Discourse on thesis supervision

Introduction to R workshop

https://www.maths.uwa.edu.au/research/consulting/SCG/clinic.html and look at our section 'current short courses'.

Research Proposal Writers' Website

The Graduate Research School website has recently incorporated loads of information on how to write a focused, well crafted UWA Research Proposal. If you are in the early stages of your candidature and are looking for some guidance in this area, you might like to take a look; http://www.postgraduate.uwa.edu.au/proposals

Communication Studies Conference in the TRNC

Eastern Mediterranean University, Faculty of Communication and Media

Studies, is organizing the Second International Conference in

Communication and Media Studies: Communication in Peace/Conflict in Communication on 2-4 May 2007 at the EMU campus in Famagusta, North Cyprus.

We would like to invite paper, panel and event proposals addressing

the general theme of the conference. Detailed information about the

conference is available on the WEB site: http://fcms.emu.edu.tr/cpcc

We would like to see you at the Second International Conference and

appreciate if you could forward this message to people who might be

interested in participating.

Eliciting effective feedback from your supervisor

One of the key roles of a postgraduate supervison is to provide feedback to the student on the topic of their thesis. This may be oral, written, delivered face-to-face or electronically. Constructive feedback will often inspire action and motivation, whilst negative feedback (or no feedback at all) will leave the student in doubt as to the best direction for the research. Quality feedback on your work is something that is highly valued, but not always achieved.

UWA’s Guidelines for Graduate Supervision outlines some of the expectations of supervision and includes a section on feedback. Of course feedback can be given in the context of a formal supervisory meeting, or in an unscheduled encounter such as might take place in the corridors of your department. The Guidelines state that:

It is expected supervisors will comment, preferably in writing, on candidate’s written work within a mutually agreed turnaround period, normally not later than one month after submission of the work. It is suggested that the turnaround period be negotiated between the supervisor and candidate and noted in the Candidate-supervisor Checklist if one is used.

It is acknowledged that the turnaround period may vary depending on a variety of factors including the scope of the work submitted and personal schedules. It is suggested that, for pieces of work which are expected to take longer than one month to review, interim feedback be provided by an agreed date, which will normally be within one month of the date of submission of the work. In this case the final date for receipt of feedback should also be mutually agreed and noted.

This recommendation specifically sets forth the frequency at which work should be reviewed and commented upon. However, the Guidelines do not provide strategies on how to get the most from your supervisor in terms of the QUALITY of the feedback. Below are three suggestions for eliciting effective feedback from your supervisor.

• Try to structure the meetings with your supervisor as a discussion. Perhaps begin with your impression of the piece of work, or at least be prepared contextualise the information in preparation for the feedback. Any supervisory meeting should be a collaborative exercise in deconstructing an issue or problem; rather than a one-sided analysis of the issue from your supervisor’s perspective only. Take responsibility for what you are saying through the use of ‘I’, ‘in my view’ etc. If it is possible, try to find a meeting place in which you both feel comfortable, especially if you feel that meetings in your supervisor’s office exaggerates the differential power relationship.
• Select priority areas. Highlight the pressing areas of your research for which you need guidance or advice. Do this through the use of targeted and constructive questioning to open up a topic. Do your preparation before going into a supervisory meeting by having a list of questions that you can pose to your supervisor.
• Focus on action rather than description. Pose questions which are ‘solution-oriented’ in the sense that you are not simply recounting the content of your work but critiquing it and exploring ways of improving it.

Giving feedback involves summarising, evaluating, advising and motivating; this process applies to both the giver and the receiver of the feedback. The above are strategies that you might be able to apply to your own supervisory situation. They are things you can think about and put into place to improve the quality of the feedback you are receiving from your supervisor.

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.

Postgraduate Information Literacy Needs Survey

Models for supervision and the (possible) influence of the discipline group

Not so long ago I attended a day long workshop on supervising postgraduate students here at the University. The program was very interesting, and incorporated a number of short presentations by both administration and academic staff.

The final session took place late in the afternoon and involved a panel of three, very experienced supervisors, each of whom took five minutes to reflect on their personal approach to supervision. Each of these supervisors was from a different discipline group (one from the School of Anatomy and Human Biology, one from the School of Social and Cultural Studies, and one from the School of Electrical, Electronic and Computer Engineering). After listening to them speak, it became clear, firstly, that they have all been very successful in getting their PhD students through to submission, and second, that they all have very different views on how postgraduate research students should be supervised. The latter point was of most interest to me. I started to think that perhaps these supervisors are representatives of particular supervisory management styles.

The biologist, for instance, took a more directorial approach in her supervision, there was a great deal of structure in her dealings with students, she was task driven and prone to administer direction in the research project, but much less inclined to pastoral support. The second supervisor was a historian and, contrary to the biologist, tended towards high levels of pastoral support, all the while gently challenging his students to pursue and explore there own interests. There seemed to be quite low levels of structure in dealings with his students, but he seemed more inclined to view the research process holistically, actively encouraging his students to communicate their research widely (through publishing and conferences), giving advice to students who were contemplating life post PhD and informing students of other forms of institutional support. Finally, the engineer adopted a more laissez-faire approach to supervision. I guess this really involved low level of both support and structure, but a willingness to offer input at certain key stages in the research and encourage the student to be disciplined and work independently toward towards predetermined goals.

It was clear to me that all these supervisors articulated different models for ‘managing’ their postgraduate students. I began to wonder if these differences were embedded in, or stemmed from, the discipline group from which they derive. That is, do most supervisors in the humanities tend toward the pastoral model of supervision, do those in the sciences adopt a more managerial approach to supervision and so forth. I think it would be interesting to explore this question further.

Supervision and the question of research expertise

When I was working on my doctoral thesis, I was greatly concerned that my supervisor’s area of academic expertise did not adequately extend to my own research topic (her work was focused migration studies, the Italian diaspora and transnational care-giving, whilst my thesis dealt specifically with regional development and religious change in Turkey). This feeling was generated by the fact that, during my PhD, I was increasingly being plagued by unfocused, directionless periods - at which time a little fog of confusion would settle over my head, blocking any hope of clear understanding as to the ‘purpose’ of my research. To some extent, I felt as though I was piloting an aircraft for which I had no navigator. I felt I needed someone to reach over, wrest the controls from my hand and pilot the plane on a course that would ultimately lead to my final destination. I readily assumed that the uncertainty I felt in proceeding, in pretty much all stages of my thesis, was a symptom of my supervisor’s lack of knowledge about my precise topic.

Yet my supervisor was - and still is – a vibrant, enthusiastic individual who asked intelligent questions, was able to identify potential difficulties, always thoroughly assessed my written work and gave sensible guidance.

Not so long ago I came across an interesting article which was written by a Professor in History at an Australian University who made me think that I was perhaps not so disadvantaged in this situation after all. This historian (and very experienced supervisor) argued that it is, in fact, best not to have PhD students working on subjects closely related to the supervisor’s own. To have a student working on frontiers unknown to the supervisor is actually important because it builds the candidate’s capacity for independent thought, produces self-confidence, motivates them to network with scholars (perhaps overseas) whose work more closely aligns with theirs, and ensures that the supervisor doesn’t have a too proprietorial concern about the direction and results of the research.

Reflecting on my own experience, I can now see that there is certainly some truth in these claims. My opinion is that, regardless of the overlap of area specialisation, every PhD student will inevitably struggle with research direction and focus at some time. If your supervisor is (as mine was) inquisitive, well-informed, understands what is required in a doctoral dissertation and gives timely feedback on your work, then I think you will have a solid basis from which to grow as a researcher. I am of the opinion now that good supervisors assume the role of sounding-board to which we can direct our ideas and receive critical advice and comment.

Welcome to my new blog

Discourse on thesis supervision is a blog that will focus on all aspects of graduate research student supervision.  The idea is to inspire both PhD and masters by research candidates - as well as those who supervise them - to engage in constructive dialogue on a range of issues relating specifically to the supervision process.

 It would be safe to say that doctoral students do much of the original research carried out in Australian universities. In UWA alone we have roughly 200 completing PhD candidates each year. That represents about 16 million collective words in final form.

Clearly, this reflects high quality, high productivity work which will no doubt contribute significant intellectual, economic and social capital to the nation. Both graduate students and their supervisors expend enormous amounts of time and energy in producing research that will benefit us all. Undoubtedly, the working relationship between student and supervisor must be positive and durable if innovative, quality  postgraduate research is to ensue. It is critical, therefore, that we endeavour to increase our awareness of issues surrounding supervisory practice.

This is essentially the philosophy that I will bring to 'Discourse on Thesis Supervision'. I hope that this blog will be interesting to UWA's postgraduate research students and that, overall, it contributes to improving the working relationship with your supervisor.

Postgraduate Research Student Seminar: preparing your research for publication

Reflections on a visit by Hugh Kearns

Recently, UWA was very fortunate in having a visit by Mr Hugh Kearns , psychologist, author and Head of the Staff Development and Training Unit at Flinders University in South Australia. Amongst other commitments Hugh had whilst in Perth, he delivered three workshops for the Graduate Research School; two to an audience of PhD and Masters by Research students, and one to a group of supervisors from our academic staff. In these workshops, Hugh presented his ideas on what makes for a successful PhD experience, both for students and their supervisors. The following is a brief outline of Hugh’s first workshop. There is a valuable message here for just about anyone who is in the process of writing their doctoral or masters dissertation.

In the first workshop ‘Self Sabotage: How we do it and what you can do about it’, Hugh focused on those self-defeating habits we engage in - knowingly or otherwise- that serve to undermine the very goal we are all in the process of achieving; namely, writing and eventually submitting our thesis. These habits include procrastination of all and many forms; the scourge of perfectionism; the ‘impostor syndrome’ (brought about when comparing yourself negatively to others and feeling as though, unlike everybody else, you’re surely not intelligent or worthy enough to be at university writing something as enlightened as a thesis); and ‘cognitive busyness’ or doing many things at once which require only minimal skill and input as a means to avoid the dreaded thesis. This illusion of business we create is simply an obstacle we put in place to avoid any perceived risk of failure.

As a means of moving on from Self-Sabotage Hugh asserts that we need to become more self aware and recognise the patterns of behaviour we use to handicap ourselves. Only in understanding these patterns of behaviour can we identify why they are there in the first place. In fact, the fear of failure and the protection of self worth is perhaps the major catalyst for self sabotage. Addressing them and creating the energy to change old thought patterns and for trying new habits is the next step. Hugh suggests, as a first step, we create an action plan which challenges each of the old self handicapping practices. For instance; stop worrying about how good your PhD is; let go of the commitments that are preventing you from concentrating on your thesis; say no to distractions and get plenty of assistance through your journey – from your supervisor, mentor, peers and family.

Self sabotage is a condition we perhaps all engage in at some time. In entering a PhD degree there is plenty to gain and also, equally, plenty to lose. We are being evaluated in a domain of achievement and it is normal to have feelings of self-doubt. Self sabotage is a strategy many of us use to protect ourselves against the possibility of failure. Removing those external obstacles we put in place to avoid getting down to the business of writing the thesis is paramount.

I’ll make another entry on the second of Hugh’s workshops, this being ‘The Seven Secrets of Highly Effective PhD Students’ soon.

Hugh Kearns has two publications which will soon be in the Learning language and Research Skill Library in Student Services; The PhD Experience: What they didn't tell you at induction and The 7 secrets of highly successful PhD students.

Trial of MyResearchSpace: Social Software for Graduate Research Students at UWA

TRIAL OF MyResearchSpace: SOCIAL SOFTWARE FOR RESEARCH STUDENTS AT THE UNIVERSITY OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

This week marks the beginning of a trial of social software aimed at PhD and Masters by Research students at the University of Western Australia. Although the trial will be limited to a group of approximately 100 students at this point, it is envisaged that MyResearchSpace will eventually be made available to all research students at UWA.

The broad aim of the project is to provide an environment for students that would give them a space for their own blog and allow them to upload photos and files. A blog (or weblog) is an on-line journal that students can use to share their thoughts, ideas, gripes, research progress or any other issue associated with their research project and life as a postgraduate student. There are also forums in which students can discuss particular issues associated with research, specific groups or topics.

Very importantly, in addition to being set up with a folder, blog and gallery, each student will be allocated approximately 500MB of disk space. Therefore, although students might initially use MyResearchSpace to blog, keep a daily journal, document meetings with their supervisor or visit forums to gather information about events, seminars, conferences and the like, they can also use it as a tool to store or back-up their research material.

The trial we are embarking on will measure the take-up rate of three discrete, targeted groups of postgraduate research students:

1). A group of approximately 45 newly commencing international students from a variety of disciplines who are participating in a ‘Writers’ Circle’ project. (The Writers’ Circle concept is based on a strategy of peer review and provides a supportive forum for culturally and linguistically diverse students to discuss their current writing project and get practical feed back on their work).

2). A group of approximately 35, mostly domestic students, who are enrolled in a Research Skills workshop series coordinated by the Graduate Research School and Student Services.

3). A group of approximately 10 students from the School of Computer Science and Software Engineering.

Both the Writing Circles and Research Skills students are being introduced to MyResearchSpace via demonstrations by Dr David Glance. David initially gave a 30 minute presentation to the four Writing Circle Leaders at a training session held on the 24^th of July. It was hoped that, after the demonstration, the Circle Leaders would engage and become familiar with MyResearch prior to their meetings with the students. At this point, however, only one has registered. Whilst the Circle Leaders could act as a conduit for the communication of MyResearchSpace to the international students (this was the initial idea) it is clear that they will probably not be effective on their own. David is therefore going to give demonstrations over the ensuing five weeks to each of the groups in order to reach the student directly. In addition, a short Users’ Guide for MyResearchSpace will be developed and distributed to each student. We have also set up a Writing Circles forum on MyResearchSpace which students can visit and gain information or interact with each other, post their thoughts or even their work.

It is a similar situation for the Research Skills students. They will benefit from the Users’ Guide and they will receive a demonstration by David Glance (scheduled for 4^th August). The Graduate Education Officers, Michael Azariadis and Krystyna Haq, are facilitating the workshops and will be in a good position to disseminate information about MyResarchSpace and its value to research students. We will also be developing strategies to integrate the workshop material into the use of MyResearchSpace.

The details of each student (name, student number and email address) in the three groups are being fed to David who will be monitoring their use of MyResarchSpace. We will not only be measuring the take up rate, but looking at the variety of ways the students use the software. It is also of vital importance that we capture the evolution of the MyResearchSpace project and part of the purpose of this journal is to monitor and record these details.

Some staff may also express an interest in participating in MyResarchSpace by either having a blog or moderating a forum. It will be interesting to explore the ideas and interest shown by different organisations with in the University such as PSA.