An Exploration of the Use of Coaching and Mentoring in the Supervision of Doctoral Students in UK University Business Schools

Purpose: to consider and evaluate the student and supervisor experience of doctoral supervision (dyadic and triadic) and specifically the value of using coaching and mentoring approaches (process and relationship) in supervisory practice. Design/methodology/approach: phase one is a mixed methods study exploring the use of coaching and mentoring in doctoral supervision on traditional and taught doctoral programmes in one UK university business school. The focus is on developing a conceptual model for doctoral supervisory practice for the transfer of learning and the improvement of practice. Phase two will be a collaborative action research study in a range of UK university business schools to use, reflect on and refine the conceptual model of supervision. Findings: the initial findings from phase one will be reported on at the conference presentation. Research limitations/implications: we have tentative agreements from four UK university business schools for phase two (subject to ethics approval). Practical implications: students and supervisors participating in the research will benefit from having the opportunity to review and improve their practice; the participating business schools will have the opportunity to review and potentially revise their doctoral student and supervisor training; and a business school’s reputation for high quality doctoral supervision could be enhanced. Social implications: could potentially benefit numerous future students and supervisors across a wide range of UK university business schools. Originality/value: there does not appear to be any previously published research on the use of coaching and mentoring in doctoral supervision in UK university business schools for the transfer of learning and improvement of practice.

Doctoral Supervisor: Coach, Mentor or Master? Developing an Alternative Paradigm for Doctoral Supervision

This working paper is the second in a series of working papers presenting the on-going findings from a longitudinal research project grounded in exploring the experience of doctoral supervision and developing practice. In the first paper and phase one of this research study, Cook, Nichol and Loon (2014) explored the existing context for doctoral supervision and, drawing from literature on the problematic nature of doctoral supervision and coaching and mentoring, considered the value of drawing on coaching and mentoring models in formulating alternative paradigms for doctoral supervision. This paper reports the findings of phase one, a mixed methods study of experiences of doctoral supervision with supervisors and students in one UK university business school, from which the Collaborative Action Doctoral Supervision conceptual model emerged. The paper also introduces phase two, a collaborative action research study with doctoral supervisors and students who are applying, reflecting on and developing further this doctoral supervision model. We are aiming to answer the question of whether the use of coaching and mentoring in doctoral supervision enables the transfer and sustainability of learning from the doctoral supervision session to outside the experience and improves the quality. Is the doctoral supervisor coach, mentor or master? Key words Doctoral supervision, coaching, mentoring, collaborative action research.

FITS into Practice: Translating Research into Practice in Reducing the Use of Anti-psychotic Medication for People with Dementia Living in Care Homes

Objectives: This paper reports on the acceptability and effectiveness of the FITS (Focussed Intervention Training and Support) into Practice Programme. This intervention was scaled up from an earlier cluster randomised-controlled trial that had proven successful in significantly decreasing antipsychotic prescribing in care homes. Method: An in depth 10-day education course in person-centred care was delivered over a three-month period, followed by six supervision sessions. Participants were care-home staff designated as Dementia Care Coaches (DCCs) responsible for implementing interventions in 1 or 2 care homes. The course and supervision was provided by educators called Dementia Practice Development Coaches (DPDCs). Effectiveness data included monitoring antipsychotic prescriptions, goal attainment, knowledge, attitudes and implementation questionnaires. Qualitative data included case studies and reflective journals to elucidate issues of implementation. Results: Of the 100 DCCs recruited, 66 DCCs completed the programme. Pre-post questionnaires demonstrated increased knowledge and confidence and improved attitudes to dementia. Twenty per cent of residents were prescribed antipsychotics at baseline which reduced to 14% (31% reduction) with additional dose reductions being reported alongside improved personalised goal attainment. Crucial for FITS into Practice to succeed was the allocation and protection of time for the DCC to attend training and supervision and to carry out implementation tasks in addition to their existing job role. Evaluation data showed that this was a substantial barrier to implementation in a small number of homes. Discussion and conclusions: The FITS into practice programme was well evaluated and resulted in reduction in inappropriate anti-psychotic prescribing. Revisions to the intervention are suggested to maximise successful implementation.

Expert Insight into the Assessment of Competence in Cognitive–behavioural Therapy: a Qualitative Exploration of Experts' Experiences, Opinions and Recommendations

To offer insight into how cognitive–behavioural therapy (CBT) competence is defined, measured and evaluated and to highlight ways in which the assessment of CBT competence could be further improved, the current study utilizes a qualitative methodology to examine CBT experts’ (N = 19) experiences of conceptualizing and assessing the competence of CBT therapists. Semi-structured interviews were used to explore participants’ experiences of assessing the competence of CBT therapists. Interview transcripts were then analysed using interpretative phenomenological analysis in order to identify commonalities and differences in the way CBT competence is evaluated. Four superordinate themes were identified: (i) what to assess, the complex and fuzzy concept of CBT competence; (ii) how to assess CBT competence, selecting from the toolbox of assessment methods; (iii) who is best placed to assess CBT competence, expertise and independence; and (iv) pitfalls, identifying and overcoming assessment biases. Priorities for future research and ways in which the assessment of CBT competence could be further improved are discussed in light of these findings.