Topic outline
-
All articles are linked through their titles.
Pole, C., Sprokkereef, A. Burgess, R.G. & Lakin, E. (1997). 'Supervision of Doctoral Students in the Natural Sciences: expectations and experiences', Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 22:1, pp. 49-63.
Abstract: Within the natural sciences and engineering, literature relating to postgraduate education, in particular the process of completing a doctorate, remains generally scarce. That which does exist emphasises the role of the supervisor in effecting successful completion and points to a wide range of activities performed by supervisors. There remains, however, little by way of accounts of the actual experiences of supervisors or students when engaged in the process of doctoral supervision. It is these experiences which form the basis of this paper which focuses upon doctoral students and their supervisors in the disciplines of physics, mathematics and engineering science. Data for the paper have been collected, as part of an ESRC funded project, by means of in-depth interviews with students and supervisors in nine universities in England. In particular, we address students expectations of PhD supervision, the extent to which expectations have been met, and within the context of the 'career' of the PhD, the ways in which supervision changes as the doctoral process progresses. Important issues relating to the need for training for PhD supervisors and their capacity to meet the expectations of their students are raised, together with those which question the relationship between the PhD and the culture of academic work.
Malfroy, J. (2005) 'Doctoral supervision, workplace research and changing pedagogic practices', Higher Education Research & Development, 24:2, pp. 165-178.
Abstract: The pressures of new agendas, new students and new degrees are challenging traditional pedagogical frameworks in doctoral education. This article draws on an ethnographic study that examined the changing nature of doctoral supervision and the pedagogic practices that support the doctoral endeavour in programs that explicitly link research with workplace practice. While supervisors and students struggled with uncertainty and confusion, partly due to disjunction in expectations, the creative tensions of doctoral research and the relatively new research territory of the programs, the study found that more flexible processes were emerging in doctoral education. This article examines the increasing move, through the use of research seminars, to more collective models of supervision and collaborative knowledge sharing environments. It is argued that this powerful pedagogic practice, which is often overlooked in the focus on the dyadic relationship of supervision, developed the research capacity of students and provided a forum for imaginative explorations about researching practice.
Wisker, G. & Robinson, G. (2013) 'Doctoral ‘orphans’: nurturing and supporting the success of postgraduates who have lost their supervisors', Higher Education Research & Development, 32:2, 300-313,
Abstract: Much research into doctoral student-supervisor relations focuses on developing positive interactions. For many students, however, the research experience can be troubled by breakdowns in communication and even the loss of the supervisor(s), turning the student into a doctoral ‘orphan’ and impacting on their academic identity and ability and confidence in producing a sound doctoral-level contribution to knowledge. Our work with a range of UK- and internationally based doctoral students looks specifically at reasons for supervisor loss and/or absence and the students’ experience of being doctoral ‘orphans’ in terms of identity, confidence and progress. In focusing on those who achieve successful completion, it suggests the need for institutional and community support and highlights the development of effective strategies leading to ownership, empowerment and emotional resilience.
Guerin, C., Kerr, H. & Green, I. (2015) 'Supervision pedagogies: narratives from the field', Teaching in Higher Education, 20:1, pp. 107-118.
Abstract: In designing supervisor development programmes that are appropriate to changing research contexts, it is necessary to draw on both established best practice and emerging innovations that respond to the changing contexts of higher degree research.We undertook a narrative enquiry at an Australian university to establish a clearer understanding of the upervisory models and pedagogies currently employed by effective supervisors. Three key findings have emerged: these supervisors employ a broad range of approaches informed by their own experiences of being supervised; they place great importance on their relationships with students; and they reveal a strong awareness of their own responsibilities in actively developing the emerging researcher identities of their doctoral candidates. These aspects of supervision models should be emphasised in supervisor development programmes.'
Blanton, J.S., 2014. 'Supervision practices in consulting and industrial-organizational psychology doctoral programs and consulting firms', Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 66(1), pp.53-76.Abstract: 'This study examines doctoral training program supervision practices in consulting and I-O psychology and within internship sites. Surveys and phone interviews provide data on the challenges that graduate programs face in their supervision programs and by the sites that use them. I developed an online survey of doctoral CP programs to parallel thestudy of I-O graduate programs by Tett, Brown, Walser, & Tonidandel, (2013c). This allowed comparisons between my CP data and the Tett et al. data on I-O psychology practices. To enrich the survey data, I also conducted phone interviews with graduate program directors and on-site supervisors. I found little consensus on what specific skills and knowledge should be addressed in supervising I-O and CP trainees. Supervision methods varied greatly within graduate programs, but I was able to identify three general supervision models. I conclude that that models, policies, and regulations developed for supervising interns in health and mental health settings do not easily transfer to the supervision of I-OP and CP psychologists and can also make it difficult for many trained in I-OP and CP to become licensed. The article summarizes “good practices” suggested by graduate programs and sites. It closes with implications, recommendations for training, supervision, license regulations, and research.'