No abstract

No abstract

Postgraduate supervision is most often perceived as a one-to-one relationship between an expert and a novice researcher. Even when working in groups, an instructional approach tends to dominate, where the supervisor(s) prescribe(s) the content and process, with a narrow focus on the outcome of degree completion, rather than a more holistic approach to the development of postgraduate scholars. At a time when curriculum transformation is high on the agenda of Higher Education, we problematise this traditional conceptualisation of postgraduate supervision and argue for a more participatory action learning and action research (PALAR) approach to postgraduate learning and development. PALAR creates a relational and reflective space for dialogical conversations, equalizing traditional power relations and democratising knowledge creation. This opens up the possibility for postgraduate candidates to perceive themselves as self-directed lifelong learners and collaborative action leaders, rather than just "students". Using a case example of a postgraduate PALAR retreat, we thematically analyse the data generated from participant reflections, presented over three days in visual, oral and other creative forms. Findings reveal that this approach to postgraduate learning and development enhances critical thinking and promotes collaboration rather than competition. Participants are thus able to see themselves as developing scholars and action leaders within their specific fields of influence. Such outcomes are likely to provide a solid foundation for developing future academics or other professionals, able to model a holistic, participatory approach to knowledge creation in their own practice.

Purpose This paper evaluates a leadership development program (LDP) for senior academic staff on "qualitative research" after two years to establish the success, limitations and overall impact of the program in terms of personal, professional and organizational benefits. Design/methodology/approachWe present the background, outline of the LDP and evaluation of results through participant feedback (1) at the end of the program; and (2) after two years, using a "participatory action learning and action research" (PALAR) approach. FindingsAll participants were very positive about the design, conduct and learning outcomes of the program in terms of their own and their students" learning during and after the program. But although the workshop had prepared them, some had not cascaded their learning and skills by conducting similar programs in their department, faculty or university wide, which was one of the main original objectives to achieve a multiplier effect across the institution. We discuss various reasons for this shortcoming and develop a process model for positive institutional change management in higher education. Research limitations/implicationsMedium-and long-term effects of an LDP need to be followed up after a timespan of one to three or five years to establish whether the development has been effective and sustainable and to learn from limitations and shortcomings for future R&D activities. Practical implicationsWe identify the limitations and suggest practical institutional changes that encourage cascading of learning in theory and practice with a multiplier effect. Original/valueOur process model for leadership development in higher education can be adopted, adapted or further developed by other scholars interested in designing, conducting and evaluating a sustainable LDP in their field and organization.2

PurposeThe aim of this paper is to identify the principles and characteristics of a learning conference which uses action learning and action research (ALAR) processes to create: optimal learning for all participants through a collaborative, inclusive conference culture; further knowledge creation in publishing conference papers post‐conference through a supportive research culture.Design/methodology/approachThe 2010 World Congress of the Action Learning and Action Research Association (ALARA) is showcased to exemplify a learning conference, using the PIP (preamble–interview–postscript) framework to demonstrate the utility of this new genre for research and writing conference papers and action research models as frameworks to support publishing articles.FindingsDiscussion offers ways to enhance opportunities for conference learning through creative purposeful activities that promote collaboration, critical thinking and reflection, and models of action research cycles to progress research from conference presentation to journal article.Originality/valueThe paper makes the crucial link between conference procedure and publication of learning from conference to extend knowledge creation. The PIP model used here presents ways for novice researchers to network with experienced researchers through interview, for professional development, career advancement and publication.