TDU Talk
ISSUE 7 ▪ SEPTEMBER 2010
POSTGRADUATE SUPERVISION
From the Pro Vice-Chancellor (Teaching and Learning)
Associate Professor Richard Coll, Pro Vice-Chancellor (Teaching & Learning)
From the Pro Vice-Chancellor (Postgraduate)
Professor Giselle Byrnes, Pro Vice-Chancellor (Postgraduate)
Developing Research Supervision Skills: Executive Summary
Jean Rath, with permission from Ako Aotearoa
Closing Metaphor: Supervision as a Rackety Bridge
Barbara Grant, University of Auckland
The Pedagogy of ‘Good’ PhD Supervision: A National CrossDisciplinary Investigation of PhD Supervision
Mark Sinclair
Supervision Research in Progress
Gina Wisker, Brighton University & Gill Robinson, Anglia Ruskin University
Inger Mewburn, RMIT, Melbourne
Reflection on Supervision Conversations
Roger Barnard, Department of Applied Linguistics, School of Arts
Books on Supervision Conversations
Postgraduate Research Month
“
In this edition of TDU Talk, we examine a very
special teaching situation. It is that of postgraduate
supervision. This situation was described to me, when I
entered it at PhD level, as being ―like a marriage‖ where
one‘s supervisors engage with one in a very intense
relationship. I was fortunate in this relationship to have two
very diverse but strong and supportive people. Dr Neil
Haigh understood my action research orientation from a staff development
perspective, as he had worked in that area himself for decades. Associate
Professor (now Professor) Sue Middleton was a highly published author
with an exceptional ability to weave theory through practical reflection.
Between them, in supervisory sessions that were almost always conducted
together (and recorded by me, with notes sent to both supervisors
subsequently) they guided me through to successful completion. My thesis
was submitted after FIVE iterations (oh, the pain...) and accepted without
amendment.
ā
Our University recognises supervision as ‗a specialised form of teaching‘.
This has led to the facilitation of ―Postgraduate Supervisors‘
Conversations‖ being held during 2009 and 2010. Our unit, the Teaching
Development Unit, in conjunction with the Pro Vice Chancellor
(Postgraduate), Prof. Giselle Byrnes, offers conversations at around six
weekly intervals. These happen in a lovely arts-related setting, with food
and drink provided – see http://www.waikato.ac.nz/academy/
academy.shtml to see the venue. We believe that this venue and the
hospitality encourage our busy supervisors to ‗come apart‘ for a couple of
hours and to share experiences with others across Faculties, Departments
and Schools. See also Giselle‘s article (pages 5 and 6).
So far the conversations have included discussion around issues such as
cross-cultural supervision; co-publishing with students; interdisciplinary
supervision; appropriate admission criteria for PhD candidates; tackling
inertia when students hit the mid-way doldrums; mentoring academic
SEPTEMBER 2010 • TDU TALK
•2•
colleagues into postgraduate supervision; ‗best practice‘ in supervision,
including the University‘s expectations and ‗negotiating the terrain‘ in
terms of supervisor/supervisee agreements. Subsequent conversations in
2010 will cover bicultural issues in supervision, best practice in supervision
feedback and a reflective conversation looking at what we‘ve covered to
date, and what participants might want covered in 2011. The conversations
have provided space for supervisors to share their own insights and to learn
from those of others. We have also recently been asked to facilitate a
session for supervisors in the Science area – where much work is done in
labs, rather than the more one-to-one meetings that are the norm in other
Faculties.
In the remainder of this edition, we profile work that has been shared with
us by colleagues such as Dr Barbara Grant of the University of Auckland,
our first ‗external‘ speaker, who shared ideas with us at the July 2010
conversation. We suggest, from the literature, strategies that might help
supervisors to guide their supervisees to successful completion. We provide
feedback received from conversation participants, which may encourage
universities and tertiary providers elsewhere to consider this form of staff
development and support for this special form of teaching. We hope that
you find the issue of interest, and that it causes you to reflect on how better
to support your own postgraduate students.
Best wishes
Pip Bruce Ferguson, supported by colleagues Prof. Giselle Byrnes, Dorothy Spiller,
Trudy Harris, Preetha Pratapsingh and Shant Lochan
.”
Make a space at your place for teaching
Some of the best learning happens through
conversation and most of the working life of academics
is focused around the department. So why not make
the occasional space for conversation about teaching in
your department?
•3•
SEPTEMBER 2010 • TDU TALK
Associate Professor Richard Coll, Pro Vice-Chancellor (Teaching & Learning)
“
Like most jobs being a PVC has its ups and downs. A real ‗up‘ for
me was attending the Ako Aotearoa Tertiary Teaching Excellence
Awards in Wellington on 04 August.
It was great to see such a wonderful celebration of teaching excellence in
our tertiary education institutions.
As you might imagine the competition for such awards is intense, and the
calibre of awardees truly impressive. Winning against this level of
competition is a real testament to the capability of our two winners, Dr.
Alison Campbell from the Faculty of Science and Engineering, and Te
Kahautu Maxwell from the School of Māori and Pacific Development. It
also is a real compliment to those who supported their nominations and
applications.
The awardees were plainly passionate and highly dedicated teachers. A
particularly interesting observation was that the teachers held high
expectations of their students, but were very much prepared to go the extra
mile in encouraging, supporting and cajoling a highly diverse bunch of
students. These teachers bring about life changes in their students, but are
amazingly humble about the influence they have on their students‘ lives.
Our winners, like other awardees, are so inspirational that students make
enrolment choices based on who is teaching the papers.
What I think is fascinating in terms of personal attributes of our own
awardees, is that they feel privileged to teach some wonderful students.
In my opinion the University is privileged to have such capable and truly
dedicated teaching staff.
I would like to congratulate Alison and Te Kāhautu; they have done
the University and their students proud. I am sure they will
provide genuine inspiration for students and staff alike.
.”
SEPTEMBER 2010 • TDU TALK
•4•
Professor Giselle Byrnes, PVC (Postgraduate)
“
Just a little over two years‘ ago, I took up the leadership role of Pro
Vice-Chancellor (Postgraduate), with the aim of enhancing the
postgraduate research culture of the University, building our capacity and
capability in the area of postgraduate supervision and maintaining the
University‘s national and international reputation for quality in this
important area. I think that we‘re well on the way to achieving these goals.
My role, like that of all the Pro Vice-Chancellors, has a strong strategic
focus. We work as a team to support each other in our respective portfolios.
My particular role has two aspects. First, on behalf of the Postgraduate
Studies Committee I consider applications for enrolment, extensions,
nomination of examiners, completions and so on. This puts me in contact
with supervisors, students and postgraduate advisers on a near-daily basis.
As part of my role, I also chair the University Scholarships Committee, and
work with colleagues in the Scholarships Office on a range of initiatives
designed to enhance our support and commitments in that area. I work
closely with the staff of the Postgraduate Studies Office, whose
responsibility it is to support students from enrolment right through to
graduation. During 2010, I will be running 17 workshops for students and
supervisors, working with colleagues from around the University in
addition to the activities planned for Postgraduate Research Month in
October.
Second, I‘m working at present on a range of projects aimed at realizing
our objectives of growing our research capacity and capability—such as,
how to build sustainable relationships with external research organizations
through postgraduate supervision, how to support part-time candidates and
those staff enrolled in a higher degree, and how to best ‗scaffold‘ and
support new and emerging supervisors into the important role of
postgraduate supervision. I am working with colleagues to advocate for the
needs of students and supervisors, to guarantee that we deliver high quality
outcomes in postgraduate research and training, and to ensure that our
systems, processes and practices around postgraduate research and
supervision are robust, sustainable and support excellent quality.
•5•
SEPTEMBER 2010 • TDU TALK
Two years into the role, I feel as though I now have a good grasp of the
main issues and challenges facing postgraduate students and their
supervisors. I can now identify a range of different supervisory practices
across the institution and I‘ve learnt a huge amount about the ways that
disciplinary differences impact upon supervisory practice in a particular
field.
One of the real privileges of this role is working with postgraduate research
students and with supervisors—all of whom are engaged in cutting-edge
research projects. I have enormous respect for the many general
professional staff colleagues (at the Faculty and University level) who work
tirelessly to support postgraduate students and supervisors.
Having a student focus is a key priority and informs my work at every step.
While we work towards realizing institutional goals and meeting the
broader objectives around increasing recruitment, retention and completion
among our postgraduate student body, I believe that we mustn‘t lose sight
of the importance of a well-rounded ‗Waikato‘ experience.
Giselle Byrnes
SEPTEMBER 2010 • TDU TALK
.”
•6•
The article below was downloaded from Ako Aotearoa’s website http://
akoaotearoa.ac.nz/project/developing-research-supervision-skills/
resources/pages/developing-research-supervision-skill on August 4, and is
used with permission of Ako Aotearoa and author Jean Rath.
Introduction
Supervising students undertaking research projects, dissertations or theses
at all levels from pre-degree to doctorates is a significant part of the work
of tertiary educators, and the relationship between supervisor and student
has been shown to be a critical factor in the retention of students. Most
literature and research initiatives relating to supervision are aimed at
postgraduate level students and supervisors. Moreover, there is only an
emerging literature to address the specific requirements of supervision in
the Aotearoa New Zealand context. Therefore, this exploratory project
sought to generate knowledge about current practices across a range of type
of organisations and qualification levels within the Aotearoa New Zealand
context. The overarching objectives were to:
Identify existing resources and professional development activities that
are available at universities, polytechnics, wānanga and relevant private
training establishments [PTE].
 Provide baseline data and networking opportunities for future projects.
 Generate tentative practical recommendations to assist tertiary
institutions and their staff in developing effective research supervision
training.

Methods and Results
A national online survey and qualitative case studies of five institutions
(three polytechnics, a university and a PTE) were carried out. Each
institution determined the nature of information obtained and the key
informants interviewed during site visits. Case study organisations were
guided to identify staff offering leadership in professional development and
supervisors identified by the institution as adopting good practice.
Responses were received from seven universities, six polytechnics, one
wānanga and four PTEs (response rate 45%).
 Only two institutions provided institution-wide supervisor professional
development at sub-degree level.
 All the universities indicated that supervisor support or training is
available for work at doctoral level.
•7•
SEPTEMBER 2010 • TDU TALK
 All universities provided an orientation for novice postgraduate
supervisors. Topics included: codes of practice, information about
dealing with problems, ethics, managing candidature, working with
international students and orientation for experienced supervisors new
to the institution.
 The same material was covered for supervisors of Masters level
research, however, the response count was the same or lower for each
subject.
 Several universities and polytechnics provided professional
development for postgraduate research supervisors at an institutional
level and devolved support for supervisors at other levels was faculties
or schools (this resulted in some organisations having little centralised
knowledge about the overall provision of professional development).
 Several polytechnics and PTEs did not regard themselves as providing
any professional development for supervisors of student research.
 Of those organisations providing professional development for
supervisors, all provided printed materials (most frequently a Handbook
for both students and supervisors), 90% made use of training sessions
and a mentoring programme, 40% operated a peer buddying scheme or
peer support group, and half provided web-based resources.
The case studies highlighted the diverse institutional policies and practices
in relation to supervisors‘ professional development. Only the university
had a formalised training programme for supervisors. Other institutions
relied on wider, system-based, initiatives that focussed on staff research
and/or teaching capabilities. Few supervisors had undertaken formal
supervisor training, however, they had access to a range of skills,
experiences, resources and non-supervisory formal professional
development opportunities. An inductive analysis of the interview data
identified five main themes in supervisors‘ narratives: memories of
supervision, supervision as teaching, transferring skills, personal attributes
and learning from colleagues.
Implications for supervisor professional development
The results highlight the range of institutional approaches to supervisor
professional development and the major themes of the complex narratives
that supervisors employ to make sense of their experience. One outcome
has been to raise awareness of supervisor professional development across
a range of tertiary organisations. It is hoped that this will enhance future
networking between staff developers who prepare staff to supervise student
research at a variety of qualification levels. Based on the areas highlighted
as important within the report, there are several implications for the
development of practice:
SEPTEMBER 2010 • TDU TALK
•8•
 Supervision should be recognised as a space for crafting (and recrafting) scholarly identities for both students and supervisors.
Professional development should encourage challenging reflective
practices to acknowledge and build upon the knowledge and life
experiences of supervisors with regard to their prior professional and
personal experiences.
 Many supervisors develop their skills by evolving and expanding upon
other teaching duties. Institutions can enhance this process by
acknowledging pre-existing skills and by developing tertiary teaching
qualifications that include supervision as a specialist pedagogy.
 Professional development models should seek to facilitate a process that
honours the supervisory relationship as requiring not only competent
individual supervisors, but also a supportive community of academics,
other staff and students.
 Devolution of professional development responsibilities to Faculty or
School level allows for the development of discipline specific
supervisory pedagogies. Such developments must be coupled with
effective communications between all units concerned with teaching
and research development.
 Staff need to be well-prepared to supervise small research projects; this
strengthens the research-teaching nexus at pre-degree and
undergraduate level, provides a stimulus for community and industry
engagement, and impetus to postgraduate programmes.
 Web-based resources are rapidly becoming a key vehicle to facilitate
professional learning networks and encourage community-building.
Their emergence is important in developing inclusive ways to work
with students and/or supervisors at a distance across global academic
and practitioner communities.
The research project was a scoping exercise. Future more in-depth research
is required that adopts longitudinal, multi-dimensional, multi-method
approaches to help develop credible models of how professional
development affects the structure, acquisition, application and retention of
supervisor knowledge, and how this influences students‘ experiences and
outcomes. The role of supervisors remains crucial in ensuring that students
complete their education in a timely manner and gain enriched abilities
with regard to research skills, scholarly endeavour and academic identities.
•9•
SEPTEMBER 2010 • TDU TALK
Barbara Grant, who spoke at our July Supervisor’s Conversation, has
written many papers on supervision. In one, published in the HERDSA
Annual International Conference (Melbourne, 1999), she used the
metaphor of a ‘rackety bridge’ to help supervisors to understand the
dynamics of the supervision process on both parties. This quote, accessed
from http://www.herdsa.org.au/branches/vic/Cornerstones/pdf/grant.pdf
on 4 August 2010, explains her metaphor.
This brings me to my closing metaphor which is also my title: I want to
suggest that negotiating a supervision relationship is like walking on a
rackety bridge. On the one hand, supervision is like the bridge in that it has
a kind of material reality: the institution offers a ‗sound‘ pedagogical
structure within which the interactions between supervisor and student are
assumed to occur. This structure has been defined more explicitly in recent
times as a ‗code‘ of mutual responsibilities. Yet, on the other, because of
the workings of power, identity and desire, supervision is not static but
rackety, a bridge disturbed by erratic movement. Once an agreement for
supervision is reached, and student and supervisor begin to walk on the
bridge together, to act in relation to one another, many unpredictable
effects occur, threatening the stability of the bridge and those walking on it.
As Gilah Leder describes it (1995 p. 5), supervision is a ―question of
balance‖; negotiating it requires a certain situational attentiveness. When
walking jointly on a rackety bridge, both supervisor and student need to be
sensitive to the effects of their actions and responses on the other, or
someone (most often the student) may fall off. At times, both need to be
flexible in their tactics and willing to try new ways of acting towards the
other in order to maintain a balance that allows progress to be made. This is
not to say, though, that both are equal. In my metaphor, the supervisor
weighs more by virtue of her/his institutional position and therefore must
take greater care in how s/he walks on that bridge. A small, thoughtless
move can throw the student off the bridge. No movement at all can provoke
unwise movements from the student. For instance, some students end up
‗jumping‘ up and down to ensure their supervisor notices their presence on
the bridge among all the other distractions and pressures of academic life.
Grant, B. (1999) Walking on a rackety
bridge: mapping supervision. In
online proceedings of the
Cornerstones: What do we value in
higher education? Conference,
Higher Education Research and
Development Society of Australasia
Annual International Conference,
Melbourne, Australia, July 12 – 15.
SEPTEMBER 2010 • TDU TALK
While supervision is risky, it is also potentially a highly pleasurable
pedagogy for both student and supervisor. For the student there are the
pleasures of working one-to-one with an academic, of being recognised as
an academic her/himself (and many other pleasures besides); for the
supervisor there are the pleasures of seeing a student‘s capabilities grow
and flower in the writing of the thesis, of co-producing a good piece of
academic work, of fostering the development of the discipline (and more
besides). To make the most of these pleasures we must attend to them and
actively promote them, which means acknowledging that supervision is far
more than a simple contract of mutual responsibilities between supervisor
and student. (Grant, 1999, page 9).
• 10 •
In research reported on the site above, Mark Sinclair carried out work in
2004 that aimed to investigate claims that there is a relationship between
research higher degree supervision, and completions.
http://www.dest.gov.au/NR/rdonlyres/07C6492B-F1BE-45C6-A2836098B6952D29/2536/phd_supervision.pdf
The work used a two-phase nationwide survey in Australia that approached
5450 possible respondents (40%, or 1048, of whom responded in the first
phase) plus 1032 possible respondents (of whom 75%, or 770, replied, in
the second phase). They supervised students between 1990 and 1997 in 26
state and private universities in Australia. In addition, Sinclair then carried
out face to face interviews with 83 PhD supervisors and 26 present or
former higher degree candidates across 17 universities. The research found
that there were emergent principles of ―the pedagogy of ‗good‘ PhD
supervision‖ which offered food for thought.
Hands-on supervisors:
 Have a more interventionist approach based on accepting that candidates







• 11 •
are not always ideally prepared and setting the candidate up for a more
structured approach to their candidature
Achieve an early and lasting agreement with candidate regarding
expectations of each other coupled with action consistent with
agreements
Maintain the supervision relationship by a combination of an ‗open
door‘ consultation policy and regularly initiating contact with candidates
Get to know their candidates well enough for a personal dimension of
trust to exist within an otherwise professional relationship
Acknowledge the power differential between selves and students and
―use their superior position to mentor candidate‘s professional
development with a view to the candidate established her/himself as a
peer‖ (p.vii)
Explicitly negotiate a ―firm timetable‖ for candidature – including
available support and project logistics, institutional quality checks,
project-specific milestones such as the production of thesis text, the
presentation and publication of conference and journal papers
Treat the first year as crucial – provide for a mix of formal and informal
interactions between selves and candidates, other candidates and
relevant sources of expert advice, require writing and give feedback fast,
encourage candidates to multi-task so they don‘t get bogged down by an
apparent lack of progress in one area of the research
Foster collaborations between candidates (via face to face and electronic
means)
SEPTEMBER 2010 • TDU TALK
 Involve academics and other experts additional to the supervisor in the





candidate‘s research
Integrate candidate‘s into supervisor‘s broader associations with
research groups and teams as well as industry networks
Enhance the candidates professional development via activities such as
joint preparation of conference presentations and journal papers
Have a fluctuating frequency of interaction, also amount and level of
input, after the first year but intensify their interactions with the
candidate during ―peak candidate activity‖ especially writing
Go through a number of iterations of thesis and publication drafts with
candidates
Negotiate authorship protocols that reflect respective contributions made
by supervisor, candidate and any additional authors
Culturally Responsive Research and Pedagogy
A symposium to be held at
The Faculty of Education, University of Waikato
November 13-15
The vision for the symposium is a gathering of around 100 people, of whom three will be
international keynote speakers and 20 will be, by invitation, presenters of papers. Remaining
registrations will be more open, but we will be making a special place for emerging scholars
whose doctoral work is focused on the conference theme.
Our aim, then, is for a mix of experience and expertise, from seasoned scholars to fresh and
eager doctoral students with an interest in the theme. We are planning for a mix of overseas
visitors, and local presenters and symposium members with an interest in and a willingness to
present on the way the symposium theme is played out in a range of contexts, including, of
course, New Zealand/Aotearoa.
Keynote speakers: Hilary Janks, University of the Witwatersrand; Christine Sleeter, Professor
Emerita, the College of Professional Studies at California State University Monterey Bay; Kris
Gutiérrez, Professor, School of Education, University of Colorado at Boulder.
For further details and to register: http://www.crrp.ac.nz
Inquiries: Terry Locke, [email protected]
SEPTEMBER 2010 • TDU TALK
• 12 •
Gina Wisker, Brighton University & Gill Robinson, Anglia Ruskin University
Inger Mewburn, RMIT, Melbourne
Pip and Giselle were privileged to attend the Quality in Postgraduate
Research Conference in Adelaide, Australia, in April. Interesting
supervision-related papers were presented at this conference, and we take
the opportunity to share a couple of these here (abstract only; the
conference proceedings are not yet loaded).
In the first paper, Gina Wisker of Brighton University and Gill Robinson of
Anglia Ruskin University looked at ―Doctoral Orphans: Nurturing and
supporting the success of postgraduates who have lost their supervisors‖.
Their abstract reads:
Relationships between doctoral students and supervisors have variously
been described in ways which range from a ‘dance’ (Wisker) matching
learning styles and enabling productive, sound research, to a master
slave interaction (Manathunga, Peseta) with all the attendant problems
around authority, power and silencing. This paper draws on work
concerning the range of supervisor relationships and interactions with
students, theories of identity, belonging, ontology, and learning in
a dialogue to consider ways in which supervisors and learning
communities work with doctoral students who have for whatever reason
‘lost’ their supervisor(s).
Supervisors move on, supervisory relationships can become problematic.
Students can be the victims in such instances and some have described
themselves as ‘orphans’ when they find themselves without supervision.
Adjusting to new supervisory teams is difficult, and can cause stress,
anxiety, leading the student to experience being ‘stuck’ in their work,
existing in a ‘liminal space’ between paralysis and productivity. For
supervisors ‘adopting’ such students, the issues of engaging with a
partially developed project, helping to enable the student to overcome the
anxieties and work with the new relationship, and ways of working towards
a successful relationship and a successful doctorate are all major issues
which require planning, tact, sensitivity, management and good
communication skills.
Small scale research uses narrative interviewing to explore the learning
journeys of (1)several doctoral students who have experienced this loss of
their supervisor and (2) supervisors who have undertaken supervision of
students midway into their projects, focusing on the issues and identifying
ways of overcoming problems the interactions and relationship might
throw up.
• 13 •
SEPTEMBER 2010 • TDU TALK
Gina has kindly offered to share her email address with readers who might
be interested in this work. You can contact her on [email protected]
In the second paper, On ‗whingeing‘: the hidden work of troubles talk in
PhD communities, Dr Inger Mewburn‘s abstract described ―telling stories
about ourselves, we are also performing a version of our self to others
(Frank, 1995). This paper explores the phenomenon of ‘troubles
telling’ (Jefferson, 1984) amongst PhD students and discusses the value of
this practice in shaping scholarly communities. Self Narratives work to
present a certain kind of self to others and orientate us in our relationships.
By providing the space for performing an uncertain scholarly self at a safe
distance from supervisory influence or the text itself, ‘troubles telling’
occupies an important niche in the PhD landscape. However, troubles
telling behaviour is often misunderstood by supervisors and
administrators; denigrated as complaining rather than seen as fertile
territory for the crafting of the scholarly self. Drawing on literature in
conversational analysis and examples from within PhD communities, this
paper works to set aside this negative stereotype and celebrate the positive
power of whingeing.
And a blog:
While the full paper is yet to be produced, Inger also keeps a very
informative blog that may be of interest to supervisors,
particularly a recent contribution on „a complex supervisor/
student relationship issue‟. Now read on (you might like to
share this one with students approaching „hand-in‟ stage!)
“This one is about a complex supervisor / student relationship
issue: what happens if you think your thesis is ready to submit
but your supervisor doesn‟t?
If you read my university homepage you will see that part of my
job involves consulting with PhD students about „administrative
matters‟. This is a broad brief; basically it means that I see PhD
students who are in distress for various reasons.
Usually I am able to direct them to another university service
area better equipped to help. But PhD students are very
resourceful people – often I can give them a bit of a pep talk and
they end up solving the problem themselves.
One of the pep talks in my repertoire is the “It‟s Time” talk. By
this I mean – it‟s time to have that difficult conversation with
your supervisor about scholarly independence. Let me explain.
SEPTEMBER 2010 • TDU TALK
• 14 •
Over the last six months I have had consults with quite a few
students who were arguing with their supervisors about whether
or not the PhD was ready for examination. All these students, I
might add, were physically and emotionally exhausted. Some
were in tears as they told me they just couldn‟t carry on.
These students have extreme reactions to a problem which
confronts all research students: how to become a fully
independent scholar.
Now when I started this blog I promised myself I would be
careful about how I approach the issues around student /
supervisor relationships. It‟s a particularly fraught area. If you
don‟t believe me scan this archive of papers from the Quality in
Postgraduate Research conferences and see how many there are
about supervision problems.
Loads.
One of the reasons that the relationships can be so fraught is
that there‟s a paradox at the heart of research supervision. The
stated intent of the PhD process is to train novices to become
„independent scholars‟. Further, these novice scholars are
supposed to be engaged in making „new knowledge‟. This puts
all supervisors in a difficult position.
There should come a point, sooner or later in this process, where
you know more than your supervisor about your topic. If you
think about it – this is in the finest tradition of teaching. The
great privilege of research supervision is that a teacher gets to
step back knowing that the student has surpassed them and will
go on to do Great Things.
If the process has worked you will be in the best position to judge
the quality of your work and be able to tell your supervisor it is
ready – and they will agree. The supervisor has helped you to
develop what they already have – an internal critic. This
internal critic you have formed while doing a PhD will be your
friend for life – it is the essence of scholarly independence and
will enable you to do the job of an academic.
A caveat. Your thesis being „ready‟ does not mean that it is
perfect. Perfect is, as my dear husband says, the enemy of Good.
Perfect is also the enemy of done. I think perfectionism is rife in
the PhD scholar community because, well – we are high
achievers.
But that‟s a post for another time.
• 15 •
SEPTEMBER 2010 • TDU TALK
Of course, if your supervisor‟s internal critic and your internal
critic disagree everything should come to a screaming halt. The
supervisors I meet take their responsibility for overseeing student
welfare extremely seriously. Heck – they may even be your friend
by this point.
Although the supervisor may give many reasons for withholding
their permission to submit, it usually boils down to one: they
don‟t want you to fail or have a horrible year of making
substantial revisions. They see flaws in your work which make
them think this will happen.
This is why I advise students to swallow their pride and make the
revisions that are being asked for. However some of the tearful
students reject this advice. Some have already accepted the
possibility of revisions or failure and tell me they would rather
take a chance on examination. Other students violently
disagreed with the changes being suggested by the supervisor,
arguing the thesis would be worse if they made them.
Part of my „It‟s Time‟ pep talk is to point out the paradoxical
nature of research supervision and the complex issue of scholarly
independence.
Developing empathy with the supervisor, rather than seeing them
as the problem, enables you to go back and have an honest
conversation about the risks you are prepared to take. Supervisors
can be relieved to hear that you are willing take responsibility
for the work and its flaws. Often this is enough for the
examination process to begin.
In rare cases however the It‟s Time talk doesn‟t work. If you
profoundly disagree with your supervisor about the final
changes, perhaps a second opinion is called for. It surprises me
how often students think they can‟t ask for another person to
read the thesis when they are in this situation. Hopefully you
have a second supervisor or another person in the department
who can act as a circuit breaker.
It‟s best to try to negotiate with your supervisor about who this
third reader will be so that you can both be comfortable with
their advice. You will need to be prepared for this person to tell
you to put your ego back on the shelf and make the changes,
because, I‟m sorry to tell you – this is what usually happens.
Remember: you might be stubborn rather than right.
So – in the end there are no easy answers. I can only highlight
the complexity of the issue and encourage honest
communication. Perhaps others will have experiences to share?”
SEPTEMBER 2010 • TDU TALK
• 16 •
Roger Barnard, Department of Applied Linguistics, School of Arts
I have attended most of the supervisors‘ conversations since they started
last year, and found them very interesting and useful.
They were interesting because I met colleagues from across the university –
some of whom I know quite well, but many others I had not previously
met – all of us sharing a common concern with how best we can mentor
our research students. I found a wide diversity of beliefs and practices
related to supervision. This itself indicates that there can be no single ‗best
practice‘ of supervision that we should all follow. For example, at one of
the early meetings, we discussed the issue of ‗conditional‘ enrolment,
which normally lasts six months. For the physical scientists, this period is
too long, because their methodology is straightforward and their HRE
applications are usually simple, if needed at all. For those working in fields
such as education, the period is often too short as multi-methods of data
collection, and the ethical implications, need a great deal of time to detail.
Another matter of common interest was how best to cater for the needs of
the growing enrolment of international students into research degrees; even
when they have a firm grasp of their field of study, research methodology
and are linguistically competent, they are nevertheless very often
unaccustomed to the culture of doctoral research at Waikato. Here, too,
there are differences of approach not only across faculties but even within
departments, as individual supervisors take their own position as to how
much structure and support their candidates need at various times.
The sessions were useful to me because I learned a great deal from my
colleagues to integrate into my own practice. An example of this was the
differing views taken about co-publishing with research students; how
much credit I should take for ‗riding on the back‘ of my students‘ own
research? Another point that I need to think hard about is the negotiation of
respective roles, responsibilities and relationships among the supervisory
panel. A third is to constantly widen my academic horizons to involve
colleagues across the university in interdisciplinary or cross-disciplinary
supervision. (Now, the distinction between these two, if indeed there is one,
could be the topic of a future conversation!)
I believe, too, that these conversations have provided insights for the
Postgraduate Studies Office. The most recent conversation was around how
the university can best support supervisors and their students, and many
ideas were discussed. Among these was the need to reduce the amount of
paperwork involved in, for example, the progress reports required of
candidates and supervisors. Since we are working with colleagues across
the university and sometimes off-campus (for example, on study leave) and
perhaps with students being absent while collecting data, it would be
helpful if these reports were able to be circulated electronically.
• 17 •
Anyway, TDU are to be congratulated on this most enjoyable and helpful
initiative, and I look forward to future conversations with pleasure
anticipation. (The lunch is good, too!)
SEPTEMBER 2010 • TDU TALK
A Handbook for Doctoral Supervisors
Handbook for Research Degrees of MPhil, PhD and EdD at the
Stan Taylor, Nigel Beasley
University of Waikato
A Proactive Guide to Supervision
Highways to Postgraduate Supervision
Lee W. Andresen
A Student’s Guide to Theses and Dissertations
Sue Middleton
How to Get a PhD: A Handbook for Students and Their
Supervisors
Action Research in Higher Education: Examples and Reflections
Estelle M. Phillips, D.S. Pugh,
Ortrun Zuber-Skerritt
How to Research
An Expanded Sourcebook - Qualitative Data Analysis
Loraine Blaxter, Christina Hughes, Malcolm Tight
Matthew B. Miles, A. Michael Huberman
Manual for Conducting Workshops on Postgraduate
Authoring a PhD: How to Plan, Draft, Write and Finish a
Supervision
Doctoral Thesis or Dissertation
Ortrun Zuber-Skerritt
Patrick Dunleavy
On The Art of Doing Field Studies: An Experience-based
Changing Doctoral Degrees: An International Perspective
Research Methodology
Keith Allan Noble
IB Anderson, Finn Borum, Peer Hull Kristensen, Peter Karnoe
Creating The Literature Portfolio
Postgraduate Research, Supervision and Training: Creating a
Alan C. Purves, Joseph A. Quattrini
Supportive Environment for Postgraduate Study
Linda Conrad, Estelle Phillips
Developing Students' Library Research Skills
Christine Bruce
Postgraduate Research, Supervision and Training: From Thesis
Writing to Research Application: Learning the Research
Effective Literature Searching for Research
Culture
Sarah Gash
Peter Sheehan
Enhancing Postgraduate Supervision at UNE 1995: A joint
Postgraduate Research, Supervision and Training: Gender
project of the postgraduate supervision special interest group
Issues in Postgraduate Education
and the academic development unit
Linda Conrad, Kate Roberts
Graham Jones
Postgraduate Research, Supervision and Training: Getting into
Good Practice in Postgraduate Supervision
Print
Gina Wisker, Nick Sutcliffe
Royce Sadler
Handbook for Graduate Teaching Assistants: Center for
Postgraduate Research, Supervision and Training: Supervision
Teaching Effectiveness
and the Thesis Writing Process
Gabriele Bauer, Karen Spry
Nanette Gottlieb
• 18 •
SEPTEMBER 2010 • TDU TALK
Postgraduate Research, Supervision and Training: Supervision
Supervising the PhD: A Guide to Success
of the Writing Process in the Sciences
Sara Delamont, Paul Atkinson, Odette Parry
Trevor Heath
Supervision Workshops
Postgraduate Research, Supervision and Training: Supervision
Sue Middleton
of the Writing Process in the Social Sciences and Humanities
Peggy Nightingale
The Good Supervisor: Supervising Postgraduate and
Undergraduate Research for Doctoral Theses and Dissertations
Postgraduate Research, Supervision and Training: The Role of
Gina Wisker
the Postgraduate Supervisor
Estelle Phillips, Ingrid Moses, Peggy Nightingale
Thesis and Assignment Writing
Jonathan Anderson, Berry H. Durston, Millicent Poole
Quality in Postgraduate Research: Making Ends Meet
Margaret Kiley (Editor), Gerry Mullins (Editor)
Training Needs Analysis: The Thesis Supervisor and the Thesis
Student at Victoria University of Wellington
Reading and Understanding Research
Joanna Kidman, Cedric Hall, Lorna Murray,
Lawrence F. Locke, Stephen J. Silverman, Waneen Wyrick
Spirduso
Up the Publication Road
D. Royce Sadler
Research Skills for Students
Brian Allison, Tim O'Sullivan, Alun Owen, Jenny Rice & Arthur
Rothwell & Carol Saunders
Review of the Research Postgraduate Experience
The resources listed are available from the TDU Library, A Block
Basement. For details or to borrow, please contact Preetha
Pratapsingh: [email protected], ext. 4839.
Desiree Jurgs, Graham MacKay, Graham Jones
So Where's Your Research Profile: A Resource Book for
Academics
Kate Beattie
Social Research: Issues, Methods and Process
Tim May
Starting Research - Supervision and Training
Ortrun Zuber-Skerritt
Successful Study for Degrees
Rob Barnes
Supervising Postgraduates
Ingrid Moses
• 19 •
SEPTEMBER 2010 • TDU TALK
The focus is on postgraduate research during the month of October, with a
series of events and activities designed to promote awareness of
postgraduate research and its place within the University and the wider
community.
Co-ordinated by the Postgraduate Studies Office, Postgraduate Research
Month will include, the Th3sis in 3 competition, a quiz night, information
evening, ‗meet and greet‘ sessions during campus Cultural Hour,
workshops for doctoral students and their supervisors, as well as Faculty
seminars and research conferences.
13-14 November 2010, Faculty of Education, University of
Waikato, Hamilton
http://www.crrp.ac.nz
The highlight of the month will be the Th3sis in 3 competition
which will showcase the cream of this University‘s emerging
researchers. With a first prize of $5,000 towards doctoral
research expenses, this is a fantastic opportunity for students to
showcase their research in front of an audience. Given a time
limit of just three minutes, contestants will be required to present
their research topic and its significance to a panel of judges and
public audience. Th3sis in 3 heats will be held during October,
with ten finalists selected to compete in the finals, held on
Wednesday 27 October at Hamilton‘s Clarence Street Theatre.
Hosted by New Zealand comedian and self-styled opinionist, Te
Radar, the final event will provide an evening of free academic
insight and entertainment. The overall winner of Th3sis in 3 will
take away $5,000, and the runner-up will receive $2,500 to put
towards research expenses.
17-19 November 2010, University of Waikato, Hamilton
www.nzethnographyconference.com
For more information on Postgraduate Research Month and the
Th3sis in 3 competition, visit http://www.waikato.ac.nz/sasd/
postgraduate/postgraduatemonth.shtml.
19-22 October 2010, Liverpool, UK
25-26 November 2010, University of Lincoln, Christchurch
http://www.lincoln.ac.nz/AHEEF-2010
18-21 April 2011, Stellenbosch, South Africa
www.postgraduate2011.co.za
SEPTEMBER 2010 • TDU TALK
• 20 •
September
Professional Development at a Glance
Warm congratulations to Dr. Alison Campbell from the Faculty of Science and Engineering, and Te Kahautu Maxwell from the School
of Māori and Pacific Development for their success in the Ako Aotearoa National Tertiary Teaching Awards.
ĀHANGA