‘I Don't Even Have Time to be Their Friend!’ Ethical Dilemmas in Ph.D. Supervision in the Hard Sciences

This study focused on exploring students’ and supervisors’ perceptions of ethical problems in doctoral supervision in the natural sciences. Fifteen supervisors and doctoral students in one research community in the natural sciences were interviewed about their practices and experiences in the doctoral process and supervision. We explored to what extent doctoral students and supervisors experienced similar or different ethical challenges in the supervisory relationship and analyzed how the experiences of ethical dilemmas in supervision could be understood in light of the structure and practices of natural science research groups. The data were analyzed by theory-driven content analysis. Five ethical principles, namely non-maleficence, beneficence, autonomy, fidelity and justice, were used as a framework for identifying ethical issues. The results show that one major question that appears to underpin many of the emerging ethical issues is that the supervisors and students have different expectations of the supervisory role. The second important observation is that doctoral students primarily described their own experiences, whereas the supervisors described their activities as embedded in a system and elaborated on the causes and consequences at a system level.     

Supervision of supervisors: on developing supervision in postgraduate education

During the 1900s, the path to a PhD degree has seen many changes for both postgraduate students as well as their supervisors. The supervisor's duties have increased in scope and the demands made on PhD candidates have augmented. This paper deals with supervision as pedagogic method. Departing from a project aimed at studying ‘supervision on supervision’ through a programme including a special pedagogic model for learning, process‐oriented group supervision as a method of improving doctoral supervision is discussed. In the model used, the supervisors' relationships and the experiences form the basis for reflection process connected to, among others, communication theory and social‐psychological explanatory models. Pointing out the five requirements of trust, theories, tools, training and time, it is concluded that ‘supervision on supervision’ well may serve as a way of improving doctoral supervision.     

Supervision provided to Indigenous Australian doctoral students: a black and white issue

The number of Indigenous Australians completing doctoral qualifications is disparately below their non-Indigenous contemporaries. Whilst there has been a steady increase in Indigenous completions in recent years, significant work remains to redress the imbalance. Supervision has been identified as a primary influencer of the likely success of Indigenous doctoral students, yet very little research has been undertaken in this area. This paper examines the experiences of 11 Indigenous Australians who hold a doctoral qualification. It also provides the experiences of five non-Indigenous supervisors who were an integral part of the supervision team of one of the successful doctoral graduates. A best-practice framework for supervision is offered as a guide for how supervisors, universities and national bodies can contribute to building the number of doctoral qualified Indigenous Australians.     

How can PhD supervisors play a role in bridging academic cultures?

ABSTRACT

PhD supervision is generally deemed a rewarding experience as supervisors and students embark on an academic journey together. Pursuing a PhD in a ‘foreign’ context inevitably brings forth distinct opportunities and challenges for students and their supervisors. Using Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis, this qualitative study of supervisors and PhD students examines the cross-cultural facets of doctoral supervision in the light of Urie Bronfenbrenner’s bio-ecological theory of human development and its underpinning explanation for supervisory processes and learning orientations. Undertaken in the Danish context, our paper highlights exemplars of contrasting supervisors’ and PhD students’ experience in relation to academic and psychosocial adaptations. This research strongly endorses that supervisors’ appreciation of the intertwined link between academia and society combined with a positive view of their role in bridging academic cultures can powerfully complement students’ adjustments and subsequently make a qualitative difference towards a more fulfilling and meaningful academic journey together.     

Intercultural PhD supervision: exploring the hidden curriculum in a social science faculty doctoral programme

International knowledge markets rely heavily on a ready supply of highly mobile doctoral students, many of whom are from the global South, to bring in revenue. The supervision of these PhD students, however, can reproduce neo-colonial knowledge relations, often in subtle ways. In settler nations, international PhD students may find that they are assigned subaltern status in their university departments and this can have a significant impact on their learning. This paper explores the experiences of a group of international PhD students in a social science faculty in a New Zealand university during the first two years of their doctoral studies. It examines how they responded to the displacement of their cultural values and priorities, the way they navigated intercultural engagements with supervisors, and their ensuing relationships with indigenous and ethnic allies in the faculty. Despite considerable pressure to conform to the dominant modes of academic knowledge production that characterise universities in settler nations, it is concluded that international students find ways of speaking out, often in highly coded forms, that complicate their subaltern academic status.     

Joint supervision practices in doctoral education – A student experience

This paper presents a study of students’ experiences of joint supervision practices and supervisors’ professional work in doctoral education in one department of a Finnish university. A qualitative methodology was used to explore students’ experiences of joint supervision practices and an inductive protocol was used to analyse the data gathered through thematic interviews (N=11). The results describe three identified joint supervision practices: the complementary, the substitutive, and the diversified. The results suggest that departments and faculties should develop more official support and guidance for students to identify additional supervisors during their doctoral education.     

International doctoral students’ experience of supervision: a case study in a Chinese university

Internationalisation in higher education is now a worldwide phenomenon but there is little attention paid to internationalisation at doctoral level, although this phenomenon has grown exponentially in recent years. This study focuses on a university in China to examine how international doctoral students and their supervisors perceive supervision and the relations between supervisor and student. It describes and analyses the experiences of supervisors and students, and the concepts they used to articulate and reflect on them. Semi-formal interviews were conducted with six doctoral students and their supervisors. Analysis shows that, apart from formal supervision, informal enculturation through social and academic networks, the tongmen, plays an important role in supervision and in socialising the doctoral researchers into the community of practice. The study adds to the field a new case from a specific epistemological and intellectual tradition and challenges existing theories concerning methods and concepts of supervision.     

Reproducing “academic successors” or cultivating “versatile experts”: influences of doctoral training on career expectations of Chinese PhD students

This investigation focuses on Chinese doctoral students’ career expectations, and examines how the students’ career expectations changed over time under the influence of doctoral training based on survey data of 1467 doctoral students from 8 Chinese universities. Doctoral students’ evaluations of doctoral training were identified. The examination indicates that more than half of doctoral students expect a non-academic profession, and more than 70% of students did not alter their professional expectations radically over time. Logistic regression model results indicate that doctoral students’ career expectations and their changes over time were influenced by doctoral training in their university environment, students’ relationships with supervisors, and students’ experiences of collaboration with non-academic organizations. Doctoral students are dissatisfied with doctoral training that does not encourage and prepare them for diverse career paths. We conclude that in the present environment, the goal of doctoral training should not only be the reproduction of “academic successors” but also be the cultivation of “versatile experts.”     

The dissertation examination: identifying critical factors in the success of Indigenous Australian doctoral students

Indigenous Australians represent 2.2% of the working age population, yet account for only 1.4% of all university enrolments. In relation to higher degree research students, Indigenous Australians account for 1.1% of enrolments, but only 0.8% of all higher degree research completions. This paper reports on findings that emerged from an Australian Research Council-funded study which aimed to establish a model of best practice for the supervision of Indigenous doctoral students. The project identified the dissertation examination as one of the critical factors underpinning the success of doctoral candidates. Whilst research into the examination process for doctoral students is limited, the research that specifically explores the examination of dissertations submitted by Indigenous students is entirely inadequate. Our research identified key epistemological concerns that impact approaches to the examination process, to demonstrate how the dominance of Western methods of research impact the examination process for Indigenous doctoral students. This paper explores the experiences of 50 successful Indigenous Australian doctors with a specific focus on their examiner preference and disciplinary requirements. It highlights the limitations that some Indigenous students and their supervisors experience in finding an appropriate examiner.     

De-colonising international collaboration: The University of KwaZulu-Natal-Mauritius Institute of Education Cohort PhD programme

This paper explores the setting up of the partnership across the Mauritian and South African higher education contexts with respect to the development of a postgraduate PhD doctoral studies programme. The Mauritian Institute of Education (MIE) aims to develop staffing capacities through engagement with doctoral studies, especially in the context of limited experience in doctoral supervision. The South African model of doctoral cohort supervision at The University of KwaZulu-Natal (UKZN) School of Education is a recent alternative model of delivery in the building of these student and staff capacities through shared ownership of the process and products of doctoral education and development. This paper highlights the expectations, constraints and enabling features of the setting up of the UKZN-MIE PhD programme across international boundaries, driven by mutual reciprocity through valuing of indigenous local knowledges, a non-colonising engagement and innovative methodologies for postgraduate education. Adapting the UKZN cohort model for the international context is the subject of this paper. The paper draws on the experiences of the designers and deliverers as well as users of this programme. The paper explores what drives this form of international collaboration for both contracting partners in the context of shifting conceptions of a teacher education institution.     

‘Tough love and tears’: learning doctoral writing in the sciences

Contemporary changes to the doctorate mean student researchers are likely to be expected to write differently, write more and more often, and yet, despite a growing interest in doctoral education, we still know relatively little about the teaching and learning practices of students and supervisors vis-a-vis doctoral writing. This paper draws from a research study into the writing experiences of higher degree students and their supervisors in one science, health and technology-based university Faculty. The study used surveys, interviews and focus groups to collect information from students and supervisors about their experiences of doctoral writing and their perceptions about its development. By attending to the writing-related pedagogical practices of supervisors, this article explores how doctoral writing can be the stage for the playing out of tensions over changing roles and identities aggravated by contemporary pressures on doctoral education.     

Establishing Boundaries: problems and solutions in managing the PhD supervisor's role

The PhD supervisory role is depicted as containing two principal dimensions. First, the involvement of supervisors in the provision of intellectual expertise to students, and secondly, their involvement in counselling practices which attempt to bolster students’ confidence and morale. The dimension of intellectual expertise is subsequently portrayed as having two components: those of guidance and criticism which generate a particular tension. This tension is centred around decisions made by supervisors concerning the kinds of intellectual knowledge they provide for students, when simultaneously required to comply with institutional regulations stipulating that PhD research be both original and autonomous. The management of such tension, by supervisors’ erecting boundaries to their intellectual involvement, is then examined, together with the consequences of failing to erect such boundaries. The paper then focuses upon the counselling dimension of supervision and illustrates how this dimension, if not regulated by further erection of boundaries, also has the potential for negative impact upon intellectual involvement with students. The problem of managing the combination of intellectual and counselling dimensions of the supervisory role was found to be increased or alleviated by particular forms of communication with students.     

Positive and negative experiences related to doctoral study conditions

ABSTRACT

During their doctoral studies, students undergo an emotionally and intellectually intensive process involving a wide range of positive and negative experiences. This article analyses PhD students’ perceptions of the most positive and negative experiences related to doctoral study conditions. Previous researchers have primarily focused on analysing experiences that negatively affect doctoral work and have related these experiences to institutional, social and individual variables. However, little is known regarding positive experiences and how both positive and negative experiences are interpreted and related to variables connected with doctoral study, such as discipline, funding, enrolment type, and the stage of the doctoral process. In total, 1173 doctoral students from 56 Spanish universities completed an open-ended online survey. The findings indicate that opportunities for PhD students to communicate their scientific advances, receive expert feedback and interact with other researchers have a high positive influence on their doctoral journey. However, funding difficulties, particularly for students in the social sciences, and relationships with the research community, principally with the supervisor, were perceived as the main negative challenges. Experiences related to research design, data collection and analysis were perceived either negatively – primarily for mid-level students – or positively. These results should be considered in future doctoral programme policies to determine when, how and why to provide specific support during the doctoral process.     

Motivations and influences in Chinese international doctoral students’ decision for STEM study abroad

Despite China’s recent remarkable performance in high-quality research, the number of students going abroad to pursue doctoral degrees in STEM fields has been rising rapidly. This study investigates the motivations of Chinese international doctoral students (CIDS) in STEM fields for undertaking a PhD abroad, and the external factors influencing this major life decision. Based on in-depth interviews with 35 CIDS from seven universities in four Australian states, the findings show that for the current generation, enriching life experiences and self-cultivation emerged as most prominent personal motivations. The choice to study abroad, though ultimately a personal decision, was influenced by a range of factors and particularly long-term cooperation between host and home institutions. Both academic and personal reputation of supervisors played important roles in the selection of host institutions. This study may be of value to supervisors and higher education policy-makers, at institutional and government levels in all countries, whether “home” or “host”, invested in sustainable international doctoral education.     

How do doctoral students experience supervision?

Supervision has been shown to have a high impact on doctoral students' development. However, little is known about how students perceive not only negative but also positive doctoral experiences, as well as their strategies for dealing with perceived problematic situations. The aim of this study is to analyse and relate doctoral students' significant supervision experiences to the strategies they use to cope with these experiences when they perceive them as challenging or negative. A total of 1173 doctoral students from different research-intensive Spanish universities responded to four open-ended questions about their most significant experiences in their doctoral journey, associated feelings and strategies to deal with them. We identified a total of 223 experiences related to supervision that were distributed into five categories: 1) central prerequisites for supervision, 2) supervisor choice, 3) supervision of the research process, 4) coaching and 5) project management. The results showed three distinct ways, as reported by the students, of handling the perceived negative supervision experiences: 1) no strategy, 2) local strategy and 3) regulatory strategy. The results suggest that analysing both positive and negative experiences may better capture variability in students' supervision experiences. A relation between experiences with supervision and students' satisfaction was also detected.     

Strategies and tactics in the supervision of UK social science PhD students

While there is a literature on PhD supervision, little research has been undertaken upon the intricacies of the actual relationship between the PhD student and supervisor. One particular facet of this relationship was examined, namely the strategies supervisors choose to implement when supervising social science students at this level. Two general overarching strategies were found to exist in this context: a relatively unstructured approach, giving students a large degree of intellectual freedom, and a much more structured approach within which close operational control was maintained by the supervisor. The selection and implementation of these two strategies, and associated tactics, were found to be more effective in cases where supervisors were able to balance involvement with their students with a degree of professional detachment. Effective supervision was also found to be correlated with the possession of certain skills, including the ability to foresee the general direction of the student's research, to communicate clearly with the student about the supervisory relationship, and to facilitate that relationship intellectually and emotionally. Such skills were in turn found to hinge upon the possession of particular qualities, such as flexibility and sensitivity.     

Pushing too Little,Praising too Much? Intercultural Misunderstandings between a Chinese Doctoral Student and a Dutch Supervisor

To understand the challenges and their causes in interactions between Western supervisors and international doctoral students, we conducted a self-study of our experiences as a Chinese international student and her Dutch supervisor during her doctoral research project. We found the supervisor and the student to differ in their expectations of the learning goals and procedure for the doctoral program. We analyze three types of misunderstandings, regarding how formal the supervision should be, how feedback and assessment should be provided and understood (e.g. strict versus implicit critiques, open praise for excellence versus praise to encourage), and how the student is expected to learn (e.g. expecting answers versus providing questions, learning from modeling versus learning by trial and error). We also illustrate how implicit these misunderstandings were in daily supervision interactions and how deeply they were rooted in the cultural (i.e. power distance, individualism, masculinity, and indulgence) and educational (i.e. education oriented toward qualification versus personal development, level of competition, and degree of teacher regulation) differences between the supervisor and the student.     

Creating a Delicate Balance: the doctoral supervisor's dilemmas

Abstract

Central to the problems facing supervisors of doctoral students is creating a delicate balance between dominating the student's research and neglecting it. Too much control threatens the originality of the PhD and the autonomy of the novice researcher; too little can delay completion and even lead to total failure. Here, supervisors reflect on their successes and failures in the management of that delicate balance. They frequently construct their accounts using contrasts between the past and the present: comparing their own experiences as students with how they supervise now, or comparing current practice with their own early experiences as a supervisor. Such individual accounts and their characteristic rhetorical formats reflect contemporary policy themes at a more general level within the academic profession.     

A Dynamic Model for Education of Doctoral Students and Guidance of Supervisors in Research Groups

In the department of mathematics of the Luleå University of Technology in Sweden, a dynamic model for the education of doctoral students and guidance of supervisors in research groups has been developed and applied for several years now. Presently groups in mathematics as well as a group in mathematics education are working according to this model and treated in the same way. Moreover, both the students and the supervisors get some education and experience also in elements, which usually are not included in more traditional models for supervision in the mathematical sciences in Sweden. In this paper, we describe our model as well as some experiences of it. Moreover, the results of a questionnaire addressed to and answered by all doctoral students (both finished and still in the program) are presented, evaluated and compared with some related investigations in Sweden. We claim that the students in general are very satisfied to be supervised and guided in this way. In principle, there have been no cases of dropping out of the Ph.D. programs, students obtained their degrees within the stipulated time and the careers after the studies have been successful. We hope that this positive experience will stimulate other universities to test and evaluate our model (or relevant parts of it) under different conditions.