Reconceptualising Discourses of Power in Postgraduate Pedagogies

Abstract

This paper discusses theories of postgraduate pedagogy through analysing the narratives and metaphors used to represent relationships between supervisors and candidates. It examines current dominant discourses to ® nd the use of hierarchical models and often combative dynamics based on unequal power relations prevail. Some narratives also replicate oppressive patriarchal and Oedipal family dramas. Using an experiential and feminist methodology, the paper then suggests ways around this familial model. It offers some alternative and creative strategies of representation which could shape new forms of supervisory relationships. With an emphasis on the pleasures, rather than the pain of intellectual knowledge making, such models are suggestive rather than prescriptive, and seek to cater for diverse student backgrounds to make the experience of postgraduate research enjoyable, strengthening and completable.Not much has changed since Bob Connell, over a decade ago, identi® ed postgraduate supervision as one of the`most genuinely complex' and`least discussed' aspects of academic teaching (1985, p. 38). One of the reasons why PhD supervision roles are dif® cult to discuss is the highly¯exible character of one-to-one teaching. It is commonly believed that because each supervisor and candidate develops a distinctly individualised relationship, it is therefore impossible to discuss or theorise the dynamics of such relationships. However, both feminism and post-structuralism have alerted us to the dangers of believing in the myth of`special individuals' operating in a cosy apolitical sphere, especially when those individuals are actually working within powerful institutions whose ideologies intersect, inscribe and determine the paradigms within which individuals operate. As well, those theoretical perspectives have emphasised the importance of language in encoding ideologies, an assumption that underpins our interest in the narratives and metaphors employed to discuss the power dynamics of postgraduate supervisory relationships.As feminist lecturers in literature, we want to re¯ect on our practice of postgraduate supervision and the ways in which it entwines with our feminist methodologies. We also want to re¯ect on the formative relationship we constructed for ourselves as supervisor and student during Alison' s candidature which, as this

Risk in Postgraduate Writing: Voice, Discourse and Edgework

“…For many students and supervisors, writing or supervising a thesis does have the elements of distortion and contradiction, as mentioned earlier in this article. The negative images of survival, danger and dysfunction that pervade studies of metaphors in postgraduate experience and the supervisory relationship (Bartlett and Mercer, 2000) point to the potential usefulness of edgework to explore the moving line between flow, spontaneity, emergence and their antithesis of constraint.…”

Team supervision of the doctorate: managing roles, relationships and contradictions

“…The issue of power represented in relationships between supervisors and students as part of postgraduate pedagogies has been widely discussed (see, for example, Bartlett and Mercer, 2000) with this adding to the complexity of the doctoral supervision process that Sambrook et al (2008) characterise as a web of a range of relationships. Rugg and Petre (2004) argue that doctoral supervision is a relationship not a service and that interactions between supervisors and their students, as well as between supervisors in the team, need to be managed.…”

Beyond Diaspora: The Lived Experiences of Academic Mobility for educational researchers in the European higher education area

“…The method used (individual semi-structured interviews) is consistent with other studies around metaphorical analysis in educational research (Bartlett & Mercer, 2000;Hofer & Pintrich, 2002;Huang & Ariogul, 2006;Jensen, 2006), and each interview began with a request for a metaphor (or metaphors) that represented experiences of academic mobility. The transcribed interviews were analysed for levels of congruence between the espoused ontologies of researchers (gleaned from the metaphor) and particular experiences as articulated.…”