,
Management (inc Tourism, Retail, & Hospitality)
Nursing and Health Care
Disciplinary differences?
• Evidence mixed. All disciplinary groups showed interest in all approaches to supervison.
• From survey data: Hard-pure subjects might respond more readily to critical thinking, enculturation and quality of relationships.
• Enculturation is a word which needs clear explanation
Implications for supervisor development
• Workshops, mentoring, action research, modules…..?
• Accredited or non-accredited?• Discipline based or generic?• Involving doctoral students, co-supervisors,
supervisory teams, industrial supervisors?• University or area based?• Affect of national imperatives?• Timing and funding?• Evaluation?
ReferencesBarnett R (1997) Higher Education: A Critical Business. Buckingham. SHRE/OUBrew A (2001) Conceptions of Research: a phenomenographic study. Studies in Higher Education.
Taylor and Francis Oct 2001, 26 (3), 271-285, Cryer P (2006) 3rd Ed The Research Student’s Guide to Success Maidenhead. McGraw HillDelamont S, Atkinson P & Parry O (2000) The Doctoral Experience. Success and Failure in
Graduate School. London. Falmer PressEley A, Jennings R (2005) Effective Postgraduate Supervision. Maidenhead. OU Press McGraw-
Hill EducationKamler, B. & Thomson, P. (2006). Helping Doctoral Students Write: Pedagogies for Supervision.
Abingdon: Routledge.Lave & Wenger E (1991) Situated Learning: legitimate peripheral participation (Cambridge,
Cambridge University Press.Lee, A. (2007). Developing Effective Supervisors’ Concepts of Research Supervision. South African
Journal of Higher Education, 21(4) Lee, A (2008) How are doctoral students supervised? Concepts of research supervision. Studies
in Higher Education (accepted for publication) 33(4)Lee A & Murray R A framework for developing doctoral supervisors: Focussing on writing (currently
being reviewed for publication)Leonard D (2001) A Woman’s Guide to Doctoral Studies. Buckingham. OU PressPearson M and Brew A (2002) Research Training and Supervision Development. Studies in Higher
Education Vol 27 No 2 2002Pearson M and Kayrooz C. (2004) Enabling Critical Reflection on Research Supervisory Practice.
International Journal for Academic Development 9.(1) pp 99-116 RoutledgeTaylor S and Beasley N (2005) A handbook for Doctoral Supervisors. Abingdon. RoutledgeWisker G (2005) The Good Supervisor. Basingstoke. Macmillan