Transcript Slide 1

International Doctorate in
Translation Studies: Principles of
effective interpersonal relations
and monitoring
Christina Schaeffner
28 August 2014
EST Workshop on ID-TS, Leuven
Doctoral research
Doctoral study has become more regulated (time, length of
thesis, monitoring, supervisory teams, …) due to changed
environment of Higher Education (benchmarking, reviews and
audits, league tables, universities as businesses, …)
Most universities have General regulations and Codes of
Practice in place which stipulate the rights and obligations of
supervisor(s) and students
organized training for doctoral students exists at many
universities
organized training for supervisors is still rare, some basic
induction is sometimes offered, and can be linked to criteria for
selection/appointment of supervisors
Examples of Regulations and Codes
University of Antwerp:
http://www.ua.ac.be/main.aspx?c=.ADSE&n=100693#r&p2
Heriot-Watt University, Edinburgh, UK
http://www1.hw.ac.uk/registry/resources/cop-pgr.pdf
University of Auckland, New Zealand
https://www.auckland.ac.nz/en/for/current-students/cs-current-pg/cs-currentpg-policies/cs-pg-doctoral-policies-guidelines/cs-pg-doc-phd-statute.html
https://www.auckland.ac.nz/en/for/current-students/cs-current-pg/cs-currentpg-policies/cs-pg-supervision-tools.html
Aston University, Birmingham, UK
http://www.aston.ac.uk/quality/a-z/general-regulations/
http://www.aston.ac.uk/registry/for-staff/a-to-z-of-registryservices/researchregulationsandprocedures/
Supervisor: general requirements
should have the appropriate skills and subject knowledge to
support, encourage and monitor research students effectively
Act as mentor and is the primary source of tuition, guidance,
advice, all help, and support to the research student
Help students realize their scholarly potential, encourage and
develop independent (critical) thinking and ways of working (no
spoon-feeding, no micro-management, no decision-making for
student, don’t be a control freak)
Responsibilities of supervisors
Provide satisfactory and accurate guidance and advice (input in
admission?), including introduction to environment/staff
Be responsible for monitoring the student’s progress
Maintain regular contact, including structured interactions (frequency?)
to discuss and agree progress (and to report it formally – Q2: meeting
record = useful research guide and a recourse if there are any
problems/disagreements)
Be accessible and provide timely, constructive and effective feedback
on the student’s work and progress
Have input into the assessment of student’s development needs and
advise students on their personal development planning
Provide effective pastoral support
Encourage and help the student to interact with others (conferences,
publications, funding, …)
….
The Vitae Researcher Development Framework
Individual supervisor’s understanding of the
process?
Supervisor – supervisee relationships
A working relationship which needs to conform to basic
principles of academic integrity and professionalism
Be open to new approaches to the subject and new views of
methods. “There is nothing worse than the supervisor who
wants acolytes rather than free-thinking and creative students.”
(Gill 2008) – independent being, not clones!
Healthy and successful relationship should be based on: (1)
dignity, respect and courtesy, (2) no harassment, (3)
accessibility, (4) privacy and (5) honesty.
Styles of supervision
Relationship behaviour: businesslike or personal
Task behaviour: commitment (more/less) and product or process
orientation
A. Wadee, M. Keane, T. Dietz, D. Hay: Effective PhD Supervision;
Chapter 5: The Relationship between PhD candidate and
supervisor
Based on research in South Africa and the Netherlands
http://rozenbergquarterly.com/effective-phd-supervision-chapter-5the-relationship-between-phd-candidate-and-supervisor/
Businesslike behaviour
a type of relationship where first and foremost
supervisor and PhD candidate focus on their work:
the research to be done, the research design, the
progress of analysis, writing and publication
strategies. Personal elements are less important,
and in extreme cases, regarded as completely
irrelevant or taboo for discussion.
Personal behaviour
the focus is on personal matters, and in extreme
cases work is hardly ever mentioned. The supervisor
knows, or tries to know everything about the
personal circumstances and characteristics of the
PhD candidate, and in meetings personal affairs and
emotions get a lot of attention. Often there is or
develops a relationship of personal or family
friendship, sometimes progressing further than that.
Task behaviour
can be of two kinds: a product orientation or a process
orientation.
In extreme cases of a product orientation, all meetings are
always about the results, with a tendency to focus on concept
publications or chapters. Supervisors generally have schedules
of meetings about the discussion of written chapters, and they
tend to stick to deadlines.
In extreme cases of a process orientation, meetings are never
about results, but always about the process to get to results.
Supervisors see their role mainly as process managers,
stimulating candidates to grow.
Typology of relationships
RELATIONSHIP
ORIENTATION
Businesslike
Personal
TASK
ORIENTATION
No / little
Yes / process
Yes / product
Delegation
Expert guide
Director
Innovator
Coordinator
Monitor
broker
Quality
controller
Friend
Coach
Editor
Delegation: ‘leave me alone’
Low intensity and businesslike
These supervisors are often deans or leaders of large-scale
research programmes. They successfully acquire PhD projects
and often are approached to do so because of their prestige in
funding circles. However, they do not really have time to be
fully engaged in the actual task of supervision and often this is
‘part of the deal’ ; ‘delegators’ often tend to ‘manage a
research empire’ in which the real work of supervising PhD
candidates is left to others to whom the ‘real supervision’ is
entrusted.
Friend: ‘be my buddy’
Low intensity but personal
These supervisors never talk about the contents of the
research work or it is very rare that they do. Often they know
the PhD candidate as a former student with whom a friendly
relationship developed or as a family friend or colleague.
Meetings are often at home or in pleasant places outside work.
Beyond an occasional question, ‘How are things going,’ there
is little contact about progress or products. But there may be
very regular contact about all types of other items.
Expert guide: ‘tell me what to do’
higher intensity, businesslike and process-oriented
keep a distance from candidate as far as personal elements are
concerned. They see their major role as stimulating a process of
research and guide their candidates to grow as scientists. Sub-roles:
a) the director: puts a lot of emphasis on directing the candidate in
certain theoretical and methodological directions, will very much
stimulate candidates to consult relevant journals and engage in
discussions with experts in the field;
b) the innovator: stimulates pioneering thinking, has a vision of social
and scientific change, along with an ability to stimulate creative ideas;
c) the coordinator always puts an emphasis on work schedules, on
adhering to deadlines and on process planning;
d) the monitor always measures progress against work schedules;
e) the broker will ensure that other parties deliver funds and
assistance to the candidate and the research project;.
Coach: ‘steer my ambition’; ‘groom me into
academics’
higher intensity, more personal and process-oriented
These supervisors are also very much involved in the growth of
a candidate, but not so much as related to their PhD job as
such, but to the growth of their personality. They will put a lot of
emphasis on styles of performance in public, scientific fora.
They try to understand the personality of the candidate and are
aware of their personal circumstances. Whenever there are
problems at home or with the (psychological) health of the
candidate, the coach will try to be part of finding solutions. The
coach is also interested in stimulating the scientific career of
candidates beyond their PhD
Quality controller: ‘keep me sharp’
higher intensity, businesslike and product-oriented
These supervisors put a lot of emphasis on the written products
of their candidates and continuously judge those products on
aspects of scientific quality. They only want to meet and
discuss after agreed submission of a concept chapter or
publication. Their comments are often of a judgemental kind,
without detailed and supportive suggestions for improvements.
They are often extremely cross if candidates do not work
according to the agreed schedule.
Editor: ‘help me write’
higher intensity, more personal, product-oriented
This is the type of supervisor who is very product-oriented as
well, but who will put substantial amounts of time and energy
into correcting mistakes. There is much emphasis on language,
both on concepts and on ways of expression, on spelling and
on communication in general (‘how to reach your audience’).
Candidates always get their work back covered in red marks or
full of track changes. Some supervisors would, often after two
or three failed attempts to improve the style of reasoning or
writing, take over and suggest sentences, paragraphs or even
major parts of the thesis.
Which type are you?
1 position your own relationship with your former
supervisor
2 position your own relationship with your prior or
current PhD students
Types of doctoral students
Also depending on cultural (and language) background, age,
position, previous experience
Independent student
Student preferring a personal relationship
Businesslike student
Personal-interest, interactive student
Chemistry between student and supervisor: incompatibility may
happen, things can go wrong (change of supervisor)
Relationship can also be influenced by departmental culture
(institutionalised mentoring and/or coaching systems involving
various people)
Dynamics in styles of supervision
Codes
1 = initiation of a new project
2 = research design
3 = research proposal
4 = fieldwork
5 = data analysis
6 = write up
7 = final fieldwork
8 = editing
9 = acceptance
10 = defence
11 = follow-up
12 = separation
Expectation and role management
Supervisor and student have particular expectations of each
other, often different expectations, needs, and ways of thinking
and working.
Expectations concerning:
Frequency and duration of meetings
Preparations for meetings
Tasks (what to do when)
Feedback from supervisor (detailed revision?)
Initial meeting to discuss expectations and roles - Sign a
learning or supervision agreement (which can be amended in
course of regular monitoring of progress)
Example of learning agreement templates
Heriot-Watt University
http://www1.hw.ac.uk/registry/resources/cop-pgr.pdf
Aston University, Accessible from
http://search.aston.ac.uk/search?q=Graduate+school+learning
+agreement&btnG=Search&entqr=0&output=xml_no_dtd&sort
=date%3AD%3AL%3Ad1&ud=1&client=default_frontend&oe=
UTF-8&ie=UTF-8&proxystylesheet=default_frontend
Documents includes also templates for training needs analysis
and meeting record
University of Antwerp – template for meeting record
http://www.ua.ac.be/main.aspx?c=.ADSE&n=100705
How do you know supervision is effective?
Supervision is a complex process. Sometimes we (= supervisor
and student equally) can feel overwhelmed, out of our depth,
irritated, beset by problems, angry, or frustrated by the
student/supervisor we are working with.
Is their (satisfactory) progress in production of thesis?
How does student react to your (written/oral) comments?
Do you notice any change in student’s behaviour/physical
appearance?
Do you notice any change in student’s attitude towards you?
Have associate supervisor, colleagues (postgraduate director),
other students, made any comments about the student to you?
Conflict / Complaints / Problems
Main supervisor and associate supervisor (different areas of
expertise, confusion as a result of different opinions or
contradictory advice – is it clash of personality or academic
disagreement which causes friction?)
(Associate) Supervisor is from outside the university – different
environments and expectations?
Power relationship (e.g. associate supervisor has a higher
status than main supervisor – does this affect the student’s
attitude to advice received? Does it affect cooperation between
the two supervisors?)
Cont.
Supervisor and university/departmental ‘bureaucracy’ (does
supervisor know all requirements and procedures to give
student accurate information?)
Supervisor and supervisee: student may experience lack of
motivation, lack of self-confidence, poor time management,
lack of focus, fear of failure – encouragement and support
Supervisor’s lack of time: Tell student when you will get back
to them and how (email, phone, meeting…)
Detail of feedback and correction??? - Find right balance (also
depending on stage of process; do we need to differentiate
between home students and international students?)
Help: self-help or get advice from others
Self-reflection: Give yourself some quiet time and
space to think about what is happening and write it
down
Talk the situation over (confidentially!) with spouse,
friend, departmental advisor, dean, university
counsellor, university chaplain etc (see university
policy documents)
(useful documents at University of Auckland, accessible from
https://www.auckland.ac.nz/en/for/current-students/cs-current-pg/cscurrent-pg-policies/cs-pg-supervision-tools.html)
Self-reflection: write down
what is happening?
How am I interpreting this?
What am I feeling?
Who else is involved? What might he/she be feeling or thinking
about the situation?
Is anything else going on that might be contributing?
On a scale of 1-10, how much impact is this having on me and
my ability to function normally?
Are there any patterns here (has this happened before)?
Aim: exploration of the situation, clarify things for yourself
Deciding on a strategy
Once you have a clear idea of how you perceive the problem,
the next step is to consider what you might want to do about it.
Possible:
1. Decide to do nothing at the moment, but to monitor yourself in
terms of how you are feeling. The problem may resolve itself –
or increase in intensity.
2. Decide to raise the matter with the other person involved and
to have a discussion with them.
3. Decide to seek help about what you would like to do next.
Acting on your decision (option 2)
Prepare for a discussion, rather than a confrontation.
Recognise your preferred outcome before planning how you
might best achieve it. Consider what you primarily want to
change or know. For example:
Do you want to inform the other person of your experience of
the situation and ask them to do, or stop doing, something?
Do you want to ask questions of them and/or check something
out?
Do you want to ‘step up’ to another level and state what the
consequences might be if things don’t change?
Address problems in a meeting
Begin by asking the other person if this is a good time to have
a discussion. Indicate amount of time you think the
conversation might take and its importance to you.
If the other person can’t give the time when you ask for it, ask
for an alternative time to meet with them.
Once the other person is engaging with you in the discussion,
put a context around what you want to say and give a clear
statement about why you want to have the discussion. For
example: “I have been feeling uncomfortable about an issue
recently and since it involves you, and I would like us to work
together better (= showing a positive intent for the outcome),
I’d like to talk about it with you.”
Cont.
Accurately describe the problem that you are
experiencing, e.g. “In the last two months I have
tried to see you four times to talk about x and on
each occasion you cancelled the meetings at very
short notice. I’m feeling really anxious about x and
frustrated by the cancellations. I’d appreciate it if we
could have regular meetings which were a real
priority so that I would be more confident about
meeting the deadlines we agreed.”
Cont.
Ask the other person to comment, e.g. “I’m wondering if there
is a problem for you about the meetings.”
Listen to what they have to say in return. Try not to interrupt or
act defensively.
If the other person seems willing to engage in the discussion
but is unsure of why this may be important, it can be helpful to
restate the outcome and your emotional response.
It can then be helpful to state what benefits there might be for
the other person, e.g. “this would mean that you would be able
to …”
Cont.
If the other person has raised issues about a problem from
their perspective that has contributed to your problem, then try
restating the problem from their perspective and asking them
what they might like you to do differently. Be student-centred,
ask e.g.: “What am I doing as a supervisor that is especially
helpful to you? What do you think I could do to be of further
assistance?”
If you agree to do things differently and the outcome of the
discussion is successful, follow this up with an email, thanking
them for their time and recording your understanding of what
was agreed and how things will be different in the future.
Evaluate the change at some future time and arrange another
meeting to check that things are now okay.
Changing dynamics
The relationship will evolve over time
Year 1: supervisor knows more about the project
and its context than the student and should guide
student in first steps;
Year 2: supervisor and supervisee will be on par,
exchanging ideas and debating results;
Year 3: student will be the expert, knowing more
about his/her own research than the supervisor.
Harmony and success
Just you, me and the PhD
Times Higher Education, 12 January 2007
Student-supervisor relationships are intense and don't always
run smoothly, say Sarah Li and Clive Seale
http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/features/just-you-me-and-thephd/207460.article
Harmony and success in ten steps
IMPROVING SUPERVISOR-STUDENT RELATIONSHIPS
For the supervisor
1. Temper criticism with praise and criticise the
work, not the person
2. Give advice and suggest solutions to problems,
but expect students to sometimes dismiss these and
find their own way forward
3. Be available when your student needs help (and
attend the viva if your university allows this).
For the student
4. Try not to take criticisms personally. Instead, use
it as an opportunity to improve
5. Take responsibility for making supervisions work
well. Supervisors have failings and sometimes need
help
6. Take responsibility for the PhD. Your supervisor is
only one source of advice and information.
For both
7. Try to get a shared agreement about the nature of the
problems and solutions related to the PhD (easier said than
done)
8. Keep in touch, even when times are difficult. If it is too hard
to talk about the work itself, find something else to discuss (for
example, some interesting reading you have done recently)
9. Show politeness, mutual respect and sensitivity so that you
can detect sources of embarrassment and misunderstanding
(these may be evident in hesitations, silences or pauses in
supervisions)
10. Keep a record of what happens and what is agreed.
Some References
Vitae: Concordat to Support the Career Development of Researchers
https://www.vitae.ac.uk/policy/concordat-to-support-the-career-development-of-researchers
Supervising and managing researchers
https://www.vitae.ac.uk/spotlight/supervising-and-managing-researchers-1/supervising-andmanaging-researchers
https://www.vitae.ac.uk/researchers-professional-development/about-the-vitae-researcherdevelopment-framework/developing-the-vitae-researcher-development-framework
Supervision and key relationships
https://www.vitae.ac.uk/doing-research/doing-a-doctorate/starting-a-doctorate/supervision-andkey-relationships
Phillips, E. M. and Pugh, D. S. (2005): The student–supervisor relationship
http://www.epigeum.com/downloads/uct_accessible/uk/05_supervising/html/course_files/2_20.ht
ml
A. Wadee, M. Keane, T. Dietz, D. Hay: Effective PhD Supervision; Chapter 5:
http://rozenbergquarterly.com/effective-phd-supervision-chapter-5-the-relationship-between-phdcandidate-and-supervisor/