Supervision Of Doctoral Students Research Articles

Supervision of Doctoral Students with Disabilities in South Africa: Issues, Trends and Reflections for Best Practice

Supervision of Doctoral Students with Disabilities in South Africa: Issues, Trends and Reflections for Best Practice

Exploring the professional development of online and distance doctoral supervisors

ABSTRACT The supervision of doctoral students has been evolving in the last decade. Supervisors supervise students on campus or at a distance and supervision takes place in formal or informal environments with the latter occurring more often through online encounters. This context of supervision has changed supervisory practices and students’ own approaches to learning. This paradigmatic shift demands a rethinking of how supervisors develop themselves and how they learn to cope with the challenges of ‘modern’ supervision. To date, little has been said or written about the development or training of doctoral supervisors who supervise students online or at a distance. This paper aims to fill this gap by presenting a model for the professional development of supervisors in these contexts. This model can be adapted and implemented by institutions that wish to support supervisors who support students online or at the distance.

Trust: the power that binds in team supervision of doctoral students

ABSTRACTTeam supervision of doctoral students adds new dimensions and complexities to relationships within the teams that impact functionality of the team. Trust emerged as a significant theme in recent qualitative research into the quality of team supervision of doctoral students. Trust was cited as a key component in successful team collaborations, and the missing component in dysfunctional teams. Definitions refer to trust as the belief of truthfulness, reliability or faith in another person’s abilities. My hypothesis is that trust operates as a form of power in team supervision. It is a form of power that enables voice, resilience and creativity in teams. This article concludes that placing trust in others in supervisory teams is a deliberate decision by candidates and supervisors. It is a decision to engage in a team context despite known risks and may be understood as a gamble on the reliability of others in the expectation of reciprocity. By conceptualising trust as a form of power, strategies that engender and maintain trust may be utilised more intentionally.

Does external funding push doctoral supervisors to be more directive? A large-scale Danish study

Around the world, changing funding policies have pushed for university departments to find increased external project-based funding. While this trend is widely acknowledged, mixed views exist about implications for faculty members’ academic practices. Regarding doctoral education, researchers have raised concern that external funding will push doctoral supervisors to be more directive in their supervision of doctoral students’ research projects. However, the empirical evidence supporting such concern is limited. The aim of the current study was, first, to develop and validate a scale allowing us to measure the degree of supervisor direction. Second, the aim was to examine the hypothesis that directive supervision is more likely to occur when the doctoral student’s research project is supported by external funding secured by the supervisor. A total of 1690 doctoral students at a research-intensive Danish university participated in the study. Three scales, including a directive supervision scale, were developed and validated by means of exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis. Our hypothesis could be confirmed for the health sciences, but not the natural sciences. Results from the humanities and social sciences were ambiguous.

Team modes and power: supervision of doctoral students

ABSTRACTCurrently, team supervision in doctoral studies is widely practised across Australian universities. The interpretation of ‘team’ is broad and there is evidence of experimentation with supervisory models. This paper elaborates upon a taxonomy of team modes and power forms based on a recent qualitative study across universities in a number of states and territories in Australia. Team modes, described as de facto dyad, segmented and collaborative are defined, explained and presented in diagrammatic forms. Team modes are understood as being fluid, oscillating along a continuum according to particular contextual factors such as thesis stage and personal/professional circumstances of team members. Operating parallel to team modes are forms of power, defined as ‘power to’, ‘power over’ and ‘power with’. The article concludes that to maximise collaborative knowledge making within team supervision it is necessary to background social status. As the performance of social status is diminished the focus of the team endeavour is the creative exchange of ideas, creating ‘power with’. The intention of this article is to provide more information to supervisors and doctoral students on team structure so that the needs of all parties might be met more reliably and productively during the intense and sustained period of thesis production.

Social philosophy curriculum in social science and humanities structured doctoral programmes

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to describe an experiment in a non-credit bearing series of social philosophy workshops offered to social science and humanities disciplines in an Australian university. Design/methodology/approach The paper outlines the design rationale and learning objectives for the workshop series. The data set includes qualitative student responses to 501 post-workshop questionnaires and 14 in-depth qualitative responses to a follow-up online questionnaire. Findings The data suggest that social philosophy methodology curriculum offered within a multi-discipline peer context can facilitate an appreciation among students of the centrality of theory and the value of diverse discipline approaches in research. The last part of the paper explores what underpins this – a kind of un-learning or uncertainty regarding the veracity of different philosophical approaches to research, tied to a de-centring of research subjectivity that allows for the co-existence of multiple voices. Language learning, the inclusion of post-modern perspectives and an unbiased presentation of a wide range of thinkers within a challenging intellectual context are central to this. Research limitations/implications The emerging trend towards university-wide doctoral training offers opportunities for useful innovations in research education. University-wide social philosophy curriculum can play a role in facilitating constructive negotiation of theoretical complexity both within and across social science and humanities disciplines. Originality/value The contemporary social science and humanities research context is a challenging space, characterised by intra-discipline methodological plurality, and the risk of marginalisation by more dominant instrumentalist, end-user and science-driven perspectives. The trend towards bringing different methodological perspectives together within inter-disciplinary research and team supervision of doctoral students can lead to conceptual misunderstanding and research delays. The capacity to negotiate and translate conceptual perspectives, often within complex research relationships, has then become an increasingly important academic skill. Within this context, university-wide doctoral training has emerged, but there has been little discussion of doctoral curricula beyond that devised for professional doctorates within the discipline in the non-US higher education literature. This paper contributes to emerging scholarship on research education by describing the sorts of relational, textual and conceptual processes that might be created in the multi-discipline social science and humanities context to produce an appreciation for the different philosophical foundations of research knowledge.

Knowledge Assumptions amongst Doctoral Students: A Case Study at the University of South Africa

This study explores the correlation between a group of South African doctoral students’ assumptions about knowledge or epistemological beliefs and their behaviour applicable to research information gathering activities while compiling their research proposals for the doctorate. Six divergent models of epistemological development from the educational psychology (in chronological order) as well as an information search process model formed the conceptual, theoretical framework for the investigation. Ten enrolled doctoral students from the College of Education at the University of South Africa were interviewed about this correlation. The findings provide a rich theoretical foundation for future information-seeking behaviour research among doctoral students and provide insights into the impact of students’ epistemological beliefs on their information seeking patterns. The findings furthermore confirm the correlation between core epistemological beliefs and information gathering patterns amongst South African doctoral students and provide substantial justification for using epistemological beliefs in the supervision of doctoral students. DOI: 10.5901/mjss.2014.v5n20p1068

The role of new doctoral supervisors in higher education – a reflective view of literature and experience using two case studies

This paper looks at works of various authors on the supervision of doctoral students and their expectations. We aim through reading, experience and reflection to offer a logical framework that will aid in the better understanding of the process for those new to supervision. The two authors draw upon experience as new supervisors via the use of case studies applied to current literature, and identify some of the pitfalls they may come into contact with. To this end, the models and works of Hockey, Argyris, and Lewin are applied.

The paradox and fog of supervision

PurposeSeveral paradoxes have been presented in the literature as inherent in supervision of doctoral students. The purpose of this paper is to explore these paradoxes and offer the concept of praxis as a way of effectively engaging with complex and paradoxical dimensions of supervision, rather than denying or avoiding them.Design/methodology/approachDrawing on sometimes provocative offerings of others, and the seminal work of Grant, views are presented that problematise supervision, challenging its representation as something to be transparently understood, planned and managed. Sophisticated theories of supervision have been offered in literature to hold its inherent paradoxes while opening up its practice for inquiry. It is suggested that supervision is usefully understood as the development of praxis: challenging supervisor and student to understand their practice journey as one of interwoven, often tacit, dimensions of knowing, doing, being and becoming (that are personally and therefore distinctively resolved.FindingsGenerative metaphors drawn from other complex domains of human experience suggest useful ways of engaging with the intensity, individuality and murkiness of supervision. Such metaphors draw attention to the identities and authorities that are in play and offer markers that can be identified even through the fog.Originality/valueVoice work is explored as a metaphor for supervision, suggesting reflective practices that ask supervisor and candidate to pay deep attention to the sounds of their voices as well as to the nuances of the dialogue they create together.

When the governmental tail wags the disciplinary dog: some consequences of national funding policy on doctoral research in New Zealand

This paper explores disciplinary approaches to knowledge production and the supervision of doctoral students in the context of New Zealand’s current Performance Based Research Fund (PBRF). In the last decade New Zealand has experienced significant changes to the way doctoral students are funded by central government. Funding has moved away from a ‘head count’ model to one that rewards specific performance criteria of staff and timely completion of students. In the new regime, research outputs by way of peer reviewed publications, conference presentations, grant awards, postgraduate completions and so forth constitute the significant markers of such performance. Yet in general terms, the production of knowledge varies considerably by academic discipline. This paper uses qualitative methods to explore the potential for the PBRF to privilege some approaches to knowledge production (and models of doctoral supervision) while challenging the viability of others.

Leadership in network learning: business action research at Monash University

PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to explain the emergent nature of leadership in a university‐based learning network of mature‐aged practitioner‐scholars.Design/methodology/approachThe paper draws on previously published work, interviews, and current research.FindingsThe paper finds that once initial structures have been established, the leadership role falls to different members depending on the needs of the group. Intellectual leadership becomes important in this setting.Research limitations/implicationsThe study is drawn from a single case although supported by research done in a similar group in the UK. Research indicates that cohorts and support networks increase success rates in PhD completions. This paper outlines one example of the structures and processes of a successful one.Practical implicationsThere is significant leverage for universities in developing the network structures and process, beyond the simple supervisor/student relationship that support doctoral students. It focuses on the contribution a learning network can make to mature‐aged part‐time students.Originality/valueThis paper develops the current literature on supervision of doctoral students.

Etik i handledning av doktorander

The article considers various ethical issues in the supervision of doctoral students. Narratives collected at seven Swedish universities describing problematic situations in supervision were analyzed against the background of basic ethical principles, professional ethics of European psychologists, a list of critical incidents from the US, and a code of conduct for supervisors at Oslo University. A number of situations involving an increased risk of unethical supervisory behaviour were identified. It is argued that supervisors could benefit from articulated ethical principles if their articulation and application are integrated into a continuing process o competence development in the field.

10 Challenges in Supervision of Doctoral Students

10 Challenges in Supervision of Doctoral Students

Joint Supervision and the PhD: safety net or panacea?

ABSTRACT This paper provides an analysis of the 1996 Harris report of postgraduate education. Arguably the most comprehensive report on postgraduate education in recent years, the Harris report is an important statement concerning present and future funding and organisation of postgraduate education in the UK. This paper focuses on issues of postgraduate supervision raised in the review and links them to some of the findings of a five‐year research programme which has focused on the socialisation and supervision of doctoral students in six disciplines. The paper engages with issues relating to the research environment in which postgraduate study is to be located, codes of practice for postgraduate work and different approaches to supervision. In particular, the paper discusses differences in supervision which occur between the social and natural sciences and considers the role and feasibility of joint supervisory arrangements. The paper has particular salience in the light of the results of the most recent Research Assessment Exercise and the continued growth in postgraduate education throughout the UK.

Supervision of Doctoral Students in the Natural Sciences: expectations and experiences

Within the natural sciences and engineering, literature relating to postgraduate education, in particular the process of completing a doctorate, remains generally scarce. That which does exist emphasises the role of the supervisor in effecting successful completion and points to a wide range of activities performed by supervisors. There remains, however, little by way of accounts of the actual experiences of supervisors or students when engaged in the process of doctoral supervision. It is these experiences which form the basis of this paper which focuses upon doctoral students and their supervisors in the disciplines of physics, mathematics and engineering science. Data for the paper have been collected, as part of an ESRC funded project, by means of in‐depth interviews with students and supervisors in nine universities in England. In particular, we address students expectations of PhD supervision, the extent to which expectations have been met, and within the context of the ‘career’ of the PhD, the ways in which supervision changes as the doctoral process progresses. Important issues relating to the need for training for PhD supervisors and their capacity to meet the expectations of their students are raised, together with those which question the relationship between the PhD and the culture of academic work.