The (d)(t)oxic lifeworld of early career supervisors

Jeanette Maritz Paul Prinsloo

overview

• context: the space of play

• bourdieusian analytical tools

• methodology

• findings

• discussion

supervision as a space of play

considering postgraduate supervision as a space of play (Bourdieu

& Wacquant, 1992), supervisors have little choice but to ‘play the

[new] game’ with different rules determining the nature, processes

and criteria for evaluating the quality of supervision

bourdieusian analytical tools to make visible the doxic and often toxic life-world experiences and

journeys of early career supervisors

• doxa (we gain an understanding of how the early career supervisor

negotiates a particular (classed) and performed, embodied practice)

• habitus (has both an “inner” (disposition) and “outer” (the social)

form. These dispositions bring value to the person to the degree that his or

her inner habitus is more or less “well formed” relative to that of the field of

inculcation)

• capital (refers to that which is symbolically valued)

methodology

• phenomenological lifeworld approach (Dahlberg, Dahlberg &

Nystrom, 2008).

• we were specifically interested in how these experiences were

produced, performed or maintained in the field

• nine early career supervisors were purposefully selected and

interviewed (ages 25 -56)

• all but one participant was first generation academics, meaning

that they were the first in their family to study towards a degree

• analytical coding: coding that comes from interpretation and

reflection on meaning making in context

findingstheme category code

the uncertainty of the field

and ‘would be’ space

   

internalising doxic

structures

becoming  aware  of  the 

greater academic ‘game’

 

build symbolic capital accepting  learned  doxic 

norms

harnessing  social  and 

formal capital

toxic shame and a broken

habitus

   

the uncertainty of the field and ‘would be’ space

• the transformative natures of their developmental pathway often lead

the early career supervisor to a double bind or dual consciousness

(Bourdieu in (Grenfell, 2014)

• often required to operate in duel structures (of student and supervisor)

they were left unsure of what to focus on, what to do and how to act

often resulting in a process where the ‘blind were leading the blind’.

• the transition from student to supervisor was mostly abrupt with little

time for a gradual transformation of habitus or to acquire ‘a feel of the

game’

the uncertainty of the field and ‘would be’ space

“Your research process does not prepare you for supervision. I’m a student. I’m being guided. I’m not the guider; I’m being guided. So it doesn’t mean that I’ve done my master’s, I’ve done my PhD, I’m ready to supervise. It means nothing. I’ve been a student. Don’t just throw me out there and I must perform “

internalising doxic structures• as the doxa or field had already created the norms and practices for

them, the early career supervisor internalised and attempted to

integrate these norms into their habitus in order to define who they

were and create their own identity and values within the field

• in order to cope and manage the murky waters the early career

supervisors became aware of the greater academic ‘game’ as well as

the specific demands of supervision  

internalising doxic structures

“The game is changing because the competition is changing and everybody tries to be ahead …this requires us to stay on top of our game” 

accepting learned doxic norms• in an often ‘cloudy’ space the early career supervisor accepted

and learned the doxic norms contained in policies, processes

and approaches to supervision

• policies were a form of symbolic capital against which both

outcomes and processes of supervision were measured and

evaluated

• they consequently internalised the performance structures

• this became embodied as part of their habitus, behavioural

actions and exhibitions in the course of their supervisory

practice often defeating the pedagogical nature of postgraduate

supervision

building symbolic capital

• the motivation and intent of early career supervisors were

mostly noble

• participants shared their observations and thoughts regarding

some colleagues who were attracted to a position in academia

based on career blocks or seemingly had a vested interested in

upward mobility

building symbolic capital

“Personally I would rather say don’t give me any more students; I

want to write articles. That’s a quicker path [towards promotion].

So for someone working towards promotion supervision is almost

not worth it although it’s important to build your CV but if you want

to get promoted, why supervise? “

Supervision thus became a performative

product rather than an art of learning research

and the craft of supervision

harnessing social and formal capital

• social capital was mostly derived from identifying and

perusing a relationship with a mentor in order to increase a

perceived lack of academic, research and supervision capital

• the relationship however often lacked reciprocity

• social capital was therefor mostly used for an instrumental or

functional purpose in that ties were built and kept with some

functional purpose in mind

• not everyone was as fortunate to have access to a mentor

harnessing social and formal capital

“I was fortunate enough to have a NRF-rated researcher to be my

supervisor… I tried to get as much information and guidance out of him

as I can and even today”

“I remember I asked one of the senior people I said won’t you please

teach us how to supervise? And she simply said, no, that’s not for you.

I was a lecturer then. That’s not for you. Because I said please take us

through the part of supervision, we want to learn this so that we know,

and I was simply told this is not for you. So I am ill-prepared. I could not

even have thought until I came to this [higher education institution] and

they said you have to supervise student [sic] and I’m thinking, excuse

me, how am I going to do that?... So I had to figure it in my head… I

would have learnt a few tricks [while doing a masters’ degree] as I was

walking the dark path”

This further complicated the unequal distribution of

acquiring and distributing symbolic capital

formal capital

• access to training was available to most early career supervisors;

they were however left to their own devices as to understand their

training needs “you don’t know what you do not know”

• how to access the training and what to do after the training as

there was an apparent lack of follow-up

they therefor needed to improvise and adapt to

the new social field without clear guidance in

how to construct a developmental pathway

toxic shame

• process of becoming not always a straight forward or a benevolent

process

• the course of development was often messy, and the personal and

emotional cost left many early career supervisors feeling sad,

discouraged, fearful, anxious, insecure and uneasy

• they frequently feared that they would be ‘weighed (evaluated) and

found wanting’ especially when their students submitted

dissertations for examination

• having a student pass or fail would reflect on their worth as a

supervisor and thus could increase or decrease their symbolic

capital

toxic shame

“I think I will get a couple of surprises as we go along, especially after

the examination. I’m quite scared about that. It will be totally

disappointment [sic]. I’m aiming for distinction. It’s everything or

nothing… your reputation is also on the line. You will be assessed by

your peers and we deal with academic jealousy and all of those other

things”

broken habitus

aiming towards ‘superhero’ status in trying to balance all aspects of the

academic game while lacking the necessary capital to sustain themselves,

increased the likelihood of developing a ‘broken habitus’

broken habitus

“’m busy with exams, I’m busy with marking, I’m busy with moderation, there’s no way I can do everything. I’m not sure anymore. My brain is messed up”

“I worked harder, read more. I felt like a zombie”

conclusion

• we can no longer idealise what policy can deliver in the supervision

process :it does not include a fuller epistemological representation of

how supervision is constituted or operates

• Neither does it address the demands made on the individual habitus

of the supervisor

conclusion

• there is a requirement for the successful translation of the codes and

practices of the field and game of supervision as well as a realistic

expectation of an entry level supervisor and what development they

might need.

if the field site does not facilitate a process whereby the site integrates

with the early career supervisors personal and pedagogical habitus,

supervisors may become a disembodied facilitator of others’ needs and

we may expect a social reproduction of the status quo