Postgraduate research supervision: a critical review of current practice

Abstract

Changes in the funding and delivery of research programmes at the university level have, in recent years, resulted in significant changes to research supervision. This paper critically reviews key influences effecting postgraduate supervision. Analysis draws on literature spanning 2000Á2010 to determine the appropriateness of traditional models of postgraduate research curricula and supervision for the New Zealand context. Influences discussed include the research context, faculty issues, supervision pedagogy and models of supervision. Each area is analysed for strengths and challenges and contribution to the knowledge economy. From this review, the authors propose strategies for the development of postgraduate research supervision: faculty development, including supervisor education, and formalised research training for students.

Was it worth it? A qualitative exploration into graduate perceptions of doctoral value

“…Those describing positive supervision relationships also cited supervisors as key proponents of their development, compared to those who reported poor relationships. The supervisory relationship is of key importance in the doctoral experience (Zhao, Golde, & McCormick, 2007) and a number of sources highlight the relationship as being pivotal to successful completion (McCallin & Nayar, 2012;Zhao et al, 2007). Some graduates perceived value from the recommendations, connections, and support they had received from supervisors post-graduation, in line with Tzanakou (2012) who reported similar benefits postdoctoral graduation.…”

Doctorates in the dark: Threshold concepts and the improvement of doctoral supervision

“…McCallin and Nayar (2012) identify the promotion of intellectual independence and provision of social and emotional support as advantages of this model, as well as the creation of networks for exchanging ideas, which complements one-to-one supervision. A group supervisory model can assist with identity formation in becoming a research scholar (Fenge, 2011).…”

“…Furthermore, since supervision is considered an important factor influencing issues of quality and completion in doctoral education (and as such is related to funding), universities have become obliged to address the quality of supervision (Kiley, 2011a(Kiley, , 2011bMcCallin & Nayar, 2012). A multitude of approaches to addressing supervision are reported in the literature and can be organized into three main themes: the nature of supervision, supervision models, and supervisor professional development.…”

“…However, students being supported in this way often forgo broader discussions with other students and academic staff. This model could also limit the researcher capability development that is needed for contribution to the knowledge economy (McCallin & Nayar, 2012). …”

‘Collaborative critique’ in a supervisor development programme

“…Systematic supervisor training has become part of the agenda (Pearson & Brew, 2002;Brew & Peseta, 2004, 2009Wisker, 2005Wisker, , 2012Reid & Marshall, 2009;Lee, 2011); frameworks and requirements for PhD supervision articulated (Pearson & Kayrooz, 2007;Lee, 2008;Evans, 2009); the challenges posed to supervisors by the implementation of the Bologna Process (Baptista, 2011) and government policies elsewhere (McCallin & Nayar, 2011) analysed; the need to build research capacity in countries such as South Africa championed (Bitzer, 2007;de Lange, 2011); and alternative conceptualisations and models for supervision have been put forward (among recent examples, see Samara, 2006;Crossouard, 2008;Firth & Martens, 2008;de Beer & Mason, 2009; Creighton, Creighton & Parks, 2010;Fenge, 2011;McAlpine & Amundsen, 2011). As academic developers responsible for providing appropriate education for research supervisors, how can we best fulfil our brief to deliver programs Professional development programs for staff training are delivered in both localised and centralised modes, with associated advantages and disadvantages (Boud 1999).…”