The candidate expects

1. The candidateexpects thatthe supervisor • is accessible • has insight in theresearchfield • readstextsthatarehanded in • has workedthoroughlywiththetexts • givesconstructivefeed-back • offers structured and shieldedsupervision

2. Different types supervison • Product supervision • thesubstanceoftheresearchwork • the report, content and form ofdissertation • Processsupervision • adressingchallenges in workingmethods e.g. time schedule, uncertainties, writer’sblock, roles • Ad hoc. supervision • spontaneouslyoutsideplannedmeetings,e.g. • dealingwithacute problems, equipment, programs etc.

3. Different text formats • Thought-writing • exploratory, investigatingpossibleunderstandings • means for clearing themind • unfinished in form and content • not to be ‘corrected’ • Presentation writing • drafts to final texts • to be tested/considererd as part of an article or dissertation

4. Somedifferences in text formats • Purpose • Characteristicfeatures • Recipient • Language • Genre

5. Explain for yourself, don’tget it right – get it written! vs. • present, explain for others • Creative thinking vs. • critical and analytialthinking • Yourself, fellowresearchers, • supervisor as dialogue partner vs. • thepublic, thescientificcommunity, • supervisor as evaluator • Personal, expressivelanguage vs. • formal, correctlanguage for a discursivecommunuity • First draft, note, no formal requirements vs. • article, report, scientific genre, academic standards

6. Variouswaysof supervising • Inspire • Refer to sources • Support • Encourage • Explain • Challenge • Analyze • Criticize • Praise • Advice

7. Categories for writtencomments • Summary • Evaluation • Advice • Invitations to reflection • Metacommunication • Clarifying questions • Processing thetext e.g. instruction, deleting, overwriting, editing corfrecting, suggesting alterantives

8. Constructivecriticism • Highlightwhat is good • Praiseshould be substantiated • Point outwhatshould be conserved • Demonstratewhat is vague – givesuggestions for clarification • Givedirections for workwiththeunfinished • Mobilizecourage and energy for theremainingwork • Whatneeds to be improved, can be related to criteria for evaluation

9. Some challenges in supervising • “How do I let them work independently and not intervene too often?” “Where does my responsibility end?” • “How do I give them a sense of ownership?” “Have I been too engaged in their writing?” • “How do I supervise without oversteering?” • “Can I betooambitiousonbehalf of the candidate?” • “How do I give the candidate enough room to become creative?”

10. How to promotethe partner model • Ownership til researchquestion • Ask candidate to characterizeown draft and suggestthemes for supervison • Let candidate first explainwhatshe is reasonablysatisfiedwith / more unsureof • Whendealingwithunclear passages in thetext, ask first for candiatesexplanation • Make opportunities for thecandidate to talk aboutthatwhichonlythecandidateknows

11. Guidelines for supervision • The candidate and the supervisor shall maintain regular contact • The supervisors have a duty to keep themselves informed of the progress of the candidate's work • The supervisors have a duty to follow up conditions of an academic nature that may cause delay in the research training, to ensure that it may be completed within the stipulated time frame.

12. The supervisors shall • advise on the formulation and definition of the • topic and problem statements • discuss and assess hypotheses and research methods • discuss results and their interpretation • discuss the form and presentation of the thesis, including its structure, linguistic form, documentation etc. • guide the candidate towards scientific literature and data in libraries, archives • advice on matters of research ethics pertaining to the thesis.

13. Evaluation ofdoctoraldegrees …the doctoral candidate must satisfy the minimum requirements for expertise as a researcher - formulation of research questions - precision and logical stringency - originality - mastery of relevant methods of analysis and consideration of their potentialities and limitations, - familiarity with, understanding of and a well- considered perspective on other research in the field.

14. When evaluating the dissertation, focus shall be placed on whether the dissertation is an independent, cohesive scientific work of high academic merit as regards the formulation of research questions, methodology, theoretical and empirical foundation, documentation, treatment of the literature and form of presentation. Of particular importance is an evaluation of whether the material and methods used are suitable for addressing the questions posed in the dissertation and whether the arguments and conclusions presented are tenable

15. The supervisor as a critic • Create an understanding for theroleofthe supervisor as problematizer • An academictradition at its best: discussion opponent – defendent • ”Now it is not my obligation to agreewithyou!»

16. Somereferences • Dysthe, O. & Samara, A. (red.) (2006) Forskningsveiledning på master- og doktorgradsnivå. Oslo: Abstract forlag as. • Handal, G. & Lauvås, P. (2006) Forskningsveilederen. Oslo: J. W. Cappelens Forlag AS. • Lee, A. (2012) Successful Research Supervision. Advising students doingresearch. London and New York: Routledge. • Kambler, B. & P. Thomson (2006) HelpingDoctoral Students Write. London: Routledge. • Taylor, S. & N. Beasley (2005) A Handbook for Doctoral Supervisors. London: Routledge.