Developing learning cohorts for postgraduate research degrees

Development of researchers through higher degree research studies is a high priority in most universities. Yet, research about supervision as pedagogy and models of supervision is only recently gained increasing attention. Charged with producing good researchers within very limited resources, academics are constantly looking for more efficient models of supervision for higher degree research students. A cohort model of supervision promises several efficiencies, but we argue that its success lies importantly on how well the cohort is developed specifically for higher degree research studies. We drew on a growing body of literature on higher degree research supervision to design, implement and evaluate our approach to developing a cohort of seven students enrolled in the Master of Education (Research) degree. Our approach included four provisions: initial residential workshop, development of a learning community, nourishing scholarship, and ongoing learning opportunities. The four provisions resulted in gradually developing an environment and culture that students found very supportive and nurturing. This paper is based on the findings from data collected from student evaluations in the first year of studies, feedback from the cohort’s sponsor, and our reflective notes. The evaluation substantiated the value in investing time and resources for purposely developing a cohort for higher degree research studies. Whether the cohorts are sponsored or not, universities will still need to invest time and resources for cohort development if a cohort model is intended to gain wider efficiencies in supervision of higher degree research students.

Research supervision of international students in engineering and information technology disciplines (Resources)

This report provides an overview of the results of a collaborative research project titled "A model for research supervision of international students in engineering and information technology disciplines". This project aimed to identify factors influencing the success of culturally and linguistically diverse (CALD) higher degree research (HDR) students in the fields of Engineering and Information Technology at three Australian Universities: Queensland University of Technology, The University of Western Australia and Curtin University.

A model for research supervision of international students in engineering and information technology disciplines

A large proportion (over 12 per cent) of international and non-English speaking background (NESB) postgraduate research students enrol in engineering and information technology (IT) programs in Australian universities. They find themselves in an advanced research culture, and are technically and scientifically challenged early in their programs. This is in addition to cultural, social and religious isolation and linguistic barriers they have to contend with. The project team surveyed this cohort at QUT and UWA, on the hypothesis that they face challenges that are more discipline-specific. The results of the survey indicate that existing supervisory frameworks which are limited to linguistic contexts are not fully assisting these students and supervisors to achieve high quality research. The goal of this project is to extend these supervisory frameworks to a holistic model that will address the unique needs and supervisory issues these students face in engineering and IT disciplines. The model will be useable by all other Australian universities.

Good Practice Report : Postgraduate Research and Coursework Degrees

Over the past decade, enrolments in postgraduate courses in Australian universities have risen by 34% (or from 258,164 in 2004 to 347,363 in 2013) (uCube, 2014). This substantial growth can be attributed to increased demand for postgraduate coursework as continuing professional education, the expansion of Higher Degrees Research (HDR) intakes, and the development of postgraduate research and coursework degrees in new fields. At the same time, the establishment of the Australian Qualification Framework (AQF) and national Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency (TEQSA), as well as the internationalisation of postgraduate education, have brought challenges and opportunities to the sector. During the past five years, the Australian Government Office for Learning and Teaching (OLT) and its predecessor bodies have funded a number of projects and Fellowships on postgraduate coursework and research degrees. They span diverse topics–from entry pathways and research training to supporting international and Indigenous students, examination, scoping studies of new and emergent programs, and effective supervision. In 2014 the OLT commissioned this good practice report to review the grants and fellowships conducted between 2009 and 2014. Encompassing twenty-seven learning and teaching projects and fellowships, the aims of this report include providing universities and academics with an overview of the current state of postgraduate study in Australia and the major influences upon it; a coherent overview of funded projects’ findings and outcomes; and a central point to access good practices, resources and tools in summary form. The objectives of this good practice report are to provide: • A literature review, which contextualises the projects within the Australian and international Higher Education environment, emphasises factors that currently influence postgraduate programs, and highlights challenges and opportunities for the sector. It also explains variations in postgraduate course types and definitions within the Australian Qualification Framework (AQF), and identifies key learning and teaching issues as well as good practices identified in scholarly research and position papers. • A collated overview of the twenty-seven national learning and teaching projects and fellowships on postgraduate coursework and research, including a summary of each project’s aims and objectives, methodologies, outcomes and resources. • A summative index of project characteristics (topics, themes and approaches) and inventory of scholarly research outcomes of the completed projects (publications, reports) as well as resources produced (tools, methods, good practice case studies), and their location (URL Links, references, etc.). • A summary of good practices that have been identified from the literature and the findings of completed projects. • A set of recommendations to address remaining gaps in the field and areas in which further work or development are appropriate. Bringing this work together will help enable university course teams to improve the delivery and development of existing postgraduate courses and to develop new ones, and it will provide academics with an overview of good practices and resources for teaching, supervising and supporting postgraduate students.

Speaking of supervision: A dialogic approach to building higher degree research supervision capacity in the creative arts

In the emergent field of creative practice higher degrees by research, first generation supervisors have developed new models of supervision for an unprecedented form of research that combines creative practice and written thesis. In a national research project, entitled 'Effective supervision of creative practice higher research degrees', we set out to capture and share early supervisors' insights, strategies and approaches to supporting their creative practice PhD students. From the insights we gained during the early interview process, we expanded our research methods in line with a distributed leadership model and developed a dialogic framework. This led us to unanticipated conclusions and unexpected recommendations. In this study, we primarily draw on philosopher and literary theorist Mikhail Bakhtin's dialogics to explain how giving precedence to the voices of supervisors not only facilitated the articulation of dispersed tacit knowledge, but also led to other 20 discoveries. These include the nature of supervisors' resistance to prescribed models, policies and central academic development programmes; the importance of polyvocality and responsive dialogue in enabling continued innovation in the field; the benefits to supervisors of reflecting, discussing and sharing practices with colleagues; and the value of distributed leadership and dialogue to academic development and supervision capacity building in research education.

Improving research supervision in nursing

In this paper, four experienced researchers from the UK, China and Australia offer guidance in research supervision based on their experiences and the recent document, Improving standards in postgraduate research degree programmes [Higher Education Funding Council for England, 2003. Improving standards in postgraduate research degree programmes. Formal consultation. Department for Employment and Learning, Northern Ireland, Higher Education Funding Council for England, Higher Education Funding Council for Wales, Scottish Higher Education Funding Council, HEFCE, London]. Supervision is an important aspect of not only the development of the neophyte researcher, but of academic staff and research activity in general. With increased academic accountability, good supervision should be an integral component of a quality research governance framework and resourced as such. Recommendations include: adoption of these standards; rigorous selection of research students and supervisors and development of projects; development of departmental procedures for monitoring, feedback and intellectual property; and transparency, rigour and fairness in examination procedures. (c) 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Practice-led research and the innovation agenda : beyond the postgraduate research degree in the arts, design and media

The rise of the ‘practice-led’ research approach has given us a new way of understanding what creative practice in art, design and media can do in the academy and the world— it can materialise new ideas and forms into being as a form of experimental research. Yet, to date, attention around the world, and especially in Australia, has been chiefly directed at the postgraduate research degrees, most notably the PhD or doctoral equivalents. Recent mapping projects and surveys of practice-led research in Australia reveal much about the institutional conditions of higher degree researchers, supervisors, examiners and research training (Baker et al 2009; Evans et al 2003; Dally et al 2004; Paltridge et al 2009; Phillips et al 2009). Given this focus, we might well ask: is the practice-led approach destined to be a part of the higher degree ghetto only, or does it have an afterlife? What is the place of ‘practice-led’ beyond the postgraduate degree? After all postgraduate researchers do not remain postgraduates forever, and perhaps the practice-led approach to research may have benefits in wider university, professional and communal contexts.

Assessment of the influence of cultural barriers to HDR supervision of non-English speaking background (NESD) students in engineering and information technology (IT) disciplines

The paper details the results of the first phase of an on-going research into the sociocultural factors that influence the supervision of higher degrees research (HDR) engineering students in the Faculty of Built Environment and Engineering (BEE) and Faculty of Science and Technology (FaST) at Queensland University of Technology. A quantitative analysis was performed on the results from an online survey that was administered to 179 engineering students. The study reveals that cultural barriers impact their progression and developing confidence in their research programs. We argue that in order to assist international and non-English speaking background (NESB) research students to triumph over such culturally embedded challenges in engineering research, it is important for supervisors to understand this cohort's unique pedagogical needs and develop intercultural sensitivity in their pedagogical practice in postgraduate research supervision. To facilitate this, the governing body (Office of Research) can play a vital role in not only creating the required support structures but also their uniform implementation across the board.

Diffracting the practices of research supervision

There are ever increasing demands and expectations in the research world, related to the quality of research supervision. It can be difficult for an individual research supervisor to recognize their own quality of research supervision. On top of this are the added challenges of trying to improve that quality of research supervision. Reflective practice is consistently identified as a way for developing professional practice in research supervision. This chapter offers a number of frameworks to facilitate reflective practice about research supervision. It does not propose to solve the problem of quality research supervision but to provide ways in which a research supervisor can reflect on this aspect of their professional academic practice and begin to plan ways in which their practice can improve.

Experiencing higher degree research supervision as teaching

This article describes research higher degree supervisors’ experiences of supervision as a teaching and learning practice. While research education is considered central to the HDR experience, comparatively little is known to date of the pedagogical lenses adopted by supervisors as they go about their supervision. We worked with 35 supervisors engaged in discipline-specific and interdisciplinary research across architectural design, science, engineering, computer science, information systems and librarianship. Several of these supervisors conducted projects which interfaced with the social sciences and humanities. The pedagogies, constructed through the discussions and phenomenographic analysis, offer a picture of supervisors’ collective awareness of supervision as a teaching and learning practice. Supervision as a teaching and learning practice was experienced as: Promoting the supervisor’s development, Imparting academic expertise, Upholding academic standards, Promoting learning to research, Drawing upon student expertise, Enabling student development, Venturing into unexplored territory, Forming productive communities, and Contributing to society.

Chaos or complex systems? Identifying factors influencing the success of international and NESB graduate research students in Engineering and Information Technology Fields

The paper explores the results an on-going research project to identify factors influencing the success of international and non-English speaking background (NESB) gradúate students in the fields of Engineering and IT at three Australian universities: the Queensland University of Technology (QUT), the University of Western Australia (UWA), and Curtin University (CU). While the larger study explores the influence of factors from both sides of the supervision equation (e.g., students and supervisors), this paper focusses primarily on the results of an online survey involving 227 international and/or NESB graduate students in the areas of Engineering and IT at the three universities. The study reveals cross-cultural differences in perceptions of student and supervisor roles, as well as differences in the understanding of the requirements of graduate study within the Australian Higher Education context. We argue that in order to assist international and NESB research students to overcome such culturally embedded challenges, it is important to develop a model which recognizes the complex interactions of factors from both sides of the supervision relationship, in order to understand this cohort‟s unique pedagogical needs and develop intercultural sensitivity within postgraduate research supervision.

Antecedent factors of knowledge sharing in research supervision

Today’s economy is a knowledge-based economy in which knowledge is a crucial facilitator to individuals, as well as being an instigator of success. Due to the impact of globalisation, universities face new challenges and opportunities. Accordingly, they ought to be more innovative and have their own competitive advantages. One of the most important goals of universities is the promotion of students as professional knowledge workers. Therefore, knowledge sharing and transfer at the tertiary level between students and supervisors is vital in universities, as it decreases the budget and provides an affordable way to do research. Knowledge-sharing impact factors can be categorised in three groups, namely: organisational, individual, and technical factors. Individual barriers to knowledge sharing include: the lack of time and trust and the lack of communication skills and social networks. IT systems such as elearning, blogs and portals can increase the knowledge-sharing capability. However, it must be stated that IT systems are only tools and not solutions. Individuals are still responsible for sharing information and knowledge. This paper proposes a new research model to examine the effect of individual factors, organisational factors (learning strategy, trust culture, supervisory support) and technological factors on knowledge sharing in the research supervision process.

Learning through writing: Reconceptualising the research supervision process

This paper seeks to re-conceptualize the research supervision relationship. The literature has tended to view doctoral study in four ways: (i) as an exercise in self-management; (ii) as a research experience; (iii) as training for research, or; (iv) as an instance of student-centred learning. Although each of these approaches has their merits, they also suffer from conceptual weaknesses. This paper seeks to harness the merits — and minimize the disadvantages — by re-conceptualizing doctoral research as a ‘writing journey’. The paper utilizes the insights of new rhetoric in linguistic theory to defend a writing-centered conception of supervised research and offers some practical strategies on how it might be put into effect.

Connecting the space between design and research: Explorations in participatory research supervision

In this article we offer a single case study using an action research method for gathering and analysing data offering insights valuable to both design and research supervision practice. We do not attempt to generalise from this single case, but offer it as an instance that can improve our understanding of research supervision practice. We question the conventional ‘dyadic’ models of research supervision and outline a more collaborative model, based on the signature pedagogy of architecture: the design studio. A novel approach to the supervision of creatively oriented post-graduate students is proposed, including new approaches to design methods and participatory supervision that draw on established design studio practices. This model collapses the distance between design and research activities. Our case study involving Research Masters student supervision in the discipline of Architecture, shows how ‘connected learning’ emerges from this approach. This type of learning builds strong elements of creativity and fun, which promote and enhance student engagement. The results of our action research suggests that students learn to research more easily in such an environment and supervisory practices are enhanced when we apply the techniques and characteristics of design studio pedagogy to the more conventional research pedagogies imported from the humanities. We believe that other creative disciplines can apply similar tactics to enrich both the creative practice of research and the supervision of HDR students.