Transcript Quis custodiet: who helps the research supervisors?

Quis custodiet: who helps the
research supervisors?
April 2008
Anne Lee
University of Surrey
[email protected]
• 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 used
LITERATURE 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,
INTERVIEWS
• Interviews with PhD
supervisors across a
range of disciplines
• Interviews and focus
groups with students
Wisker 2005)
• Enculturalisation (Leonard 2001,
Pearson & Brew 2002, Lave & Wenger 1991)
• Mentoring (Pearson & Kayrooz 2004,
Brew 2001)
• Feminist approach (Leonard 2001)
SURVEYS
55 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’.
,
Occupational influences
METHODS OF
SUPERVISION
department norms,
co-supervision,
team supervision,
group supervision
STUDENT
previous experience,
contacts, knowledge
aptitude, skills,
financial aims
SUPERVISOR’S
CONCEPTIONS
contacts, own PhD
experience
TOPIC
occupational
fertility
UNIVERSITY
PROCEDURES
recruitment,
upgrading,
networking
financial support
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]
Personally
experienced, risky,
exciting, transforming
Useful when
applied
Hidden, Tacit
Measured
differently in arts
and sciences
Constrained
by procedures
Controversial,
contested,
provisional,
Creative
Different
in different
contexts,
eg: cultural
Emerging,
moving, growing
unbounded
Can be
absolute,
verfiable
Constructed
through
dialogue
CHARACTERISTICS OF SUBJECTS
HARD
SOFT
Similar paradigm for content and
research methods. More co-authors,
more influences on research. Subjects
more physical. Reality is more objective.
Similar 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
APPLIED
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
More time
spent on
service activities
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?
References
Barnett R (1997) Higher Education: A Critical Business. Buckingham. SHRE/OU
Brew 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 Hill
Delamont S, Atkinson P & Parry O (2000) The Doctoral Experience. Success and Failure in
Graduate School. London. Falmer Press
Eley A, Jennings R (2005) Effective Postgraduate Supervision. Maidenhead. OU Press McGrawHill Education
Kamler, 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 Press
Pearson M and Brew A (2002) Research Training and Supervision Development. Studies in Higher
Education Vol 27 No 2 2002
Pearson M and Kayrooz C. (2004) Enabling Critical Reflection on Research Supervisory Practice.
International Journal for Academic Development 9.(1) pp 99-116 Routledge
Taylor S and Beasley N (2005) A handbook for Doctoral Supervisors. Abingdon. Routledge
Wisker G (2005) The Good Supervisor. Basingstoke. Macmillan