Psy-supervisors and other discourses of power
It seems that the practice of conceptualising models of supervision is alive and well in studies of higher education. Since my last blog (where I identified three supervisory management styles; these being directorial, pastoral and laissez-faire) I have come across a recent article by Barbara M. Grant from the University of Auckland. (see bibliograhic details below).
In this article, Grant argues that arts, humanities and social sciences supervision in New Zealand universities is dominated by four powerful ‘discourses of supervision’. Each of these discourses, or supervisory styles, supposedly represents a particular way of talking and thinking about (and practicing) supervision. As Grant describes these as ‘discourses’ – which, as Foucault points out, are characterised by their ability to close-off or deligitimise alternative ways of thinking and, as a consequence, preserve a particular distribution of power - one must also assume that each has its own characteristic set of power relations which govern supervisor-student interactions. She labels these:
The psychological – whereby the supervisor is constituted as a caring, expert professional whose aim is to be a source of motivation and support for the student. The Psy-supervisor places an emphasis on emotion and personality, and is both sensible and flexible. Power relations may be likened to a therapist and his or her client.
The traditional-academic – reflects historically conservative, masculine norms of academic life. The Trad-supervisor is a ‘master of the discipline’, a proven and (likely) charismatic scholar whose aim is to test the intellectual capacity of his or her student (these are often played out in a series of confrontations which Grants has described as ‘intellectual sparring’). Power relations might be likened to a guru and their disciple.
The techno-scientific – asserts that research consists of an ‘orderly, cooperatively planned and executed series of activities’, all of which is facilitated by proper training in the methods of research. The Techno-supervisor closely monitors his or her students’ work and, when the need (read problem) arises, rationally identifies and prescribes the appropriate skills training. The power relationship between supervisor and student is characterised by the expert scientist and his inexperienced trainee.
The neo-liberal – approach reflects the techno scientific supervisory model (as above) but with the added dimension that it (re)configures education as a commodity (and universities as commercial enterprises). The neo-liberal or Com-supervisor will work within a framework of institutional practices and contractual obligations. Accountability – on the part of both parties - is prioritised and is aided by the presence of supervision contracts, charters of rights and grievance procedures. Power relations here are of a quasi-legal nature because they are mediated by the administrative and bureaucratic procedures of the university.
I was wondering if Grant’s four models of supervision could shed light on our own supervisory context. Is there a ‘fit’ between any of these discourses and your own experience of supervision? What is more, Grant suggests that the Psy-supervisor, the Trad-supervisor, the Techno-supervisor and the Com-supervisor each have their (loyal or faithful) student counterparts. What this means is that Psy, Trad, Techno and Com-students are ensnared, often willingly, in the discourses of their supervisors. These discourses offer a student a particular subjectivity which might or might not ‘feel right’. The Trad-student, for instance, might take pride in being a student of the renowned Professor so and so; might see themselves as their intellectual heir-apparent; might even, to some extent, bathe in the glory of their achievements.
Grants article is therefore definitely worth a read, not just for what it might tell us about or supervisor, but also for what it might tell us about ourselves.
Grant, B.M. (2005) 'Fighting for Space in Supervision; fantasies, fairytales, fictions and fallacies', in International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, vol.18, no.3, pp.337-354.