defining doctoral supervisors’ quality profile similarities and differences between students and...

DEFINING DOCTORAL SUPERVISORS’ QUALITY

PROFILE

Similarities and differences between students and supervisors’

perspectives

Ana Baptista [email protected]

Queen Mary University of London

Outline

• Setting the scene

• Pertinence of defining doctoral supervisors’ quality profile

• Defining some concepts: Quality and Competences

• Overview of the study

• Results

• Final considerations & questions

Setting the scene (i)

Pertinence of defining doctoral supervisors’ quality profile

• Changes in the research environment at Higher Education (HE) institutions, in the conceptions of research and academic work (Bissett, 2009; Brew, 2001, 2007; Enders, 2005)

• The existence of different kinds of doctorates (Park, 2005, 2007)

• The emphasis on inter and trans-disciplinary research, and cross-fertilization between disciplines

• The increasing number of doctoral students worldwide

• The increased heterogeneity of doctoral students with more diversified experiences, motivations, characteristics (Harman, 2003; Henard & Leprince-Ringuet, 2008; Taylor, 2009)

• The existence of a higher number of doctoral students per supervisors• Increasing number of doctoral students (sometimes without the expected

competences for pursuing a doctorate) & the same number of current doctoral supervisors (increased workload)

• Insufficient engagement of both students and supervisors

• Additional potential problems: time to complete and completion rates

Setting the scene (ii)


• A growth in the demand of ‘quality standards’ at this level of studies• Increased focus on the evaluation of the experiences of doctoral students (both

regarding training and research) (Bennet & Turner, 2012; Hodson & Buckley, 2011; Park, 2008)

• The increased ‘duality’ of considering the doctorate as training for future careers within and outside Academia

• The conceptualisation of ‘Codes of Practice’ regarding doctoral supervision

• Increased focus on the development of training programmes directed to doctoral supervisors (Brew & Peseta, 2004; Pearson & Kayrooz, 2004; Reid & Marshall, 2009; European University Association - particularly the Council for Doctoral Education)

• Intensification of worldwide discussions and reflections on supervisory experiences and problems, and identification of doctoral students and supervisors’ competences (Bartlett & Mercer, 2001; Bills, 2004; Cullen et al., 1994; Felton, 2008; Petersen, 2007; Soothill, 2006; and so many others)

Setting the scene (iii)


• The supervisory and research process requires a transformation: the student will be transformed • The importance of self-regulated and reflective attitudes of doctoral students and

supervisors; the focus on the symmetry of students and supervisors’ roles (Styles & Radloff, 2001)

• Thesis, supervisor and student are active ‘agents’ which intersect each other. In particular, the relationship between the student and the supervisor may be considered a mixture of personal, social, institutional, rational, irrational aspects (Grant, 2003)

• The supervisory process and the supervisor allied to knowledge are the ‘means’ to an end – transform the student into a knowledge worker (Zhao, 2003)

• Focus on the role of the supervisor, although it is emphasised the dynamic process of the supervisory process (Gatfield, 2005; Gurr, 2001; Lee, 2008, 2010, 2012; Mainhard et al., 2009; Vilkinas, 2008)

Recognition that the relationship between doctoral student and supervisor (the quality of the interaction) is the most important aspect that determines the quality of the overall doctoral

research experience BUT lack of systematic definitions of the quality of those profiles

Setting the scene (iv)

Defining some concepts: Quality

• Multidimensional, complex, and multifaceted concept (Barnett, 1994; Cheng & Tam, 1997; Frazer, 1994; Green, 1994; Houston, 2008; Mizikaci, 2006)

• Some definitions

Quality as:• exceptional, perfection or consistency, fitness for purpose, value for money,

transformation (Harvey & Green, 1993)

• excellence, value, fitness for use, conformance to specifications, conformance to requirement, defect avoidance”, meeting and/or exceeding customers’ expectations (Cheng & Tam, 1997)

• excellence, zero errors, fitness for purpose, transformation, threshold, value for money, enhancement or improvement (Mizikaci, 2006)

In fact, there is not one correct definition: it is important to understand how each stakeholder defines and uses the concept (Harvey & Green, 1993)

Setting the scene (v)

Defining some concepts: Quality

• Quality as transformation: cognitive transformation of the individuals involved in different processes (which may be teaching, learning, research and supervisory processes)

• Quality as process of construction, participation, contribution and negotiation from all members of a HE institution: thus, it involves critical thinking and awareness, capacity of action, (self-)improvement, development and transformation (Conrad, 1999; Demo, 2003; Harvey & Green, 1993)

+

Setting the scene (vi)

Defining some concepts: Competences

• (…) the concept of competences tries to follow an integrated approach, looking at capacities via a dynamic combination of attributes that together permit a competent performance (…) competences are understood to include knowing and understanding (theoretical knowledge of an academic field, the capacity to know and understand), knowing how to act (practical and operational application of knowledge to certain situations), knowing how to be (values as an integral element of the way of perceiving and living with others and in a social context) (Tuning Project, 2006, p.20)

• Competence means the proven ability to use knowledge, skills and personal, social and/or methodological abilities, in work or study situations and in professional and personal development. In the

context of the European Qualifications Framework, competence is described in terms of responsibility and autonomy (European Qualifications

Framework, online)

Overview of the study (i)

Main objective of the general research• Design an integrative framework about the quality of doctoral supervision – quality profiles of

doctoral students and supervisors

• Method

• Case study at the University of Aveiro – with an exploratory and explanatory character (Yin, 1994)

• Objective of this presentation

• To analyse the similarities and differences between doctoral students and supervisors’ perspectives about supervisors’ quality profile

• Research questions to be answered in this presentation

• What are the most important competences supervisors believe that should define their quality profile?

• What are the most important competences students think that should define supervisors’ quality profile?

• What are the similarities and differences between the perspectives shared by students and supervisors?

Interviews• Senior Portuguese

researchers/experts on pedagogical supervision (n=4)

• To collect the first conceptions and opinions about doctoral supervision quality; & To reflect about specific, general and shared features regarding this issue, considering both national and international backgrounds

Focus groups• Doctoral students

(n=26) & supervisors (n=25) from different academic domains and with different experiences

• To ‘feel the pulse’: to gather conceptions and experiences on the context and on doctoral supervision; particularly to identify the most important competences to characterise the quality profiles of both members of the supervisory dyad

Questionnaires• 3rd cycle community

at the University of Aveiro - Doctoral students (n=197) & supervisors (n=122)

• To statistically understand the vision of the doctoral community on the competences that (should) characterise doctoral students and supervisors quality profiles (level of agreement given to each competence)

Overview of the study (ii)

Study Design

Overview of the study (iii)

Procedures - questionnaire

• The data was collected in the Spring/Summer of 2012 using a self-administered online questionnaire

• The questionnaire comprises 3 parts:

• 1st part: General characterisation of the participant

• 2nd part: 40 competences of the students’ quality profile

• 3rd part: 39 competences of the supervisors’ quality profile

• The participants had to attribute their level of agreement regarding each competence

• It was used a scale raging from:

• 1: totally disagree to 7: totally agree

197 doctoral students 122 doctoral supervisors

54 men (27.4%)

143 women (72.6%)

64 men (52.5%)

58 women (57.5%)

22 to 54 years old

(Mean=33.46; SD=7.37)

30 to 67 years old

(Mean= 45.28; SD=8.11)

From 3 scientific domains:

Exact Sciences and Engineering

Natural, Life, Health and Environment Sciences

Social and Human Sciences

Overview of the study (iv)

Participants

Items/Competences - The doctoral supervisor must:

Groups N Mean SD

(4) Manage and be updated of the research that is being developed by each one of the students s/he supervises.

Supervisors

123 6.70 .51

Students 189 6.72 .55

(3) Promote a good relationship with the student.Supervisors

123 6.53 .68

Students 189 6.67 .58

*(6) Give timely and constructive feedback to the work produced by the student.

Supervisors

123 6.51 .67

Students 189 6.67 .64

(7) Demonstrate and promote creativity and innovation.

Supervisors

123 6.51 .68

Students 189 6.52 .73

(9) Have intrinsic motivation to supervise the student.

Supervisors

123 6.54 .66

Students 187 6.61 .72

(14) Decide the maximum number of doctoral students that s/he can effectively supervise.

Supervisors

122 6.56 .81

Students 186 6.54 .86

*(21) Be rigorous and demanding towards the research which is being developed by the student.

Supervisors

123 6.69 .59

Students 187 6.54 .74

(25) Promote scientific discussions which may be enriching for the research the student is carrying out.

Supervisors

122 6.63 .58

Students 187 6.55 .81

(28) Promote ethical attitudes.Supervisors

122 6.70 .60

Students 186 6.59 .73

Results (i)

Similarities

Items/Competences - The doctoral supervisor must:

Groups NMea

nSD t p

(1) Promote the student’s autonomy.

Supervisors

122 6.52 .67 2.630

.009

Students 189 6.29 .85

(5) Supervise students who develop doctoral research only in the scientific domain in which s/he works on.

Supervisors

123 5.631.2

8 3.043

.003

Students 189 5.121.7

2

(6) Give timely and constructive feedback to the work produced by the student.

Supervisors

123 6.51 .66 2.055

.041

Students 189 6.67 .64

(11) Negotiate with the student the research options taken or proposed by him/her.

Supervisors

123 6.031.1

0 4.240

.000

Students 187 6.51 .71

(18) Decide the authorship and the order of the authors of the academic articles when these are written by the student within his/her doctoral research.

Supervisors

122 4.511.8

6 4.323

.000


7

(21) Be rigorous and demanding towards the research which is being developed by the student.

Supervisors

123 6.69 .59 1.989

.048

Students 187 6.54 .74

(34) Stimulate a team supervision (at least constituted by one supervisor and one co-supervisor).

Supervisors

122 6.031.2

3 2.721

.007

Students 187 6.39 .91

(35) Be aware of the activities developed within Curricular Units (of the Doctoral Programme) which are attended by the student.

Supervisors

122 5.681.1

2 2.443

.015


6

(38) Promote an articulation between the work done by the student within the Doctoral Programme and the PhD research s/he will/is carrying out.

Supervisors

122 5.561.3

7 2.747

.007


4

Results (i)

Differences

Final considerations & questions (i)

In terms of similarities• The majority of competences that score equal or higher than 6.50 are of academic nature (items n. 4, 7, 14, 21,

28)

• 2 competences intertwine academic and interpersonal spheres (items n. 6, 25)

• 1 competences is of interpersonal nature (item n. 3)

• 1 competence is of intrapersonal nature (item n. 9)

• It is important that students and supervisors share expectations about the main competences that should

characterise supervisors’ quality profile

• The emphasis on academic competences reinforce the role of the supervisor as ‘the’ person who will prepare

doctoral students to be become the steward of the disciplines (Walker et al., 2008)

• BUT:

To what extent will those shared competences/expectations impact on both doctoral students and supervisors’ (i)

holistic development and (ii) the development of personal, social, professional/academic/research identity(ies)?

Final considerations & questions (ii)

In terms of differences

• All 4 competences supervisors attribute a higher level of agreement are of academic nature (items n. 1, 5, 18, 21)

• Students’ scores point out 2 competences of academic nature (items n. 35, 38), and 3 competences which intertwine academic and interpersonal spheres (items n. 6, 11, 34)

• Do these results show students’ expectations in terms of the socialisation process they should be exposed to?

• Do these results show supervisors’ expectations about the process or the product (according to the 4 competences where this statistical difference is observed)?

• What is the level or kind of adjustment these differences require? (from doctoral students, but mainly from supervisors)

Final questions

• What are the implications of the similarities and of the differences…

• For the ‘actual’ supervisory practice?

• For supervisors’ professional development?

• For doctoral students’ holistic development?

DEFINING DOCTORAL SUPERVISORS’ QUALITY

PROFILE

Thank you for your attention! Questions? Comments?

Ana Baptista [email protected]

Queen Mary University of London

defining doctoral supervisors’ quality profile similarities and differences between students and...

Documents