Ethics in the supervisory relationship: supervisors' and doctoral students' dilemmas in the natural and behavioural sciences

Löfström, Erika; Pyhältö, Kirsi

doi:10.1080/03075079.2015.1045475

Cited by 34 publications

(17 citation statements)

References 37 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…A lack of understanding of this skill set can lead to academic misconduct if students are not adequately supported. Löfström and Pyhältö (2017) highlight that doctoral students rely on their supervisors and faculty colleagues to help learn ethical guidelines and appropriate codes of conduct. By acknowledging that doctoral students unintentionally engage in academic misconduct due to a lack of awareness, universities can offer supportive structures and educational programs to help foster a deeper understanding of the impact of the imposter phenomenon, academic literacy skills, and ethical research approaches.…”

Section: Explicit Academic Integrity Instructionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Academic integrity at doctoral level: the influence of the imposter phenomenon and cultural differences on academic writing

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This conceptual review seeks to reframe the view of academic integrity as something to be enforced to an academic skill that needs to be developed. The authors highlight how practices within academia create an environment where feelings of inadequacy thrive, leading to behaviours of unintentional academic misconduct. Importantly, this review includes practical suggestions to help educators and higher education institutions support doctoral students’ academic integrity skills. In particular, the authors highlight the importance of explicit academic integrity instruction, support for the development of academic literacy skills, and changes in supervisory practices that encourage student and supervisor reflexivity. Therefore, this review argues that, through the use of these practical strategies, academia can become a space where a culture of academic integrity can flourish.

show abstract

Section: Explicit Academic Integrity Instructionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Academic integrity at doctoral level: the influence of the imposter phenomenon and cultural differences on academic writing

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Corresponding with the principle of beneficence, Cornér et al (2017) indicated supervisors' contribution to doctoral students' wellbeing by distributing their workload, providing information, and assisting them in selecting courses. Failing to support doctoral students' development and wellbeing compromised beneficence, confirmed by the findings of Löfström and Pyhältö (2017), who noted that while breaches of non-maleficence typically involved more active and directly harmful acts, breaches of beneficence tended to constitute a failure to do what is good or right. With regard to the principle of justice, prior research reported doctoral students to appreciate the fair allocation of opportunities and responsibilities in the supervisory relationship (Löfström & Pyhältö, 2012.…”

Section: Ethics In Doctoral Educationmentioning

confidence: 79%

Individual and Structural Challenges in Doctoral Education: An Ethical Perspective

Roos

Löfström

Remmik

2021

IJDS

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aim/Purpose: The study set out to understand the challenges doctoral students experience at different systemic levels of doctoral education through the perspective of ethical principles. Background: Doctoral students experience various challenges on their journey to the degree, and as high dropout rates indicate, these challenges become critical for many students. Several individual and structural level aspects, such as student characteristics, supervisory relationship, the academic community as well national policies and international trends, influence doctoral studies, and students’ experiences have been researched quite extensively. Although some of the challenges doctoral students experience may be ethical in nature, few studies have investigated these challenges specifically from an ethics perspective. Methodology: The study drew on qualitative descriptions of significant negative incidents from 90 doctoral students from an online survey. The data were first analyzed using a reflexive thematic analysis, and then the themes were located within different systemic levels of doctoral studies: individual (e.g., doctoral student, the individual relationship with supervisor) and structural (e.g., the institution, faculty, academic community). Finally, the ethical principles at stake were identified, applying the framework of five common ethical principles: respect for autonomy, benefiting others (beneficence), doing no harm (non-maleficence), being just (justice), and being faithful (fidelity). Contribution: Understanding doctoral students’ experiences from an ethical perspective and locating these among the systemic levels of doctoral studies contributes to a better understanding of the doctoral experience’s complexities. Ethical considerations should be integrated when creating and implementing procedures, rules, and policies for doctoral education. Making the ethical aspects visible will also allow universities to develop supervisor and faculty training by concretely targeting doctoral studies aspects highlighted as ethically challenging. Findings: In doctoral students’ experiences, structural level ethical challenges out-weighed breaches of common ethical principles at the individual level of doctoral studies. In the critical experiences, the principle of beneficence was at risk in the form of a lack of support by the academic community, a lack of financial support, and bureaucracy. Here, the system and the community were unsuccessful in contributing positively to doctoral students’ welfare and fostering their growth. At the individual level, supervision abandonment experiences, inadequate supervision, and students’ struggle to keep study-related commitments breached fidelity, which was another frequently compromised principle. Although located at the individual level of studies, these themes are rooted in the structural level. Additionally, the progress review reporting and assessment process was a recurrent topic in experiences in which the principles of non-maleficence, autonomy, and justice were at stake. Recommendations for Practitioners: Going beyond the dyadic student-supervisor relationship and applying the ethics of responsibility, where university, faculty, supervisors, and students share a mutual responsibility, could alleviate ethically problematic experiences. Recommendation for Researchers: We recommend that further research focus on experiences around the ethics in the progress reporting and assessment process through in-depth interviews with doctoral students and assessment committee members. Impact on Society: Dropout rates are high and time to degree completion is long. An ethical perspective may shed light on why doctoral studies fail in efficiency. Ethical aspects should be considered when defining the quality of doctoral education. Future Research: A follow-up study with supervisors and members of the academic community could contribute to developing a conceptual framework combining systemic levels and ethics in doctoral education.

show abstract

“…While the opportunity to build a combined track for the benefit of both supervisors and candidates offers value, the TBP candidate may be positioned as a vehicle for securing the successes or promotional opportunities of the supervisor, and further institutional oversight is necessary to avoid placing candidates in a vulnerable position due to their limited experience in publication and the inherent power imbalance in the supervisor/candidate relationship. While power dynamics (Bartlett & Mercer, 2000) and ethical issues (Löfström & Pyhältö, 2017) between supervisors and doctoral candidates are present in all supervisory models, there are further potential complications in the TBP journey when supervisors and candidates co-author, and support may be needed to assist TBP candidates to avoid the potential risks.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Löfström and Pyhältö (2017) found that supervisors do not raise doctoral candidate well-being as an ethical concern, yet learning to publish in academia comes with challenges such as managing expectations, publication timelines and reviewer feedback, all of which can cause anxiety and frustration for doctoral candidates who are new to publishing (Merga, Mason, & Morris, 2019a). Participants in this study shared the importance of non-specific moral support and encouragement, and while these are nebulous concepts, ‘understanding of similar experiences provides appreciation and solidarity’ that allows doctoral candidates to continue along their journey ‘at a level they otherwise (might) not believe possible’ (Wilson & Cutri, 2019, p. 59).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Central to the doctoral experience is the relationship between the candidate and their supervisor/s, largely recognised as one of the most important factors in positive outcomes for doctoral students (Wao & Onwuegbuzie, 2011; Zhao et al., 2007). This relationship, however, is sensitive to power dynamics (Bartlett & Mercer, 2000); ethical dilemmas (Löfström & Pyhältö, 2017); and differences in personality, skills, attitudes, and expectations about the role that the other should play (Orellana et al., 2016; Pyhältö et al., 2015). Considering that most doctoral candidates are well into adulthood, they are often balancing their role as doctoral researcher with other personal and family commitments (Martinez et al., 2013; Mirick & Wladkowski, 2018), while the growing number of students who move to another country for their doctoral training means that they may be also negotiating language and cultural differences (A.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Institutional and supervisory support for the Thesis by Publication

Mason

Morris

Merga

2020

Australian Journal of Education

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Thesis by Publication is garnering increasing interest across nations and disciplines. However, more needs to be learned about institutional and supervisory support for this thesis mode to ensure that doctoral candidates pursuing this approach enjoy the best possible outcomes. This paper draws on data from 246 recent successful doctoral candidates who took part in the 2018–2019 PhD candidates’ motivations, experiences, and opinions of the thesis by/with publications study. Findings suggest that perceived institutional support may be more common than supervisory support, and initial institutional support may be eclipsed by ongoing support. Findings suggest that more can be done to support students intending to embark on Thesis by Publication at induction, and that high quality supervisory support can be perceived as integral to candidate success in most cases. However, high dependence on supervisory support paired with comparatively limited institutional support can place workload pressure and increased accountability on supervisors, and may raise ethical implications that require close consideration.

show abstract

Ethics in the supervisory relationship: supervisors' and doctoral students' dilemmas in the natural and behavioural sciences

Cited by 34 publications

References 37 publications

Academic integrity at doctoral level: the influence of the imposter phenomenon and cultural differences on academic writing

Academic integrity at doctoral level: the influence of the imposter phenomenon and cultural differences on academic writing

Individual and Structural Challenges in Doctoral Education: An Ethical Perspective

Institutional and supervisory support for the Thesis by Publication

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About