Supervising Doctorates Downunder

Terry Evans is Professor and Associate Dean of Education (Research) at Deakin University, where he is responsible for th...

Author: Carey Denholm | Tony Evans

95 downloads 1809 Views 6MB Size Report

This content was uploaded by our users and we assume good faith they have the permission to share this book. If you own the copyright to this book and it is wrongfully on our website, we offer a simple DMCA procedure to remove your content from our site. Start by pressing the button below!
Report copyright / DMCA form

DOWNLOAD PDF

Terry Evans is Professor and Associate Dean of Education (Research) at Deakin University, where he is responsible for the faculty’s doctoral program. He has supervised many doctoral candidates over 20 years and has provided seminars and workshops for supervisors at Australian and New Zealand universities. Evans undertakes research on doctoral policy and practice and is widely published in the field. In particular, he has focused on the nature of the doctoral experience for part-time candidates and the impact it has on their lives, communities and workplaces. Evans is a foundation member of the Executive of the Australian Deans and Directors of Graduate Studies. Also available from ACER Press: Doctorates Downunder: Keys to successful doctoral study in Australia and New Zealand (Denholm & Evans)—a companion volume for doctoral candidates.

Edited by Carey Denholm and Terry Evans Foreword by Hon Dr Barry Jones AO

downunder

downunder

Carey Denholm is Professor and Dean of Graduate Research at the University of Tasmania. He holds degrees in primary and special education, counselling and educational psychology. In his role as Dean, Denholm has responsibility for graduate research administration, management, supervision and training, and regularly conducts workshops and seminars for candidates and supervisors. Denholm is a Registered Psychologist and a recipient of the University of Tasmania Teaching Excellence Award and the Vice Chancellor’s Award for Outstanding Community Engagement.

Edited by Denholm and Evans

from candidate selection through to thesis examination and guiding candidates’ transition to post-doctoral life. Supervising Doctorates Downunder includes chapters on supervision– candidature agreements, ways to build effective supervision relationships, helping candidates write and think like a researcher, reviewing progress, oral presentations, candidates’ health concerns, negotiating intellectual property, working with Indigenous candidates, part-time candidature and workplace research, and preparing a thesis for examination. Carey Denholm and Terry Evans have brought together 44 deans and other experts in doctoral research to provide thorough and well-tested advice for doctoral supervisors in Australia and New Zealand. Both experienced and beginning doctoral supervisors will find this book an invaluable resource throughout the process of doctoral supervision.

s u p er v i s i n g D O C T O R AT E S

Supervising Doctorates Downunder: Keys to effective supervision in Australia and New Zealand is a comprehensive collection of essays designed to assist doctoral supervisors,

super vising D O C T O R AT E S

Effective Supervision Keys to

in Australia & New Zealand

Supervising D o c t o ra t e s Downunder Keys to effective supervision in Australia and New Zealand

E d i t e d b y C a re y D e n ho l m a nd Te r r y E v a ns

ACER Press

supervisingdd_prelim.indd 1

2/5/07 11:39:09 AM

First published 2007 by ACER Press, an imprint of Australian Council for Educational Research Ltd 19 Prospect Hill Road, Camberwell, Victoria 3124 www.acerpress.com.au [email protected] Text © 2007 Carey Denholm and Terry Evans Design and typography © 2007 ACER Press This book is copyright. All rights reserved. Except under the conditions described in the Copyright Act 1968 of Australia and subsequent amendments, and any exceptions permitted under the current statutory licence scheme administered by Copyright Agency Limited (www.copyright.com.au), no part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means, optical, digital, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the written permission of the publisher. Edited by Ronél Redman Cover design and typesetting by Mason Design Printed in Australia by Shannon Books National Library of Australia Cataloguing-in-Publication data: Supervising doctorates downunder: keys to effective supervision in Australia and New Zealand. ISBN 9780864314307. 1. Doctor of philosophy degree - Australia. 2. Doctor of philosophy degree - New Zealand. 3. Research - Methodology. 4. Graduate students - Australia. 5. Graduate students New Zealand. 6. Dissertations, Academic - Australia. 7. Dissertations, Academic - New Zealand. I. Denholm, Carey J., 1951- . II. Evans, Terry D. (Terry Denis). 378.1550994


2/5/07 11:39:10 AM

Foreword Supervising doctorates downunder, subtitled Keys to effective supervision in Australia and New Zealand (or indeed anywhere), is the sequel to the important Doctorates downunder: Keys to successful doctoral study in Australia and New Zealand, written by the current editors Carey Denholm and Terry Evans, and published by ACER in 2006. Aotearoa New Zealand experimented with the PhD in the 1920s, but contin uity was only established after 1950. The first Australian PhD was established in 1946 by the University of Melbourne and in 1948 Dr Joyce Stone received the degree for her thesis on ‘Virus haemmaglutination: A review of the literature’ (1948). In 1950, eight PhDs were awarded by Australian universities. By 2003, PhDs awarded in Australia numbered 51 000. Forty-four authors from 23 universities in Australia and Aotearoa New Zealand have produced 33 chapters that examine PhD supervision both comp rehensively and in depth, with shared emphasis on both candidates and supervisors. Each chapter ends with challenging questions and a list of references. It avoids duplication. Supervising doctorates downunder has chapters that are essentially conceptual, while others concentrate on nuts and bolts. The latter suggests some grounds for alarm but I assume that contributors write from conviction. The work is mercifully jargon free and most authors seem to be familiar with Orwell, or Strunk and White. There is a heavy emphasis on language, much of it quite basic, including some problems that may arise with candidates whose first language is not English. Attention is given to grammar, punctuation, spelling (including the dangers of relying on spell-check), editing and proofreading. Issues such as intellectual property and privacy are thoughtfully examined, as is the need to demystify the thesis.  Chapters on Aboriginal and Maori doctoral candidates are of particular interest. There is a strong emphasis on the symbiotic relationship between candidate and supervisor, the problems of supervising part-time doctoral students—about 50 per cent of the cohort—compounded by distance education. There needs to be capacity to respond to candidates’ health needs and looking out for warning signs. But this means a responsibility for supervisors to give a priority to selfcare. Christopher Newell’s chapter on living with disability is based on personal experience.

iii


2/5/07 11:39:10 AM

foreword

This book examines ethics, power relationships, the need for support networks and integrating doctoral candidates into research teams. It concludes with valuable suggestions about completing the PhD, thinking about publication and the supervisor’s role in the candidate’s postdoctoral life. As Australia and Aotearoa New Zealand move more deeply into the Information Society, Supervising doctorates downunder will be of continuing value on both sides of the Tasman. Barry Jones AO, FAHA, FAHA, FTSE, FASSA

Vice Chancellor’s Fellow, University of Melbourne

iv


2/5/07 11:39:10 AM

Contents Foreword iii About the editors viii Authors ix Chapter 1

Introduction 1 Carey Denholm and Terry Evans

S ecti o n 1

Doctoral research supervision

The importance of doctoral research to Australia and 6 Aotearoa New Zealand

Maxwell King

Chapter 2

5

Approaches to doctoral supervision in Australia and 11 Aotearoa New Zealand

Barbara Grant and Margot Pearson

Chapter 3

S ecti o n 2

19

Beginning the supervision process Chapter 4

Chapter 5

Agreeing to supervise

20

Mark Tennant and Susan Roberts

Setting the scene: Initiating the supervision relationship

Developing the intellectual and emotional climate 36 for candidates

Linda Conrad

Chapter 6

Chapter 7

28

Natalie Moltschaniwskyj and George Moltschaniwskyj

Helping candidates form their research question

45

Richard Ingleby


2/5/07 11:39:11 AM

contents

SECTION 3

53

Planning matters Chapter 8

Helping candidates manage their candidacy

Chapter 9

54

Ed Carson

Conducting reviews of candidature

Chapter 10

Carey Denholm

Intellectual properties: Yours, theirs and others’

Chapter 11

71

Helene Marsh and James Burnell

Supervising workplace-based research

Chapter 12

62

79

Christopher Hickey

Editing and proofreading skills

87

Alison Garton and Jo McFarlane

SECTION 4

95

Ensuring a positive candidate experience Chapter 13

Focusing on generic capabilities

Chapter 14

Integrating doctoral candidates into research teams

Chapter 15

105

Brian Yates

Effective supervision of part-time candidates

Chapter 16

96

Rod Wissler

113

Terry Evans

Thinking like a researcher

121

Margaret Kiley

SECTION 5

Issues of care Chapter 17

Chapter 18

Ch a p t er 19

Chapter 20

129

Recognising and responding to candidates’ health needs

130

Kenneth Kirkby

Disability and chronic illness: A lived experience

138

Christopher Newell

Valuing international research candidates

146

Robyn Owens

Supervising Aboriginal doctoral candidates

155

John Henry with the Institute of Koorie Education

vi


2/5/07 11:39:12 AM

contents

Chapter 21

 Supervising Maori doctoral candidates

Chapter 22

164

Joanna Kidman

Self-care for the supervisor: A personal account

173

Elaine Stratford

SECTION 6

Promoting candidates’ reading, writing and thinking Chapter 2 3

Providing quality advice on candidates’ writing

Chapter 24

Supervising publishing from the doctorate

Assisting candidates with seminar and conference 200 presentations Léonie Rennie

The literature review: Not sinking, writing

Chapter 27

208

Kate Crowley

Degrees of uncertainty: Writing and demystifying 215 the thesis

Chapter 28

192

Peter Macauley and Rosemary Green

Chapter 26

182

Kate Cadman and Margaret Cargill

Chapter 25

181

Elaine Martin and Ron Adams

Determining doctoral quality

224

Jacqueline Rowarth and Graeme Fraser

SECTION 7

The examination and beyond Chapter 29

Chapter 30

Chapter 31

Chapter 32

Chapter 33

233

Examiners and examination outcomes

234

Sid Bourke, Allyson Holbrook and Terence Lovat

Preparing candidates for oral examination

243

Graeme Fraser and Jacqueline Rowarth

Assisting candidates as they move into postdoctoral life

251

Andrew Cheetham, R. Warwick Blood, Anne Daly and Bill Maher

Developing career management skills in candidates

261

Peter Tatham and Carey Denholm

Supervising doctorates downunder: Concluding 269 comments Carey Denholm and Terry Evans

vii


2/5/07 11:39:12 AM

About the editors Carey Denholm is Professor and Dean of Graduate Research at the University of Tasmania. He holds degrees in primary and special education, counselling and educational psychology. His PhD was completed at the University of Victoria, Canada, where he examined the impact of hospitalisation on adolescent patients. In his role as Dean, Carey has responsibility for graduate research administration, management, supervision and training, and regularly conducts workshops and seminars for both candidates and supervisors. Carey is a Registered Psychologist and is a past Chair of the Australian Psychological Society College of Educational and Developmental Psychology. He is a recipient of the University of Tasmania Teaching Excellence Award and the Vice-Chancellor’s Award for Outstanding Community Engagement. He is co-author with Terry Evans of Doctorates down under: Keys to successful doctoral study in Australia and New Zealand published in 2006 by ACER Press. Terry Evans is Professor and Associate Dean of Education (Research) at Deakin University, Geelong, where he is responsible for the Faculty’s doctoral program. He has supervised many doctoral candidates over a period of 20 years and has worked to support and encourage doctoral candidates through to completion. He has research and scholarly interests in doctoral policy and practice. In particular, he has focused on the nature of the doctoral experience for part-time candidates and the impact that their doctoral work has on their lives, communities and workplaces. He is currently involved in two Australian Research Council projects in the field: a Linkage Grant with CIs Margot Pearson and Peter Macauley, and APAIs Jim Cumming and Kevin Ryland, entitled ‘Working students: reconceptualising the doctoral experience’, and a Discovery Project also with Margot Pearson and Peter Macauley entitled ‘Research capacity building: the development of Australian PhD programs in national and emerging global contexts’. Terry is a member of the Executive of the Australian Deans and Directors of Graduate Studies.

viii


2/5/07 11:39:13 AM

Authors (listed alphabetically) Ron Adams, PhD (La Trobe University), is Professor and Director of Residential Services at La Trobe University; [email protected] R. Warwick Blood, PhD (University of Syracuse), is Professor of Communication at the University of Canberra; [email protected] Sid Bourke, PhD (La Trobe University), is Professor in Education and Assistant Dean for Research, Faculty of Education and Arts, The University of Newcastle; [email protected] James Burnell, DPhil (Oxford University), is Professor of Biochemistry at James Cook University; [email protected] Kate Cadman, PhD (University of Adelaide), is Senior Lecturer, Researcher Education and Development, Adelaide Graduate Centre at The University of Adelaide; [email protected] Margaret Cargill, MEd (TESOL) (University of South Australia), is Senior Lecturer, Researcher Education and Development, Adelaide Graduate Centre at The University of Adelaide; [email protected] Ed Carson, PhD (Flinders University), is Professor and Dean of Graduate Studies, University of South Australia; [email protected] Andrew Cheetham, PhD (Flinders University), is Pro Vice-Chancellor (Research) at the University of Western Sydney; [email protected] Linda Conrad, PhD (University of Queensland), is former Senior Lecturer and Deputy Director (recently retired) at Griffith University’s Griffith Institute for Higher Education; elconrad @bigpond.net.au Kate Crowley, PhD (University of Tasmania), is Senior Lecturer and Deputy Dean of Graduate Research, University of Tasmania; [email protected]

ix


2/5/07 11:39:13 AM

authors

Anne Daly, PhD (Australian National University), is Associate Professor in Economics, University of Canberra; [email protected] Carey Denholm, PhD (University of Victoria, British Columbia), is Professor and Dean of Graduate Research, University of Tasmania; Carey.Denholm@utas. edu.au Terry Evans, PhD (Monash University), is Professor and Associate Dean of Education (Research) at Deakin University; [email protected] Graeme Fraser, PhD (University of Missouri), is Emeritus Professor and the former Deputy Vice-Chancellor of Massey University; [email protected] Alison Garton, DPhil (Oxford University), was Director of the Graduate School and Professor of Psychology at Edith Cowan University, Perth; a.garton@ecu. edu.au Barbara Grant, PhD (The University of Auckland), is an academic adviser in the Centre for Academic Development at The University of Auckland, Aotearoa New Zealand; [email protected] Rosemary Green, MLS (University of North Carolina), is Graduate Programs Librarian at Shenandoah University and a PhD candidate at Deakin University; [email protected] John Henry, PhD (Deakin University), is Associate Professor in the Faculty of Education at Deakin University; [email protected] Christopher Hickey, PhD (Deakin University), is Associate Professor in the Faculty of Education at Deakin University; [email protected] Allyson Holbrook, PhD (La Trobe University), is Associate Professor in Education and Deputy Dean of Graduate Studies, The University of Newcastle; [email protected] Richard Ingleby, DPhil (Oxford University), is Professor in the Faculty of Business and Law, Deakin University; [email protected] Joanna Kidman, PhD (The Australian National University), is Senior Lecturer  and based in He Parekereke: Institute for Research and Development in Maori Pacific Education at Victoria University of Wellington, and has tribal affiliations with Te Arawa and Te Aupouri; [email protected]


2/5/07 11:39:14 AM

authors

Margaret Kiley, PhD (University of Adelaide), is Senior Lecturer at the Centre for Educational Development and Academic Methods at The Australian National University; [email protected] Maxwell King, PhD (University of Canterbury, New Zealand), is Pro ViceChancellor (Research and Research Training) at Monash University; max.king@ adm.monash.edu.au Kenneth Kirkby, MBBS (Hons) (University of Sydney) FRANZCP, is Professor of Psychiatry, University of Tasmania; [email protected] Terence Lovat, PhD (University of Sydney), is Pro Vice-Chancellor, Faculty of Education and Arts, and Professor in Education at The University of Newcastle; [email protected] Peter Macauley, PhD (Deakin University), is Senior Lecturer at the School of Business Information Technology, RMIT University; peter.macauley@rmit. edu.au Jo McFarlane, PhD (The University of Western Australia), is the Academic Writing Consultant in the Faculty of Education and Arts, Edith Cowan University, Perth; [email protected] William Maher, PhD (University of Southampton), is Professor in Environ mental Chemistry, University of Canberra; [email protected] Helene Marsh, PhD (James Cook University), is Dean of Graduate Research Studies and Professor of Environmental Science at James Cook University; email; [email protected] Elaine Martin, PhD (University of Lancaster), is Professor and Director of Graduate Research Studies at Victoria University; [email protected] George Moltschaniwskyj, MSc (Eng) (University of London), is Senior Lecturer, Department of Mechanical Engineering at The University of Auckland; [email protected] Natalie Moltschaniwskyj, PhD (James Cook University of North Queensland), is Associate Professor, School of Aquaculture at the University of Tasmania; [email protected]

xi


2/5/07 11:39:15 AM

authors

Christopher Newell, PhD (Deakin University), AM, is Associate Professor in the Medical Education Unit within the School of Medicine, University of Tasmania; [email protected] Robyn Owens, DPhil (Oxford University), is currently Pro Vice-Chancellor (Research and Research Training) at the University of Western Australia; robyn. [email protected] Margot Pearson, EdS (University of Michigan), is a Visiting Fellow in CEDAM, College of Arts and Social Sciences, at The Australian National University; [email protected] Léonie Rennie, PhD (The University of Western Australia), is Professor and Dean, Graduate Studies at Curtin University of Technology; L.Rennie@curtin. edu.au Susan Roberts, PhD (Macquarie University), is Senior Lecturer at the Institute of Early Childhood, Macquarie University; [email protected] Jacqueline Rowarth, PhD (Massey University), is Foundation Professor of Pastoral Agriculture at Massey University; [email protected] Elaine Stratford, PhD (University of Adelaide), is Senior Lecturer and Head of School Geography and Environmental Studies, University of Tasmania; Elaine. [email protected] Peter Tatham, BA (University of Tasmania), is the senior Careers Counsellor at the University of Tasmania; [email protected] Mark Tennant, PhD (Macquarie University), is Dean, University Graduate School at the University of Technology, Sydney; [email protected] Rod Wissler, PhD (University of Queensland), is Professor and Dean of Graduate Studies, Queensland University of Technology; [email protected] Brian Yates, PhD (The Australian National University), is Associate Professor and Head of the School of Chemistry, University of Tasmania; Brian.Yates@utas. edu.au

xii


2/5/07 11:39:15 AM

C h a p t er 1

Introduction Carey Denholm University of Tasmania Terry Evans Deakin University

Supervising doctoral candidates is among the most important work that university staff can undertake. It is quite rightly regarded as the most significant and inten sive teaching and mentoring experience accorded to an academic. The supervision of doctoral candidates thus represents an important and vital nexus where research and teaching intersect, and is a well-spring from which the new generations of researchers flow and progress to assume key leadership roles within their disciplines throughout Australia, Aotearoa New Zealand and internationally. Research and ‘research training’, within which doctoral education is often clustered, are fundamental characteristics of universities. The pursuit of new knowledge through scholarly inquiry, knowledge formation and investigation is a foundational contribution that universities in Australia and Aotearoa New Zealand make to their communities and respective nations. Therefore, to undertake the supervision of doctoral candidates is to contribute to national priorities as well as social, economic, environmental and cultural sustainability. At this point, academic supervisors who are reading this introduction might not have seen themselves before in this light and might be a little stunned. Without apology, we hope that the tone of this text will not only underscore, within the general consciousness of both countries, the significance, knowledge and experience of our doctoral supervisors, but will also help to raise their level of collective national importance. Such is the seriousness and importance of this task. Supervising doctoral candidates is also an important element of any successful academic career. It goes without saying that senior academics are expected to attract, supervise and complete a steady number of doctoral candidates. They do so normally on the basis of their own research and publication records, but also on

supervisingdd_text.indd 1

2/5/07 11:41:12 AM

supervising doctorates downunder

the basis of their previous ‘satisfied customers’ who have obtained their doctorates. By implication, an imperative for new academics is to build a good research and publication record, which will normally work together with the building of a solid supervision record. One of the outcomes of active supervision is that it will no doubt lend support to future applications for promotion and overall status within the university. For established academics, sustaining a good supervision record requires keeping abreast of the changing needs, circumstances and demands of doctoral supervision and doctoral candidates. Thus supervision also provides an excellent way to remain abreast of the changing rules, procedures and practices within one’s university and the national policies concerning doctoral education and training. The emergence of performance-based research and research training funding in Australia and Aotearoa New Zealand also calls for some understanding by supervisors so that they appreciate the ways in which their universities have to be managed within current government-policy objectives. Furthermore, it is extremely important for supervisors to become familiar with the changing academic environment in which universities need to operate, in particular in relation to research and research training, as well as the changing nature of the doctoral candidate populations in Australia and Aotearoa New Zealand. The diversity within doctoral candidate populations in Australia and Aotearoa New Zealand is an important matter for supervisors to appreciate and one to which they need to adapt. For example, consider the naturally occurring variations of incoming candidates in relation to age, academic background, publishing experience, gender, motivational drive, intellectual capacity, cultural and familial background and so on. In relation to cultural considerations and interest, there is a strong emphasis in both nations—at both university and governmental levels—on recruiting international candidates to undertake doctoral study. By encouraging applications from international candidates there are deep and longstanding connections that accrue to supervisors, universities and nations through their international doctoral graduates working in significant positions in their home nations. Whereas the mutual understandings and benefits that arise are difficult to quantify, there is no doubt that, in some respects, they are priceless. Therefore, it is important that supervisors, universities and government departments work in culturally sensitive and cooperative ways to make international candidates’ doctoral experiences positive and creative, and to foster the same expectations of international candidates that are expected of domestic candidates. The diversity of doctoral candidates extends far beyond international cultural differences. In addition to gender, the age range of candidates is around 50 years. There are differences of (dis)ability and personality. Many candidates work full-time in a variety of occupations, and they may have family and community responsibilities. Then, of course, there are the differences that come with the topic and disciplines in which the doctoral programs are undertaken. Supervisors


2/5/07 11:41:13 AM

INTRODUCTION

need to be able to ‘read’ these differences and adapt to them in order to supervise effectively. Universities also need to ensure that their policies and procedures are open to the needs and contexts of their candidates and, in particular, to identify and eliminate barriers to candidates’ success. In addition to the diversity of doctoral candidates, the nature of research is becoming more complex. Industry and government are pressuring universities to broaden the ‘skills sets’ of doctoral graduates so that they are able to deploy their research skills, manage projects, create ideas, communicate their findings, advocate change and produce costings. It is no longer acceptable ‘merely’ to make a significant original contribution to knowledge through the production of a thesis; nowadays the doctoral graduate is expected to be a flexible and adaptable researcher as well as an effective communicator. It is unreasonable to expect doctoral supervisors to be able to develop all these characteristics in their candidates. However, they are seen as primarily responsible for ensuring that many of these graduate attributes accrue during candidature. To do so, they need to understand what is required, be prepared to direct candidates to experts such as librarians, expect that their candidates will become better at some skills than they are themselves and, therefore, to learn from and use their candidates’ (and graduates’) expertise to help others. The aforementioned reference to doctoral graduates points to the experience that for many supervisors and supervision teams, their involvement with a can didate commences before candidature and continues afterwards. The initial engagement is often connected with the candidate endeavouring to find a suitable supervisor before they commence; however, a scholarly and often personal con nection continues after graduation as the graduates forge their post-doctoral careers. The mutual benefits are significant from joint publications, collaborative research, consultancies and even—some time in the future—as potential doctoral examiners. On the matter of examination, it is important to recognise that, typically, each candidate may have one or two supervisors, but they will require two or three examiners. Supervisors, therefore, need to contribute to the ‘global’ pool of examiners more frequently than they supervise. This is a serious responsibility that depends on the mutuality of scholarly communities. However, there are also mutual benefits for individual supervisors who accept becoming an examiner—in so doing, they keep abreast of the current doctoral work undertaken by others and ensure that their own doctoral candidates’ standards are nationally and internationally appropriate. Internationally, doctoral education is an evolving field of practice within which supervisors need to sustain their understanding and appreciation, and to which they regularly need to adapt their own practices. This book provides a resource for both new and experienced supervisors in Australia and Aotearoa New Zealand to do so.


2/5/07 11:41:13 AM


Supervising doctorates downunder is designed to assist all doctoral supervisors— from early career academic to emeritus professor—to understand contemporary doctoral supervisory practice. As is highlighted in this text, understanding the nature of Australian and Aotearoa New Zealand doctoral programs and how they are positioned internationally is important. Thereby, supervisors raised and ‘doc tored’ in our nations will come to appreciate the ways others practise doctoral programs, and those supervisors who were raised and ‘doctored’ elsewhere will find this an invaluable resource to understand the antipodean versions they are now practising. The text has been structured to move from the general to the particular, through a sequence of themes. Each chapter has been written with clarity and coherence for supervisors in any field or discipline. Not only do many of the chapter contributors have years of experience, they are also researchers and scholars in their field of doctoral education. They would be the first to admit that supervision strategies are constantly changing and that they continue to learn as they supervise each candidate, respond to their temperament and gain a deeper awareness of the variety of candidates’ learning styles. Contributors were asked to be succinct, communicate in plain English to fellow supervisors across all disciplines, and to share their substantial personal experience and knowledge. References and citations are held to a minimum and each chapter contains some questions at the conclusion that may be used for personal reflection by the reader, or used to stimulate discussion in a group session, such as a supervisory workshop. This text follows the style and approach developed in Doctorates downunder: Keys to successful doctoral study in Australia and New Zealand (ACER 2006), which has been well received by both candidates and supervisors. We have had many comments about its wide applicability, friendly style, positive perspective on candidature and of the many ‘gems’ that have been provided by experienced supervisors. With the success of this initial text we were approached to consider a similar style, with the focus this time on supervisors and supervision. We therefore consider this text to function best in concert with the other. We have been mindful that both supervisors and candidates might gain from swapping their reactions from reading both texts. After all, our candidates of today will be the supervisors of tomorrow. Preparing this text has been a joy and we have sensed the tide of enthusiasm, from the point of invitation to the production of the draft chapters. Chapter authors have contributed willingly and positively. They have been prepared to write in a ‘voice’ in which some have had little experience. We have appreciated their honesty and candour to convey knowledge and ideas that would otherwise have remained hidden. We hope that your approach to supervision will be strengthened and affirmed after reading this text, and that—most importantly—your candidates will notice the difference.


2/5/07 11:41:14 AM

SECTION 1

Doctoral research supervision


2/5/07 11:41:14 AM

C HAPTER 2

The importance of doctoral research to Australia and Aotearoa New Zealand Maxwell King Monash University

Introduction It is difficult to imagine how the human race would survive without research and knowledge discovery. We live in an age where we are continually confronted with major, minor and micro challenges that need solving. More prominent problems that come to mind are global warming/climate change, sustainable water supply, the finite extent of our carbon reserves, HIV/AIDS, SARS and Avian flu. Whenever a new challenge comes along—whether global or local, large or small—we need to have researchers with the necessary skills and background knowledge who can investigate the problem and hopefully come up with an appropriate short- and/or long-term solution. The availability of a pool of such researchers doesn’t just happen as a result of market forces. Both Australia and Aotearoa New Zealand have well-defined research doctorate programs that are designed to produce independent researchers across a comprehensive range of discipline areas. This chapter discusses the importance of doctoral programs to our nations and our universities and the benefits to supervisors of being part of such programs.

Importance to the nation Graduates from our doctoral research programs provide the academic workforce for our universities, help run our laboratories and research institutes, contribute to the evolution of public policy, and write books and articles for both academic


2/5/07 11:41:14 AM

the importance of doctoral research

and popular consumption that help us to better understand ourselves and the world we live in. They help us wonder about how the world/universe once was and how it may be in the future. They allow us to believe that diseases or conditions that are incurable today will be curable some time in the future. Most importantly, they make discoveries, they work out how to apply knowledge and they disseminate knowledge, both new and old. All of this is crucial to the vitality of our economies. We now live in an era where some forms of knowledge are treated like com modities and traded. In buying drugs that cure, a computer package that helps us to do our work, or a creative work for our enjoyment, there is typically a monetary flow to the owner of the intellectual property involved. Usually there are flows both in and out of an economy, but sometimes there are changes in these flows and this can affect the balance of trade and therefore the exchange rate. Late in the year 2000, the Australian dollar fell against the US dollar and it was suggested the Australian economy was suffering from a downturn in the balance of trade because of such flows. The Australian economy was criticised as being an ‘old’ economy, too reliant on resources, agriculture and manufacturing in the new age of the knowledge economy. The Australian Government responded early in 2001 with Backing Australia’s Ability, a $3 billion plan to support science, research and innovation over the five years from July 2001 to June 2006. Many saw this as a strong demonstration of the importance the government placed on research. Aotearoa New Zealand governments, certainly from the time of the Lange Government, have been active in economic reform to ensure national competitiveness, and, in 2002, the Clark Government outlined its Growth and Innovation Framework, which led to the 2005 report The growth and innovation framework sector taskforces: Progress with implementation. The Performance-based Research Funding policy that unfolded during the same period illustrates the various governments’ concerns for strengthening the nation through innovation, research and entrepreneurship. Clearly, universities have a fundamental part to play in research and research training development in both Australia and Aotearoa New Zealand. Unfortunately research is not something that everyone can do. Over many years, we have learned a lot about which research techniques work and which don’t. Opinion polling is a good example. In 1936, the Literary Digest magazine in the US polled 2.4 million individuals on the outcome of the Presidential election contested by Governor Alfred Landon of Kansas and the incumbent President Franklin D Roosevelt. Their poll predicted an overwhelming victory for Landon by 57 per cent to 43 per cent, in complete contrast to the actual election result, which was a landslide win for Roosevelt by 62 per cent to 38 per cent. How could such a large poll be so wrong? The reason is that the Literary Digest drew a very biased sample from lists of people wealthy enough to have telephones and belong to clubs, etc. in this time of extreme recession. The unemployed of approximately


2/5/07 11:41:15 AM


9 million, who largely voted for Roosevelt, were very poorly represented in the sample. This rather dramatic example does illustrate the point that poor research techniques can lead to very misleading results and, potentially, disastrous policies. An important component of our doctoral programs is that candidates receive training from currently successful researchers in the correct application of research techniques appropriate to the discipline. As well as learning about research techniques, students of doctoral programs gain skills in formulating research questions, surveying the literature, thinking critically and logically, lateral thinking and open-mindedness, problem solving, project planning, conducting research in a safe, ethical and sensitive manner, and communicating with their research community both orally and on paper. These are extremely useful skills that are in demand in the workforce. In 2006, the Australian Government paid $562 million to Australian uni versities for research degree places for local candidates, and a further $93 million for Australian postgraduate scholarships for these students. Across the Tasman, the Aotearoa New Zealand Government recently decided to allow international doctoral students to pay the same reduced fees as local students. This clearly illustrates that both governments recognise the importance of research doctoral training for their respective economies. Funding foreign doctoral students to study in one’s country is a great form of foreign aid in that it promotes a better understanding in both countries of each other’s culture and often leads to important links between the two countries, sometimes long after completion of the degree.

Importance to universities Universities look after the knowledge needs of the community. They pass on knowledge to students and the community through teaching and writing, they act as custodians of our knowledge through their libraries, electronic repositories and databases and they create new knowledge through research. Research-intensive universities place a very high value on research. They believe their reputation is enhanced by having the best critical thinkers/research ers in their institution’s chosen areas of strength. These ‘best critical thinkers’ will be up to date in their field and attract bright students. To a certain extent this is true and, these days, is driven even more by the various rankings of universities. Research inputs and outputs—namely publi cations, research grant income, patents, other researchers’ citations of publications, major prizes, numbers of research students enrolled and numbers who have graduated—are able to be measured and aggregated. These have led to multiple university rankings largely based on research performance that are consulted by both potential students and academic staff when deciding which university to study or work at. Essentially the reputation of a university is largely driven by


2/5/07 11:41:16 AM

the importance of doctoral research

the quality of its research, and the research process works at its best when there are a number of researchers working in a similar area. Universities act to bring together scholars and researchers in one place. Researchers like to be part of a ‘critical mass’ of researchers. Here is where doctoral students play a role. They have fresh minds that often see things differently and are typically not afraid to ask questions. Because of their thirst for knowledge, they may come across new ideas, software or techniques, sometimes from places where their supervisor might not look. In this regard they are an extra set of useful eyes and ears. Furthermore, they provide skilled labour needed to conduct experiments and surveys, gather data, find primary sources, analyse information, and solve some of the problems that arise along the way. They also help to communicate the outcomes of the research. They can make a very valuable contribution to the teaching program for undergraduates and coursework graduate students. If they have recently been undergraduates themselves, they can provide another perspective that may be more sympathetic to the backgrounds of the students being taught than that of a career academic nearing retirement. Having chosen to do a doctorate, they have a commitment and enthusiasm for their discipline that very much helps the teaching process.

The benefits of being a supervisor I have been fortunate to have supervised 40 doctoral candidates to completion. In this section, I outline the benefits I have gained from these wonderful experiences. However, it is important to acknowledge that not all disciplines operate in the same way and the particular benefits I have derived may not be available to all supervisors. The major differences would occur in disciplines where it is unusual to publish jointly with students. Fortunately joint publications are the norm in a very large proportion of disciplines, and I suspect that proportion is growing. I have found that being the supervisor of a doctoral candidate means you have a very willing research collaborator who brings knowledge, experiences, skills and time to get things done that often complement your knowledge, experiences, skills and general lack of time to do things. I have learned from each of my candidates—more so from some than others—and now have a set of texts (their theses) that I often refer to. Each of them has drawn my attention to things that I probably would have missed had I not been their supervisor. Candidates do come with a fresh pair of eyes. They will question things that you might accept without thought, and sometimes, in explaining your view, you may see things in a new light. They sometimes will take the initiative and explore an issue without consulting you. Had they asked, you may have talked them out of the exploration, but when you see the results, you see the wisdom of their decision. As with any close working relationship, there can be moments of great satis faction. There is the delight of sharing a new piece of knowledge together, being


2/5/07 11:41:16 AM


the first to know something. There is their joy and growth in confidence that come from having their first paper accepted for a conference or, more importantly, a journal—particularly if it is a good journal. I often feel that in my discipline of econometrics first acceptance of a paper in a quality journal is a significant milestone, where the candidate changes from being a student to being a respected junior researcher. And sometimes, in their desire to publish, candidates push you to make that extra effort that you might not have made otherwise. As they mature as doctoral candidates, they can become a source of expertise that you consult or make use of. They can help with showing a new student the ropes or with a tricky software issue. Reading and thinking about their work can result in new insights about other projects you may be working on, as happened to me recently. For nearly 25 years I have tried to find a solution to the problem of controlling the probability of wrongly rejecting a statistical model based on multiple test statistics. The solution turned out to be a three-step procedure, with the vital step being a method for estimating multivariate density functions that my student had developed. He has now graduated and we are jointly working on a major research project to investigate how best to make the new three-step procedure work in practice. After graduation, the relationship changes but generally a special bond remains between you and your doctoral graduate. If they have gone to another city or country, it is always enjoyable to catch up at a conference or over a meal when either of you is visiting. Sometimes you may need their help, perhaps asking them to referee a paper for you, comment on a research grant application or help out a current research student struggling with a particularly tricky issue. They may wish to continue the research collaboration—this can be to your advantage, particularly if they have special access to research funding. And lastly, they might help source new doctoral candidates for you. In summary, if you do a good job as a supervisor, then you will have a valuable friend for life. Questions

1 Think about your own experience as a graduate candidate. What positive outcomes did your supervisor(s) derive from your candidature? 2 What advantages does your department or school gain from supervising doctoral candidates?

10


2/5/07 11:41:17 AM

C HAPTER 3

Approaches to doctoral supervision in Australia and Aotearoa New Zealand Barbara Grant The University of Auckland Margot Pearson The Australian National University

Introduction In Australia and Aotearoa New Zealand we have seen both change and continuity in the doctoral research environment in the past decade and a half. During this period, doctoral candidate numbers have increased, the number of doctoral pro grams has grown and research supervisors have experienced growing pressures. These pressures have varying origins: some flow from government and insti tutional policy, some are generated by ever-changing practice in their own research field, and some involve responding to a diverse doctoral population with varying goals and expectations. In some respects there is nothing new in this. What is new is the expectation that supervisors, as with undergraduate teachers, become more explicitly professional within a more formalised framework of rules and procedures for doctoral study and research. Most of the new rules and procedures reflect current Australian and Aotearoa New Zealand government policy and funding regimes. These aim to align doctoral research education with the perceived needs of employers, the likely career needs of research graduates of whom a majority will not be employed in academia, and the demands for supporting the so-called knowledge economy. Doctoral education is now seen increasingly as a form of research training that requires not only project completion and a thesis, but also explicit attention to

11


2/5/07 11:41:17 AM


broader learning outcomes that will prepare the future researcher for employment in diverse contexts. Its quality is being measured by timely completions, levels of candidate satisfaction and attention to the effectiveness of supervision. While there is a burgeoning literature on supervision, the findings can be confusing for the supervisor in search of clear guidance. There is a mix of can didate/supervisor stories, usually focusing on relationships, and accounts of improvement and innovations that involve changes in structures, procedures and practice. As reliance on supervision as a set of informal practices gives way to more formalised articulations of roles and responsibilities, there is more institutional attention to the pedagogy of supervision and the nuances of this complex process. In this chapter, we look at how current approaches to supervision in Australia and Aotearoa New Zealand seek to address some of the issues and challenges in the context of doctoral education.

Approaches to supervision In question here is what is expected and what does supervision entail. Commonly, supervisors follow the practice of their own supervisor if it suited them, or follow a different approach if that was not the case. This pattern produces a ‘teachercentred’ approach where supervision is seen as a largely private affair focused on the relationship with the candidate. But supervision means more than this. In many fields, candidates relate different experiences of interactions with a range of ‘others’: other academics—usually in the same department in which they are located, but sometimes elsewhere; technical officers; librarians; postdoctoral fellows; and most importantly, other candidates. In many departments with suf ficient numbers of doctoral candidates, there are group activities—some led by candidates themselves, such as reading/writing groups or journal clubs—that also constitute a form of supervision. Working with a broader perspective of what is supervision and doctoral education allows for flexibility and opportunity for both candidates and supervisors to meet the intensifying expectations being placed on them. For many years, one structure for sharing supervisory responsibilities has been the use of panels or supervisory committees. With the growth in doctoral enrol ments in the 1990s, there has been a move to make such arrangements formally required in most institutions. The exact form of these requirements varies, with some institutions offering a range of possibilities (for example, a main supervisor plus a co-supervisor, or plus an advisory committee, or plus advisers), while others have one form (for example, three supervisors made up of one administrative and two others). The advantages of these arrangements are that they allow flexibility for supervisors and candidates to address contingencies. For example, they allow for continuity when a supervisor is on leave or leaves the institution, they provide a framework for including supervisors from other places, and they bring a broader

12


2/5/07 11:41:17 AM

approaches to doctoral supervision

range of academic and/or interpersonal contributions to the supervision process. There is no doubt that many candidates find this arrangement of value; at the same time, it can pose added complexities for supervision, in particular around communication, especially if the candidate is not skilled in managing their panel. Effective arrangements for multiple supervisors identify a principal supervisor or chair who ensures formal requirements are met and sets explicit workload expectations (for example, establishing that advisers do not have to read thesis drafts). Important, too, are the means to provide for appropriate funding and oversight arrangements. Another way to address the growing number of doctoral candidates is via cohort models in which groups of candidates and supervisors collaborate in different ways to support the progress of the candidates’ research. An example of an integrated cohort approach across a number of institutions and disciplines  is the Maori and Indigenous (MAI) program in Aotearoa New Zealand, which  has established a national cohort of Maori doctoral candidates. Although the  program resides within the National Institute of Research Excellence for Maori Development and Advancement, based at The University of Auckland, it has several satellite groups around the country that meet regularly for shared skill development and exchange (see Chapter 21). MAI also offers the candidates one  to two-week residential writing retreats during which Maori and non-Maori academics from various institutions contribute input and expertise. Further examples of cohort models in the Australian context can be found in Pearson and Ford (1997). Wider expectations of doctoral research education are raising the profile of those aspects of the doctoral curriculum that are additional to the main focus of activity for a doctoral candidate—pursuing their research project. Attending conferences and seminars allows for networking and contact with key researchers, and in some disciplines such as engineering, placements in industry connect scholars to future employment paths. Structured training in research methodology and advanced content knowledge, through coursework, workshops or short courses often offered at the departmental or institutional level, are particularly useful where scholars come from different backgrounds, have changed institutions and/ or disciplines or have moved into cross-disciplinary study. General skills training can have value for candidates where they can choose to suit their individual needs from topics such as using IT tools, statistics, project management or writing. Moreover, international candidates require specialist support services that recog nise both assistance in cross-cultural understandings and English language skills. On one hand these various programs and activities broaden the range of learning opportunities for a candidate, while on the other hand they may also divert the candidate’s energies. Preventing such engagement is not in candidates’ interests—optimal arrangements are those negotiated between supervisor and individual candidate.

13


2/5/07 11:41:18 AM


Flexibility in providing supervision will continue to be important. The popu lation of doctoral candidates is diverse in many respects, including such aspects as age, career goals and location. Many are part-time for all or part of their candidature. Some are already working professionals, while others are continuing their education from undergraduate and honours programs. Some are researching and studying off-campus part or all of the time. The dynamics of disciplinary specialisation mean many will seek expertise and contact with researchers outside their institution of enrolment, as will the drive to participate in disciplinary networks that increasingly operate internationally. Making much of the flexibility possible is the increasing sophistication of electronic communication tools. From email to blogs, the possibility is there for the enterprising candidates to expand their horizons. However, this does not obviate the need for supervisory assistance in navigating the path to successful completion.

Institutional initiatives At the institutional level, in order to meet both the pressures for efficiency (timely completions) and quality assurance, responsibilities have been formalised in codes of practice. Most universities in Australia and Aotearoa New Zealand have a code of practice for doctoral supervision that outlines the responsibilities of both supervisors and candidates. The list may include requirements that are mandatory (for example, ethical compliance, responsible research practice, occupational health and safety and intellectual property), as well as some that are advisable or desirable (for example, frequency of meetings, attendance at seminars or keeping a journal). In many institutions such a document may have the status of guidelines for good practice, although in some cases a supervision agreement between all supervision parties is mandatory. Not surprisingly, perhaps, regulation is likely to be more elaborated in institutions that are new to doctoral supervision than in those with a long history of it. In one university, a feature of the supervision guidelines is the way in which the responsibilities of supervisors have trebled while those of the candidate have stayed almost static, indicating the extent to which risk management is becoming more pervasive in doctoral education. A perennial problem is ensuring supervisors and candidates use such guidelines productively. For example, a recent survey of doctoral candidates at one Aotearoa New Zealand university showed that, out of almost 600 candidates, only one-third had discussed the guidelines with their supervisors. Institutions have supported the likelihood of compliance with codes and guidelines by introducing or strengthening systematic reporting arrangements and grievance procedures. These systems may include annual reports outlining goals, project plans and funding arrangements, thesis reviews in the first year to ensure appropriate progress, and reviews of the effectiveness of the supervision arrangements after six months of registration. Intensified reporting arrange

14


2/5/07 11:41:19 AM


ments of this kind are now widespread in the doctoral education arena. They seek to identify and address problems early so as to ensure timely completions. For the supervisor, they can provide a structure within which it can be easier to raise issues with candidates whose progress is causing concern. Institutional grievance procedures provide another such structure, although one perhaps more likely to be used by candidates. Another institutional initiative with respect to supervision involves attempts to monitor its effectiveness. To date, the main monitoring mechanism is the use of candidate satisfaction surveys. In Aotearoa New Zealand, these are administered by individual institutions and in the best-case scenario, the findings are fed back into institutional planning and development. In Australia, they are governmentinitiated. Candidate satisfaction surveys are almost always wide-ranging in their scope, seeking to elicit for the university as much useful information as possible —in this context, questions about supervision are just a few among many. In question is how useful this information is at the micro level of individuals. The instruments are not well designed for capturing this kind of information. Some institutions, or sections within them, operate exit surveys for doctoral candidates, but participation is usually voluntary and not particularly well established within institutional processes. It is common for universities or postgraduate students’ associations to offer recognition of excellent supervisors via teaching excellence award processes or equivalent. While institutional initiatives provide frameworks for structuring supervision and potentially reduce instances of neglect and conflict, they alone cannot ensure productive relationships and successful outcomes. Initiatives closer to the action, such as when departments or research groups institute their own programs for structuring and supporting supervision, are more likely to be effective. The advantage of such initiatives is that multiple objectives, including the strengthen ing of collegiality, may be met in an academic setting that is sensitive to local disciplinary practice. For example, research seminars are occasions where can didates can review their progress, both individually and in relation to one another. If these seminars include all the academic staff and doctoral candidates in the department or group, then they will provide collegial opportunities for experts and novices to present research in progress as well as share information and ideas about the research activity of the field. In science areas, for example, an initial meeting of a candidate, their panel and the relevant person(s) with budget responsibilities to assess and approve a doctoral project, can ensure the project is scientifically sound and that the necessary resources are available.

Professional development In the recent past, learning to be a supervisor occurred on the job. Many super visors describe their early supervision experiences as being thrown in the deep

15


2/5/07 11:41:19 AM


end, sometimes with painful consequences. Most institutions now provide profes sional development for both new and experienced supervisors. Many insist that new supervisors participate in ‘training’ before they are permitted to supervise doctoral candidates. Ideally, a supervisor development program will encompass an extensive array of topics in a sufficiently flexible format to allow for choice (Pearson and Brew 2002). The requirements for new supervisors are typically a one- or two-day workshop, including information about institutional policy and process as well as discussion and development of good practice. Most institutions also offer further professional development and support for experienced supervisors—for example, centrally offered refresher seminars and workshops on specific topics, supervision conversation groups, web-based resources, and department- or faculty-based professional development. In Australia, some institutions now offer accredited supervision programs within a graduate certificate of higher education or similar. A complementary approach is to provide structured and/or centralised induc tions into supervision for doctoral candidates. These programs help to normalise institutional expectations and to ensure candidates are aware of institutional policies and procedures. They may also aim to enable candidates to manage their supervision as effectively as possible—for example, by offering an introduction to negotiation skills. From experience, when induction to supervision is embedded within an orientation program, there is a risk that it remains at the level of telling candidates about the regulations and guidelines. Yet, if we want doctoral candidates to play an active role in their supervision, then some appropriately active professional development is likely to be required to give them the prerequisite skills and understandings. Acknowledging the complexity of communication within the supervisory relationship underpins not only induction programs into supervision, but also supervisor attempts to figure out what a supervisory relationship ‘really is’ or ‘really should be’ at its best. For example, Jacquelin MacKinnon (a law academic at the University of Waikato, Aotearoa New Zealand) has written about supervision as a fiduciary relationship, which is essentially ‘an ethical one of promoting the welfare of the student … the effectiveness and continuance of [which] depends on trust’ (2004, p. 396). One of us has traced out some of the many unpredictable ways supervisors and masters students make sense of each other and supervision in order to be able to proceed in the ‘right’ way (Grant 2003, 2005). Supervisors and students regularly filtered their responses towards each other, deciding to ‘suffer’ difficult or unsatisfactory aspects of the process in silence. The reasons included not being sure of what was appropriate in supervision and concern over the pos sible consequences such as supervisors not wanting to upset a student’s motivation and progress. To assist communication in this asymmetrical relationship, there are now several tools available for structuring supervisor/student conversations— for example, a questionnaire for exploring expectations, a template for establishing

16


2/5/07 11:41:20 AM


understandings, an alignment tool kit and others available on the fIRST website (http://www.first.edu.au) if your university is a member. Another approach to understanding supervision is to focus on the nature of the work involved. Some of this is addressed in the various codes of practice, but generally there is an absence of any agreed understanding of what supervision involves, and formal institutional requirements are often seen as simply an addi tional administrative burden. The use of metaphors such as ‘apprenticeship’ and ‘mentor’ often do more to mystify, rather than clarify, what a supervisor must do to supervise effectively. Indeed, any metaphor has its limits; recasting the work of supervision as that of a project manager, for instance, may undercut the intent that candidates will learn how to manage their own research. In a study undertaken in two Australian universities, Pearson and Kayrooz (2004) tested a way to ‘unpack’ the work of supervision. From their findings, they distinguished the facilitative tasks of mentoring (which includes personal and intellectual support and leadership) from coaching for the research project, sponsoring candidates into research networks and professional opportunities, and progressing the candi dature (reviewing progress, planning, etc.). This more nuanced description of supervision offers a way to articulate supervisor responsibilities, while recognising that they are interconnected. Such an approach also provides a basis for discussing or checking the distribution of effort across a panel or committee.

Concluding comments Increased pressures on supervisors in Australia and Aotearoa New Zealand to supervise more doctoral candidates, more diverse candidates and under tighter time frames, point towards the need for more flexible supervision practices and better institutional frameworks around them. As we have shown above, there are many ways in which individuals, departments and institutions can respond creatively and collectively to the new doctoral education context for the benefit of both supervisors and students. Worth keeping in mind in a context of increasing regulation and risk management are the benefits for supervisors of what is such a demanding and challenging set of responsibilities. Many experienced supervisors recognise as rewards the stimulation provided by interaction with candidates, the satisfaction of assisting ‘turning potential into reality’, the professional kudos that comes with successful doctoral completions, the extension of a network of colleagues, and the role of doctoral research in extending the disciplinary knowledge base. Questions

1 In the current policy environment, what are current issues in supervision for your institution, your discipline/department/research group and for yourself?

17


2/5/07 11:41:20 AM


2 What is your department’s current approach to supervision and how do you know whether it is effective? 3 What changes might you make to your supervision practice that would make it more sensitive to current circumstances and candidates? References

Grant, B 2003, ‘Mapping the pleasures and risks of supervision’, Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, vol. 24(2), pp. 175–90. Grant, B 2005, ‘Fighting for space in supervision: Fantasies, fairytales, fictions and fallacies’, International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, vol. 18(3), pp. 337–54. MacKinnon, J 2004, ‘Academic supervision: Seeking metaphors and models for quality’, Journal of Further and Higher Education, vol. 28(4), pp. 395–405. Pearson, M & Brew, A 2002, ‘Research training and supervision development’, Studies in Higher Education, vol. 27(2), pp. 135–50. Pearson, M & Ford, L 1997, Open and flexible PhD study and research, Evaluation and Investigations Program, Department of Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs, Canberra. Pearson, M & Kayrooz, C 2004, ‘Enabling critical reflection on research supervisory practice’, International Journal for Academic Development, vol. 9(1), pp. 99–116.

18


2/5/07 11:41:21 AM

SECTION 2

Beginning the supervision process


2/5/07 11:41:21 AM

C HAPTER 4

Agreeing to supervise Mark Tennant University of Technology, Sydney Susan Roberts Macquarie University

Introduction There is a diversity of practices across the higher education sector in the way in which supervisors and research candidates are brought together. In a longitudinal study of Australian PhD candidates and their supervisors, Ives and Rowley (2005) report that the process for assigning supervisors is ‘largely informal, negotiated and based mainly on academic interests. Candidates apply and then talk with people working in their area of interest, or their applications are passed to potential supervisors who interview the applicants if they are interested in taking on the supervision’ (pp. 538–39). A common feature of a process that heralds the potential for a unique academic–student relationship in higher education is that much of the process is informal, and potential supervisors have the opportunity to screen candidates prior to agreeing to supervise. The unique aspect of this relationship is that the supervisor occupies a hybrid space between ‘teacher’ and ‘researcher’. The supervisory relationship foregrounds an ongoing tension in professional academic life—the tension between identifying as a ‘teacher’ on the one hand and a ‘researcher’ on the other. Candidates can make the position of the supervisor ambiguous—as a researcher, the candidate should exhibit autonomy, independence of thought and originality; as learners, they are dependent on guidance and feedback and need to be prepared to take direction. Playing out this dual role is complex and demanding. It is no wonder that the relationship has the potential to be highly emotionally charged, especially when the candidate’s investment in time, energy and money is added to the mix. It is also a relationship that is peculiarly subjected to institutional control, with

20


2/5/07 11:41:21 AM

agreeing to supervise

most universities, and national bodies, adopting codes of practice that specify the respective responsibilities in the relationship, such as frequency of meetings, the provision of timely feedback, the need to negotiate intellectual property and publishing arrangements, and so on. Such codes of practice are also typically hybrids between research contracts and teaching contracts. To agree to supervise means to accept involvement in a research project and an intense teaching responsibility that may extend for four or more years. It is certainly worth exploring, then, the precursors to agreeing to supervise. This chapter analyses some of the factors to consider when deciding whether to super vise a particular candidate. The factors include the candidate’s background, their motives for undertaking a doctorate, capabilities, needs, expectations, resources and personal styles. Supervisors, for their part, need to be mindful of their motives, demands, expectations, and strengths and weaknesses in relation to particular candidates. Supervision, of course, does not exist in a vacuum, and so contextual factors also play a part, such as the way in which performance as a supervisor is measured in the department, the need to work with co-supervisors or supervisory panels, and the broader policy framework within which supervision occurs.

What makes for a successful candidature? In a wide-ranging review of the literature, Latona and Browne (2001) identified factors that had an impact on the likelihood of successful completion of a research degree. They grouped these factors into three broad categories: (1) institutional and environmental factors; (2) individual supervisory arrangements; and (3) student cohorts and characteristics. • The institutional and environmental factors included disciplinary differences (for example, that science candidates typically work within a tightly knit group of researchers, while humanities candidates tended to work solely with their supervisor), the establishment of structured milestones throughout candidature, and the critical importance of the sense of belonging to a group or a research culture. • Individual supervisory arrangements included the timeliness and fit-for-purpose feedback from supervisors, the frequency of meetings and structure of activities between meetings, the existence of negotiated supervision protocols that address expectations and needs, the quality of the relationship with the supervisor, continuity in topic and supervisor, and getting started and committing early to a project. • Candidate cohorts and characteristics included entry qualifications (first class honours is important for science candidates but does not necessarily predict success for arts and humanities students), part- or full-time study, financial security, and psychological factors such as a tendency to procrastination.

21


2/5/07 11:41:22 AM


Ives and Rowley (2005) comment on the importance of matching candidates and supervisors, with the three most important factors in a successful match being academic area (that is, supervisor’s expertise aligns with the candidate’s topic), the matching of interpersonal working patterns, and a match in research methodology. They comment: Some supervisors and students were willing to accept a high match in two areas and sacrifice the third. The area that most supervisors were willing to sacrifice was the match in methodology, whereas students were more willing to sacrifice the topic. Arguments for sacrificing the match regarding topic were that you need some knowledge, but do not need to be an expert. Arguments for sacrificing the methodology match were that you can involve someone else in this part of the supervision if needed. Both groups thought the match in interpersonal work ing patterns was critical. (p. 541)

This view of the centrality of a good interpersonal working relationship, is compatible with the findings of others and with the testimonies of experienced supervisors (see Fraser and Mathews 1999). Although the above observations are not exhaustive, they provide a good general starting point for making a judgement about supervising a particular candidate. This judgement clearly needs to take into account factors relating variously to the candidate, to you as a supervisor and to the organisational climate in which you supervise.

Candidate factors Academic capacity Prior to making a decision to supervise, it is important to understand as much of the background of candidates as possible. The most obvious factors are prior qualifications and experience that equip the candidate for research. It is not always possible to ascertain this from the submitted paperwork, especially when making a judgement about academic equivalences from degrees earned overseas, or even degrees earned at other domestic universities. Most universities source their research candidates from at least three areas: their own undergraduate and masters graduates, graduates of other domestic universities, and graduates from overseas universities. In all cases it is imperative that the supervisor sight some work of the candidate—whether this is their honours thesis, a research report or an extended proposal for research. A particularly sensitive case arises when a candidate is taken on after a period of supervision with another supervisor. The difficulty here is to make an assessment of the candidate’s progress and potential to complete without compromising academic colleagues who may have had previous involvement in the project.

22


2/5/07 11:41:22 AM


Research topic The research topic needs to be sufficiently thought through to provide a basis for making a decision whether to accept the candidate to be part of the project. Irrespective of whether there is a formal institutional requirement to submit a proposal with an application, it is a good idea to insist on this prior to taking on a candidate. This can be done in the stage leading up to the formal application for candidature. Analysing a proposal provides a great deal of information about the candidate’s theoretical and methodological perspective, writing style, general approach to research, and even their motive for undertaking the research. It also provides information on the resources that will be needed to sustain and support the research.

Needs, motives and expectations Needs, motives and expectations can really only be explored through face-toface or telephone contact. This discussion should include an assessment of what you can offer as a supervisor and what the institution can offer to support the project. It is always useful to ask questions about both short-term motives for undertaking the proposed research and longer-term career motives for enrolling in a research degree. For example, the research itself may be motivated by a personal or professional concern, or by a gap in the literature, or simply by intel lectual curiosity. This information may or may not make a difference to your decision to super vise, depending on your approach to research and what constitutes a ‘legitimate’ problem for investigation. For example, if the topic is motivated by a professional concern, then it is more than likely to be a multidisciplinary study, but not all supervisors are comfortable supervising such projects. As far as longer-term career aspirations are concerned, candidates invariably see supervisors as mentors in a broader sense and they look to them for guidance on strategies and skills needed to pursue a research career either inside or outside the academy—they may be interested in developing skills such as writing articles for publication, delivering conference papers, understanding the research commercialisation pro cess and so on.

Preferred working style As mentioned, matching interpersonal working styles is quite crucial for success ful candidature. The best way to diagnose the candidate’s preferences is to talk with them about how they worked with a previous supervisor—for example, the supervisor of their honours thesis, if applicable. It may also be worth going systematically through an instrument such as Gurr’s (2001) Student–Supervisor Alignment Tool Kit, which is provided as a supervision resource on the fIRST

23


2/5/07 11:41:23 AM


website. In the Ives and Rowley (2005) study, those initially satisfied candidates who became dissatisfied later in their candidature reported that the reason for their dissatisfaction was insufficient guidance, feedback and structure from their supervisors. This is an ironic finding since the need for guidance, feedback and structure should ideally diminish over the candidature. It is important therefore to accurately describe and discuss your actual supervision practices rather than your ‘preferred’ practices, and any anticipated change in those practices over the span of the project. A good question to pose is to consider who the project director is. For example, is it the supervisor or the candidate? If it is the candidate, then is the supervisor equivalent to a chair of an advisory committee? Discussions such as these typically draw out perspectives and views that would remain unanalysed until such time as they caused tension in the candidate–supervisor relationship.

Supervisor factors Motives, demands and expectations In engaging with a potential candidate it is important to acknowledge your own motives and to ask some penetrating questions. The following eight questions may serve as a useful reminder as to the level of engagement and commitment that is required. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Why have I taken on the role of graduate research supervisor? Do I see it as a professional obligation? Am I motivated by the topic being proposed? Is the candidate’s work part of a research project or overall research plan that I am pursuing in the academic unit? Are research candidate completions necessary for my research profile and perhaps promotion or subsequent appointment? Am I interested in the process of research supervision and research training and its role in building a research culture? Am I interested in the overall skills development of my candidate or is the sole focus the production of a thesis? Do I enjoy one-to-one supervision sessions as a form of teaching?

No doubt many academics will identify with more than one of the above, and indeed the predominant motive for candidates may differ. Differing motives lead to subtly different expectations. For example, if the candidate is on a scholarship that has been provided by a grant that you have received from an industry source, you will need to balance the demands placed on the candidate with the demands placed on you from the project steering committee. If the project has commercial potential, you will need to address the implications with the candidate prior to agreeing to supervise.

24


2/5/07 11:41:23 AM


Conception of research and model of supervision It is important to analyse and articulate the conception of research that you hold and the model of supervision that drives your demands and expectations of candidates. Recent articles on research supervision have explored different possible supervisor–candidate relationships other than the historically dominant master–apprentice model. For example, Johnson, Lee and Green (2000) analyse and challenge the ideas of autonomy and the independent scholar that underpin the traditional practices of postgraduate pedagogy. The quotation from one of their interviewees (a person who had been supervised at Oxford University and was modelling her supervisory practices on her experiences at Oxford) is illuminating: There was no student whose thesis I read in full. And I told them at the beginning. And I said I’m not going to be reading more than half of this and if you are uneasy about that, I won’t supervise you. I will recommend someone else. Because it is more than about ... it is more than just writing a thesis. It’s about learning to be independent. And I think that’s one of the great things in scholarship, learning ... but it’s tough, you’ve got to learn to rely on your own judgement and not to run to the supervisor for every problem that you have. And that’s the test in the end. And you can fail it. (p. 137)

They report the interviewee as indicating that it was an Oxford rule that no supervisor was to read more than half the thesis. Her own supervisor explained the rule as: ‘the reason is that we want to be quite clear in our own minds and we want the student to be quite clear that it is their work’ (ibid.). This approach is at the other end of the spectrum from the model being advocated by the contemporary concern for outputs, with a corresponding emphasis on ‘time to complete’, ‘retention to completion’ and indicators of quality supervision. McCormack (2004) observes that such concerns lead to a linear model of supervision as structured and progressing is a step-like manner—a kind of project-management approach to supervision. The point she makes is that what ever your model of supervision, addressing any discrepancies with candidates is important at the beginning of candidature—preferably as part of the process of agreeing to supervise.

Strengths and weaknesses An honest appraisal of your own strengths and weaknesses, mapped against the needs of the potential candidate and the skills of any co-supervisor, will greatly assist the process of agreeing to supervise. The strengths and weaknesses may relate to academic matters such as theoretical knowledge of the area, practical knowledge of research techniques and methodologies, a knowledge of the relevant literature and the ability to supervise across disciplinary areas; or to non-academic

25


2/5/07 11:41:24 AM


matters such as taking the initiative in making appointments with candidates, providing written feedback on all submitted work, arranging for candidates to give conference or seminar papers, or arranging the purchase of necessary equipment and so on. The question really is: ‘How can I help this candidate as a supervisor with the knowledge, skills and predispositions that I know I have?’ This of course needs to be asked in the context of co-supervisors and any will ingness you may have to develop new skills and dispositions as a matter for your own professional development. An important area to consider is your capacity to work with others in the supervision of a particular candidate. Where the co-supervisor has already been appointed or supervisory panel has already been formed, then an assessment of your capacity to collaborate with the team is crucial.

Organisational factors As argued elsewhere (McCormack 2004), the contemporary circumstances of higher education have led to policy shifts in research and research training, which have found their way into university policies and procedures. There is a concern with timely completions and the reduction of waste in the system. One common institutional response has been a renewed emphasis on improving the quality of the graduate research experience. Three particular aspects of quality are the monitoring of supervisor perform ance, the provision of opportunities for candidates to develop broad-based skills that will stand them in good stead in seeking employment, and the provision of sufficient resources and supports so that candidates are retained and complete on time. All these points have implications for the decision to supervise particular candidates. For example, if supervisor performance is measured by the number of on-time completions, then this would drive supervisors to only take on the very best candidates. On the other hand, if supervisor performance were measured by client satisfaction or by some measure of ‘value add’, then supervisors would be motivated to take on more ‘non-traditional’ candidates. This is not to deny the social-justice motives of supervisors, only to point out the consequences of misplaced policies. On the issue of developing broad-based professional skills, if the candidate is seeking to increase their capacity in other related areas of research education and training, then you should be mindful of the university provision for this. If there is little institutional provision, then the burden of provision will fall on your shoulders, so an assessment of required and optional professional skills becomes important. Finally, with respect to general supports, you should be aware that across the sector this has been an area of student dissatisfaction, a dissatisfaction that will have an impact on your supervisory relationship. Apart from financial and physical resources, a valuable resource is the research climate in the academic

26


2/5/07 11:41:24 AM


unit. This is a great source of potential support for you as a supervisor. Prior to agreeing to supervise a candidate, you should be satisfied that the supports candidates expect and/or require are available. If not, then you will need to address their unrealistic expectations or decline to supervise.

Concluding comments This chapter has highlighted a range of aspects to consider in the quest to make a productive match between you and your research candidates. To agree to supervise a graduate research candidate means making a long-term and sustained commitment to the candidate and to the particular research project. It is a decision that should not be made lightly. It is clear that there are a number of things to consider in making such a decision—an assessment of your skills, knowledge and preferences, and to consider how you work within the policy, procedural and research environment of the academic unit. Just as there is no single way of supervising, there is no single protocol to follow in screening graduate research candidates. Questions

1 What qualities do you look for in candidates when screening them for supervision? 2 What do you feel you achieve from supervising research candidates and how would you describe your approach to supervision and research to a prospective candidate? 3 What is more important for you: a match in expertise, working relationship or methodological approach? References

Fraser, R & Mathews, A 1999, ‘An evaluation of the desirable characteristics of a supervisor’, Australian Universities’ Review, vol. 42(1), pp. 5–7. Gurr, G 2001, ‘Negotiating the “rackety bridge”—a dynamic model for aligning supervisory style with research student development’, Higher Education Research and Development, vol. 20(1), pp. 81–92. Gurr’s Student-Supervisor Alignment Tool Kit, 2001: http://www.first.edu.au Ives, G & Rowley, G 2005, ‘Supervisor selection or allocation and continuity of supervision: PhD students’ progress and outcomes’, Studies in Higher Education, vol. 30(5), pp. 535–55. Johnson, L, Lee, A & Green, B 2000, ‘The PhD and the autonomous self: Gender, rationality and postgraduate pedagogy’, Studies in Higher Education, vol. 25(2), pp. 135–47. Latona, C & Browne, M 2001, ‘Some factors associated with completion of research higher degrees’, DEST, Canberra. McCormack, C 2004, ‘Tensions between student and institutional conceptions of postgraduate research’, Studies in Higher Education, vol. 29(3), pp. 319–34.

27


2/5/07 11:41:25 AM

C HAPTER 5

Setting the scene: Initiating the supervision relationship Natalie Moltschaniwskyj University of Tasmania George Moltschaniwskyj The University of Auckland

Introduction Regardless of background, the starting graduate has to undergo a social, academic and intellectual transition from their former life—usually as an undergraduate— into a new life as a graduate candidate. Although commencing graduates are excited at the prospect of doing interesting research, it is possible that their first few weeks will be bewildering, frustrating, and even lonely. International candidates, who have a different undergraduate and early research background compared with the candidates ‘downunder’, usually find this transition even harder. For them, issues of language and communication, cultural differences and homesickness may bring additional difficulties. It is worth noting that even for candidates from western countries, the cultural differences are considerable and they also may require some time and support to settle into the new environment. Regardless, it is important to ensure candidates have an informed and positive start to their graduate research program. Most candidates, having selected their area of research in broad terms, arrive with high levels of motivation, enthusiasm and energy. They are eager to start on the path towards achieving their masters or doctoral degree, but have only a vague notion of how to proceed. In the beginning stage the influence of the supervisor is crucial. In broad terms, this influence consists of three key areas.

28


2/5/07 11:41:25 AM

setting the scene: initiating the supervision relationship

First, the supervisor should attempt to become the ‘first port of call’ for advice, information or assistance on any matter, be it formal or personal. Second, the supervisor should introduce the candidate to the academic and social fabric of the department or school and to the activities of the research group where he/she will be working. Finally, it is extremely important to generate and support a high level of interest and enthusiasm for the specific research topic to be undertaken. Since different candidates have different personal attributes, backgrounds, aspirations and motivation, this last area is unique for each candidate. To achieve a solid beginning, a viable supervisor–student relationship should be established and developed. Initially the responsibility for this lies with the supervisor. In general, it can be achieved by initially spending a considerable amount of time with the candidate informally discussing the relevance of the chosen research field to the professional and general community, discussing the research interests of the supervisor and reviewing the relevant research literature. By providing the candidate with carefully selected literature, par ticularly the so-called ‘state of the art’ papers, the supervisor can effectively guide the candidate towards a specific research project. The candidate should be fully involved in making this selection. From the very beginning, the supervisor should emphasise that any research leading to a doctoral degree is original work that has the capacity to make a significant contribution to the chosen research field, with findings published in international journals and/or be presented at academic conferences. Early discussions will also encompass issues relevant to how research is conducted, ethics, and collection and recording of information.

The transition from undergraduate to graduate research In most cases an undergraduate student is accustomed to dealing with situations where there is a structured learning program and prescriptive tasks. However, when undertaking research training, the candidate is suddenly facing a very dif ferent academic situation—a situation where there are no well-defined teaching and learning programs. The candidate will find that there may be no unique solution to technical and organisational problems and where a higher level of initiative and self-reliance are required. This transition is challenging for both the candidate and the supervisor, and many candidates will suffer from lack of self-confidence about their capacity to take the next step in developing a research career. As each candidate has a unique educational and personal background and long-term aspirations, how the supervisor manages this transition phase and the level of support required will differ among candidates. For candidates commencing their research training at the same university where they completed an honours or a research masters degree, the transition phase is generally less stressful than for students coming from other universities.

29


2/5/07 11:41:26 AM


This candidate is familiar with the library and laboratory facilities, and is acquainted with most of the academic and technical staff of the department or school. As a consequence, they may have fewer domestic and social problems; however, do not assume that they are comfortable with their new role and position. Apart from assisting the candidate with such mundane matters as finding a work station, a computer, an access card to the laboratories, etc., the supervisor’s main objective is to establish a viable working relationship, make the student feel like a colleague (and not like an underling), and to guide them into a specific research project. Some of these objectives may be achieved by frequent talks and discussions during informal meetings, such as over cups of coffee or lunches, rather than in the supervisor’s office. After the first week or two, a more structured or formal arrangement for meetings may be appropriate and highly recommended. Candidates coming from other universities or mature candidates coming from industry require a longer period of acclimatisation, with greater emphasis on the matters relating to day-to-day affairs. International candidates often need guidance and advice on matters related to immigration and funding, a service which the university’s international office provides. Similarly, supervisors and students should identify resources in the university that can assist with areas such as library training, accommodation, health and counselling. In these early days, supervisors need to be aware of and deal with the dis continuities between the undergraduate and graduate experience. The graduate candidate will have a different role and responsibilities than before, and will have a different relationship with academic and support staff. Most graduates will not be aware of their new role in an academic establishment and how to interact with other graduate candidates, support staff or even with their supervisors. The supervisor should play an important role in helping the candidate to learn about and understand the rules, the roles, and the relationships that apply to the establishment as a whole and to the research unit where they will be working. Ideally the candidate should act as appropriate in a formal employment situation, and be aware of issues relating to OH&S, equity and discrimination. This will set the level of professional behaviour needed throughout the candidate’s career. The induction process identifies where and how candidates obtain support and what to expect from different members of staff. This will accelerate the candidate’s knowledge about the organisational unit, which would otherwise be acquired over an extended period of time on a trial-and-error basis. If candidates enter as a cohort, then there are opportunities to work together in a variety of social and peer-support activities. If a candidate does not enter as part of a group, then it is necessary to ensure that they interact via workshops, seminars and social events. Encouragement to participate will assist the candidate to develop an identity in the school and to establish new friends and mentors. One way of helping a candidate to become part of the organisational unit is to invite them to be a tutor or laboratory demonstrator for undergraduate

30


2/5/07 11:41:27 AM


courses. Being involved with teaching in the undergraduate course where the supervisor is the lecturer can assist in bringing the two closer as working partners. Furthermore, the candidate is made to feel as a junior member of the department, that is, a professional. This strategy can assist in developing a sense of self-esteem, accepting responsibilities and increasing the professional skill base of the candidate.

Making a good start The first thing a new research candidate needs is a ‘home base’—that is, a work station with a desk, access to computers, telephones, fax machines, email and a mailbox. It should be appreciated that having a working base will assist the candidate to obtain a sense of belonging to the establishment and have a stake in its activities. Ideally, the work station should be in a room or a laboratory where other research candidates are located and be in relatively close proximity to the supervisor, other research staff working on projects related to their field of interest, and the laboratory and library facilities. The supervisor should have this need as a high priority and should attempt to organise this as early as possible, if not prior to the arrival of the candidate. Introducing the candidate to the research group and other staff will assist the candidate to identify how and where to obtain support and what to expect from different staff members within the organisation. Administrative, technical and academic staff should also be included in the ‘round’ of introductions. In cases where the research is sponsored by an external organisation or agency, it would be imperative to introduce the candidate to the key players in the particular industry. All these introductions should assist the candidate to understand organisational and technical matters and to reinforce that they have a significant role to play as a member of a research team. Another early priority is to explicitly clarify supervisor–candidate expectations. These discussions should include the extent and style of the supervisor’s input into the candidate’s day-to-day activities, frequency of formal and informal meet ings, and turnaround time for feedback on any work carried out. The structuring for such lines of communication and rapport at this early stage is vital, otherwise it may be difficult for the candidate to meet with a normally busy supervisor and communicate their thoughts, ideas and opinions at an appropriate time and in a structured manner. A structured supervisory relationship provides a framework within which the candidate can then begin to operate and develop their presence and identity within this new working environment. The supervisor should clearly and openly acknowledge that the candidate will be a colleague, not an assistant. Initially during candidature, the ‘balance of power’ with respect to knowledge and skills is with the supervisor, but this perceived ‘power’ over the research project should not remain at the same level for

31


2/5/07 11:41:27 AM


long. The supervisor needs to identify and assess the strengths and weaknesses of the candidate as early as possible. For example, some candidates will not have the generic skills required to initiate a research project or carry out a systematic search and review of literature, design experimental programs and equipment, or formulate meaningful questions at the doctoral level. In fact, the longer the supervisor fails to recognise the absence of any such skills, the more embarrassed the candidate will become at admitting such lack of skills. For most ‘downunder’ candidates, the supervisor will have a reasonably high expectation of generic skills if they have been through the Australian or Aotearoa New Zealand system, but many international candidates usually require some guidance, patience, specific instruction and time during the process of research training.

The supervisor–candidate relationship With any relationship leading to productive outcomes, recognising the attributes and contributions by both parties is crucial. In this type of relationship, the supervisor brings experience, knowledge and support, while the candidate usually provides enthusiasm, energy and a passion to focus for long hours on refining and testing the question at hand. However, the question arises as to how these ingredients can be incorporated into a solid working relationship. Since the rela tionship also needs to be developed on the basis of personal characteristics and the objectives of a particular research project, clearly there is no unique formula for obtaining these outcomes. In the initial stages, the candidate is usually uncertain as to how to approach the supervisor for assistance and guidance; they are accustomed to seeing academics as ‘distant lecturers’ and not as colleagues. Supervisors are responsible for changing this perception, and need to promote themselves as the ‘first port of call’ for the candidate on any matter. Perhaps the most common style adopted by supervisors is that of being an ‘experienced and authoritative friend’. For most ‘downunder’ candidates the ‘first name’ form of address is common and is a way of emphasising the collegial part of the relationship. This is not the case with international students, who often insist on calling the supervisor ‘professor’ or ‘sir/ms’ and have a preference for a formal/authoritative relationship. The supervisor should be sensitive to such preferences and modify their style accordingly, with time; and as the candidate becomes more confident, a transition from a formal to informal relationship may occur. An effective way of developing a good relationship is to have informal ‘chats’ about research in less formal environments than an office—for example, during fieldwork or laboratory activities, over cups of coffee or lunches. One of the initial tasks facing the candidate is selecting a specific research topic and defining its objectives. The supervisor has to play the leading role in identifying the useful, interesting and relevant directions. It is important that the candidate is permitted—and is indeed encouraged—to contribute to these

32


2/5/07 11:41:28 AM


issues as a colleague, and that a good working relationship is quickly established on a collaborative basis. If the candidate arrives with specific research questions of interest to them, then get the candidate to identify why these questions are relevant and how they will make a contribution to their field of research. If candidates arrive with a less focused idea, directed reading and careful posing of questions will help the candidate identify relevant research questions. In both cases the supervisor needs to challenge the candidate intellectually. Where there is a research team, the commencing candidate will have access not only to the supervisor, but also to other academics and candidates to receive comments on their project and ideas and to talk things through on a regular basis. The candidate will obtain ‘bench’ training from technical staff and other members of the research team. Where this is not the case, the supervisor will need to play a bigger role in providing ‘hands-on’ training and guiding the reading and thinking of the candidate. Working alongside the candidate for part of the activity, particularly during practical or fieldwork activities, is a good way of enhancing lines of communication and developing a good working relationship, and helps the supervisor identify the candidate’s strengths and weaknesses. Each supervisor will have some ‘ownership’ of the intellectual contribution, which will be ‘adopted’ and owned by the candidate. It is nevertheless important for the candidate to understand that both parties have a share in the intellectual endeavour that emerges from this joint venture. Such understanding will assist the candidate to appreciate that the essence of the developing relationship is based on a professional foundation. The supervisor, particularly early in their research career, may need to carefully consider the overlap between their and the candidate’s research interests. It may be important that supervisor and candidate have some separation in research activity. This will ensure that the candidate has scope to expand or extend their research questions to accommodate findings during their candidature, without being constrained by research activities of the supervisor or other candidates.

Concluding comments When commencing, the candidate views submission of the thesis as a very distant goal. This may well be the first time a candidate is required to manage and stra tegically think about a long-term project. As a result there can often be a feeling of ill-defined direction or no urgency, because there is ‘plenty of time’. Generating and setting specific and immediate goals and a timetable is one mechanism for ensuring the candidate makes timely progress through each phase of the research program. Some universities require that a preliminary research plan be presented within three months of starting the candidature and to give a seminar on the objectives of the project within six months. These serve to focus the candidate to read literature, to clarify and list specific aims and methodologies, and to interact

33


2/5/07 11:41:28 AM


with other research workers in their field of study very early in their candidature. These procedures, however, are not set in stone and should change as the project progresses, but they do serve to create some momentum as the candidate begins to start thinking and communicating their ideas. Conversation about the structure of the thesis will also provide the basis for many of the early meetings as ideas are developed and the required resources are identified. In some departments and schools, the candidate may ‘hit the ground running’, becoming involved with data collection within weeks or months of arriving. This helps with training of new skills and in identifying the level of effort required from the candidate. Apart from helping the candidate with matters related to the research project, the supervisor also needs to accept the main responsibility for assisting with the following tasks: • Developing in the candidate a sense of professional identity as a researcher and a scholar; • Strengthening the intellectual skills, abilities and attitudes of the candidate, which are needed in the process of becoming a competent researcher; • Asking the candidate to read and critically assess relevant literature and pro viding opportunity to debate the theoretical, practical and technical issues; • Integrating the candidate into the social and academic community; • Providing a means to maintain a high level of enthusiasm and to renew motivational energy to sustain the candidate’s efforts towards a timely and satisfying completion of the degree; • Providing opportunities for the candidate to deliver a short research seminar and attend others and debrief the acquired learning; • Encouraging and sharing the skills to publish findings. In some universities it is expected that doctoral candidates will present at least two conference papers or publish in international journals during candidature. Some supervisors arrange for candidates to spend time in an overseas university or research establishment as a way of broadening their horizons and stimulating their research interests. Questions

1 Often the understanding of the candidate’s and the supervisor’s expectations of the supervisor’s role and responsibilities differs from that understood by the candidate. Most universities have formal regulations with respect to responsibilities but there are few, if any, definitions about the roles. How is the role of the supervisor defined in your university and how are early career supervisors informed and ‘taught’ their roles? 2 The issue of ownership of intellectual property between the candidate and the supervisor with respect to publications can be a vexed one. In the cases of patent

34


2/5/07 11:41:29 AM


rights and confidentiality, the issues are far from straightforward and are open to legal pitfalls. This particularly applies to copyright regulations. How do you go about raising these issues with your candidates? 3 In some universities, the supervisor is formally credited with one hour (and at best two hours) per week of formal contact for each doctoral candidate. There are few supervisors who would find such an allocation adequate and it is not unusual for a supervisor to spend more than six hours per week in the early (and final) stages of the candidature. In your experience, do you find these allocated times to be reasonable or even necessary?

35


2/5/07 11:41:29 AM

C HAPTER 6

Developing the intellectual and emotional climate for candidates Linda Conrad Griffith University’s Griffith Institute for Higher Education

Introduction The notion of ‘mateship’ has in popular parlance been considered a significant antipodean value, and we see it on a daily basis on the sporting field, in the work place and in social settings. In this chapter it is argued that aspects of mateship need also to become a prominent and visible feature within the research culture and the graduate research experience. Aspects of the concept of mateship may function to create a supportive and dynamic intellectual and emotional climate that will address problems of perceived isolation regularly reported as a factor leading to non-completion of the thesis. Various strategies have been implemented in universities to overcome these feelings of isolation and aloneness—some aspects of which may paradoxically be an essential component of the research process. However, such strategies have been sporadic; instead, they should be treated as integral to the research training process. Recent international and Australian research (for example, Bair and Haworth 2004, Conrad 2003, Conrad and Chipperfield 2004a, 2004b, Ramsden et al. 2004) has highlighted the crucial role of group learning for graduate candidates and the positive outcomes of supervisory strategies that bring candidates together to support and learn from one another. Some of the benefits include psychological support, mutuality and a sense of the ‘shared’ journey, learning from the know ledge and experience of others, economy of time and avoidance of repetition of information. Advice on processes such as confirmation and examination, style

36


2/5/07 11:41:29 AM

developing the intellectual and emotional climate for candidates

of literature reviews, thesis structure and planning for conferences and publication can all be offered to candidates in a group session. Furthermore, candidates gain a greater connectedness and a sense of attachment within a research community when provided with opportunities to work through ideas that are core to the discipline, challenge each other’s perspectives, exchange narratives of their experience and justify decisions. Supervision strategies that enhance the development of a research community lead to successful completions, increased motivation, accountability and pro ductivity, maintenance of common standards, and the perception that being part of a research community brings about real benefits. In a study on methods of supervision and support for graduate research candidates in one university, Conrad (2003) discovered strong agreement on the value of ‘initiatives to enhance the research community’. Specifically, candidates praised group and team super vision, structured programs, opportunities for peer assistance and feedback, and strategies designed to make them feel part of a research community.

Group supervision Group supervision entails the bringing together of candidates by one or more supervisors for the purpose of building both social and learning relationships. Group supervision facilitates ‘teaching’ in a setting that may be less intense than that of one-to-one supervision. This approach allows for modelling alternative approaches to problem solving, providing immediate feedback, creating a safe environment for oral interrogation of ideas and reality testing, identifying jointly experienced issues, and coming together as a community of scholars. The presence of peers in an informal environment builds confidence that encourages candidates to raise questions they might not ask in a supervision session. Group supervision as part of the supervisory process serves as a complement to individual candidate–supervisory team meetings. The structure of group meetings can vary widely depending on the intended outcome, as suggested by the following approaches: • Regular group meetings, with each candidate and supervisor talking briefly (perhaps for 10 minutes) on issues associated with their own research • A research laboratory group presenting the latest findings and then seeking to develop alternative methods with the benefit of group feedback • Fortnightly ‘hot’ topics sessions with required prereadings, where part-time candidates can have access to the readings and be brought into the conver sation via conference phone calls • Rehearsal of confirmation seminars or conference presentations • Meetings to discuss the management of the doctoral process or the need for specific disciplinary learning to be achieved within a particular time frame, concluding with peer review and the reporting of outcomes to all candidates

37


2/5/07 11:41:30 AM


• Informal discussion of experiences of various stages of the research process and problems faced, with that discussion sometimes led by final-year candidates • Celebration of published articles and/or completion of theses and a chance for a reflection on the learnings and future plans • Establishment of a reading group with members regularly reading the same publications, dissecting, analysing, criticising and applying what they have learned to their own research design and questions • Invitations to visiting researchers to present and discuss their findings. Without doubt, group supervision meetings can have a strong positive social dimension, with the creation of an ‘informal’ ambience and a high degree of spon taneous interaction.

Structured programs Structured programs are group activities with a curricular character where topics, issues or skills are dealt with in a systematic manner. Such programs include formal induction sessions for new candidates where an overview of the research processes, literature review styles, internal and university procedures, supervision relationships, specialist workshop sessions and codes of ethics are covered. A series of programs may reflect the kinds of professional skills discussed within this book (see Chapter 14). Regardless of the content of the programs, candidates can learn by listening to other candidates as they formulate their areas of research enquiry during these sessions. Candidates regularly express the need for structure, as too often they ‘flail about’ with little sense of tangible achievement or clearly established milestones. Structured programs provide a clear step-wise course of action that enables candidates to gain a foothold and to move along the research pathway with increasing confidence. The most formal type of structured program is the school or departmental research conference, with supervisors providing input on various aspects of the research process in response to presentations by candidates.

Research teams In research teams, candidates usually play a small yet vital part in an overall research scheme that has often been conceptualised and funded well before the candidate was enrolled. There may be a number of supervisory staff, including a project director and manager, as well as a number of candidates at all stages of candidature working to achieve complementary outcomes. While candidates work most closely with their direct supervisors, all staff, candidates (including postdoctoral candidates) and technicians offer support and assistance, giving information and advice on a regular basis.

38


2/5/07 11:41:30 AM


Although teams occur more frequently in the sciences, many other fields also provide opportunities for ‘team’ research in which a candidate undertakes a research project within an overall framework. Other variations might see mem bers with varying theoretical backgrounds intentionally brought together to look at common problems and concepts in order to gain greater methodological sophistication by considering a variety of perspectives. The team offers oppor tunities for members to gain great benefit from one another in team meetings, both conceptually and psychologically. Members can consider together ways of getting through difficult ‘roadblocks’ and can ensure the importance of the contribution of the work to the discipline and to an international perspective (see Chapter 14).

Peer support When supervisors provide structured team-based supervision characterised by collegial relationships, both peer support and mutual attraction to the group and its norms will emerge. However, peer support can also be the result of an initiative by the candidates themselves, with or without an explicit involvement of supervisors. An informal peer group might involve five or six doctoral candidates who are committed to meeting every two to three weeks, with one or more of the candidates taking a leadership and organisational role. The primary activity might be rotational review and discussion of each member’s research. This kind of peer activity is most likely to occur in settings where the department or supervisor arranges for social gatherings or learning groups. Such opportunities mean that candidates can come to know each other and can seek out compatible ‘buddies’ or small groups for support, whether informal or carefully organised. While direct and personal peer support is a barrier for candidates who are studying at a remote location and who are seldom able to visit the campus, some departments organise short, intensive on-campus induction and other annual events to enable candidates and academic staff to develop and maintain collegial relationships. The result is often that beyond these events electronic relationships take over to maintain this connection.

Collegialisation Collegialisation is a term that denotes relationship building by a number of means, not all of which may be as organised as group supervision, structured programs or peer support. It implies a process whereby candidates come to feel a respected part of the research community as a colleague and valued member of the department. An example of the range of activities aimed at promoting an intellectually and emotionally stimulating climate for graduate research candidates at the

39


2/5/07 11:41:31 AM


University of Tasmania is presented in Table 6.1. The core theme underpinning these practical and deliberate strategies and activities is the development of a collegial environment. Table 6.1 Nine strategies and 45 practical ways to develop the intellectual and emotional climate for graduate research candidates 1 Promoting the integration of candidates within the school’s community

Provide opportunities for graduate research candidates to present to undergraduates, honours students and at publicity functions.

Pair candidates to critique each other’s publications.

Publish an annual proceedings or a brief abstract on each candidate’s progress and/or submitted and selected papers.

Publish a brief abstract on each academic’s research activities during the year and publish on the school web page.

2 Involving candidates within the broader research culture

Provide transportation costs for part-time candidates to attend seminars.

Involve candidates in the preparation of conference presentations and grant submissions, provide funds for successful submissions and recognition for involvement in unsuccessful submissions.

Each month, submit with a photo to the university newspaper one story on research activities involving candidates.

Develop a biannual conference with another Australian school/discipline to foster collaborative research.

Invite graduates to talk with current candidates about how their research training assisted their career prospects.

3 Developing a seminar program with high participation

Encourage candidates to organise and conduct a seminar series (where food and after seminar drinks are provided) and ask supervisors to attend.

Make a formal booking for all staff to attend a six-monthly two-day research conference where candidates also attend.

Make digital copies of selected school presentations as exemplars of high-quality presentations.

Arrange for other university staff to offer one-day or half-day presentations based on particular trends or needs: career preparation, thesis writing, commercialisation and intellectual property, updates on specific research methods appropriate to the discipline.

4 Creating a stimulating research ambience

Develop a dedicated publication board with an annual prize for best candidate publication.

Ensure that all school induction materials are placed on the web, with a hard copy provided for each incoming candidate.

Purchase and provide a recent text on postgraduate research (for example, Doctorates downunder) for each candidate.

40


2/5/07 11:41:31 AM


Commence a school challenge for the annual number of publications candidates are involved with.

Encourage candidates to submit a proposal for a radio media interview on the weekly research focus program.

Commence a library with resource material for supervisors on supervision.

Plan a half-day for each guest academic visiting the school to be available to candidates to discuss and receive feedback on their research projects.

Develop a research motto for the school.

Invite all academic staff to give a lunchtime report on a recently attended conference.

5 Ensuring there is effective pastoral care

Organise a six-monthly half-day of stress-free activities; massage, scavenger hunt, group exercise class, barbecue, climbing wall and so forth.

Conduct a six-monthly group meeting of all supervisors to review the needs and progress of candidates in the school.

Ensure there is a weekly ‘drop ’n chat’ time with the graduate research coordinator where coffee is provided.

Conduct a brief survey of candidate needs and provide general data for staff and candidates.

Invite the counselling/careers service to provide specific workshops or short sessions.

Encourage one member of staff to undertake formal training in counselling.

6 Promoting social contact between candidates

Develop a mentoring scheme of senior candidates with new candidates.

Develop a mentoring scheme of current candidates with honours students.

Develop a formal link between full-time and part-time candidates.

Organise an annual awards night and bring back an outstanding graduate to talk about their research and the impact of their research training experience.

7 Relating to academic/administrative staff outside school

Host an annual candidate-versus-staff trivia night to raise funds for a charity, with questions based on the discipline.

Provide a non-alcohol barbecue, treasure hunt or quest, pairing staff and candidates.

Involve administrative staff in regular events such as candidate induction, special school meetings, planning events.

8 Creating an environment of warmth and acceptance

Supervisors set a goal to have a brief chat with a different candidate each week.

Supervisors acknowledge candidates in hallways and smile.

Provide recognition of the candidate’s spouses and families, such as an invitation for a tour of the premises or meeting the supervisors and the head of school.

9 Creating a sense of place

Develop an honour board of graduates and have an in-school celebration for each graduation for candidates from the school.

41


2/5/07 11:41:32 AM


Develop a photo board with photos, names and candidates with their supervisors.

Develop an individual web page per candidate with photos of research activity; link to school page.

Prepare a university/school name tag for each candidate for use on academic/professional occasions.

Develop a list of names of candidates (with photos) in a prominent space.

Develop a list of names of candidates with phone/office numbers in the school office.

Ask candidates for input in the design and production of a school logo and rugby jumper. Developed by Professor Carey Denholm, Dean of Graduate Research, UTAS, June 2006

Even when other members of the department are not necessarily enthusiastic proponents of group supervision, a supervisor can ensure that the candidates with whom they are working have the opportunity to meet the head of department and other members of the academic staff and candidates, preferably informally— for example, during morning teas. Such efforts lead the candidate to perceive involvement, acceptance and a sense of place, and help to induct the candidate into the research team. Being asked to tutor or to participate as a research assistant or even as a casual consultant on team research can make candidates feel that their skills and knowledge are of value. Collegialisation also occurs when supervisors introduce candidates to noted visiting experts, especially when this introduction has both intellectual and social dimensions. Candidates welcome contacts with senior scholars in the discipline, and an introduction by the supervisor allows candidates to feel confident that they can discuss their work and obtain a fresh perspective on their project and findings from someone by whom they might initially have felt intimidated. Of course, candidates need also to be made aware that any substantial help with the thesis itself will disqualify the academic from a role as potential examiner. However, even minimal recognition by an external academic will be invaluable in providing motivation and will afford external validation of the candidate’s work.

Hesitations in building the research climate It is wise to take a brief moment to consider whether there may be any possible ‘downsides’ to strategies promoting the intellectual and emotional climate for graduate research candidates. There have been examples in the past of staff intimidation and the creation of anxiety in groups, but it is hoped that such inquisitorial encounters are clearly recognised in the current environment as abusive and unacceptable. It may well be argued that some candidates are not particularly comfortable in group activities. However, in the examples of group activities that have been tried, student satisfaction in general is robust.

42


2/5/07 11:41:32 AM


In Australia, results from the 2005 Postgraduate Experience Questionnaire indicate that the least satisfactory aspect of graduate candidates’ experience is the ‘climate’ within their school or department. Given the six questions that were asked in this survey, candidates expressed a desire to have more opportunities to gain a sense of belonging within the research community and to have had more opportunity for intellectual and social contact. As part of a national study (Conrad and Chipperfield 2004b), candidates in both the arts and sciences indicated that they were able to learn important skills through their interaction with the research community. From the beginning, candidates should be made aware that it is their responsibility as researchers to both benefit from and contribute to the research community through their own attendance and participation in such sessions. Some supervisors may fear that candidates lacking in confidence will be unable to hold their own against more assertive peers. However, if the supervisors remain active and alert, there is an inbuilt protection against this possibility, and other candidates are generally quick to defend their peers against overenthusiastic criticism. Still another concern might be that candidate independence as researchers could be undermined by group activities. A recent study suggests that this concern is unsubstantiated (Conrad and Chipperfield 2004a). Of the candidates in this study who specifically mentioned that they valued independence, only a few seemed to value independence by default because they were thrown on their own resources in isolation. The vast majority demonstrated a positive attitude towards interaction within the research community, some specifically suggesting that control of their learning was related to their capacity to call on a wide range of human resources to assist them. In other words, the availability of a variety of academics and peers who are willing to help in a lively and supportive research community enhanced independence, enabling candidates to manage their own learning more effectively. Independent learning and interdependent learning are thus closely related.

Concluding comments This chapter has provided examples of different ways that supervisors (and others in a department and a university) can enhance the research community and encourage candidates to feel that they are a valued and integral part of it. There are many ways in which candidates can be respected, admired, appreciated, recognised, included and supported. The central message of this chapter is that the kind of research culture and atmosphere where candidates have a strong sense of belonging and attachment leads to increased persistence, greater satisfaction and more productive behaviours and performance. Supervision should be conceptualised not only as guidance to candidates as they conduct their research and write their theses, but also as demonstrated

43


2/5/07 11:41:33 AM


leadership that enables candidates to become part of a larger research community. An appropriate metaphor for the supervisory relationship may be that of the extended family, with parents, siblings, cousins, uncles, aunts and grandparents providing different perspectives and different kinds of modelling. ‘Mateship’, in this scenario, means that candidates learn to depend on one another as well as their supervisors. While the reality of existing power relationships cannot be ignored within this metaphor, the implication is that all members of the research community have access to one another’s knowledge and support. When this type of culture exists, graduate research candidates become part of it and, following graduation, are more likely to create it in their next research community. Questions

1 In what ways might supervisors facilitate the creation of a research community that is collegial and supportive? 2 In what ways might the department as a whole be encouraged to provide oppor tunities for candidates to make useful connections with one another and with academic staff other than their supervisors? 3 How might candidates be encouraged to view themselves as initiators of peer support to their colleagues? References

Bair, CR & Haworth, JG 2004, ‘Doctoral student attrition and persistence: A meta-synthesis of research’, in JC Smart (ed.), Higher Education: Handbook of Theory and Research, vol. 19, Kluwer, Dordrecht. Conrad, L 2003, ‘Five ways of enhancing the postgraduate community: Student perceptions of effective supervision and support’, in Learning for an Unknown Future: Research and Development in Higher Education, vol. 26, Higher Education Research and Development Society of Australasia, University of Otago. Conrad, L & Chipperfield, J 2004a, ‘The role of research higher degree students as learners’, Quality in Postgraduate Research Conference, Adelaide, 21–23 April. Conrad, L & Chipperfield, J 2004b, ‘Research higher degree students’ perceptions of their learning’, Quality in Postgraduate Research Conference, Adelaide, 21–23 April. Ramsden, P, Ginns, P & Conrad, L 2004, ‘Associations between postgraduate research students’ experiences and learning outcomes’, The 12th Improving Student Learning (ISL) Symposium, Birmingham, UK, 6–8 September.

44


2/5/07 11:41:33 AM

C h a p t er 7

Helping candidates form their research question Richard Ingleby Deakin University

Introduction The first six to 12 months of the graduate research candidature are crucial. Supervisors need to ensure that the candidate’s enthusiasm and motivation are applied to the formulation of a research question that can sustain the entirety of a successful candidature. Particularly in the humanities and social sciences, where it is less likely that the candidate commences with a line of inquiry that has already been determined, there is an enormous temptation for the candidate to translate their enthusiasm for learning, and the ‘release’ from the constraints of coursework study, into an unrestrained ‘orgy of reading’. Reading everything that is available and relevant to the general area of the candidate’s interest, and then reading every authority referred to in every footnote of everything that is available, may (possibly) increase the candidate’s general level of erudition. But it makes little contribution to the development of a thesis, and the problems that are caused by this approach may be worse than ‘no progress’. A sustained period of energetic activity without demonstrable progress creates the risk of declining motivation and the ‘rut of inertia’. A properly formulated research question contains: • a specific line of inquiry • key definitional terms to be given practical definitions • a methodological approach appropriate to the specific line of inquiry. The construction of a properly formulated research question is no easy task, but it is a key feature of a successful candidature. A properly formulated research question can provide a map not only of the potential thesis, but also for the

45


2/5/07 11:41:34 AM


organisation of time and monitoring of the progress that will be required for the completion of the thesis. It is inevitable that the passage of time will lead to elements of the question being changed. But the crucial point is that unless the question is clarified, it is difficult to detect the existence of change. The risk of declining motivation also arises for the candidate who is aware in a general sense that their focus or direction is shifting, without being able to clarify what is constituted by the shift. This chapter sets out some strategies the supervisor can deploy to maximise the chance that the candidate will have a ‘flying start’. The chapter is based on the assumption that one of the reasons for low completion rates, particularly in the humanities and social sciences, is not so much that candidates do not complete, but that they never start. Bear in mind that there is no recorded instance in any university anywhere in the world of a candidate submitting their thesis and saying: ‘I wish I’d read more journals’. It goes without saying that the success of the strategies discussed below requires that there be regular and frequent meetings between candidate and super visor, and for expectations to be clarified openly at the start of the relationship. If the strategies are implemented successfully, they will form the springboard for a successful candidature, where the completion of the thesis takes place on schedule and the candidate and supervisor reflect with satisfaction on a job well done. All too often the first 75 per cent of the prescribed time period is spent reading aimlessly, and the final 25 per cent is a tornado of frenzied activity that wreaks havoc on anyone or anything unlucky enough to be within a 100 metre radius of the candidate, and leaves all concerned with a sense of relief that the whole thing is over!

The question The first element of a properly formulated research question is the ‘question’ component. It may seem too obvious to be worth stating that a doctoral thesis requires a line of inquiry and a line of inquiry requires a question. But for some candidates, the period of candidature may be the first time in their education when they are required to adopt a critical approach to existing academic auth ority. Paradoxically, there are at least some candidates for whom the motivation to pursue doctoral study actually constitutes an impediment to its success. This does not apply to those candidates whose interest in doctoral research is triggered by an educational or other life experience that has created a thirst to explore a particular issue. It also does not apply to those candidates who have generated a question from their earlier study—for example, by seeking to pursue a question that has already emerged as a question in published research, or that emerges from the application of a particular methodology to an area where it has not previously been applied.

46


2/5/07 11:41:34 AM

helping candidates form their research question

The ‘danger’ category applies to those for whom the pursuit of further study is the sole motivation. A graduate research candidate in an induction workshop that I recently attended explained her motivation for doctoral study as follows: ‘I wasn’t ready to stop learning yet.’ There is nothing necessarily wrong with this; a certain ‘reverence’ for the academic community can be healthy on one level, and an asset if it is combined with the inquiring and critical approach that will develop from the motivations discussed in the previous paragraph. But the ‘worship’ of authority may prevent the candidate from moving to the generation of a thesis. The supervisor should ensure from a very early stage that the candidate’s enthusiasm about accumulating the knowledge of others does not stop them generating a question whose answer will constitute an original and significant contribution. It is recommended that the candidate be advised that the purpose of their thesis is to increase the sum of communicable knowledge; not to increase the candidate’s awareness of the sum of communicable knowledge. To put the point bluntly: if it’s already in the library, it’s not research.

Engaged reading and the critical approach The first technique to ensure that the candidate generates a research question is to emphasise that any reading carried out by the candidate should be ‘engaged reading’. We are all aware of the following phenomenon: We pick up a book; we take out the bookmark and open at page 24; our eyes move over the words; the fingers of our watch move round; 10 minutes pass; we are on page 35; the Vice-Chancellor’s ‘Efficiency in Higher Education Enforcement Officer’ comes up and asks us to explain what we have learned in the past 10 minutes; and we cannot recall a single word in any of the eleven pages we have ‘read’. If we are reading a novel to pass the time on the train to the city centre, this does not matter. But it is different if the alleged purpose of the reading is to acquire an understanding of the subject matter. A useful discipline to impose on the candidate is to require all reading to be carried out by asking very basic questions, such as: What is the aim of the writer? What are the assumptions of the writer? What is the purpose of the research? How does the writer pursue his or her aims? How are the conclusions derived from the data? What questions are not answered? A very useful collection and discussion of such ques tions are contained in an exercise prepared by Dr Christine Bruce (2002) and is located at http://www.first.edu.au/members/workshop/litreview. The requirement that a candidate ask questions makes it more likely that they will engage with the material. Another way to encourage candidates to ask questions is to provide them with early drafts of your own research papers and ask: What do you think of this? This strategy has the additional benefit of directing the candidate’s attention to the ‘how’ of the research process. I have heard about

47


2/5/07 11:41:35 AM


a senior academic (not in this country) who was on the editorial board of so many journals that the only way he could manage the entirety of his obligations was to distribute the submitted papers to his doctoral candidates each week! Whether the relevant journals were aware of this was not made clear but there can be no doubt that the candidates benefited enormously. The method by which the candidate is directed to engage is irrelevant—the fact of engagement is the vital factor. The development of the critical approach marks the crux of the transition to graduate research study. Many candidates find it difficult to move from the undergraduate mode where the lecturer is (unfortunately all too often) effectively asking ‘What do I think?’, to the doctoral mode where the candidate is being asked ‘What do you think?’ I call this ‘the Peter Sarstedt question’ as the final line of the famous chorus states the vital requirement of any supervisor or examiner: But where do you go to my lovely, When you’re alone in your bed? Tell me the thoughts that surround you I want to look inside your head. [my emphasis]

Methods and perspectives There is one particular feature of the ‘engaged reading’ process that the super visor should stress as they guide the candidate to formulate a research question. New doctoral candidates often find the subject matter of everything so interesting that they are making ‘discoveries’ every day. Unfortunately, the candidate’s concentration on all these fascinating conclusions may prevent them from focus ing on the theoretical perspective from which the particular study is derived and the method by which the research was pursued. This means that there needs to be particular emphasis on encouraging candidates to focus on the ways that the researchers whose output they are reading have gone about their activities—in particular, what the researcher has looked for and how they have looked for it (Maclean and Genn 1979). The same point can be made more simply by looking at the other end of the candidature. This is a useful psychological tool, because if the candidate can fore see an end to the process it is more likely that they will achieve it. The examiner will essentially be assessing whether the candidate can pursue an organised argument over a significant period of time and will reasonably be asking: Is the concluding chapter internally coherent? Does the concluding chapter flow from the first chapter? Thus supervisors need to emphasise to their candidates that examiners focus on the ‘how’ of research because this is counterintuitive for many doctoral candidates who are often more concerned about the significance of the conclusions of their research.

48


2/5/07 11:41:35 AM


Only words on a page The only practical way for supervisors to ensure that candidates direct their attention to the formulation of a research question is to make them do it on paper. Over the years I have heard many aphorisms in relation to this imperative; for example: If it’s not written, it’s not done.

or Writing is the easiest thing not to do.

But the version that remains fixed in my mind (probably because it was chiselled there by my own supervisor, Mavis Maclean, now at the University of Oxford Centre for Family Law and Policy) is: It’s only words on a page.

The statement that ‘it’s only words on a page’ has at least three layers of meaning. First, the supervisor is not asking the candidate to do anything par ticularly complicated. ‘All’ that is required is to go to the computer, open up a new document, and keep going until there are about 300 words on the page. It is as simple and as vital as losing weight or giving up smoking (which is why everyone chooses to do it next week). Second, and of equal if not more importance, is this: because what the exercise produces is only words on a page, the words can be changed, new ones can be added, the old ones can be rearranged … this will happen … this should happen … The process of creating and refining text is the process by which the candidate will create the thesis; and it is a process that should start as early as possible. Third, there is no harm in putting words on a page; it is simply impossible to harm any candidate’s chances of a successful doctoral project by requiring them to produce a one-page document that explains in plain language to the interested and favourably inclined reader: • what I am going to do, and • how I am going to do it. This one pager will become the abstract in any event—it cannot be a waste of time.

Pilot studies and grounded theory Once the words are put on a page, then they will necessarily form the basis of further questions. In any doctoral project there are questions that any supervisor can and should ask any candidate to consider as early and as frequently as possible. These are:

49


2/5/07 11:41:36 AM


• • • •

What are your aims? What are you planning to do? How is what you are planning to do going to fulfil your aims? How do you know that what you are planning to do is going to fulfil your aims? • How do you know you are going to be able to do what you are planning to do?

All too frequently, far too much time is spent refining a research question in theory, only for ‘obstacles’ to emerge late in the day that threaten the success of the candidature. One frequent error is for candidates to plan an extremely labourintensive scheme of data collection, expend many months—or even years—in the accumulation of data, and only then discover that the data are not suitable for the intended aims of the thesis. By reason of the factors mentioned above, it is frequently the case that an important milestone in the evolution of the doctoral thesis is the pilot study. It is always a valuable exercise to test any planned methodological approach. The advantage of planning a pilot study early in the candidature is that ethical and practical problems can be foreseen at a stage when they become obstacles to be overcome rather than impediments to completion. The other advantage of the pilot study is that the ‘toe in the water’ of the real world can and should lead to the situation where the theoretical constructs are refined. Proponents of ‘grounded theory’ (Strauss and Corbin 1998) will immediately recognise the connotations of what I am trying to say. But the point is probably wider. There is a sense in which much (if not all?) doctoral research is grounded in a general sense. By this I mean that in a significant number of projects there is a constant interplay between the candidate’s growing theoretical sophistication and their exposure to the data that are the basis of their analysis.

Presentation as a discipline One valuable technique to encourage the candidate to formulate their research question at an early stage is to require them to make a 5-minute presentation to their peer group. I have found this discipline an extremely valuable exercise. I require the presentation to be accompanied by a visual aid of some description, such as a flow chart, diagram or table—consistent with the advice from my former supervisor that ‘anything which can be represented graphically should be’. I also require a draft of the presentation to be provided to another member of the group a few days in advance. The ‘respondent’ is required to ask two intelligent ques tions at the end of the presentation and this tends to generate enough discussion for about half an hour. Four or five of these ‘presentation/response/discussion’ sequences constitute an extremely valuable half-day workshop. The requirement

50


2/5/07 11:41:36 AM


to present directs the candidate to the need to communicate to an audience; and the requirement to respond reveals the difficulty of trying to understand as a ‘first time’ audience. Each member of the group performs both roles. The consequence of this can only be to clarify the focus of the research question and the need for clarity. The forum is informal and supportive, but serious. As with the ‘one-pager’ exercise discussed earlier, it is difficult to see any particular downside.

Concluding comments In this chapter, I have tried to outline how supervisors can respond to the challenges of the early stages of higher degree candidature by deploying a range of strategies to assist in the all-too-frequently delayed task of formulating a research question. The following questions are ones supervisors should bear in mind to ensure that candidates maximise the chances that the energy expended in the initial enthusiasm of candidature is translated into progress towards the formulation of a research question that can sustain a successful candidature. Questions

1 What are the elements of a research question and why does the formulation of a proper research question represent a significant milestone in the evolution of a doctoral thesis? 2 How is the candidate’s initial reading most effectively directed to clarifying the ingredients of a research question, which will ensure that the thesis constitutes a ‘significant and original’ contribution? 3 How can you direct the candidate’s reading to ensure that they are able to demonstrate how the various elements of the research question derive from the existing literature in the area? References

Bruce, C 2002, Supporting literature reviews: Materials for supervisors to use with students: http:// www.first.edu.au Maclean, M & Genn, H 1979, Methodological issues in social surveys, Macmillan, London. Strauss, A & Corbin, J 1998, Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks.

51


2/5/07 11:41:37 AM


2/5/07 11:41:37 AM

SECTION 3

Planning matters


2/5/07 11:41:37 AM

C HAPTER 8

Helping candidates manage their candidacy Ed Carson University of South Australia

Introduction The supervision of a doctoral project incorporates a range of issues beyond the substantive research activity; it includes professional development, strategic plan ning, basic administration, meeting deadlines, quality assurance and managing stakeholders’ expectations. Supervising a doctoral candidate is a complex task; predicated on principles of adult learning, arguably, it is the most complex level of teaching in higher education. But not all supervisors have been trained in relevant principles and techniques of substantive scholarly support, routine administration support and motivational support. In previously common models of supervision, academics were expected to do it as an unspecified subset of their own research, in effect with the candidate learning by osmosis. Recent funding and quality-assurance pressures have precipitated strategies for more structured approaches to research training and supervision. Due to increased intakes of research candidates, more systematic approaches are required for candidates to be supervised by a finite number of qualified supervisors. Many universities have adopted the position that more explicit management of doctoral candidacy, including an increase in structured research training, is desirable because candidates who have received explicit guidance in managing their candidacy are more likely to complete in a timely fashion. Increasingly the universities offer short skills development courses for doctoral candidates, which focus on generic skills but are associated with more stringent monitoring of progress and the promotion of more explicit candidacy management. A projectmanagement approach can help with the explicit recognition of these elements

54


2/5/07 11:41:38 AM

helping candidates manage their candidacy

and their interrelationship, and thereby help with the completion of the thesis on time with acceptable quality.

Supervisors and project management The attributes of ‘good’ supervisors derived from candidate and supervisor reports include the supervisor being: approachable, supportive, open-minded, positive, organised, thorough, stimulating and enthusiastic. These are manifest through the following various forms of conduct. Project management: • Director (shaping topic and method, suggesting ideas) • Manager (helping to develop work plan, suggesting timetable for writing up, monitoring progress) • Facilitator (providing access to resources or expertise, arranging field work) Knowledge transfer and skill formation: • Adviser (helping to resolve technical problems, suggesting alternatives) • Critic (of research design and techniques, of data analysis, of written material) Personal empowerment: • Scholarly supporter (discussing candidate’s ideas, giving encouragement, identifying career options) • Emotional supporter (extending concern to non-academic aspects of candi date’s life) Increasingly the first subset of this list—project management—is emphasised in Australian and Aotearoa New Zealand universities. It is important to recognise the judgements involved in its application, and how this changes over candidacy. A more dynamic specification of that subset would emphasise the Director/ Manager/Facilitator as follows: • Negotiating/guiding the move from dependence to independence, which involves different degrees of direction at different stages, and which is usually time-intensive and directive in both the early and the final stages. • Varying the supervisory approach to suit the individual candidate’s needs and personality, disciplinary differences, etc., even though some supervisors prefer a particular approach. • Identifying problems and intervening to get the research/candidacy back on track, such as breaking the tasks down for candidates if they are floundering. Because doctoral projects take many different shapes, one of the supervisory challenges is that it feels like each one has to be managed afresh. There is no simple formula, no fixed course of events. A research project follows its own logic—if we

55


2/5/07 11:41:38 AM


knew its course and outcomes in advance it wouldn’t be research. Paradoxically, the argument that each supervision case is unique and therefore general principles cannot be applied is a reason why academics are often resistant to professional development on supervision. However, there are important commonalities and this chapter is predicated on there being common aspects of project management for most doctoral candidates.

Phases of project management Most candidates who enrol are expected to develop a detailed research proposal within the first year or so (full-time or part-time). Acceptance of the proposal as being potentially worthy of a doctorate is usually required to proceed further—sometimes called ‘confirmation of candidature’. Alongside monitoring progress, most universities offer workshops or seminars on aspects of the pro posal development such as literature review and research methodology that are intended to sustain the quality and pace of the proposal. Promptly submitted research proposals are associated with timely completion; conversely, long delays in proposal submission are associated with attrition. After the proposal is approved, candidates have about two years full-time or four years part-time to complete the work they have proposed. A project-management approach provides the tools to translate the candidate’s topic into strategic objectives of the research and the related ‘milestones’. People typically associate project management with large, complex and expensive construction projects, but the same principles apply to smaller projects such as doctoral research. Five main phases are associated with the successful management of a project. 1 Initiation (including selection of the candidate and matching with supervisor) 2 Planning (includes project definition, scope and objectives, and the specification of tasks to be completed, their timing and duration) 3 Implementation of tasks (where the traditional research activities of the project are undertaken) 4 Monitoring of progress (to ensure timing, cost and quality of the tasks proceed as planned) 5 Completion of the project (includes production of the final report—the thesis) Candidates undertake these activities most of the time, but the argument here is that conscious recognition of the elements, and their interdependence, can assist with the completion of the thesis on time with acceptable quality. Apart from the exhortation to ‘pick your candidate wisely’, this is not the place to dwell on the first of these elements, beyond making two brief points. Candidates typically enrol with honours degrees or with coursework and research masters degrees, which provide some—but not extensive—preparation for doctoral

56


2/5/07 11:41:39 AM


research. However, increasingly candidates (especially part-time) do come to doctoral study with a range of useful expertise from their prior study, work and life experience. The candidate is best regarded as a less research-experienced colleague who requires advice and guidance. In practice, this involves project planning as well as contributing to the substantive research design and analysis. The remaining four elements of project management warrant explicit discussion.

Planning Many candidates skimp on the planning stage. It is a basic principle of project management to ensure the candidate plans before doing. This phase of the process can take a surprising amount of time, often taking all of the first six months of the provisional candidature or more, to produce an acceptable statement of the research question that is appropriately grounded in the field and its literature. Sometimes consolidation of the focus goes on throughout the project. Starting with a clear plan does not preclude wide-ranging and creative think ing, nor does it prevent details changing, since no project proceeds perfectly according to plan! Planning is an iterative process that is conducted throughout the project and is not confined to the beginning of the candidacy, even though that is when important specification takes place. Effective project management involves continuously planning to cope with changes and deviation from the initial plan. The critical factor is how details relate to the research questions and the argument. Continued planning does not mean indefinite reformulation of the research problem, so if the candidate looks like continuing to broaden or to continually modify the topic, it is necessary to insist on fixing the core thesis argument and specific research question(s). It is essential for the candidate to beware of ‘scope creep’. The thesis is not the candidate’s magnum opus; it is a time- and resourcebound piece of work. It involves a project with a finite life span, with interrelated activities, governed by quite well-established conventions, even though each element of the conventions may be changing at the margins. Some doctoral projects start with very clear objectives with obvious activities following from them, whereas others initially have much less clearly defined objectives and require the candidate to develop them progressively. Regardless of the precision in the initial specification of the project, a central premise of project management is that it is important to formulate SMART objectives; that is: • • • • •

Specific Measurable Attainable Realistic Time-bound.

57


2/5/07 11:41:39 AM


This approach lends itself most readily to the formulation of testable hypotheses, but it can nonetheless provide a useful checklist to help focus any doctoral research. Specifying tasks is of equal importance to specifying objectives. Doctoral candidates often underestimate the range of tasks (and skills) involved in complet ing the doctorate, so supervisors are essential for identifying both the conceptual and practical issues that need to be addressed. After specifying objectives, the critical issue is to map out how to achieve them. Breaking the objective into specific tasks and achievable steps is a central strategy of project planning and management. Estimating the time for each task is important to get the schedule right. Many candidates aim to do too much and, if they are not told it is too much, they will later find the project impossible to complete. Moreover, if some part of the work is taking much longer than originally estimated, they need to be asked why, and possibly advised to reduce another aspect of the work. An outline plan can be represented in a diagrammatic form, and it is increasingly common for the sequence of tasks to be presented in the form of a table, the most common being a Gannt chart. Where an external funding body or industry partner is involved, such charts are typically expected as evidence that detailed planning has been undertaken, as well as an assurance that implementation can be readily monitored. These are useful to develop a visual representation of the timetable and the relationship between tasks, and they make it easier to detect deviation from the project plan or to recognise when that might be necessary. But don’t confuse the planning tool with the solution! Risk management is not just about looking for problems and avoiding them (risk aversion); it is about finding solutions and reaping the benefits.

Implementation of tasks While ‘good supervision’ can encompass a range of personal supervision styles, there are good reasons for being a ‘hands-on’ supervisor at critical points of the candidacy. Being involved in the process of data collection, for example, need not imply a lack of confidence in the candidate’s ability to gather the data. There are good planning and implementation reasons for looking at a sample of the data as it is generated. Hearing some interview tapes or reading a transcript or source document helps the supervisor deal with the interruptions to data collection that often arise, as well as understanding problems that might come up in the analysis of the data. It can also be some insurance in case there is any subsequent question about academic integrity or a suspicion of plagiarism. Practicalities are also important, including access to resources and help in dealing with red tape. The doctoral framework specifies reporting require ments, but most candidates have limited knowledge of university administrative arrangements. Indeed, often academics are unfamiliar with the processes and

58


2/5/07 11:41:40 AM


services associated with doctoral study and do not assist candidates through the administrative tasks. It is part of a supervisor’s role to help the candidate streamline arrangements and negotiations. And it is very useful to candidates to be told that particular events, developments and experiences are expected.

Monitoring of progress In addition to the review of the research proposal at the end of the first period of candidacy, it is standard procedure for universities to require a series of progress reports over the period of candidacy, and to stipulate that a satisfactory report is necessary for re-enrolment. It is core business for the supervisor (and this is increasingly monitored) to assess implementation of the plan and record progress against milestones negotiated and created to meet appropriate submission dates. Milestones are not just epiphenomena; the act of meeting them can give both candidate and supervisor a sense of achievement and can help them reflect on progress later on. They are also important in enabling reports to any industry partners, since the supervisor invariably has to manage the industry partner’s expectations. While recognising variation appropriate to stages of the candidacy, and paying particular attention at times of peak candidate activity, the supervisor has a responsibility to facilitate communication on a fairly regular basis, not just in the first year but also throughout the candidacy. If distance is an issue, email can work well for some people. Doctoral candidates frequently complain that they don’t get enough time with their supervisors and, conversely, supervisors frequently complain that candidates don’t make enough effort to see them frequently enough. The best way to promote that communication is to schedule regular meetings. Early in the candidacy, it is essential to specify (negotiate) expectations about supervisory styles, including the frequency of meetings and reviews. Some supervisors stipulate that they want to see some written material before each meeting, although this can be intimidating and feel unduly restrictive for some candidates. Typically candidates are hesitant to show draft work, but avoid ance can escalate even minor problems. Do not let matters drift or lose contact. Often breakdowns in the relationship are over small unresolved issues that conflate and escalate. Creating a pattern where the candidate only comes when they feel the need to, and feel up to it, is very risky because often the latter can prevent the former when it is most needed. More generally, in addition to scholarly and administrative support, the super visor needs to provide some pastoral care and motivational support. At some point in the candidacy all candidates seem to feel intellectually overwhelmed by the perceived enormity of the task. And, in part, the nature of the task is experienced by many candidates as an emotional roller-coaster. When surveyed, candidates often rate emotional support more important than assistance with

59


2/5/07 11:41:40 AM


project management. By assisting candidates to structure their candidature, skilful supervisors can demystify the doctorate and enable a personal dimension of trust to exist within an otherwise professional relationship. The supervisor puts the doctorate in perspective. By referring back to the project plan, they reiterate the limits of the work, emphasise the schedule and revisit the path to completion. Often the best advice the supervisor can give is to tell the candidate that most people have had similar kinds of problems during their candidacy.

Completion of the project For most candidates the writing of a first draft is usually the hardest part of the doctorate. Honours theses usually don’t prepare the candidate to sustain the length and complexity of the doctoral thesis. A clear account of a complex project and its results, while obeying the conventions of the discipline’s discursive patterns, is a difficult enough task even for those with experience. It invariably takes much longer than candidates expect, usually longer than the experimental work or fieldwork. The supervisor has to assist the candidate to identify the data or information required to support the argument and answer the research question(s): a project-management approach helps. It is useful for the candidate to commence writing from the outset. Writing is a tool for thought and for analysis. Writing the thesis is a pattern of thinking/ writing/thinking/writing, rather than a long period of thinking followed by a long period of writing. Encouraging the candidate to write ‘drafts’ that will change can be a useful support for them, and can be an aid to reducing writer’s block or procrastination. Skilful supervisors consistently encourage and assist their candidates to draft material for the thesis throughout the candidacy, and to publish and present their research in journals and at conferences, including joint publications. Approaching submission is when the supervisor has to start considering possible examiners’ responses, checking that the design is clearly explained, the data fully displayed, the implications fully stated, and so on. There may be a lot of refinement and editing to be identified and encouraged. The ideal for the supervisor is to be a scholar responsible to the profession, not an editor. But anyone who has marked an essay, never mind examined a thesis, knows that poor presentation of grammar, syntax and punctuation is seriously annoying and undermines the credibility of the candidate and the supervisor. The candidate has to do this work, but the supervisor needs to say what has to be done and, at the point of submission, sign off that it has been done. The task is to ensure that the final document does justice to the argument and to the project as it was planned and subsequently operationalised.

60


2/5/07 11:41:40 AM


Concluding comments There is no one way to manage a project. Similarly, there are limits to what a supervisor can do in managing the candidacy and, therefore, limits to the responsibility they should feel for the outcome. The supervisor can never substitute for the candidate—though skilful supervision can save the candidate a lot of time and energy. The candidate has to do the work, take a reasonable initiative in planning and managing the project, and then deliver the outcomes in a thesis and, ideally, some publications. Nevertheless, by explicitly considering the range of elements involved in undertaking the complex enterprise that is the doctorate, supervisors can help support the candidate to complete in a way that suits their needs and the parameters of the research, but also to complete in an effective and less stressful way than might otherwise be the case. Questions

First choose a doctoral project that you are familiar with and write down three to five main points in answer to each question listed below. Then take some time to reflect on the perspective generated by the list. 1 What are the goals and the objectives of the project, and do these aspects differ? 2 What are the detailed tasks associated with the project, the expected outcomes of the project and the expected timelines associated with the tasks? 3 What factors might threaten the successful completion of the tasks and how do you know when the project is on or off schedule?

61


2/5/07 11:41:41 AM

C HAPTER 9

Conducting reviews of candidature Carey Denholm University of Tasmania

The purpose of reviews Conducting a review of a doctoral candidate’s progress has two central aims: to provide an opportunity for the candidate and the supervision team to discuss past activities and current progress, and to outline and plan for the next stage of candidature. Reviews requiring written progress reports, both from supervisors and the candidate, generally occur annually or biannually. In addition, some academic departments require a review of candidature to occur mid-candidature. The process of confirmation of candidature is also now in practice in a number of universities, and at the end of a set period (usually within 12 months or equivalent for part-time candidates), the confirmation committee signs a statement that the candidate has satisfactorily completed the prescribed tasks and may proceed with their research. Review meetings that occur on a more regular basis are most often in response to concerns being raised about the candidature. Reviews may also occur online between the supervisor and the candidate where both parties complete their documents separately. Regardless of the various types, approaches or the timing of such reviews, the focus of this chapter are those review meetings that are conducted to ensure that effective quality processes and outcomes of candidature are in place. In a review meeting, the candidate is asked to raise any difficulties they have experienced—for example, work space, interpersonal issues with other candidates, expectations within the school, personal matters impinging on progress, super vision or infrastructure, human or animal ethics, publications or progress with the preparation of the thesis. A proposed plan of action to address these matters is

62


2/5/07 11:41:41 AM

conducting reviews of candidature

often then established. For supervisors it is also an opportunity to review progress, discuss specifics such as research methods, research performance, professional and specific skills, and required or recommended changes in the direction of the research. The review may also be an opportunity for supervisors to provide useful feedback to the candidate in a non-threatening manner about their oral presentation skills, their behaviour within a research team or how personal issues such as motivation might affect their overall progress. In light of these comments, the overall tone and process by which the review is conducted become a diagnosis of how the candidate–supervision relationship is functioning. Optimally, there should be no surprises at these meetings for either the candidate or supervisor. Without doubt, the way in which a review of candidature is conducted is a reflection of the quality and effectiveness of communication that has occurred, the interpersonal skills of both candidate and supervisor, and an indication as to the overall quality of their relationship. Ideally, reviews of candidature should be seen as a ‘conversation between colleagues’, with the intention of having it described as an informative and useful learning experience for all parties.

Structure of the session At the beginning of any review session, it is important to: 1 2 3 4

talk about the purpose of the session and the time period; ensure that all parties present remain within the boundaries of the review; discuss what will be recorded and to whom any report will be sent; and make explicit that the review is to assist the candidate to achieve their tasks and goals.

Where there are a number of supervisors present, it is also a good idea to state the roles of each person attending and the expected outcome by the end of the meeting. In the cases where the meeting is face to face, the venue for the review needs to be carefully considered as the meeting is best conducted in a comfortable and confidential environment that is free from interruptions. To reinforce the collegiality of the review, the use of a round table, with all seats at the same height, is more likely to achieve this end. Access to a whiteboard will often be required and, as the candidate may wish to provide a PowerPoint presentation, access to the internet may also need to be provided. If documents have been prepared for the session and were required for discussion, these must be circulated well in advance of the meeting. In order to create an atmosphere of safety for the candidate, the supervisors need to convey that they are present for the assistance of the candidate and the overall intention is that the review will be viewed as a useful session where support, advice and encouragement are shared and received. Depending on the institutional requirements, participants may be required to provide an electronic

63


2/5/07 11:41:42 AM


signature to the summary document to be finalised at the conclusion of the meeting. In addition, the candidate needs to bring along copies of former reviews and any material that would be pertinent to the conversation.

The review experience—the candidate At a review meeting, it is not unusual for a candidate to feel a range of emotions —including feeling exposed and vulnerable—and to have some anxiety and uncertainty about the process and likely outcomes. Candidates will view the activity differently depending on their age and personal experience of this type of meeting, the frequency of contact with the supervisors and their level of preparation, the stage of candidature and the ethos within the academic section. Candidates will demonstrate a variety of coping strategies, which will have been shaped by prior experiences and often by other cultural and developmental influences. A certainty is that no two candidates will behave in the same way in any one situation. On the other hand, some candidates will relish the opportunity to engage in a rich interrogation of their research endeavours and the depth of understanding they have acquired, and see the review meeting as a chance to demonstrate their growing competence and intellectual prowess. However, regardless of the external appearance (and even bravado), there will still be an underlying sense of uncertainty. Some would attest that all these reactions are essential ‘rights of passage’ and that a ‘good dose of anxiety’ is considered part of the process. However, candidates are playing for ‘high stakes’ and their emotional (and often cultural) investment in obtaining a positive outcome is very high. It is therefore essential that trust and confidentiality are characteristics of such meetings. Accepting feedback, correction and the identification of flaws and weaknesses is never easy; nor is it easy to accept direction as sometimes problems appear to be too large, too complex or too unique to be solved. Therefore it is a necessary requirement to provide each candidate with an opportunity to talk not only about the content of the research or the thesis, but also about issues of process: successes or otherwise, aspects of supervision they need more and less of, what has been useful, the current hurdles, and what they have learned from the review session. After all, the candidate of today will most likely become the supervisor of tomorrow, and by experiencing effective and productive review sessions they will be more likely to model the same process with their own candidates.

The review experience—the supervisor It is reasonable for supervisors to feel apprehensive prior to and during a review session. After all, the candidate is under their tutelage and supervisors are

64


2/5/07 11:41:42 AM


invested in the performance of their candidates. However, increased identification with the candidate may lead to heightened sensitivity when negative feedback is provided about the research activity or performance. This over-identification is more likely to occur for supervisors who are within the first few years of their supervisory experience. No supervisor wishes to have a research method or statistical treatment that they have recommended be identified as having significant flaws. In cases where there is an overt, robust and sustained difference of opinion between supervisors during the review session, it may be best for the candidate to be asked to leave the room until the matter is resolved, as exposure to a heated interaction may create a sense of uncertainty about the advice provided by a supervisor. Supervisors need to ensure that they do not dominate the session; a good rule of thumb is for the candidate to talk 70 per cent of the time. The review needs to be seen as a learning opportunity where the candidate has the uninterrupted opportunity to demonstrate their developing expertise, growing professional confidence and command of the subject area along with their growing reputation. It is also an opportunity for the candidate to respond to complex questions and to showcase their ability to ‘think on their feet’ in front of a probing and uncompromising yet understanding audience. Rarely is a review useful as an opportunity to simply ‘grill’ the candidate—fortunately this approach is becoming a feature of a former inquisitorial era. Prior to the review, it may be desirable for supervisors to consider any sensitive matters or expressed concerns from the candidate about coping with the actual meeting. It may also be useful to provide the opportunity for a post-review meet ing to discuss outcomes, the process of the meeting and any structural matters such as procedures and rules of candidature and supervision.

Asking penetrating questions In other chapters in this text, reference is made to ways in which supervisors can enhance the candidate’s research experience by posing integrative and advanced questions in order to assist the candidate to think in different ways about their research. For example, the notion of threshold concepts (Meyer and Land 2005) or kinds of questions framed for an oral defence (Glatthorn and Joyner 2005) may be useful tools. In the case of the author, a never-to-be forgotten question at his final doctoral oral presentation was to ‘take any behaviour of an adolescent patient you have observed in acute care settings and, from all adolescent developmental theories, create a new theory to explain the particular behaviour’. Whereas there is nothing like an integrative and very tough question in front of a large audience with your doctorate at stake to focus one’s mind, this style of integrative question can only be asked at the end of the candidature, where personal trust and the competence of the candidate have previously been demonstrated.

65


2/5/07 11:41:43 AM


Review questions need to be developmental (that is, at the level of readiness of the candidate) and should rarely need to be repeated during candidature. Questions should be framed to assist the candidate to move from the technical and ‘busywork’ of the research to issues of originality, significance, contribution to the field and confirmation as to the depth and rigour of the arguments. It is quite appropriate, for example, to ask about the arguments that underpin the research question, why a specific methodological approach has been selected, the underlying paradoxes or contradictions within the literature, the practical and theoretical applications of the research and the ways in which the research will fit within the field. A review meeting is thus an opportunity for a joint meeting of the minds and an opportunity for the candidate to be exposed to rich and powerful ideas. It is not a time to question the very nature of the project and the intrinsic worth of doing it at all. There is no doubt that the timing of well-crafted questions will remain in the memory of the candidate and serve to shape their own future supervisory process. Again, during a review meeting of the author’s candidature, the question was asked: ‘What alternative methods might you use to produce the same results?’ While pondering a response, the follow-up question was: ‘… and if you use an alternative research method, would your thesis title need to change?’ These questions were posed by a senior academic who was in the habit of encouraging candidates to think deeply about the research process.

Effective supervisory feedback and conversation Comments made by academics attending the review meeting need to be carefully designed to ‘draw the candidate out’ in order to provide maximum opportunity to discuss the project and any attendant concerns. The candidate should also be encouraged to question the supervisors during the session and to probe their thinking and their research experience. In general, ideal questions can be clustered around five areas. The way in which these are asked can either lead to defensive behaviour or exploration, brief opinion or probing, or even hostility, or it can create the foundation to a friendly exchange. Examples are provided below for each of the five types.

Effective questioning 1 Descriptive rather than evaluative comments: Describe your own reaction to or thoughts about what is presented, which will reduce the need for the candidate to be defensive. Example: When I read over your work, I am not really clear about how this procedure will fit within the overall project. Can you help me out with this?

66


2/5/07 11:41:43 AM


2 Specific rather than general comments: Always use words that specify the behaviour, process or content of the work rather than general terms. Example: Let’s look at what you are proposing as your outcomes month by month for the next year, rather than: What are you going to do? 3 Solicited rather than imposed comments: Attempt to have the candidate formulate the questions and take ownership for the progress. Example: You are now at a key point in your candidature and I am wondering how you will determine what direction this new question will take. 4 Clear rather than obtuse comments: It is essential that the receiver clarify exactly what it is the sender has in mind. Example: I wonder if you could re-state what you have just said as I am a little unclear. 5 Supportive and not hurtful comments: Even though the candidate may not be performing well, this question takes into account the needs of the receiver. Example: Over the past six months you have received written feedback on your draft chapters that points to some areas in which you are struggling at the required level of writing for a doctoral thesis. This is now a good time to address all the issues that have been raised and to understand how you are attempting to work on your writing style.

Recommended don’ts and do’s for supervisors during the review At the risk of providing a cursory checklist, there are nonetheless some essential don’ts and do’s for all supervisors when conducting a review of candidature. Many of these points may seem obvious; however, it is a good thing even for experienced supervisors to be reminded of the basics occasionally.

Don’ts • Don’t hesitate to gently confront the candidate if there has been no progress over a reasonable period of time • Don’t use the meeting for undue casual and personal conversation that is not related to the purpose of the session. • Don’t ‘stand over’ (or behind) the candidate, raise your voice or make them accept a review grade or ask them to delete information contained in their section of the review. • Don’t make negative comments about ‘university administrative paperwork’ or that the review ‘is a waste of time’. • Don’t ask questions of a private nature unless raised by the candidate. The majority of the discussion should be about the nature, process and content of the candidature and research activities.

67


2/5/07 11:41:44 AM


• Don’t make the decision about the final grade as the major focus of the session. • Don’t dominate the session.

Do’s • Do spend some time on the process of supervision. For example, ask the candi date what they need from supervision, what they need to increase or decrease, about a different style of supervision that may include additional co-supervisors with different expertise. If you are feeling really brave, ask them to assess the quality of your supervision. • Do allow the candidate to express their feelings about and passion for their research. • Do bring up issues of personal motivation and the candidate’s level of interest in completing the degree. • Do provide specific words of encouragement if there has been effort to over come a problem, hurdle or dilemma, and point out why you are recognising their developing expertise. • Do recognise that the candidate is moving into unknown territory and that they are making a contribution to your knowledge. • Do realise that by engaging in this process you are part of the long-term development of a future graduate who one day will become a supervisor. Probably the only supervisor(s) they will have experienced in-depth will be those in their supervision team, so a valuable self-reflection is to ask what values, attitudes and learning strategies you want your candidate to adopt as modelled by your behaviour and conduct during the annual review session.

Dealing with difficult moments during review sessions The majority of candidates come to a face-to-face review session well prepared, are confident about their progress, accept feedback and direction and are able to engage in a meaningful conversation. However, these are not the problematic behaviours supervisors may need to deal with. Regardless of the degree to which every effort is made to ensure the candidate is at ease during the review, behaviours may emerge that will potentially derail the process. For example, candidates may ‘blank out’, talk too much, become silent and fail to answer the questions, cry, become aggressive, show lack of depth, competence or motivation. It might be that these ways of responding to anxiety-producing situations may have been in place for a number of years, or a difficult personal matter may have recently arisen in the life of the candidate that is external to the university and is occupying their mind.

68


2/5/07 11:41:44 AM


There are a number of ways to respond to these behaviours. For example, the supervisors might: • acknowledge the behaviours to the candidate during the session and offer them support • give them a 15 minute break • repeat the question • be specific and repeat what is required at this level • have the candidate describe what it is they are dealing with • have the candidate reiterate their expectations of candidature and of super vision, or • acknowledge that they require more theoretical grounding prior to the next session. A general rule of thumb is that when behaviours are ignored or suppressed during stressful situations, the behaviours will usually tend to increase and become debilitating. Therefore, it is far more effective to stop the review and to address the behaviours, rather than to press on regardless. Supervisors can also behave in ways that do not assist the candidate in their growth and development. For example, a supervisor may become defensive, is unprepared, ‘at odds’ with another supervisor, uncommitted to the candidate’s research, frequently arrives late for the review meetings, demeans the candidate, or is keen to use the session to demonstrate their own command of the subject area. Naturally there are gradations of inappropriate behaviour in any circumstance; however, it is the point at which the candidate is becoming distracted, interrupted or unsettled by the behaviour of a supervisor that an intervention by another supervisor is warranted. Where the behaviour is non-intrusive and non-explicit, this can be discussed outside the session. When the behaviour from another supervisor present is intrusive and overt and is affecting the candidate’s experience or overall outcome, one supervisor might: • confront the supervisor’s behaviour explicitly and ask them to desist • ask the candidate to leave the session for a short time and discuss the matter directly with the supervisor(s) • reiterate to all supervisors the purpose of the review session • reshape a question with the candidate so as to provoke learning, or • ask the supervisor to rephrase their question.

Concluding comments This chapter has outlined a number of approaches that may be adopted by super visors during a formal review of candidature. However, the author is well aware of a number of realities in organising and conducting such reviews and of the

69


2/5/07 11:41:45 AM


variations about the structure of reviews across Australian and Aotearoa New Zealand universities. There are also a number of realities to consider: supervision turnover, the impact of reviews via phone and video conference, the difficulties in organising times for reviews given the availability of part-time candidates and multiple supervisors in different locations, candidates on suspension during the review cycle, different types of assessment including practical demonstrations and exhibitions. Regardless of these hindrances, it is essential that supervisors pay attention to their own conduct, attitude and the kinds of verbal statements given to the candidate during the review session. The best possible outcome is that candidates rate each review session as being worthwhile, with clear and tangible outcomes that have assisted them to a timely completion of candidature. Questions

1 Recall the kinds of review experiences you had during your own candidature and think about what sessions really assisted your learning, planning and eventual completion. What review experiences were counterproductive to your research or your experience of candidature? 2 In this chapter there are a number of references to the types of interpersonal and questioning skills required of supervisors during the review meeting. At your next regular meeting, ask your candidate to reflect on the kinds of verbal responses or questioning you provide and on the way in which your responses are promoting their thought process. 3 At your next review meeting with second- and third-year candidates, consider asking them to chair the meeting about their own candidature. What meeting and interpersonal skills did you notice your candidate demonstrate during the meeting? References

Glatthorn, A & Joyner, R 2005, Writing the winning thesis or dissertation: A step-by-step guide (2nd edn), Sage Publications, California. Meyer, J & Land, R 2005, ‘Threshold concepts and troublesome knowledge (2): Epistemological considerations and a conceptual framework for teaching and learning’, Higher Education, vol. 49(3), pp. 373–88.

70


2/5/07 11:41:45 AM

C HAPTER 1 0

Intellectual properties: Yours, theirs and others’ Helene Marsh James Burnell James Cook University

Introduction The processes of research and research training have been radically transformed. The old paradigm of discovery was characterised by the hegemony of disciplinary research and driven by the autonomy of researchers and their host universities. This practice is being superseded—but not replaced—by a new paradigm of knowledge production known as Mode 11 research (Gibbons et al. 1994). Mode 11 research is done by teams of researchers who often have contractual links with, and obligations to, stakeholders external to the university who are underwriting the research. Research students are often vital members of such research teams, and most contemporary doctoral research projects in the sciences would not proceed without external research funding. Some research higher degree candidates are members of the research team who are undertaking research of commercial potential, where both the host university and the relevant funding body are keen to protect their interests in, and maximise their returns from, the outcomes of the research. Such arrangements present supervisors and their doctoral candidates with significant challenges, which need to be addressed proactively to pre-empt any disputes and loss of trust that can be so damaging to a supervisor–research candidate relationship. This chapter provides practical advice on how supervisors can work with their research candidates to address issues of intellectual property, authorship of the publications arising from their research, contractual obligations and commercialisation of the research outcomes.

71


2/5/07 11:41:46 AM


Intellectual property (IP) IP Australia describes intellectual property as the property of a person’s mind or intellect (http://www.ipaustralia.gov.au/ip/index.shtml). Like other property, intellectual property is exploitable and tradable. Intellectual property has many facets, some of which are of particular relevance to research: copyright, patents, authorship (discussed separately below), and managing confidentiality within a research project. The management of intellectual property is a vital component of every stage of the research process. It is not just an issue to consider at the time research results are generated, but should be part of the concerns of every member of a research team, including associated research students—even at the early stages of conception of a research project. A major challenge in managing the intellectual property of a modern research team is that it represents the property of several intellects—which in this case include the intellects of the doctoral candidate and the supervisory committee. Problems may arise when the various players have different perceptions about the relative value of their contributions to the research. Experienced researchers tend to place high value on their background intellectual property, capacity to generate ideas, funds and infrastructure, editorial skills and ability to consider the outcomes of the research in a broad intellectual context. Research candidates typically value these elements of the research process less than their supervisors. In contrast, research candidates value the time spent in data acquisition and analysis, and writing the first draft of the outputs from their work rather more than their supervisors do. These different perceptions of relative value of contributions are complicated by the typical university requirement for a research higher degree candidate to sign a statement of originality when submitting the thesis for examination. It is implicit in this statement that the text has been written by the candidate in his or her own words, even though in reality members of the supervisory committee have had considerable editorial and conceptual input. In legal terms, this signed statement means that the candidate has copyright in the thesis. The Copyright Act 1968 (Cwlth) confers on the owner of copyright in a work the exclusive right to reproduce it in any material form, and to publish the work. Under the Copyright Act, an author—in this case the doctoral candidate— can assign or license others to copy the work or publish it. An agreement to assign the copyright associated with a doctoral thesis can be effected in writing, either before or after the thesis is produced. When the research is published by a commercial publisher (for example, in a refereed journal or a book), the author typically assigns copyright to the publisher. Ownership of copyright (or a patent) also depends on the contributions made by the members of a research team to the work. In the case of almost all modern research higher degrees, the ideas or other work of the members of the candidate’s supervisory committee contribute significantly to the project. Thus the candidate

72


2/5/07 11:41:46 AM

intellectual properties: yours, theirs and others’

may have only a joint interest in the underlying intellectual property referred to in the thesis. Indeed, in the case of the background intellectual property on which the project is based, the candidate may have no legitimate interest. However, the candidate will own copyright in his or her thesis on the basis that it must be their own work in order to qualify as a thesis. The distinction between the candidate’s own work and the work of the other members of the research team is often impossible to disaggregate, because the intellectual property is developed collectively. In most cases, this distinction is unimportant, except when disputes arise over authorship of research outputs other than the thesis. In recent years, there has been a significant increase in the proportion of research higher degree candidates whose stipend or research costs are funded by parties external to the university through formal contractual arrangements. Some candidates are based at the facilities of other research providers such as government research agencies. These arrangements with third parties are poten tially beneficial to research students as they provide resources and research topics for their projects. However, third parties may not only have limited understanding of the demands of the research training process, but also require rights to intel lectual property in return for their input. In such cases, doctoral candidates and their supervisors need to be aware of the implications of undertaking research supported by third parties and resultant restrictions on or transfer of their rights. For example, publication from a thesis may be subject to a period of restriction. External funding bodies may restrict the rights of a research team—including doctoral candidates—to make their findings public because of concern about losing the legal right to exclusive use of their intellectual property or to invalidate a future patent or design in Australia or another country. These confidentiality requirements may restrict the opportunity for a candidate to gain some of the skills and contacts inherent in research training, such as presenting seminars and talks at conferences and publishing their work. The thesis examiners may also have to sign a confidentiality agreement. The impacts of such restrictions on the candidate’s career need to be carefully considered and weighed against the advantages of the arrangement. Departmental or school staff must also be aware of the restrictions to which a candidate is subject. Universities typically have arrangements in place to ensure that: (1) a doctoral candidate retains copyright in the thesis, and (2) the conditions imposed by spon sors do not prejudice the candidate’s interests. In some cases, difficult decisions may have to be made by the candidate and the university about the impact of such conditions and whether to accept the support. Most universities fund independent legal advice to research students, often through the local postgraduate students’ association, to ensure that doctoral candidates fully understand the complexities of the situation. It is important that the supervisors of doctoral candidates are familiar with their university’s policies regarding research students and intellectual property.

73


2/5/07 11:41:47 AM


It is part of the duty of care of a principal supervisor to brief the candidate on the implications of any contractual arrangements with third parties, preferably before candidature commences. The arrangements should be formally reviewed as a part of the confirmation of candidature, milestone reporting and completion seminar processes.

Authorship Even in these days of e-repositories such as the Australian Digital Thesis Project, research theses have limited readership and the most significant outputs from doctoral research are the resultant publications in the peer-reviewed literature. Authorship conventions are complex and discipline-specific. Nonetheless, all staff and students at Australian universities must accord with the requirements of the Joint NHMRC/AVCC Statement and Guidelines on Research Practice (1997), which require each institution to establish written policies on the criteria for authorship of a research output, and the management of research data and records. Super visors should be familiar with these guidelines and discuss them with each doctoral candidate early in the candidature in the context of the relevant discip linary norms. These Guidelines are being revised and the quote below is from the second consultation draft (February 2006). Note: the final version of the revised Code is to be released during 2007. To be named as an author, a researcher must have made a substantial scholarly contribution to the publication, and be able to take responsibility for its content. Authorship credit is based on substantial contributions that include any or a combination of: • conception and design of the project • analysis and interpretation of research data • drafting parts or all of the article or critically revising it. An author’s role in a publication or other research output must be sufficient for that person to take responsibility for, and to defend publicly, at least that part of the output to which that person contributed. Authorship should honestly reflect the contribution to the work being published. Consistent with this, no person who qualifies as an author may be included or excluded as an author without their permission in writing. The right to authorship is not tied to either position or profession, and does not depend on whether the contribution was paid or voluntary. It is not enough to have provided routine technical support or to have made the measurements on which the publication is based, unless substantial intellectual involvement is required for the data collection or for the measurements to be made. Revision of the Joint NHMR/AVCC Statement and Guidelines on Research Practice– Australian code for the responsible conduct of research, second consultation draft, February 2006. Copyright Commonwealth of Australia reproduced by permission.

74


2/5/07 11:41:47 AM


As the Guidelines point out, authorship of a research output should be dis cussed between researchers at an early stage in a research project, and reviewed regularly. We recommend that a doctoral candidate be required to prepare a draft publication plan as part of the confirmation of candidature process and that the plan be reviewed at every milestone report and at the completion seminar. By the time of the completion seminar, the plan should include the following details for each planned publication: authorship, target journal, milestone dates, and a contingency plan if the milestones are not met. (Of course, if the planned outputs from the thesis are already published or in press, this will not be necessary.) Too often doctoral research is not published because graduates move on to a new career and principal supervisors are uncertain about when they can reasonably take the lead in producing the unpublished outputs from a thesis. Such unresolved situations benefit nobody and can penalise the supervisor who obtained the funding to do the research and invested considerable time helping the doctoral candidate conduct the research.

Contractual obligations Research funded by a third party is typically governed by a contract between the university and the funding body. The funding body expects the outputs to be delivered ‘on brief, on time and on budget’. Unfortunately, doctoral candidates are too often unaware of the ramifications to the university (as signatory to the contract) and to the supervisor(s) (as named chief investigator in the contract) of the candidate’s failure to meet their obligations to the research team. Such situations present a dilemma for supervisors who are torn between their contrac tual obligations and their duty of care to the candidate. We know of cases where the supervisors have analysed the data collected by the candidate and written the report required, to fulfil the contract because of the candidate’s failure to meet the deadlines. The candidate has then re-analysed the data and written the thesis. Such a solution is a waste of time and resources and should have been pre-empted by a candidate–supervisor agreement that clearly outlines the arrangements that will come into effect if the candidate fails to meet contractual deadlines. One aspect of research that is often overlooked by supervisors is the use of proprietary products to investigate specific problems. Of specific interest is the use of bacterial expression vectors used in the in-vitro production of proteins. Purchasers of these research materials are required to sign and return the signed agreement to the supplier and, provided the bacterially expressed proteins are used for research purposes only and within the purchaser’s laboratories, there is no cause for concern. However, if material produced using a proprietary product is generated that may be of some use to a commercial partner, then the investigator must be aware of their obligations under the terms of the transfer agreement initially signed with the product provider at the time of purchase. Often doctoral

75


2/5/07 11:41:48 AM


candidates are unaware of the terms under which research supervisors purchase material that they may use during the tenure of their research degree.

Commercialisation The commercialisation of results arising from research conducted by a research student can be contentious. Successful commercialisation of research results requires adherence to several stringent conditions by candidates and their supervisors; these conditions include non-disclosure and intellectual property agreements. University/industry agreements need to be finalised prior to initiating the research project Ownership of inventions made by staff members is routinely claimed by universities (as an employer’s right) under their intellectual property policies. But most universities do not automatically claim ownership of rights in inventions generated by students (who are not employees); and to avoid fractured patent ownership—which is problematic for commercialisation—universities typically have arrangements under which students assign patent rights, thus enabling the research student to be treated like a member of staff. The trade-off is that the student relinquishes their rights to the relevant intellectual property as a research student, in return to an agreed share of any profits. There may be additional complications if a doctoral candidate is an employee of the university, especially if there is not a clear distinction between the can didate’s work as a staff member and the research for a doctorate. In this case, the university will have rights over the invention and it is imperative that all concerned understand the legalities of the situation. Inventing some particular form of intellectual property does not necessarily mean the inventor has rights and ownership of that intellectual property, as these are usually assigned through legal contracts and university policies. To avoid any confusion relating to the commercialisation of research generated by a doctoral candidate during the tenure of their degree, these rules should be clearly outlined in contracts signed prior to the initiation of the research. Such procedures are also important for candidates conducting their research in affiliated research institutes (for example, CSIRO, NIWA, Walter and Eliza Hall Institute, Peter MacCallum Institute, Garvan Institute, Crown Research Institutes and the Otago Clinical School), where the rights and ownership of inventions generated without the use of university facilities are commonly governed by the policies of the affiliated research institutes, unless alternative arrangements have been made and agreed to by the parties involved. Research results can be commercialised in a variety of ways, including selling or exclusive or non-exclusive licensing. Notwithstanding the available options, the costs associated with commercialising research results may be prohibitive for a doctoral candidate. Similarly, protecting intellectual property by patents

76


2/5/07 11:41:48 AM


can be expensive and is often funded by an industry partner. This strategy can be mutually beneficial. The industry partner not only covers the costs associated with patenting, but also provides expertise in the patenting process. Furthermore, commercialisation of intellectual property generated by the use of animals (including humans) usually requires evidence that the results were generated ethically, and the industry partner benefits from the guarantees provided by the scrutiny given by the university’s ethics committee. Patenting places further requirements on a research candidate in that the successful execution of a patent may be dependent on laboratory research being recorded in a suitable form—that is, records made in ink in a bound book lacking loose leaf inserts and signed regularly by an independent supervisor. Commercialisation of research results may also require a delay in publication as there is an inherent conflict in trying to publish and commercialise the same research results. Companies usually seek a competitive edge, and this may be dependent on the ideas associated with a specific piece of intellectual property being restricted from general dissemination. Research agreements routinely require submission of research manuscripts to the company prior to submission to journals for publication; however, the company should not cause undue delay to dissemination of results. Despite the many conditions imposed on doctoral candidates involved in industry-funded research projects, candidates often gain greater satisfaction by participating in what many see as ‘more relevant research’. In addition, candidates engaged in industry-funded research projects are often funded at levels signifi cantly higher than government-funded scholarships. The Australian Government is introducing a Commercialisation Training Scheme to provide opportunity for doctoral candidates to learn about how to commercialise their work.

Concluding comments Potential supervisors should be aware of the qualities required of a doctoral candidate involved in conducting research that has the potential to generate intellectual property of commercial value. Supervisors should also be alert to those candidates whose projects are funded by industry sources remaining loyal to the funding organisation and maintaining contact with the candidate during the tenure of the research and the thesis-writing period. Most of the potential problems outlined here are the result of poor com munication between the doctoral candidate and the supervisory committee and/ or inadequate project management. Project management is a generic skill that is as important to researchers and highly valued by employers. We strongly recommend that supervisors and their doctoral candidates take courses in project management and that universities offer such courses as part of their programs of staff development and generic skills for research candidates. Checklists of

77


2/5/07 11:41:49 AM


the matters to be reviewed at each candidature milestone are a useful tool to precipitate conversations about matters that many supervisors and candidates regard as difficult issues. Candidate–supervisor agreements can also pre-empt problems by clarifying expectations. The new paradigm of knowledge production looks like being around for the foreseeable future. Doctoral training is an opportunity for supervisors and research candidates to work together to hone their capacity to work in the current challenging and exciting research environment. Questions

The following scenarios are designed for discussion in a supervisors’ workshop. What should the principal supervisor do? 1 She has a contract with a third party that requires her to deliver a report by an agreed date. The doctoral candidate is in personal crisis and cannot complete his share of the work on time. 2 The doctoral candidate fails to produce the first draft of a potentially important paper arising from the thesis as agreed, and competitive funding for further research depends on the supervisors’ track record in high-impact journals. 3 Contrary to disciplinary norms, the candidate submits important outcomes of the doctoral research to a high-impact journal as a single author paper, even though members of the supervisory team consider that they have considerable intellectual property in the research. Acknowledgement

The manuscript was improved by the insightful comments of Jasper Taylor. The JCU Research website was also a useful resource. Useful websites

IP Australia: http://www.ipaustralia.gov.au/ip/index.shtml Joint NHMRC/AVCC Statement and Guidelines on Research Practice (1997) http://www.nhmrc. gov.au/funding/policy/_files/acrcr.pdf

References

Anon. 2006, ‘Revision of the Joint NHMRC/AVCC Statement and Guidelines on Research Practice Australian code for the responsible conduct of research’, Second consultation draft, February 2006, available at http://www.nhmrc.gov.au/funding/policy/_files/acrcr.pdf Gibbons, MC, Limoges, C, Nowotny, H, Schwartzman, S, Scott, P & Trow, M 1994, The new production of knowledge: The dynamics of science and research in contemporary societies, Sage Publications Inc, London, p. 192.

78


2/5/07 11:41:49 AM

C HAPTER 1 1

Supervising workplace-based research Christopher Hickey Deakin University

Introduction The opportunity to pursue doctoral-level studies with a focus on the workplace gained momentum in Australia and Aotearoa New Zealand during the 1980s. Along with a push to better align the needs of industry was the advance of research methodologies that could guide such endeavours. The corresponding evolution of these developments meant that doctoral candidates could tailor their research to their particular professional practices and aspirations. However, mobilising approaches that accommodate the local and particular demands of workplace-based research was not without its tensions. Given that relatively few academics had experienced their own doctoral programs as insider researchers, there was a distinct shortage of supervisors with familiarity and experience of the practices and protocols of workplace-based research. Reflecting on this after some 20 years, it is valuable to consider what we have come to learn about the nuances of supervising workplace-based research. While a great many of the attributes of good supervision transcend particular programs and projects, as is evidenced in this book, workplace-based research has its peculiarities. The aim of this chapter is to describe some of the issues that need to be taken into account when supervising workplace-based research. The opportunity to undertake workplace-based research has particular appeal to mid-career professionals looking to advance their qualifications while simultaneously contributing to change or development in their workplace. In the interest of grounding my discussion of their particular supervisory needs, I will draw examples from my work as the coordinator of a professional doctorate program at Deakin University. There are currently about 41 candidates enrolled

79


2/5/07 11:41:50 AM


in this program. All candidates are off-campus and part-time, of whom many are overseas in locations such as Europe, the Middle East, East Asia and Aotearoa New Zealand. The program is workplace-focused with a methodological bias towards the practices of participatory or insider research. Most of the candidates are busy mid-career professionals who work full-time in the education or training sectors. Rather than being judged on their significant original contribution to knowledge in their discipline (as is the case with the ‘traditional’ PhD), candidates in the professional doctorate are judged on their significant original contribution to knowledge and/or practice within their profession or industry.

A case study in supervising workplace-based research in distance education Insider research methods One of the aspects that set many workplace-based doctoral research projects apart from more traditional forms of doctoral research is the methodology. Within most workplace research projects, the professional activities of the researcher are often an integral part of the data. While there is the capacity to claim objectivist positions within workplace-based research, it is more likely that the researcher will look to acknowledge their own presence and influence across the data. The paradigms that do this best sit squarely within the social and political sciences. To be sure, it is here that the most coherent insider research methodologies have been established. Inherent in many of these are attempts to recognise the unpredictable, fragile and limited nature of the human enterprise, the complex and contextual nature of different workplace settings and the contingency of workplace ‘reality’. In the interest of capturing the lived experiences of real people in real settings, these methodologies recognise that there is a lot that cannot be controlled. It is here that workplace-based research methodologies take on a level of reflexivity. Foremost here is a preparedness to reflect on the processes of meaning making and the ways that the researcher’s position and background impact on the research process (namely, design, implementation, analysis and representation). While this awareness is pertinent to all forms of research, it has a heightened relevance in ‘insider’ research programs. Among the common features of workplace research agendas is that they are very often oriented towards understanding or evaluating some sort of change, innovation or intervention in which the researcher has some—often consider able—investment. As a methodology, action research has considerable appeal in this endeavour. Building on the principle of activism, action research places the researcher as a participant in the change process. Within the cyclic phases of planning, acting, observing and evaluating, the action researcher is seen as a

80


2/5/07 11:41:50 AM

supervising workplace-based research

participant. The research relationship is therefore seen as taking place between equals, wherein the researcher must work with others towards a shared objective for improvement. As an outsider in this process, supervisors often find themselves in the role of ‘critical friend’ wherein they guide and advise the candidate. While expertise continues to be valuable, supervisory emphasis needs to be placed on the capacity to provide support, balance and clarity to the candidate’s mission. The need to provide regular and measured advice generally demands a more interactive and collaborative relationship between doctoral supervisors and workplace-based candidates. Indeed, there is often a heightened need to advise on pastoral and relational issues for researchers working within such contexts. An important factor in supervising insider doctoral research is to ensure the project is enacted in a way that is both practical and scientific. For such work to go beyond itself it needs to be grounded in theory. Rather than allowing the researcher to get bogged down in the specificities of local knowledge and practice, supervisors need to ensure that clear connections are made to appropriate theories of social action and change. For example, forms of social interaction, institutional inertia and collegial resistance all have theoretical bases for interpreting workplace engagement. Well theorised, connections with other (like) situations become clearer and stronger. Good supervision will help to increase the likelihood that the results are both usable and used by others—ever mindful that, in keeping with the principles of insider research, generalisability rests with the reader not the writer.

Research training The provision of appropriate research training for workplace-based candidates is an issue for all supervisors. As well as dealing with the sort of methodological issues that are outlined above, there is a range of other research skills that often demand attention. While some of the skills needed will be determined by individual factors associated with the particularities of the candidate and the workplace, there are general research skills required by workplace-based researchers. Accessing literature from a distance, research design, ethics, managing literature and data, and representing data are important aspects of research training required by workplace-based researchers. As most workplace-based researchers undertake their doctorates part-time and at a distance, it makes the delivery of this sort of research training complex. While the traditional doctoral model of supervision tends to leave the provision of research training up to each individual supervisor, there are other models that present this knowledge within a more measured and structured framework. At Deakin University, for example, we have introduced an online seminar program, called Doctoral Studies in Education (DSE) (http://www.education. deakin.edu.au/dse). Each seminar is designed around six weeks of activities where

81


2/5/07 11:41:51 AM


the theory and practice of the particular aspect of research training are explored and applied to the candidates’ own doctoral work. A number of these seminars are specifically tailored to the needs of workplace-based researchers. Some of the issues covered are listed below: Agency, and its limits: Understanding the way organisations work to create structures and systems that regulate what can be said and done is important knowledge for workplacebased researchers. In studying the many ways workplaces (and the actors they contain) practise and change, researchers are well served by understanding the interconnections of agency and discourse. From a research perspective, such an understanding helps to shift the focus from product to process. Though workplacebased researchers might be motivated to improve existing knowledge and practice in the workplace, the research design needs to accommodate resistance as much as it does change. Indeed, it is not uncommon for them to find their professional and research interests in some degree of contestation from time to time. This can be intensely disabling for the workplace-based researcher if it is not well understood and managed. Power relationships: One of the issues that is intensified in the conduct of workplace-based research involves the management of complex power relationships. As insiders, most workplace-based researchers are forced to manage the dual identity demands of simultaneously being workers and researchers within the same context. Day to day, it is the former of these identities that is generally given primacy. Workplacebased researchers need to understand, and be able to articulate, their place in the research context. Recognising the ways in which their actions and influences impact on others is an integral part of insider research. Further to this, workplacebased researchers need to be aware of the potential for others to impact on them. This can come in the form of a range of emotional projections (such as suspicion and jealousy), which can challenge and undermine the goals and practices of the researcher. Understanding the ways in which resistance and manipulation can operate is an important dimension of the workplace-based research enterprise. Ethics: Another aspect of workplace-based research that often demands high levels of planning and management centres around the design and implementation of ethical research practice. It is my experience that workplace-based research is often seen as particularly problematic; after all, it is here that colleagues are also participants, conversations are data, and daily work incidents are chronicled. Legally driven sensitivities to issues of coercion and exploitation demand that in contexts where the researcher is also part of the researched, power relationships are ethically managed. This is at its most complicated when the researcher holds

82


2/5/07 11:41:51 AM


some sort of power over the participants. Situations that seem to attract particular scrutiny on this front include where the research is undertaken by teachers in their own schools. Writing and reflexivity: Learning the value of regular and reflective writing can be a very valuable tool for the workplace-based researcher. Establishing a culture that supports collecting and sharing insights into research and workplace experiences can help in a number of ways. First, it can provide supervisors with insights into the context and its actors, which they would otherwise be hidden from. Journal writing, in particular, can provide rich material around which the practices and processes of reflexivity can be nurtured. There are no deliberate steps that need to be covered here; rather it is the provision of processes that encourage workplace-based researchers to reflect on what has happened and why, that will facilitate such insights. Second, regular writing provides a direct vehicle through which workplace-based researchers can understand and develop the skills associated with the demands of their research practice, the academy and the workplace. Representation: The complicated process of collecting, sorting and analysing culminates in the development and presentation of a coherent research narrative. How researchers tell their research stories can vary a great deal, in accordance with the particular assumptions and ideologies that are adopted by the researcher. Common frameworks applied here include case study, narrative, life history, action research and biographical methodologies. Within each of these there are established protocols and processes around which the researcher will tell the story of their research. Regular exposure to the array of examples that are derived from within and across these representational genres can be extremely beneficial. Opportunities to discuss, analyse and experiment with various forms of research representation can be empowering and motivating to the workplacebased researcher, and supervisor.

Supervising the workplace-based candidate Building support networks When advising workplace-based researchers about the conduct or implementation of their research, supervisors must be attuned to workplace issues and sensitivities. Failure to give due consideration to the maintenance of supportive workplace relations can render the candidate vulnerable and easily undermine their project. Gaining insights into the personalities, processes and structures of the workplace puts the candidate in a considerably advantageous position in terms of conducting

83


2/5/07 11:41:52 AM


research. Simultaneously, supervisors need to ensure that workplace-based candidates have access to a multi-layered support network. While the support of workplace colleagues is very valuable, such support can be quite fickle. In situations where the perceptions and practices of workplace colleagues are embedded in the research, it is increasingly important for the researcher to have clearly established support networks. There will be times where a workplace-based candidate will need to look outside of the workplace for support and direction. Connections with other workplace-based researchers can be particularly fruitful during times of uncertainty and contestation. While each workplace situation is different, or can be read differently, there are aspects of workplace-based research that are generalisable. It is here that connections with other workplace-based researchers can be particularly useful—not only for dealing with substantive issues, but also for emotional and relational ones. Over the past decade, the internet has been used increasingly to provide support and resources for doctoral students. In the Faculty of Education at Deakin University it is now mandatory for candidates to have access to and make use of the internet in the conduct of their doctoral work. Within the DSE environment, workplace-based researchers are put in direct contact with other workplace-based researchers. Beyond the dedicated seminars, there are numerous opportunities to identify and contact other workplace-based researchers within the program. Indeed, workplace-based researchers are encouraged to identify others within the program for whom aspects of their own study have resonance or connections. Further to this, places are reserved in our annual Summer and Winter School Conferences (for Higher Degrees by Research Students) wherein doctoral candidates are invited to Australia and/or Aotearoa New Zealand for three-day programs made up of workshops, presentations, debates, discussions and conversations. Despite the advances in communication technologies, opportunities to meet face to face with others in their program continue to be robust forums for building the sorts of connections that form support networks.

Promoting work–life balance With the interconnections between work and doctoral education, it is important that workplace-based researchers develop routines and practices that enable their mutual existence. As part-time doctoral candidates working as full-time professionals in contexts strong enough to underwrite their interest in workplacebased doctoral research, the potential for work–life unbalance is high. On beginning their doctoral programs, candidates need to think about how they will manage the goals and demands associated with their personal, professional and academic commitments. While the key role of a supervisor is to support the research program, it is often difficult to separate this from the personal and professional in the case of workplace-based candidates. Establishing clear

84


2/5/07 11:41:52 AM


expectations around patterns of work and communication, and marking shortand long-term milestones are particularly useful here. Within the DSE environment we pay specific attention to the ways in which doctoral candidates will manage the inclusion of a doctoral program in their lives. The first task in the ‘Introduction to your doctorate’ seminar asks them to think about and comment on: How are you going to fit your doctoral work into your personal and professional lives? Although there can be ebbs and flows in the time they put into their doctorates, a full-time doctoral candidate can be seen as being in a fulltime job. That is, if they worked at it from 9 to 5, five days per week, with four weeks’ holidays, etc. they would be expected to finish their doctorate at the end of three years. A part-time candidate, therefore, working at about half this rate might reasonably be expected to finish in about six years. Candidates are asked to think about this in terms of: How are you going to allocate the time to your doctoral work? When will this occur? Will it be regular time or episodic? Who and what is going to be left out or compromised to accommodate your doctorate and what does this mean to them/it? Candidates are asked to reflect on these issues and write a brief response about the plans and arrangements they have made. The following extracts are examples of the robustness of discussions and considerations that go on here. I hadn’t really thought this through. I sort of thought that I would work in intensive nodes when I had holidays and downtime. But Chris’s point about trying to look for regular and intensive nodes has got me thinking a bit more. *

*

*

I’ve already sat the family down and talked about ‘mum doing her doctorate’. I’m determined not to let it get in the way of my relationships with them but I have asked for some support as well. So far, so good! *

*

*

This has been a really valuable exercise for me. It’s good to take the time to think about these sorts of things in a thoughtful way. I’m a ‘can do’ sort of person and I can easily get myself overcommitted. I’m going to make a commitment to not taking on too much extra work. I’m going to talk to my boss about what I’m doing in my doctorate and the potential benefits it could bring to this place and see if he might support me in backing off a few things for a while.

Concluding comments A number of challenges continue to face workplace-based researchers and their supervisors in consolidating and legitimating doctoral work within this genre. The internationalisation of higher education is increasingly bringing researchers from different cultural backgrounds and contexts into relation. In the case of workplace-based research, consideration of cultural differences and sensitivities

85


2/5/07 11:41:53 AM


is compounded by cultural nuances of workplace knowledge and practice. Both doctoral supervisors and candidates would benefit a great deal from opportunities to partake in professional development that supports them in recognising, inter preting and accommodating cultural differences. Concerns around representation and credibility also linger around the workplace-based research genre. While the methodological foundations of insider research are well established, there remains a degree of ambiguity and contestation around this genre as a form of doctoral scholarship. Concerns about the academic depth and veracity of workplace-based research are part of a wider industry condescension towards this genre of research. This remains a considerable obstacle to those interested in accessing and/or advancing the opportunities that exist around workplace-based research. Questions

1 What can supervisors do to build up their understanding of the contextual and contingent dimensions of workplace-based research projects? 2 What can supervisors do to develop a culture of communication and reflection around workplace-based researchers? 3 What knowledge and resources do workplace-based researchers need in order to conduct their doctoral projects in a scholarly and timely manner, and how can this be best provided?

86


2/5/07 11:41:53 AM

C HAPTER 1 2

Editing and proofreading skills Alison Garton Jo McFarlane Edith Cowan University

Introduction The major component of a doctorate is the production of a thesis (or dissertation), a written work that typically ranges from 50 000 to 100 000 words or equivalent. The act of writing is a considerable challenge for many candidates, and can pose difficulties for both candidates and supervisors. Writing involves not only communication and dissemination of information in a style suitable for academic scrutiny; it also requires being meticulous about presentation, including correct referencing, language and word choice, grammar and punctuation. This is where good editing and proofreading skills become essential. The thesis is a communication about the candidate’s research and becomes part of the body of knowledge in the specific field or area of expertise. But the thesis also serves to generate discussion and debate, and to establish the candidate as a credible and exciting new researcher in the field.

Getting started It is important that once the preliminaries of the candidature are negotiated, the supervisor establishes what previous writing experience candidates have, how proficient their writing skills are and what problems they might have with regard to the communication and articulation of ideas and knowledge. The same

87


2/5/07 11:41:54 AM


general principles about writing, editing and proofreading apply to all candidates, regardless of English language skills and proficiency, but supervisors need to pay particular attention to candidates from non-English speaking backgrounds (NESB). Extra care may be required with NESB candidates, even if they have come from overseas with a previous academic qualification in English and/or have a suitable level of pass in an English language proficiency test. This chapter is broadly relevant to the writing skills of all candidates. Writing must be regarded as a process, and supervisors must appreciate that not all candidates have the ability to sit down and write a coherent, logically structured and well-argued piece of research writing. Candidates must understand that their writing skills will be developed through the writing, rewriting and editing of their work. Encourage candidates to consult and become familiar with style manuals such as the Publication manual of the American Psychological Association (2001) and university requirements for thesis preparation. Often the first piece of writing a supervisor sees is the draft proposal. So to gauge the candidate’s competence in writing, it is best to encourage drafts early on. Early identification of problems or difficulties with writing enables assistance, advice or remediation to be given. As research supervisors, we cannot assume that adequate care and attention were given to the writing skills of candidates while they were undergraduates. Supervisors often need to help their candidates develop academic writing skills during their postgraduate candidature and it is essential to do this early on. Candidates need to be able to articulate and communicate their ideas clearly, engage the reader, share their enthusiasm for the research topic and mount a sustained and logical argument across an extended piece of work. Particular difficulties arise when supervisors are unaware of the subtleties of writing, even though they have previously written their own theses. Too often theses are returned from external examiners with criticisms of poor spelling, bad grammar and/or inadequate referencing. Common difficulties highlighted by supervisors and examiners are discussed in the next sections of this chapter. Candidates have to meet the required academic writing standards for their discipline, and supervisors need to provide expert guidance on what is acceptable and conventional in their area. This not only includes referencing conventions, but stylistic conventions, layout, presentation and use of specific terminology. There are also structural conventions for both a proposal and a thesis, but gen erally these would include: • description of the context in which the work is located, including a review of the literature • articulation of the research question(s) and/or hypotheses to be tested • how the research is to be/was conducted, including issues of research design and methods, and analytical approaches used • interpretation of the results.

88


2/5/07 11:41:54 AM

editing and proofreading skills

Editing Editing is the process of reading, checking and correcting the text to improve its structure, flow and expression. In the case of a thesis, much editing occurs after the final full draft has been written, because it is at this time that candidates can see where their arguments are faulty or where there is repetition. The idea is to make sense of the content and the argument. Does the overall thesis ‘tell a logical and coherent story’? The word ‘thesis’ in Greek means a sustained proposition, or argument, so a logical development is essential. One of the best ways to do this is through the use of ‘signposts’ that point to the direction the thesis will take. Encourage your candidates to take a careful look at the structure of their thesis and their ‘signposts’. Editing helps to make the thesis unambiguous and precise. Sometimes asking someone else (for example, a postgraduate colleague or, more often than not, the candidate’s partner) to read through a thesis can be invaluable, as that person may be able to point out logical inconsistencies and written sections that do not make sense. Recommend this to your candidates. Some university departments and schools insist that every thesis, at its penultimate draft stage, is read by a staff member, independent of the candidate and the supervisor. This can expose deficiencies in structure and in style, which can be rectified for the final version. Specific areas that need to be checked during editing (with examples of commonly found mistakes) follow.

Structure (chapter, paragraph, sentence) Many candidates think that writing a thesis requires the use of complex language, and consequently they frequently write long sentences that contain multiple ideas. This is compounded when their paragraphs also contain too many ideas. Candidates need to understand the value of using headings and subheadings. Headings and subheadings can benefit the structure of a thesis by providing logical breaks in ideas and are also useful for grouping together concepts, research studies or assertions about the topic. However, the balance between no headings and too many subheadings can be difficult to identify and guidance may be required. A useful tip is to use headings when drafting chapters, but then to ‘stand back’ and evaluate their usefulness at a later stage. Another related problem is the tendency to make the subheadings too ‘wordy’. They should be succinct and communicate the main idea only. Some candidates benefit from using a numerical hierarchy to help them arrange their subsections, and this can always be deleted before submission if necessary.

Referencing Correct referencing refers both to citations of the work of others in the thesis as well as the compilation of an accurate alphabetical list of references at the

89


2/5/07 11:41:54 AM


end. The former means that candidates have to be aware that they need to cite source material and authors when paraphrasing others’ work and when directly quoting to support their argument. Encourage your candidates to use the correct referencing format from the beginning of their candidature so that it becomes second nature. Many candidates do not understand where to insert the reference in their sentences, and there is also an increasing trend to cite individual references too often—sometimes after every sentence within a paragraph. Overzealous referencing impedes the flow of the writing and can be quite distracting. A general rule of thumb is that a reference is cited close to the information being used from that reference; it can also be cited at the start of a paragraph if it is going to be used on multiple occasions, or at the end after it has been used. One citation per paragraph is sufficient and careful writing can support this. Plagiarism refers to the unacknowledged use of text, either directly or para phrased, copying other candidates’ work and copying visual representations such as cartoons, diagrams, photographs or paintings. Academic misconduct in the form of plagiarism has meant that, as noted above, many candidates have developed a tendency to over-cite references multiple times in a single paragraph, even in a single sentence. Plagiarism can be detected by ‘tell-tale’ signs such as changes in writing style, strange layout, grey letters instead of black (indicating the material has been retrieved from the internet) and other aspects of present ation. Plagiarism-detection software (such as Turnitin) is being used increasingly, so supervisors need to warn their candidates. Software such as EndNote has simplified the compilation of accurate reference lists. The main purpose of this list is to enable readers to find the cited sources, so it is essential that it is accurate and complete. There are conventions about the precise form of presenting the information, but it generally includes the author(s), the date of publication, the name of the work, and the publication details such as journal (title, volume number and page number) or book (title, place of publication). Correctly recording these details should be done when the original is read, and then checked again when the list is finalised. All citations in the text must be included in the list of references.

Incorrect word selection Candidates often use the wrong word for what would appear to be the wrong reason. Instead of trying to keep their writing simple and clear, they search for a synonym or another more complex word that will flaunt their apparent scholarship. This is usually counterproductive. Sometimes the wrong word is selected out of ignorance, and sometimes it is simply the wrong word. Candidates also want to avoid repetition of words and accusations of plagiarism. Remember that the language used by the original researcher may well be the recognised terminology in the discipline and so it should be used; the use of a thesaurus

90


2/5/07 11:41:55 AM


to find an alternative can result in the selection of the wrong synonym in that context. Words commonly used incorrectly are pairs like ‘discrete/discreet’, ‘principle/ principal’, ‘alternate/alternative’, and the use of ‘either’ or ‘alternative’ when there are more than two choices. Encourage candidates to use a dictionary to check the meanings of words they are not sure of, and praise simple, straightforward and clear writing.

Tense A common error is a disregard for tense. Some candidates have a tendency to be unaware of the use of the past tense for historical events or studies that have been conducted, and the present tense for contemporary or continuing work. This is often identified in the editing phase, but candidates need to be aware if they are prone to switching tenses. Some languages, such as Thai and Mandarin, do not have verbs that change their form when the tense changes, so some NESB candidates may have particular difficulties with tense when writing in English.

Proofreading Proofreading takes place after editing. This is where candidates go through their work carefully and check spelling, punctuation and noun–verb/noun–pronoun agreement. This is not the time or place to be reading for sense; it is the time to find and correct errors in the writing or layout to improve the accuracy and presentation. Proofreading can only occur when the final editing has been completed and is a painstaking process that requires the candidate to read what is on the page and not what they think is there (reading aloud can help achieve this). Candidates are looking for typographical errors, misplaced apostrophes, nonsequential numbering, inconsistent font type/size and other mechanical errors that need to be corrected. Common areas requiring attention, with examples of incorrect use, follow.

Grammar It is essential to give your candidate clear expectations of your and your discip line’s grammatical preferences so that they can develop the correct style early in their candidature. The most common grammatical error is the lack of agreement between a noun and its verb, especially if there is a long gap between the noun and verb. An example presented to one of the authors recently is: ‘With surfing, the skills of balance and timing or accuracy in positioning the body on the board with the wave was significant …’; the gap between ‘skills’ and the verb resulted in ‘was’ instead of ‘were’. It could also be argued that overly long sentences should be avoided.

91


2/5/07 11:41:55 AM


Another common error is the use of a singular verb after words like ‘data’ and ‘media’ (which are plural forms of the Latin words datum and medium respectively). Common convention is now seeing greater acceptance of the singular verb (‘data is’), with some American journal editors now requesting this as their preferred use. Supervisors need to guide candidates as to the acceptability of this in their discipline. To circumvent this problem, supervisors can advise their students to use a term like ‘the data set is’. Other ‘difficult’ words include ‘staff ’, ‘knowledge’ and ‘research’ (uncountable nouns), which all take a singular verb. Another tricky issue is the use of ‘they’ or ‘them’ after a singular noun. Some publishers are now allowing this; others suggest using plural nouns to match the plural pronoun. The ‘old-fashioned’ supervisor may insist on the use of ‘he or she’ or ‘him or her’ when the noun is singular and non-gender specific (such as ‘a candidate’). As we are no longer allowed to adopt one sex, unless it is a genderspecific term such as ‘a mother’ or ‘a young boy’, language in a thesis has to be gender neutral as far as possible, and not biased. The convention would insist on ‘A candidate should always check his or her work’, while common usage now accepts ‘A candidate should always check their work’. To circumvent this issue, a correct version would be to use the plural form: ‘Candidates should always check their work.’ Candidates are often unaware of split infinitives so they may write ‘Candidates are encouraged to clearly state their argument’. This format is becoming more acceptable, particularly if the split infinitive is part of a common phrase (such as ‘to fully understand’). Candidates are often unsure about where to place the adverb in a sentence and should be encouraged to avoid clumsy sentences such as ‘Candidates need to proofread carefully their work’ instead of ‘Candidates need to proofread their work carefully’. Other common grammatical errors are inconsistent use of -ise versus -ize; inconsistent capitalisation (for example, make sure titles and organisational names are capitalised where required); abbreviating a name (of an institution, a program, etc., such as ‘ABS’ or ‘OH&S’) without first defining it and thereafter using it in its shortened form; and sentence fragments such as sentences without a verb.

Punctuation Think of the book with the title Eats, shoots and leaves (see References below). This title demonstrates clearly how moving the comma changes the meaning from the original reference to a panda’s eating habits (‘eats shoots and leaves’). Another example is the sentence: ‘A woman, without her man, is nothing.’ Compare this with: ‘A woman: without her, man is nothing.’ The introduction of a colon and the different position of the comma change the meaning of the phrase dramatically! Although merely ‘little marks on the page’, punctuation is of great importance to a written work and is also the area where candidates are the most cavalier (or worse, ignorant). Apostrophes are the least understood form of punctuation. They

92


2/5/07 11:41:56 AM


are often introduced in plurals (think of DVD’s, 1970’s, or even participant’s); their placement in plural possessives can be fraught (common examples that come to mind include peoples’ and childrens’); their use is confused or they are missing altogether (it’s/its, you’re/your; mens clothes, etc.—a recent error spotted was mean’t for the word ‘meant’). Apostrophes are not the only problem. Erratically placed commas are rife and supervisors are invariably crossing them out or putting them in the correct place. Teach candidates where they ought to be, as well as their conventional uses, in particular relating to referencing styles. Colons, although frequently used, are not always the correct form of punc tuation to choose. They should be used to indicate that what follows is an example, definition, expansion or antithesis of what is written before the colon. Colons can also be used to introduce a list or a series but they are not a substitute for a full stop. Semicolons are not widely used except in lists after a colon or when introducing a new thought in a complex sentence. Another common flaw is the inconsistency of punctuation following dot point or numbered entries—use commas, semicolons, or nothing at all, and always finish the last entry with a full stop.

Spelling Candidates often have a laissez-faire attitude to spelling as writing software programs come with ready-made spellcheckers that ‘reassuringly’ identify spelling errors (and automatically correct words that are similar to the original, which means that words can be ‘corrected’ to become something different from that intended, even if spelled correctly!). You need to be able to provide advice regarding correct spelling and teach candidates not to rely on spellcheckers—as the following poem, widely available in various forms on the internet, shows: I have a spelling chequer It came with my PC It clearly marks for my revue Mistakes eye cannot sea I’ve run this pome threw it I’m shore your pleased to no Its letter perfect in its weigh My chequer tolled me sew.

It is always better to use a dictionary to check spelling. Apart from the traditional form, dictionaries are available online for a modest subscription. In addition, supervisors can encourage candidates to compile a checklist of their own particular common errors. The Deans and Directors of Graduate Studies and the Council of the Australian Societies of Editors have developed a policy on the editing of research theses by professional editors (http://www.ddogs.edu.au). This policy recommends

93


2/5/07 11:41:56 AM


that professional editing should be restricted to advising on language and illus trations, and on completeness and consistency. Advice is not to be given on substance and structure. Any professional editorial advice must be recognised in the Acknowledgements section. The policy can guide candidates and their supervisors when using professional editorial assistance and the acknowledgement of responsibility for this.

Concluding comments By instilling in candidates a good use of written English means that, on com pletion, graduates can confidently express themselves in writing. Good written communication ranks highly as a generic capability for doctoral graduates. This in turn enhances employability, particularly for academic positions, where a research record requiring written publications is essential. Supervisors should always regard their candidates’ writing as an important part of the process of completing their candidature, and should therefore ensure that it is an integral part of the candidates’ overall learning experience. It cannot be assumed that all doctoral candidates come with the same level of writing skills to start with, and support should be provided to enable the development of sufficient abilities to master the mechanics (the grammar) as well as the style (the argument) of the writing. Technical and composition skills have to be taught during candidature so that the final product stands as an example of both research and writing excellence. Questions

1 Thinking about your own thesis, what did you do to ensure it was ‘straightforward, succinct and well structured’? 2 If you were asked to make a checklist of editing/proofreading essentials, what would you include? 3 Ask your candidates to write down what they think editing and proofreading involve and then discuss and compare your perceptions with theirs. References

American Psychological Association 2001, Publication manual of the American Psychological Association (5th edn), Washington, DC. Truss, L 2003, Eats, shoots and leaves: The zero tolerance approach to punctuation, Profile Books, London.

94


2/5/07 11:41:57 AM

SECTION 4

Ensuring a positive candidate experience


2/5/07 11:41:57 AM

C HAPTER 1 3

Focusing on generic capabilities Rod Wissler Queensland University of Technology

Introduction In this chapter I use the term ‘generic capabilities’ in preference to others that also have some currency, such as ‘generic skills’, ‘transferable skills’ and ‘generic attributes’. The use of the term ‘generic capabilities’ aims to reinforce the possibility of a more active, forward-looking and dynamic development and flexible application of skills and attributes by the doctoral candidate. The idea that supervisors need to pay attention to the development of a set of generic capabilities in their candidates may strike some as perplexing. Some supervisors are even inclined to regard such activity as unhelpful, seeing it as time-consuming and actually getting in the way of the main game: doing the research and finishing the thesis. Underlying this perception is their conviction that postgraduate researchers learn the necessary skills in the lab, in the seminar room or in the supervisor’s office by a subtle process that doesn’t need scrutiny from outside the research domain or regular ‘paying attention’. The generic capabilities debate has rolled through undergraduate education, producing significant shifts in curriculum and teaching delivery as universities come to terms with a rewrite of their societal accountabilities, and with new expectations about how graduates engage with employment in the knowledge economy. This background might suggest that rethinking research training within a capabilities framework should be uncontroversial; but linking the generic capabilities discussion to concepts such as curriculum, teaching, accountabilities, employment and economy seems to some graduate research supervisors like a

96


2/5/07 11:41:58 AM

focusing on generic capabilities

powerful argument for why you would not want to introduce this kind of thinking into the postgraduate research domain. However, changes in higher education provision and in societies more gen erally over the past 20 years have made the picture, purposes and personae of graduate research more complicated. The pathways in and the pathways out are more diverse; and just as the broad emphasis in research has shifted worldwide towards a user-inspired focus on impact, so in the area of postgraduate research has the connection to financial drivers at both ends of the pipeline become acutely important. The market influences on graduate research are here to stay, and the instance of the research candidate undertaking a study for personal fulfilment alone is increasingly rare. The overriding justification for generic capability development lies in the potential impact of research graduates within society. That is, if the potential spin-offs of research degree programs are to be fully realised in industry, the public sector and the community, these candidates must graduate with highly developed capabilities for leadership and innovation. And as a consequence then, their research skills and knowledge generation need to be translated into tangible economic, social and cultural returns. Australian Vice-Chancellors Committee guidelines do require the supervisor to assist the research candidate with ‘career advice and development’. Indeed, most supervisors already acknowledge that they have a role not only in the development of discipline-specific research skills, but also in more general skills such as those relating to information and technological literacies, ethics, intellectual property, scholarly publishing, conference presentations and so on. Introducing one’s research graduate to the academic networks has long been understood to be part of the career development role of supervisors. The point of difference about the recent emphasis on generic capabilities is the argument that a structured approach to the candidate’s development of a set of transferable skills will add value to the graduate research experience, support the timely completion of high-quality research degrees and lead to stronger engagement by research graduates with the world of work.

The policy context One of the major changes to research training requirements in Australia since 1999 has been the increased emphasis on the relevance of research degree programs to national labour market requirements. In that year, the Australian Government began to spell out community concerns about the breadth of graduate research candidates’ training and their readiness for employment. More recently, policy documents on the Research Training Scheme that follow the Higher Education at the Crossroads reviews are explicit in their demand for research graduates ready to meet industry requirements.

97


2/5/07 11:41:58 AM


The efficacy and quality of universities’ endeavours in this area are again in the national spotlight as the government considers a Research Quality Framework and the prospect of a diverse university system in which research training may be undertaken only by certain universities or within designated areas of research excellence. The Australian Council of Deans and Directors of Graduate Studies has adopted a framework and guidelines for best practice in generic capabilities for research students in Australian universities (Wissler and Borthwick 2005). A previous Statement on skills development for research students (Browne 1999) as a resource that each university could use in its planning to address the area was silent on matters of delivery, evaluation and supervisor involvement.

Scoping the field At the practical level, it is necessary for the supervisor to adopt an integrated approach to the development of research and employability skills. Some of the skills that are fundamental to the completion of the research project are clearly transferable to the employability domain. However, the generic nature of these skills needs to be more formally recognised by supervisors and their research candidates so that they can be aware of their transferability across the research project and employment domains. Such formal recognition and conscious development are the crucial factors in shifting the development of research skills from an inward-looking academic activity (or one focused on meeting examination requirements) to an outwardlooking application activity. A difficulty for the individual supervisor in thinking about generic capabilities for graduate research candidates is the scope of the term. Confusions are apparent in Research and Research Training Management Reports in which the Australian Government requires a formal report from universities on Higher Degrees by Research (HDR) generic attributes. Responses indicate multiple interpretations of the term, with generic attributes interpreted variously as: 1 abstract qualities of a personal or (sometimes) professional nature such as independence, confidence and tolerance; 2 research skills for thesis completion and discipline mastery; and 3 skills used for employment purposes, whatever the discipline. Responses to a DEST-funded study of Australian universities’ employmentrelated programs for research candidates (Borthwick and Wissler 2003) established that generic capabilities programs (with a focus on project management and communication) were provided centrally in the large majority of Australian universities; but it remained unclear how engaged supervisors were with

98


2/5/07 11:41:58 AM


these programs or with individual attention to the generic capabilities of their candidates. Many attempts have been made to codify these generic capabilities. The United Kingdom list for candidates includes research skills and techniques, research environment; management; personal effectiveness; communication skills; networking and teamworking; and career management. This chapter provides a focus on three domains: 1 Transferable methodologies, methods and techniques 2 Research codes of conduct and contexts 3 Professional practice and leadership. One significant distinction to be made by supervisors is that between undergraduate generic capabilities and those expected of research graduates. Research graduate capabilities are not simply an extension of the undergraduate capabilities, since the employability outcomes expected of the research cohort are focused in specific ways to do with leadership in the national innovation system. However, in the face of ongoing debate about terminology and the scope of the conceptual field, the individual supervisor must seek initial guidance from their university’s own policy documents. In relation to graduate research capabilities, my university states: QUT’s research training objective is to graduate high-quality postgraduate research students who meet the needs of industry, government, the professions and the community and who are equipped to undertake leadership roles in those contexts. In addition to the graduate capabilities expected of all QUT graduates, capabilities that are regarded as desirable in research graduates include: • advanced theoretical knowledge and analytical skills, as well as method ological, research design and problem-solving skills in a particular research area • advanced information processing skills and knowledge of advanced infor mation technologies and other research technologies • independence in research planning and execution, consistent with the level of the research degree • competence in the execution of protocols for research health and safety, ethical conduct and intellectual property • skills in project management, teamwork, academic writing and oral communication • awareness of the mechanisms for research results transfer to end-users, scholarly dissemination through publications and presentations, research policy, and research career planning.

99


2/5/07 11:41:59 AM


Implementing policy within supervisory practice Expectations, inventories and action plans The essential step at the individual supervisor level is to place generic capabilities development on the table at the beginning of candidature. The supervisor should carry out an audit of the current skills of the candidate, using the university inventory as the framework. A shared understanding of the outcomes and expectations of future action should be the aim, as well as the development of an agreed action plan for development in areas of skills and knowledge deficits. The action plan needs to be revisited at regular intervals. Candidates should be encouraged to view the action plan regularly and reflect on further development they may require. The supervisor may then use the audit checklist and action plan to inform the general conduct of supervision, even when the particular generic capability is not the topic of a particular session. A logical extension is that the action plan would be woven into the overall research plan and time line for candidature, and also incorporate project and administrative milestones as well as opportunities for specific skill-development activities. Action plans for part-time or offshore candidates will be different from those of full-time, on-campus candidates. A decision needs to be made about how much time can be devoted to value-adding activities such as workshop programs, and when these can be accommodated. Supervisor encouragement for these activities is nonetheless important. The outcome of this integrated approach is that development of the generic capabilities is viewed by supervisor and candidate as part and parcel of the conduct of the research project. Some generic skill development may be viewed as compulsory, and some as a valuable extra. Notwithstanding the concept that some aspects may be compul sory, it is important that the candidate retain ownership of the generic capabilities agenda and be prepared to take over an increasing level of responsibility for the outcomes of the action plan.

Acknowledging prior experience Many graduate research candidates are already in the workforce or have had substantial periods in areas associated with their future employability. Supervisors thus need to acknowledge this prior experience and set up a mechanism for recognising specific areas of advanced knowledge and expertise through the use of the audit checklist at commencement of candidature. Aspects of the action plan may then be located in the workplace of part-time candidates for whom the interplay of on-campus experience and the ongoing workplace experience provides a rich territory for generic capability development. The overall outcome of this

100


2/5/07 11:41:59 AM


will be greater efficiency in use of the candidate’s and the supervisor’s time and university resources during candidature. In many instances, the mature-aged candidate will have much to teach their supervisor, and being prepared to position oneself as a learner by acknowledging the superior knowledge of the candidate in certain domains of generic capabilities can have positive spin-offs in the broader candidate–supervisor relationship.

Professional development for supervisors On occasions, supervisors may feel that their own skills and/or knowledge in some areas are insufficient and they need to develop support networks or access the university’s service provision departments in order to connect candidates to additional opportunities. The direct benefit is that in most instances development of your own competencies in these areas will assist your career development and lead to more satisfying interactions with research candidates. Research candidates may enter or already be in careers in industry settings that the supervisor is not familiar with. To prepare for such cases, the supervisor may need to seek assistance and find appropriate sources of development by input from university careers officers or via external mentoring through a period of industry secondment.

Group action What activities can be built around the needs of a group of candidates, and how can peer learning contribute to generic capability development? It is essential to learn the skills to work with others. Supervisors often form research teams to bring in additional expertise within the cohort of their research candidates. Most universities have a designated group or unit to manage implementation of graduate research policy, including a range of service providers within the university who are able to contribute to the skill development of candidates. As it is a core supervisory responsibility to be familiar with these programs and to facilitate candidate access to them, this involvement positions the supervisor to influence the content and delivery methods and modes of these types of pro grams and to participate in the development of a shared understanding of what will benefit candidates. At QUT, the annual calendar of candidate workshop activity conducted through the Research Students Centre is coded to assist students in identifying activities relating to particular generic capabilities.

Documentation and certification Some level of formality in the documentation of generic skill development is desirable. A number of universities have implemented detailed reporting against the generic capabilities inventory in the context of the annual progress report

101


2/5/07 11:42:00 AM


and other major candidature milestones, including the confirmation and final seminar procedures. These procedures are often supported by electronic document templates and workflow to facilitate sign-off by responsible staff members as well as the candidate and supervisor; and the electronic portfolio allows a candidate to record and monitor development activity against the generic capabilities template throughout the candidature. This leads to the candidate, the supervisor and the university having reliable records of individuals’ participation and an audit trail of development throughout their candidature. As a result, graduating research candidates have documented evidence of their participation in activities associated with the acquisition of specific capabilities and mastery of certain skills, which in turn can be attached to job applications. It is also useful for an individual supervisor to provide a final validation of the candidate’s participation in activities and to provide commentary on the progress that has been made since the beginning of candidature.

Student endorsement of generic capabilities activities My own involvement in provision of generic capabilities development opportun ities has been focused for the past five years on the online Australian Technology Network (ATN) Learning Employment Aptitudes Program (LEAP) and the ATN Modules Online for Research Education (MORE). The value of these activities to candidates has been conclusively demonstrated by feedback from over 2000 participants. LEAP and MORE mobilise peer learning among a cohort that includes a high proportion of candidates with wide and valuable life, work and research training backgrounds, as well as adding the specialised knowledge that is outside the experience of many individual research supervisors. In the development phase of these programs, candidate needs and expectations were canvassed, and their input highlighted issues of importance from the can didates’ points of view: • the researcher’s responsibility to maximise the value of their work to the community • the need for assistance in clarifying ‘where I am going on completion of my research’ • the need to update existing professional skills • the desire to learn from other candidates’ experience • the aim of developing an assessable portfolio of new skills and strategies • employer demand for people with communication and leadership skills • interest in commercialising research, but a lack of knowledge, understanding and experience in the process.

102


2/5/07 11:42:00 AM


Candidate responses to the offerings include: The module has been a series of golden nuggets … To say the module is an eye opener would be an understatement. It has been a beacon of information and pragmatism. [Entrepreneurship, 2006] *

*

*

I have learnt some valuable new project management processes and tools which I have applied to my research and am already seeing the positive results. Overall I was able to see how research can and in my case should be treated as a formal project, and the benefits of that type of approach. [Project Management, 2003] *

*

*

… made me see some leadership and communicative events in a new light. Afforded me the opportunity to get an insight through an honest self-assessment and thoughts of other participants. [Leadership and Communication, 2005] *

*

*

You can get caught up in an area, and these modules can place you in a broader context. They have helped me to see the big picture, away from my narrow area of specialisation (Robotics and Artificial Intelligence). I undertook the modules for personal growth as well. They made me sharper intellectually, and more critical. [Research Commercialisation, 2006] *

*

*

It helped me to take my research into another context. This gave me ideas of how to approach a proposal in future. The focus on stakeholders and the decision matrices were particularly good, because it led me to identify obstacles and come up with solutions of how to overcome them. [Public Policy, 2005]

Concluding comments Graduate research candidates know that there are multiple benefits from a concerted effort on the part of supervisors and universities to focus on the development of generic capabilities. In Australia, this area of a supervisor’s activity is a work-in-progress. Much of the development of these capabilities is ad hoc or in the hands of supervisors who feel ill-prepared to guide such learning in a formal way. It goes without saying that supervisors need to be at the centre of any effective generic capabilities development program and must be supported to exercise this pedagogical responsibility with input from content and instructional experts.

103


2/5/07 11:42:01 AM


Questions

1 Should the generic capabilities of research graduates be formally assessed at the exit point? And what is the function of the thesis examination process in attesting attainment of research skills and demonstration of research-related capabilities? 2 What professional development needs should be addressed by supervisors if they are to participate more fully in the delivery of generic capabilities activities for postgraduate research candidates? 3 What can be done by supervisors to balance the competing demands between the need for research skills development, employability skills development and timely completion of the research project? Acknowledgement

The author gratefully acknowledges the contribution of Dr Jill Borthwick and Ms Elizabeth Greener to research that informs sections of this chapter. References

Australian Technology Network 2002, Learning Employment Aptitudes Program (LEAP): https:// olt.qut.edu.au/udf/ATN-Leap/ Australian Technology Network 2006, Modules On-line for Research Education (MORE): https:// olt.qut.edu.au/udf/atnmore/index.cfm Borthwick, J & Wissler, R 2003, Postgraduate research students and generic capabilities: Online directions, Department of Education, Science and Training, Canberra. Browne, M 1999, Statement on skills development for research student, Council of Deans and Directors of Graduate Studies in Australia: http://www.ddogs.edu.au/cgi-bin/papers. pl?cmd=v&f=33322 Wissler, R & Borthwick, J 2005, Framework and guidelines for best practice in generic capabilities for research students in Australian universities, Council of Deans and Directors of Graduate Studies in Australia: http://www.ddogs.edu.au/cgi-bin/papers.pl?cmd=v&f=33340

104


2/5/07 11:42:01 AM

C HAPTER 1 4

Integrating doctoral candidates into research teams Brian Yates University of Tasmania

Introduction Large research teams have become commonplace in some areas of science, and particularly in medicine where multifaceted projects require contributions from many different people. Smaller research teams are also common across all disciplines and are productive in generating high-quality research. In both Australia and Aotearoa New Zealand, the central government funding bodies place a significant premium on demonstrable collaboration and teamwork. Given this increasing climate of research collaboration it is highly likely that doctoral candidates will find themselves part of a research team. This chapter explores the benefits of team membership, strategies for successful integration into a research team, and possible pitfalls of team participation.

Why are research teams important? There has been much research and discussion for some time on the effectiveness of teamwork in the corporate arena (Payne 1982). Less has been written about the importance of research teams in universities; however, there is an increasing discussion of the benefits of collaborative research (Daprano et al. 2005, Rey-Rocha et al. 2006, Shani et al. 2004), and inevitably there are more opportunities avail able for doctoral candidates to work in research teams. However, it is reasonable to ask the question from the corporate or grant-funding body perspective as to why research teams are important. Perhaps one of the main reasons for the strategic formation of research teams is that it brings researchers together from various disciplines who have the

105


2/5/07 11:42:02 AM


necessary skills to solve a particular problem or advance a particular field. Where one or two individuals would struggle to provide all the required expertise, a team approach can lead to an efficient and effective solution. Increasingly the emphasis has been turning for some time towards the formation of multidisciplinary research teams. This movement has been driven by the maxim that innovation occurs more often at the boundaries between disciplines, and innovation is seen as a key step in the development of a successful research program. The corollary is that if a research program is to be competitive, then in many cases it requires a team approach. A second cluster of reasons underpinning the formation of research teams is that it can allow a faster accumulation of knowledge within the group, provide greater momentum for the particular research direction being followed, and allow for more reliable transfer of knowledge, skills and expertise from one researcher to the next. For an institution or a funding agency, it might make more sense to invest in a research team that has greater longevity and continuity. Another reason for the existence of research teams is that they provide good opportunities for sharing information and ideas, whether the team is a multi discipline one or a more focused group within a specific area. It goes without saying that no one person holds all the good ideas about a particular research prob lem, and so teamwork inevitably leads to the sum being greater than the parts. Finally, from a practical point of view, many administrators would see that an important benefit of research teams is the sharing of infrastructure. Particularly in science and medicine where equipment is costly, the formation of a research team allows the efficient use of high-quality apparatus and the opportunities for a number of researchers to have access to the best that is available.

Strategies for integrating doctoral candidates Given the importance of research teams from the perspective of efficient and productive research output, how might the candidate and the supervisor make the most of them? And what is the most effective approach to ensure doctoral candidates become well integrated? Perhaps the most common and successful strategy is to hold regular group meetings for the research team, where doctoral candidates and others are encour aged to participate. It is important that these group meetings be held at least weekly, and that it is clearly understood that everyone is expected to contribute on a regular basis. Often this is done in the form of a speaking roster. In this way, participation becomes part of the norm and a cycle is created that allows for feedback and improvement in the quality of the contributions. Some research teams are further subdivided into project groups. This division is common where a senior professor may have several postdoctoral fellows or research assistants looking after different aspects of the research. These ‘postdocs’

106


2/5/07 11:42:02 AM

integrating doctoral candidates into research teams

become project leaders and may take on the responsibility of managing their project group. Thus, doctoral candidates may have the opportunity of belonging to and participating in meetings of the overall research team as well as smaller, more intimate meetings of the project groups. This strategy provides opportunities for making connections between the ‘forest and the trees’. A strategy for integrating doctoral candidates that has become a bit of a buzz word in other areas is that of mentoring. In this way, a more senior member of the group takes a doctoral candidate ‘under their wing’ and guides them in their development as a researcher and a team player. This approach has benefits for both the mentor and the ‘mentee’ and can lead to a significant enhancement in the quality of interaction. The candidate can also play a proactive role in helping to integrate themselves into the research team. One way this can be done is to offer to take on one of the many team ‘jobs’ or areas of responsibility, such as the organisation of the weekly group meetings, for example, or managing the cake roster, or becoming responsible for a particular piece of software that is used by the group. As in any functional family, people feel a greater sense of belonging when they can see that they are making a valuable (and valued) contribution to the running of the group. Another strategy to promote the integration of doctoral candidates into a research team is to make sure that the whole group attends a conference when the opportunity arises. In this way, the research team is seen to be a cohesive group by the rest of the conference attendees, and the doctoral candidates can see how they belong to that group and how the research team fits into the wider research discipline. Of course, ‘all work and no play’ is a bad recipe for effective teamwork—and a good research team knows how to have fun. The importance of social activities as a strategy for integrating doctoral candidates into research teams must not be overlooked. Whether it is the end-of-year barbecue, the annual soccer/cricket/ baseball match, group lunches and dinners, or drinks on a Friday night, they all provide opportunities for informal discussions and breaking down the barriers between academics and candidates. The celebration of communal success by the group is also a good strategy for building a cohesive team, and when that success involves a doctoral candidate it helps them again to feel a valued part of the research team. A useful ploy is to attach a new candidate to a fairly mature research project so that they can taste the success of publication early in their candidature. Finally, many successful research teams have a physical location that they identify as their own. Without trying to encourage a sense of ‘empire building’, this physical location can be a useful strategy for helping to integrate a doctoral candidate into a research team. The candidate can be shown where ‘their’ place is, they can develop a sense of belonging to that place and even a feeling of

107


2/5/07 11:42:03 AM


being at home there. In this day and age of multi-tasking and flexible working arrangements, the identification of a ‘home base’ where one can sit and think and write is very important.

Benefits for candidates What specific benefits arise for candidates who are well integrated in research teams? The first very tangible benefit is in the area of written communication. Candidates working in teams will have more opportunities to have their written work reviewed by their peers (the members of the team) and criticised in a friendly, supportive manner. Thus, drafts of thesis chapters or manuscripts are more likely to have gone past several pairs of eyes before reaching the supervisors and are more likely to withstand the critical examination of external referees. Because the process of manuscript development is undertaken as a team approach, doctoral candidates will also find that there are more opportunities for co-authorship (Rey-Rocha et al. 2006). This type of practical experience is particularly beneficial in building a track record and to place the candidate in a strong position for subsequent research appointments. Another benefit to the candidate of being part of a team is in the area of oral presentations. All candidates are required to practise their oral skills during candidature, usually as part of a departmental seminar program. However, those candidates who are part of a team will have many prior opportunities to improve their speaking skills at their weekly group meeting. Clearly this gives the tentative candidate a chance to grow in confidence before fronting the whole department. The broad level of expertise in a research team will be of benefit to the candidate, as it is to the overall research productivity, because it provides them with more strategies to tackle a particular research problem. In a functional research team, candidates will find themselves surrounded by experts in different areas who can be called upon to provide advice. A research team environment also provides doctoral candidates with a range of training opportunities. From the candidate’s point of view, the most significant benefit is that when working with and learning from one’s peers, this will usually provide a non-threatening way of identifying and practising the research skills needed to succeed during candidature. Another benefit for the candidate is that personality clashes between candidate and supervisor can often be diffused in a group situation. When the candidate is not relying on just one person for a dayto-day interaction, some of the irritating aspects of one person’s behaviour or personality can be balanced alongside positive interactions with another. In a similar way, peer support from the research team is an important benefit for candidates. In times of adversity as well as triumph, it can be very important to know that peers are there to offer support and that difficulties do not have to

108


2/5/07 11:42:03 AM


be faced on one’s own. Furthermore, being integrated into a research team can often provide the candidate with a safety net. There is naturally an increase in the kinds of opportunities to make mistakes in front of one’s peers and having those mistakes corrected before confronting a more demanding audience. The research team environment can also give the candidate more freedom and confidence to argue a particular point of view. Rather than such a discussion being seen as a candidate-versus-supervisor argument, it becomes a discussion among the group of a series of ideas from different viewpoints. Sharing of information is another important benefit. Whether this information is technical, administrative or research knowledge, it can often be shared more effectively and in a more timely manner within the research team. For example, many research teams will share out the responsibility of reading the current literature. This task might be done on a journal-by-journal basis; or it might be that different group members take on the responsibility of keeping up to date in a particular discipline area; or it might simply be that a team member will share an interesting article they have come across that they know will be of interest to others. It is very difficult in this information-rich age to keep abreast of the important developments in one’s field of research, and so information sharing is important to maintain the competitiveness of a candidate’s research project. Infrastructure sharing within a research team is an important practical benefit for the candidate. This may mean the sharing of trivial pieces of office equipment (computers, software, coffee makers and so on), through to sharing sophisticated instruments that belong to the team. While such sharing can happen outside of a team situation, it becomes much easier and there are no hassles about ownership when it is done as part of a team. The building of professional networks is a core activity of candidature. This process may occur within the team where the candidate may work alongside a very senior postdoctoral fellow, or members of the team may introduce the candidate to a range of external collaborators. In this way the network spreads rapidly and the candidate learns not only the value of networking, but also the strategies used by others for building important links. Finally, the doctoral candidate who is integrated into a research team will benefit from the social camaraderie that the team provides. The social activities mentioned in the previous section will be opportunities for the candidate to develop trust and friendship with the team members, which can be very important in sustaining the candidate during the years of their study.

Benefits for supervisors Supervisors also benefit from integrating their candidates into research teams. The first benefit is that written work produced by the candidate can be a lot more polished by the time it reaches the supervisor. Thus the first draft of

109


2/5/07 11:42:04 AM


a chapter or manuscript will have been refined by the research team before it is given to the supervisor. While this benefits the candidate, it also allows the supervisor to concentrate on giving more sophisticated advice than would be possible otherwise. For example, there may be less emphasis on proofreading and more on making sure the article is set in the right research context and addresses the research problems in a logical manner. For the supervisor, an important benefit of the research team is that it provides a much better medium for the training of doctoral candidates. Instead of relying on individual supervisor–candidate instruction, the training takes place within the group environment. This experience not only shares the responsibility of the training, but also ensures that corporate knowledge within the group is passed on to every new member who joins the research team. Better supervision can also be a benefit of the research team environment. Not only will it help to diffuse personality clashes as mentioned above (and thus reduce the stress and possible feelings of failure on the part of the supervisor), but the research team can provide more options for candidate supervision. Thus the primary supervisor might find it sensible to arrange for other senior members of the team with particular expertise to work with the candidate and supervise particular aspects of the project. In addition, the support of the research team will allow the supervisor greater freedom to attend conferences or go on study leave, confident in the knowledge that candidates will be well looked after in their absence. A further benefit for supervisors involved in integrating candidates into research teams is that scarce resources can be more efficiently shared among several candidates. Although this may sound like a money-pinching argument, if duplication can be avoided in a sensible way, then it gives supervisors more options for supporting their team of doctoral candidates as a whole. Finally, where there is a cohesive social structure within the team, then the candidate and the group are likely to be happier and more productive. Although seemingly aloof, there is no doubt that supervisors enjoy the antics of their research teams, and social occasions often provide the perfect photo opportunity for the acknowledgement slide in the conference talk.

Problems What are some of the problems associated with integrating doctoral candidates into research teams? The first pitfall that can arise is that the candidate does not ‘fit’ into the existing team because of a variety of reasons, many of which may be perceptions rather than realities and may be related to gender, age, attitude, race, disability, work ethics,

110


2/5/07 11:42:04 AM


the intact nature of the team, and a host of other reasons and combinations of reasons. In some cases this may be solely a perception on the part of the candidate, which then requires extra effort on the part of the supervisor and research team to break down the barriers and ensure that the candidate does in fact feel welcome in the group. At other times, there may be real differences between the existing structure of the research team and the incoming candidate, and in those cases discussion with a third party is often useful in addressing the problem. In addition, a candidate may have been initially accepted into the research team, but then receives subtle harassment because it is perceived that they are not participating at the level that is required. Of course, there are two sides to every story and mediation by the supervisor or a third party can go some way to alleviating any such tensions. At the extreme end of the scale, the possibility exists that the team will ostra cise the candidate for some reason. This can have very harmful effects, not only for the candidate, but for the research team as a whole. Although intervention and mediation are sometimes successful, the final solution might be to remove the candidate from that research team and attach them (somewhat peripherally) to another. It is clearly better to anticipate this sort of problem early and intervene before the antagonism escalates. Finally, a problem that can arise with very productive research teams is one of competition, both within the group and with other groups in the same depart ment. Sometimes doctoral candidates will find themselves under a lot of (possibly self-imposed) pressure to perform in the group. While this may lead to higher levels of productivity, it can also sometimes impair a candidate’s progress. Intergroup rivalry can also arise, and although this manifestation is the responsibility of the supervisor or team leader to sort out, it is often with the candidates where the conflict is felt most.

Concluding comments This chapter has outlined the advantages of integrating doctoral candidates into research teams from the point of view of both the candidate and the supervisor. Are there any times that it is preferable not to do this? The answer may be in the affirmative when the research group is very small or very specialised. In these cases it makes more sense for the candidate and supervisors to work in smaller units, and there are many examples where good candidates and high-quality research occur in such situations. Nevertheless, where the opportunity arises for forming a research team and for a doctoral candidate to be part of that team, then there are compelling reasons for both the candidate and the supervisor to ensure that the candidate is successfully integrated into the research team.

111


2/5/07 11:42:05 AM


Questions

1 What other benefits can you think of that arise for both the candidate and supervisor from working in research teams? 2 What other problems might occur in the process of integrating doctoral candidates into research teams? 3 What other strategies have you come across for successfully integrating candidates into research teams? References

Daprano, CM, Bruening, JE, Pastore, DL, Greenwell, DL, Dixon, MA, Ko, YJ, Jordan, JS, Lilienthal, SK & Turner, BA 2005, ‘Collaboration in sport research: A case from the field’, Quest, vol. 57(23), pp. 300–314. Payne, M 1982, Working in teams, Macmillan, London. Rey-Rocha, J, Garzón-García, B, Martín-Sempere, MJ 2006, ‘Scientists’ performance and consolidation of research teams in biology and biomedicine at the Spanish Council for Scientific Research’, Scientometrics, vol. 69(2), pp. 183–212. Shani, AB, Styhre, A & Adler, N 2004, Collaborative research in organizations: Foundations for learning, change, and theoretical development, Sage Publications, London.

112


2/5/07 11:42:05 AM

C HAPTER 1 5

Effective supervision of part-time candidates Terry Evans Deakin University

Introduction Part-time doctoral candidates are not exceptions or unusual in Australian and Aotearoa New Zealand universities. About half of all doctoral candidates ‘downunder’ are part-time, and similar proportions can be found in most ‘devel oped’ nations. Yet there is a strong tendency for people in universities, government and the media to think and write of doctoral candidates as people who are in their mid-twenties and studying full-time in a laboratory or library somewhere on-campus. Many candidates meet this profile, but contemporary circumstances suggest that effective supervision of doctoral candidates in universities is likely to include a significant proportion of part-time candidates. It is assumed here that part-time candidates are those who complete their doctorates principally or wholly as part-time enrollees. Typically, they are mid-career and working in a profession or workplace that will influence both their candidature and their topic. Of course, there are some whose family, personal, health or other circumstances necessitate or dispose them to undertake their doctorates as part-time candidates. This chapter explains the ways in which part-time candidates’ various qualities and circumstances can be marshalled to good effect by supervisors to help them produce good doctorates that are of significant benefit beyond academe. The chapter considers the approaches that supervisors can use to help can didates maximise ways for their employment and doctoral study to work for each other. It discusses the ways in which planning and monitoring the five to six years’ part-time candidature helps to increase the benefits and reduce the effects of workplace, family and other pressures on candidature. This chapter presents

113


2/5/07 11:42:05 AM


a sequence of strategies that supervisors may adopt with part-time doctoral candidates to position themselves for a successful future. Such strategies include: • establishing productive and effective supervisory relationships • planning the times and spaces for study • helping candidates select a topic and research design that blend with their work or other circumstances • identifying and planning for research dissemination and publication that is effective for their work and other contexts • helping to form productive relationships with other doctoral candidates.

The benefits of supervising part-time candidates Supervisors of part-time candidates may experience particular benefits over supervising full-time candidates, although there also may be some difficulties. There is a considerable diversity among part-time candidates, but there are some trends that we can identify. At commencement, they are typically aged anywhere between their mid-thirties to mid-fifties. They are usually employed full-time in a responsible position, sometimes in their own business. They earn a good salary—sometimes higher than their supervisors! About 40 per cent are employed in academic work. Although they may have a job that requires travel, they typically live in their own home, often with a partner or spouse. They often have obligations or responsibilities to children and/or elderly parents. These aspects are all likely to be marked contrasts to most full-time candidates, with the exception of family responsibilities or obligations that may also affect some full-time candidates. Part-time candidates tend to be concentrated in the professionally related dis ciplines (education, health, social and behavioural sciences, IT, business). These now outnumber the natural and physical sciences and the humanities and social sciences in terms of doctoral graduations per year. It assists part-time candidates if they undertake research that is related to their professional interests and is of direct or indirect benefit to their employer—for both PhDs and professional doctorates. Often part-time candidates enrol with this in mind, but there are benefits if their supervisors can ensure and endorse this approach. Therefore, this means that candidates are well placed to ensure that their research has an impact in their professional or workplace context, and/or in the community. However, they may not realise this aspect and therefore need their supervisors’ encouragement to consider effective ways to inform their workplace of their findings. There are other benefits to universities having part-time candidates. These candidates demand and consume fewer university resources to support their candidature. Often they provide their own facilities (in Australia they may be able to claim a tax deduction, although not so in Aotearoa New Zealand) and

114


2/5/07 11:42:06 AM

effective supervision of part-time candidates

sometimes their employers directly or indirectly provide some resources for their candidature. Part of the reason for the lesser demand on university resources is that part-time candidates are often off-campus (either formally or de facto) and therefore provide their own office and other facilities. In addition, full-time candidates usually require scholarships (that is, stipends for living expenses) that can amount up to $60 000–$90 000 over the period of candidature. Although part-time candidates have lower retention rates (that is, they are less likely to complete their doctorates than full-time candidates), they generally complete in slightly less equivalent candidature to full-time candidates (if we assume parttime candidature is half-time, which is what most universities do). On this basis, it can be said that part-time doctoral candidates are ‘good value’, so it is very important that we supervise them well.

Considering supervision Establishing a good working relationship with any doctoral candidate is essential, so it is important to do so also with a new part-time candidate. Instead of a doctorate being akin to paid work for a full-time scholarship-holding candidate, for the part-time candidate it is usually an activity they have to squeeze in along side their work. In effect, they typically undertake their study in their leisure time and it is something that will occupy them (partly, but persistently) for about six years. Therefore, the university also makes a similar commitment to the candidate in terms of its physical and human resources for this period. In particular, it undertakes to provide appropriate supervision. An implication is that this does not mean that candidates will necessarily have the same supervisor throughout. It is typical for university staff to spend about five or six years in a position, but they do resign or retire (even die), so arrangements sometimes need to be made for a change of supervision. Deciding to supervise a part-time doctoral candidate is a matter that should be considered in the same terms when supervising a full-time candidate. For a potential supervisor, there are advantages and disadvantages with either mode of enrolment. Indeed, some full-time candidates change to part-time, and vice versa, so it pays not to be too fixed in one’s thinking on these matters. It is a good idea to have a phone (or face-to-face) conversation with the can didate about their proposed doctorate before you agree to supervise. In effect, the supervisor is not only testing out the topic and personal compatibility, but also one of the main means by which they will be communicating during candidature. Of course, email is probably the main way in which many ideas and drafts will be transmitted and comments provided, as happens with full-time candidates. Sometimes a conversation may be required to discuss ideas, problems and sug gestions, and voice communication by phone, audio-link (or audio/video) by computer or in person will be necessary. Supervisors need to establish early about

115


2/5/07 11:42:06 AM


who will organise the call and the frequency of the expected communication. After the initial conversation, the supervisor will be in a position to determine if sufficient rapport has developed and the ‘ground work’ has been laid for the next few months of candidature. It is beneficial in this initial conversation to discuss what is involved in com pleting a doctorate and the sort of commitment required from the candidate in order to do so. In particular, a part-time doctorate is not just a matter of adding what might be seen as another part-time job to a candidate’s normal working life. It is something they can expect will intrude on their mind, their time and their lives, and occasionally even take over! This means that those important people in their lives will be affected, whether they like it or not. It is worth suggesting that, if they have not done so, they consult their family and even talk to the friends who might be ignored socially for a few years. They may even consult colleagues and their employer, but this may be something they are reluctant to do, depending on the circumstances. It is also important to establish whether you will be able to work together, whether they have the ideas that you can work with to help them produce a good doctorate, and whether they understand the impact the doctorate will have on their lives. In reality, it is this impact on their lives that is particularly different from working with full-time candidates. Assuming these three aspects are adjudged in the affirmative and that all other requirements for candidature are met, then the next matters to consider are after the initial enrolment has been completed.

First steps Given that, typically, part-time candidates are mid-career professional people, it is important to recognise and respect their experience and expertise. It can be counter-productive for a relatively junior supervisor to adopt time-management and goal-setting strategies that they may well find useful with new full-time doctoral candidates who have just completed their honours degrees. Many part-time candidates know how to manage time and budgets, achieve goals and schedules, and get the kids to tennis or swimming. It is often said that to get a job done on time, give the task to a busy person. It is therefore important that the supervisor and the institution treat part-time candidates as mid-career professionals. A problem for part-time candidates is more likely to be about prioritisation. Work pays the bills and parenthood has personal, moral and legal imperatives; therefore, it is obvious that ‘their’ doctorate is not going to be first priority. It is nonetheless the supervisor’s job to ensure that the doctorate gets to ‘first priority’ sufficiently often to reach completion. Given that it is important to respect the candidate’s expertise and experience, a useful way to commence the first supervision engagement is with a conversation

116


2/5/07 11:42:07 AM


about how the candidate works and what sort of assistance they will need from their supervisor. Some candidates are very well organised and task-oriented and will keep themselves on schedule. They may say that what they want is advice about reading, comments on their work and ideas, and assurance that what they are doing is of a sufficient doctoral quality. Some supervisors report that their part-time candidates’ work comes in clearly, even elegantly, written and the supervisors’ experiences are relatively pleasurable. Others say that their candidates need prodding and nagging to keep their work going so that the candidate can claim that ‘I have to get this done for my supervisor’ (… and that’s why they can’t go to the theatre, take the kids skiing, entertain a colleague or client, or paint the house). In effect, the supervisor is portrayed as a bit of an ogre for whom the candidates have to do work, when really it is a ruse constructed for their mutual benefit! There will be other styles of working, but these examples indicate the subtlety that is required to manage supervision effectively and professionally. It is expected that supervisors will keep their candidates on schedule. Therefore, irrespective of candidates’ approaches to their doctoral work, it is essential that supervisors monitor progress and intervene where necessary. Such intervention needs to appreciate the candidates’ circumstances, and so flexibility is often required. However, it can be a difficult judgement to make with new candidates. They may say that ‘things have been busy at work’ and that they will catch up. But how does the supervisor really know that both parties similarly understand the magnitude and nature of the work involved? If the candidate does share the supervisor’s understanding and successful efforts are made to return to schedule, then there is a basis for the supervisor to trust the candidate’s judgement relating to subsequent matters. If not, however, it is important that supervisors do not allow the problems to escalate to levels where it is difficult or even impossible to retrieve. As fellow professionals, candidates should respect supervisors’ judgement and realise that they have a responsibility and the expertise to exercise it. It is useful to understand the candidate’s family circumstances and how these may affect candidature. Some may have a spouse or partner who is most support ive and who has skills and expertise that may be brought to bear. For example, some candidates may come from a family with academic and/or graduate research credentials. Not only will they understand what the candidate has to do, but they may well be a useful mentor, proofreader or statistics adviser. Others may have a partner who is an English teacher or a librarian and their skills may help at particular stages. Of course, it may work the other way. There may be children who resent mum or dad working on their doctorate instead of helping them with their homework, or husbands and wives who think that a doctorate is an indulgence and that their relationship could well do without this qualification. Depending on how things evolve, the supervisor may experience being positioned as something of a confidant or family counsellor, or at least as a sympathetic ear.

117


2/5/07 11:42:07 AM


Despite the shifts in gender relations over the past decades, there remain some significant gender differences in family and work relations that may make balancing work and family priorities different for men and women. It is also the case that while we tend to think of family responsibilities as those of a ‘parent’ candidate being responsible for their children, it is often common to have to deal with a ‘child’ candidate having to cope with elderly parents. At this point it is worth distinguishing between family and work matters that are relatively constant or are regular responsibilities and priorities, and those that are unexpected or episodic to which one has to respond at the time in a sympathetic and flexible manner. In the case of the former, the supervisor can help the candidate understand what needs to be negotiated so that their doctorate can be inserted and managed successfully. Essentially they need to find about 16 to 18 hours per week for about 45 weeks of each year in order to study. If there is no overlap or support from work, then this will mean working about two evenings per week and one day at the weekend, or working for two hours or so early mornings and a good half-day at the weekend, or a few hours during the week and full-time during their holidays. Similar to the family matters discussed above, part-time doctoral candidates’ paid employment can be viewed as something that comprises regular responsi bilities and priorities that need to be negotiated so that their doctorate can be inserted and managed successfully. Many candidates choose a topic that is related to their profession or workplace. In these circumstances, a supervisor may be able to help the candidate make some useful strategic decisions to ensure that some of their paid work (for example, thinking, reading and writing) may overlap with their doctorate. Every equivalent hour per week, or day per month, is time saved from the ‘private’ doctoral candidature time. Some employers encourage (or even require) further study and, although a few are not as helpful as they might be, often they do provide some regular study time—even as little as half a day per month is useful. Occasionally, employers may offer blocks of time, such as one or two weeks, or even one or two months, but this occurs usually later in candidature after progress has been demonstrated. Particular candidates may arrange for long-service leave, unpaid leave or holidays at a time that suits their candidature and financial circumstances.

Integrating work and study Mobility Some candidates have jobs that require them to work irregular hours, or travel interstate or overseas for days or weeks at a time. Supervisors can help candidates to see the advantages, rather than the hindrances, that can flow from these cir

118


2/5/07 11:42:08 AM


cumstances. For example, there is often ‘time off in lieu’ that can be used for study, or the time spent on planes and in hotel rooms can be used for doctoral reading, thinking and writing. Having a laptop computer is a great advantage for any candidate, but especially so for the highly mobile part-time candidate. Nowadays, universities have arrange ments with publishers so that journal articles can be downloaded, data can be stored and analysed on a computer and, of course, writing is a computer art! Therefore, a laptop computer enables a part-time doctoral candidate to work almost any time and anywhere they get the opportunity in their busy lives. It is essential that supervisors impress upon their candidates that regular backups are required and stored independently and separately from the laptop computer. For example, a backup of an EndNote library, the data and the thesis draft should be on a separate drive or disc at work or at home, and not with the computer in case it is stolen. Ideally all work should be retained as two independently stored backup copies.

The topic at work Another way in which candidates’ employment may be of benefit is where the topic contributes to efficiencies in the workplace. Although matters of research and professional ethics and of intellectual property may arise that need careful consideration, nonetheless there may be important benefits in sharing findings with colleagues, or potentially improving work practices, quality, services and/or productivity. Several questions could be raised: If the candidate’s research can be of direct benefit to their work, can some of their doctoral work be done at work? Is some of their paid work useful for their doctorate? Is the candidate required to do work-related reading that may also form part of their literature review? Can the workplace be a/the site of research? Can equipment and other material resources at work be used for the research? Often, there is an affirmative answer to these questions, leaving the part-time candidate much better placed than their full-time on-campus peers to complete their doctorate efficiently and for it to have a useful benefit outside of academe.

Doctoral ‘afterlife’ Part-time candidates generally rely less on their former supervisors after gradu ation than their full-time peers do. The latter often need help to find a job or a postdoctoral research placement, and require advice on networking and finding work, as well as references from their supervisors. The former typically have jobs, networks and referees they can use, depending on the nature of any new position they are seeking. Also, part-time graduates are often more likely to be useful to their supervisor by means of their professional links and new research

119


2/5/07 11:42:08 AM


skills. For example, in pursuing research funding opportunities with industry, commerce, the public sector or community organisations, supervisors may have very useful strategic allies in their part-time doctoral graduates who are well placed within (or even own) the businesses or organisations concerned. Likewise, when the graduates are looking for consultants, advisers or keynote speakers, their doctoral supervisor may well come to mind.

Concluding comments From the first phone conversation or meeting, supervisors and their part-time candidates embark on a journey that will take about six years. The nature of part-time candidates, their work and doctoral studies is such that supervisors are going to experience and learn things from outside of their university that most full-time candidates are unable to provide. The value of part-time candidature often goes unrecognised, but is becoming increasingly appreciated by those ‘in the know’. Questions

1 Imagine you are a part-time doctoral candidate in your current job. How would you fit the study into your life? What sorts of service and support would you appreciate from your supervisor and your university? 2 As a supervisor, in what ways might you maximise the mutual benefits of having a part-time mid-career doctoral candidate? 3 As a former supervisor of your part-time doctoral graduate, how do you think you and your graduate can help each other to sustain your research, scholarship and professional work? Acknowledgements

I acknowledge the useful comments and suggestions made by Ineke Kranenburg, Brian Pauling, Kevin Ryland and Jennifer Thompson. Ineke, Brian and Jennifer are part-time candidates in Aotearoa New Zealand; Kevin is a full-time candidate in Australia whose doctoral research concerns the work of part-time doctoral candidates.

120


2/5/07 11:42:09 AM

C HAPTER 1 6

Thinking like a researcher Margaret Kiley The Australian National University

Introduction How do researchers think? This is an apparently simple question, but in fact one which poses a range of further questions. For example, if we are considering the work of an academic researcher, does it matter in which discipline the researcher is located, or in which type of research institute? Or we might think about research outside an academic context such as researching information prior to buying a new car or for a school project, or for the development of a policy paper in the public service. The focus of this chapter, however, is on academic research and the research education required during the doctoral experience (and to some extent, the masters and honours experience). Candidates may well commence their research degree with a different conception of research and what it is to be a researcher as compared with that of their supervisor. Hence, gaining an in-depth understanding as to how candidates view research is a very useful process. This chapter also provides information on selected studies of supervisors’ and candidates’ concep tions of research and recent thinking on conceptual thresholds, with particular attention to those thresholds related to research. Finally, strategies that supervisors have found helpful in assisting candidates to think like a researcher through understanding a number of critical concepts on their research journey are included.

121


2/5/07 11:42:09 AM


What conceptions of research do researchers have? Brew (2001) interviewed senior researchers regarding their views of research and identified four main conceptions: 1 ‘Domino’, where the researcher sees research as a series of distinct tasks that have to be undertaken 2 ‘Trading’, where research is something that the researcher ‘trades’ for other things such as promotion, recognition and money 3 ‘Layer’ or uncovering, where the researcher brings to light something that is hidden or needs illuminating 4 ‘Journey’, where ‘activities … are viewed as relevant to research because they inform the life issues which underpin the research questions’. (pp. 276–79) Kiley and Mullins (2005) looked specifically at the conceptions of research that supervisors reported they held, and how these related to their candidates. In this study, supervisors viewed research as systematic inquiry (with a purpose), hypothesis testing, critical inquiry, discovering or producing new knowledge and understanding. Furthermore, some considered research as a contribution to the development of their discipline and academic scholarship. When supervisors were asked what they thought were the characteristics of successful researchers, they reported: personal qualities, research skills and intellectual qualities. Examples of personal qualities included ‘perseverance’, ‘enthusiasm’, ‘willing to take respons ibility for their own research’ and ‘able to cope with failure and success’. Examples of research skills were ‘good documenter of evidence’, ‘attentive to detail’ and ‘systematic’. Finally, examples of intellectual qualities included ‘curious and open to new ways of thinking’, ‘innovative’, ‘able to think laterally’, ‘problem-solver and good analytical skills’. A different way of thinking about research is proposed by Åkerlind (in press). She argues that research can be categorised by: those affected by the research, the anticipated outcomes, the research questions, the process, and the researcher’s feelings about their work. While research strategies and techniques might vary with disciplines, many of the characteristics of academic researchers almost certainly apply across the majority of disciplines. Early in candidature, discussion with candidate and supervisory panel members on what they jointly think research is—that is, their conception(s) of research—may be a very useful way of helping a candidate to ‘think like a researcher’. Such a conversation may also assist candidates to consider and locate their research project within a much broader research framework and in a more integrated and holistic manner. Questions based on the categories suggested by Åkerlind are presented here as a useful way to commence the discussion: • Who is likely to be affected by your research? (For example, you as the researcher, your colleagues, others elsewhere, particularly overseas)

122


2/5/07 11:42:10 AM

thinking like a researcher

• What might be the anticipated benefits or disadvantages of the research? (For example, a sense of personal achievement, greater knowledge and the solving of problems) • Will your research questions be related to a very specific aspect of a particular field, or do you want to approach your research from a broad multidisciplinary approach? • What is the research process? (For example, gathering data and/or creating new knowledge) • How do you feel about the research process? (For example, passionate, frus trated, businesslike) Answers from the candidate will give an indication of their conception of know ledge as well as their conception of research and can help the supervisor guide thinking where necessary.

What conceptions of research might candidates have? Undertaking doctoral research is generally viewed as a transformative experi ence. That is, candidates will see themselves and their world differently as a result of undertaking a research degree. Whether this is a positive or negative transformation is largely dependent on the supervisor and the research experience, including their mutual or differing understandings of what the research process is all about. Meyer, Shanahan and Laugksch (2005) suggest that candidates can hold a range of views about research; for example, research as: • • • • •

gathering information discovering truth a process of creating new insights re-searching; that is, re-looking at what others have done finding solutions to problems.

However, they also identified a number of other views of research that for many supervisors would come as a shock and cause for concern; for example, that ‘correctly followed research procedures will always yield positive results; when qualified people do research the results are always unbiased; it is acceptable to modify research data if it does not look exactly right; research becomes true after it is published; if research is properly conducted then contradictory, findings will never occur’ (p. 236). Nonetheless, these views pose an interesting question: How would a supervisor know if a research candidate with whom they were working held one of the above views and what would be the indicators? The research undertaken by Meyer et al. (2005) and Kiley and Mullins (2005) was precipitated by the experiences of an international research candidate from a

123


2/5/07 11:42:10 AM


small regional university who was undertaking a research masters. Every time the candidate was asked how his research was progressing, he recited a litany of prob lems: his computer wasn’t working, his supervisor was away, his children were sick, his supervisor didn’t respond to requests and so on. After 12 months, it was clear that he had accomplished little in the way of ‘research’. His supervisor, who was new to supervision, also raised many concerns about the candidate’s work, but put it down to his lack of experience and language problems, and then even suggested that the candidate was perhaps not capable of undertaking a research degree. Some way into his second year this candidate sought assistance with writing from a skilled lecturer working in the academic support unit. The lecturer asked him about the way he was undertaking the research, to which the reply was: going to the library, reading what others had done, summarising, and then providing an example from his research area. It came as a great shock to the candidate that the meaning of the word ‘research’, in the way it was used at the university, was not the literal translation ‘re-search’—that is, re-looking at what others had done and summarising. Rather, it was finding out something new and making an original contribution to knowledge. By the time the candidate came to this understanding and his supervisor realised the difficulty that he had been having, it was too late to undertake a sound research project. Clearly there were many issues involved here, but one can appreciate that the supervisor had not identified a number of the key concepts and then assisted this candidate in addressing and understanding them in order to progress.

What are the key concepts in successful research? Meyer and Land (2006) suggest that successful learners negotiate a number of threshold concepts as they learn and develop within their discipline. A threshold concept is like a portal or doorway opening up a new and previously inaccessible way of thinking about something; without this new way of seeing, the learner cannot progress to more sophisticated and complex understandings. Hence, a threshold concept is often described as transformative. Furthermore, they suggest that threshold concepts are integrative in that they bring into focus the relationships of various understandings that were previously seen as separate or disparate. Another characteristic is that to gain a new perspective is irreversible; having crossed a conceptual threshold, the understanding and transformation cannot be ‘undone’. In many cases candidates report that this understanding is counter-intuitive, and hence a final characteristic is it can be seen as ‘troublesome’ (pp. 7–8). Meyer and Land argue that threshold concepts are more than core concepts. ‘[They are] something distinct within what university teachers would typically describe as ‘core concepts’ (p. 6) as they lead to a qualitatively different

124


2/5/07 11:42:11 AM


view of the subject matter. So, a threshold concept is generally transformative, integrative, irreversible and often troublesome. More recent work by Wisker, Kiley and Aiston (2006) begins to examine the threshold concepts with which doctoral candidates need to engage and appreciate. One such threshold concept might be ‘theoretical framework’ and what it means within the discipline. Another area that is emerging from current research is the concept of ‘an original contribution of knowledge’; for example, ‘getting students to go beyond simply rehearsing the critical positions of others to come up with their own theoretical/methodological insights and/or come up with their own analyses’. A threshold concept that is ‘troublesome’ will assist a research candidate to see their research and their discipline differently, integrate other aspects of their research and progress forward but not return to their ‘pre-threshold’ state of knowledge. The notion of a portal through which learners progress evokes the image of new and broader vistas of understanding opening up and providing perspectives on the field of research previously only glimpsed. Clearly it is important for supervisors to have an understanding of the threshold concepts in their own discipline, and in research more generally, so that they are able to assist their candidates to come to terms with those fundamental issues and hence assist them in moving forward. It has been suggested that the doctoral journey is itself one long threshold concept and that as one emerges successfully at the end, then one has crossed the doctoral conceptual threshold. However, there are a number of threshold concepts that contribute to this journey. Some candidates start the journey having crossed many of these thresholds as undergraduates or in honours or other research learning. For others, their journey consists of moving through many portals, each time enabling a new appreciation and understanding of the discipline in substantially different and more sophisticated ways. Important roles during this process for a supervisor are: • identifying the threshold concepts for their discipline; • identifying where candidates are located in relation to these concepts; and • having a range of strategies available to assist students with these understandings.

How might a supervisor assist a student to think like a researcher? As a supervisor you might become aware of a candidate not ‘thinking like a researcher’ when they seem not to have made progress, despite time and effort (from you and them). This lack of progress might well be an indicator that the candidate has not moved through a particular ‘portal’ and so is limited in their

125


2/5/07 11:42:11 AM


understanding and appreciation of the concept, which is necessary at this stage of their research development to ensure progress. One of the simplest strategies that a supervisor can adopt in encouraging candidates to acknowledge and address their own ways of thinking about research is to quite explicitly discuss their understandings of research and the process involved. Questions such as the following have been found to be helpful in assisting candidates to express their developing understanding of research: • How would you explain to someone who is not involved in academia what ‘research’ is (in this discipline)? • What do you think are the characteristics or features of ‘good research’ (in this discipline)? • How do you think ‘research’ (in this discipline) differs from that which is recog nised or accepted in other disciplines? • What do you think are the main reasons for doing ‘research’ (in this discipline)? Other strategies include the following: • Guided discussion in groups, with more advanced students discussing their experiences with the less experienced ones. The questions noted above might be helpful as prompts in this discussion. Inviting candidates to talk about what they think are the conceptual thresholds for research and the discipline could then lead to candidates identifying ways in which they have addressed and understood these concepts. • Talk out loud to candidates as you work through a research issue yourself. • Provide supportive, yet challenging, opportunities for candidates to present their work; for example, in seminars and conferences where peers and col leagues are likely to pose the sorts of questions that require an understanding of research and what it means to be a researcher. • Encourage candidates to write early and often. Supervisors might find it useful to ask: • What am I expecting to see in candidates’ work in terms of standards, conceptual-level writing and expression? • What were my own conceptual learning leaps (or the ‘ah-ha!’ moments) when I was learning to be a researcher? For example, when did I fully grasp the concept of a ‘thesis’ as a form or argument, as well as being the term used to describe the monograph? • Were there activities or comments that helped me with those moments? For example, was it something a supervisor or a fellow candidate said, or was it in a conference presentation? • How do colleagues assist their own candidates in addressing threshold concepts? Is it through modelling, or questioning or …?

126


2/5/07 11:42:11 AM


Concluding comments Our understanding of conceptual thresholds at the research level is at an early stage. However, we do know that there are conceptual thresholds in each discip line, which candidates need to cross if they are to be successful researchers. Some will commence candidature having crossed many of them, others will be just starting. Those threshold concepts will also vary according to each discipline. However, it is critical for a supervisor to be aware of issues such as the way that their candidates view and understand research, what it is to be a researcher in a particular discipline, and the kinds of understandings involved in that journey. As far as this chapter is concerned, the opening question might be: ‘How can I help my research students to think like researchers?’ And the answer might be: ‘Ask them what research is!’ Questions

1 If asked, how would you describe research in your discipline and what are the most important threshold concepts that help you theorise and engage with the ways in which your discipline sees the world, and constructs knowledge and meaning? 2 What would you propose as the characteristics of a successful researcher in your discipline? 3 How might the international candidate described earlier have been helped to understand what was meant by ‘undertaking a research degree’ much earlier in his candidature? Acknowledgement

I would like to acknowledge Mai Linh Huynh for her assistance and interest in this research. References

Åkerlind, G (in press), ‘An academic perspective on research and being a researcher: An integration of the literature’, Studies in Higher Education. Brew, A 2001, ‘Conceptions of research: A phenomenographic study’, Studies in Higher Education, vol. 26(3), pp. 271–85. Kiley, M & Mullins, G 2005, ‘Supervisors’ conceptions of research: What are they?’, Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, vol. 49(3), pp. 245–62. Meyer, J & Land, R (eds) 2006, Overcoming barriers to student understanding: Threshold concepts and troublesome knowledge, Routledge, Abingdon. Meyer, J, Shanahan, M & Laugksch, R 2005, ‘Students’ conceptions of research: A qualitative and quantitative analysis’, Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, vol. 49(3), pp. 225–44. Wisker, G, Kiley, M & Aiston, S 2006, ‘Making the learning leap: Research students crossing conceptual thresholds’, in M Kiley & G Mullins (eds), Quality in postgraduate research: Knowledge creation in testing times, CEDAM, The Australian National University, Canberra, pp. 195–201.

127


2/5/07 11:42:12 AM


2/5/07 11:42:12 AM

SECTION 5

Issues of care


2/5/07 11:42:12 AM

C HAPTER 1 7

Recognising and responding to candidates’ health needs Kenneth Kirkby University of Tasmania

Introduction The close nature of the supervisory relationship over an extended period of three to five years offers ample opportunity to witness any ‘slings and arrows of outrageous fortune’ affecting the life and health of the candidate, and to assist in mitigating their impact. For many candidates, their doctoral studies are undertaken through a period of youthful good health and positive developments in their social and family life, not to mention the challenge, excitement and camaraderie of their research activities. Many are less fortunate. A range of physical and mental illnesses are common in the community and offer no exemptions for scholarly high performers. Diseases such as asthma and diabetes, infections such as glandular fever or hepatitis, musculoskeletal injuries, mental disorders such as depression, or severe forms of anxiety and substance abuse are commonly encountered problems. There are many diseases that are less common, but that emerge from time to time, such as psychosis, leukaemia or multiple sclerosis. Adverse life circumstances may also take their toll, ranging from relationship breakups and family discord, to pressures juggling paid employment or financial difficulties. For some, the stresses and strains of doctoral studies per se may be a con tributing factor to illness, particularly in the development of anxiety states, depression or substance abuse. As a reference point, around 55 per cent of the total burden of disease in Australian youth under the age of 25 is due to mental

130


2/5/07 11:42:13 AM

recognising and responding to candidates’ health needs

illness and substance abuse, with injuries next on the list (Moon, Meyer and Grau 1999). Overall rates of disease burden attenuate slightly in the following decade of life, particularly due to reduction in motor vehicle accidents as drivers become more experienced. The average age of doctoral candidates is currently around 35 years, though this varies by cohort and depending on the field of study. While illnesses are many and varied, their relevance to doctoral progress depends on their impact, which is a product of the features of the particular illness and the demands inherent in the doctoral research. Doctoral studies that involve a performance component such as music or dance may be seriously interrupted by physical injury to a limb or back. Doctorates that require travel (for example, extensive field trips) may be threatened by physical injuries reducing mobility such as a torn knee cartilage, or by development of epilepsy with loss of driving licence. The many intellectual requirements of doctoral studies place a high premium on attention, memory, planning and motivation that may be impaired by brain injury from a car accident, pain, mental disorders such as anxiety and depression, or the effects of substance abuse. Distracting life circumstances, including experiences of grief after, say, losing a grandparent or parent, may similarly impact on academic achievement; even the vagaries of falling in love may upturn emotional life and academic progress. With some reflection, all supervisors will be able to identify past examples of such interactions from their lifetime of observations as a student and as a teacher. In academe, concerns regarding the health status of candidates are not an abstraction but an everyday issue.

Warning signs There is a dictum in medicine that common things occur commonly. As noted, the major categories of disabling health problems in a number of doctoral candidate age brackets relate to substance abuse, depression and anxiety, and injuries, both accidental and self-inflicted. There is a gender split, with substance abuse (particularly alcohol) and accidental injury being predominantly in males, and depression being several times more common in females. • The warning signs suggestive of substance abuse include observed excessive consumption, expressions of concern by others, obvious intoxication (drunk or ‘stoned’), absenteeism, particularly following weekends, or complications such as car accidents or drink-driving offences. Regular marijuana consumption commonly results in reduced motivation and may precipitate psychosis. • The typical presentation of depression includes low mood, lack of motivation and drive, difficulty sleeping, reduced appetite and weight loss, social with drawal, reduced confidence, pessimism and thinking life is not worth living or thoughts of ending it all.

131


2/5/07 11:42:13 AM


• Features of anxiety include unrealistic thoughts of catastrophic outcomes (for example, contracting a fatal illness, failure and humiliation, the house burning down due to carelessness), agitation, tremor, muscle tension, sweating, heart palpitations, lying awake worrying. • The most common forms of injury relate to car accidents. Most injuries are obvious. Head injuries may cause concussion, potentially requiring some time to recuperate full mental prowess. None of these common conditions are mutually exclusive; for example, alcohol abuse may reduce academic performance leading to worry about failing; worry reduces concentration; a car accident may ensue with mild concussion. All of these intertwined problems may manifest in impaired academic progress.

Addressing health issues Doctoral supervision has a strong emphasis on problem solving—finding the right articles, teaming up with the right people, developing and revising experimental designs and procedures, and so forth. From the supervisor’s perspective, health problems enter the same equation as another type of challenge to the progress of research and scholarly learning, but one that requires a different class of solutions. The supervisor also has a vested interest in their candidates being well placed to take their skills out into the world after the completion of studies. Addressing health issues is one way to safeguard such outcomes. Most health problems can be ameliorated by appropriate treatment. In the majority of cases, candidates will seek and obtain appropriate care on their own initiative or on the advice of family or friends, without needing input from the supervisor or institution. Usually the first port of call will be a general practitioner. Many younger candidates do not have regular contact with a GP, other than females in relation to contraceptive needs. If illness is evident, and particularly where academic performance is impaired, then medical assessment is appropriate and thought must be given to how this can be achieved. Educational institutions have a range of services and personnel available with whom the supervisor can consult in confidence to ascertain by whom and how medical referral can best be promoted or assisted. Consultation may involve an initial discussion between the supervisor and, for example, the departmental Head of Student Affairs, or a staff member of Student Health deputed to advise in such matters. This communication will link the supervisor to staff who are well versed in student health matters and familiar with referral options and protocols. In the case of substance abuse or severe mental illness such as psychosis, the candidate may deny or lack understanding of their problems and a concerted and assertive approach may be required.

132


2/5/07 11:42:14 AM


Appropriate divisions of responsibility are required so that supervisors can concentrate on supporting candidates in their doctoral work and helping to problem-solve ways around any impediments imposed by illness. It is not the role of the supervisor to ascertain diagnoses, advise on treatment or provide coun selling for psychiatric illness. Clarity of roles is especially important when the supervisor is a trained health practitioner; the candidate is not their patient, and an immediate conflict of interest would arise if this boundary is blurred since the supervisor is required to provide objective and frank assessments of the can didate’s progress. In some instances, occupational health and safety concerns will be raised by the nature of the illness and must be addressed. These concerns may range from the need for ergonomic assessment (for example, for workspace requirements for an individual with back or neck pain), to precautions or proscription for procedures such as taking blood, or catheterisation in medical research if the candidate carries a blood-borne virus such as hepatitis C or HIV. Rarely, in druginduced or spontaneous psychosis, there may be threatening or violent behaviour necessitating urgent intervention by the police in the first instance, to triage, to acute medical care.

Working around health problems Once a health problem has been acknowledged or confirmed and health care providers are engaged, there is an opportunity to make any adjustments to the research plan of the candidate. Rescheduling of research time lines may be necessary to accommodate time off with acute illness, or to factor in treatment obligations or delays due to incapacities. Flexibility will be required where ill nesses fluctuate and a period of suspension from candidature is requested. There may be requirements under university statutes regarding aspects of candidature such as notifications to the Office of Graduate Affairs, variation of enrolment and duration of studies and submission deadlines. Ongoing eligibility for scholarship support may require some notification or variation. Occupational health and safety issues may require formal notification and, in some circum stances, communication to the Ethics Committee is required (for example, if risks arise for research subjects as in the example above of blood-borne viruses). With the agreement of the candidate, it may be relevant to learn some basic details of the illness. For example, a candidate with diabetes may be able to study without difficulty, yet run the risk of a low sugar (hypoglycaemic) episode result ing in becoming drowsy and possibly unconscious. This event is easily averted in most cases by administering glucose sweets; in later stages an ambulance may be required.

133


2/5/07 11:42:14 AM


Learning relevant first aid or reading a fact sheet from the GP or a reputable internet site (such as Diabetes Australia) is a practical and useful measure. Similarly, where a candidate develops a depressive illness there is advice available from beyondblue: the National Depression Initiative. As well as being informative, such resources also stress the value and avenues of professional help, and the gains to be anticipated from evidence-based treatments. Such action can help in forming an understanding and supportive group of friends and colleagues to assist in minimising the health burden and mitigating risks. Due respect must be given to the candidate’s right to privacy, personal sensitivities and potential embarrassment—for example, in conditions such as pelvic diseases, communicable infections, or illicit drug use. Clearly, there is no one-size-fits-all approach and the supervisor is well advised to seek guidance from an informed source such as the Student Health Service. Some forms of illness are typically covered by third party insurance, such as injuries sustained in a car accident. In this case, a funded rehabilitation plan may include some practical and financial support for ongoing studies. Such support may also be obtained for some clients of public health services—for example, people with spinal cord injuries who may have full intellectual capacity but require significant support for daily living. In such instances it will be important to define which contact persons within the institution (for example, involving the Student Disability Office) are in the best position to liaise with outside providers. The illnesses that may prove most challenging to the supervisor are typically forms of anxiety and depression where the symptoms and the impairments are centred on the doctoral studies. For example, in the form of anxiety disorder known as obsessive-compulsive disorder, the sufferer commonly develops pre occupations that something will go dreadfully wrong unless they check things over and over again. Thus they may believe they have made mistakes in data entry, which will invalidate their results, and so develop elaborate rituals to check data repeatedly, without resolution of their anxiety. Most supervisors value a candidate who attends to detail, is methodical and crosschecks data. They may respond to the emerging anxiety of the candidate by suggesting they check all the data thoroughly, by way of reassurance. This approach will unwittingly compound the problem. Both candidate and supervisor can end up repeatedly going through the anxious concerns, with vanishing returns on academic progress. It is important to step back in such circumstances and re-appraise where the problems lie (in this instance, does the problem lie primarily in what the person is worrying about— data integrity—or the fact that they are worrying about it—their anxiety, their brain). Substance abuse may be similarly entwined with the demands of studies. Alcohol may be used by a candidate by way of self-medication for anxiety, typically with deleterious results since, for example, panic symptoms are commonly pre cipitated during withdrawal from a binge the night before. Binge-drinking,

134


2/5/07 11:42:15 AM


typically getting drunk on weekends, is associated with subtle but significant impairment of intellectual function and memory throughout the week. A vicious cycle can develop as performance dips and anxiety rises, with more recourse to alcohol. Illicit drugs are also associated with cognitive impairment, particularly ecstasy, which is neurotoxic and impairs short-term memory (that is, impairs new learning). It would be reasonable to characterise everyday effects of mood-altering drugs on intellectual function as subtle, usually evident on sophisticated tests. However, it is precisely at the upper margins of complex mental function that the doctoral candidate is required to operate. In severe substance dependence the effects may be marked and obvious. Medications prescribed for anxiety or depression may also have an impact on intellectual function. Sedatives in particular, mostly benzodiazepines such as diazepam (Valium), may cause drowsiness and impair concentration and shortterm memory. Antidepressants are typically alerting, but a few have sedative effects; as there are many types of antidepressants, product information from the pharmacist or doctor is the best guide to a specific drug. Excessive tiredness or other side effects impinging on studies can be addressed by the patient and their clinician, according to the overall picture. What appear to be side effects may be ongoing symptoms, for example of depression. In the vast majority of cases, illness will be overcome or its impacts accom modated, and the doctoral studies will proceed to completion. In some cases, particularly those that may involve significant ongoing intellectual deficits (for example, following severe head injury or chronic psychosis), the capacity to meet the attainments required for completion may be lost. Typically, deliberations on such matters will be made by a school research committee, informed by annual reports on progress including those by the supervisor. Given their often close working relationship and any emotional dramas arising from the illness or injury, the supervisor may find this an awkward situation and is well advised to discuss their role with senior colleagues so that objective advice can be provided.

Looking after the supervisor The typically symbiotic relationship between supervisor and candidate—both of whom have a vested interest in a successful outcome—carries a particular vulnerability for both parties if illness strikes the candidate. Illness may threaten academic and career outcomes that both have striven towards for some years, including the fruits of success such as publications, recognition and promotion. There is also a strongly human dimension in the ‘master–apprentice’ bond; often an abiding friendship develops. Grief or anger occasioned by illness that affects the candidate may therefore also be keenly felt by the supervisor. Future hopes may be replaced by disappointment, optimism with resignation, and buoyancy with burden when a disabling illness takes hold. Such feelings may sit uneasily in

135


2/5/07 11:42:15 AM


a crowded working week, and be particularly confronting in a research environ ment where control and mastery are part of the modus operandi. After all, there are no exclusion criteria for becoming ill! Severe illness in a candidate younger than the supervisor may give rise to disquieting presentiments of the latter’s own mortality. Such diverse and complex feelings are both normal and valid, but emphasise the value of a team-based approach where difficulties can be shared, mutual support given and solutions pooled. It needs to be stated that supervisors are also human, and generally being older than candidates are more likely to themselves be dealing with a significant ill ness or other adversities of their own. This reality may in turn have significant implications for the candidate who will have some degree of reliance on the supervisor. In such circumstances, it is important to recognise that the candidate may be much less connected to support structures within the organisation than a staff member would be. In other words, illness in the supervisor should engender consideration of the support needs of the candidate.

Concluding comments Illnesses take many forms and their impacts may vary depending on the type of studies that are being undertaken. Supervisors need to encourage candidates to seek appropriate professional help when appropriate. Institutional mechanisms for advice to the supervisor, support of the candidate and handling of any candidature issues should be activated. Seeking advice will share the load, bring to bear the expertise available and maintain clear definition of the supervisor’s role. A key task for supervision is working with the candidate to tailor the doctoral project and time line to accommodate any impairment or time-out requirements occasioned by the illness. Where appropriate, the supervisor and other key colleagues can assist by learning basic facts about the illness from reputable sources in order to foster understanding, and have knowledge of first aid or other practical assistance. Questions

1 Think of two vignettes from your experiences as a teacher or supervisor, where the performance of the candidate was affected by physical or mental illness or injury. What actions were taken, who was involved, what was the outcome and, on reflection, would you recommend any changes or additions to the approach taken? 2 Using an internet search, locate fact sheets for depression (for example) from a reputable source that explain the symptoms, where to get help, treatment options and what role a work colleague can play.

136


2/5/07 11:42:16 AM


3 Brainstorm with a group of colleagues and using intranet searches, identify the various units or individuals within your educational institution that may be engaged when dealing with illness issues affecting a candidate in supervision. How clear are your institution’s protocols for these conditions or situations? References

beyondblue: the National Depression Initiative, retrieved 5 January 2007: http://www. beyondblue.org.au Diabetes Australia, retrieved 5 January 2007: http://www.diabetesaustralia.com.au Moon, L, Meyer, P & Grau, J 1999, Australia’s young people: Their health and wellbeing, Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, Canberra.

137


2/5/07 11:42:16 AM

C h a p t er 1 8

Disability and chronic illness: A lived experience Christopher Newell University of Tasmania

Introduction The chances are that in reading this chapter you are already delving into the complex world of disability and chronic illness. It may be that you are aware that a potential candidate lives with disability, or indeed you currently have a candidate whose situation raises particular requirements or questions. You might not even be sure how to act, or what to say, wishing not to give offence but also wanting to provide support. Regardless of the condition or circumstance, graduate research supervisors must uphold the rights of candidates who live with disability and in so doing support not just pious statements of rights but also the lived experience of diversity in higher education institutions. This chapter draws on my own life experience, as someone who has lived with disability all their life and who struggled to complete their doctorate. As a gradu ate research supervisor I continue to learn about the reality of disability within the privilege of occasionally supervising candidates with a disability. Hence, I am only too aware of the important role that supervisors can play—a role that can be enabling, or result in the imposition of disabling attitudes on doctoral candidates.

What is disability? ‘Disability’ means more than the obvious stereotype of someone in a wheelchair or other physically obvious impairments. Indeed, many candidates live with

138


2/5/07 11:42:16 AM

disability and chronic illness: a lived experience

hidden conditions that may be called an ‘illness’, ‘chronic condition’ or ‘disability’ depending on the approach that is taken. Disabilities range from mobility impair ments with people who use wheelchairs and other mobility aids, to candidates with pre-existing psychiatric, intellectual and/or sensory conditions and deficits. Often disability includes chronic illnesses, ranging from chronic fatigue syndrome through to conditions like chronic asthma and diabetes that can be markedly debilitating, even life threatening. Such conditions can be static, episodic, or indeed may be progressive (Anon. 2005). Major differences may be found between a candidate who has lived with impair ments or chronic conditions since early childhood, and the person with acquired impairment (possibly during candidature) for whom grief and loss can be a major factor. Consider the following: A deaf candidate who uses Auslan (Australian Sign Language) is likely to have congenital deafness and may not think of themselves as disabled. However, a candidate who is losing hearing or was deafened later in life will tend to identify with major life changes and need to cope with an added, invisible disability. The particular orientation leads to different outcomes, as the former may require an interpreter and the latter will require hearing augmentation. Furthermore, disability can be episodic, which serves as a frustration for all involved. Particular challenges surround those of us who struggle with limited physical energy or capacity to work, and who are constantly ‘juggling’ activities, family life and research needs that are coupled with the need for sustained and uninterrupted time. In my case, chronic pain and problems with oxygen levels impact on my mood in concert with the array of medications I am required to selfadminister daily. My best work occurs when I am lying down. The oral dictation of my doctoral work to a professional typist is an experience that stood me in good stead as an academic and consultant who today still contends with finite energy and inability to type for prolonged periods. Many disabilities, including chronic illness, are not necessarily static. It is quite possible that candidates will face deterioration or changes in the ways they need to meet their personal needs and study goals over the period of candidature. Yet for all the breadth of diversity within disability, there is one connection: the potential to experience discrimination and disadvantage due to narrow norms and the absence of appropriate and supportive policies.

Attitudes about disability Supervisors are likely to encounter a variety of attitudes from candidates (and other supervisors) about the perceived capacity of candidates. In my own case, I remember well the first tentative steps I took in speaking to my supervisor over the phone and daring to reveal the fact that I had a disability that would impact markedly on my ability to succeed. I expected to be rejected. I still remember with

139


2/5/07 11:42:17 AM


enormous gratitude a response that was accepting, that listened and asked me what it was that we could do together to address the needs that would emerge. Consequently as a supervisor, I have also encountered negative attitudes and behaviour towards candidates having a disability, which includes attitudes among senior university staff. In such instances I have stepped in to become an advocate for the candidate or potential candidate, checking at all times that what I have represented is also the perception of the candidate. It goes without saying that attitudes that imply that, because of a candidate’s disability, they inherently cannot succeed or they will require counselling or frequent medical certificates proving the impact of their condition, have no place in the contemporary world of doctoral research (Goggin and Newell 2005). A challenging thought is that some of the most inappropriate attitudes towards candidates with either a congenital or acquired disability have been the responses of graduate research supervisors. I still remember with shame one time wondering whether I should accept the supervision of a candidate others had rejected. As someone with a history of episodic admissions to hospital for mental illness, I knew that she would face an uphill battle. To my shame, I was afraid of the impact on my supervision track record. Yet, after a momentary self-evaluation, I supported her application. In retrospect, some of my best supervision occurred with this candidate. Unfortunately after a protracted period of time, the candidate made the decision that the realities of her condition and the impact of her drug regimen were too demanding. Recently, this former candidate reminded me of the letter I sent after the withdrawal had been finalised, in which I named and recognised the significant personal development and success that had occurred during her candidature. One of the underlying motivations for this response was that I recall with profound gratitude the people who assisted me during my candidature and, in so doing, I saw in action the maxim: ‘Do unto others as you would have done unto yourself.’ As a candidate, I recall my uncertainties and fears about whether I could cope and whether my physical limitations would be my undoing. Someone who was well socialised, at times I became fixated on all it was that I was unable to do. I also recall the enormous sense of surprise on completing my doctorate as my primary supervisor said to me: ‘Christopher, the only person who didn’t think that you would achieve your doctorate was yourself!’

Rights It is precisely because of the historical and frequent negative attitudes towards people with a variety of disabilities (including chronic illness) that specific legislation and relevant standards have been written in relation to education in order to prevent discriminatory practices. As graduate research supervisors, the knowledge that discriminatory practices towards individuals with disabilities is

140


2/5/07 11:42:17 AM


no longer acceptable, is vital. Supervisors play a crucial role in assisting candidates to claim their rights and avoid discrimination. In Australia, legislation such as the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (DDA) employs a very broad definition of disability. The Act applies to almost every government (federal, state, local), private organisation and individual, and covers the provision of education services. This Act means that, with a few notable exceptions, it is against the law to discriminate unreasonably against a person on the basis of disability, or indeed based on their association with a person with disability (Newell and Parmenter 2005). The definition of disability in the DDA includes: physical (including physical disfigurement), intellectual, psychiatric, sensory, neurological and learning dis abilities, as well as the presence in the body of disease-causing organisms. It covers past, future and imputed disability. In protecting the associates of people with disability, this Act also ensures that supervisors and advocates who are unfairly treated for being associated with a candidate with disability are protected. The Disability Standards for Education enacted in August 2005 by the Australian Parliament serves as subordinate legislation under the DDA. The standards slightly vary the way in which the DDA works in reality, and provides a detailed benchmark as to how the DDA applies to educational settings. As a result of the amendments, education providers (including organisations that develop or accredit curricula) may be required to make ‘reasonable adjustments’ to meet student need. Simply put, the Standards cover the areas of enrolment, participation, curric ulum development, accreditation and delivery, student support services, and the elimination of harassment and victimisation. In Parts 4–8 of the Standards, the obligations of education providers and the rights of candidates with disabilities are outlined. It is worth remembering that such Standards not only prohibit discrimination in education on the basis of disability, but they also require edu cation providers to take positive steps, where reasonable, to ensure students with disabilities can access and participate in education ‘on the same basis’ as other students. In practice, we will see the standards achieved through an ‘adjustment’, meaning an action that enables the student to enrol and/or participate in a course or complete assessment requirements. In Aotearoa New Zealand, the Human Rights Act 1993 prohibits discrimination on the grounds of disability. In addition, the New Zealand Disability Strategy explicitly affirms and addresses the rights of people with disability in education, providing a powerful statement by government on the rights of people who live with impairments and are disabled by society. Similarly, there is anti-discrimination action in states and territories of Australia that prohibit discrimination. Hence, whether people live with HIV/AIDS, have a chronic medical condition, live with mental illness or are indeed the carer of a person with disability, it is important that all candidates with a disability are informed about such legislation. This means that those candidates who live with a disability have the right to be

141


2/5/07 11:42:18 AM


treated with respect, which includes having our instructional, supervisory and administrative needs met in ways appropriate to our situation, alongside each other graduate research candidate.

Disclosure One of the most difficult decisions faced by a candidate is whether or not to declare the presence of a disability, whether on the application form, via email or in person. While there is much merit to appropriate disclosure as it allows for preparation of appropriate support services to be pre-arranged, some academics remain afraid of different types of disability, which have at times been fuelled by unhelpful stereotypes and attitudes. On the other hand, with the introduction of anti-discrimination and human rights laws, there is no longer a legal case for a supervisor to ask a candidate to withdraw from the university at the point when the information about the disability is revealed. Therefore, at the point of disclosure by a candidate of a disability, non-verbal responses reflected in the tone of voice and overall body language will either confirm a candidate’s fears, or allay their understandable trepidation. Fostering a trusting relationship is vital, and at the point of disclosure it will be important for the supervisors to ask the candidate how they might want this knowledge to be used and to whom it may be disclosed. As a general rule, it is the candidate’s knowledge and life; however, it may be useful to discuss with the candidate who might need to know and how this information might be conveyed. While some supervisors and university administrative staff might seem overly concerned with the importance of disease labels and manifest suffering associated with ‘disease’ (after all a wheelchair is the stereotype of disability), many candidates will not necessarily ‘fit’ well into a convenient medical disease label. Indeed, candidates having an identical diagnosis may find that they face very different functional challenges. It is also a truism that the most disabling conditions a person has are not necessarily the obvious ones. No doubt the biggest challenge will occur if a candidate sustains a significant injury leading to a permanent disability during candidature. Whereas the candidate might not be prepared to even acknowledge their health status as involving a disability, the supervisor might need to assist in recognising that this condition is permanent and to introduce the notion of utilising the institution’s disability and anti-discrimination policy and support services.

Advocacy Armed with the knowledge of the human rights law concerning individuals with disabilities, it may at times be necessary for supervisors to practise active advocacy

142


2/5/07 11:42:18 AM


for the enrolment or continuation of candidature for individual candidates. Such advocacy may include advocating for provision of necessary aids and appliances, personal care, a space so candidates can rest and interpreter services. In addition, candidates who need to travel with an attendant (including to conferences) will be faced by the extra cost of having disability—something not generally recognised by most institutional policies. In these situations it is important to realise that the doctoral program and candidature are driven by the candidate, and whereas the candidate might iden tify particular needs, it is the role of the supervisor to lend their support with a strong advocacy claim for the rights of the candidate. For example, special accommodations and additional provisions to meet disability needs are in no way unjust or unfair towards other candidates. As supervisors, we are often in the position to argue for reasonable, effective and timely ways of ensuring support and rights for all candidates and that they are engaged in conversation about delivering such rights.

Candidate requirements Most candidates with a disability will already have some idea of particular requirements. In many cases the disability has been with them a lifetime and so they are adept, have developed coping and adaptational strategies and a robust way of handling obstacles. The role of the supervisor does not include the role of counselling to solve personal problems. However, armed with the knowledge of the sustained arduous nature of doctoral candidature, supervisors might well be prepared to assist candidates to think through their requirements and learning needs in relation to the research project and of a realistic plan. Both supervisors and the candidate need to agree on a realistic approach early during candidature to identify particular needs, ranging from personal care, right through to par ticular study patterns and access to vehicles. Whereas this will provide a vehicle for a realistic conversation, it is important to reflect that the ultimate decisions lie with the candidate. One of the challenges for me is that I take longer to do most things, so attain ing the balance between adequate time for family and other relationships has become important. Far too often the realities of living with a disability take a toll on relationships and so it is vital for the supervisor to encourage the candidate to pursue a balanced program, allowing time for adequate nurturing of the private and family dimensions to life alongside the normal demands of candidature. At times the supervisor may find that during supervision sessions the inevit able reality of disability emerges. It may be a late arrival due to the (perpetually!) late wheelchair taxi, not being able to obtain an interpreter or at the last minute the candidate just runs out of energy. Being an active listener allows the candidate

143


2/5/07 11:42:19 AM


to express frustrations and work through solutions and in so doing will avoid the tendency of supervisors to attempt to solve everything. As a person with a disability, the gift from my colleagues is being a believing and sympathetic listener who puts aside time. Knowing I am believed and acknowledged is so important to being able to cope on a daily basis.

Choice of topic Disability can be both a positive and negative factor in the choice of topic. For example, I have found a great deal of interest and engagement in studying topics with a disability dimension and it has been this level of intensity and personal connection that has sustained my interest. Candidates in the humanities, social sciences, theology and related disciplines may find enormous benefits in drawing on their own life experience to establish and pursue particular topics, as is the case within the sciences. Indeed it is also not uncommon for relatives of people with disability to pursue disability topics. Yet, it is worth noting that sometimes candidates can end up being unfairly stereotyped as only ‘doing disability’. As someone who researches, writes and teaches about a variety of topics in the areas of medical ethics, I know only too well the problem of being labelled as such.

Concluding comments Most higher education institutions in Australia and Aotearoa New Zealand have glossy statements that talk about the importance of supporting diversity, and thus supervisors of candidates who live with disability, including chronic illness, have an enormous opportunity to put those good intentions into action. It is useful to remember, however, if we are not careful we bring our own fears and prejudices to bear. When I was a doctoral candidate I needed to complete much of my thesis as a hospital patient. I remain forever grateful to one of my supervisors who spent a significant time with me as I was struggling to complete the thesis. Most importantly, he did not do the work for me; on the other hand, he prompted, supported, listened and questioned. All these strategies assisted me to gain my doctorate. Whether in supporting candidates with established disabilities, or supporting them through the difficult journey of acquiring further disability, supervisors have opportunities that may include accompanying candidates through the diffi culty of the continuing discrimination and confronting negative attitudes among their peers. As a doctoral candidate with disability, I knew that people like me rarely completed their doctorate. Fortunately, my supervisors were committed to supporting me to be all that I could be.

144


2/5/07 11:42:19 AM


Questions

1 What life experience and networks do you have to assist you in supporting a candidate with disability? 2 Some people think adjustments for candidates with disability are unfair or dis criminatory towards others. Are there any exceptions to this position? 3 Many candidates with disability require access to support services within your university. As a quick review, what services are available to you and what is the process involved to have these services engaged with a candidate? References

Anon. 2005, Premia: Making research education accessible: http://www.premia.ac.uk/ Goggin, G & Newell, C 2005, Disability in Australia: Exposing a social apartheid, UNSW Press, Sydney. Newell, C & Parmenter, T (eds) 2005, Disability in education: Context, curriculum and culture, Australian College of Educators, Deakin West, ACT.

145


2/5/07 11:42:20 AM

C HAPTER 1 9

Valuing international research candidates Robyn Owens University of Western Australia

Introduction International research candidates form a growing cohort of the population of research candidates in Australia and Aotearoa New Zealand. They come from countries all over the world, with a diverse variety of undergraduate backgrounds, languages, cultures and educational opportunities. While many come from large cities, some are from isolated towns and remote regions; they can be single or with a partner; childless or with a large family; young or with a substantial career experience and possibly having held a more senior academic position than their supervisor. In short, international candidates—as a population—are likely to be far more diverse than the population of local research candidates. This diversity brings both advantages and disadvantages to the supervision task. International candidates enrich any research environment with a diversity of cultural and intellectual experiences, providing the foundation for international ising the research training of domestic candidates and acting as a measure of the role a research group plays on the international stage. A strong cohort of inter national candidates can become the life-blood of a research group, but their research training requires a different approach to that of domestic candidates. When supervision is tuned to their skills and requirements, international candidates can provide the best of intellectual times; however, poor or inapprop riate supervision can lead to intellectual, personal and even financial disasters. In this chapter, seven principles that need to be kept in mind for the supervision of international research candidates are discussed. These are:

146


2/5/07 11:42:20 AM

valuing international research candidates

• • • • • • •

Communication Context Culture Calibration Confirmation Care Careers.

By exploring the background and expectations of an international candidate, the supervisor can determine what works best in making research training a rewarding experience not only for the candidate, but also for the supervisor, the university and other research candidates.

Communication Communication is a three-way process: information must be transmitted; information must be received; and the received information must be acknowledged. When any one of these steps is missing, the communication is partial, at best, and may indeed be non-existent. In most of our communications we are not explicitly aware of each of these steps. Usually we speak or write, and assume that the transmission of information by itself is enough. If that transmission results in an anticipated action (we ask the student to sit down, and she does) then we feel confident that our message has been communicated. With many international candidates, the biggest communication problems occur because the student’s mother tongue is not the same as the supervisor’s. If both the candidate and the supervisor are anything less than fluently comfortable in English, then a further problem arises since the thesis must be written in English. Since research is about discovering new knowledge or re-interpreting existing knowledge, and in either case communicating the results of this work, language is a core ingredient. The thesis—whatever it is—is a sustained argument; and arguments occur in a language. Thus it is critical that the research candidate develops sophisticated and extensive language skills and that these cover all four language tasks: reading, writing, listening and speaking. Before even accepting an international candidate for research training, a supervisor should be confident of the applicant’s language skills and insistent on high quality. Many a supervisor will argue that the language skills can be picked up once the candidate is in the country and working within a research group, but evidence of this approach is sadly lacking. International candidates can easily continue to operate in their own tongue for most social engagements and can get by with relatively unsophisticated English for day-to-day living. Even though universities have language entrance requirements, it is important that very early

147


2/5/07 11:42:20 AM


in the supervision process the language skills are evaluated, both in terms of speaking and listening, but also reading and writing. If any deficiencies are noted, these should be addressed as soon as possible, either with explicit training from the supervisor or by encouraging the candidate to undertake some of the language and research skills workshops that most universities provide. The simplest way to begin the language evaluation process is to get the candidate to write as soon as possible. Usually a preliminary literature review of some recent research relating to the topic will be enough to uncover not only basic language problems, but also any inadequacies with regard to the style and format of academic writing for the discipline in question. In the very first feedback session, focus firstly on the discipline content, then address the quality of the argument, and then finally point out any problems with regard to the language structure (syntax and grammar) or discipline conventions (citations, references, footnoting, etc.). Candidates can become demoralised if you only focus on the writing style, because they feel that this is a technical irrelevancy and something anyone could comment on. So it is important to engage with the candidate at the level of ideas. However, ideas will remain forever fuzzy, ill-conceived, poorly argued and misunderstood unless their communication is carried out at a high level. Language skills are learnable skills. Language should be taken seriously, nothing less than high quality should be tolerated, and language should be addressed very early in the candidature.

Context In general, international candidates—even those who speak as their mother tongue the same language as you—most often do not share the same cultural background and the same set of assumptions about the meanings of words. Candidates from the United States may speak a language you recognise, but will not, in the first instance, understand the difference between our undergraduate degree structures and their own broader-based education system. An honours degree in the US may not include any research training. Indeed, even the word ‘research’ may mean something different: does it mean re-consider the existing work of others, or does it mean conceptualise a new idea? A research candidate from India, for example, may be perfectly comfortable in English and yet have a different concept of the structure, purpose and meaning of a masters degree. A research candidate from Sweden may have different expectations about the shape, scope and style of a doctoral thesis and its examination. When the applicant’s mother tongue is different from your own, a new set of problems emerges. Apart from the differences in background cultures and educational systems, the supervisor must now be aware that there are common words that have two distinct meanings, depending on whether they are being

148


2/5/07 11:42:21 AM


used in a research context or simply in the normal course of conversation. An example might be the phrase ‘an optimal solution’: do we simply mean the best of the solutions we have uncovered so far, or are we speaking in a strict, formal sense and mean that we can furnish a proof of the stronger claim that this is the best solution of all possible solutions? Other examples include words commonly associated with statistical analyses—‘confidence’, ‘bias’, ‘probability’, ‘average’, ‘normal’ and so on. What is said, what is understood, and what is actually meant can be entirely different things. For example, when you say to a candidate ‘Very interesting!’ they are likely to understand ‘She/He’s impressed!’, when actually what you mean is ‘I don’t believe a word of it!’ When you say ‘Quite good’, then it may be understood that you are being positive; however, what you probably mean is ‘Those results are a bit disappointing’. One way of uncovering communication gaps is to ask your candidate some simple questions early on, preferably not about the research topic itself but about the candidate’s background and experiences. In all probability, you don’t really understand how the education system in France (or any other country) really works. What is the ‘first cycle’, the ‘second cycle’ and the ‘third cycle’? What were the entrance expectations to get into university in the first place? How big were the classes? What were the sorts of assessment that the candidate undertook? How competitive was the system? Where have other graduates of that system gone to undertake their research training? By actively listening to the candidate’s responses to these questions, you can begin the task of mapping their experiences onto those of the graduates from your own institution, or indeed your own experiences. What is more, you are likely to uncover any weaknesses in the student’s background, as well as strengths. Most importantly of all, you begin to form a personal relationship with your student and create the seeds of a collaboration that, over a period of three to four years, will see you handing over skills, independence and eventually power to the newly formed researcher. Even when you have a personal knowledge of the cultural system from which the candidate comes (perhaps you did your own doctorate in their country), there is a generational culture to consider. More recent graduates are likely to be more IT literate, more internationalised, possibly less trained in some skills such as formal mathematics, and probably lacking in the history of their discipline. These differences from your own experiences are neither problems to bemoan nor opportunities to celebrate. They are simply differences; work with them.

Culture One of the hardest things to grasp is that our international candidates come from different cultures. While this may seem obvious, it means that up until enrolment, they have operated implicitly within different systems of class, race, religion and

149


2/5/07 11:42:21 AM


gender, and they are likely to interpret spoken and body language from within a different system. Sometimes it seems difficult enough just dealing with the generation gap; supervisors now have to deal with a cultural gap as well. In many countries the position of teacher generates a great deal of respect and is afforded a high social position. This is not especially so in our own culture, where we are likely to adopt a position of equality with our candidates. In some cases, this can lead to problems. In one of my own experiences, a particular supervisor caused great angst among his candidates when he began cooking the sausages at the departmental barbecue. Such menial tasks should be below the master and his candidates felt ashamed. While I am not advocating a chameleon response in which we mimic the culture of the candidate, as supervisors we should, however, be aware of their sensibilities and at the very least talk about the cultural practices in our own country. A positive interest in understanding the candidate’s background, practices and beliefs can avoid embarrassing situations and lead to genuinely fulfilling engagements. Some candidates do not drink alcohol, so remember to offer alternatives at social functions. Some candidates will only eat halal food; if it is not possible to supply this, remember to provide vegetarian alternatives. In some countries there are protocols regarding hand shaking, eating, or the size of a comfortable personal space. Be careful about scheduling social events on Fridays—for some candidates, participation may not be possible. Many universities will now produce an interfaith calendar, allowing you to be aware of the various holy or celebratory days associated with the variety of faiths of our candidates. In particular, Ramadan and Lent may impose certain restrictions. An understanding response to such constraints will help to ensure that those candidates who are so affected will, on other occasions, be more than happy to help out in social situations when they are not constrained. If you are part of a multicultural research group, it is a good idea to organise a multicultural lunch or some other event where each candidate can celebrate his or her origins, and where each is made to feel that they can contribute to the whole. Besides, the food is always delicious!

Calibration One of the most difficult tasks for all doctoral candidates and for many inex perienced supervisors is to have a good sense of precisely what comprises a doctorate. At commencement it seems like a hugely difficult task, something that will eventuate over a long period of time and possibly without much feedback. What is required is the creation of new knowledge. But how is this done, how much new knowledge must be created, how important must it be, what should be the impact of the work? And what happens if the results don’t turn out the way one might think?

150


2/5/07 11:42:22 AM


Generally speaking, most examiners think that a doctoral thesis is about two to three journal articles worth of work in the discipline. Clearly, however, this definition of scope can vary from discipline to discipline, but examiners do expect a scope of volume and a level of innovation that equates to a small number of publication-equivalent years worth of work. It is important that both the candidate and the supervisor have a clear and similar idea of what is expected over the candidature. Not all disciplines lend themselves so easily to the ‘one publication per year’ mould. However, where you help the candidate to clearly articulate the ‘thesis’ (the big picture argument) and break that down into a smaller number of achievable research tasks with written output, the better the result will be. Research candidates, just like undergraduates, need feedback in order to learn. Indeed, feedback is part of any adaptive system, and learning is certainly an adaptive system! If candidates are encouraged to publish during candidature, then they will receive not only your feedback but also that of peer review. Peer-reviewed publications provide a clear sense of progress and a great deal of comfort at the examination stage. It is worthwhile insisting that your candidates generate regular output because feedback provides the best and most structured way for you to engage with their ideas and to inculcate them into the culture of scholarly debate.

Confirmation Most universities structure the first year of research training as one requiring confirmation of candidature after 12 months. In other words, the first year is structured as a sequence of well-defined tasks that must be successfully accomplished. Typically, such tasks will include the production of a formal research proposal, the acquisition of any ethics approvals required for the research, the successful completion of workshops in health and safety requirements, or statistical analysis, or other required skills of the domain. Additional tasks might also include the presentation of a research seminar or the production of a body of academic writing. Even if such a structured approach is not a formal requirement at your uni versity, it is good practice to set up such a structure for your own candidates. Many research candidates will come from an environment where they are used to receiving formal and regular appraisals of their work, either from undergraduate studies or from their professional activities. If they find themselves unable to determine whether the quality of their research work is at the appropriate level or not, they are likely to flounder. If a research candidate is not performing at the required level, it is very important to give that feedback as soon as possible and to try to provide a graceful exit route. It may be that the topic is simply not appropriate for the candidate’s background; perhaps a change of topic or a change of supervisor will solve this problem. It may be that the candidate is inadequately prepared for research in the

151


2/5/07 11:42:22 AM


discipline; perhaps a change of degree program is required. It may be that the candidate is not coping with life away from home for personal or family reasons; perhaps the candidate should return home. The sooner these solutions can be put in place, the better. The important point, however, is to structure the solution as a positive move, rather than presenting it as a failure. It is only a failure if undertaking the particular research degree was the right choice in the first place. If it wasn’t, then changing directions is the right thing to do.

Care International candidates pay fees, or are liable to pay fees after their scholarship support expires. These fees can be a great financial burden and they will either have to be paid by the candidate, or the supervisor will have to find a solution. The prospect of large financial penalties for untimely completion means that good project management practices should be put in place, both by the candidate and the supervisor. Project management is a core component of any research activity and thus a core component of modern research training. Today’s research graduates must be prepared to work in an environment of competitive funding and legislated accountability. They will need to acquire the skills that will allow them to estimate and achieve timely research outputs, to assess risks associated with the project, and to report on outcomes. In addition, international candidates are regulated by visa conditions. Even the wealthiest of candidates or research groups cannot ignore the fact that a student visa will expire at some stage and the candidate will be obliged to leave the country. Careful monitoring of visa status should be considered before the candidate goes past the normal time limit for the degree. From time to time, the candidate may require your support in seeking visa extensions; just as you would expect to write references for your candidates to potential employers, so you might also be asked to write letters to various government officials outlining the nature and importance of your candidate’s research activities. From time to time the candidate may seek your help with regard to personal matters. Perhaps you will be asked to provide a reference for accommodation or help in finding schooling for their children. To some, this may seem outside the scope of research training, but it is certainly within the scope of a professional friendship; and such care is likely to be repaid in full should you ever become a visitor in their country.

Careers Your relationship with a research candidate does not stop on the day the thesis is submitted for examination or after the final, corrected version of the thesis is

152


2/5/07 11:42:23 AM


lodged with the university library. There needs to be a smooth transition into the next phase of a research candidate’s professional life. For many candidates, this may be well defined when they first arrive at your university: they may be contracted to return to their existing job in their home university after a fixed period of time. Your obligations with such a candidate would simply be to ensure that the candidate is well equipped to undertake the work and has the required level of independence to continue with a research career. Some research candidates will require your help in finding a postdoctoral position. This means that you must work with the candidate in building up a competitive track record, ensuring that the candidate has the appropriate level of international exposure and the opportunity to meet with other research groups. It is increasingly the expectation that research training involves the profes sional formation of early career postdoctoral fellows as well as the training of doctoral candidates. Academics are commonly being asked, and may indeed be expected, to apply for research funding that will support the candidate in a postdoctoral position. If you don’t think that it is appropriate to do this with a particular candidate, then you can still help in the formation of relationships that will facilitate the candidate working with other colleagues. Apart from research work, candidates who are planning an academic career will need to develop skills in university teaching. Wherever possible, it is worthwhile mentoring your candidates through their early teaching careers, and helping with the provision of tutoring or lecturing opportunities, should these arise during the candidature.

Concluding comments From the point of application through to a postdoctoral career, international candidates create a broad spectrum of challenges for supervision. They necessitate clear thinking and well-designed actions with regard to the broader perspectives of research training, not just the skills of the discipline; and thus they create the opportunity for supervisors to acknowledge and appreciate all the parameters that go into creating a new, independent and innovative researcher and scholar in the discipline concerned. Research and research training surpass national borders, local cultures and generational fashions. Research training offers the opportunity to propagate a lineage of scholars and innovators, and allows a supervisor to undertake truly international work. Questions

1 These are the moments when we abstract from the particular to the general and thus begin to build a model of what research and research training really involve.

153


2/5/07 11:42:23 AM


If you undertook your own research training in a foreign country, what occasions led you to challenge or change your understanding as to how the university actually functioned? 2 Many of today’s academics claim they got their doctorate despite their supervisor, rather than because of good research training. Nevertheless, someone—a mentor or a peer—provided the role model and the explicit advice that led to a successful result. How might candidates help each other through the research training experience, particularly when they may come from completely different backgrounds? 3 What explicit training modules do you think your university could provide to international research candidates, in general, that would help with the acquisition of research skills and practices?

154


2/5/07 11:42:24 AM

C HAPTER 2 0

Supervising Aboriginal doctoral candidates John Henry With the Institute of Koorie Education, Deakin University

Introduction I am pleased to offer this chapter on behalf of the staff of the Institute of Koorie Education within Deakin University and wish to acknowledge constructive advice from recent Aboriginal doctoral candidates. Even after a 20-year period of working with Australian Aboriginal higher education students in Australia, we can claim no particular expertise, only that we continue to be learners in this process. This educational activity has culminated in recent times with the opportunity to supervise a relatively small number of Aboriginal candidates completing their doctoral degrees in the field of education. Our supervision of Aboriginal doctoral candidates has been informed by our teaching of Aboriginal higher education students generally. This is an impor tant point. Our supervisory practice is an extension of our teaching practice with Aboriginal students at the undergraduate and postgraduate levels of higher education. Of course, there are differences in detail, but the teaching and supervisory practices involving Aboriginal people have been informed by a single key principle: respect for, and valuing and inclusion of, Aboriginal knowledge and ways of knowing within Aboriginal candidates’ learning. This key principle has profound implications for the positioning of the univer sity academic with respect to the Aboriginal person engaging in the university’s accredited programs. The conduit through which the Aboriginal knowledge flows into the curriculum of the program is typically not the academic. It is the student who takes up this responsibility, drawing upon themselves as knowledgeable learners along with the significant knowledge holders in their own communities. The academic becomes a facilitator of this process of Aboriginal knowledge

155


2/5/07 11:42:24 AM


inclusion within the curriculum of the program being studied. But this facilitation role is no easy task. The academic-as-facilitator of Aboriginal knowledge inclusion has to be pro active with regard to the issue of the integrity of the Aboriginal knowledge that the student is expressing within their higher education studies. This is risky business and can only be resolved through the student’s interactions over time with the Elders of their knowledge communities as they negotiate not only what can be said, but also how it is to be presented within the academic form of the student’s work. Similarly, the academic-as-facilitator of Aboriginal knowledge inclusion has to be able to assure the student and the university that the studies in the specific program are not only within the scope of the degree, but at the level of know ledge mastery required for graduation. This, too, can be a risky business for the academic involved; it is risky because at the outset new ground is being tested through the student–academic partnership. The risk is alleviated through communication by academics working with Aboriginal students back to the course monitoring bodies set up by faculties for overseeing the delivery and assessment of their programs. Moderating student assessments with academic colleagues teaching in the same or similar programs further alleviates the risk. Importantly, confidence in giving advice to Aboriginal students builds as one’s experience in negotiating curricula into existence that is inclusive of Aboriginal knowledge also builds. Aboriginal students, as reciprocating partners in the curriculum negotiation relationship with their academic facilitators, also gain confidence as they come to understand the potential of this approach to higher education participation. Students grow in their awareness of the significant levels of knowledge contained within their communities, including histories, languages, economies, relationships and cultural practices; each of which is associated with health and wellbeing, with country, with spirituality and with ways of being in the world. Educational growth for Aboriginal students is constructed around both an expansion of Aboriginal knowledge derived from their own knowledge commu nities, and an expansion of understanding of non-Aboriginal-derived knowledge relevant to topics of interest. This educational growth implies a synthesis of understandings into a new combination that is still strongly Aboriginal and, therefore, culturally affirming and intellectually empowering for the student. For us, supervision of Aboriginal doctoral candidates has developed from this background. Doctoral studies provide candidates and their supervisors with greater degrees of freedom and flexibility than perhaps any other universitybased accredited program. The issues that arise for supervisors of Aboriginal doctoral candidates are but specific examples of the more general issues that we have experienced with Aboriginal students in other undergraduate and masters level courses in higher education.

156


2/5/07 11:42:25 AM

supervising aboriginal doctoral candidates

The practice of supervision Doctoral studies provide candidates and their supervisors with greater degrees of freedom and flexibility than are possible in undergraduate and honours or masters programs. Doctoral studies ultimately are about the production of new knowledge in the candidate’s domain or discipline. This is a great opportunity for both Aboriginal candidates and their supervisors not to be missed. For us, this is the space to be explored from an Aboriginal knowledge perspective by the Aboriginal doctoral candidates whom we have supervised. That may sound directive, but not so. As Aboriginal doctoral candidates grow into their research topic, the stronger is their commitment to ground their studies in their own cultural knowledge systems. For these candidates their studies engage them in understandings at a number of levels. At one level, they are digging deeper into their knowledge communities’ foundational ways of understanding, and giving meaning to their world and their people’s array of cultural practices. At another level, they are focusing on the historical and contemporary struggles of their communities in order to understand how alien knowledge systems, dominant in their university, have been used to legitimise imperial social, economic and political forces launched against their forebears. Furthermore, Aboriginal candi dates are seeking to understand the significant Western texts that constitute the coloniser’s knowledge system but that are relevant to their research topic and support their own arguments within their theses. And still further, Abor iginal candidates need to design and implement research projects that are interventions into contemporary Australian society as experienced by Indigenous Australians. These interventions are required to be compatible with Aboriginal ethical conduct; be informed by Aboriginal cultural ways of being, knowing and acting; and ameliorate the individualistic dimension of university-based doctoral studies. In addition, they must contribute to knowledge production within their own Aboriginal knowledge communities and, then, make a contribution to the academic discipline. The increased freedom and flexibility in terms of topic area available to doctoral candidates provide Aboriginal candidates with the opportunity to develop new syntheses of Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal knowledges that have resonance and applicability with their own communities. For these syntheses to be possible, each Aboriginal candidate has to build their understandings and arguments from a strong grounding in their own communities’ knowledge systems. This is Aboriginal intellectual work. This Aboriginal intellectual work, however, requires each candidate to move cautiously through the literature within which Aboriginal philosophies and ideologies are theorised by both Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal academics. Our Aboriginal doctoral candidates were clearly aware of the politics within con temporary academia pertaining to so-called ‘Aboriginal studies’ in general, and

157


2/5/07 11:42:25 AM


to Aboriginal research in particular. They did not want their intellectual work to be colonised afresh by non-Aboriginal ‘experts’ on Aboriginal matters. To them, this is the third wave of colonisation—the colonisation of Aboriginal intellectual property as revealed by Aboriginal people themselves, after the preceding colon isation of land and the physical world. A further concern for candidates is entering into debates based on new ways of thinking where already established Indigenous academics and leaders have substantial reputations based on their considerable and significant work for the Aboriginal cause.

Establishing trust It is essential for trust to be established between the candidate and the super visory team. Here we are referring to the relationship between the candidate and their supervisors, and also to the relationship between the two universitybased supervisors. We have worked as co-supervisors drawing on our differing perspectives as Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal colleagues. We have found that once these trusting relationships are established, then the supervision process unfolds. As supervisors, this work has at its foundations trust in the sense of appreciating each other’s contribution in the form of advice to the candidate. It concerns being comfortable when working with the candidate, both in team interactions and individual interactions, and being able to discuss robustly next steps and advice. For the Aboriginal candidates, we have found that they have built up slightly different trusting relationships with each of us. With their Aboriginal supervisor they are able to connect more meaningfully about their uncertainties about speaking out strongly with an Aboriginal voice in a place where few Aboriginal people have trod. They are able to talk ‘black-on-black’ about ideas and issues, both surrounding their intellectual work and within it. While not in stark contrast, the candidates explored with their non-Aboriginal supervisor the translation of their emerging arguments into a form of discourse acceptable within the range of doctoral thesis genres without damaging or diminishing the Aboriginal voice within. If you like, with him they were also able to talk ‘black-on-white’—as distinct from ‘white-on-black’.

Dealing with distractions As a supervisory team, we encouraged these candidates, when necessary, to stay on the pathway they had set for themselves without being diverted by other subtle pressures sensed by them from others. For example, at times later in their candidature, candidates would anxiously question their grasp of literature authored by non-Aboriginal academics—literature somewhat tangential to their studies. At these times we carefully guided them away from any flurry of unnecessary literature searches. Another example occurred as candidates became

158


2/5/07 11:42:25 AM


more prominent in their own communities through their growing presence as culturally knowledgeable people. Under this circumstance, Aboriginal candidates become identified locally as a valuable resource to community business across a range of agendas. This can be a dilemma for these candidates; the very success of the candidate’s doctoral-oriented journey into a deeper understanding of their communities’ knowledge systems now draws them deeper into their communities’ political action agendas premised on these same understandings. As supervisors, we have to be able to negotiate with the candidates and, through them, with their communities, for the necessary time and space to keep their doctoral studies moving towards completion. Later in the development of the candidate–supervisor relationships, we took direct (and some might say strong) action, although this was always couched in adult-to-adult negotiation discourse. All this could only proceed through the establishment of trusting relationships early in the candidature, based on personal attributes complemented by the candidates’ perceptions of the supervisors’ aca demic and cultural standing and understanding.

Motivation for research From our experience with the Aboriginal doctoral candidates, the starting phase of their candidature has been a period of particular significance. They are aware of the challenges they are setting themselves, while simultaneously uncertain and anxious about the journey ahead. The doctoral pathway beckons as an opportunity for all sorts of reasons. These reasons are not always clearly articulated, but motivations may include the following: ‘I as an Aboriginal person (and therefore “we”) can do this!’ ‘This is important to me and my family, my community and my people!’ ‘We need our own recognised people of high knowledge in higher education and in our organisations, and therefore we need to undertake our own intellectual work within doctorates.’ But the opportunity is not without its dangers. Candidates are well aware of the critical non-Aboriginal gaze upon them. Questions were raised from time to time; for example: If I fail to complete, will this be generalised to my people? Am I stepping out onto culturally alien and potentially culturally consuming terrain? Will I emerge with a doctorate but be connected more to the academic elite than to my cultural roots? How do I keep connected to my community while undertaking this higher-level intellectual work?’ Supervisors need to be advocates for their Aboriginal candidates, while reinforcing the motivations and passions of the candidate for the selected research topic. Supervisors need also to be strategists with their candidates on ways to journey towards successful completion with enhanced Aboriginal cultural knowledge understandings and connectedness, and with strengthened relation ships as a cultural resource person of high value.

159


2/5/07 11:42:26 AM


Development of the research topic Central to all this is the evolution of the Aboriginal doctoral candidate’s research topic. The emergence of the real project can take the candidate, together with their supervisors, through several stages. There is a sense of the topic being set early. Then it becomes reconstructed and understood afresh as the candidate navigates through Aboriginal knowledge metaphors that frame and re-frame the topic and imbue it with new and unexpected intellectual insights and energy. The topic, expressed initially as a clear and readily understood concern or interest of the candidate, is usually born of experience, negotiated into existence as a substantial researchable project. It becomes grounded through metaphors that are now clear to the candidate and members of their knowledge community, but only accessible to the supervisors at a superficial level of understanding. Non-Aboriginal supervisors are now several steps removed from the deeper level of meanings and understandings energising their candidate’s intellectual work and, especially so, when Aboriginal languages are used to name these mean ings and understandings. Incommensurability becomes a concept to be worked with, not a concept to be swept away for the comfort of the supervisor! This situation can also arise to a lesser extent for Aboriginal supervisors who are not of the same knowledge community as the candidate. But incommensurability is a two-way street. Supervisors must not assume that just because an Aboriginal candidate has completed an honours or a masters degree, or is well into their doctoral study program, they have a full cultural understanding of the ritualistic intricacies of the doctoral landscape. Here super visors must be vigilant to behaviours indicative of a person believing they have understood what is required, but have, from the perspective of the cultural terrain of the university, a less than full understanding. Compliance is not necessarily the outcome of the supervisor’s exposition on non-Aboriginal cultural ways; the goal is for the candidate to have a more complete understanding.

Supervisory input Supervisors can respond to the emergence-of-the-topic process by recognising what is clearly within their domain and what needs to be left to the candidate and their community knowledge brokers. Importantly, supervisors must resist the temptation to seek closure on the topic too early and then expect the candidate to get on with it. It is not easy making judgements about when to intervene and when to let matters rest when those matters are not well understood culturally by most supervisors. However, it is essential that for high-quality Aboriginal doctorates, imbued with Aboriginal knowledge negotiated with community Elders and containing arguments supported by outcomes arising from appro priate Aboriginal research protocols, supervisors must learn to ‘hold off ’ to allow the fully fledged and candidate-owned topic to evolve.

160


2/5/07 11:42:26 AM


Supervisors can and must contribute, and their Aboriginal candidates appre ciate their support and advice. Supervisors can direct candidates to texts, available within the non-Aboriginal knowledge domain authored by both Indigenous and non-Indigenous academics, as potentially appropriate and relevant to their emerging topic. These texts will serve their candidates’ studies as secondary texts to be assimilated into the knowledge synthesis on which they have embarked. Related here is the supervisors’ advice on research methodologies that may be more or less compatible with the Aboriginal knowledge-production process informed by the metaphorical underpinnings of the topic. These approximations to non-Aboriginal methodologies of knowledge production may provide a language or signifiers to points of difference for the candidate to speak out to a wider audience. Furthermore, supervisors are important to the Aboriginal candidate traversing the university’s candidature progression stages towards successful completion— candidature acceptance, topic defences or confirmations, ethics approvals and preparation of theses for examination. These fundamental steps structure the supervisory work with Aboriginal candidates, but in ways that may test the normal parameters of each stage. For example, topic defence or colloquium panels may have members uneasy with the idea that a doctorate may be grounded in Aboriginal knowledge. Additionally, ethics committee members may be confused by protocols of what is referred to by Aboriginal Australians as ‘the Indigenous research agenda’, and some may even be hostile to the implied criticism of takenfor-granted university research practices. Aboriginal candidates and their supervisors may struggle with the detailed structure of the written thesis for examination, such that narratives and arguments informed by Aboriginal metaphors and expressed in part through particular Aboriginal languages—but also in a form of English within which Aboriginal meanings can still survive—are recognised as new knowledge contributions by examiners. Supervisors need to understand the diversity of doctoral studies possible in higher education today and be prepared to be advocates for their Aboriginal candidates’ knowledge interests from this understanding of existing diversity and the potential to expand the sphere of acceptability to include new genres. These matters may involve the supervisors responding in university forums to explain matters that were raised from their candidates’ doctoral studies and their progress towards completion. In these cases, the supervisors will not only be advocates for their Aboriginal candidates’ intellectual work, but will be involved in cross-cultural knowledge professional development work with their university colleagues.

Supervision teams So far in this discussion of supervisory practice we have identified that the super visors of Aboriginal candidates—working with their candidates according to

161


2/5/07 11:42:27 AM


the principle of respecting and valuing Aboriginal knowledge—are not in a closed one-on-one relationship with the candidate. We have preferred to work in a co-supervisory team representing Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal cultural backgrounds. We have encouraged the candidates to move beyond simply canvas sing their doctoral topic within their Aboriginal knowledge communities, to negotiating their topics into existence with the key knowledge holders of these communities. This kind of negotiation connects the candidates’ doctoral research to Aboriginal knowledge metaphors and languages and, through these, identifies the candidate’s intellectual work as a contribution to their communities’ know ledge reproduction and production within the contemporary context. To recognise the centrality of this Aboriginal knowledge community dimension to the candidates’ studies, we have acknowledged Elders in each candidate’s com munity as Indigenous community supervisors through a formal procedure within our university. Thus the supervisory team has been expanded—two universitybased co-supervisors (one an Aboriginal academic, the other a non-Aboriginal academic) and one Aboriginal community-based supervisor. For this supervisory arrangement to work productively for the candidate, the university-based super visors—and in particular the non-Aboriginal supervisor—must accept that they are only part of the supervision team required for the candidate’s successful completion. This supervisory team, with its representation of community-based and university-based supervisors, has been particularly valuable for the Aboriginal candidates later in their candidature. This feature was particularly useful when candidates became engaged in highly complex negotiations within and between different knowledge domains. They undertook deeper critiques and interpretations leading to syntheses of the knowledges they had been working with throughout their doctoral studies.

Concluding comments Our practice of supervising Aboriginal doctoral candidates is an extension of our teaching practice experiences with Aboriginal undergraduate and postgraduate students. We have found the continuing ‘conversations’ with each doctoral candidate highly conducive to the development of the key elements of our super visory practice. These elements, in summary, are: • building trusting relationships with the candidate and between members of the supervisory team; • being aware and sensitive to the cultural affiliations of the candidate and of ourselves, and being prepared to have these play out over the duration of the candidature to produce a doctorate grounded in Aboriginal knowledge but with broader implications;

162


2/5/07 11:42:27 AM


• being able to share the supervision of the candidate with other knowledge brokers; • as university-based academics, being able to support intellectual work that is only partially understood by oneself—living with incommensurability; • being comfortable with the evolution of the candidate’s topic over time through negotiation processes that are not directly within one’s ‘sphere of action’; • being prepared to act as an advocate, mediator and strategist for the Aboriginal candidate within those stages our universities have set up to manage the progress of doctoral candidates generally; • and finally, being prepared to have one’s supervisory professional behaviour open to the possibility of direct critique by significant others in the Aboriginal intellectual work of the candidate. If supervisors find themselves supervising or about to supervise an Aboriginal doctoral candidate, we encourage them to facilitate the candidate’s journey towards a synthesis of knowledges strongly grounded in their community’s ways of being, knowing and acting in the world; that is, grounded in their own ontologies. Questions

1 How would you go about building a trusting relationship with Aboriginal doctoral candidates so that you can open yourself to the candidate at a personal level, position your professional self and your knowledge as a resource to be ‘tested’ from a cultural perspective that may not be your own, and allow yourself with your candidate to establish a cross-cultural knowledge context within which you are a co-learner? 2 What do you expect your role in a cross-cultural supervisory team would be, and how would you manage this role and any critique you may receive from other members of the team about your role-in-reality? 3 How would you go about bringing an understanding of non-Aboriginal academic knowledge rituals to an Aboriginal candidate’s ‘doctoral journey’ without limiting the candidate’s Aboriginal intellectual work? Acknowledgements

The Aboriginal university-based co-supervisor referred to in this chapter is a member of the academic staff of Deakin University’s Institute of Koorie Education. She ascribes her contribution to this chapter as arising from the community-based education practices of the Institute and therefore belonging to the Institute. The advice provided by recent Aboriginal doctoral candidates (Drs Linda Ford and Veronica Arbon) is acknowledged.

163


2/5/07 11:42:28 AM

C HAPTER 2 1  Supervising Maori doctoral candidates Joanna Kidman Victoria University of Wellington

Introduction Over the past ten years there has been a steady increase both in the number  of Maori candidates enrolled in doctoral programs in Aotearoa New Zealand  universities and Maori doctoral completion rates. While this is heartening, we  shall need to wait and see if rumours of a trend are premature. Maori doctoral candidates form a small and statistically vulnerable group, comprising only 6.6 per cent of all domestic candidates. Moreover, the combination of high student attrition in the first year of study and lengthy completion times suggests that predictions about future retention and degree attainment rates should be made with some caution. However, the Tertiary Education Commission has recently  established a series of Maori education development strategies aimed at increasing  the number of Maori in higher degree study, and over the next few years it is likely that universities will be strongly encouraged to embed these principles into their institutional profiles. Alongside these initiatives, new funding formulas  supporting Maori educational success in tertiary settings should, with judicious  planning and allocation of institutional resources, lead to strengthened Maori doctoral enrolments and completions across a range of academic disciplines. However, as it stands at present, doctoral advisers are often disappointed  when able and enthusiastic Maori candidates they have mentored throughout pre-doctoral programs decide to withdraw from study early in their doctoral candidature or, alternatively, take longer to complete degrees than other student cohorts. While the reasons behind these decisions and delays in completing theses vary greatly according to personal circumstances, protracted completion rates

164


2/5/07 11:42:28 AM

supervising m a  ori doctoral candidates

 and early attrition have long been exigent factors in Maori doctoral education in Aotearoa New Zealand.

 ori candidates Ma  Part of the reason for early attrition has been a mismatch between Maori educational needs and priorities in relation to the production of higher-level knowledge, and university expectations about higher degree study. Complex knowledge systems are applied in tribal settings for the benefit of current and future gener ations, and usually have tangible outcomes either through increasing the collective prosperity of the tribal group or developing the material wellbeing of the tribal environment, while university degrees often provide rather more tenuous benefits to a less insistently visible entity—the body of knowledge, the knowledgeable individual, or some vaguely defined future generation, social group or ‘non-tribal except by accident’ landscape. This is a persistent problem and one that frequently occurs when institutional and tribal cultures of knowledge interact. Alongside these differing epistemological perspectives, it should also be noted that it is not always clear what people in universities mean when they talk about   ‘Maori’ doctoral candidates. Indeed, the phrase ‘Maori candidates’ is often used as a generic term that ultimately disguises the tribal, cultural, social, economic  and educational diversity that exists among Maori. Despite the fact that the  size of the national Maori doctoral population is very small, and while shared understandings and common goals can often be identified within this group,  candidates within Maori doctoral cohorts also, at times, display heterogeneous characteristics in terms of varying—and sometimes competing—understandings, learning priorities, goals and so on. Moreover, dissimilarities and resemblances between the learning needs of   Maori and non-Maori doctoral cohorts tend to be somewhat fluid because they are  not solely defined by candidates’ cultural perspectives. Maori doctoral candidates, for example, have similar requirements to other doctoral candidates in relation to effective supervision and supervisor advocacy within the wider institution. On  counterparts, and this the other hand, they are often older than their non-Maori may well lead to a different kind of supervisory relationship from that experienced with younger candidates. Cultural factors therefore form an important, but not exclusive, part of a wider picture.  Given the diversity of the Maori student population and the variety of their educational needs and aspirations, it may be tempting for supervisors to simply  treat Maori doctoral candidates as culture-free individuals and be done with it. And yet this does not suffice either; rather, it frequently leads to a simmering  resentment among Maori who feel they must leave their culture at the door (rather like a wet umbrella) when they arrive for supervision meetings. In

165


2/5/07 11:42:29 AM


addition, opportunities for extending knowledge within a discipline are lost  when Maori cultural perspectives are removed from the learning equation, or if candidates are encouraged to exclude their own cultural mores in favour of conducting their research within the existing formulas, standards and conventions of methodological, scholarly and theoretical investigation. What, then, can be done?   supervisors of Maori candidates Perhaps the first thing that many non-Maori can do is to ‘chill out’ a little. In the university environment, supervisors are expected to assist their doctoral candidates to become competent scholars who are able to conduct research and communicate the results of their investigations  scholars in the field. in a way that is recognisable to other, usually non-Maori, However, the recent implementation of additional reporting mechanisms designed to ensure that candidates complete their degrees in the shortest amount of time possible has increased pressure on supervisors. In this environment, it is sometimes easier to become engrossed in the smaller technical details of thesis writing—for example, the ability to construct a simple sentence or the niceties of grammar—than with the broader intellectual development of their candidate. But a supervisor who sees only unpunctuated sentences or worries over-much about how an ethics committee will respond to a candidate application is in danger of missing the point.

Supportive supervision Certainly the myriad of technicalities that need to be mastered during the thesis process are extremely important, but the intellectual development of  Maori candidates often involves a changing awareness of the cultural ideals and priorities that brought them into the university and the degree program in the  first place. This is partly because Maori doctoral graduates are still very thin on the ground, and in the past, the doctorate has in the main been the preserve of Pakeha aspirants. For that reason, some of us have thought a great deal about the way in which our feelings about attaining a doctoral qualification in the non Maori environment of the academy interacts with our understanding of what it  means to be Maori and to live in the world. In consequence, culture comes into the equation in different ways and has an impact on the way people learn and what they consider to be important.  Supervisors should therefore be aware that Maori candidates are often engaged in finding their place within conventional academic structures at the same time as navigating their own changing cultural spaces. It is important, then, that an environment is created in which they may successfully find ways of managing both. In this respect, difference or diversity becomes a prime motivation in the  Maori doctoral environment. Difference, as Martin (2000) writes, ‘is a movement

166


2/5/07 11:42:30 AM


on from assimilation as a paradigm, whether it be at an intellectual or a cultural level, and this is where new ways of thinking about the supervision relationship  can effectively recalibrate the learning environment for many Maori doctoral candidates’ (p. 83). Indeed, when the supervision relationship moves synchronously with candidates’ cultural perceptions about their research topics, even when those perceptions are in a state of flux, the act of supervision can itself be viewed as a ‘post-assimilation endeavour’. With this in mind, it is worth asking what a doctoral learning environment  that takes Maori epistemological and cultural perspectives for granted would look like. Fortunately there are already strong models and programs operating around  Aotearoa New Zealand, primarily through Nga Pae o te Maramatanga—the  government-funded Maori Centre of Research Excellence, which are open to all  Maori doctoral candidates regardless of discipline or place of enrolment—and supervisors can encourage their candidates to use these as a learning resource (see Endnote 1).  Certainly the Nga Pae o te Maramatanga-initiated MAI Te Kupenga program  for Maori and other indigenous doctoral candidates, which is now operating  across the country, has introduced an exciting new dynamic into Maori doctoral  education. The program operates on the assumption that various Maori and other indigenous knowledges and perspectives are normal modes of learning. By taking this premise for granted, candidates are free to create an intellectual environment that allows them to question, challenge and debate conventional theoretical and methodological research mores through their own scholarly and tribal networks. In the process, they are able to generate new ideas, knowledge  and perspectives. Alongside these formal program events, Maori candidates have subsequently begun to establish their own student-led discussion groups within their disciplines and academic departments. All of this may seem a little worrying for supervisors who take a proprietary interest in their candidates’ progress or are concerned that they may lose a measure of influence in a candidate’s intellectual development. Certainly there has been an  increase in the number of doctoral candidates involved with Maori postgraduate  discussion groups, who subsequently wish to explore and apply Kaupapa Maori or other related indigenous perspectives in their research. Anecdotally, we know of supervisors who are unsympathetic or unfamiliar with these ideas who have, at times, responded negatively to a candidate’s desire to seek explanations that do not fit neatly into their own understanding of academic conventions. However,  as Smith (2000) noted, ‘Kaupapa Maori […] challenges, questions and critiques   Pakeh a hegemony. It does not reject or exclude Pakeh a culture. It is not a “one or  supervisors, then, need not fear a wholesale the other” choice’ (p. 6). Non-Maori rejection of their own cultural values or academic priorities, although they may well be asked some tricky questions. However, it is as a result of the Nga Pae o

167


2/5/07 11:42:30 AM


 te Maramatanga program for doctoral candidates and the growing number of  informal Maori discussion groups that have sprung up around the country, as well  as the increase in Maori doctoral student numbers and the associated pressures for supervisors, that several doctoral advisers have chosen to adopt new approaches to the supervision relationship. One of these approaches involves working with  clusters of Maori candidates for the purpose of reducing the level of institutional  and cultural isolation experienced by many newly enrolled Maori doctoral can didates, particularly those conducting research in social sciences fields, as well as addressing the problems of early attrition and lengthy degree completion rates.

Clustered supervision Given that problems often occur early in the candidature process that affect can didate retention in the first year of study, it is important that support mechanisms are set in place either at the outset of candidature or, preferably, prior to enrolment.  The slight increase in numbers of Maori moving directly from their masters degrees into doctoral study in recent years allows academic staff to begin planning clustering strategies in the pre-doctoral stages (see Endnote 2).  Clustered supervision involves small groups of Maori thesis candidates within an academic department or discipline working regularly with different supervisors.  Within these clusters, Maori tribal and cultural knowledge, perspectives and ways of operating are taken for granted and embedded into group processes. How this works depends on the way in which candidates define these matters as a group; this cannot be instituted by supervisor decree, nor at the whim of  one or two individuals with fixed ideas about how ‘Maoriness’ should ideally operate. Rather, the mode of operation needs to evolve with the unique rhythms and understandings of the group, and always with the knowledge that there is no  single ‘correct’ way of being a doctoral student or of being Maori. It should be noted that these meetings do not replace one-to-one sessions with doctoral advisers; rather, they are intended to create a peer environment running parallel with individual supervision in which specific research and thesis writing skills can be developed. This also provides an opportunity for candidates who already have strengths in a particular area (such as theoretical knowledge or research design) to pass their knowledge on to others who are new to the process of building understandings at the doctoral level. In academic departments  where there are simply not enough Maori candidates to form even a very small  group, it is often possible to work across disciplines with supervisors and Maori doctoral candidates in related fields, and this also adds a valuable interdisciplinary perspective to the doctoral research process. This approach tends to work well when the transition from the masters degree to the doctorate becomes a shared experience. Moreover, candidates often have

168


2/5/07 11:42:31 AM


similar learning requirements in the transition period, and pressure on supervisors is reduced if they can deal with these needs in group situations rather than having to repeat the same information several times over to different candidates during one-to-one supervision meetings. We have noticed that members of clusters often meet their thesis and research deadlines in a timely fashion because this actively  contributes to the progress of the group as a whole. In this respect, Maori doctoral clusters can be viewed in terms of a community of learners who have changing cultural and scholarly needs, rather than as separate individuals working in intellectual and cultural isolation. We have also found that candidate clusters do not increase the workload of supervisors. On the contrary, when candidates have a pool of academic advisers to draw upon for information and advice, and when they are building their thesis skills within a group environment, one-to-one supervision sessions are likely to become much more focused and less likely to be sidetracked by roundabout or circular discussions that achieve very little. The primary supervisor, then, is not replaced; rather, he or she has recourse to a group of colleagues who can be relied on to impart their own knowledge and skills with newly enrolled doctoral candidates, ensuring that the load is shared rather than increased. In the early enrolment stages of candidature, candidates and supervisors need to jointly identify the shared learning needs of members of the cluster and plan the program. Generally speaking, monthly cluster meetings are sufficient to meet candidates’ needs. In the initial phase of establishing a group cluster, it seems to work best if candidates leave meetings with a sense that they have not only had a forum to interact with their peers, but also that they have learned something new that has immediate relevance to their thesis research. We usually offer presentations or workshops intended to develop new research competencies or extend existing skills, and we always ensure that our sessions are directly linked to the candidates’ topics or their current thesis concerns. For that reason, our sessions are highly interactive and candidates are provided with opportunities to work on a piece of their own writing or thesis planning, either as a group or in pairs. In the past, we have run sessions aimed at increasing candidates’ awareness of topics such as: writing research proposals, the writing process, framing a research question, developing a literature review, effective supervision relationships, thesis planning and goal setting, academic and university expectations of doc toral candidates, university library databases, and university administrative requirements. When we hear of academic staff and other colleagues who have developed workshops on topics of interest to our candidates, we invite them in to meet the candidates so that group members have a chance to widen their circle of acquaintance with university members outside our academic department who can offer new resources or skills.

169


2/5/07 11:42:31 AM


Alongside the skills-based training that takes place within these clusters, candidates also report back on thesis work they have done since the previous meeting and identify goals for the following month. This gives candidates an opportunity to provide support and encouragement to each other; it also serves the purpose of giving supervisors early warning if a student is floundering or becoming overwhelmed with non-thesis concerns, which are likely to affect their ability to manage their research for a period of time (for example, sick children, whanau and/or tribal commitments, financial problems, job stress). It is often the case that when these issues are discussed within the group, other members are able to suggest solutions or coping strategies for dealing with matters that may, on the face of it, seem insurmountable to a student. Candidates are also encouraged to present aspects of their own work to the group or facilitate discussion on matters of mutual interest, such as methodological approaches or theoretical frameworks. It is our intention that candidate clusters need to become autonomous at around  mid-point of the thesis process. Our goal is to support Maori doctoral candidates to manage these clusters themselves once group members are willing and able to do so. Academic staff are then released to begin new clusters while drawing on the  strengths of more established groups of Maori candidates. Ideally, once a cluster has become entirely student-governed, members can apply to supervisors or other members in their academic and/or tribal communities to run workshops or sessions on a one-off basis, if and when the group desires. These clusters can  be linked to other groups of Maori doctoral candidates across Aotearoa New  Zealand through national organisations such as Nga Pae o te Maramatanga’s  MAI Te Kupenga program. In this way, Maori clusters can operate at both local  and national levels and active Maori scholarly networks can be developed in consequence.

Concluding comments While the purpose of these clusters is to provide support and skills training for  newly enrolled Maori candidates at a vulnerable time in their candidature, this works best when candidates have a vested interest in the planning and delivery of  the program and are actively creating a sense of Maori community and identity within the academy. The ultimate goal, however, is to find ways of ‘normalising’  the Maori doctoral presence in the culturally isolating environment of many  academic departments. At present, being a Maori doctoral student usually means being very alone. We hope that candidate clusters will eventually contribute to a  shift in understanding whereby being a Maori doctoral student means being part  of a large and active community of Maori scholarship within academic disciplines and across Aotearoa New Zealand universities.

170


2/5/07 11:42:32 AM


Questions

1 What would a doctoral environment in which Ma ori cultural values and under standings were taken for granted look like, and what can supervisors do to help to create it? 2 How might your discipline change if Ma ori epistemologies were embedded within it, and what assumptions might be challenged? 3 What might be other ways of building a sense of Ma ori doctoral identity and scholarship within an academic department or discipline, and how might Ma ori doctoral candidates and supervisors in related fields be encouraged to work in cross-disciplinary clusters? Endnotes

1 Nga Pae o te Ma ramatanga—the Ma ori Centre of Research Excellence—is a national organisation hosted by the University of Auckland. The MAI Te Kupenga (Ma ori And Indigenous) doctoral program is a nationwide program run in several locations across the North and South Islands, which is open to all Ma ori and other indigenous doctoral candidates. The purpose of the program is to build Ma ori and other indigenous research capacity through creating a critical mass of Ma ori doctoral graduates. In addition to monthly local and regional meetings, candidates from around the country regularly gather at tenday research writing retreats, national MAI doctoral conferences, and other country-wide events. As a result, there is now an active network of emerging Ma ori researchers who have established a strong sense of scholarly identity within their own institutions, as well as in disciplines and physical locations across Aotearoa New Zealand. Candidates can also apply for Nga Pae o te Ma ramatanga-funded doctoral scholarships, and summer research internships are available for pre-doctoral candidates. Further information about the program can be found online at: http://www.arts.auckland.ac.nz/Maramatanga/Mai/ 2 New Zealand Ministry of Education (2005) figures show that the number of Ma ori moving directly to doctoral studies in the year following the completion of their masters degrees has risen slightly from 7 per cent in 2002 to 10 per cent in 2003. (See Ministry of Education 2005, p. 48, below) References

Martin, B 2000, ‘Place: An ethics of cultural difference and location’, Educational Philosophy and Theory, vol. 32(1), pp. 81–91. Ministry of Education—Te Ta huhu o te Ma tauranga, 2005, The system in change: Tertiary Education Strategy 2002/07—Monitoring Report 2005, New Zealand, retrieved 3 October 2006 from: http://educationcounts.edcentre.govt.nz/publications/tertiary/tes-monitor-2005. html Ministry of Education—Te Ta huhu o te Ma tauranga, March 2006a, Maori  in doctoral study, Tertiary Sector Performance Analysis and Reporting, Tertiary Curriculum, Teaching and Learning Group, Ma tauranga Tuatoru, Akoranga Ma rautanga, New Zealand, retrieved 3 October 2006 from: http://educationcounts.edcentre.govt.nz/publications/tertiary/Maoritertiary-2006.html

171


2/5/07 11:42:33 AM


Ministry of Education—Te Ta huhu o te Ma tauranga, March 2006b, Maori  in postgraduate study, Tertiary Sector Performance Analysis and Reporting, Tertiary Curriculum, Teaching and Learning Group, Ma tauranga Tuatoru, Akoranga Ma rautanga, New Zealand, retrieved 3 October 2006 from: http://educationcounts.edcentre.govt.nz/publications/tertiary/Maoritertiary-2006.html Smith, LT with Reid, P, June 2000, Maori  research development: kaupapa Maori  principles and practices—a literature review, report prepared for Te Puni Ka kiri, Ministry of Ma ori Development, retrieved 6 October 2006 from: http://www.kaupapaMaori.com/theory/5/

172


2/5/07 11:42:33 AM

C HAPTER 2 2

Self-care for the supervisor: A personal account Elaine Stratford University of Tasmania

Introduction To write about the care of the self is to engage in a discussion that is simultaneously very private and very public. Take first the personal elements of self-care. We all have views about what it means to look after our body, our emotional and mental wellbeing, and our spiritual welfare. Consciously or unconsciously, some of us may privilege one of these domains over others, while some may seek to balance them holistically. Our views on self-care may or may not coincide with actual practices, and both views and practices will change over time according to context and setting. In this sense, self-care is highly personal and contingent. Take next the public elements of self-care—a phrase I mean in two ways. First, the self (which I will describe as an individual’s understanding of himself or herself as coherent and autonomous) is also a product of complex and ongoing processes of socialisation and enculturation. All things being equal, these shared processes will equip an individual to live with others in a given community or communities. Thus, self-care is always and already mediated by these other processes and, in this sense, is public. Second, self-care is public because its effects are registered not simply by the self, but by others, some of whom the individual may be responsible for or to whom they are accountable. Thus, capacity for self-care may have significant influence on others, perhaps as a result of our experiencing diminished competence or, conversely, because we are in a position to meet or exceed expectations, for example. The supervision of graduate research candidates is a set of privileges and responsibilities that tends to prioritise their care, and rightly so. It involves

173


2/5/07 11:42:33 AM


someone taking ‘the key responsibility for coordinating, communicating and managing the candidature as well as overall responsibility for guidance, direction and advancement of the thesis and ensuring that the candidate is informed about the quality of the thesis’ (University of Tasmania 2006). It also involves the creation of a relationship of trust based on the mutual exploration of intellectual puzzles intended to contribute to common-good scholarship. Given these parameters, some (re)orientation of thought and action to ensure self-care by the supervisor need not imply any loss of care to the candidate. Indeed, it is my central premise that self-care is immensely important for supervisor and candidate, providing crucial renewal to the first, and vital role-modelling to the second. In this chapter I discuss the importance of self-care for the supervisor, and the work presented is both personal and public. It draws on my own experiences as a supervisor of 57 honours and masters coursework and graduate research candidates over the period from 1996 to the present. It also draws on observations of others in my role as a graduate research coordinator in a university department with 17 profile staff and between 70 and 80 research higher degree candidates. Indebted in particular to works by Covey (1989, 2003) and Dowrick (1995, 1997), in what follows I focus on four layers of self-care and share key insights on the manifold benefits of looking after oneself.

Layers of self-care for the supervisor In various works, Stephen Covey expands upon a series of key habits for living that he suggests are hallmarks of leadership. If one accepts that supervision is a form of facilitative leadership (a means by which to provide an early career research scholar with constructive conceptual, organisational, intellectual and other forms of scaffolding), then these key habits are illuminating. My summation of Covey’s (1989, 2003) work follows: • Habits that advance private victories and constitute a move from dependence to independence – Be proactive and response-able. – Be centred in correct principles and begin with the ends in mind. – Be value-focused around life’s priorities; think ‘first things first’. • Habits that advance public victories and constitute a move from independence to interdependence – Build rich and enduring relationships; think ‘win-win’. – Seek first to understand and then to be understood. – Be creatively cooperative and see the potential in all things. Work for mutually beneficial solutions. • Habits that underpin interdependence and self-in-community – Renew: remember to live well (physical care), love (emotional care), learn (mental care) and leave a legacy (spiritual care).

174


2/5/07 11:42:34 AM

self-care for the supervisor: a personal account

– Find your voice through facilitative leadership and help others to find theirs. Dowrick describes an understanding of social, personal, collective and spiritual development that is consonant with Covey. She maintains the absolute centrality of love, generosity, thoughtfulness and mindfulness, kindness, giving and peace. Both draw in different ways upon an older idea that Covey attributes in his books to a survivor of the Nazi death camps, Viktor Frankl—namely that between stimulus and response is a space, and in that space lie our freedom and power to choose our response, and in that response lie our growth and our happiness. Foundational tasks for self-care, care of others and of the Earth may be enacted in such spaces. Over more than a decade of post-doctoral academic life, it has become apparent to me (indeed it seems axiomatic) that universities everywhere are complex and highly pressured environments. They are deeply bureaucratic and embedded in forms of conduct underpinned by neoliberal governmental practices and value systems. Yet they remain populated by scholars committed to the project of higher education to advance knowledge for diverse and (generally) beneficent means and ends. Nevertheless, it is also my experience that this last and arguably most important goal of university life is affected by the exigencies of late modernity in ways that erode the quality of our service to others and our care of self. As I have become increasingly busy with departmental and university-wide academic administration, having simultaneously retained both ‘normal’ undergraduate and postgraduate teaching responsibilities and developed a high supervisory load, I have had to decide how I wanted to be in the world as an academic. This ontological question has required that I think about self-care in ways that move beyond the me to the we—to thinking about how self-care is crucial to thrive in academic life and demonstrate to candidates (and always non-judgementally) that intellectual lives in organisational settings can be simply and deeply rewarding, especially if they prioritise regular and consistent periods of mindful self-care. Let me elaborate on the how of some of the insights I have gained from rethinking my ways of being a supervisor and an academic. The usual caveats apply: I cannot describe all possible aspects of self-care; I am not ‘expert’ in all domains; by separating each form of care there is a risk of suggesting that they are not integrated. What I have to convey is far from a one-size-fits-all ‘take’ on selfcare and the supervisor. Nevertheless, it may resonate with at least a proportion of the readership.

Physical care Let me focus, perhaps predictably, on sleep, diet and exercise. Slumber is vital for cellular healing, growth and restoration. Tearoom stories about it often centre on tactics to get to sleep and stay asleep. Colleagues jest about dreaming restlessly

175


2/5/07 11:42:34 AM


about candidates’ revisions. Others refer to the ‘radar effect’ or completing ‘audits’ of candidates at 2 am, wondering why they haven’t heard a ‘blip’ from John or Jane for a while. Some feel jaded during daylight hours, producing what they perceive as substandard lectures, having insufficient ‘oomph’ to write coherent arguments in their papers, or becoming ‘cranky’ with candidates who ‘fail to deliver’. Some joke about midnight raids on the fridge, their BBC addiction, warm baths, meditation, medication. Perhaps ‘whatever works’ is best where insomnia is rare or short-lived. Where it is habitual, colleagues who ‘go with the flow’ tell me they no longer burn with resentment about being awake when they ‘should’ be asleep and some have noted that productive periods of problem solving attend longer bouts of insomnia. These days, when I wake with a candidate’s welfare in my head, I realise the matter can wait and so go back to sleep, although it took practice to get to that point. When the new day arrives, I contact the candidate and work with them to try and ensure they have mechanisms, support systems and practices in place to assist them. The recognition that empathy does not demand that I entirely solve someone else’s challenges has been a very significant step in my self-care—and I sleep better too. Five years ago, I was advised to rethink my diet, increase the amount of lowfat protein I consumed, decrease the intake of highly processed carbohydrate products, watch that extra glass of wine after dinner, and move! I have been lift ing weights and walking ever since and have changed my diet, and have been immensely glad that I did both. I have more physical strength, and that has been important in the field where I tire less readily; physical manifestations of stress are reduced; my posture is better; the aches and pains have largely gone— except when I forget that writing for four straight hours at a computer is just plain silly. I often let candidates know how fantastic I feel by investing just five hours a week in my physical wellbeing. I couch this message in terms of how it has helped me to better fulfil my obligations: first things first and ends in mind. I hope I have avoided moralising, but a key idea has been to convey that we all need to remember that we are worth the investment. As Dowrick (1991) notes, what ‘is needed as a starting point is a sense, no matter how tentative, that your own life is worth some attention, and that your own self is worth discovering’ (p. 26).

Emotional care In my experience, a key task in self-care is constantly to practise strategies that enhance maturity, empathy and confidence. Let me deal with each in turn. First, doctoral candidature is a high-level and complex training ground for professionals across a range of disciplines to prepare them for sophisticated,

176


2/5/07 11:42:35 AM


multifaceted and demanding work, either inside or outside the higher education sector. It is a work contract that requires all parties to articulate, negotiate, document, understand and enact their roles. This contract needs to be explicit, whether or not candidates are on scholarship, mean to seek employment after completion or have full- or part-time status. A substantial part of candidature needs to be fostered by the supervisor, requiring emotional maturity. In the department I work in, at least a third of candidates are what might be termed ‘lifestyle students’ in their fifties and sixties, and many of them bring such emo tional maturity to the task because they have been in high-pressured professional positions at some point. Many still are, and all are serious about their studies. In my experience, candidates who come straight through school to university, and through honours into the doctoral program, tend to find that ‘work’ ethos harder to manifest, and understandably so. To my mind, our own capacities for emotional self-care (for being responseable, value-oriented and clear about our roles) are vital in constituting the ontological components of candidature. Those guidelines need to be explicitly articulated to all students, and to ‘straight-through’ students in particular. Clarity about how we are being in the process (or knowing that we provide a role model for mature and professional behaviour) is key to our own and our candidates’ emotional wellbeing. ‘Responsibility for others is crucial to living an emotionally mature life, but so is the capacity to acknowledge and take responsibility for one’s own thoughts, feelings and actions: the effects they are having on others; the effects they are having on your own self ’ (Dowrick 2001, p. 18). If emotional maturity characterises our own work practices—and therefore our approach to supervision—then we are more likely to realise one simple idea that promotes our capacity to be ‘involved with detachment’ and maintain our emotional wellbeing: It’s not about me. Candidature is a profoundly important and extended opportunity to provide some assistance to an emergent scholar seeking to professionalise their skills, and emotional maturity is central to that task. Divesting the candidature of certain emotions (angst, ego or possessiveness not least among them), and investing it with empathic listening and questioning, are paramount if we are to avoid the interrelated traps of listening autobiographically and then constantly reliving our own scripts through our candidates. It is my experience that if emotional maturity and empathy are embedded in our work (from supervisory strategies to collegial engagement), then confidence grows; and that strengthens our capacity to see supervision as an immense privilege that need not drain us of our own affective energies. We are less likely to be burdened by self-doubt in advising, because we are less inclined to draw on our own scripts and can then help candidates to help themselves to recognise, name, investigate, categorise, evaluate, monitor and act upon the problems that need to be solved by them during their candidatures.

177


2/5/07 11:42:35 AM


Mental care The life of a healthy individual is characterised by fears, conflicting feelings, doubts, frustrations, as much as by positive feelings. The main thing is that the man or woman feels that he or she is living his or her own life. (Dowrick 2001, p. 22 [original emphasis])

Academic life is predicated on contemplation of one sort or another. It requires discipline, persistence, courage, tenacity, insight, optimism, critical and creative thought, passion and dedication—an exciting and exhausting list. Yet most academics I know are time-poor, and that does not bode well for our sense of wellbeing. Thus, if I were to characterise academic life as I perceive many of us to experience it, terms such as ‘ennui’, ‘stress’, ‘brain-fag’, ‘distractibility’ and ‘fragmentation’ would be there in the mix. A year ago, I reached a point where it became crucial to be deliberate about looking after my own mental wellbeing: I became head of school and was deter mined that it would not be the death-knell to my intellectual development and scholarly pursuits. Without these, I feel my professional life is diminished and my contribution to my candidates ‘mere’ project management. It may seem pedestrian but, for me, time management strategies have been central to the process of preserving my scholarship. As Covey (2003) would have it, these strategies increase our circles of influence and diminish our circles of concern and, as it turns out, have provided the scaffolding for my capacity to care for my physical, emotional and spiritual wellbeing. I spend one day a week with no appointments, working on my own publications and research projects, and am in the process of organising the department timetable so that, over two years, we free up one day from any teaching. I do not check my email on my research day, and tend not to check it on other days more than three times—morning, noon and late afternoon. I answer urgent and important emails at once, but leave others until Friday afternoons. I also use what is sometimes called a ‘tickler’ filing system: suspension files numbered 1–31 for the days of the month, and 1–12 for the months of the year. As work comes across my desk(top), deadlines are determined and work filed according to when it needs first to be dealt with—month to month, week to week, and daily. Since adopting the system, I have not missed a deadline and have felt on top of what has been a significant workload. I have also started to work my diary so that, wherever possible, the first one or two hours of days that are not my research day may also be spent in writing, with appointments thereafter. Again, wherever possible, I schedule time at the day’s end to commune with an endangered species—I read. So seriously do I take this responsibility that, on the encouragement of staff, I have included a week’s reading in the academic workload formula in my department; it is not enough, but it is a start and symbolically important. In short, I have realised that the best way

178


2/5/07 11:42:36 AM


for me to thrive and take care of my own mental wellbeing is to understand that I can’t ‘find’ time; rather, I have ‘made’ time, and am better versed in the literature in my fields than I have been for some time. That currency has informed my own scholarship and is paying new dividends with my candidates and staff. I am also witnessing the value of showing them the time-management strategies I have in hand and, in turn, they assure me that the systems are helping their own work and capacity to avoid feeling stressed and mentally tired or out of control.

Concluding comments The spiritual dimension is your core, your center, your commitment to your value system … And people do it very, very differently. (Covey 1989, p. 292)

In thinking about spiritual self-care, about how that form of care underpins and overlays all the others I have written about above, one singular insight prevails. There is great value in what I will call ‘away times and spaces’. Once again, these need to be deliberately sought and protected. Some of them provide private and solitary opportunities for renewal: consciously sought periods during which one purposely reflects upon values, contributions to be made, ethics and personal and professional practice in relation to the ontological foundations of a life. Since I have cause to travel alone on a regular basis, I have become adept at using these times for contemplation, and find them deeply renewing of my core energies, enthusiasm and commitment to others, my candidates not least among them. Of course, these times and spaces need not always be solitary and private. Simple ‘time out’ with family and friends in convivial spaces and places of felt value can be immensely renewing of the spirit. Again, such times need to be prioritised and celebrated as core to our self-care such that we are centred and then able to serve others. In closing, I stress that the supervision of research candidates is a set of privileges and responsibilities that tends to prioritise their care, and this should be the case. It is also important for supervisors to prioritise self-care in ways that move beyond the me to the we: to serve as non-judgemental role models. In testing times in higher education, it is vital to demonstrate to candidates that a scholarly existence can be immensely rewarding and contribute to the foundational mission of university life, especially when it is underpinned by mindful attention to physical, emotional, mental and spiritual wellbeing. Questions

1 What is the hardest thing for you about taking care of yourself? And the thing that comes most readily? How do you currently approach your self-care in terms of physical, emotional, mental and spiritual domains?

179


2/5/07 11:42:37 AM


2 As a supervisor, in the interface between personal care and professional care, what is working well and why? And what and how would you like to change about what is working less well? What would empower you to do so? 3 Imagine a candidate comes to you deeply concerned about their own wellbeing. While avoiding the temptation to rescue/disable or shift into autobiographical mode, how might you assist your candidate? References

Covey, S 1989, The seven habits of highly effective people, Free Press, New York. Covey, S 2003, First things first, Free Press, New York. Dowrick, S 1995, Intimacy and solitude, Norton, New York. Dowrick, S 1997, Forgiveness and other acts of love, Norton, New York. University of Tasmania 2006, Graduate research resource book, University of Tasmania, Hobart.

180


2/5/07 11:42:37 AM

SECTION 6

Promoting candidates’ reading, writing and thinking


2/5/07 11:42:37 AM

C HAPTER 2 3

Providing quality advice on candidates’ writing Kate Cadman Margaret Cargill The University of Adelaide

Introduction A significant focus of doctoral education, and thus of doctoral supervision, is on writing, both as a process-oriented skill and as a primary product of intellectual inquiry. In Australia, in most Higher Degrees by Research (HDR) a single piece of writing represents the whole research journey and its outcomes, and is all that is examined. As a result, in different ways at different points in candidature, writing becomes a target for attention by both supervisors and candidates. Supervisors’ advice to HDR candidates about their writing has a sustained and critical role, not only in the research education process, but also in determining the perceived scholarly contribution of the final, substantial work that publicly represents many stakeholders: the novice scholar, the supervisory team, the disciplinary area and the university. In this context, supervisors’ advice on drafts of thesis chapters and related conference papers carries a high information and purpose load; supervisors’ comments simultaneously communicate content information, provide evaluative assessment and point to learning directions for candidates, as well as contributing to the interpersonal supervisor–student relationship on which they are predi cated. Yet, despite such a critical role in the progress of a student’s candidature,

182


2/5/07 11:42:37 AM

providing quality advice on candidates’ writing

providing feedback is something that supervisors often do without reflecting on actually why, and how, they are going about it. In this chapter we examine these issues and offer some strategies for advising candidates on their writing. In doing this, we are drawing on our combined experience of over ten years work with supervisors and their candidates across the university in relation to their feedback on draft reviews of literature, research proposals, thesis chapters and conference papers. Through this work we have had first-hand experience of a wide range of supervisor practices in giving feedback in diverse academic disciplines, and we have focused specific attention on its meanings and impacts for candidates. The occurrences we cite here are real-life examples drawn from this experience.

Clarifying expectations Supervisors’ advice to doctoral candidates may take oral or written form, and the purposes it is perceived to fulfil may be interpreted quite differently by the supervisors who deliver it and the students who receive it. Where there is a misun derstanding of intent, or a mismatch of expectation, not only are opportunities lost but, sometimes, there are seriously negative outcomes for the student’s progress. A profitable way to proceed is to make discussion of writing feedback one focus of the initial negotiations around supervision expectations, and then periodically to raise the processes initially agreed on for review, in line with changing expectations as candidature develops. A useful strategy for doing this is to devise cover sheets for individual writing drafts. This activity can promote discussion of the different kinds of drafts that are appropriate at different stages of writing or of candidature; examples might include a Planning draft, a Review draft and a Near-final draft (see Figure 23.1 overleaf). Early Planning drafts, which involve writing for creating rather than for expressing ideas, integrate the process of writing into the design of the project and require specially tailored response from supervisors. When the assumed expectations of different drafts are made explicit, candidates can be required to indicate on the cover sheet what kind of draft they are submitting, as well as when they expect it back, and even any particular focus for comment that they would appreciate. In our view, it is particularly valuable for both candidates and supervisors to canvass as many feedback issues as possible, with as much detail as they can jointly identify, early in the candidature in order to create a shared understanding of the structures in which they will be working. These structures can always be modified to suit changing conditions, but without them, false or ill-informed expectations are easily generated. The following are issues we have met, with indications of some of the detail that has been overlooked in negotiations, with counter-productive results.

183


2/5/07 11:42:38 AM


Turnaround time Is there a published institutional recommendation, or a departmental norm? What is realistic in light of this supervisor’s work patterns? Whose interests will be given priority in setting the agenda? Types of feedback What is the preferred form— a discursive report? hard copy annotations in pen or pencil? electronic track changes? discussion in a meeting? email? phone conversations? some combination of these? Whose preferences will dominate in deciding? Subsequent action What is the candidate expected to do with the annotated draft or comments? Who says what the candidate will write next? Is the candidate expected to incorporate any learning opportunities from this draft into future writing? Parameters for changes Is there a preferred way to ‘write’ the discipline? To what extent does the candidate need to conform to established patterns, or is variation possible? Ownership Who owns which words? Can the candidate import the supervisor’s comments into their text? Should the candidate aim to sound like the supervisor, or like themselves? Whose word is final?

Figure 23.1 A cover sheet to identify the type of draft being submitted (After Schwom & Hirsch 1994) COVER SHEET FOR DOCUMENT DRAFTS

Topic/Name: To: From: Date submitted:

Date to be returned:

Type of draft (select one only) Planning draft

Review draft

This is a draft to clarify what information needs to be presented and what is the best way to present it. It can be: (a) a draft written to discover what the writer thinks, or (b) a set of tables/figures plus dot points of proposed ‘take-home messages’ from the data.

This is a wellorganised draft that results from comments on the ‘Planning draft’ or from previous discussions.

It is primarily a learning document that is not ready for detailed review or close editing.

It is subject to ongoing revisions for learning purposes.

NEAR-FINAL DRAFT

This is a draft that is ready for stylistic revision and close editing for public scrutiny. It should not be reworked in major ways unless it has significant omissions.

184


2/5/07 11:42:39 AM


In setting out to make such normally implicit expectations visible for can didates, often supervisors do not articulate the motives underpinning their advising practices even to themselves. They may have a variety of motivations and emphases that are not necessarily made explicit, and consequently are often not fulfilled by their advisory comments. At some points, supervisors use their feedback as a pedagogic strategy to promote a process of education for their student candidate towards competence as a writer of the discipline; at other points, their focus is on editing the text as a product and acting as a gatekeeper of the perceived disciplinary conventions and ‘standards’ appropriate for an examinable piece of writing at this level. A helpful strategy for supervisors to clarify their goals and communicate them to candidates is to locate their commentary on a pair of continua indicating these positions (see Figure 23.2) so that they and the candidate can see what the purposes are, and how they have been prioritised for the given draft, the stage in candidature and the given candidate. In this way, mismatching of expectations can be minimised, especially in relation to how the candidate is meant to respond to the feedback they have received.

Promoting learning From our own perspective, these process and product approaches do not have equal merit at most stages of candidature. Clearly when documents are reaching the point of ‘going public’, supervisors have a special responsibility to help candidates to produce a presentable draft that conforms to disciplinary expectations, or to Figure 23.2 Clarifying process and product goals for supervisors’ and/or candidates’ revisions of draft writing

candidate as competent writer with developed writing and self-editing skills

process focus (supervisor as educator)

product focus (supervisor as editor)

quality research outcome in a ‘beautifully’ expressed, edited and formatted document

possible feedback goal at specific point in candidature and/or relationship

185


2/5/07 11:42:39 AM


make appropriate arrangements for that to happen, such as by external editing or educational support from within the university. However, it is common prac tice for supervisors to unreflectively and routinely correct errors and insert their preferred form of words into a candidate’s text, simply to make each draft represent a nicely expressed written document. If, in fact, an important goal for the supervisor is that candidates should learn how to express themselves in this preferred way, or how to self-edit their drafts, then significant problems can occur. In practice, these skills are very unlikely to develop as a result of this process. Candidates often come to expect that their supervisors will ‘clean up’ their drafts and so do not put their own energies into it. Many do not see their candidature as requiring them to improve their writing and editing skills because there is an unarticulated assumption among their supervision team that the dominant focus is on making the current document ‘read well’. Our work with both mother-tongue candidates and those with English as an Additional Language (EAL) has led us to appreciate the potential for pedagogy within doctoral supervision, and to see the value of supervisors setting up a pedagogic process for writing development rather than concentrating on editing. For teaching/learning purposes, supervisors can adopt specifically targeted ways to tailor their advice (for a range of useful perspectives see Hyland and Hyland 2006). First they can clarify different possible focuses for feedback on draft writing and brainstorm with their candidates their expectations of the multiple criteria for successful texts in their discipline. Figure 23.3 suggests a model for doing this, while recognising that in real-life drafts these categories are not discrete but overlap and interact in complex ways. Figure 23.3 Possible focuses for supervisor feedback or candidate self-editing of draft documents CONTENT

facts, substance, literature, ideas

ARGUMENT/ ORGANISATION

logical flow, connections between ideas

‘VOICE’

writer’s selfexpression

LANGUAGE STRUCTURES

FORMATTING

technical and grammatical structures

mechanical and printed features of the document

Criteria for evaluation (accuracy, relevance etc.…)

186


2/5/07 11:42:40 AM


A range of questions related to these focus categories can help to clarify and enrich discussions: Argument and organisation • What is meant by ‘logical flow’? How are texts like this one usually organised, and how do headings and subheadings usually signal the structure? How are connections of ideas usually represented? • What is the ‘story’ in this piece of writing? What is its ‘take-home message’? • How is independence of thought recognised by readers in this discipline? How is ‘plagiarism’ avoided in discussions of literature? How successful is this draft in these respects? ‘Voice’ • What kind of ‘voice’ and mode of address are most appropriate for this discipline and/or paradigm of research? Should the candidate use ‘I’ with an active verb, or is the passive voice preferred? • How much jargon is conventional? To what extent are informal vocabulary and forms of expression acceptable? Language structures • What types of grammatical or surface-level errors recur in the draft (for example, unwieldy clause constructions, errors of sentence connectors, vocabulary, articles, subject–verb agreements, verb forms and/or tenses)? How serious are they? Which ones occur most often? • How might the candidate develop an understanding of their errors, and work best to avoid them in the future? Who will proofread the final draft? Will funding be required? Formatting • How should the footnotes, references and/or bibliography be formatted? Is ‘EndNote’ or equivalent software an appropriate tool? • What are the university’s specifications for formatting a thesis? • What help is available for the candidate to produce a polished, formatted document?

If the relevant processes and responsibilities have been openly discussed at the outset, it will be a natural step for supervisors—ideally in consultation with their students—to select one or two focuses to address in depth, making it clear what they will not be commenting on, and with the understanding that the candidate will show development in these areas in subsequent drafts. Where more than one focus of attention has been decided on, a variety of strategies can be employed, such as: coding interventions to represent their focus (C, A, V, L, F); using differentcoloured ink for different categories of comment; using the left-hand margin for comments on argument and logical flow, and the text body and right-hand margin for noting grammatical errors or infelicities of expression, and so on. In these ways, candidates can be encouraged to address identifiable and man ageable learning targets incrementally without being overwhelmed by seemingly insurmountable and amorphous problems. Furthermore, these strategies can be

187


2/5/07 11:42:40 AM


just as readily employed when giving feedback electronically. Microsoft Word ‘track changes’ is now quite widely used in connection with email, and more sophisticated options such as the commercial version of Acrobat are extremely versatile, allowing for text boxes, talk circles with colour coding and inserted audio comment. Such tools are particularly effective for interposing probing questions about content and argument, as well as requesting clarification of points, adding suggestions for further reading and/or argument development, reordering material and so on. They also overcome issues surrounding the legibility of advisers’ handwriting, which can be acute for EAL candidates whose home language uses a different script type. However, relying on software can be timeconsuming, and can restrict the adviser’s access. Furthermore, if a ‘track changes’ approach is used primarily to insert correct and/or preferred alterations into a candidate’s text, an attitude of ‘This is how I would say it’ is easily generated in the mind of the adviser. The use of such software also runs the risk of the candidate accepting the changes without considering them in detail, or seeing them as a focus for their learning. Whatever the preferred medium, successful learning outcomes will be greatly enhanced if supervisors envisage a process of drafting and redrafting similar to that proposed by Bartholomae in 1985, where no ‘perfect’ version of a text is targeted, but together teachers and learners work to complete ‘successive approxi mations’ to purely notional conceptions of successful texts. This of course requires that, where possible and appropriate, supervisors see their feedback as contributing to a well-defined redrafting structure, and use their commentary to engage the candidate in learning how to diagnose their own avenues for improvement, and to edit their own drafts effectively. Clerehan and Moodie (1997) provide a pedagogic model for doing this, with the important note that supervisors must build their own progressive withdrawal into the process. Providing advice and feedback on drafts needs to be underpinned by a view of doctoral candidates developing skills, competence and autonomy as disciplinary writers.

Interpersonal considerations If a priority is to encourage doctoral candidates to engage positively in their learning opportunities, then it is crucial to consider the interpersonal dimensions of supervision. All advisory comment on candidates’ writing presumes a listener or a reader, and aims to communicate with them. By its very nature feedback is contextual and dialogic, not decontextualised and monologic. Most presupposes action of some kind on the candidate’s part. This means that key to the effective ness of the educational outcomes, especially when feedback is in writing, is the tone and manner of address employed in the comments. Interestingly, supervisors as well as candidates have significant identity and emotional investments in the language they use. Cultural and gender issues

188


2/5/07 11:42:41 AM


can influence how a person feels about their language, as well as how strongly they believe that certain linguistic forms represent intrinsic social values. How supervisors and candidates are positioned in relation to these issues is rarely made explicit in supervision discussions. If the atmosphere can be made sufficiently comfortable, supervisors might reflect on their own emotional positions, perhaps recognising that these are not necessarily representative of other academics’. They may raise related questions with their candidates; for example: • What kind of feedback do you generally find most useful? Candidates have said: I love the beautiful scientific phrases he gives me. She has such good ideas for my methodology. I have told him, no praise please. I only want to know how to improve.

• Who hates what? Supervisors have said: He just massacres the English language. It’s tedious—I can never work out where it’s going.

A candidate has said: I hate the way she starts my sentences for me.

• Are there any issues that either of us feels really strongly about? Supervisors have said: I will not read another draft unless it has been edited into comprehensible English first. The Introduction must be written first.

A candidate has said: I can’t hand her anything to read—I feel just too exposed.

For educational outcomes it is extremely important that supervisors take into account how their comments will be interpreted by the particular candidate for whom they are intended. If action is recommended, it will rarely be promoted by completely covering a candidate’s draft with red or green ink. Derogatory comments (such as Rubbish! and What on earth does this mean?), sarcasm (Oh really!), and hostility (You should know better than this by now) are clearly counterproductive and in danger of paralysing the candidate altogether. All too easily the marking pen can become a sword—one candidate told us with a touch of irony she was sure that when her supervisor had run out of red ink he would not hesitate to use student blood! Even prompts (such as So what? or Why are you telling me this?) seem

189


2/5/07 11:42:41 AM


more often to represent the unfocused emotion of the supervisor than guidance for the candidate. Interestingly, formulaic or randomly enthusiastic comment such as ticks in the margin, or Yes! or Right!, while mostly very positive to receive, are not always seen as helpful to a candidate’s redrafting. For a student-reader to know what to act on and how to act, the most useful advice is clear, specific and detailed—and it sustains a respectful relationship with the particular personality and position of the candidate. This can be facilitated by comment that addresses a candidate’s arguments and language choices in descriptive rather than judgemental terms (for example: The meaning is not clear here, rather than Faulty expression), and suggestions that focus on the written text rather than on the student-writer (for example: It would be useful to add some key literature here, rather than You’ve omitted some key literature). Exclamation marks and underlining usually impact negatively and are best avoided. It is also useful to consider to what extent it is helpful to mitigate expressions of criticism with individual candidates, and how to issue commands. In some circumstances, You might want to think about adding X here will arouse a candidate’s motivation; in others, perhaps for international students, it may confuse, and Add X here may be more appropriate. It is important to remember that advice and feedback always exist in the specific context of a relationship. They are ongoing dialogues in the broader conversations of supervision, and when understood as such, supervisors’ and candidates’ expectations are less likely to conflict in destructive ways.

Concluding comments In this chapter we have raised several issues of particular interest to us, especially the potential for supervisors’ advice on draft writing to contribute to a positive learning experience for candidates. In our view, it is especially important for supervisors to clarify, both for themselves and for their candidates, how they see their role as a reader of a given draft by a particular candidate. At different stages in candidature, a supervisor may want to act as a supportive colleague and mentor in relation to their candidate’s writing; at other stages, as an expert in the field with the ability to contribute to the ideas and arguments expressed; or as a judge and gatekeeper of the appropriate content and ‘standard’ of doctoral writing in their discipline; and at some points, primarily as an editor of expression and the grammatical structures of the language. We have presented here some strategies that we have found useful for clarifying these roles and for identifying the multiple purposes and focuses underpinning supervisors’ advice. Above all, we want to emphasise how important it is to consider the interpersonal and affective dimensions of this advice in the broader dialogues of supervision, if candidates are to develop their disciplinary writing skills through doctoral education.

190


2/5/07 11:42:42 AM


Questions

1 Think back to your own experience of receiving advice on your written work— perhaps by your own doctoral supervisors, blind journal article reviewers (no ambiguity intended!), or colleagues offering informal support. What kinds of com ments did you find most helpful for your redrafting and what, if anything, reduced your confidence to proceed? 2 Ask a candidate on whose writing you have been commenting for over a year to allow you to review your feedback over this time. Consider the following: a Are your educating and/or editing goals evident for each draft, and did they change as the candidature developed? b Is it always clear what you intended the candidate to do as a result of your comments? c What relationship is suggested by the tone and address of your remarks and are they compatible with your other conversations with the candidate? d Would you express your advice any differently now? 3 How would you describe your current approach to providing feedback on writing to a new candidate at an early supervisory meeting? What modifications could you suggest to your present practice, and how appropriate might it be to canvass this topic before accepting a candidate for supervision? References

Bartholomae, D 1985, ‘Inventing the university’, in M Rose (ed.), When a writer can’t write: Studies in writer’s block and other composing problems, Guildford, New York, pp. 134–65. Clerehan, R & Moodie, J 1997, ‘A systematic approach to the teaching of writing for supervisors of international candidates: Perspectives from genre theory’, in R Murray-Harvey & H Silins (eds), Learning and teaching in higher education: Advancing international perspectives, Flinders University Press, South Australia, pp. 73–89. Refereed proceedings of the HERDSA National Conference, Adelaide, July 7–10. Hyland, K & Hyland, F 2006, Feedback in second language writing: Contexts and issues, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK. Schwom, BL & Hirsch, PL 1994, ‘Managing the drafting process: Creating a new model for the workplace’, The Bulletin, 1–10 June.

191


2/5/07 11:42:42 AM

C HAPTER 2 4

Supervising publishing from the doctorate Peter Macauley RMIT University Rosemary Green Shenandoah University

Introduction During and following doctoral study, candidates are expected to demonstrate that they can accomplish complex research projects out of which new knowledge is created. Evidence of this capacity for research and knowledge creation is announced through various venues for scholarly communication, including publication in journals, conference proceedings and book chapters. Academic publication requires a broad range of information literacies. Consequently, the candidate who publishes must comprehend and negotiate the scholarly communication network of authors, institutions, the open market and public agencies. Supervisors are positioned to encourage candidates to understand and develop the skills, practices and insights required to produce successful publications. This chapter offers practical recommendations for converting the information literacy processes of accessing, critiquing and using information to scholarly communication, including: • identifying and navigating a range of publication options • publishing strategically • understanding citation indexing and journal impact factors. Doctoral candidates and recent graduates are well placed to generate a sig nificant quantity of publishable works from within the context of the doctorate, where original contribution to knowledge is expected. It may be estimated that

192


2/5/07 11:42:43 AM

supervising publishing from the doctorate

approximately two-thirds of university research is carried out by postgraduate research candidates who subsequently author, in part or entirety, 25–30 per cent of publications emanating from university research. Moreover, candidates and graduates are under certain pressure to disseminate that knowledge. In Australia, taxpayers contribute measurably to the costs of doctoral education; it follows that the wider community, where possible, should benefit from the findings. Candidates generally react in a positive manner when their supervisors encourage them to publish from their doctoral work. Supervisors who recall their first publishing opportunities and partner that with seasoned experience, can implicitly model or more explicitly direct the process from beginning stages to successful publication. In the current academic climate where establishing a track record and increasing one’s visibility are vital, the strategy of publishing from within the doctorate is both fundamental and influential. Despite the impetus to publish, studies have suggested that approximately only one in two candidates publish the results of their doctoral research. Supervisors can play a critical role by encouraging candidates to develop an operational understanding of the venues and mechanisms through which schol arly communication takes place. Scholarly communication varies by discipline; in general terms, however, engagement with other scholars first requires an under standing of how information is organised, shared and used. These are essential elements of information literacy. As mentors, supervisors can also promote taking a strategic approach from very early phases of candidature by ensuring, for instance, that candidates are able to acquire quality publications that act as models for future publications. In the current environment of print and electronic publishing, numerous options are available, and researchers are not necessarily restricted to traditional journal articles, conference papers, books and book chapters. Authors are now afforded many print and online publishing opportunities, self-publishing, print on demand, and open-access archives or repositories. The Research Quality Framework, which is about to be implemented in Australia, and the Aotearoa New Zealand Performance-Based Review Fund, introduced in 2003, have placed greater emphasis on using academic publications to measure quality in higher education and impact on the wider community. In response, supervisors and candidates need to reflect on publishing for wider community impact in addition to publishing quality research. This chapter offers supervisors pathways and advice for working together with candidates by recommending resources that will support some of the processes.

Identifying and navigating publication options So where should supervisors recommend their doctoral candidates publish? A good place to start may be the most obvious: candidates’ reading lists and literature they have reviewed during their doctoral work to date. Trends often

193


2/5/07 11:42:43 AM


appear when personal bibliographies are examined in this light. Are particular journals cited frequently or do certain publishers seem to dominate? Are par ticular conferences cited repeatedly? Who are the key authors and where have they published? Candidates could undertake a database search to determine where particular topics are being published, both within their disciplines of study and in related areas. Candidates can benefit greatly from knowing how to identify and access the literatures of other disciplines, so searching some of the large multidisciplinary databases may be worthwhile as the results can offer publishing alternatives in a different range of fields. A primary resource for finding publication alternatives is Ulrich’s Periodicals Directory. Ulrich’s profiles nearly a quarter of a million consumer and trade magazines, academic and scholarly journals, monographic series, newsletters, newspapers, electronic publications, conference proceedings, ‘online zines’, and many other types of serials, whether published regularly or irregularly. The Ulrich network includes 80 000 commercial, academic and professional publishers in 200 countries around the world. The data include where journals are indexed (such as coverage in the major specialist bibliographic databases), circulation rates as well as basic contact information and whether or not a journal is refereed. Candidates may have a misguided belief that their doctoral thesis will, without too much effort, be turned into a book after graduation. Yet, aspiring authors should understand that book publishing is a fiercely competitive business, and with the demise of a number of university presses the task has become even more challenging. However, numerous graduates have succeeded, often by adopting a different writing style from the outset rather than undertaking a major conversion on completion of the thesis. This approach requires considerable planning from the beginning. Melbourne University Publishing (2005) has an excellent website ‘Turning your thesis into a book’ (http://www.mup.unimelb.edu.au/thesis.html) that provides useful tips and strategies for doctoral graduates. The website commences with pragmatic advice: ‘Rewriting a thesis is not simply a matter of making revisions to the existing text. An original thesis should be regarded as the basis for an entirely new work, written with a new audience in mind’. Candidates considering turning the thesis into a published book may wish also to consult other directories such as The Australian Writer’s Marketplace and the Australian Publishers Association Members Directory. Universities and other institutions such as professional associations and discipline-based groups often provide open-access archives or repositories for the storage, promotion and dissemination of research output. Researchers can submit their work, including academic papers, as pre-print or final published article format, research reports, theses and other scholarly outputs. Material placed on open-access archives is available freely to a defined group, such as university staff members, members of a professional association, and, in many cases, the web audience at large. In some countries, funding bodies mandate

194


2/5/07 11:42:44 AM


that those receiving research funding must submit their research outputs to a particular archive or repository. Candidates can also construct personal web pages as sites for sharing their research work. As many of these opportunities are widely available in academic environments, the chances of postgraduates’ research findings being widely disseminated are greatly enhanced, primarily because archives, repositories and academic and personal web pages are harvested by search engines such as Google and Google Scholar. Open-access initiatives have gained greater credibility and acceptance over recent years and provide an excellent publication alternative for doctoral candidates.

Publishing strategically In the current circumstances in Australia and Aotearoa New Zealand, encouraging candidates to take a strategic approach to publishing the results of their work is essential. The result of three or more years of doctoral work should be disseminated wisely and, with good planning, widely. An incremental approach is both a wise and pragmatic way to support candidates’ efforts to publish and present their work as soon as possible during candidature. The presentation of a paper at an in-house seminar or a postgraduate conference may offer good starting points, as these venues normally provide a supportive environment and give confidence to the novice presenter. Presentation of a paper to a wider audience at relevant national or international conferences might follow from these first stagings, and publications may follow from conference presentations. Submitting a conference paper can expose candidates to the peer review process, and candidates may find this early entry into presenting their research to be less intimidating than submitting for a journal. The progression to a book chapter or journal article becomes more achievable when an incremental approach is taken. Some candidates find that presenting their research in smaller sections is more manageable. The literature review or a chapter from the thesis can be respectable first publications. Of course, supervisors may find that co-writing with their doctoral candid ate is an excellent way to induct them into the world of publishing, scholarly or otherwise. Incorporating a publishing schedule into the overall candidature plan is pru dent. Research training is central to undertaking a doctorate, so publishing and presenting should be part of the training. Some universities outline publishing activities, or at least submission of papers, as a requirement of candidature. Establishing a publishing schedule together ensures that the expectation is known from the outset. Supervisors and candidates can look for appropriate options and plan the writing, presenting and publishing well ahead of time. Timeliness is important in building a record of research; supervisors and candidates should be aware of delays in getting out new research caused by the inevitable reviewing and publishing cycle.

195


2/5/07 11:42:44 AM


Participating in scholarly communication requires understanding how infor mation is organised, then shared. There are a few other tactical tips that are worth passing on to candidates to increase the likelihood of their work being read by others in the scholarly community. When preparing to submit a journal article proposal, determining which bibliographic databases index particular journals is a sensible first step. Ulrich’s Periodicals Directory, for example, is a tool for establishing where journals are indexed. If a journal is not indexed by the major databases in a candidate’s discipline, then research articles published in the journal may not be found by other researchers undertaking bibliographic searches. If that is the case, perhaps other journals should be considered. Once the index location of a journal has been determined, knowing how the content of the journal is actually represented in the bibliographic index can be quite helpful. Since most academic indexes are searchable by key words and phrases (and sometimes by prescribed and controlled terms as well), authors should consider the terms that will best describe their works and fit with other indexing terms. Abstracts should be constructed carefully, as abstracts are often part of the searchable fields of bibliographic indexes and databases. Candidates can increase the exposure of their research by embedding key words into abstracts, particularly words that are not part of article titles. Knowing whether journals are well indexed, then identifying and using specific terms used for searching out a piece of research are two steps in developing a publishing strategy. At the same time, aspiring authors should also be aware of the bibliographic format required by the editors of individual journals; using that format from the first draft of an article can help shape the writing into a more acceptable form for publication. In essence, these techniques equate to marketing published work and increasing exposure in the scholarly market place.

Understanding citation indexing and journal impact factors The Research Quality Framework (RQF) and Performance-Based Research Fund (PBRF) measure the quality and impact of publicly funded research in Australia and Aotearoa New Zealand, and allocate funding accordingly. Under these schemes, researchers based in universities are required to demonstrate the quality and impact of their research by way of an evidence portfolio. Research ‘quality’ refers to the intrinsic merit of the research and its academic impact, while research ‘impact’ refers to the broader impact or use of the research, including the extent to which it has been successfully applied. While doctoral candidates are not included, or only tangentially, nevertheless, doctoral graduates need to create a research profile for themselves and establish a presence in the scholarly community, so publishing the results of their research is essential. The method of bibliometrics is commonly used to determine evidence of academic impact. Bibliometrics uses

196


2/5/07 11:42:45 AM


quantitative analysis to measure research output and impact within a given field or discipline, or between fields and disciplines. Many bibliometric studies are based on the Web of Knowledge, a powerful database comprised of Science Citation Index, Social Sciences Citation Index and Arts and Humanities Citation Index. A crucial aspect of publishing strategically is choosing the most appropriate place to publish. When submitting for journal publication, the pressure to publish in high-impact journals should be taken into consideration. The journal impact factor is a bibliometric, statistical measure used to rank and evaluate journals. Despite the debate over the formulation of the metrics and observable bias towards journals in certain disciplines, journal impact figures carry academic weight and respect. This is increasingly the case in Australia and Aotearoa New Zealand. Pragmatically, candidates should endeavour to publish in journals indexed by major citation indexes found in most academic libraries, such as the Americanbased Web of Knowledge. It enables users to search current and retrospective information, across disciplines and internationally, from approximately 8700 of the most prestigious, high-impact research journals. Research has revealed, how ever, that only 27 per cent of journal articles authored by Australian academics in social science disciplines is captured by Web of Knowledge, compared with 74 per cent of journal articles generated by Australian academics in science disciplines (Royle and Over 1994); we expect similar percentages would apply for Aotearoa New Zealand academics. This issue is contentious as the database is often used to measure research output or productivity (the number of publications produced by academics) and also research impact (how often academics’ works are cited). A feature of the Web of Knowledge is Journal Citation Reports, which provides annually calculated data on the most frequently used or cited journals (their impact factor), and immediacy index (how quickly the average article from a journal is cited within the year of publication). Benchmarking factors include the ‘cited half-life’ (benchmarks the age of cited articles by showing the number of years back from the current year that account for 50 per cent of the total number of citations to a journal in the current year) and ‘citing half-life’ (the number of years from the current year that account for 50 per cent of the cited references from articles published by a journal in the current year). While some of these benchmarking factors are complex, they are taken very seriously in particular disciplines. Scopus and Google Scholar are two new alternatives to Web of Knowledge and also provide excellent citation information. Scopus, an Elsevier database, does not yet have the coverage of Web of Knowledge, but the two resources complement each other since neither is entirely comprehensive across all disciplines. Google Scholar, a popular and freely available web search engine, is a relative newcomer as well and has not yet established the standing of Web of Knowledge or Scopus. Other limited citation information is becoming increasingly available through publishers of online journal collections, including Wiley Interscience, Sage Full Text Journals Collection and Science Direct. Impact data retrieved from these sources are used

197


2/5/07 11:42:46 AM


as performance indicators for career advancement. Consequently, developing an awareness of the data and tools for accessing the data can support the early career doctoral researcher’s strategic approach—an investment in future prospects. Due to the complexity of these bibliometric tools, enlisting the assistance of your librarian when undertaking citation searches may be wise.

Concluding comments In today’s competitive research environment, candidates normally require more than a doctorate when they graduate. Other outputs are required—and expected; and working towards a quality track record is almost mandatory and something supervisors need to encourage and promote. Librarians can provide advice of this nature and increase the probability of getting new work ‘out there’ and into relevant research communities. Getting published is crucial to doctoral candid ates, if not during candidature, then most certainly after completion, particularly as a candidate’s status moves to that of early career researcher immediately upon graduation. Candidates can further their information literacy skills by understanding how print and electronic publications are organised, managed and distributed. Librarians are able to guide doctoral candidates through the publication network, offer recommendations for the best tools to use when preparing to publish, and provide informed advice about the most strategic journals in which to publish. Their advice can include where journals are indexed and which are covered in the major specialist bibliographic databases; they can assist in identifying indexing terms and specialised vocabularies, circulation rates, impact factor rates, level of prestige, as well as basic information such as names and addresses of editors and whether or not a journal is refereed. While publishing in the professional or trade literature is often a practical and appropriate way to disseminate research findings, candidates need to be aware of the importance of not restricting the publishing of their hard-won research to second-rate journals with minimal circulation rates, or low impact, or to those not indexed by the major databases in your field. Supervisors need to incorporate a publishing schedule into the candidates’ doctoral practices as part of the overall research training; and with appropriate mentoring and hands-on support, candidates should be well on the way to establishing an excellent research track record upon their graduation. Questions

1 Do your candidates know whether, and where, the journals in which they wish to publish are indexed by the major bibliographic indexes in the discipline?

198


2/5/07 11:42:46 AM


2 Are your candidates familiar with citation indexes, including journal impact factors and cited reference rates, and have your candidates noticed any particular publishing trends in the references they have consulted to date? 3 Have your candidates consulted with a liaison librarian to develop basic information literacy skills including knowledge of bibliographic indexes, citations indexes and other relevant tools? Reference

Royle, P & Over, R 1994, ‘The use of bibliometric indicators to measure the research productivity of Australian academics’, Australian Academic and Research Libraries, vol. 25(2), pp. 77–88.

199


2/5/07 11:42:46 AM

C h a p t er 2 5

Assisting candidates with seminar and conference presentations Léonie Rennie Curtin University of Technology

Introduction During candidature, one of the most important avenues for research candidates to obtain constructively critical comment on their research is to present it in public. Public presentations are important because they push a doctoral candi date’s thinking beyond the everyday comfort of working with their supervisor and the research literature pursued so far. Candidates may be forced to re-think the direction they have taken, re-examine their research questions and re-evaluate the appropriateness of methodological choices. The result will be a more effective research program and a better quality thesis, in both content and structure. Public presentations are usually of two kinds: a seminar or colloquium within the university to an audience familiar to the candidate, or an external present ation of a paper or poster at a conference, where the audience may be entirely unfamiliar. Most research training programs will provide occasions for in-house seminar presentations to fellow candidates and staff. There may be several opportunities to present seminars as the research progresses, each tackling one aspect of the research program. The literature review, the research questions and methods to collect and analyse data, and the results with their implications are three common focuses of in-house seminars of this kind. At every stage, peer questioning and comments provide valuable feedback on the candidate’s work thus far, by questioning ambiguities, suggesting other references or approaches, and requir ing the candidate to justify choices and interpretations. Some of these comments

200


2/5/07 11:42:47 AM

assisting candidates with seminar and conference presentations

may come from ‘left field’ but all serve a valuable purpose: they help candidates to think critically about what they are doing and why, and thus help them to stay on track. Presenting at conferences outside the university provides a second avenue to obtain constructive feedback. Here, the candidate has opportunity to meet, and have conversations with, experts in the discipline. Up-to-date references, current research directions and dominant theoretical perspectives are all on show, and candidates can gather feedback about where they fit into a dynamic field. They have opportunities to ‘be noticed’ by the researchers they have read and cited, and to begin networking relationships with other practitioners in their discipline. Usually, conference papers are delivered either as an oral presentation of a written paper or as a poster paper, where availability at a certain time for conversation around their mounted poster is required, and sometimes a short presentation may be expected. Papers and posters are very different kinds of presentations, so to showcase the research effectively and to stimulate an active response from the audience, different skills are required in preparing and presenting them. In this chapter, the in-house seminar, conference paper and conference poster presentation formats are considered, together with ideas about how best to assist candidates to obtain value for their effort. The focus is on preparation of the presentation rather than the mechanics of delivery. Good advice relating to delivery is provided by Denholm (2006). Before format is considered, however, there are matters about content that need to be discussed with the candidate.

Content matters In preparing their presentation, candidates need to consider three things about its content. First, what content do they want to give to the audience? Second, how will they structure that content? Third, what information do they want the audience to give back to them—that is, what kind of feedback will best help to improve their research? These three matters overlap because the nature of the content influences how the presentation can be structured, and the structure affects the audience’s understanding of the content, thus determining their ability to provide constructive feedback to the candidate. The first matter—exactly what content is to be presented—needs careful discussion with candidates. How much content depends on the time available to present and take questions from the audience. Often, candidates’ inexperience makes them anxious to tell the audience everything they have done during their research. This rarely works. The candidate is apt to speak quickly to get through a packed presentation and usually runs over time. The audience has too much information to absorb, has difficulty identifying important points, loses track, forgets questions thought of early in the presentation, and often has no time to respond. It may take considerable (and continuing) effort from the supervisor

201


2/5/07 11:42:47 AM


to persuade candidates to limit the content of the presentation to a few points only, but it is worth the effort. Preparing a concise account of the research requires candidates to think deeply to conceptualise their work, select the salient content and write about it at a high conceptual level, omitting detail. These are valuable skills indeed. The second matter is how to structure the content. Candidates need to realise that effective presentations are like other forms of effective communication. There must be a beginning to set the scene, a middle to convey the content, and an end to tie it all together. Thus a presentation should begin with an overview to prepare the audience mentally for what follows. The main part of the presentation provides the content, organised into key points that the audience can follow easily. Using graphics to summarise the conceptual framework and to outline the research design is an effective way to quickly present key aspects of the research program. Finally, these key points are drawn together as interpretations and/or implications that synthesise the content and enable the audience to appreciate its significance and ask questions or make comments about the research. The third matter about content relates to the audience response. The aim is to get feedback about the content presented so that improvements can be made to the research. Candidates may need help to appreciate the value of constructive feedback. Putting one’s work out for public comment can be threatening. If candidates feel they are opening themselves to criticism rather than feedback, they are likely to have a negative rather than a positive experience. They may need their supervisor’s help to develop a positive frame of mind. Once they have this, then in preparing and delivering their presentations, candidates are able to concentrate on how to present their content in ways that provoke the audience to think and to offer constructive comment.

In-house seminars The purpose of in-house seminars is to report progress, get feedback on work done so far and test out ideas for the next steps with a familiar, and usually friendly, audience. To enable this to happen, about 45–60 minutes are required, about half of which will be presentation, and half discussion. The content is structured into three sections: a brief overview to provide the context of the study; three to five key issues that are to form the basis of discussion; and concluding comments that may take the form of questions inviting feedback or the laying out of options to be evaluated for the next stage of the research. In seminars of this kind, the role of the supervisor extends beyond helping the candidate to select and sequence the content; it is also to prepare the candidate to deal with, and make use of, the audience response. Members of the audience for in-house seminars should understand that their role is to provide constructive feedback. Often members may wish to interrupt the oral presentation with

202


2/5/07 11:42:48 AM


questions or comments, so the candidate should be prepared for this. By acting as timekeeper, the supervisor can allow for interruptions from the audience and also ensure that the candidate completes the presentation on time. In case the audience is initially unresponsive, the supervisor must be ready to ask opening questions in order to seek clarification of issues from the candidate and to encourage the audience to interact. The supervisor should schedule a de-briefing session with the candidate as soon as possible after the seminar to discuss the feedback and ensure that full benefit is obtained from it.

Preparing a conference presentation The purpose of conference presentations, whether in paper or poster format, is to report the candidate’s work in the public arena and to encourage constructive feedback. Often the candidate is required to have a full written paper to be either distributed at the conference or submitted for publication in conference proceedings. In these cases, both the content of the full written paper and of the presentation must be considered. Obviously, the content of the presentation will draw from the written paper but will be much shorter due to time limitations for an oral presentation, and space limitations for a poster format. Most conference organisers require people to submit a title and an abstract in order to be considered for conference participation. Thus, to assist the candidate to prepare for the conference, the supervisor should begin with the abstract. Writing an abstract provides practice in an important skill: being able to write a concise and compelling précis. Further, writing it first forces the candidate to identify and sequence the small number of key points that will form the basis of the presentation. This requires good analytical skills, logical thinking and clear exposition. The supervisor should advise the candidate that the title is just as important as the abstract. Conference programs usually display only the author and the title of the presentation. As the candidate is likely to be an unknown author, conference attendees will often use the title to decide whether or not to attend the presenta tion. Thus the title needs to catch attention but still be descriptive of the content. Some conference organisers request a paper proposal of several pages, and often provide section headings to guide the format of the proposal. Preparing such a proposal is another form of technical writing that provides the candidate with valuable experience in creating structured, concise prose. The supervisor will need to assist candidates to develop these writing skills, and make sure that they read carefully and follow exactly any instructions for the preparation of abstracts and/or proposals, particularly in terms of required length, font size, referencing style and how the abstract/proposal is to be submitted. Most are now submitted electronically, so care must be taken with format, file type and submission by email or by a web-based process as requested.

203


2/5/07 11:42:48 AM


Conference presentations are more formal than in-house seminars and usually the audience will be unfamiliar to candidates. Sometimes inexperienced and youthful candidates will travel to a country they have not visited before, and may not be fluent speakers of the local language or accustomed to the culture. Further, there may be certain behavioural protocols attached to different disciplines of which candidates must be made aware. All of these factors combine to provide a potentially stressful situation requiring considerable supervisory support. Even when the supervisor is also attending the conference, careful preparation of the oral presentation or poster as well as the written paper is required so that the candidate has a solid academic basis to provide confidence in presenting. It is most important that candidates take paper and electronic copies of their presentation in their carry-on bags during travel to the conference just in case their checked baggage is lost en route.

Presenting a conference paper The purpose of presenting a conference paper is to tell the audience about the research in a clear and concise manner and to gather feedback about it. Time limitations restrict the candidate’s oral presentation to only a short version of the paper’s content. It is important that the candidate establishes the time available for the oral presentation from conference information. The time may vary from 10 to 40 minutes including questions/discussion, so this provides a guide to how much content can be presented. The candidate will need the supervisor’s help in structuring the presentation to provide an introductory overview, concise exposition of the key points, and then a conclusion summarising the outcomes of the research. Audience engage ment is essential for a useful discussion, so the supervisor should assist the candidate to practise delivering a relaxed presentation, referring to—but not reading from—carefully prepared notes. An effective strategy to help candidates develop a clear and concise presentation that can be delivered in the specified time, is to arrange a ‘dry run’ of the presentation with a small in-house group of colleagues. Feedback on the slides and dialogue enable the candidate to improve the presentation and gain confidence in delivering it. The supervisor should emphasise the importance of finishing the delivery on time, so that the audience has an opportunity to respond with questions and comments, and thus provide feedback to the candidate. Most oral presentations of conference papers include a slide presentation— sometimes electronic, other times using overhead transparencies. These provide members of the audience with a summary of the content of the presentation and enable them to have visual cues to aid their understanding of the content presented. As well as text, the content may include tables, equations, graphs or diagrams. These may be especially helpful for those whose first language is

204


2/5/07 11:42:49 AM


not English and who may have difficulty understanding the spoken word. It is important that the candidate speaks clearly and deliberately to a multilingual audience. The supervisor should assist the candidate to structure the presentation slides carefully. The first slide will show the title, the name(s) of the author(s) and affiliation(s). The second should give an overview of the presentation to let the audience know what to expect. The following slides will provide key points, such as the purpose of the research, the methodological approach, the findings and interpretation of them. The final slide(s) will provide the conclusions/summary and perhaps the significance of the work or the next steps. The final slide(s) must also tie up with the earlier ones so that the presentation becomes a coherent whole. Candidates frequently have difficulty with this, so the supervisor may need to give considerable help. Electronic presentations enable the insertion of a range of special visual and sound effects. Supervisory intervention may be required to encourage the can didate to consider very carefully if, and how, to use such effects. They should be used only when understanding or interest will genuinely be enhanced, and then used sparingly. Special effects quickly lose their novelty and effectiveness, and can become both distracting and irritating. Photographs, short video clips and other inserts can help to provide context for the research to aid understand ing and add interest to the presentation. However, they also take time to show, so the supervisor and the candidate should discuss the advantages and disadvantages of their inclusion.

Presenting a conference poster Presenting a conference poster is quite different to presenting a conference paper. Posters are a visual presentation of the candidate’s work, usually of A1 or A0 size, with the font large enough to be read at a distance of at least 1 metre. Consequently, the quantity of information able to be displayed is less than can be delivered by an oral presentation. Posters must be self-contained—that is, a conference attendee should be able to read a poster in only a few minutes and understand what the research is about. The content and layout must make it easy for the reader to find the purpose/objectives of the research, the methodological approach, the findings and the conclusion, which links back to the purpose. If the candidate has the opportunity to converse with an attendee about the poster, the purpose will be to fill in the gaps, not to repeat the key points that are displayed on the poster itself. If candidates are to get feedback on their work, members of the audience must be enticed to look at the poster. This means that not only must the information presented be well structured, the poster itself must be attractive. Thus, preparing a poster requires artistic as well as academic skills. Successful posters show careful

205


2/5/07 11:42:49 AM


use of colour and have short blocks of text with larger headings so that the reader can quickly grasp the main points. Posters demonstrate the adage that ‘a picture [carefully labelled] is worth a thousand words’. Photographs providing context for the research and graphs, diagrams and tables help to convey the content, break up the text and make the poster visually appealing. Supervisors might remind the candidate that the audience will have a range of learning styles. Some members of the audience will absorb information best in text format, others may prefer pictorial representations, and others prefer numbers in tables. A sensible mix will make the poster accessible to the range of audience members. Supervisors can help the candidate to understand that how a poster looks is very important. In an area filled with posters, and with limited time, conference attendees must be selective. They will look first at those in their field of interest, and then move to the ones that look interesting and attractive. Attractive posters have inviting titles, headings in large font that are easy to read from a distance, and an aesthetic, colourful layout. Monotone, text-crammed posters are not attractive, regardless of the quality of their content. Simply put, if no one looks at a candidate’s poster, there will be no feedback.

Concluding comments Helping candidates with seminar and conference presentations requires super visors to ensure that candidates understand the two purposes of presentation. The first is to inform an audience about their research, and the second—and at least equally important—is to learn more about their own work and how it contributes to their discipline. The audience response to a candidate’s presentation is a form ative experience that can provide guidance for improving the research program. The supervisor’s role is to help candidates make the presentation work for them. Not much feedback will be gained from an audience that fails to engage. Audiences respond best to presentations that offer just enough well-structured content to fit the time or space available. If candidates are well prepared, the audience will recognise this and appreciate it. Members of the audience will show their interest by providing non-verbal feedback such as moving their heads in assent or dissent, and by asking questions or making comments. It is important that candidates learn to recognise these signals and use them as constructive feedback about their work. A powerful way for supervisors to assist candidates to come to terms with matters of content and its presentation is to discuss with the candidate the audi ence response to presentations by other candidates. What worked and what did not? What kept the audience involved and what led to disinterest or inattention? What prompted useful feedback? Such analysis often reveals that a few points of content, placed in context and discussed in depth, provide both the audience and the presenting candidate with a positive experience.

206


2/5/07 11:42:50 AM


Finally, conferences are wonderful places to build collegial relationships. Candidates need to be encouraged to follow up with academics who show interest in their work or provide helpful feedback. This can be achieved by approaching the academic at the end of the session, introducing themselves, and exchanging business cards or taking them for a coffee to extend the conversation. The list of details for attendees is often made available in conference programs and provides another way of contacting academics through their email addresses and starting the networking process. Academics worth knowing will respond positively to polite and reasonable requests from doctoral candidates and will welcome them into the profession. Questions

1 Candidate A is shy, submissive and quietly spoken. Progress is good; literature has been reviewed, the research design has been decided and plans for data collection are underway. In meetings, the candidate always looks down and never meets the supervisor’s eyes, until the day the supervisor announces that in three weeks time the oral candidacy presentation is due. The candidate looks up; the eyes show fear and panic! How can the supervisor help Candidate A to get over this milestone in candidacy? 2 Candidate B is very conscientious, but seems to have trouble knowing what is really important and what is less so. Every piece of written work is so thoroughly described that reading it becomes tedious. Candidate B has given the supervisor the first draft of a 10-minute presentation at a local conference. It contains 97 slides. What can the supervisor do, not only to help Candidate B reconceptualise the work and convert this presentation into something the audience can appreciate, but also to assist the candidate to transfer this learning into the improvement of other written work? 3 Candidate C has had a paper accepted for a conference that the supervisor also plans to attend. What actions can the supervisor take before, during and after the conference to assist Candidate C to learn as much as possible from the conference experience? Acknowledgement

The author would like to recognise the helpful comments made by Mark Hackling on an earlier draft of this chapter. Reference

Denholm, C 2006, ‘Effective oral presentations during candidature’, in C Denholm & T Evans (eds), Doctorates downunder: Keys to successful doctoral study in Australia and New Zealand, ACER Press, Camberwell, Victoria, pp. 144–50.

207


2/5/07 11:42:50 AM

C HAPTER 2 6

The literature review: Not sinking, writing Kate Crowley University of Tasmania

Introduction Most doctoral candidates are fairly confident that they understand the role of the literature review. They see it as the backbone of their thesis, the launching pad for their own ideas, the scene setter that lays out the lie of the intellectual land. It is also a device that settles them into their research and allows them to progress and justify the direction they are taking. Candidates look to the literature review to demonstrate their knowledge and understanding of an area, and to allow them to set clear boundaries on what they will attempt in their thesis. Indeed, their whole justification for their thesis can ‘fall out’ from the review where it highlights significant gaps in the literature of the field that need addressing. Candidates may be less aware that the examiner will look for the literature review to serve a pragmatic purpose, namely to show a review of a field of literature that is ‘substantial, relevant and up to date’ and that justifies a unique, worthwhile research effort (Kiley and Mullins 2006). So the literature review plays several roles: structural for its positioning of the thesis, contextual for its scene setting, inspirational for helping develop an argu ment, and operational for defining scope, limitations and originality. It provides the theoretical and methodological background for the thesis, as well as the context for the candidate’s work by identifying and discussing literature and problem solving that will guide their own research efforts. Supervisors need to be aware that the candidate is as reliant on them during the literature review as at any other stage; the direction they provide will set the course for the doctorate. Supervisors should explain the stages involved in candidature, where the literature review fits, the role it plays in thesis con

208


2/5/07 11:42:51 AM

the literature review: not sinking, writing

ceptualisation and construction, and the importance of the written review in confirming that the candidate has the capacity to continue. It is also probably the most enjoyable stage of the thesis—indeed perhaps of an entire academic career, so candidates should be encouraged to be positive. It is entirely possible that a candidate has prior familiarity with their topic of research, or that they are well enmeshed in a research culture or team from their honours year; but it is still critical to make sure that they are undertaking an exhaustive review. From this exhaustive mapping of the field, the supervisor needs to judge when, and perhaps even how early, to steer the candidate away from mapping and towards the more systematic ordering, synthesising and criticising part of the review. This sifting stage will eventually provide the outline for the written review chapter to be completed by at least the end of the first year, with revision and updating required until the thesis is submitted to keep the review current and relevant. This chapter provides supervisors with advice and guidance on all the points above.

Getting the candidate started It is very tricky for supervisors to strike the balance with new candidates during the literature review stage, between supporting their investigation and the development of a viable thesis project, and ensuring that they make good progress. Candidates will have varying degrees of self-confidence at this stage, varying degrees of conviction about potential research trajectories, and varying levels of skill in being able to pursue valid lines of inquiry and relevant literature review material. It is critical that they have confidence in their supervisors and that their supervisors can anticipate the terrain ahead, and so provide meaningful guidance, explicit advice and access to expert knowledge and experience. It is also important for a supervisor to appreciate that this stage may be daunting and frightening for the candidate, not knowing exactly where their thesis is headed until the literature review is complete. The graduate research candidate has to map out a field of research as they plot their own way through it, which is a very tricky exercise of skill and timing that could make or break their candidature.

Staging a thesis It may help the candidate to understand first where the literature review fits in the broader scheme or plan of the entire candidature—that is, typically in the first year full-time, with the written review completed by year’s end. A literature review may also be formally submitted and reviewed by a candidature committee to confirm that a candidate is capable of continuing on and completing research at a doctoral level. The candidate should understand that they are required to continue reading and to revise the literature review for the thesis. Not only

209


2/5/07 11:42:51 AM


should they accommodate new material, but also reflect their evolving critical and analytic skills as a researcher. The literature review is usually a background chapter that sits between the introductory chapter and subsequent chapters of the thesis. Whether the review is kept to a single chapter or not, it sits in the stage of the thesis that typically begins with a description of material, then moves on to reviews of existing theory/practice, methodology and methods, and concludes with preliminary research question and hypothesis formulation. Literature reviews are discipline-specific, as well as specific to the type of problem that the thesis is addressing, so the supervisor needs to impress upon the candidate what their discipline requires and what an examiner will be looking for in the literature review. There may also be discipline-specific staging within the review year itself that the supervisor must convey to the candidate from the outset.

The literature immersion Candidates will typically share the fears that there is no way that they can ever cover all the relevant research in their review, that they will miss out on a significant part of the field, or that they will find their project has already been done. Nothing makes a task more daunting or inspires lack of confidence more than when it is only perceived in its entirety. A way of allaying candidate fears is to encourage or direct them to immerse themselves in the very immediate, less daunting tasks of searching, reading, note taking and reflecting on the literature. This is a stage to be really enjoyed, where the candidate becomes immersed in their reading, where they can chase down interesting concepts, and where they can think laterally and creatively. The supervisor should encourage the candi date to follow their instincts in the beginning stages as this is often the key to academic discovery. Some candidates will find it very helpful to have a specific task or hypothesis in mind, while others will find that being specific so early is too restrictive. It is very important for the supervisor to check that the candidate is actually doing the reading not just collecting it, that they are absorbing themes and approaches, and that they can discuss these at candidature meetings. The candidate may need some reassuring that the connecting points to their own thesis proposition will gradually emerge.

Reading theory If a candidate is to make an original contribution to knowledge, then they will need to have an exhaustive familiarity with their field of research in both theor etical and empirical terms. In order to achieve this, they will need to read broadly at first and then read increasingly deeply and more specifically. This is true even if they are following on from their honours year research, joining an established

210


2/5/07 11:42:52 AM


research team or taking on a project determined by industry funding. What tricks do you, as a supervisor, employ to ensure that this is so? This is not a stage that can be skipped; it is worth asking the candidate how they spend the day when they are reading theory. You may discover that they have no efficient system for collecting literature, reading it, recording details or reflecting on its relevance to their own work. You may discover that they don’t read when they are at their freshest, or that they persist for unreasonable periods without a break. They may not have thought to have less taxing tasks to hand when they are tired, or they may not be recording any impressions because they think they will have the time to revisit the work. The supervisor needs to offer guidance here and to impress upon the candidate that reading theory will help them develop their own analytic framework and project.

From review to critique Eventually the supervisor needs to ensure that the candidate shifts their literature review from the mapping and contextualising stage, to the critical review stage. Evans and Gruba (2002, p. 73) describe this as a shift in three parts: 1 The literature review begins by covering or mapping theoretical terrain— that is, the background information needed to contextualise the extent and significance of the research problem. 2 The review moves on to identify/discuss attempts by others to address/solve similar problems. The candidate will have read more material than they need by now, but they will be well informed. 3 The candidate begins writing ‘mini reviews’, summarising/critiquing the con tribution of various authors to their field of research, building up a respect for various approaches before moving to describe theirs. Part of the role of critical analysis is to identify a gap in the theory, which the candidate’s thesis may then address; or to propose making some other orig inal contribution, perhaps a novel application or configuration of the theory. Candidates need to be warned that more is not better. All the way through their initial, broad review of the literature, the candidate needs to pose basic research questions, looking for the points of connection and divergence in the literature. They will reach the stage where they are able to convey their critical appraisal of their field to their supervisor, by sorting and synthesising what they have read into logical subsets of information.

Structuring the literature review Moving from literature review, to critique, to project development seems ruthless to some candidates who are engrossed in—perhaps even addicted to—the

211


2/5/07 11:42:52 AM


information chase. There is endless information out there, but strategic searching and good supervisory guidance will have narrowed down what is actually relevant, what is of interest but not that relevant, and what is just a distraction. Having surveyed, ordered, discussed and critiqued key theories and identified any gaps, the candidate is ready to introduce, and to justify, the approach/experiment/design proposed by their own research. The supervisor should have been encouraging the candidate to keep good retrievable notes on their research thus far, with a documented survey of the field emerging in various iterations, and with an increasing movement towards their own proposal. Although the candidate should feel somewhat of an authority, they have not yet conducted their own research or become an established scholar, so they should compose their literature review with due deference. When an examiner is reading the review, they will expect that, having documented, ordered and synthesised key aspects of a field of research, the candidate will contribute through their own thesis. The point of the review is that having conveyed a confident grasp of the literature and its components, strengths and weaknesses, the candidate argues their contribution through their research and thesis.

What does a literature review look like? There are disciplinary differences, so new candidates should read reviews in their discipline and then discuss their impressions with their supervisor. The length of a literature review should not grow to the extent that it distorts the final thesis structure, leaving too little space to present the candidate’s own empirical material, analysis and conclusions. Neither should the candidate leap to their own work too soon and avoid the literature review and the challenges of theory. Examiners usually do not look for a large literature review, but one that is appropriately focused and balanced in the thesis. A thesis may require a review of empirical, substantive, theoretical, methodological material. Perhaps, in the humanities and social sciences, often more than one chapter is required related to themes of the argument. Doctorates in the physical sciences can suffer from the opposite problem, namely a brief description of the research topic and questions, with a too compressed literature review, but allowing greater scope for showcasing the candidate’s own research.

What can go wrong? Candidates may be susceptible to never finishing their literature review, never writing a word either descriptive or critical. Most supervisors appreciate the myriad of potential dangers of the literature stage. A candidate may become lost, subject to compelling distractions, or conspired against (or so it seems to them) and kept from their work. Many things can go wrong, and the supervisor must

212


2/5/07 11:42:52 AM


anticipate this and act early. The candidate may never settle into their work. They may be unable to find enough time to research. They may develop bad time-wasting habits, or no-good reading habits. They may be impatient to get onto ‘their thesis’. They fail to appreciate that their work must evolve from an established body of scholarly work of which they must develop and demonstrate a confident command in their literature review. They may develop a syndrome that they need to know everything and that they inevitably cannot. They may hesitate to write and get away with that. They may be allowed to drift and not follow a proper timetable. They may never make the shift from collecting to critiquing. They may become intimidated by and reverential towards the literature. Because the candidate is so reliant on the supervisor in this early stage, it is the supervisor who must mentor good habits, give clear directions and offer the necessary guidance.

Is the review publishable? It is usually a distraction to consider publishing a literature review before the thesis is completed. The candidate is only at the beginning of their research, and generally the supervisor should not encourage publication of the literature review until the thesis has been submitted. At this stage, a candidate may be well advised to revise their review into a publishable form if it can be seen to stand alone, and to make a useful contribution to the field. Once a candidate’s own research is complete, they are also able to revise the literature review with more authority, having achieved their own research credentials and having developed more critical capacity. The candidate may already have published, and find a rewrite of the literature review, and a stating of the contribution it makes, very straightforward. Perhaps the candidate is indeed the first person to comprehensively present the theory, thus making a significant, novel contribution. But it is appropriate for the supervisor to offer advice on publication at the completing stage if they feel it has particular merit.

Concluding comments We used to teach children to swim by throwing them into the water with no sup port. That was a traumatic experience that destroyed as many potential swimming careers as it may have perversely inspired. These days there is a careful building of skill levels and confidence—and a lot more fun had by many more kids in the water. If a candidate is not happy through the review stage of the thesis, then the supervisor needs to check that they have not somehow failed to provide support. The candidate may well be sinking, not swimming, in the literature review experience. Exclusive candidate–supervisor time is critical and group sessions are no substitute. Active guidance is more important at this stage than at any other, and the supervisor must be prepared to watch for warning signs and to intervene

213


2/5/07 11:42:53 AM


where needed. The candidate benefits from practising verbalising their project behind closed doors in the relative safety of their supervisor’s company. They are then better prepared in all sorts of ways to move on with their research. There is no one best format for a review, although instinctively a supervisor will recognise an outstanding example. The questions below are designed to stimulate a good discussion among supervisors and to harness collective know ledge with the hope that the supervisory experience can grow increasingly more supportive. Questions

1 What are the elements of a good and poor literature review in your discipline? 2 How can you be sure that a candidate knows how to do a literature review, and that they are actually reading literature? 3 How might you support a candidate’s shift from reviewing to critiquing? References

Evans, D & Gruba, P 2002, How to write a better thesis (2nd edn), Melbourne University Press, Melbourne. Kiley, M & Mullins, G 2006, ‘Opening the black box: How examiners assess your thesis’, in C Denholm & T Evans (eds), Doctorates downunder: Keys to successful doctoral study in Australia and New Zealand, ACER Press, Camberwell, Victoria, p. 20.

214


2/5/07 11:42:53 AM

C HAPTER 2 7

Degrees of uncertainty: Writing and demystifying the thesis Elaine Martin Victoria University Ron Adams La Trobe University

Introduction Writing the thesis is arguably the most challenging part of undertaking a research degree. Even when candidates think they know what they have to say, and think of themselves as reasonably fluent writers, they will often struggle. A couple of small research studies undertaken at Victoria University in Melbourne over recent years show that a candidate’s understanding of what research is develops and changes over the months and years of their candidature. With that change in understanding comes a parallel change in their understanding of how to write the research they undertake. At one level it seems counter-intuitive, but typically as candidates develop insight and knowledge of their research area, a struggle arises concerning how to express that knowledge. We base this chapter on the lessons we have learned from this research and the work we have undertaken to address the issues it raises. Specifically, we focus on three qualitatively different stages that most candidates seem to go through as they make sense of becoming a researcher, and on three related ways of writing that research. We then suggest a series of activities and exercises to support candidates at these different levels or stages and to help them develop both their research and their writing.

215


2/5/07 11:42:54 AM


Categories of understanding and writing research The three distinct ways in which candidates appear to make sense of their research, and of the writing of that research, are very much a simplification of the results emerging from the research study, but we have found this model a useful guide for supporting candidate writing across the years of candidature.

Category 1: Acquiring skills and knowledge—the apprentice Here candidates focus on the task itself and see their challenge as seeking out good advice and information. Their aim is largely to acquire skills and knowledge. They are typically keen to read extensively, and often keen to link into support networks, meet regularly with supervisors and undertake skills workshops. They are, on the whole, less keen to write; however, this is because they feel they have nothing much to write about rather than because they feel they cannot write. You just write what you know when you actually do know … at the moment I frankly don’t have much to say that isn’t already said … I will come to the stage where I do have something to say … by getting advice … and by reading the literature and by developing skills … there’s no problem in that in itself but there is a lot to get across first. There’s no problem with writing but having something to say at this stage … that is a problem …

Category 2: Engaging with theory and practice—the initiate At this level, candidates see they need to engage with the theory and practice of their particular area. This may involve undertaking research tasks and practising in the field as well as coming to know the language and form of the literature. Here writing can become a significant issue. They feel they have knowledge, but not the appropriate language to express that knowledge. In time and with support, most candidates will develop familiarity, even facility, with the language of the discipline. But for many candidates for a long time this is a major challenge. What is said has to be said in a particular way otherwise it is not valid … and that can be so frustrating because you feel you know it but you just can’t say it … write it … in a way that is acceptable. It takes a while, quite a while, to pick up the language of the discipline … but you finally begin to get into it and it makes it such a lot easier. It becomes a sort of short-hand of saying what you’re doing. It’s a special language with a heightened awareness in particular words and phrases and ideas that are particularly important

216


2/5/07 11:42:54 AM

degrees of uncertainty: writing and demystifying the thesis

but when you know it, you just say that word or phrase and the idea is got across and you don’t have to go on endlessly explaining yourself … you use this, or that, term and it’s all said and understood by those who know.

Category 3: Finding your own voice—the participant At this level, candidates know their work very well. They know the significant literature that surrounds it. They know the experience of doing the research, being in the field, doing the interviews, exploring the data, reflecting on the possible meaning(s), and being immersed in the discourse of their discipline of which they are now participants. These candidates have come a long way, but for many there is a frustration with staying within what they (and maybe their supervisors) believe to be the canonised language of the discipline. These candidates are motivated—sometimes compelled—to develop an authoritative voice of their own, a voice that demonstrates expertise but is also very much a personal expression of the excitement and richness of the research experience. The majority of candidates who experience this struggle are arts/ humanities or social science candidates, but there are some from the sciences who find they are able to write in this way at least in parts of the thesis. One colleague encourages her science candidates to write a prelude to key chapters to acknowledge a more personal engagement with their research; for instance, what were the key ideas or incidents that were significant or surprising. Two such theses have won international awards. If I write strictly in the language of the discipline it’s transformed into this tedious thing … but my research is not tedious and I hate to turn it into that … I am fighting to author it, write myself into it, make it breathe … make it as amazing as I know it to be. That’s what I want people to see when they read it. This thing was a beast, a burden, it was something I carried around as a commitment. …Gradually I somehow found a way of making it part of me … of internalising so it was me. It wasn’t something I carried … it was me … I think I just grew in confidence that what I had to say … and how I had to say it was important and would be heard.

Tasks to develop understanding and to assist writing The three different stages highlighted above significantly simplify the ways candidates understand their research and their writing; they are presented as a sequence spanning the different stages of the candidature. Some or all of these may be experienced at the same time, though one will likely dominate.

217


2/5/07 11:42:55 AM


We have found that some writing tasks and exercises are useful for supporting candidates through these different stages, and below we explain a few of the tasks we use to help candidates.

Acquiring skills and knowledge At the early stages of the thesis perhaps the most significant challenge is to estab lish a writing habit. Write early and often is the oft-chanted mantra, but specific help and direction are sometimes required for candidates to do so. It is usual for candidates to feel that at this stage there is little for them to say, but the longer they go without writing, the more inclined they will be to believe writing is something that can be put off until later. We suggest an exercise called ‘What can I say now?’ Candidates can almost always talk about their work; it is writing what they have to say that is the issue. This informal exercise can be used from the very earliest stages to help the candidate establish their writing habit, and for candidate and supervisor to explore what the candidate is thinking and how those thoughts are developing. These questions will help candidates come to terms with where they are in their thinking and orient them to finding the language to talk about their research. What can I say at this stage? • What is my topic about? • In what aspect(s) am I most interested? • What are the books/papers that have had most impact on my thinking? • The main question for me is …? • Queries raised for me at the moment are …? • What I really want to do is …? • What I want to find out is …?

The exercise can be undertaken in 15–20 minutes, or it can be set as a longer exercise. An aim is to help to counter the open nature of the early thesis task with a request for some precise and concise thinking, so a deadline should be given. The exercise can be used at regular intervals to plot development and changes, and to make these changes explicit to candidate and supervisor. Another useful exercise for a little later in the doctoral career, when candidates seem to have stopped writing because of indecision and uncertainty, is ‘Where am I; where am I going?’ Where am I; where am I going? • My thesis is about? • I want to find out …?

218


2/5/07 11:42:55 AM


• The stage I am at now is …? • The questions I have at this stage are …? • What I have already done is … • What I have to do next is … • Since last month/semester/week, I have: – progressed the project by … – changed my thinking in that …

This exercise provides practice in writing, and in making explicit what has been done and why, and what is uncertain and what might be done next. It provides a useful discussion document for supervisors and candidates and has been used successfully as a regular progress document by some candidates and supervisors. Murray (2002) uses slightly different versions of these exercises.

Engaging with theory and practice Candidates find out about their research topic, they develop their research ques tion, and they become familiar with the language and conventions of the area by working across and through the literature relevant to their topic. A review of the literature involves exploring and mapping what is going on, as well as plotting and scoping some areas in more detail (see Chapter 26). It also involves focusing on the detailed language and conventions used in the writing. It is a lot to undertake, because as candidates’ awareness of the magnitude grows, so does their concern about writing acceptably to fellow scholars. It is usually assumed that candidates will pick up the conventions and language of the area just by reading it, and eventually they usually do; but they can be helped in the process. The following exercise, ‘Learning the conventions of the discipline’, raises candidates’ awareness of how research in their area is written and offers an opportunity for discussion. Learning the conventions of the discipline Consider a minimum of five significant articles you are using in your research and answer the following questions. Write no more than a paragraph on each. You may like to answer some of the later questions first. • What are some of the conventions of writing in this area? • What language is used—nouns, verbs, links? • How is the paper structured? • How is the argument represented? • How is the author represented? • How are others involved in the research represented? • Do there appear to be options in style and structure and language?

219


2/5/07 11:42:56 AM


The discussion of this exercise is sometimes most usefully done with a group of candidates at different stages of their work. Beginning candidates can see what more experienced candidates identify; the beginners learn what to consider, and more experienced candidates can be helped to have confidence to sometimes go beyond the conventions. The exercise ‘Relationship of theory, argument and evidence’ (see Figure 27.1) addresses a slightly different issue. It helps candidates to grasp what counts as data, evidence and theory, and which data and evidence are used to support theory. In this exercise candidates are encouraged to acknowledge the work they are using, specifically in terms of theories, methodologies and data. It is emphasised that knowledge has to be situated within a context of what counts as data, how the data are described and viewed, and how data are validated and by whom—that is, how data become ‘evidence’ within their field of study. Candidates are requested to take key articles and consider these in terms of three sets of statements: (1) the data or evidence focused upon; (2) the theoretical perspective adopted; and (3) the thesis or argument made overall. We encourage candidates to use a three-column proforma. There is a heading with the title of the article and name of the authors. Each of the three columns contains comments on: • evidence or data focused upon • theoretical perspective—for example, feminist, Marxist, post-colonial, etc. • thesis or argument. Across the bottom, there is comment by the candidate on the relationship of the article to their study and to other articles reviewed. We find that guiding work in this way assists candidates, first to order and map the literature to see where their work fits and how it differs, and then to understand the key things that have to be discussed and to find the language for expression. This is a significant strategy in demystifying the researching and the writing tasks that candidates face.

Finding your own voice When candidates have become comfortable with the theory and the key ideas and arguments of their work, writing can then take on another challenge. The journey from research candidate to researcher takes candidates way beyond having knowledge and being fluent in the language of the discipline. It involves a transformation into a professional academic who can skilfully enact, embody, practise and write their own voice into their scholarly research. Candidates typically experience the transformation in retrospect. They look back and see how they have read, written and worked in the field, and explored, reflected, created, enacted and eventually embodied their knowing so it has

220


2/5/07 11:42:56 AM


Figure 27.1 Exercise: Relationship of theoretical perspective, argument and evidence Relationship of theoretical perspective, argument and evidence

Title of article and authors: Evidence

Theoretical

Argument

Summary:

Summary:

Summary:

Significance of the article:

Relationship to my own work:

Relationship to other work in the area:

221


2/5/07 11:42:57 AM


become part of them. They know that there are times when they use the language without being deeply aware of its meaning, as a short-hand that gets them by, and they know the dissatisfaction of this. This sense of becoming a researcher creates a heightened awareness of writing the research. It becomes clear—at least to many arts/humanities and social science candidates—that writing research will necessarily be a personal expression of who they are as researcher as well as what they know. The objective is to achieve a level of expression and presentation commensurate with the high level of the ideas. In this way, the material artefact of the dissertation becomes a metaphor for the ideas. Brilliant communication reflects brilliant ideas. In constructing the thesis, we encourage candidates and supervisors to think in terms of ‘thesis as performance’. We have been inspired and supported in our workshops by the historian Greg Dening. Greg has run a three-day workshop for us based on similar workshops he runs at ANU. A task at the centre of the Performing the thesis workshop is for candidates to produce four pieces of writing: A narrative: Write a full page focusing on some event or place or idea or person critical to your research. Write it with the directness of a novelist or a filmmaker. Conceive of it as a prologue to your thesis or a chapter of it. Keyword: Describe a keyword or keywords of your research and writing. Make sure you embellish this description with the semiotic sensitivity that we expect of any humanistic or social science language discourse. Give some sense of its development and usage over time and in the writing of others. Statement: In one page, state what it is you really and passionately want to say in your work, even if you don’t get to say it. Present the reflective underpinnings of your thinking. Don’t make it a summary of your topic. Don’t make it an ‘abstract’. Make it the sort of writing that contributes excitement to the conversation of your discipline. Perfect sentence: When you have completed the pages, reduce all to one perfect sentence and add it as a footer to the statement page.

Typically, candidates are asked to bring these pieces of writing to the workshop. Their work is critiqued and developed. Candidates are encouraged to ensure that their thesis is one that will be a joy to read as well as a sound piece of research. This exercise, and variations on it, is one that we encourage candidates to undertake when they are feeling constrained by the language of the discipline, when they are feeling that they are unable to find their own voice. It is almost always helpful. We firmly believe that working in this way has significantly improved the writing and the development of our research candidates. We have never had a

222


2/5/07 11:42:57 AM


candidate receive adverse criticism from an examiner because they have developed their own voice and worked to ‘perform’ the thesis, rather than simply present it; on the contrary, we have had very positive comments. Of course, examiners have to be chosen with care, which should always be the case anyway. But as Dening advised an anxious candidate in a seminar, in his (considerable) experience examiners are intolerant of just three things: inaccuracy, laziness and pretence.

Concluding comments We emphasise that nearly all research candidates will benefit when helped to write their thesis. The common assumption that research candidates—particularly in the humanities and social sciences—can already write is a flawed one; ask almost any research candidate. The exercises suggested above are tried and tested and have been found particularly useful at different stages of candidature. Above all, we emphasise that supporting candidates to write their research develops them not only as writers, but as researchers. It helps them to build strong relationships with the communities they work with, both inside and beyond academe; it helps them to have a better experience as a research candidate; and it produces a better thesis! Questions

1 Focus on the work of two or three specific research candidates. Consider which of the exercises suggested above might help them to best develop as writers and researchers. 2 Can you think of additional ways to help candidates understand the role of theory and make it illuminating rather than intimidating? 3 Not all supervisors are sympathetic to candidates finding their own voice. What strategies might you employ to convince some of your sceptical academic colleagues to be accepting of candidates finding their own voice to write their research? Acknowledgements

The authors wish to acknowledge the candidates of Victoria University who were part of the original research study and those who have helped in developing the exercises. We particularly acknowledge David Webb for his useful comments on an earlier version of this paper. Reference

Murray, R 2002, How to write a thesis, Open University Press, Maidenhead, UK.

223


2/5/07 11:42:58 AM

C HAPTER 2 8

Determining doctoral quality Jacqueline Rowarth Graeme Fraser Massey University

Introduction An acceptable doctoral thesis makes a substantive, original contribution to knowledge. It must be on a topic of significance to the discipline, grounded in appropriate methodology, sufficiently weighty to prompt thought and discussion, and produce something new. It must show rigour in approach and argument, diligent consideration of alternative hypotheses, and develop a thesis that explores the research hypothesis. In all fields, depth and attention to detail are important if the examiners are to be convinced that the candidate has been rigorous, honest and thorough. The key contribution of ‘originality’ must be able to be assessed. In the sciences, meeting these criteria is often conceptually associated with the potential publication of ‘three to four papers in good quality journals’. In other areas it can be more difficult to judge whether or not the criteria have been met. Judgement is made more difficult by the fact that there appears to be a lack of consensus about the examination process itself and how the candidates’ learning is assessed in terms of knowledge acquired, understandings developed and skills gained. There is also debate on the more detailed processes that establish such factors as equity between disciplines, rigour and academic credibility, while at the same time allowing flexibility and discretion according to discipline, institution and tradition (Powell and Green 2003). Ambiguity in standards has been exacerbated by increased awareness of the opportunity cost to the candidate of protracted study, and the current funding systems for Australia and Aotearoa New Zealand, which include direct and indirect financial incentives to universities on thesis completion. These factors

224


2/5/07 11:42:58 AM

determining doctoral quality

have encouraged a change in attitude to theses from ‘Has the hypothesis been proved or disproved?’ to ‘Has the threshold of acceptability been reached?’ (Cantwell and Scevak 2004). Nevertheless, early submission is risky, and doubts in the minds of the examiners can lead to delays because of discussion on ‘more work’ for the candidate. This chapter has been written for both supervisors and examiners. Supervisors will always be in the role of unofficial examiner as they must be able to assess whether the thesis is likely to be accepted or not. They may be named as an official examiner of the thesis as well, and will certainly perform the examining role de novo for other universities. In de novo examination, the examiner will be seeing the research results through fresh eyes and must be reassured that the research has been done with rigour. There are several possible approaches for supervisors and examiners as they consider the vexed questions of ‘is the research enough?’ and ‘has the thesis met the requirements that will enable the candidate to be accepted by academia?’ We offer suggestions on how to assess a thesis with a view to enhancing the likelihood of feeling confident about the decision that must ultimately be made. In discussing approaches and suggestions, we hope that the supervisor will be assisted in the supervision process as well as that of examination.

Assessing the thesis The quality of a doctoral thesis is determined by everything that precedes its submission. The work must make an original significant contribution to know ledge, and be believable—that is, it must have been done with rigour and understanding, using techniques appropriate to the discipline. The examiner must be able to see that what is embodied in the thesis is substantive and substantiated. The thesis must be written clearly and concisely to enable the true merit of the work to be comprehended. Nevertheless, good writing style will not overcome deficiencies that have occurred during the research and creation of the thesis. Hence, the thesis must model scholarship ALL the way through the process of reviewing and critiquing the literature, collecting and analysing the information, and considering the results, conclusions and implications. It should be apparent that the candidate has developed an explanatory framework for understanding and drawing conclusions from the investigation. It should be clear that the candidate started as they intended to end—with rigour, understanding and attention to detail. Deficiencies in these respects invariably lead to flawed research, deficiencies in data and information, and a sloppy thesis that cannot be repaired in any final revisions. Modelling and story telling can never overcome deficiencies in data or information. After reading the thesis, you should feel confident that the work has been done in such a way that the conclusions have meaning and are justified; you should also

225


2/5/07 11:42:59 AM


feel pleased with the achievements of the candidate. This will reflect the fact that the evidence has been presented giving significance and meaning to the findings, and support for the conclusions. Hence, the work is substantive and substantiated. Engendering confidence and pleasure in the examiner are indications of a good piece of work. Conversely, if you are perplexed or worried, there are clearly con cerns with the work—which may be due to the research itself or the way in which it has been written. Doubts will be raised if the connection between the analysis of the information and the conclusions is not well made. If you are perplexed as the supervisor, it is important that you create the opportunity for your candidate to make amendments before submission and examination. If you are perplexed as the examiner, you will have to decide about the significance of these concerns and your recommendations for amendments.

The overview The first step in assessing a thesis is to gain an overview of the candidate’s work. Do not hasten to judgement—keep an open mind. You need to set the candidate’s contribution within your expert knowledge of the discipline. Read through the thesis. Make general notes while gaining a sense of the whole thesis, and whether it hangs together. Then put it down for a few days to allow the ‘whole’ to settle in your mind.

The detail The following (which amounts to a checklist) gives a start to the process, which can then be developed into your own approach that suits you and your discipline. When you have some uninterrupted time, look at your notes, return to the thesis, read and analyse. Mechanical checks are a good starting point as they are easy to do, yet are useful in the assessment process as they enable you to establish attention to detail. 1 Photocopy the references and check for accuracy—some pages completely and some at random. Also check the contents page for accuracy. This gives an idea of the candidate’s attention to detail; mistakes here could indicate mistakes in other components of the work. 2 Read the abstract. This gives you the scope of the work. 3 Read the first chapter and identify the objectives. 4 Read the last chapter. • Do the conclusions match up with the objectives? • Is it clear that a contribution to the discipline has been made? 5 Start again and read through the work. • Has the relevant literature been covered in sufficient depth and detail for you to be confident that there is a rationale for the work that has been

226


2/5/07 11:42:59 AM


done? Has a context been established that makes the research meaningful and significant? • Do the research questions, methods used and explanatory framework follow naturally from the literature review? • Have the references been formatted consistently and with attention to detail? If not, are there concerns about detail in data collection as well? • Is the methodology appropriate and justified? • Have the data collection and analysis been rigorous? • Is the discussion pertinent and grounded? • Are the conclusions justified by the research and context? • Did the abstract give a good summary of the work? • Do you feel reassured by what the candidate has presented? – Degree of difficulty? – Problem solving? – New skills required? – Quality? – Quantity? – Addition to knowledge? – Cohesive whole? • How substantive are your concerns? • Do you think the work is Excellent—Good—Adequate, or nearly so? 6 Assign, modify and sleep on it.

Mapping the threshold of achievement It has been suggested by Cantwell and Scevak (2004) that the component of reasoning beyond disciplinary bounds is what makes, or breaks, an acceptable doctoral thesis. Whereas a masters degree requires mastery of a technique or method, but is constrained by the given or known, the doctorate should show the capacity to conceptualise, design and implement a study. Doctorates should potentially involve innovative methodology or research design, with the resulting contribution emerging from the given and extending knowledge beyond the constraints of current boundaries. The innovative contribution is the product of sound reasoning and rigorous analysis, involving a multi-structural approach and then integrating the parts with each other so that the whole has a coherent structure and meaning. It requires immersion and understanding. Conversely, a thesis that is below the threshold will be uni-structural; that is, while it focuses on a relevant domain it elaborates on only one aspect (Cantwell and Scevak 2004). One of the dangers with the part-time doctoral student, anxious to complete before the opportunity costs on career and family become ‘too high’, is the temptation to focus on only one aspect of the problem but attempt to do so in depth. While recognising that there are

227


2/5/07 11:43:00 AM


increasing real-life problems facing all doctoral candidates, the examiners should try not to let these practicalities affect their decision about whether the threshold for acceptability has been achieved. The difficulties in achieving the threshold in innovation are exacerbated by the increasing requirements for checks imposed on supervisors and candidates in order to reassure the university about progress and likely achievement. Requirements such as ethics clearance are extremely important, but the processes can be time-consuming. Regulatory requirements can be antithetical to the inculcation of innovation and the maintenance of degree standards. Risk management requires reporting—but innovation is by definition new, and the creation of ‘new’ requires venturing into the unknown; this is risky and can take more time than the ‘three years’ allowed. This paradox is one that is being recognised but as universities are attempting to protect themselves in an increasingly litigious environment, it is unlikely that the compliance requirements will reduce. Because of all these factors, and the understandable academic desire to main tain standards, the assessment of the thesis is of vital importance. Since there are no hard and fast guidelines with which to identify a threshold, the process of validation relies on the members of the peer group to which the candidate aspires, namely the examiners. The integrity of the degree and the credibility of the institution granting the degree are at stake. Integrity and credibility depend on your judgement.

Seeking reassurance When you have allowed the immediate impact of assessing the thesis to subside, reread your notes. Are you comfortable with your decision? In your judgement, are there aspects that should be modified before the thesis becomes a permanent record in the library? What is the scope of the changes required? How important are the changes? Eventually you must make the global decision on whether or not the thesis meets the required minimum standard. The following questions assist with this decision, but are difficult to answer until one has the overview and the detailed analysis described earlier, the latter giving the reassurance on depth and detail. • Are the experiments exciting, innovative, yet credible? Have the data and information been systematically analysed? • Are the methods used appropriate? • Do they follow the research question? If not, is it that the thesis is badly written or simply that the candidate does not understand the literature, or how to write a review? • Does the thesis show originality? This question will be answered from your knowledge of the state of play in the discipline, as well as a careful analysis of the research and literature.

228


2/5/07 11:43:00 AM


• Is the hypothesis or research question meaningful within the relevant discipline? • Has it been derived from the body of extant work to which the new research now adds? • Has the thesis been sustained in terms of advancing an argument and providing evidence to support the conclusions and answers? • Has the identified gap in the literature been filled? If the literature review is good and supports the need for further investigation, the research question has been developed from the literature, and the candidate builds on the case made, in rigorous and credible fashion, a pass is likely to be appropriate. Simple.

Challenges for the examiner Some theses are more difficult than others to examine. When the research has been pursued with rigour and produced clear results that make a credible and innovative contribution to knowledge, it is relatively easy to make a decision in favour of the candidate. When the research does not produce positive results, it is very disheartening for the candidate, but if robustly done, the research can still be written up as a negative result. A negative is a contribution to knowledge, and putting the research into the literature is one way of stopping others pursuing the same path in a futile fashion. The approach outlined above can still be followed. More of a problem is the optimistic candidate who interprets the data according to what was originally hypothesised, rather than what actually happened. Critics (for example, examiners) will believe the data and doubt the hypothesis, whereas the researcher will believe the hypothesis and not the data. Instances of rose-coloured interpretation may require rewriting of the thesis. In the humanities and social sciences, where research is often qualitative not quantitative, assessment can be more challenging. Nevertheless, the core require ments remain the same. Whether the research is deductive or inductive, there are still standards to be met, and the bullet points already given are still pertinent. New fields of research create their own challenges in terms of the examination process. There may be, for instance, very little literature in the area; but the candidate should still be able to analyse the literature from which the new field arose. And although anything in a new field might be considered to be innovative and original, the research must still be done with rigour—only with rigour will the results be credible to the examiners. Narrative theses may well prove the greatest conceptual challenge. In these there are certainly questions you can ask about the standard of the writing, but the central question will be whether the story is actually worth telling—does it

229


2/5/07 11:43:00 AM


add to comprehension of something significant (for example, attitudes, times), or is it simply a good yarn or, perhaps, a self-indulgent exposé? For all these challenges, which include any type of thesis if it is your first one, ask for assistance from a more experienced examiner. The experienced person will usually be pleased to help. They recognise that good academics and researchers ask questions; they are not afraid to be seen ‘not to know’ and so are able to learn from others. Furthermore, asking for advice assists in building networks of collegiality in new fields and universities, and helps to build a shared under standing of ‘what it is to do a doctorate in this field’. Discuss with experienced people and your peers what they think constitute the key determinants of an acceptable thesis in your discipline. Also consider talking with candidates who have recently passed the threshold; the flush of success may well lead them to be sufficiently generous to allow you to read their thesis and examiners’ reports. Consensual validation helps to guard against errors of judgement.

The report Although the doctoral thesis is eventually judged to have met the threshold or not (passed or failed), examiners’ written reports should provide a coherent analysis and assessment of it. In your report, give the rationale and reasons for the decision that you are recommending, irrespective of whether the thesis is brilliant or bad. Make it clear why you think the work is outstanding or poor. Examiners’ reports are usually made available to the candidate. Therefore, it is incumbent upon you to write a cogent and constructive report. To assist with this, whether you are a supervisor or examiner, you should read the guidelines on examining that are sent out to you by the university, as well as the official forms on which the report is made. Five categories are common, and are variations on the following: 1 2 3 4 5

No changes Minor amendments Major amendments Resubmit Fail

The difference between minor and major amendments varies between uni versities, examiners and disciplines. A guideline is that minor amendments encompass tidying up spelling, confusions caused by syntax, and inconsistencies in format and, possibly, terminology. A request for minor amendments reflects the fact that you have been irritated by lack of attention to detail, but overall the work is credible. Major amendments reflect flaws, which may be serious problems with data analysis and subsequent confusion in interpretation of data, a mismatch between objectives and conclusions and/or references to literature and data. A

230


2/5/07 11:43:01 AM


request for major amendments indicates that in some areas you do not agree with the candidate, or don’t believe what is being stated. If these concerns reflect your feelings about the whole thesis—that is, that you think there are systematic errors throughout or such inconsistencies or poor interpretation that you do not believe the overall conclusion—but believe that there is hope in rewriting, or that the addition of a piece of research/chapter will bring the thesis to an acceptable standard, ‘resubmit’ is the category. In order to justify this, you will need to articulate your concerns clearly and identify what needs to be done in order for the candidate to rework the research to an acceptable standard. If the systematic error is such that recovery is impossible, or you think that the work has not met the criteria indicated by the university for which you are examining, you will need to fail the thesis. This is very hard to do, so in making the decision, consider the following: • Will this thesis be a good model for others? • Do you think that the candidate has learned enough to supervise others to successful completion in due course? • Does the candidate have the potential after graduation to succeed as a researcher? (Note that this is not the same thing as being a researcher—the postdoctoral period, whether formal or informal, provides the finishing as it is usually during this period, rather than the doctoral candidature, that publications from the thesis are prepared for submission and applications for competitive grants are made.) • Would accepting this thesis devalue the work done by others by lowering the threshold of acceptability?

The role of the oral examination The questions formulated during the assessment will be the basis of the oral examination, which is usual in Aotearoa New Zealand but rare in Australia. Bearing this in mind and rehearsing them in your head can assist in sorting out whether the question is a good one or not. Examiners who are experienced tend to focus on high-level questions such as the raison d’être for the work; those who are inexperienced or worried about some aspect of the work tend to focus on the detail (Powell and Green 2003). In the examination of the written thesis, both aspects are important and need to be weighed carefully.

Concluding comments Examining a thesis is both an art and a science. Although it is known that examiners approach the process with a desire to pass the candidate, it is also clear that the postgraduate supervision and research environment may be militating

231


2/5/07 11:43:01 AM


against the achievement of what is expected in a thesis. This is exacerbated by the advent of new fields of research, an increasing number of new supervisors, and also of inexperienced examiners. Whatever your concept of the examination process, doing a good examination takes time, care and reflection. You must be sure that the recommendations you make are justifiable; your decision can have major consequences for the candidate. In order to maintain standards, and so maintain academic credibility, the examination process must not lose any of its rigour. It is likely that discussion will continue about the maintenance of doctoral quality, the examination process and what constitutes an acceptable thesis. Questions

1 What steps would you take to ensure you are in a sound position to write a cogent and constructive report on the thesis you are examining? 2 With particular reference to the criterion of an ‘original contribution to knowledge’, what should you do to validate the standard you will apply in your assessment of the thesis? 3 What are the most significant signs that the thesis has probably failed to meet what you understand to be the minimum standard of acceptability? What steps should you take to validate that judgement? References

Cantwell, R & Scevak, J 2004, ‘Discrepancies between the “ideal” and “passable” doctorate: Supervisor thinking on doctoral standards’, paper presented at the Annual Conference of the Australian Association for Research in Education. Available at http://www.aare.edu. au/04pap/can04980.pdf Powell, S & Green, H 2003, ‘Research degree examining: Quality issues of principle and practice’, Quality Assurance in Education, vol. 11, pp. 55–63.

232


2/5/07 11:43:02 AM

SECTION 7

The examination and beyond


2/5/07 11:43:02 AM

C HAPTER 2 9

Examiners and examination outcomes Sid Bourke Allyson Holbrook Terence Lovat The University of Newcastle

Introduction One area of graduate research candidature about which candidates and supervisors often express concern, and some ignorance, is thesis examination. Based on our research into doctoral examination and the research of others, this chapter pro vides information about higher degree research examination, from the nomination of examiners through the examination process, including what examiners focus on, to a description of examination outcomes including how inconsistencies are dealt with. We also offer a perspective on examination ‘fairness’ and on identifying quality in theses. Normally thesis examiners are nominated formally by the department, school or faculty of the candidate’s enrolment. Most universities require that the candidate be consulted and be given the opportunity for input to the selection process. In practice, this usually means the supervisor(s) asks the candidate whether they have any suggestions of potential examiners, and whether there is any particular person or genre they would not want to see represented on their examination panel. From the viewpoint of knowledge of the thesis content and approach, clearly the supervisor is the best person to play the key role in examiner nomination, although the ultimate responsibility for approving the examination panel will lie elsewhere, such as with the Faculty Associate Dean for Research or the Dean of Graduate Studies or Dean of Graduate Research. The required number of thesis examiners differs between universities; for doctoral theses some universities require two examiners, others three. Normally

234


2/5/07 11:43:02 AM

examiners and examination outcomes

two examiners are required for research masters theses. University practice also differs with respect to the nomination of an internal examiner—that is, the selection of an examiner from within the same department or faculty as the candidate. It is common for degree rules to permit one of the nominated exam iners to be internal, although in most universities the exercise of this option is the exception rather than the norm. One concern is that the appointment of an internal examiner reflects on the independence of the examiner reports, which is discussed below. Each examiner is requested to provide a written report as well as ticking a box recommending what should be done with the thesis. The range of recom mendations available to examiners differs a little between universities, but essentially it comes down to five categories: 1 Accept the thesis as submitted. 2 Invite (or require) minor correction. 3 Require major correction, normally to the satisfaction of the head of the academic unit. 4 Revise and resubmit the thesis for further examination. 5 Fail, without the opportunity to revise the thesis. Although these categories should not be taken to form a linear scale, in fact they provide a strong indicator of thesis quality as seen by the examiner. Clearly the recommendation made distinguishes what the examiner sees as either stronger or weaker theses.

Independence and confidentiality of the examination panel The issues of independence of examiners and disclosure of their identities are also areas in which universities differ (see Lawson et al. 2003). Perhaps most commonly is the practice of not supplying the names of the other examiners of a thesis to an individual examiner until the examination process has been completed, thus ensuring the independence of the thesis assessments made. Other universities provide the names of the examination panel to each examiner and invite the examiners to confer if they wish before sending in their reports. In general, the identities of examiners are not disclosed to the candidate until the examination process is complete and the candidate is notified of their result. Some universities ask examiners to indicate on their reports whether they are willing for their name to be disclosed to the candidate. Depending on examiner responses in these cases, it is possible that the candidate receives their result with the accompanying advice that ‘your thesis was examined by Dr G Smith of Smithtown University, Professor W Jones of Jonestown University, and one other examiner’.

235


2/5/07 11:43:03 AM


The cleft stick on which this issue rests is between the rights of the examiner to confidentiality and the ethics of disclosure. Overall, the integrity of the pro cess as well as the distinctiveness of the doctorate as a gateway to academe are probably served better by the ethics of disclosure, whereby a candidate has access to the source of the comments made about their work. Knowing who is behind the comments allows for legitimate follow-up and further learning. Even where direct follow-up with an individual examiner is not immediately permitted, such as in the case of a report that requires changes to be made to the thesis, it may be particularly important that the report be understood against the background of the examiner’s own work and perspective. In short, while an ethical case can certainly be made around the rights of an examiner to anonymity, it would be considered less usual in an era of freedom of information and high levels of accountability to candidates that an examiner would not be prepared to stand by their comments by having their name divulged on the thesis report they provide. One notable exception to the practices and protections referred to above is the examination of theses in the visual arts. Although practices differ considerably between universities, a common pattern here is that the candidate meets the examiners at the exhibition or performance of their work—the exhibition being part of the examination process. A form of viva (oral examination) may be held at the same time, which again makes these examinations very different from the norm for research degrees in Australia. Both the independence and anonymity of examiners are impractical in this situation.

Considerations in nominating examiners What criteria do experienced supervisors exercise in nominating examiners? In some cases, the graduate school or faculty provides guidelines for examiner selection and may require that the reasons for each selection be spelled out when the nominations are made. But even when such a statement is not required, there are implicit criteria exercised by supervisors, often to do with examiner expertise, reputation, publications and experience. A study of the reasons given for the nomination of 303 examiners for 101 doctoral theses across almost all discipline areas indicated that more than three-quarters of the nominations included expertise as a reason, with the majority of these referring to theoretical or empirical expertise (Bourke et al. 2001). Reputation was given as a reason for the selection of almost 60 per cent of the examiners, with international repute being the most common descriptor. Publication record generally was given for 40 per cent of examiner selections, and experience was given for almost as many, with a focus on experience related to doctoral supervision and examination. This pattern of reasons was similar across disciplines with the exception of engineering, where reputation was the most commonly given reason for examiner selection followed by expertise.

236


2/5/07 11:43:03 AM


Another important consideration for the reasonable assessment of a thesis is having a spread of examiner expertise, particularly when the thesis is crossdisciplinary. Although this may present potential problems of genre differences between disciplines, in general the nature of examiner comments do not differ markedly by discipline (Bourke et al. 2004). But even when the thesis is not crossdisciplinary, it is essential that the methodology used in the thesis is examined appropriately as well as the topic area being covered. In some cases, achieving both method and topic coverage may require the use of different criteria in selecting individual examiners in forming an examination panel.

What do examiners not do and what do they focus on? First we suggest three indications of what examiners generally do not do when examining a doctoral thesis. What they write about a thesis in their reports does not seem to be related to the reasons given for their selection as examiners (Bourke et al. 2001). Second, experienced examiners tend not to heed examination guidelines provided by the university (Mullins and Kiley 2002), and this was con firmed for both experienced and inexperienced examiners (Holbrook et al. 2004). This suggests they feel that they know what is required of them as examiners. Third, as mentioned above, examiners in different disciplines generally do not focus on different aspects of theses or write about theses in recognisably different ways. Aspects of theses that examiners do focus on can be identified from their reports and are summarised below. The following information is based on a detailed textual analysis of 2121 examiner reports written on 804 PhD theses at eight universities across all discipline areas (Bourke et al. 2006). In Table 29.1 overleaf, the first column of figures shows the percentages of examiner reports where at least one mention of each assessable area coded can be found. The mention could be as brief as a single line, or as extensive as encompassing most of the report. The second column of figures in the table shows the average proportion of the examiner reports dedicated to each area. The table lists the areas in descending order of their proportions of report content. In general, these were the topics that the examiners wrote about and there fore presumably areas that engaged them during their examination of the thesis, either in a positive or a negative way. Clearly there were assessable areas that were covered in most examiner reports, albeit sometimes briefly. The fact that examiners wrote about each of these areas in their reports does not necessarily mean that the amount of coverage of each area was related to their overall evalu ation of the thesis. Cutting across the assessable areas covered, the reports were also coded according to the nature of the evaluation being made of the thesis by the examiner.

237


2/5/07 11:43:04 AM


Table 29.1 The occurrence and frequency of types of examiner comments found in doctoral thesis examination reports Assessable areas Analysis and reporting of findings

Found in examiner reports (%)

Proportion of report devoted to this area (%)

95 37

Approach of the study in terms of method, design and execution

81 13

The literature review: all aspects

89 11

Significance and contribution of the thesis

82 10

Scope of the thesis 73 Editorial issues

8

57

8

Substantive issues of communication 79

6

Topic related issues 28

5

Publications: existing or potential publications by the candidate

54 3

The most frequent type of evaluative comment was what the researchers termed ‘formative instruction’, accounting for an average of 21 per cent of each report. Formative instruction had a strong teaching focus with elements of the ideal supervisory role in assisting the candidate to understand the issues and to improve the thesis on the basis of that knowledge. The next most common type of evaluation was positive summative assessment of the thesis as a whole or of a major component of it (19 per cent). When linked with other positive judgements made by examiners, these positive evaluations totalled 29 per cent of reports. Turning to the negative, prescriptive comments in which the examiner provided ‘fix it this way’ input without providing an explanation, accounted for 11 per cent of reports. Other negative summative and other judgements totalled 4 per cent of reports. Examiner commentary and other judgements that could not be defined as ‘clearly positive’ or ‘negative’ totalled 16 per cent of examiner reports. The examiner reports in this study ranged in length from one line to 1272 lines of text, with an average of more than 100 lines. As might be expected, examiners had a strong tendency to write longer reports on theses that they considered to be weaker. Presumably they saw a greater need to justify their criticisms compared with their praise. And it was also true that suggesting how a deficiency might be attended to required more written text than simply saying something was well done or appropriate. This is particularly the case for formative instruction, where helping the candidate involved explanations, examples and argument. Higher amounts of both formative instruction and prescription in reports were related to weaker theses. Clearly higher proportions of positive judgements in reports were related to stronger theses, and negative judgements to weaker theses.

238


2/5/07 11:43:05 AM


Following examination, an important task for supervisors is assisting and supporting the candidate to interpret and respond to examiner comments and requirements, particularly when these are likely to have a strong emotive impact on the candidate. It is very useful to be able to identify from the evaluative comment which comments have the greatest significance. Returning to the assessable areas covered, although comment in these areas could have been sometimes positive and sometimes negative, and therefore each area could be inconsistently related to thesis quality, on balance each area tended towards one end of the thesis quality spectrum. More extensive comments on the literature review, on analysis and reporting of findings and on editorial issues were related to weaker theses, while more extensive comments on thesis scope, on significance and contribution and on publications were related to stronger theses.

Examiner consistency and examination outcomes Much is made in some circles about inconsistencies between examiners of the same thesis and between different theses. Indeed, one strand of our own PhD study showed that it was often not easy to predict the final thesis result from the comments made in the examiner report (Lovat et al. 2004). This led to speculation that there may be an ‘examiner mind-set’ in play and that issues of examiner ‘expertise’ and even ‘power’ could be significant factors that affect the final shape and form of the genre known as the examination report. It is true that the recommended result provided by individual examiners does differ somewhat for the same thesis, and in a few cases the difference is extreme. It is important therefore to know that the examiner recommendations are just that; and it is normally a university committee or its chair that makes the ultimate decision on the thesis. But it is also necessary to address the point more directly. For the 804 theses included in this study, only 18 per cent had two examiners whose recommendations differed by more than one category on the five-point scale described, with the extremes of ‘accept’ the thesis and outright ‘fail’. Inconsistencies beyond two categories were extremely rare indeed. And only 4 per cent of theses had examiner recommendations that differed from the committee decision by more than one category on the same five-point scale. Typically, inconsistencies arose from one of two situations. Most common of the inconsistencies was when one examiner recommended Accept while another recommended Require major correction, or one examiner recommended Invite minor correction or even Accept, while the another recom mended Revise and resubmit. However, even when differences of this magnitude occurred, there was normally a high level of consistency between examiners when it came to what they wrote about the thesis in their reports. It seems that, although they tended to see the strengths and weaknesses of the thesis similarly, in a few cases examiners came to different conclusions about what should happen as a

239


2/5/07 11:43:05 AM


result. For most of the theses in this study there were in fact three examiners, and this circumstance assisted the committee to identify an ‘outrider’ or inconsistent examiner recommendation. This was sometimes more difficult when there were only two examiners, but their detailed written comments normally enabled the university committee to make an informed decision on the fate of the thesis. In the event of indecision on the part of the committee, it is always possible to send a thesis to another examiner, and a small number of theses are dealt with in this way. This ‘new’ examiner takes on the role of either simply an additional examiner or an adjudicator. In the first case, the additional examiner provides another viewpoint for the committee, and the new recommendation should assist in identifying a discrepant examiner. In the second case, the adjudicator normally receives the existing examiner reports as well as the thesis, and perhaps also a written response to the examiner reports from the supervisor. From this comprehensive array of information, the adjudicator makes a recommendation on the thesis that is normally accepted by the committee. To the charge that the examination process leads to inconsistencies in decisions made on different theses, we can be less sure. There could be inconsistencies in standards and therefore a perceived lack of fairness between candidates at the same university, or candidates at different universities. Because every thesis is different (and every thesis-examiner dyad is unique), it is not currently possible to compare thesis outcomes directly in a meaningful way. But there are at least two aspects of the examination process that reduce possible inconsistencies here. First, a thesis outcome results from the recommendations of more than one examiner, each recommendation being justified by a written report averaging more than two pages. Because the university decision makers have all this information, the probability of an errant result is much decreased. Second, because examiner selection is largely discipline-based, very similar notional pools of potential examiners are used by all Australian universities. This should have the effect of minimising differences at both candidate and university levels. When we look at examiner recommendations and committee decisions on the same 804 PhD theses across the eight universities involved in the study referred to, very similar patterns of results were evident between disciplines and universities. And, as can be seen in Table 29.2, the committee had the effect of moderating the extremes of examiner recommendations, resulting in smaller proportions of outright acceptance of theses and of thesis revisions and resubmissions being required. A further consideration related to consistency of results obtained by candidates is that almost half the examiners are based outside Australia; frequently in the United States and the United Kingdom, but also across Europe, Asia, Canada, Aotearoa New Zealand and elsewhere (Bourke et al. 2006). This suggests that Australian universities have adopted an international standard for their doctoral thesis examination processes and thus for the assessment of quality of doctoral research outcomes.

240


2/5/07 11:43:06 AM


Table 29.2 The differences between examiner recommendations and final committee decisions Recommendation/decision

Examiner %

Committee %

Accept the thesis as submitted 31 12 Invite (or require) minor correction 40 46 Require more major correction 21 37 Revise and resubmit for re-examination 7 4 Fail without the option of revision 1

0

Concluding comments The norm for doctoral examination in Australia is that two or three international experts external to the university and acting independently read, comment in detail on and make a recommendation on a thesis, with no oral examination of the candidate being involved. The frequent use of examiners located overseas, the independence of the examiners’ assessments from one another and from the candidate’s university, and the normally detailed nature of examiner reports, are clear strengths of the Australian doctoral thesis regime. Doctoral thesis exam ination may well be an area where we can confidently claim ‘international best practice’. Whether the absence of an oral examination is a weakness of our system is perhaps a debate worth having. However, the issues are too complex for us to enter into that debate here. As is evident in Table 29.2, we can end this chapter on the positive note that almost all doctoral theses submitted for examination will eventually pass. The drop-out rate from doctoral candidature may be problematic, but if candidates stay the course and submit a thesis that their supervisor(s) believes is worthy of examination, it is rare that the degree will not be awarded eventually. However, for some candidates (4 per cent of our sample of 804 PhD theses), this happy result may occur only after the pain of revision and resubmission of their thesis. The information provided in this chapter has the express intent of assisting supervisors—and of course, candidates—to avoid that pain and frustration. Questions

1 How should we decide the balance of criteria to be considered when selecting doctoral thesis examiners, who should have the final say in examiner selection, and what should be the balance between supervisor, candidate and committee preference? 2 Discuss the significant issues for thesis examination with respect to the conflicting demands between the confidentiality of the examination process and a candidate’s right to know under freedom of information.

241


2/5/07 11:43:06 AM


3 How should a supervisor best prepare a candidate for the realities of examination, and what key areas should supervisors discuss? For example, how problematic are concerns about examiner consistency and examiner conservatism? Is there a tendency on the part of supervisors to ‘play safe’ (that is, constrain originality) when preparing a candidate for examination? 4 Discuss what is and what should be the role of the university committee in thesis decision making based on examiner reports, and what are the ethical, academic and procedural ramifications of a committee overturning examiner recommendations. References

Bourke, S, Hattie, J & Anderson, L 2004, ‘Predicting examiner recommendations on PhD theses’, International Journal of Educational Research, vol. 41(2), pp. 178–94. Bourke, S, Holbrook, A & Lovat, T 2006, ‘Relationships of PhD candidate, candidature and examination characteristics with thesis outcomes’, paper presented at the Annual Conference of the Australian Association for Research in Education (AARE), Adelaide. Available at http://www.aare.edu.au/06pap/ Bourke, S, Scevak, J & Cantwell, R 2001, ‘PhD examination and examiner characteristics’, paper presented at the Annual Conference of the Australian Association for Research in Education (AARE), Fremantle. Available at http://www.aare.edu.au/01pap/bou01588.htm Holbrook, A, Dally, K, Bourke, S, Lovat, T, Monfries, M & Lu, Y 2004, ‘Evaluating some fundamental features of doctoral assessment’, paper presented at the Quality in Postgraduate Research Conference, Adelaide. Lawson, A, Marsh, H & Tansley, T 2003, ‘Examining the examiners’, Australian Universities Review, vol. 46(1), pp. 32–36. Lovat, T, Monfries, M & Morrison, K 2004, ‘Ways of knowing and power discourse in doctoral examination’, International Journal of Educational Research, vol. 41(2), pp. 163–77. Mullins, G & Kiley, M 2002, ‘“It’s a PhD, not a Nobel Prize”: How experienced examiners assess research theses’, Studies in Higher Education, vol. 27(4), pp. 369–86.

242


2/5/07 11:43:07 AM

C HAPTER 3 0

Preparing candidates for oral examination Graeme Fraser Jacqueline Rowarth Massey University

Introduction The concept of oral examination (also called viva or defence) originated in Europe in the Middle Ages. Passing the examination required the candidates to prove they had achieved scholarly status, by answering questions from anybody on any subject as well as defending the research that had actually been done during candidature. Reports of examinations lasting several days abound. In Britain, the operation of a viva tends to depend on the nature of the thesis (Powell and McCauley 2002). If the thesis is strong, the viva functions as a sum mative process with the examiners summing up the strengths of the thesis and discussing the candidate’s progression into post-doctoral work. Conversely, if the thesis is considered poor, the viva functions more as a formative process with examiners focusing on weaknesses to be addressed before resubmission and reexamination. An interesting aside is that Powell and McCauley (2002) reported that it would be possible to consider the function as summative when the thesis fails as the examiner is making a judgement, and formative when it is successful as the examiner is considering progression beyond the doctorate and into the academic community. In Australasia, oral examinations tend to be focused on the research done by the candidate, the contribution to knowledge that the candidate has made, and how that contribution fits with current knowledge. This type of examination functions as a way of assessing whether the candidate has integrated research skills and understanding of the methodology, as well as assessing the candidate’s

243


2/5/07 11:43:07 AM


understanding of the discipline and personal contribution. The examinations are usually completed within three hours rather than days. The examinations, where the university has them, are still a significant component of the transition process from doctoral candidate to member of a profession, and should not be taken lightly by either the supervisor or the candidate. They require training and rehearsal for success, in the same manner as any sporting event, dramatic performance or traditional written examination. Success requires previous preparation, without which there is bound to be failure. No candidate should go into an oral examination without preparation. Although this might seem normal practice, not all supervisors have had the experience of oral examination themselves; moreover, not all institutions are geared up to ensure that their candidates are prepared appropriately. Lack of preparation then leads to lack of confidence, uncertainty on both sides and, potentially, a bad experience for all. This chapter discusses the different ways that supervisors can ensure that their candidates are thoroughly prepared for their oral examination, so that they can perform in a manner creditable for themselves, their supervisor and their university, and therefore enjoy the process of their rite of passage into academia.

Purpose of oral examinations The main purpose of the oral examination (Rowarth and Fraser 2006) is to pro vide reassurance to your university through the Academic Board (or equivalent) that your candidate: 1 has made an original and significant contribution to knowledge; 2 knows what has been done and how it has been done, in depth and in detail; and 3 deserves to become, and will be, a credible member of the academic community. The oral is the time when the examiners can judge how much your candidate actually knows about the subject and so are able to assess the contribution he or she actually made to the research. Although it is rare for candidates to fail the oral exam, there have been occasions where inadequate preparation has led to doubts in the minds of the examiners, and so to extra work for the candidate. Extra work could be in the form of rewriting some sections, re-analysing data and rewriting that section, or doing some more primary research. It is clear that appropriate preparation minimises the chances of this disappointment for your candidate. The first task of the supervisor is to realise that the process of preparing the candidate for an oral examination actually begins at enrolment. Examination needs to be seen as one part of the research training process. Thus the scope of the process is very much bigger than just the preparation for the oral itself.

244


2/5/07 11:43:07 AM

preparing candidates for oral examination

Preparation Doctoral supervision is the last teaching and learning process that one does with a candidate. It forms the capstone of the foundation for their career, and good supervision enhances the likelihood of successful completion with an open, upfront and reciprocal relationship. Thus, anything that assists the candidate to understand what is being embarked upon, and therefore what should be antici pated, should not be overlooked. As the final oral examination can be perceived as a major barrier to successful completion, it is worth spending time considering not only the examination, but also the preparation for it. The oral examination is the part of the research assessment process (Powell and Green 2003) that allows examiners to interact with the candidate and to check that they have the right attitude, as well as knowledge, to become part of the academy. Throughout the doctoral process of preparing the research proposal, collecting and analysing the data, presenting research results at sem inars and conferences, discussion of results and implications with colleagues, and consideration of thesis drafts, the supervisor needs to be assisting to craft the right type of attitude and orientation towards being a good researcher. The capacity to talk clearly and cogently about the research subject will be required for the rest of the candidate’s career as a researcher. Modelling this type of behaviour throughout candidature is critical in terms of preparation. Hence it is extremely important that the candidate learns how to respond to peers and colleagues in a way that shows they know what is being talked about. All things that have prefaced the examination—which include the development of written, analytical and oral skills—should have helped to prepare the candidate for the examination: the intensive learning will ensure that the candidate has developed a view of what the research has contributed as well as on how it fits in with the past and current literature. Thus the rite of passage of the oral exam ination is used as a predictor of subsequent success. All through the oral examination, the examiners will be asking themselves whether the candidate knows the subject, can respond to questions clearly and cogently, and has considered the implications of the results. To ensure that the answer to these questions is in the affirmative, the competent supervisor will ensure that the process of doctoral candidature leading up to the oral examination covers all the necessary aspects.

Critique and coaching The first important step in preparation for the oral is at the point of the candida ture where the candidate gives a seminar presenting the research proposal to the members of the department (and other interested parties). The idea of the research proposal seminar is to canvass opinion on the research direction and likelihood of success overtly, as well as to start the ‘presentation in public’ process. In academia

245


2/5/07 11:43:08 AM


and research, the culture is generally one of improvement through open critique and suggestion. Be warned, however, that this may be the first time that the candidate has experienced this type of critique. As the current educational system focuses on strengths and ‘positive feedback’ to encourage confidence, critique is often construed as criticism, which is regarded as destructive. In the United States, media reports suggest that there is an increase in psychiatric counselling required to assist employers to deal with the trauma of the reaction of young employees to being asked to improve some aspect of their performance. Far better than ‘after-the-fact’ counselling, is setting the ground rules for critique at the beginning, pointing out that the doctoral process is one of moving from being a graduate to being a professional, and that learning to respond to critique is an important part of becoming that professional. Supervisors are the candidate’s coach. Coaching for performance (there are many books on this subject) is an excellent technique and can be learned without huge effort. Questions such as ‘How did you think that went?’, ‘What aspects of that do you think could be improved?’ and ‘What do you think we need to do before you will be confident about presenting this research at the next conference?’ are likely to be received positively. ‘Would you like to go over it again before we invite an audience?’ will be understood by the intelligent candidate as indication that all is not yet right. The careful supervisor will attempt to ensure that the candidate approaches challenges at the point where the stretch to achieve is appropriate and not damaging. Nevertheless, there are likely to be times when the candidate insists that they are ready to present before you agree. Damage can be minimised by exposure to an internal audience primed with feedback slips where anonymity can be preserved if required.

Creating the story Presenting an update on the research at the point where candidature is confirmed might be part of the culture of your department. If it isn’t, should it be? The update presentation will allow the candidate to refine the objectives of the research, as interested and informed but dispassionate observers will be able to make suggestions that can then be incorporated or discarded. Before the creation of the presentation, supervisors might consider suggesting to their candidate that the data tables, graphs and figures that are likely to be used are printed and laid out on a large table in the order in which they will be presented. Then they might encourage the candidate to undertake a ‘dry run’ through the story. This preliminary step will allow you both to move the elements around so that the story is logical and cogent before time is invested in writing. It will also embed the logic from an early stage, so that when the time comes for presentation, the talk will be second nature. (The same technique can be used when creating

246


2/5/07 11:43:08 AM


chapters or articles, and building the writing, at least at the beginning, section by section.)

Conference presentations Some departments expect their candidates to present seminars annually or at the point where an exciting discovery appears to have been made. Once the first one or two internal presentations have been made, the annual updates may be rolled into conference rehearsals to advantage. Conference presentations are both more exciting and more worrying than inter nal seminars; that is, the unknown adds the extra adrenalin. The worst part of the unknown is usually the questions and the potential for ‘botching’ the answer in a public venue. Clearly there are similarities between conferences and oral exam inations. Although ‘preparation for the unexpected’ seems a contradiction, you can improve confidence by working with candidates to brainstorm what might be asked, by encouraging rehearsal in front of coevals and inviting questions from them, and by having a formal rehearsal with members of the department. By anticipating questions and working on the answers through a process of modi fication and refinement, the assurance and confidence within the candidate can be built up. The very process of anticipating questions has the advantage of honing the mind, enhancing the impression of acuity and engagement. It can also lead to advantageous refinement of the presentation itself so that clarity is achieved. It is for the reason of preparation for professional life, which includes meeting people and so becoming known in the networks, that the Bright Future Top Achiever Doctoral Scholarships in Aotearoa New Zealand, administered by the Tertiary Education Commission, include generous annual funding for conference attendance. If the candidate does not have funding for conference attendances, the supervisor might encourage an investigation of funding opportunities offered by professional societies. Many offer financial assistance to candidates, particu larly if it means another person attending the annual conference to give a research paper.

Networks Peers and colleagues are extremely important in the development of a wellrounded researcher and the good supervisor ensures that the candidate becomes integrated into the department (James and Baldwin 2006). Throughout Doctorates downunder (Denholm and Evans 2006), the advice to the candidate is to engage with the department to get involved, to get to know the academics and other postgraduate candidates and to make the effort to meet co-researchers. Absorption into the research environment assists with adoption of the appropriate behaviour

247


2/5/07 11:43:09 AM


and the behaviour that will be required for success in the profession. Meeting and networking also assists with gaining postdoctoral positions and employment. Of further consideration is that an experienced and well-connected doctoral candidate is quite likely to have met the thesis examiners before the examination. In knowing the research leaders in the field, the candidate can anticipate the questions that might come up and so cover the answers in the thesis itself.

Guidelines and questions Before your candidate starts writing, give them a copy of the ‘instructions to examiners’ that are despatched to the examiners with the thesis. This document will help to focus the candidate’s mind on the aspects the examiners are looking for. In Table 30.1, a list of predictable questions has been drawn from standard examiner guidelines. Note that although it has been reported that many examiners don’t read the guidelines, particularly if they consider themselves experienced (Mullins and Kiley 2002), other research suggests that the guidelines are important in the decisions that examiners make (Johnson 1997). As the oral approaches, remind your candidate to read appropriate chapters on oral presentations and oral examinations (Denholm 2006, Rowarth and Fraser 2006). Finally, before your candidate goes in to the oral, make sure that they are feeling confident. This can be easier than it might seem. At one conference Jacqueline entered the cloakroom to find a pale and nervous candidate clutching the basin. She smiled at her, and asked if she was giving a paper. The candidate groaned that it was her first one. Jacqueline gave her name and asked hers. Tina. ‘What’s the paper on, Tina?’ The answer was insect predation in Brassica. Jacqueline then asked her five more questions, waiting for the answer in between each. Who did the work? Who knows most about the subject? Who has rehearsed? Who can be confident in their presentation? Who can enjoy the experience? The answer to all was ‘Me’ and they came with increasing strength. Tina gave a good paper.

Supervisors can ensure that their candidate is reminded of these facts in similar fashion. With the support that the supervisor has given their candidate, as outlined in this chapter, the outcome is likely to be one that pleases all parties.

248


2/5/07 11:43:09 AM


Table 30.1 Examples of possible questions asked by examiners during an oral examination Examiner’s guideline

Possible question for candidate

The ability to review the literature relevant to the research problem

• What prompted you to do this research?

The ability to design an investigation • How did you arrive at that particular definition and and to gather and analyse how did you choose to make it operational? information • Why did you choose that particular problem and what do your findings indicate for theory and practice? • What conclusions can be drawn from your results and how do you justify your interpretation? The ability to present information in This will be demonstrated in the thesis and overview at a manner consistent with publication the beginning of the oral exam. in the relevant discipline Critical appraisal of his/her own work relative to that of others

• Of course you are familiar with the work of X. How do you explain the fact that the conclusions from that research are so different from yours? • What do you think were the main limitations of your work?

The ability to carry out supervised research in the field

This should be evident from the thesis.

A significant and original contribution to knowledge of fact, theory or the epistemology of practice

• What do you think your work has added to the discipline?

Independent and critical thought

• In hindsight, what would you have done differently?

• How have you judged ‘significant’? • What have you done to ensure that your work is original? • How would your approach have changed if you had had unlimited time and resources?

The capacity to work independently of supervision

• How would you advise a future doctoral candidate using your thesis as a foundation? • Where would you scope the study and would there be enough in it to allow the new candidate to make an original, substantive contribution to knowledge?

Concluding comments The oral examination builds on the foundation of the whole candidature that eventually leads to the candidate being a confident and increasingly competent researcher. Researchers must be able to communicate well, and to build mutual

249


2/5/07 11:43:10 AM


respect and, indeed, the trust quotient among researchers and with members of society. A good researcher is able to discuss their research at all levels—coevals, experts, parents, school children and community groups. The doctoral process must set the groundwork for the candidate, ensure that the competencies required to be an effective researcher are learned, create the right attitudes for success, and inculcate best practice. Creating this type of researcher is an ongoing process, and in this the oral examination is highly significant. Competent oral performance at the examination is also an indicator of future success. Hence successful performance at the oral is a long-term project, with the examination as the culmination of several years of preparation. During the preparation for the oral examination, encouragement, praise and building the confidence of the candidate are paramount in order to give the examiners con fidence that the candidate knows what it is they have been researching over the past few years. Confidence is built on good data, good skills and understanding. Successful navigation of the oral examination serves as the beginning of pro fessional development, not the end. Questions

1 How do you judge whether your candidate has the attributes and skills to present information in different forums? 2 What methods and processes can you use during one-on-one meetings with your candidates to build their communication skills? 3 What can you do to enable your candidate to talk about their field of research in an interesting and confident manner, and what can you do to enable your candidate to respond to perceived shortcomings in a presentation? References

Denholm, C 2006, ‘Oral presentations during candidature’, in C Denholm & T Evans (eds), Doctorates downunder, ACER Press, Camberwell, Victoria, pp. 144–50. Denholm, C & Evans, T 2006, Doctorates downunder, ACER Press, Camberwell, Victoria, p. 227. James, R & Baldwin, G 2006, Eleven practices of effective postgraduate research supervisors, The University of Melbourne, p. 59. Johnson, S 1997, ‘Examining the examiners: An analysis of examiners’ reports on doctoral theses’, Studies in Higher Education, vol. 22, pp. 333–47. Mullins, G & Riley, M 2002, ‘“It’s a PhD, not a Nobel Prize”: How experienced examiners assess research theses’, Studies in Higher Education, vol. 27, pp. 369–86. Powell, S & Green, H 2003, ‘Research degree examining: Quality issues of principle and practice’, Quality Assurance in Education, vol. 11, pp. 55–63. Powell S & McCauley, C 2002, ‘Research degree examining—common principles and divergent practices’, Quality Assurance in Education, vol. 10, pp. 104–15. Rowarth JS & Fraser GS 2006, ‘Oral examinations’, in C Denholm & T Evans (eds), Doctorates downunder, ACER Press, Camberwell, Victoria, pp. 208–16.

250


2/5/07 11:43:11 AM

C HAPTER 3 1

Assisting candidates as they move into postdoctoral life Andrew Cheetham University of Western Sydney R. Warwick Blood Anne Daly Bill Maher University of Canberra

Introduction In this chapter we explore the responsibilities of the supervisor in supporting and advising the candidate on how best to achieve their postdoctoral career aspirations. This responsibility is fundamental to ensuring that the candidate meets their objectives, both in the outcomes of their research and their research education, and how those outcomes will influence their future career. The career trajectory of a candidate will depend on many factors: not only the starting point to their doctoral studies and desired career entry point on completion of the degree, but also the discipline, their experience and their current and future work situation. Indeed, the career aspirations of a candidate may need to be modified over time in the light of evidence of their research capabilities and personality. It is one of the responsibilities of the supervisor to nurture the supervisor–candidate relationship to the extent that, where necessary, advice and support for a candidate can extend further than simply project-based support to personal and career development. The supervisor–candidate relationship in many cases turns into a lifelong friendship and sometimes collaboration. The quality of the mentoring and support

251


2/5/07 11:43:11 AM


for the candidate and their life and career expectations will always be highly valued by a graduate. Equally, poor support and misguided advice in this area can damage a relationship, even though the professional and research support may be sound. Because of this potential impact, we believe it is arguably one of the most important supervision tasks in terms of ensuring that your candidate succeeds when they head off into the wider world, whatever they might end up doing. We begin this chapter by developing our philosophy of what life after a doc torate might mean and how this is related to the goals of supervision. We then develop the theme of career trajectories of doctoral candidates and how the different dependencies will affect and influence the support required of the supervisor. This discussion is followed by some advice on how these goals can be achieved, what factors should be considered that will influence the supervisor’s role, and finally some discussion points to help supervisors confidently tackle this role with their candidates. The majority of doctoral candidates will have plans for a career after gradu ation and this chapter is aimed at this group; however, supervisors must recognise that there are a growing number of candidates who are pursuing a doctorate as a climax to their career and have no post-doctorate career plans.

What does life after the doctorate mean? Candidate expectations—the journey versus the aftermath It is our experience that traditionally many supervisors focus mainly on the research topic to be completed during the doctoral candidature and the thesis to be written. It is our belief that the thesis may be the important product on which the doctorate is examined, but the journey is where the candidate develops into a researcher in preparation for life after the doctorate. It must be considered equally important that this journey is well planned, is productive and properly prepares the candidate for their career. However, candidates undertake graduate research studies for many reasons, ranging from ‘doing a doctorate for its own sake’ to ‘obtaining experience to enter a profession’. Mature-age candidates tend to have concrete ideas of what they wish to achieve from their studies, while candidates who are continuing on from an honours program often have no clear sense of what life after a doctorate means for them. All candidates have different aspirations, and the challenge for supervisors is to encourage candidates to think about ‘life after a doctorate’ and to provide an environment that facilitates their aspirations. Table 31.1 lists possible starting points and career aspirations of a doctoral candidate. We do not pretend that this is an exhaustive list, but it serves to illustrate the diversity, and therefore the diversity of the possible trajectories that could link any starting point to a career.

252


2/5/07 11:43:12 AM

assisting candidates as they move into postdoctoral life

Possible starting points to the degree Recent graduate Mature-age with work experience Mature-age in a job studying part-time Mature-age working in a job related to the research project Senior employee Academic staff member Retiree Other

Supervisor support to make the transition from start point to career aspiration

Table 31.1 Examples of starting points and career aspirations of candidature Possible career aspiration upon graduation Academic career Profession Research in a government or corporate laboratory Research in the public service Continue in current position Promotion from current position Career change None; fulfilled retirement! Teaching Community service

What does life after a doctorate mean? This is the $50 000 question that can only be answered by the candidate. Nevertheless, supervisors have an important role in broadening a candidate’s horizon in terms of the range of possibilities and strategies to achieve their aspir ations. Common aspirations include entering a profession allied to their doctoral studies or undertaking related research via a post-doctorate position. In contrast, many candidates enter professions entirely unrelated to their studies—for example, policy formulation or teaching, where the skills and creativity gained, rather than the knowledge gained, are utilised. Others may never enter a profes sion, but contribute to the wider community in other ways through family activities, membership of community groups and volunteer work. As mentioned above, candidates tend to focus on the ‘here and now’ and often only have vague narrow ideas of what they want to do after they have submitted their thesis. It is a supervisor’s responsibility to explore post-doctorate possibilities in the light of a candidate’s aspirations and abilities. Many of the skills developed during graduate research studies—for example, creativity, communication, project management, analysis, interpersonal and leadership skills—will serve candidates well whatever they decide to do after their doctorate. For a supervisor, determining candidate goals in pursuing doctoral research can be a complex task. Simply labelling candidates at the outset as potential researcher, academic or public or private sector researcher, or late-career candidate, can be limiting because of ever-changing circumstances and inevitable personal development. Doctoral research is centrally about personal research development and progress.

253


2/5/07 11:43:12 AM


Planning a life after a doctorate It should be acknowledged that candidates bring to their studies a diversity of academic expertise, workplace skills and professional experience. Any graduate research program needs to acknowledge this and build on the personal knowledge, experience, capacities and skills postgraduates already possess. Candidates, in con junction with their supervisor(s), should undertake a needs analysis that explores their aspirations, recognises their prior learning and experience, and addresses known and anticipated needs, both for the project and for their career goals. As an example, at the University of Canberra, candidates in conjunction with their supervisors prepare a personal learning plan that outlines activities they wish to undertake to improve their generic skills and fulfil their aspirations. Other universities have schemes with similar aims under different guises. It is envisaged that graduates of postgraduate research programs should possess advanced skills in inquiry, communication and organisation, be able to reflect critically, take a creative approach to issues in and beyond their field of research expertise, have a positive attitude to the acquisition and advancement of knowledge, and continue to learn and provide leadership in their professions. They will practise ethically and exert a beneficial influence on society. If any such scheme is to be of maximum benefit to the candidate, it requires significant and sustained support, both in principle and in practice, from the supervisor and university. Activities, among others, could be attendance at work shops, training sessions, conferences, seminars, professional association activities and undertaking practicums. The most appropriate times to undertake such prior itised activities need to be identified and the activities and the time line for their achievement recorded. Effective graduate research learners need to take control of their own learning, take responsibility for their future and have the opportunity to design, through interaction with others, their own learning paths.

The many goals of supervision As discussed, in terms of a ‘life after a doctorate’, a major goal of supervision is to help candidates determine their expectations and goals and facilitate activities that improve their generic skills and fulfil their aspirations. Supervisory style varies between the extremes of treating candidates practically as slaves, to a totally hands-off ‘free spirit’ approach. Achieving these goals ultimately depends on supervisory style. Most would agree that the ideal supervisory style lies somewhere in between these extremes, but exactly where will depend on the candidate. A partnership needs to be established where guidance is given, but the responsibility for learning still resides with the candidate. The traditional progression into a doctorate is of a candidate completing an undergraduate degree, followed by honours and then immediately moving into

254


2/5/07 11:43:13 AM


a doctorate program. However, this is only relevant for a proportion of doctoral candidates and varies in significance between disciplines. People undertake doc torates for a whole range of reasons and at varying stages of their lives. For some, it is the qualification required for entry to their chosen profession, undertaken at the beginning of their careers; for others, it is the opportunity to reflect on a lifetime of employment and experience outside academia. For yet another group, a doctorate is undertaken in mid-career as a useful qualification for career progression. As there are a variety of motivations and goals for undertaking a doctorate, it is important that the supervisor and the candidate discuss very early in the process the reasons for undertaking the doctorate and where the candidate would like to be five years after completion. It is also important to consider where the candidate is at the beginning of the process in terms of their generic skills set and the skills they would like to further develop. For example, a candidate in economics aiming for a job in an international agency such as the World Bank would be advised to choose a topic that enabled them to develop their econometric skills to a high level. If they did not begin with strong econometric skills, this gap needs to be addressed in the coursework taken during their candidature. Similarly, for those in mid-career, there should be a clear idea of the generic skills they will require in future employment. For candidates at the end of their careers who have undertaken the doctorate for personal development rather than employment reasons, the supervisor needs to encourage them to think about the achievements that are most important to them, and how to set these in a research context in order to best meet these goals. Candidates who are already well established in a career have a quite different set of issues that must be addressed early in the candidature. An important consideration is that candidates invariably bring with them extensive knowledge and a well-defined and experienced skills set. In some cases this will give them a flying start to their research; in others there can be a real problem if their mind-set and skills set are entrenched, but do not quite match those required for academic research and discourse. Realigning their skills in particular can present a significant challenge to the supervisor and the candidate. While some graduate research candidates step easily from an honours degree into their doctorate with expectations of an academic research career, other candidates with differing backgrounds bring to their studies a wealth of experi ence and very different goals for the future. So it is also important to remember that a good graduate candidate will be changed by the experience and may be taken in directions that were unimagined at the beginning, and at the conclusion have altered their plans for the future. Goals change as the research progresses and it is the responsibility of the supervisory panel to be constantly aware of these changing circumstances and expectations. Some doctoral candidates tailor their research to immediate job prospects, but others are less sure of their futures.

255


2/5/07 11:43:13 AM


In our view, most graduate research candidates on completion rarely find job positions that are a natural extension of their focused doctoral research. To meet these future career directions and uncertainties, increasing the scope, complexity and creativity in research skills training is usually as important as planning the focused doctoral research project. Whatever their final goals, life on completion of a doctorate for most can didates is unlikely to be a straight extension of what they have been doing in their thesis. It will involve adaptation and change, and they should be prepared for these eventualities. Supervisors should encourage their candidates to develop mentoring relationships with other members of their panel and others with relevant experience to help them move beyond their thesis. The differing expertise and experience of members of a supervisory panel can assist doctoral candidates to define and achieve their goals and meet the challenges of uncertainty. Equally, fostering a supportive team environment among a cohort of doctoral candidates enables them to share research experiences and changing expectations. Graduate research candidates who are completing doctoral research at the end of their careers can bring to these discussions a welcome degree of experience, maturity and wisdom.

Achieving the goals of supervision If we agree that the supervisor’s role should include that of mentoring and nurturing a candidate for postdoctoral life, then we need to reflect carefully on how to achieve this; what we can do by way of advice, encouragement and support that will help to achieve the transition from candidate—at whatever starting point—to graduate, prepared and ready to achieve their career or life goals. Good working relationships between a supervisor, the supervisory panel and the graduate research candidate are essential, but this should not be achieved at the expense of critical reflection by all parties. Reflexivity is central to the development of the research project and the doctoral candidate. Traditionally, in the humanities and social sciences, team research projects have not been as common as in the sciences. Yet graduate research candidates can gain significantly from working with other researchers on projects that may not be directly related to their own doctoral research. The research team environment brings significant indirect support for the doctoral candidate. It gives them access to increasing levels of research experi ence—from directed junior assistance roles to more supervisory experience, and to senior project management positions. Working cooperatively with others to meet a common goal, dealing with the day-to-day trials and tribulations of completing a project to deadline and budget, and being part of success and failure, especially in publication and grant proposals, are invaluable experiences.

256


2/5/07 11:43:14 AM


Such expanded research training may even allow candidates to cross paradigms in their disciplines or see other approaches to achieve skills, attitudes and experiences that are important for their longer-term future. Team-based research can also assist doctoral candidates to secure additional funds to support attendance at academic and professional conferences, and to establish research networks beyond their immediate environment. Supporting doctoral candidates in achieving research publication is critical, as is encouraging candidates to take on undergraduate tutoring to help develop social skills, communication and the explanation of ideas. An active supervisory panel, coupled with a team research environment and candidate cohort support, enhances research creativity and flexibility, allowing the doctoral candidate to see broader horizons and future opportunities. It is important that the candidate’s research project is not so narrow and focused that the candidate becomes embedded in research and the project to the cost of these other activities, and indeed to life itself. It is our experience that the most original and creative candidates are those who have a life outside their doctoral studies. The list below presents examples of possible factors that a supervisor could consider when trying to determine what sort of support would benefit a candidate. The support would naturally depend on the career trajectory (refer back to Table 31.1), but the factors listed here would inform the level and type of support that would maximise the benefit to the candidate. Considerations in supporting your candidate’s career aspirations Thesis discipline and topic Every discipline has career path choices that depend on the discipline. Is your candidate aware of the various possibilities in their chosen discipline? Full-time versus part-time It is often difficult to ensure that a part-time candidate becomes involved in the research culture of the university. Is the candidate part of a team or is it an individual project? A candidate with an individual project can easily become isolated. Group seminars and discussions, journal clubs, etc. are invaluable in this situation. However, experience has shown that often candidates will not participate if their supervisor does not participate … lead by example. Prior research experience—is the experience relevant? Research techniques and report-writing skill developed in employment often do not match the rigour of academic research; your candidate may need training or additional courses. The supervisor must monitor this to ensure that the candidate does not get too far in the wrong direction. Current job—is it relevant? If the current job/position is relevant to the project, then it will be of benefit to the candidate if their work can be woven into the research work.

257


2/5/07 11:43:14 AM


International candidates and cultural differences This can be a very difficult area. Be very aware of your candidate’s culture and beliefs and situation; these can significantly influence their career possibilities. (Cargill 2000, Panich 2002) Capabilities of the candidate—both academic and practical This really refers to what innate skills the candidate possesses. Is the candidate more theoretically or practically inclined? Are they natural analysts? It is always best to try to ensure that natural talents are used and exploited. Personality and motivation of the candidate Candidates are most likely to succeed when they are working on a topic that they find interesting and significant. This should be taken into account in choosing the topic and developing plans for the future. Career awareness of candidate Candidates should be encouraged to consider a wide range of post-doctorate opportunities and, where possible, to actively participate in some of them. Candidate goals for the doctorate Candidates need to consider carefully what they hope to achieve by undertaking a doctorate, and this should feed back into their choice of topic and supervision. Support to develop a well-rounded candidate Candidates need to develop generic skills that will enable them to work in an environment that is different from the immediate research topic of their doctorate.

So it can be seen that there are many things the supervisor can do to support a candidate. Knowing the goals of the candidate will be vital in determining which of the following activities will best work for them. For example, a candidate in mid-career who intends to continue to work for their existing employer outside academia is likely to place less importance on publications than a candidate who is determined to enter academia. The following list includes some practical examples of assistance that a supervisor may give a candidate. • Encouraging candidates to attend conferences and develop the relevant networks for their future career • Encouraging candidates to join professional associations • Introducing the candidate to potential collaborators and employers • Attending conferences with candidates • Encouraging candidates to join groups with more experienced researchers for the development of grant applications • Encouraging candidates to submit refereed publications during candidature and from their thesis, to prestigious journals • Offering assistance with job interview techniques • Publishing in less technical journals may be an important way of showing that the candidate has an ability to communicate beyond experts in the field; this can be relevant for candidates who are aiming for a career outside academia • Helping to obtain invitations to speak at conferences in particular, but also at public events or outreach programs • Employing the candidate as a tutor in appropriate undergraduate subjects.

258


2/5/07 11:43:15 AM


Concluding comments In this chapter we have tried to demonstrate that the modern doctoral candidate no longer conforms to the traditional ‘PhD student’ of the mid to late twentieth century. Many current supervisors in the Australian higher education system undertook their doctoral studies at that time, and some perhaps still believe that their students should conform to that model. However, the diversity of starting points of candidature and the many different career options that are now available to graduates mean that a supervisor must be aware of the requirements and needs of candidates in order to best ensure the success of their candidate, not only in their doctoral studies and the presentation of their thesis, but also in successfully entering and negotiating the postdoctoral career of their choice. Below we present some discussion material to help supervisors reflect on what they could do, or are doing, to support their candidates in this area. Questions

A supervisor’s toolkit should include a checklist that addresses the career trajectory of their candidate and the possible actions and support mechanisms that will be required. This checklist should be revisited frequently as the candidate develops—and possibly modifies—their aspirations in the light of their developing skills and their successes and failures in the course of their research project. The authors believe that supervisors should consider the following set of questions when reflecting on each of their candidates. This ‘checklist’ could also be used in a workshop situation for groups of supervisors at professional development seminars. The checklist of reflective activities for this topic could include the following: ® What is the starting point of my candidate and their aspirations on completion of the degree? (See Table 31.1.) ® Are these aspirations realistic or feasible in the light of the candidate’s capabilities? ® If so, does the candidate need guidance in their career trajectory/aspirations? ® If not, is my relationship with the candidate at a level that will allow me to influence their aspirations? ® What will be the most important skills required to bridge the gap from starting point to career entry/continuation, in addition to those required for the research project itself? (See list on pages 257–8.) ® Are these skills covered in the candidate’s learning plan (or equivalent)? (McCormack et al. 2006) ® Are there activities that should be encouraged that will help the candidate attain their career goals?

259


2/5/07 11:43:15 AM


References

Cargill, M 2000, ‘Intercultural postgraduate supervision meetings: An exploratory discourse study’, Prospect, vol. 15(2), pp. 28–38. McCormack, C, Kiley, M, Maher, B & Cripps, A 2006, ‘Taking charge: Using personal learning plans’, in C Denholm & T Evans (eds), Doctorates downunder: Keys to successful doctoral study in Australia and New Zealand, ACER Press, Camberwell, Victoria, pp. 76–86. Panich, V 2002, ‘International postgraduate study: What is gained/expected? A personal view’, in M Kiley & G Mullins (eds), Quality in postgraduate research: Integrating perspectives, The Advisory Centre for University Education, The University of Adelaide, pp. 23–31.

260


2/5/07 11:43:15 AM

C HAPTER 3 2

Developing career management skills in candidates Peter Tatham Carey Denholm University of Tasmania

Introduction Whereas the decision to undertake a doctorate is an important career decision, of equal importance is how a candidate actually develops the skills to manage both their research and how this new knowledge prepares them for their future career. The very nature of graduate research means that candidates are most likely to be isolated from a rapidly changing labour market. Locating possible niche oppor tunities, reflecting on the skills acquired during their research training, and strengthening their professional and academic networks can all serve to motivate candidates to complete. So will be the chance of gaining satisfying employment or future research opportunities upon completion. As has been highlighted in this text, graduate research supervisors are well placed to support the development of a range of generic or professional skills throughout the management of the doctoral training process. Supervisors also play a significant role in demonstrating to candidates the linkage of this training to the candidate’s broader career development. According to the Australian ViceChancellors Committee, the provision of career advice and assistance is one of the responsibilities of supervision (Australian Vice-Chancellors Committee 2005). The good news here in our ‘time-strapped’ life is that effective career support has a direct link to learning and need not be seen as one more requirement for the busy supervisor.

261


2/5/07 11:43:16 AM


This chapter provides an approach to assisting candidates understand many of the current impacts on future careers and describes an approach that supervisors may wish to use in order to encourage candidates to continually reflect on their career throughout the course of their doctorate.

Defining a career It has been claimed that the world is run by those who ‘show up’; however, a career has a greater level of complexity than this maxim might suggest. It may be useful to consider a definition of a career as ‘… a lifestyle concept that involves the sequence of work, learning and leisure activities in which one engages throughout a lifetime. Careers are unique to each person and are dynamic: unfolding through out life. Careers include how persons balance their paid and unpaid work and personal life roles’ (National Steering Committee for Career Development Guidelines and Standards 2004). The combination of balancing life, learning and work is at the heart of con temporary thinking about career development. Individuals are increasingly active in responding and adapting to change and, as stated by McMahon, Patton and Tatham (2003), ‘in creating, constructing, designing, and identifying paid employment opportunities, life and learning experiences that will enable them to create satisfying lives’ (p. 4). Thus, a doctorate is a career decision. The time required to undertake and complete doctoral research means that other career choices are not easily accommodated, as the candidate may perceive that opportunities are being lost and that links to potential employers and networks are becoming eroded. However, this need not be the case.

Linking career exploration to doctoral time lines The early phase of candidature If a doctorate is the answer, then what was the question in relation to career development? This is an important question for the candidate to clarify early during candidature, particularly as part of an investigation of possible research interests and topics. It is also a useful reflection as the candidate needs to start thinking through professional goals—that is, whether to pursue an academic or non-academic career. In the early stage of candidature it is equally essential for candidates to start developing a résumé that relates to these professional goals. Exploration exercises that stimulate self-awareness including interest inventories (for example, http://www.myfuture.edu.au) and Myers Briggs Type Indicators (Briggs and Myers 1998) can be useful for candidates, and the supervisor may encourage the candidate to access these through university career services. Encouragement can also be given to attend professional and generic

262


2/5/07 11:43:16 AM

developing career management skills in candidates

skills development programs, which operate in most Australian and Aotearoa New Zealand universities, as these types of training programs provide candidates with the tools to start reflecting on the transferable skills they have developed or may be linked to future employment. Commencement of a skills portfolio can also be a helpful device, which may be reviewed during the annual review of candidature. It needs to be reinforced to candidates that during the research training process they are in a unique ‘window of opportunity’ within their lifetime, where they are able to use their newly acquired research skills as leverage to expand their professional and academic network. However, candidates also need to learn how to access these networks and how to make use of accurate and relevant career information; many candidates do not know where to start in gathering either formal or informal career information. Other questions for the supervisor to explore with a candidate may include the following: • From your exploration of your topic, what are the interest areas that you have discovered that you may want to explore further at a later date? • Who are the key contacts in your network? • Who is doing work that interests you that you have not yet contacted? What are the barriers to making contact with them? • Which skills are strengthening and where are the skill gaps?

The mid-phase of candidature This phase often reflects a productive and rewarding experience for candidates, where the context and tangible outcomes from their research are becoming evident. The developing range of awareness about their own research potency provides supervisors with equal opportunity to impress the significance of exploring new options and to support candidates to build skills and networks that relate to these options. Practical support might include identification of funding sources to attend conferences and the presentation of academic papers and seminars. A further review of the candidate’s skills portfolio is desirable at this stage. This review should go beyond the skills required to manage the various deadlines for the research, to include discussion of skill and strategies to redress any deficits. Although not obvious to the candidate, explicit conversation about the project management, team and supervision skills that have been learned will also reinforce the link to career development. If, for example, a candidate is becoming isolated from their academic networks, then intervention can be made to formulate a networking communication strategy—for example, establishing a contact time line for networks. Work experience within industry also provides opportunities for gaining teaching experience (for example, guest lectures), publication opportunities and the development of transferable skills.

263


2/5/07 11:43:17 AM


There are a multitude of university resources available to assist in career aware ness and development: careers counsellors, university libraries, online resources, professional development seminars and so forth. Encouraging candidates to under take career exploration across a broad section of the labour market can heighten a candidate’s awareness of opportunities (for example, Seek’s higher education site at http://www.seek.com.au/seek_alliance/unijob/, which includes the latest vacancies from universities across Australia and Aotearoa New Zealand). Supervisors need to ensure that candidates are aware of these resources and that time is set aside to ensure that the candidate has actually made use of them. Throughout this mid-phase period, it is critical that the candidate develop a balance between exploring career opportunities, skill development and making good progress with the doctorate. Career development should not become a procrastination device or an obsessive activity, but is rather seen as an important component within the research training process. Other questions for discussion are: • In what way is your research reflecting your personal and work values? • How are you sharing the information, articles and knowledge with your network? • Of the opportunities that are emerging from your research, which ones are you exploring or would like to explore further?

The final phase of candidature In this phase the candidate is under pressure to complete; however, candidates can also become energised (and distracted) with the array of future career possibilities that emerge. This is also a time where employers may begin to provide enticing offers to leave or suspend candidature in order to accept a lucrative employment offer. The idea of the candidate as a self-employed consultant (to be explored later in this chapter) can be used in this phase. Options can be discussed and reality tested with the supervisor and others, including careers staff. During this final stage the candidate might develop a brief introductory verbal statement in order to ‘market’ themselves. In the film industry, for example, the ‘pitch’ consists of a brief outline of the key points of interest, and so with candidates this might consist of a brief narrative outlining the core strengths and key selling points, and a statement about how they might add value to a project or role. A final review of the candidate’s résumé, which includes updated information about the members of their supervisory team, needs to be undertaken along with a reminder for the candidate to maintain a balance between their current learning responsibilities in concert with their future employment strategies. The amount of time spent on these activities is in reality often cursory; however, as has been

264


2/5/07 11:43:17 AM


argued in this section, attention to career planning should rarely be an ‘add-on’. The role of the supervisor during this phase is that of a ‘transition manager’ between a successful completion and successful entry into the employment marketplace. Other questions for discussion are: • Describe what you have to offer in terms of your skills and abilities that are different from when you commenced your doctorate. • From your research and contacts, what are the niche areas in which you are interested and have abilities? • By thinking laterally, are there options for employment using the skills you have acquired that are different from the traditional areas of your academic research? • Of the networks you have established, what are the steps you might take in pursuing any career-related discussions?

Relationship of candidature to employment The ubiquitous terms ‘globalisation’ and ‘technological change’ are often ascribed too much significance within today’s world and their effect on the workplace. At one time, a reason to undertake a doctorate was because it would enhance the chances for an academic career. Now, the majority of candidates will have a career outside of academia. In itself, this can provide one of the main challenges for candidates—and it may be asked for what employment is the doctorate most suited? Some candidates will find employment in further research outside of aca demia. For those considering a career away from research, the possibilities may not be so immediately apparent. Today, new roles are constantly being invented that require interesting com binations of skills and knowledge, and existing roles are also changing to meet new needs. Whole industries are moving offshore as new ones emerge. The inter net and new methods of communication give greater flexibility to the ways in which people work. In terms of career direction, supervisors are in an excellent position to alert the candidate to these changes, and are able to raise questions that will assist the candidate to stay in touch with trends in the labour market and to explore emerging opportunities. One rapidly approaching impact in Australia and Aotearoa New Zealand is the prospect of an ageing working population and a growing skills shortage (Department of the Treasury 2002). For example, the growth in Australia’s working-age population is in steady decline and, within the next ten years, the population will result in more people leaving than entering the workplace. This emerging situation will mean a dramatic impact on the way work is carried out in Australia and on the opportunities created for well-prepared candidates.

265


2/5/07 11:43:18 AM


In a rare coming together of local, state and Commonwealth governments (the Council of Australian Governments Communiqué, 10 February and 14 July 2006), there has been a demonstrated commitment to strengthen human capital to meet the needs of a knowledge economy. Some forecasters show that more than 37 per cent of Australian workers are now regarded as part of this knowledge economy. This figure is growing steadily and there is no doubt that we are witnessing a major change in the way in which work is being carried out. The implication for candidates leads to a requirement for a more active and ongoing relationship with the labour market during graduate research training. For supervisors, these impending changes confirm that discussions about career intentions need to occur during the supervision process by encouraging candidates to develop deep connections with relevant research, industrial and/or governmental networks.

Candidate self-awareness Careers sometimes develop in a context of the many other life roles we play and it is reasonable to expect that candidates will have very diverse ideas about what constitutes career success. For most candidates, eventual career satisfaction will be underpinned by a congruence with their work values and a relationship to their interests and emerging skills. The individual values that underpin employment cannot be ignored, because for many people work enables them to make a contribution to society. Work values include ideas of independence, creativity, recognition, working on the frontiers of knowledge and so forth. As a practical application, supervisors might encourage the candidate to reflect on their work values and what career success might actually mean. Similarly, candidates need to be encouraged to review and reflect on the skills they are acquiring during candidature and those that are already well developed. There is a growing call for Australians and New Zealanders to have a range of generic competencies or employability skills for a modern workplace (see Chapter 13). These include skills in communication, team work, problem solving, initiative, planning, and a range of personal attributes that contribute to overall employability. Few graduate research candidates involve a qualified careers counsellor in their career decisions. Our message here is to encourage candidates to make an appointment with their university careers counsellor who will assist in the exploration of options, career decisions, strategies and the level of self-awareness and personal skills required for employment interviews. The careers counsellor will act as a ‘sounding board’ to challenge current career thoughts and ideas. Information about the work of careers counsellors can be found at http://www. aacc.org.au or http://www.cica.org.au. General and specific sites on employment can be found at: http://www.jobsearch.gov.au, http://www.mycareer.com,

266


2/5/07 11:43:18 AM


http://www.graduatecareers.com.au, http://www.seek.com.au, and http://www. arc.gov.au/info_users/researcher_early.htm.

Marketing the candidate The transition from completion of the doctorate to a postdoctoral appointment or other employment can be tumultuous for some candidates. Bridges (1997) describes transitions as a time of fertile emptiness. Putting it all together can be a daunting task. The significant issues for the candidate are how to balance the acquired skills, vulnerability and the uncertainty in locating relevant employment, along with a realistic appraisal of their personal potential. For many candidates, their level of confidence during this time of transition is fraught due to the lack of knowledge or understanding of the expectations of the labour market. Supervisors can play a strong role in countering candidate misconceptions and assumptions about employer expectations by providing assurance that their newly developed knowledge base is seen as a highly valued commodity in the labour market. Candidates also need to ‘package’ their skills and abilities in terms of key selling points. In doing so, candidates need to focus on how they can assist potential employers on emerging problems that an employer might have, rather than simply looking for a job. The notion of a candidate as self-employed consultant is an effective way of approaching discussions about future work opportunities. The candidate can begin to explore how they might use their new or developing knowledge and skills and apply it to problems faced by organisations, government, communities or economies. They may do so as an actual consultant or as an employee of an organisation. The reason that either is possible is that much of work today can be divided into a series of projects. Adopting this notion shifts the perception about work to one in which the candidate can exert more control and have a more active approach to their career management. Embedded within this approach is a series of questions such as: • • • •

What business am I actually in? What are my key selling points? Who are potential clients and what problems would I like to solve? What strategies do I need to put in place to achieve an outcome?

Thus, the supervisor becomes more of a career provocateur than a font of career knowledge. As the candidate progresses with their research, the supervisor is able to facilitate an increase in awareness and reflection by the candidate of their skills, abilities and potential clients in relation to these questions. Wrestling with these kinds of questions may enable the candidate to undertake some exploration without a direct or public impact on their confidence levels.

267


2/5/07 11:43:19 AM


Concluding comments Graduate research supervisors have a unique opportunity to contribute to the career development of candidates by actively linking the research training process to planning for the future. One of the advantages here is that the supervisor does not have to be a career expert, but is positioned to share their experience and understanding and to raise questions and offer support as the candidate undergoes the career exploration process. The task of undertaking a doctorate is, in most cases, a career decision and there is no doubt that supervisors have a key role in assisting the candidate to maximise the benefits of the research training process. The candidate is in ‘new territory’ and is often uncertain about how to make use of the knowledge acquired and what might be required in terms of creating a satisfying future. It is within this combination of excitement and trepidation (this fertile ground) that the candidate can undertake exploration. It is here that supervisors may make a potentially life-changing contribution. Questions

1 What are some of the advantages and disadvantages of candidates thinking about their career from the perspective of ‘You and Co’ or ‘individual as self-employed consultant’ metaphors? 2 What activities can be included as part of supervision to encourage candidates to build and maintain effective networks? 3 How might supervisors effectively assist candidates to explore options outside of their area of research? References

Association of Graduate Employers 1995, Skills for graduates in the 21st century, The Association of Graduate Employers/Whiteway Research, Warwick, UK. Australian Vice-Chancellors Committee 2005, ‘Universities and their students: Principles for the provision of education by Australian universities’, AVCC, Canberra, retrieved 6 November 2006 from http://www.avcc.edu.au/documents/publications/policy/statements/Principles_ final_Aug2005.pdf Bridges, W 1997, Creating You and Co—be the boss of your own career, Nicholas Brealey Publishing, London. Briggs, KC & Myers, IB 1998, Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (form M), CPP, Mountain View, CA. Canadian National Steering Committee for Career Development Guidelines and Standards 2004, retrieved 3 July 2004 from http://www.career-dev-guidelines.org Department of the Treasury 2002, Intergenerational Report 2002–3, Budget Paper Number 5, Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra. McMahon, M, Patton, W & Tatham, P 2003, Managing life learning and work in the 21st century, Miles Morgan, Perth, WA. OECD 2004, Career guidance and public policy: Bridging the gap, Final report, OECD, Paris.

268


2/5/07 11:43:19 AM

C HAPTER 3 3

Supervising doctorates downunder: Concluding comments Carey Denholm University of Tasmania Terry Evans Deakin University

Supervising research candidates is a process that renews and revitalises the supervisors. They learn from their candidates’ findings, are challenged by their new ideas and approaches, and vicariously celebrate their achievements. This book has covered many aspects of ensuring that supervising doctoral candidates is a mutually successful experience. It shares with its companion volume for candidates, Doctorates downunder, an intention to provide useful help and advice to supervisors from experienced people. It does so in plain English and within a structure that moves from a general portrayal of doctoral education through particular matters that affect or comprise the supervisor’s lot. At this final point, it is timely to reflect on the work of many of our contributors and on their willingness to be involved in this book. While editing and providing comments on the chapters, it has been noticeable that there is an abundance of ideas, a richness and quality of thinking, and a degree of seriousness with which our colleagues show their commitment to doctoral education and practice. The structure and substance of the text were developed to suit the ways both new and experienced supervisors go about their work. Contributors were sought to ‘fit the bill’ and they did so admirably. The task, however, was not as easy as some might assume. Most of the areas our colleagues have written about in this text are outside their areas of academic

269


2/5/07 11:43:20 AM


expertise, and not written in the form that they use for publishing in the learned journals. They were asked to write for supervisors across the disciplines, and for people in both Aotearoa New Zealand and Australia. For some, this was more of a challenge than it first seemed, and some ‘major revisions’ and a ‘re-submit’ were required. Others had some ‘minor revisions’ which, unlike in the doctoral process (!?), the editors fixed. And, there were those whose drafts were perfect or near-perfect. So, the contributors were a bit like doctoral candidates—some took a while to ‘get it’, while others ‘took to it straight away’. Again, like most doctoral candidates, they all produced their important contributions and they ‘passed’! They were willing to write and contribute ideas, share their accumulated wisdom, give us support and good humour, accept direction and criticism, and agreed to produce their chapters while dealing with multiple deadlines. More significantly, they have shown the trust and confidence to contribute to a work on a matter of fundamental academic importance—doctoral education—to which they are prepared to put their names. It is a privilege to share in this work with colleagues from both nations’ universities. This editorial experience has all the hallmarks of the essence of quality super vision. After all, what are the characteristics of supervisors most appreciated by candidates? In sum, they are the opportunity to work with a supervisor who: • • • • • • • •

knows the key markers, institutional processes and rules; knows what is required of a doctoral thesis; knows how to facilitate learning and understands the doctoral process; reflects on their own supervision practice; monitors and fosters the independent development of the candidate; understands the complexity of the supervision relationship; understands the emotional and cultural investment of the candidate; exhibits the key qualities—enthusiasm, intellectual freedom, communication and time for the candidate, humility and knowing their limits, reliability, sense of humour and honesty; and • understands their role in the future career of the doctoral graduate.

It is hoped that this book enables academic colleagues from different disciplines and perspectives to develop an understanding and appreciation of many, if not all, of the above points. After all, to supervise a doctoral candidate has to be one of the most profound teaching and learning experiences afforded to an academic. In closing, one of the editors brought to this text a seemingly impossible challenge which, of course, he lumbered on the other. A young friend called Blair especially asked that after Doctorates downunder (which didn’t even mention a ferret), the next book include reference to an ‘axolotl’ as this is his favourite animal. Without sufficient thought, care and risk assessment, it was agreed to

270


2/5/07 11:43:20 AM

supervising doctorates downunder: concluding comments

do so. So, as there has been no other suitable place in the entire book, it has to be here. How could one disappoint a Blair? So there it is, another achievement ticked in the annual review. We are sure you will understand us taking this latitude. In so doing, it is consistent with the tenor of this book, which encourages supervisors to seize every learning opportunity, assist candidates to think laterally and, in many different ways, use occasional humour, stretch the candidate’s vocabulary, and to be real and never forget that a promise is a promise.

271


2/5/07 11:43:20 AM

Guidance for doctoral candidates Doctorates Downunder Keys to successful doctoral study in Australia and New Zealand Carey Denholm and Terry Evans (eds) ACER Press, 2006

Doctorates Downunder: Keys to successful doctoral study in Australia and New Zealand is a comprehensive collection of essays designed to guide current and prospective doctoral candidates through the amazing journey of doctoral study. Undertaking a doctorate is a special experience— challenging, creative, emotionally and intellectually demanding and immensely productive. Many people view the process as a daunting trial that needs to be ‘survived’ if success is to be grudgingly granted, but Doctorates Downunder takes a positive and optimistic view. Studying for a doctorate is certainly hard work, but with your efforts, support framework and this book, it can be one of the most satisfying and enduring achievements of your life. Doctorates Downunder includes chapters on: N N N N N

beginning candidature selecting a supervisor countering isolation engaging support structures working with industry


N N N N

ethics research skills and strategies personal obstacles to completion, and maintaining an effective study, work and life balance.

About the editors Carey Denholm and Terry Evans have brought together over 30 highly experienced deans of graduate studies, doctoral supervisors and academics to provide clear and practical advice for any doctoral candidate. ‘This is a volume by people who have been there, done that, and are now well placed to pass on their basic understanding to others. Any intending or current graduate student can dip into the various chapters with profit.’ Laureate Professor Peter C. Doherty, AC FAA FRS The University of Melbourne

978-0-86431-429-1

AU$34.95

To order Doctorates Downunder: Visit <www.acerpress.com.au>

2/5/07 11:43:21 AM

Subscribe to the AJE Australian Journal of Education (AJE) Editor : Dr John Ainley Managing Editor : Dr Steve Holden 3 issues per year The Australian Journal of Education was established in 1957 under the editorship of Professor Bill Connell. Drawing upon research conducted in Australia and internationally, the AJE aims to inform educational researchers, as well as educators, administrators and policymakers, about issues of contemporary concern in education. The AJE seeks to publish research studies that contribute to educational knowledge and research methodologies, and that review findings of research studies. Its scope embraces all fields of education and training. In addition to publishing research studies about education, it also publishes articles that address education in relation to other fields. Articles submitted are subject to full peer review by a panel of experts including members of the editorial board of the AJE.

Subscriptions The Australian Journal of Education is published three times a year in April, August and November. Subscriptions are available for individuals, institutions and overseas subscribers. Australian subscribers Individuals

$99.00 (incl. GST)

Institutions

$164.00 (incl. GST)

Overseas subscribers Individuals (air mail)

$138.00

Institutions (air mail)

$194.00

For further enquiries ring 1800 338 402 or (03) 9835 7448 or email [email protected]


2/5/07 11:43:22 AM

Encouragement and inspiration Stepping Stones A guide for mature-aged students at university Jill Scevak and Robert Cantwell (eds) ACER Press, 2007

Stepping Stones: A guide for mature-aged students at university acknowledges the very personal journeys that mature-aged students take when they embark on university study. This book goes beyond the ‘how to’ of university life to give a deeper understanding of the experiences that lie ahead. It provides prospective mature-aged students with strategies and skills for a successful learning experience and for managing life with study. This is also a book of eternal encouragement and inspiration for mature-aged students. Read it before you return to university, then read it again should you embark on tough times. Jill Scevak and Robert Cantwell have brought together four successful mature-aged graduates and twelve highly experienced educators and counsellors from a variety of discipline backgrounds to provide clear and practical insights into the mature-aged learning experience. Any mature-aged student will find this book an invaluable resource for navigating the university learning experience. ‘This book has allowed me to have an objective look at my strengths and weaknesses and given me the tools to know the difference. I am returning to study this year and now will do so with a very different attitude. Every mature-aged student should have a copy of this book, whether they are just starting out or just stuck.’

About the editors Jill Scevak is Senior Lecturer at the University of Newcastle, in the discipline of educational and developmental psychology. She is also a registered psychologist in New South Wales, a member of the Australian Psychological Society (APS) and an executive member of the Newcastle Branch of the APS. Robert Cantwell is Senior Lecturer in Education at the University of Newcastle. He specialises in studies of student learning across secondary, tertiary, professional and other adult contexts. He teaches in the discipline of educational and developmental psychology, with a particular emphasis on how learners manage their learning.

978-0-86431-414-7

AU$39.95

To order Stepping Stones: Visit <www.acerpress.com.au>

Sally Bourke


2/5/07 11:43:23 AM

A helpful introduction

Doing Educational Research A practitioner’s guide to getting started Carol Mutch NZCER Press, 2005

Increasingly, teachers at all levels of the education system are expected to undertake research that will help improve their teaching practice and enhance learning outcomes for students. This book provides a basic understanding of the research process—it’s an easy-to-read but informative and sound introduction.

To order Doing Educational Research: Visit <www.acerpress.com.au>

It contains frequently asked questions and provides helpful answers:

N Why should we conduct educational research? N What are the major approaches and how do you choose the one that suits your purpose?

N Where does research fit with theory? N Why are ethical and cultural considerations so important?

N N N N

How do you formulate a research question? What are the best methods for gathering data? How do you make sense of data? How do you write up your findings?

1-87739-801-2


AU$49.95

2/5/07 11:43:24 AM

Tips for researchers

Getting Published Principles, processes and pifalls A guide for researchers Bev Webber, Paula Wagemaker and Ruth Kane NZCER Press, 2006

‘Remember, you and your publisher are on the same team: you both want to get the work out there.’ Joce Nuttall Monash University The advent of the Perfomance-based Research Fund has brought additional pressures on researchers and tertiary educators to publish. For many this is a daunting task. Using the extensive experience of a researcher and teacher educator; an editor; and a publisher, this book sets out to demystify the publishing process and make the writing-for-publication task seem ‘doable’.

About the authors Bev Webber is publishing manager for the New Zealand Council for Educational Research; Paula Wagemaker is a freelance editor based in Christchurch; and Ruth Kane is Director of Teacher Education at the University of Ottawa.

To order Getting Published: Visit

Included are many tips from some of New Zealand’s leading researchers and writers.

1-87739-815-2


NZ$22.00 ex GST

2/5/07 11:43:25 AM

Terry Evans is Professor and Associate Dean of Education (Research) at Deakin University, where he is responsible for the faculty’s doctoral program. He has supervised many doctoral candidates over 20 years and has provided seminars and workshops for supervisors at Australian and New Zealand universities. Evans undertakes research on doctoral policy and practice and is widely published in the field. In particular, he has focused on the nature of the doctoral experience for part-time candidates and the impact it has on their lives, communities and workplaces. Evans is a foundation member of the Executive of the Australian Deans and Directors of Graduate Studies. Also available from ACER Press: Doctorates Downunder: Keys to successful doctoral study in Australia and New Zealand (Denholm & Evans)—a companion volume for doctoral candidates.

Edited by Carey Denholm and Terry Evans Foreword by Hon Dr Barry Jones AO

downunder

downunder

Carey Denholm is Professor and Dean of Graduate Research at the University of Tasmania. He holds degrees in primary and special education, counselling and educational psychology. In his role as Dean, Denholm has responsibility for graduate research administration, management, supervision and training, and regularly conducts workshops and seminars for candidates and supervisors. Denholm is a Registered Psychologist and a recipient of the University of Tasmania Teaching Excellence Award and the Vice Chancellor’s Award for Outstanding Community Engagement.

Edited by Denholm and Evans

from candidate selection through to thesis examination and guiding candidates’ transition to post-doctoral life. Supervising Doctorates Downunder includes chapters on supervision– candidature agreements, ways to build effective supervision relationships, helping candidates write and think like a researcher, reviewing progress, oral presentations, candidates’ health concerns, negotiating intellectual property, working with Indigenous candidates, part-time candidature and workplace research, and preparing a thesis for examination. Carey Denholm and Terry Evans have brought together 44 deans and other experts in doctoral research to provide thorough and well-tested advice for doctoral supervisors in Australia and New Zealand. Both experienced and beginning doctoral supervisors will find this book an invaluable resource throughout the process of doctoral supervision.

s u p er v i s i n g D O C T O R AT E S

Supervising Doctorates Downunder: Keys to effective supervision in Australia and New Zealand is a comprehensive collection of essays designed to assist doctoral supervisors,

super vising D O C T O R AT E S

Effective Supervision Keys to

in Australia & New Zealand

Supervising Doctorates Downunder

Beyond Doctorates Downunder: Maximising the Impact of Your Doctorate from Australia and New Zealand

Supervising Postgraduate Research

Supervising The Counsellor: A Cyclical Model

Disciplines and Doctorates (Higher Education Dynamics)

Disciplines and Doctorates (Higher Education Dynamics)

Supervising Psychotherapy: Psychoanalytic and Psychodynamic Perspectives

Supporting and Supervising Your Teaching Assistant

Supervising Student Teachers: The Professional Way

Script Supervising and Film Continuity, Third Edition

Humanities doctorates in the United States: 1991 Profile

Supervising The PhD (Society for Research into Higher Education)

Regulating and Supervising Investment Services in the European Union

Supervising Private Pensions: Institutions And Methods (Private Pensions Series)

Professional Doctorates: Integrating Professional and Academic Knowledge (Society for Research Into Higher Education)

Architects to the Nation: The Rise and Decline of the Supervising Architect's Office

Supervising the Doctorate 2nd edition (Society for Research into Higher Education)

Supervising Doctorates Downunder

Beyond Doctorates Downunder: Maximising the Impact of Your Doctorate from Australia and New Zealand

Supervising Postgraduate Research

Supervising The Counsellor: A Cyclical Model

Disciplines and Doctorates (Higher Education Dynamics)

Disciplines and Doctorates (Higher Education Dynamics)

Supervising Psychotherapy: Psychoanalytic and Psychodynamic Perspectives

Supporting and Supervising Your Teaching Assistant

Supervising Student Teachers: The Professional Way

Script Supervising and Film Continuity, Third Edition

Humanities doctorates in the United States: 1991 Profile

Supervising The PhD (Society for Research into Higher Education)

Regulating and Supervising Investment Services in the European Union

Supervising Private Pensions: Institutions And Methods (Private Pensions Series)

Professional Doctorates: Integrating Professional and Academic Knowledge (Society for Research Into Higher Education)

Architects to the Nation: The Rise and Decline of the Supervising Architect's Office

Supervising the Doctorate 2nd edition (Society for Research into Higher Education)

Recommend Documents