Doctoral Research Supervision Research Articles

“Workplaces in the mind” as metaphor: advising industry managers doing doctoral research about organisational change management

PurposeThis study aims to reflect on “good practices” in doctoral research supervision and transfer the author’s experience to other academics. The author explains the sources of his approach to doctoral research supervision drawing on traditional practice in adult learning and some reference to phenomenology as a “meeting of minds” between academic and industry mindsets.Design/methodology/approachThis is a reflective paper condensing many years of practical experience advising industry managers doing doctoral research. It is not an empirical study as such but draws on extensive practitioner experience based on many successful PhD completions in the business and management domain.FindingsThere are no empirical findings as such, but ample practical experience of doctoral research process and outcomes over 40 years of supervision in both the UK and Australian Universities.Research limitations/implicationsGeneralisation is limited to the number of doctoral research completions (between 70 and 80).Practical implicationsThe paper concludes with indicators of what the author regards as “good practices” in doctoral research supervision.Social implicationsNone is directly applicable, but academe-industry working partnerships might be improved with the author’s learner- and customer-centred approach to doctoral research with adults in senior positions in the industry wanting to do research.Originality/valueThis paper is based entirely on the author’s own working experience as a senior academic in UK and Australian Universities.

A Thin Line between Education and Certification: A Battle of PhD Supervision in South African Universities

This study sought to critically review and demystify the postgraduate research supervision in South African universities. There is unnecessary discrimination among scholars concerning the certification of lecturers in South African universities. Some lecturers are not recognized as academically fit to supervise doctoral students even when there is evidence that they have the capacity to supervise doctoral research. While there is a lack of recognition of some lecturers with regard to doctoral research supervision, others support this lack of recognition with the argument that it is not fair for doctoral research to be supervised by a lecturer who is still a doctoral candidate. However, this paper argued that it is irrational to think that all lecturers with no PhD completely lack knowledge about academic research. This becomes more irrational if the lecturer in question has some published research works and has shown the skill through conference presentations. Against this backdrop using analytic theory, this study sought to challenge the status quo of how doctoral research is perceived in universities. This study utilized a conceptual desktop form of qualitative research and all sources used are adequately acknowledged. At the core of this paper, the researcher sought to appeal for co-supervision as recognition of those lecturers who are still pursuing their PhDs but already show the capacity to contribute to doctoral research supervision. In its entirety, this desktop conceptual research study found that the lack of recognition in South African universities is a neglect of upcoming researchers and it is recommended that lecturers who are upcoming researchers be involved in postgraduate/ doctoral research supervision. This study’s contribution is to motivate collaboration in doctoral supervision and mentorship for lecturers who are upcoming scholars in South African universities. Keywords: Doctoral Research, Lack of Lecturer’s Recognition, Universities Irrationality, Academic Experience

What We Have Learned About Doctoral Student Mentoring At CTU: A Roundtable Discussion (And Hopefully a Provocation)

Over the last four years, CTU Doctoral Studies leadership and faculty have crafted and launched a new framework to mentor doctoral students to complete a high-quality practitioner dissertation. A 2020 poster session introduced a framework for doctoral research supervision that departed from the overall instructional framework employed in all CTU programs and embraced development of an innovative instructional framework for doctoral research supervision based on a mentoring-centric ethos and reflexive management strategies. This was followed by additional research and publications in 2020-2023. But has all this work made a difference? As the title of this provocation asks, “What have we learned about doctoral student mentoring as they proceed through the dissertation journey?” What do we need to change and what do we need to keep? What are the biggest bumps in the road our students face and how do we help them? These questions and others were explored in a roundtable discussion/provocation opportunity produced by a group of five CTU doctoral research faculty members.

Supervising trainee counselling psychologists of colour in doctoral research: A theoretical review and practice implications

Context & focusThe Division of Counselling Psychology (DCoP) states a commitment to diversity, inclusion and non-discriminatory practice throughout the counselling psychology profession, and towards ensuring topics of culture and diversity are ‘mainstream discourse’ within the division (DCoP, 2021). The current paper explores diversity and inclusion, within the context of counselling psychology training; specifically, with regards to the relational aspects of doctoral research supervision, with trainees of colour. Existing evidence regarding the experiences of trainee counselling psychologists of colour are explored and considered against existing models for the task of research supervision. Personal reflections from the author’s own academic practice have been considered to illustrate points raised and to invite the reader to further self-reflection.ConclusionAnne Lee’s (2008) model, outlining five ‘tasks’ for doctoral research supervision, has been expanded upon, to incorporate a reflective response to issues highlighted within the literature described above. Recommendations are made for future research supervision practice, for educators on counselling psychology training programmes.

PhD Studentship and Research Supervisors during the COVID-19 Pandemic at a Premier University in Uganda

Keeping in close touch with a research supervisor is often vital for any university student. Unfortunately, this is hardly possible during the period of a pandemic. In this study, we explored the supervisory challenges that the doctoral students and their research supervisors at a school in a premier university in Uganda experienced and the coping strategies they utilised during the COVID-19 pandemic. We were provoked to undertake the study due to the persistent undocumented complaints from graduate students about their inability to get in touch with their research supervisors because of the closure of the university that was brought about by the pandemic. Taking the interpretive approach, we used a phenomenological research design and collected data by interviewing PhD students and their research supervisors, whom we purposively selected. We analysed the data using the thematic content analysis technique that we based on the factors influencing doctoral research supervision, namely student factors, supervisor factors and institutional factors. Our study findings revealed key research supervisory challenges. At the students’ level, we found loneliness, ICT challenges, unexpected study costs and family disturbances. While at the supervisor’s level, we found inadequate supervisor support and ineffective communication. Yet at the institutional level, we noted unclear institutional research policies and ineffective communication. We therefore concluded that several supervisory challenges negatively affected the students’ doctoral studies during the pandemic. However, there were varied but unclear strategies participants utilised to address these challenges. Hence, we recommend to university leaders to formulate clear institutional graduate training strategies for mitigating disruptions occasioned by any future pandemic.

Turning Doctoral Research Supervision into a Partnership: Towards Promoting Quality Research in African Context

Purpose: The paper establishes different perspectives of doctoral research supervision in African context and the contribution of adopting doctoral research supervision into student-supervisor partnership to enhance the quality of research. Background: Research reveals that the need for doctorates has increased in the 21st century. Whereas it is revealed that research supervision is key throughout the doctoral journey, there is need to establish new and contextual techniques of enhancing doctoral research supervision for quality research in African context. Methodology: The paper adopted a documentary review qualitative approach to establish different perspectives of doctoral research supervision in the African setting. Through the same approach 46 papers were reviewed and it was evident that Doctor of Philosophy (Ph.D) research supervision need to be an interactive process between doctoral candidates and their supervisors. Contribution: The paper contributes to the current literature on aspects of doctoral research supervision and puts to light the contribution of establishing partnerships in doctoral research supervision towards quality research. Findings: The paper reveals that doctoral education in Africa has been affected with several supervision setbacks ranging from limited human and physical resources to unfavorable supervision practices. Findings, further revealed that incorporation of partnership approach in the supervision journey enhances quality research and output. Recommendations:The paper suggests that universities should regularly revise and update rules, regulations and policies that govern doctoral training and research supervision. Similarly, new interactive research supervision technique of pursuing research supervision as a partnership among doctoral students and supervisors should be adopted for quality research results.

Pedagogical-Publication Tensions in Undergraduate Engineering Thesis Supervision

In light of the assessment criteria for the doctor of philosophy and masters by research degrees, postgraduate thesis supervision can reasonably be categorised as predominantly research output focussed. This goal is naturally congruent with the publication agenda driving much academic staff activity in the modern ‘publish or perish’ university culture. In contrast, due to the lack of student research experience, the undergraduate thesis is necessarily focussed primarily on the development of research skills (i.e. it is process not output oriented). Undergraduate thesis supervision requires more than just research skills from supervising staff. The lessons learnt from postgraduate research supervision are therefore not always directly transferable to undergraduate thesis supervision. In contrast to the vast body of work in the field of doctoral research supervision, there exists a dearth of literature on undergraduate dissertation supervision. The present study examined the alignment of university, supervisor and student expectations regarding responsibilities in the undergraduate engineering thesis. University expectations, having undergone rigorous review, form the sound pedagogical practice baseline that should be applied to undergraduate supervision. Expectations of academic staff supervisors and thesis students were obtained through the use of survey tools. The surveys used in the present study were adapted from the Role Perceptions Rating Scale (RPRS). Alignment between student and university expectations regarding undergraduate thesis responsibilities in the present study was generally poor. The discrepancy between supervisor and university expectations was even greater, with academic staff generally alarmingly assuming the bulk of the responsibility for many core thesis tasks. The main driver identified for this behaviour (i.e. the supervisor expectations that undergraduate thesis research would contribute to publications) was investigated through post-survey discussions and interviews. Taking primary responsibility for core thesis tasks away from the student, although improving the likelihood of successful research output, diminishes the ability for an accurate assessment of adequate academic performance. The learning that is intended to result from the undergraduate thesis is devalued when research outcomes are prioritised over research process.

A conversation analytical study of story-openings in advice-giving episodes in doctoral research supervision meetings

Interactional functions of story-opening in everyday conversations across different languages have been widely examined in Conversation Analysis (CA). However, there is a paucity in research on story-openings in institutional talk. This paper addresses this research gap by examining how story-opening contributes to advice-giving in doctoral research supervision. It draws on a data corpus of 57 storytelling sequences produced by six supervisors during 25 hours of video-recorded supervision meetings at an Australian university. The analysis shows that story-opening supports the on-going advice-giving activity in two ways. First, it invokes the supervisor’s knowledge and experience, which functions to strengthen the advice under way. Second, it works toward building a joint understanding with the student, thereby serving the supervisor’s pursuit of the student’s acceptance of advice. These findings have significant implications for research on storytelling in institutional interaction, advice and supervision practices.

Alignment of Doctoral Student and Supervisor Expectations in Malaysia

Aim/Purpose: This paper compares doctoral student and supervisor expectations of their respective roles and responsibilities in doctoral research supervision relationships in Malaysia. It identifies the areas, and the extent to which expectations align or differ. Background: Incongruence of expectations between doctoral students and their supervisor has been cited as a major contributor to slow completion times and high attrition rates for doctoral students. While researchers urge the need for explicit discussion of expectations, in practice doctoral students and supervisors rarely make their expectations explicit to each other, and few researchers have examined the areas of alignment or misalignment of expectations in depth. Methodology: Semi-structured interviews were held with fifteen doctoral students and twelve supervisors from two research-intensive universities in Malaysia. An inductive thematic analysis of data was conducted. Contribution: This paper provides the first in-depth direct comparison of student-supervisor expectations in Malaysia. A hierarchical model of student-supervisor expectations is presented. Findings: Expectations vary in the degree of congruence, and the degree to which they are clarified by students and supervisors across four different areas: academic practice, academic outcomes, skills and personal attributes, personal relationships. A hierarchical model is proposed to describe the extent to which both students and supervisors are able to clarify their mutual expectations arising throughout the doctoral student-supervisor relationship. Recommendations for Practitioners: Institutions should support discussions with both doctoral students and supervisors of expectations of their student-supervisor interactions, and encourage them to be more proactive in exploring their mutual expectations. Recommendation for Researchers: Data is recommended to be collected from students who have recently completed their studies, given the observation that some student participants were uncomfortable speaking about their supervisors while still in the student-supervisor relationship. Impact on Society: Opening opportunities for discussions of expectations by students and supervisors, supported and encouraged by the institutions within which they work, can help set the scene for positive and productive relationships. Future Research: Findings indicate there is need to examine in depth the impact of gender, and the competing pressures to publish and graduate on time, as they relate to the student-supervisor relationships and experience.

Storytelling as a resource for pursuing understanding and agreement in doctoral research supervision meetings

This paper examines the function of storytelling in securing agreement in doctoral supervision from the perspectives of conversation analysis (CA), which views storytelling as an interactional resource for achieving various social actions. The function of storytelling in managing disagreement has been explored in previous CA research (Georgakopoulou, 2001; Goodwin, 1982, 1990; Kjaerbeck, 2008). However, a question left unanswered is whether storytelling works to accomplish disagreement or to resolve disagreement. This paper addresses this question by examining storytelling data taken from a research project on doctoral supervision. The data corpus consists of approximately 25 h of video-recorded interactions in an Australian university between doctoral students and their supervisors. In the transcribed data, analysis shows that storytelling works to establish a shared knowledge domain that serves to secure agreement rather than construct disagreement. In addition, through their responses, the students display their orientation to storytelling as pursuing understanding rather than securing affiliation of affective stance. The findings point to the interactive relationship between knowledge and agreement.

Student-supervisor-university expectation alignment in the undergraduate engineering thesis

Given the lack of student research experience, the undergraduate thesis is necessarily focussed primarily on development of research skills (i.e. it is process oriented). Since postgraduate supervision is research output focussed, the lessons learnt from this field are not always directly transferable. In contrast to the vast body of work in the field of doctoral research supervision, there exists a dearth of literature on undergraduate dissertation supervision. To address this shortcoming, the present study examined the alignment of university, supervisor and student expectations regarding responsibilities in the undergraduate engineering thesis. University expectations, having undergone rigorous review, outline the sound pedagogical practice that should be applied to undergraduate supervision. Expectations of academic staff supervisors and thesis students were obtained through the use of survey tools and post-survey discussions. The surveys used in the present study were adapted from the Role Perceptions Rating Scale (RPRS). Alignment between student and university expectations regarding undergraduate thesis responsibilities in the present study was generally poor. The discrepancy between supervisor and university expectations was even greater, with academic staff generally assuming the bulk of the responsibility for many core thesis tasks. Post-survey discussion indicated that the driver for this behaviour were supervisor expectations that that undergraduate thesis research would contribute to publications. Taking primary responsibility for core thesis tasks away from the student, although improving the likelihood of successful research output, diminishes the ability for an accurate assessment of adequate academic performance. The learning that is intended to result from the undergraduate thesis is devalued when research outcomes are prioritised over research process.

Students and Supervisors’ Roles and Responsibilities in Doctoral Research Supervision

Students and Supervisors’ Roles and Responsibilities in Doctoral Research Supervision

Writing A Chemistry Education Research Article: Stepping Stone Or Stumbling Block?

I was invited to write this opinion piece following a presentation at the Royal Society of Chemistry (RSC) conference on Methods in Education Chemistry Research related to translating creative teaching ideas and innovations into chemistry education research outputs. With a keen interest in learning and teaching and a solid training in organic chemistry research, my choice to combine them both and engage in chemistry education research (CER), seeking the empirical evidence to demonstrate the effectiveness (or not) of classroom or laboratory activities, would seem obvious. My professional journey has been both a stepping-stone, in terms of the positive impact of CER in deepening my pedagogic theory and stretching my ideas, yet it also has been a stumbling block. The perspective from colleagues strongly implied CER to be easier, not to mention “fluffy and vague” compared with traditional chemistry research. My experiences have been quite the contrary. I found CER if anything to be more difficult and challenging. To execute chemistry research, in for example my discipline of organic synthetic, would typically require me to consult the literature, obtain published procedures to synthesise a target compound or intermediate products and then to identify the chemicals required. I can assume that the chemicals used will react in a similar way to the published procedure. This however, cannot be assumed in education; replication is not guaranteed. An effective classroom activity with my undergraduate students or a successful doctoral research supervision strategy may not work effectively with all students in all contexts. I will outline the common pitfalls to avoid in CER, the first step in planning high quality CER and hopefully offer some reassurances that, although the transition to CER may feel like starting again within a new research discipline, it does not need to be daunting. Although my experience is in CER most of what I write here will be applicable across the disciplines in higher education.

The quest for effective interdisciplinary graduate supervision: A critical narrative analysis

Interdisciplinarity is a pervasive trend in 21st-century knowledge building and innovation. It is predicated on the recognition that creative solutions to the world’s increasingly complex problems require the intersection of diverse expertise. Little scholarly attention has been directed towards how the new interdisciplinary (ID) model is influencing the processes and outcomes of graduate research training. In a qualitative study informed by critical narrative analysis and conducted at one institution, we investigate the epistemological, structural, and relational factors that shape ID doctoral research supervision, explore how differing knowledge cultures and values are negotiated in supervisory practices, and consider how established structures and discourses influence the processes and outcomes of these supervisory relationships.

Doctoral Dissertation Supervision: Identification and Evaluation of Models

Doctoral research supervision is one of the major avenues for sustaining students’ satisfaction with the programme, preparing students to be independent researchers and effectively initiating students into the academic community. This work reports doctoral students’ evaluation of their various supervision models, their satisfaction with these supervision models, and development of research-related skills. The study used a descriptive research design and was guided by three research questions and two hypotheses. A sample of 310 Ph.D. candidates drawn from a federal university in Eastern part of Nigeria was used for this study. The data generated through the questionnaire was analyzed using descriptive statistics andt-tests. Results show that face-to-face interactive model was not only the most frequently used, but also the most widely adopted in doctoral thesis supervision while ICT-based models were rarely used. Students supervised under face-to-face interactive model reported being more satisfied with dissertation supervision than those operating under face-to-face noninteractive model. However, students supervised under these two models did not differ significantly in their perceived development in research-related skills.

Interdisciplinary doctoral research supervision: A scoping review

This scoping literature review examines the topic of interdisciplinary doctoral research supervision. Interdisciplinary doctoral research programs are expanding in response to encouragement from funding agencies and enthusiasm from faculty and students. In an acknowledgement that the search for creative and innovative solutions to complex problems is best addressed through interdisciplinary collaborations, research-intensive universities are increasingly encouraging interdisciplinary projects and programs. The expansion of interdisciplinary research to the context of doctoral research may impact several core components of the doctorate: the enactment of the student–supervisor relationship, the process of forming and working with a supervisory committee, and the process and outcomes of doctoral research. In order to ensure that interdisciplinary doctoral supervision occurs in a positive and effective way, it is necessary to understand the distinct needs and challenges of interdisciplinary students and their supervisors, through scholarship about this phenomenon.

‘Tell me what to do’ vs. ‘guide me through it’: Feedback experiences of international doctoral students

Despite increasing attention to the challenges of supervising international doctoral students, little research has been conducted to examine supervisory feedback practice with international students and its impact on the thesis writing process. This exploratory qualitative study seeks to fill the gap and contribute to understanding the feedback experiences of international students in doctoral research supervision. The data were collected through semi-structured interviews with a group of international doctoral students from non-English-speaking backgrounds. The interviewees reported a range of both positive and negative feedback experiences. The interview accounts reflected the culturally embedded impact of supervisory feedback and the pedagogical needs of international doctoral students in the thesis writing process. This study suggests that dialogic and culturally sensitive feedback approaches are essential for supervising international students. The students’ voices revealed through this study provide implications for enhancing doctoral research supervision with international students.

Making research supervision work for you

Doctoral students face a number of challenges during research. Guidance and support is provided through research supervision. However, an individual new to the process may find identifying an appropriate supervisor difficult and be unaware of strategies that can be employed to make the most out of the process. This paper outlines the characteristics of doctoral research supervision and the minimum standards required in the United Kingdom. I will present practical strategies gleaned from my experience as a student and doctoral supervisor, along with potential ethical issues relating to doctoral supervision. The intention is to enable doctoral students to have the confidence, knowledge and skills to enhance their supervision experience and increase the chance of doctoral success.

Facilitator, director or critical friend?: contradiction and congruence in doctoral supervision styles

This paper explores the current issues relating to doctoral research supervision and candidature, set within the context of the neo-liberal and consumerist agendas and the pressures of the Research Assessment Exercise. The paper opens up discussion about the extent to which the discourse of performativity may be having an influence on supervision styles, and explores some of the barriers that may prevent the realisation of effective supervisor/student relationships. The paper highlights the evidence arising from a critical review of literature into current supervision styles and candidate needs, explores the way in which these issues may be applied to education and provides illustrative examples of the way in which principles are currently being translated into practice in the Faculty of Education of one Scottish university.

How are doctoral students supervised? Concepts of doctoral research supervision

Literature about doctoral supervision has concentrated on describing the ever lengthening lists of functions that must be carried out. This functional approach is necessary, but there has been little exploration of a different paradigm, a conceptual approach towards research supervision. This article, based on interviews with supervisors from a range of disciplines, aims to fill this gap. The main concepts identified are: functional – where the issue is one of project management; enculturation – where the student is encouraged to become a member of the disciplinary community; critical thinking – where the student is encouraged to question and analyse their work; emancipation – where the student is encouraged to question and develop themselves; and developing a quality relationship – where the student is enthused, inspired and cared for. Supervisors of doctoral students are also trying to reconcile the tensions between their professional role as an academic and their personal self, as well as encouraging students to move along a path towards increasing independence. The concepts are examined in the light of these tensions. Finally, the research illuminates the power of the supervisor’s own experience as a student, and suggests that supervisors need to be aware of both the positive and negative aspects of each of these conceptual approaches.