A5/B5 Workshop summary and outcomes

Postgraduate researcher strand

New approaches to doctoral supervision

Dr Anne Lee, Academic Development Advisor, University of Surrey

Overview

The doctoral education landscape is changing rapidly in response to national and European policy drivers, and the impact of globalisation on research processes and structures. The increasing importance of skills and careers development alongside excellence in doctoral research has implications for supervisors.

This workshop described work undertaken at the University of Surrey, across Sweden and at Harvard University. In an under-theorised area, this project includes an extensive review of the literature and proposes a heuristic model for judging approaches to supervision. The model was first presented at the International Conference on Postgraduate Supervision at Stellenbosch University in April 2007. Anne is now seeking to test the model empirically.

The session covered:

• an overview of the findings of research into doctoral supervision
• an outline of emerging approaches
• an exploration of implications for supervision practice and HEIs' role in supporting excellence in supervision. 

Presentation summary

Anne proposed a neutral framework for examining the values, beliefs and concepts involved in postgraduate supervision. Five main approaches were identified; these intertwine, ie are not independent of each other.

Functional: Skills such as directing, acquiring resources, getting the work done and monitoring are examples of features emphasised in this approachl. This managerial model of supervision includes functional and mentoring aspects but does not explicitly address the specifically academic tasks of enculturation and critical thinking.

Enculturation: The research student needs to acquire a great deal of professional and interpersonal knowledge about how research and academic life is conducted. This is subtle (not explicitly taught) but essential knowledge if the student is to become a skilful practitioner.

Critical thinking. Some supervisors feel that their students are the better for having been burnished through the rigour of aggressive argument, in the western philosophical tradition that encourages analysis, looking for propositions and arguments for and against them.

Emancipation as a supervisory process implies both support and challenge. It is also a process which allows and supports personal transformation. Some supervisors believe that a period of disorientation needs to be deeply experienced. Others may feel that this is unnecessary, even counterproductive.

Relationships: There is some evidence that poor relationships are blamed for poor completion rates, and poor relationships can arise because of unarticulated and unmet expectations on both sides.

Discussion outcomes

Participants explored the issues that they face in their institutions in the light of the emerging research findings and discussed good practice they have encountered. Discussion highlighted:

• that universities should be aiming to develop globally competent doctoral graduates
• how different approaches to supervision can be usefully applied to student problems, such as problems with academic writing, self-confidence and those of international students
• the importance of explicating supervisory approaches within supervisory teams
• the need for dialogue and a neutral language between students and supervisors to explore expectations.

There was interesting debate on the extent to which supervisors can adapt their style to suit different students and situations, and whether different university cultures have an effect on how students are supervised.

View the A5/B5 presentation slides and accompanying handouts

Handout 1

Handout 2

Handout 3

Handout 4