Abstract
This paper examines the impact of power in the supervision process as experienced by the PhD students, the institutional influence upon this, and implications for the quality of the doctoral outcome. This research paper is based on findings of a larger, recently completed PhD with the aim to develop a participant-driven theory of the lived experience of being a PhD student. This was done by analyzing the reported experiences of 23 PhD students in various disciplines and stages of their PhD studying at Australian Universities over a period of 12 months. Participants were given the freedom to choose and prioritize the experiences to report on and how they reported on them. Core to the supervision findings was the issue of power and how institutional influences distort the power relationship between the supervisor and the supervisee. Adopting French and Raven's (1959) Bases of Social Power, the institutional power sources that play on the PhD candidate are enacted through 'actors' in the institutional process including the supervisor who are presented. The findings support the need for institutions to systematically review their practices to meet their duty of care to their PhD students to provide high quality HDR supervision and improve doctoral outcomes. This research addresses a gap in contemporary supervision literature by addressing the impact of institutional power and institutional practices on the academic supervisor and how these play out in the utilization of power on and over the PhD student and the doctoral outcome.
Highlights
For many academics, supervising higher degree research (HDR) students is expected once they complete their own doctoral research degrees
This paper looks at how the supervision process is experienced by PhD students, drawing on the lived experience data from PhD students collected itself as part of a PhD research project
The aim of this paper is to focus on the participants’ supervision narratives and explore the impact of power within this relationship, the institutional influence upon this, and the implications for the quality of the doctoral outcome
Summary
For many academics, supervising higher degree research (HDR) students is expected once they complete their own doctoral research degrees. This expectation arises because successful supervisions are an integral part of their ability to meet promotion criteria, and impact upon their reputation within their own academic faculty, their institution and the wider academic community. The desire to supervise is high, but their understanding and expertise of the process remains low. Institutions are providing HDR supervision training, but much of this training focusses on compliance issues and degree processes, and not on developing a supervisor pedagogy (Crane et al, 2016)
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
