Doctoral supervision of colleagues: peeling off the veneer of satisfaction and competence

The nexus of teaching, administration and research activities engaged in by academic staff in higher education means that each individual plays a multitude of roles in relation to colleagues, producing inevitable tensions. One role relationship that epitomizes this extraordinary juggling task is that of doctoral supervisor/supervisee, when both are academic staff in the same institution. The last 10 years has seen an upsurge of research interest in doctoral research students, and government and funding bodies have imposed ever more stringent requirements on supervisors. However, staff pairings have been ignored in this literature and research. This article reports on an exploration that seeks to redress this omission by giving voice to the participants (colleague supervisor or research student), allowing them to articulate constructs about what may be unique in the interaction, thus highlighting factors that support or impede success in the enterprise.

Doctoral supervision of colleagues: peeling off the veneer of satisfaction and competence

The nexus of teaching, administration and research activities engaged in by academic staff in higher education means that each individual plays a multitude of roles in relation to colleagues, producing inevitable tensions. One role relationship that epitomizes this extraordinary juggling task is that of doctoral supervisor/supervisee, when both are academic staff in the same institution. The last 10 years has seen an upsurge of research interest in doctoral research students, and government and funding bodies have imposed ever more stringent requirements on supervisors. However, staff pairings have been ignored in this literature and research. This article reports on an exploration that seeks to redress this omission by giving voice to the participants (colleague supervisor or research student), allowing them to articulate constructs about what may be unique in the interaction, thus highlighting factors that support or impede success in the enterprise.

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.

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.

Writing together, learning together : the value and effectiveness of a research writing group for doctoral students

The high level of scholarly writing required for a doctoral thesis is a challenge for many research students. However, formal academic writing training is not a core component of many doctoral programs. Informal writing groups for doctoral students may be one method of contributing to the improvement of scholarly writing. In this paper, we report on a writing group that was initiated by an experienced writer and higher degree research supervisor to support and improve her doctoral students’ writing capabilities. Over time, this group developed a workable model to suit their varying needs and circumstances. The model comprised group sessions, an email group, and individual writing. Here, we use a narrative approach to explore the effectiveness and value of our research writing group model in improving scholarly writing. The data consisted of doctoral students’ reflections to stimulus questions about their writing progress and experiences. The stimulus questions sought to probe individual concerns about their own writing, what they had learned in the research writing group, the benefits of the group, and the disadvantages and challenges to participation. These reflections were analysed using thematic analysis. Following this analysis, the supervisor provided her perspective on the key themes that emerged. Results revealed that, through the writing group, members learned technical elements (e.g., paragraph structure), non-technical elements (e.g., working within limited timeframes), conceptual elements (e.g., constructing a cohesive arguments), collaborative writing processes, and how to edit and respond to feedback. In addition to improved writing quality, other benefits were opportunities for shared writing experiences, peer support, and increased confidence and motivation. The writing group provides a unique social learning environment with opportunities for: professional dialogue about writing, peer learning and review, and developing a supportive peer network. Thus our research writing group has proved an effective avenue for building doctoral students’ capability in scholarly writing. The proposed model for a research writing group could be applicable to any context, regardless of the type and location of the university, university faculty, doctoral program structure, or number of postgraduate students. It could also be used within a group of students with diverse research abilities, needs, topics and methodologies. However, it requires a group facilitator with sufficient expertise in scholarly writing and experience in doctoral supervision who can both engage the group in planned writing activities and also capitalise on fruitful lines of discussion related to students’ concerns as they arise. The research writing group is not intended to replace traditional supervision processes nor existing training. However it has clear benefits for improving scholarly writing in doctoral research programs particularly in an era of rapidly increasing student load.

The supervision of doctoral dissertations using a collaborative cohort model

The Collaborative Cohort Model (CCM) for research supervision was developed and piloted as an alternative to the Apprentice Master Model (AMM), which is currently used with most doctoral dissertations. The CCM was developed in response to concerns about completion rates and the quality of research supervision. The feedback from the initial cohort of doctoral students who have experienced the model is presented.

A learning community approach to doctoral education in the social sciences

The paper reports on the findings of a community learning approach to doctoral education involving scholarly writing groups (SWGs) which was developed and implemented in the context of a higher degree research programme within the social sciences in an Australian university. The research evaluated the impact of the teaching intervention on students' perceptions of the community learning experience, their knowledge of scholarly writing and their attitudes towards writing. The findings are suggestive of the advantages of community approaches to learning in higher degree research education as a supplement to independent supervision. The SWGs were associated with improvements in both participants' knowledge of scholarly writing and their attitudes towards writing. However, a variety of characteristics of doctoral education are potential impediments to the creation of ongoing and regular interactions in learning communities such as SWGs. The paper concludes that a flexible approach to the recognition and enhancement of community approaches to learning is required to acknowledge the complex and diverse context of contemporary doctoral education.

Narrative on a doctoral narrative : reflections on postgraduate study and pedagogy

This paper explores the stages of one student’s intellectual journey through a Doctor of Philosophy program of study in an Australian university. It outlines the theoretical and methodological insights made as she came to understand that data was discourse, entailing a politics and position of power that ran contrary to the aims of the study that the student was undertaking in and on her own community. The article is a reflective narrative produced from the experience of having to come to terms with some of the personal and professional tensions and contradictions that postgraduate study can, and maybe should, engender if it is to be any of real value.

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.

Doctoral research training : encouraging timely completion – case study reflections of one university on how it supports a vibrant research training culture

This is a case study of a young university striving to generate and sustain a vibrant Research Training culture. The university’s research training framework is informed by a belief in a project management approach to achieving successful research candidature. This has led to the definition and reporting of key milestones during candidature. In turn, these milestones have generated a range of training programs to support Higher Degree Research (HDR) students to meet these milestones in a timely fashion. Each milestone focuses on a specific set of skills blended with supporting the development of different parts of the doctoral thesis. Data on student progress and completion has provided evidence in highlighting the role that the milestones and training are playing in supporting timely completion. A university-wide reporting cycle generated data on the range of workshops and training provided to Higher Degree Research students and supervisors. The report provided details of thesis topic and format, as well as participation in research training events and participant evaluation of those events. Analysis of the data led to recommendations and comments on the strengths and weaknesses of the current research training program. Discussion considered strategies and drivers for enhancements into the future. In particular, the paper reflects on the significant potential role of centrally curated knowledge systems to support HDR student and supervisor access, and engagement and success. The research training program was developed using blended learning as a model. It covered face-to-face workshops as well as online modules. These were supplemented by web portals that offered a range of services to inform and educate students and supervisors and included opportunities for students to interact with each other. Topics ranged from the research life cycle, writing and publication, ethics, managing research data, managing copyright, and project management to use of software and the University’s Code of Conduct for Research. The challenges discussed included: How to reach off campus students and those studying in external modes? How best to promote events to potential participants? How long and what format is best for face-to-face sessions? What online resources best supplement face-to-face offerings? Is there a place for peer-based learning and what form should this take? These questions are raised by a relatively young university seeking to build and sustain a vibrant research culture. The rapid growth in enrolments in recent years has challenged previous one-to-one models of support. This review of research training is timely in seeking strategies to address changing research training support capacity and student needs. Part of the discussion will focus on supervisory training, noting that good supervision is the one remaining place where one-to-one support is provided. Ensuring that supervisors are appropriately equipped to address student expectations is considered in the context of the research training provisions. The paper concludes with reflection on the challenges faced, and recommended ways forward as the number of research students grows into the future.

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.