Quis custodiet: who helps the research supervisors? April 2008

1. Quis custodiet: who helps the research supervisors?April 2008 Anne Lee University of Surrey a.lee@surrey.ac.uk

2. Is there a framework that can help to expand the range of approaches that a supervisor can use? • Do different disciplines supervise differently? • What are the implications for supervisor development?

3. LITERATURE SEARCH Functional approach (Wisker 2005, Eley and Jennings 2005 Taylor and Beasley 2005) Qualities approach (Wisker 2003a, Zuber Skerrit & Roche 2004) Critical thinking (Barnett 1997, Wisker 2005) Enculturalisation (Leonard 2001, Pearson & Brew 2002, Lave & Wenger 1991) Mentoring (Pearson & Kayrooz 2004, Brew 2001) Feminist approach (Leonard 2001) INTERVIEWS Interviews with PhD supervisors across a range of disciplines Interviews and focus groups with students SURVEYS 55 supervisors in UK and Sweden INTERACTIVE POSTER SESSION Data used

4. A framework for concepts of research supervision

5. Functional approach • “I have a weekly timetabled formal slot for them and follow-up if they do not turn up” • “3 months: literature search 6 months: focus fixed, 12 months transfer report completed…” • “In the 2nd year we see them monthly and they produce 5000 words before each meeting” • Regular pair or small group meetings with supervisor to present findings

6. Enculturation • I would feel I had failed if they did not stay in the field • My students all know their academic grandfather • I give my book to all my students • Students need to know what ‘good enough’ looks like • You need frequent meetings for international students • The international student especially can implement all your corrections and think that is good enough. • Some cultures expect you to tell them what to do

7. Critical thinking • “I avoid dependency by getting them to think about some problems and giving them resources” • “I want them to stand on their own feet and challenge the thinking” • “My tutor was not confrontational, she encouraged me to be critical of my own ideas” • “They need to explain to me why, what and how” • “I ask them to email me a question about their project every week” • “I use ‘magic’ words to help them identify the thread in their argument eg arguably, conversely, unanimously, essentially, early on, inevitably etc”

8. Emancipation • “Your job as a supervisor is to get them knowing more than you” • “I try to get the students to take the initiative” • “My supervisor encouraged me to read widely, think critically, find examples in newspapers” • “I try to get them to admit and confront their problems” • “You get a lot of satisfaction, you have facilitated that growth in them”

9. Developing a relationship • Enthuse: You need to fire the imagination, it is different for different students • Altruism: My supervisor helped me with my writing but never pressed me to publish. • Encourage: Need to inspire and encourage them to be brave in what they are thinking • Recognise achievement: I wanted to call my supervisor the moment I solved the tough maths • Pastoral support: this was as important as intellectual support to get me through

10. Problems students face: the supervisor’s view • Dependency • Not admitting to problems • Poor progress. Not understanding required standard of work. Insufficient initiative • Supervisor not interested in topic • Conceptual difficulties • Differences between supervisors

11. Problems: student view • Loneliness • Not enjoying the topic • Not knowing what is expected • Practical issues: money, lifestyle, getting hold of the supervisor • Ethical issues: are we being used? • Stress (especially at transfer and viva) • Supervisor being too prescriptive ‘my way is the only way’.

12. Occupational influences STUDENT previous experience, contacts, knowledge aptitude, skills, financial aims

13. SAMPLE WORKSHOP ACTIVITY • Describe a problem you have encountered as a supervisor • Where was/were the supervisor(s) in the framework? • What might the student’s expectations have been?

14. Analysis of dependence to independence

15. HOW DOES KNOWLEDGE APPEAR IN YOUR SUBJECT?Results of interviews with doctoral supervisors and students: Anne Lee a.lee@surrey.ac.uk

16. CHARACTERISTICS OF SUBJECTS

17. Disciplinary differences? • Evidence mixed. All disciplinary groups showed interest in all approaches to supervison. • From survey data: Hard-pure subjects might respond more readily to critical thinking, enculturation and quality of relationships. • Enculturation is a word which needs clear explanation

18. Implications for supervisor development • Workshops, mentoring, action research, modules…..? • Accredited or non-accredited? • Discipline based or generic? • Involving doctoral students, co-supervisors, supervisory teams, industrial supervisors? • University or area based? • Affect of national imperatives? • Timing and funding? • Evaluation?

19. References Barnett R (1997) Higher Education: A Critical Business. Buckingham. SHRE/OU Brew A (2001) Conceptions of Research: a phenomenographic study. Studies in Higher Education. Taylor and Francis Oct 2001, 26 (3), 271-285, Cryer P (2006) 3rd Ed The Research Student’s Guide to Success Maidenhead. McGraw Hill Delamont S, Atkinson P & Parry O (2000) The Doctoral Experience. Success and Failure in Graduate School. London. Falmer Press Eley A, Jennings R (2005) Effective Postgraduate Supervision. Maidenhead. OU Press McGraw-Hill Education Kamler, B. & Thomson, P. (2006). Helping Doctoral Students Write: Pedagogies for Supervision. Abingdon: Routledge. Lave & Wenger E (1991) Situated Learning: legitimate peripheral participation (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. Lee, A. (2007). Developing Effective Supervisors’ Concepts of Research Supervision. South African Journal of Higher Education, 21(4) Lee, A (2008) How are doctoral students supervised? Concepts of research supervision. Studies in Higher Education (accepted for publication) 33(4) Lee A & Murray R A framework for developing doctoral supervisors: Focussing on writing (currently being reviewed for publication) Leonard D (2001) A Woman’s Guide to Doctoral Studies. Buckingham. OU Press Pearson M and Brew A (2002) Research Training and Supervision Development. Studies in Higher Education Vol 27 No 2 2002 Pearson M and Kayrooz C. (2004) Enabling Critical Reflection on Research Supervisory Practice. International Journal for Academic Development 9.(1) pp 99-116 Routledge Taylor S and Beasley N (2005) A handbook for Doctoral Supervisors. Abingdon. Routledge Wisker G (2005) The Good Supervisor. Basingstoke. Macmillan