The desire for disciples

The development of research supervision: “Turning the light on a private space”

“…The intense privacy of this teaching space was also maintained because students only usually worked with one supervisor. In some cases, supervisors guarded their students as if they personally owned them, becoming hostile to the notion of their students talking to other colleagues about their research (Frow, 1988;Giblett, 1992). Supervisors learnt about supervision through their experiences of being supervised and received very little educational development in this form of pedagogy until the early 1990s.…”

“…Supervision pedagogy, heavily influenced by the Oxbridge tutorial system when the PhD program was introduced in the UK in 1917 (Simpson, 1983) and later imported into Australasia (Australia, New Zealand, Pacific Islands) and other former British colonies, has been characterised by an intense, individual relationship between a research supervisor (master/guru) and a research student (protégé/disciple) (Frow, 1988;Giblett, 1992;Grant, 2001;Threadgold, 1995;Yeatman, 1995). This form of supervision pedagogy was based on a transmissive approach to education, where, as Grant (2001) emphasises, students wanted to be filled up with their supervisor's knowledge.…”

“…This form of supervision pedagogy was based on a transmissive approach to education, where, as Grant (2001) emphasises, students wanted to be filled up with their supervisor's knowledge. Students or "scholarly disciples" were required to possess enough "genius" to absorb the supervisor's knowledge and skill (Frow, 1988;Giblett, 1992;Yeatman, 1995). As a result, supervision was regarded by many academics as a "private space" (Stehlik, 2001), within which supervisors passed on the research "trade" to students and acculturated them into disciplinary discourses largely by osmosis (Delamont, Atkinson, & Parry, 2000).…”

Promoting and recognising excellence in the supervision of research students: an evidence‐based framework

“…For example, what might be called a 'traditional' style occurs when there is 'an intense, individual relationship between a research supervisor (master/guru) and a research student (protégé/disciple)' (Frow 1988;Giblett 1992;Threadgold 1995;Yeatman 1995;Grant 2001) cited by Manathunga (2005a). Pearson and Kayrooz (2004) provide a useful model for thinking about reflecting on and delivering richer and more structured supervisory experiences to students.…”

Supervision as a contested space: a response

“…Ballard and Clanchy 1991;Bruce and Brameld 1999;Ryan and Zuber-Skerritt 1999;Wisker et al 2003) to post-modernist, post-colonial and psychoanalytic interpretations (e.g . Frow 1988;Giblett 1992;Grant 2003Grant , 2008Manathunga 2005Manathunga , 2007aMcCormack and Pamphilon 2004). However, as Rowland (2003) has argued, there is very little engagement and contestation across theoretical boundaries within the higher education field.…”