Supervision as a contested space: a response

Postgraduate research supervision: a critical review of current practice

“…Many writers (from countries other than New Zealand) believe that if supervision pedagogy is central, processes will be attended to and outcomes improve (Arambewela and Hall 2008;Evans and Stevenson 2010;Lee 2008;Manathunga 2009;Sinclair 2004;Taylor and Beasley 2005;Zhao, Golde, and McCormick 2007). However, much depends on the supervisor's approach that varies from a 'hands-off' mode, wherein the supervisor largely leaves students to their own devices, to the 'hands-on' mode, which tends to promote faster completions (Sinclair 2004).…”

“…Teaching in the hands-off' mode requires students to manage their own research project, while the hands-on mode is much more structured (Taylor and Beasley 2005). Thus, the pedagogical input varies from structural emphasis on tasks to the management of relationships that have a socio-emotional component (Manathunga 2009). Ideally, supervision pedagogy would be all-inclusive of both the structure and the process.…”

Articulating expectations for PhD candidature upon commencement: ensuring supervisor/student ‘best fit’

“…Professional development of PhD supervisors needs to be targeted. It should necessarily include administrative requirements of supervisory practice but also needs to be extended to provide avenues where supervisors can explore the unwritten emotional demands of supervision, and to reflexively investigate and contemplate their supervision practices (Manathunga, 2009). This should be done in a supportive environment that enhances supervisor training and one that includes both novice and experienced supervisors.…”

The role of personality styles in the supervision process: Responses and strategies

“…While there has been considerable attention paid to thinking about the power relations inherent in supervisory relationships (Grant, 2008;Manathunga, 2009;Wisker, 2012), this writing has generally not extended into thinking about interactional dynamics and patterns of exchange between student and supervisor that reflect how aspects of personality style are implicated in such complex interchanges. Much of the writing on improving the doctoral experience and throughput has tended to focus on skills training and assisting candidates to better manage themselves (Leshem and Trafford, 2007), rather than investigating the kinds of obstacles to progress that might stem from more intrinsic, individual psychological attributes of the candidate.…”