Research Supervisor
Training
Workshop One
Supervisory Practice: Learning
Outcomes of module
 L1. In the context of a dynamic relationship between supervisor
and student, critically assess the continuing and developing needs
of research students.
 L2. Apply a range of specialised skills and techniques to provide
effective feedback to students on their fieldwork, project plans,
writing and performance.
 L3. Effectively negotiate, with other members of the
supervisory team, and monitor a programme of supervision
for research students.
 L4. Demonstrate a critical understanding of regulatory frameworks
associated with research and development.
 L5. Understand the role of the supervisor in the preparation of the
Doctoral examination.
This session
 Consider what Makes an effective Supervisor.
 Identify what factors impact on research supervision.
 Brenda’s case
 Develop code of practice for supervisory teams roles
and responsibilities
 Jane’s letter
 Lessons for Monitoring progress
photo credit: <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/41398337@N07/10212619046">2013 Stone Lab Open House</a> via <a href="http://photopin.com">photopin</a> <a
href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/2.0/">(license)</a>
Group discussion One:
Share your experiences of research supervision..
What factors impact on your own supervisory practice?
A framework for concepts of research supervision:
Lee (2008)
L
Functional
Enculturation
Critical
Thinking
Emancipation
Relationship
Development
Supervisors
Activity
Rational
progression
through tasks
Gatekeeping
Master to
apprentice
Evaluation
Challenge
Mentoring,
supporting
constructivism
Supervising by
experience,
developing a
relationship
Supervisor’
s knowledge
& skills
Directing,
project
management
Diagnosis of
deficiencies,
coaching
Argument,
analysis
Facilitation,
Reflection
Managing
conflict
Emotional
intelligence
Possible
student
reaction
Organised
Obedience
Role
modelling,
Apprenticeship
Constant
inquiry, fight
or flight
Personal
growth,
reframing
A good team
member.
Emotional
intelligence
Group Activity two
 What do you think of Lee’s ( 2008 ) Framework?
 Can you relate to any of these?
 What are the advantages and disadvantages of the
various typologies?
Brenda’s Co-Supervision
Episode one

Q1 Have you any comment on the admission procedures and
supervision allocation system here?
 Q2 How would you respond in these circumstances?
Episode two
 Q1 How far does a co-supervisor have to be an expert in the area of
the PhD?
 Q2 Do the duties of a co-supervisor differ from those of the first
supervisor in your institution?
 Q3 Discuss what you would do in this situation?
Develop Code of practice for
supervisory teams
 What is your own experience of research supervisory
teams?.
 What would be useful in a code of practice for
supervisory teams?
 In your group develop ten bullet points that could form
the backbone of such a code of practice.
Jane’s PhD problem
Read through the case study and then discuss and answer the following
questions:
Team tasks
1. Discuss what advice you would give to Jane and write down the main
Points
2. What lessons are there here for

Postgraduate research students?

For research supervisors?

Departments/institutions?
Please list them and report back.
Some Influences on
Supervision
 Disciplinary
pedagogy
 Departmental
practices
 Conceptual
approach of
supervisor
 Codes of practice
 Employers/funders’
requirements
 Full or part time students?
 Experienced or
inexperienced students?
 International or home
students?
 PhD, professional or
practitioner doctorate?
 Supervisor/co-supervisor
Advantages and
Disadvantages
Advantages
Functional
Enculturation
Critical
Thinking
Emancipation
Relationship
Development
Clarity
Consistency
Progress can
be monitored
Records are
available
Encourages
standards,
participation,
identity,
community
formation
Rational
inquiry,
fallacy
exposed
Personal
growth, ability
to cope with
change
Lifelong
working
partnerships
Enhanced self
esteem
Low tolerance
of internal
difference,
sexist,
ethnicised
regulation
(Cousin &
Deepwell
2005)
Denial of
creativity, can
belittle or
depersonalise
student
Toxic
mentoring
(Darling 1985)
where tutor
abuses power
Potential for
harassment,
abandonment
or rejection
Disadvantages Rigidity when
confronted
with the
creation of
original
knowledge
In your group
 Take a problem you described
earlier, or one of the case studies.
 Explore how the supervisor could
react using each approach to
supervision in turn
 Be prepared to share the group’s
findings
,
Occupational influences
METHODS OF
SUPERVISION
department norms,
co-supervision,
team supervision,
group supervision
TOPIC
occupational
fertility
STUDENT
previous experience,
contacts, knowledge
aptitude, skills,
financial aims
SUPERVISOR’S
CONCEPTIONS
contacts, own PhD
experience
UNIVERSITY
PROCEDURES
recruitment,
upgrading,
networking
financial support