Orientations to research higher degree supervision

Abstract

This study examines the beliefs of supervisors and PhD candidates about higher degree supervision and three other academic domains: research; teaching; and learning. Interview data from 34 participants were categorised into four distinctive orientations to supervision, each consisting of a network (plexus) of beliefs about the four domains. Although each orientation comprised many beliefs, the orientations clearly differed in terms of two broad distinctions: whether the supervisor should direct and take responsibility for the research (controlling beliefs) or should guide the process (guiding beliefs), and whether the focus of supervision should be more upon the research tasks to be completed (task-focussed beliefs) or upon the development of the candidates (person-focussed beliefs). These distinctions, plus the types of interconnections between the beliefs comprising each orientation, support the conclusion that beliefs about teaching are central to each orientation, even though supervision is intimately concerned with research.

Postgraduate Research Students’ and their Supervisors’ Attitudes towards Supervision

“…Throughout the period of PhD studies, a key person in a student's life is his or her research supervisor; therefore, an effective working relationship between the supervisor and the student is crucial (Bair & Hawoth, 2004;Murphy, Bain, & Conard, 2007;Shariff, Ramli, & Ahmad, 2014;Tahir, Ghani, Atek, & Manaf, 2012). Sambrook, Stewart, and Roberts (2008) state that "the purpose of supervision is to steer, guide, and support students through the process of conducting a doctorate" (p. 72); they further state that a research supervisor's role is "… to provide both technical and emotional support..." (p. 72).…”

“…Some research has been conducted to investigate the students' level of satisfaction with their PGR supervision experiences, quality of supervision (Tahir et al 2012;Zuber-Skerritt & Ryan, 1994), and students' and supervisors' beliefs about supervision (Murphy et al 2007). The qualities of an effective supervisor and the research students' expectations of their supervisors have also been explored while investigating supervisory styles, supervisory relationships, attrition, and noncompletion of the PhD (Latona & Browne, 2001;Sharif et al 2014;Tahir et al, 2012).…”

A Developmental Model of Research Mentoring

“…These styles can be person-oriented or task-oriented (Murphy et al 2007). However, previous mentoring models did not indicate how roles may change over time.…”

“…As highlighted in the literature (Gatfield 2005;Lechuga 2011;Murphy et al 2007), a deeper understanding of mentoring styles can lead to a more fruitful mentor-student relationship.…”

“…Like Gatfield (2005), Murphy, Bain, and Conrad (2007) defined four supervising orientations that advisers have with doctoral candidates. Whereas a mentor may be personally invested in a mentee, an adviser may not be personally invested in an advisee.…”