Covert conversations: disciplined improvisation and meaning-making in the masters (MA) supervisory relationship

This research asks the question: “What are the relational dynamics in Masters (MA) supervision?” It does so by focusing upon the supervisory relationship itself. It does this through dialoguing with the voices of both MA supervisors and supervisees in the Humanities using a Cultural Historical Activity Theory (CHAT) framework. In so doing, this research argues for a re-evaluation of how MA supervision is conceptualised and proposes a new theoretical framework for conceptualising MA supervision as a relational phenomenon. The research design was derived from an Activity Theory-influenced methodology. Data collection procedures included the administration of Activity Theory Logs, individual semi-structured interviews with both supervisors and supervisees and the completion of reflective journals. Grounded Theory was used to analyse the data. The sample for the study consists of three supervisor-supervisee dyads from three disciplines in the Humanities. Data was collected over the course of one academic year, 2010-2011. This research found that both individual and shared relational dynamics play an important role in MA supervision. Individual dynamics, such as supervisors’ iterative negotiation of ambiguity/clarity and supervisees’ boundary work, revealed that both parties attempt to negotiate a separation between their professional-academic identities and personal identities. However, an inherent paradox emerged when the shared relational dynamics of MA supervision were investigated. It was found that the shared space created by the supervisory relationship did not only exist in a physical setting, but was also psychoactive in nature and held strong emotional resonances for both parties involved. This served to undermine the separation between professional-academic and personal identities. As a result, this research argues that the interaction between the individual and shared relational dynamics in MA supervision enables, for both supervisors and supervisees, a disciplined improvisation of academic identity.

Exploration of the relationship between tacit knowledge and software system test complexity

This research has explored the relationship between system test complexity and tacit knowledge. It is proposed as part of this thesis, that the process of system testing (comprising of test planning, test development, test execution, test fault analysis, test measurement, and case management), is directly affected by both complexity associated with the system under test, and also by other sources of complexity, independent of the system under test, but related to the wider process of system testing. While a certain amount of knowledge related to the system under test is inherent, tacit in nature, and therefore difficult to make explicit, it has been found that a significant amount of knowledge relating to these other sources of complexity, can indeed be made explicit. While the importance of explicit knowledge has been reinforced by this research, there has been a lack of evidence to suggest that the availability of tacit knowledge to a test team is of any less importance to the process of system testing, when operating in a traditional software development environment. The sentiment was commonly expressed by participants, that even though a considerable amount of explicit knowledge relating to the system is freely available, that a good deal of knowledge relating to the system under test, which is demanded for effective system testing, is actually tacit in nature (approximately 60% of participants operating in a traditional development environment, and 60% of participants operating in an agile development environment, expressed similar sentiments). To cater for the availability of tacit knowledge relating to the system under test, and indeed, both explicit and tacit knowledge required by system testing in general, an appropriate knowledge management structure needs to be in place. This would appear to be required, irrespective of the employed development methodology.