270 likes | 434 Views
PROFESSIONALIZATION IN DOCTORAL EDUCATION The role of supervision. Marie-Laure DJELIC Associate Dean, PhD Program ESSEC Business School. THE ”WHY” QUESTION ROLE OF A PHD PROGRAM (1). A reservoir of ”cheap labour” for chaired professors
E N D
PROFESSIONALIZATION IN DOCTORAL EDUCATIONThe role of supervision Marie-Laure DJELIC Associate Dean, PhD Program ESSEC Business School
THE ”WHY” QUESTIONROLE OF A PHD PROGRAM (1) • A reservoir of ”cheap labour” for chairedprofessors • A symbolic marker for a University or an Institute • A source of funding in someUniversities • One particular ”product” in a wide range of programmes
THE ”WHY” QUESTIONROLE OF A PHD PROGRAM (2) • A placement machine – ensuringPhDstudentsget a (good) job • A process to produce ”sustainablescholars” – beyond the Diploma and the Job • A process to increase the research orientation of a Faculty body INTERESTING QUESTION AS TO WHERE OUR RESPONSIBILITY STOPS….
THE ”HOW” QUESTIONSTRUCTURE OF PhD PROGRAMS (1) • A greatdiversity in the structure and make-up of programs • In Europe, twoextremeideal types • Traditional continental/German model • US Phd model (2+2/3) • On a continuum between • Everything in English • Everything in the national language • On a continuum between • Nearly no course requirements • A full Master Research program as a first step
THE ”HOW” QUESTIONNATURE OF PHD PROGRAMS (2) • Small-size programs withcost, resources and staffing issues • A greatdiversity of structures and roles. Diversityisenriching….but creates obstacles INTERESTING QUESTION AS TO WHERE OUR RESPONSIBILITY STARTS….
CURRENT TRENDS • Towards more structuredPhD programs • A lot of workisbeingdone on the formal training part of the program • Eitherthrough the development of courses in-house or through the use of differentstrategies to enhancecross-program collaborations
NATIONAL CONSORTIA • SUBS – Stockholm/Uppsala Business Studies • Bringingtogether the two programs – in 2010 a total of 19 students • Common compulsory and elective courses, sharedbetween Uppsala and Stockholm • The thesisprocessremainsassociatedwitheachorganization
TRANSNATIONAL NETWORKS • Fluid but real collaboration between a small network of programs around the world • More or lessbreadth • Division of labour on certain courses • Exchange of visitingPhDstudents and/or Facultymembers • Agreement on sharedqualitycriteriaseemsnecessary
TRANS-NATIONAL HUBSSOME EXAMPLES • EIASM PhDseminars, EDAMBA SummerResearchAcademy • Pre-conference doctoral courses • Summer/Winter courses • Open enrollment courses offered by a particular institution (Scancor, CBS….) djelic@essec.fr
JOINT PHD PROGRAMS • CLEI /IEL– International PhD program (Center for the Comparative Analysis of Law and Economics, Economics of Law, Economics of Institution), founded in 2004 • CRG – Polytechnique, France • CornellUniversity • Law Schoolat the Centre of Advanced Studies in Law and Economics, University of Gent, Belgium • UniversitydegliStudi di Torino • Joinedlater 5 otherEuropean programs • First year – compulsory course work in Turin withprofessorscomingfrom all over the network. Preliminary exams. • Second year – development of the researchat one of the schoolsdepending on the topic/fields of theirproject. Mobility of at least 6 monthswithin the network iscompulsory • Thirdyearwillbedevoted to completion of the doctoral dissertation.
DOCTORAL SUPERVISION • WithinPhd programs muchless attention ispaid in general to the Doctoral Supervision Process • Arguably, though, the quality of doctoral supervision makes the differencebetween • An input to an output program (studentsreallygraduating) • A diploma-only to a job placement program • A job placement to a scholar-generating program
DOCTORAL SUPERVISION • For thesiscompletion • For Professionalization • Finding a job • Becoming a ”self-sustainable” scholar
TOPICS WE ARE WORKING ON • Supervision for thesiswork • Organization, challenges and constraints • Ethics and the doctoral contract – the student/supervisorrelationship, plagiarism and other issues, management of conflicts, representation of students’ interests • Supervision for professionalization • Turningourstudentsfrom the startintoresearchers – and in time stand aloneresearchers • Socializingourstudents as members of an intellectualcommunity – and more oftenthan not of severaldifferentintellectualcommunities
SOME BASICS OF SUPERVISION (1) • Number of PhDstudentsbeingsupervised - limit • Is supervision part of the formalworkload – associatedwith ”real time” - or isitcoming on top of the rest? • Whatis the value – institutional and personal – placed on the PhD program and PhD supervision compared to otheractivities? • Stages in a career • Can a freshlymintedPhDbe ”availabl for and effective at supervision? • Can a senior professorwith a lot of competing administrative responsibilitiesbeavailable for supervision? • General availability and regularity of meeting points – skypeisgreat but regularphysicalencounters are important too • Creating a formalmemory of the supervision process? An online log? The fine line betweenefficacy and bureaucracy
SOME BASICS OF SUPERVISION (2) • Readiness to listen and to ”understand” who the studentis • Adequationbetweenresearch pedigree of the supervisor and the needs of the PhDstudent • Willingness and institutionalflexibility to ”share” supervision • The necessary ”humble” posture – the importance of being a connector • Effectiveness of feedback – timeliness, substantive and written feedback, to do listswith deadlines….
MOVING BEYOND SUPERVISION FOR PROFESSIONALIZATION
SUPERVISION AND PUBLICATION • Earlystart on the publication game – many programs are nowencouragingstudents in that direction • The role of the supervisor • The challenge of creating a virtuouscircle – betweentwoscholarsatdifferent stages of theircareer • Need to move awayfrom an old ”continental model” • Pros and cons – fast to the publishing line…but how to ensureautonomyafterwards? • Ethical issues – and conflictresolutionmechanisms
SUPERVISION AND COMMUNITY BUILDING WITHIN (1) • Creating a sense of communitybetweenstudents of the same program • Creating a sense of commnunitybetweenstudents and facultymembers of the same program • The supervisor as facilitator • Calls for a sense of communitybetweendifferentsupervisors • And a capacity to worktogether • The particular case of co-supervision • Issues of ”territory” and ”susceptibility”
SUPERVISION AND COMMUNITY BUILDING WITHIN (2) • Importance of the logistics • Office space, common room, possiblystudents living not too far fromeachother… • Availability or construction or regularevents (workshops, brownbags, seminars….) • Institutionalizedincentives to ”share” PhDstudents and to spend time on community building • Availability of formalizedrules of the game and conflictresolutionmechanismsat the level of the program
SUPERVISION AND COMMUNITY BUILDING ACROSS • Not onlysendingstudents to conferences but going to conferenceswithstudents • Referencingstudents to helpful networks or colleagues in other institutions • Workingwithstudents on the debrief of thoseencounters • Building uponpersonal networks to sendstudentsaway
SUPERVISION AND JOB MARKET PREPARATION • Letters of recommendation • Job marketmocktalks • Allowingstudents to attend recruitmentseminars (”communitywithin”) • Proximity coaching and debriefduring the process
SUPERVISION AND ETHICAL TRAINING • A ”role model” responsibility for the supervisor • Sharing the ethics of ourtrade not only in theory but also in practice • Walking the Talk and exhibitingIntegrity
SUPERVISION AND AUTONOMY BUILDING • Allowing for an enlargedintellectualspace DURING the PhDprocess • Lettingstudents explore topics, methods, theoriesyou are not familiarwith – as long as thisisdoneunderproper guidance • Allowingstudents to get multiple sources of intellectual inspiration • After the PhD, workingwithyourstudentsstill – but lettingthemtake the lead!...
CHALLENGES • Balancingbetween active specialization (publishing) and intellectualopenness (autonomization) • Balancingbetween supervision as a one-to-one relationship and supervision as a collective endeavour • Balancingbetween distance and proximity • Balancingbetween the provision of intellectualtools and personal coaching • Balancingbetweenstiffling control and neglect • Balancingbetween time pressure and maturation • Balancingbetween over-protection and destructive harschness • Balancingbetweengenerosity and utilitarianism (time, resources, first other practice….)
METAPHORS Adaptedfrom: Baskerville and Russo(2005), « Metaphors for PhDStudy », in Avison and Pries-Heje (eds), Research in IS: A Handbook for ResearchSupervisors and theirStudents, Elsevier.
DEFINITION? ”Mentors are advisors, people withcareerexperiencewilling to sharetheirknowledge; supporters, people whogiveemotional and moral encouragement; tutors, people whogivespecific feedback on one’s performance; masters, in the sense of employers to whom one isapprenticed; sponsors, sources of information about and aid in obtainingopportunities; models, of identity, of the kind of person one shouldbe to be an academic” Morris Zelditch, 1990, Speech to the Western Association of GraduateSchools