Quis custodiet: who helps the research supervisors?

April 2008

Anne LeeUniversity of Surrey

a.lee@surrey.ac.uk

• 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 a.lee@surrey.ac.ukPersonally

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