Early warning signs in postgraduate research education: a different approach to ensuring timely completions

Recent government intervention in research higher degree policy across the globe has sharpened universities' focus on the quality of their students' research education experience and on timely completion rates. Studies have sought to highlight the factors that predict research students' timely completion of their studies. Many universities have sought to tighten their selection processes as a way of improving completion rates, even verging on adopting a risk analysis approach to selecting students. Instead this paper takes a preventative, interventionist approach to improving timely completions. It explores how experienced supervisors detect and deal with early warning signs that their research students are experiencing difficulty. It also investigates the wide range of reasons some students nominate for not discussing these difficulties directly with their supervisors. It proposes that supervisors may be able to improve timely completions if they are aware of these reasons and if they adopt a range of explicit pedagogical strategies to support students' learning.

The development of research supervision: 'Turning the light on private space'

Educational development for research supervisors is still a recent phenomenon. Early optional sessions on research supervision have now been replaced, particularly in the UK, continental Europe, and Australasia, by comprehensive and, in some cases, mandatory programs. Yet some of these programs focus solely on the administrative roles and responsibilities of supervisors, attempting to provide technical “fixes” that deny the genuine difficulties and complexities involved in supervision relationships. Some research supervisors resent the intrusion of educational developers into what many of them have regarded as a private pedagogical space. They interpret such programs as further instances of the quality assurance agendas of governments and university administrators, and are justifiably suspicious of what some describe as the colonial underpinnings of educational development. These reactions create tensions for educational developers. This article explores why educational development can be problematic for research supervisors. It then charts some current supervision educational development programs that seek to go beyond administrative interpretations of supervision. Finally, it examines whether the “Compassionate Rigour” supervision program, developed to address these difficulties, manages to respond respectfully and sensitively to supervisors’ educational development needs.