Supervision pedagogies: narratives from the field

Anticipating doctoral supervision: (Not) bridging the transition from supervisee to supervisor

“…Although this could appear to be inimically linked with my current anticipatory position, many studies recognise the importance that experiences of being supervised play in practising supervisors' accounts of their doctoral pedagogy, from 'novice supervisors' (Peelo, 2011, p. 130) to supervisors with many years of experience (eg. Guerin, Kerr and Green, 2015). It is recognised throughout the literature on doctoral supervision that supervisors' memories of their own supervision experiences are a major influence (Amundsen and McAlpine, 2009;Grant, 2003;Guerin, Kerr and Green, 2015;Halse, 2011;Lee, 2008;Lee and Williams, 1999;Peelo, 2011).…”

“…Guerin, Kerr and Green, 2015). It is recognised throughout the literature on doctoral supervision that supervisors' memories of their own supervision experiences are a major influence (Amundsen and McAlpine, 2009;Grant, 2003;Guerin, Kerr and Green, 2015;Halse, 2011;Lee, 2008;Lee and Williams, 1999;Peelo, 2011). As such, while academic development on doctoral supervision may aim to help new supervisors make the transition from 'the view obtained when a PhD student' to 'the reality of being a supervisor' (Turner, 2015, p. 96), it is not necessarily the case that the doctoral student perspective can ever be fully left behind.…”

“…However researchers have identified that, while professional development is offered and often required for supervisors, supervisors draw their ideas on doctoral pedagogy from a number of sources, including 'how to' literature, their own experiences of being supervised iii , observing colleagues, and being an examiner (Halse, 2011;Peelo, 2011;Wisker and Kiley, 2014). Previous research studies have sought to map the factors that influence how a doctoral supervisor understands and enacts the supervisor identity (Amundsen and McAlpine, 2009;Guerin, Kerr and Green, 2015;Halse, 2011;Turner, 2015); this article explores a missing link in the literature, examining the invitations to reflect that result in the supervisor role being thought about in particular ways. Much literature on doctoral supervision is based on interview research, and in general the interview data is taken at face value: if a supervisor is asked what influences their supervision practice, their responses are straightforwardly recorded as evidence of these influencesrather than as a representation or 'snapshot in time' of these influences (Manathunga, Peseta and McCormack, 2010).…”

Learning a practice through practise: presenting knowledge in doctoral spoken presentations

“…As Rebecca practises and then refines her spoken presentation, the paper examines how collective learning arrangements foster the way she participates in, and learns (Boud and Hager 2012) a requisite disciplinary, textual practice. In the context of academia's diverging occupational and publication-focused future (Brabazon 2016;Guerin, Kerr, and Green 2015;McGagh et al 2016), learning to speak and write in recognisable, disciplinary ways, while ever essential for doctoral candidates (Casanave and Li 2008;Paltridge, Starfield, and Tardy 2016) is emphasised as being even more important now than before. This claim underpins the view that speaking and writing, as textual practices, are privileged in doctoral pedagogy, reflecting the ways in which knowledge is enacted and realised in the academy.…”

Helping international master’s students navigate dissertation supervision: Research-informed discussion and awareness-raising activities

“…Then there is the fact that the literature suggests that unhappy supervisory experiences are not uncommon (cf. Acker, Hill, & Black, 1994;Aspland, 1999;Delamont, Atkinson, & Parry, 2000;Grant & Graham, 1994;Green, 2005;Guerin, Kerr, & Green, 2015;Krase, 2007;Manathunga, 2014;McAlpine, Paulson, Gonsalves, & Jazvac-Martek, 2012, to cite merely a selection of sources describing such experiences). These unhappy dissertation journeys are sometimes caused by supervisor-supervisee miscommunication (e.g., Blakeslee, 1997;Krase, 2007;Schneider & Fujishima, 1995;Vehviläinen, 2009), and we felt learning more about such experiences would help us better understand this phenomenon and its causes.…”