Towards a research training curriculum: What, Why, How, Who?

Abstract

Our purpose in this paper is to investigate the ways in which the work of research higher degree supervision is being reshaped from within and outside universities. Our interest is in the means by which new 'content' and 'process' knowledge -and thus a new set of pedagogical tasks and relationships -are being configured in the field of higher degree research. The outcomes of research training have traditionally been products of a one-on-one supervisory relationship, that is, academic apprentice-todisciplinary mentor. This is especially the case in the fields of arts/humanities. Any 'curriculum' necessary to such a model has been both implicit and at the discretion of the disciplinary 'master'.The paper maps the reasons that this model is being challenged, the policy and other mechanisms that are representing this challenge, the new modes of conduct and the new knowledge being produced by these policies and mechanisms, and the new pedagogical identities being forged as a result. We argue that the know-how of the academic supervisor is no longer coterminous with research training as 'expert' work. While disciplinary knowledge will continue to be important, and while one-on-one supervisory relationships will remain, they are unlikely to dominate the new higher degree research training landscape. New modes of knowledge production and new organisational arrangements are demanding different knowledge -less certain, less discipline specific -and different work -more team-based, more trans-disciplinary, and more accountable.

Research supervision: the research management matrix

“…More recently the debate in doctoral education has broadened. The way has been lead by Kamler and Thompson (2006), Nightingale (2005) and Wisker (2005) who have built upon on the work of others (Delamont et al 2004;McWilliam and Singh 2002;Punch 2000Punch , 2003Zuber-Skerritt 1992). These authors encourage improvement by unwrapping issues of pedagogy, relationships, and institutional responsibilities, the tasks of the research process, managing the outcomes and on to launching successful research careers.…”

Contextualised performance: reframing the skills debate in research education

“…For example, McWilliam, and Singh (2002) have argued that the enactment of a new research training curriculum 'opens up new spaces for higher degree research as a pedagogical endeavour while leaving little space for any residual monasticism that might still be lurking in sandstone corridors' (15). Their argument is that the curriculum comprises new modes of knowledge that are 'being produced by risk-conscious academic knowledge workers and non-academic others who are seen to both represent and understand the demands of knowledge work in commercial settings' (15).…”

Research degrees as professional education?

“…This skills emphasis has led to much debate within the literature, particularly regarding the potential for the decontexualisation of skill development from the practice of doing research. There are many unanswered questions concerning just how generic and transferable socalled generic capabilities really are, and whether and how they can be learnt through direct instruction (Borthwick & Wissler, 2003;; Gilbert et al, 2004;; Lee, 2004;; McWilliam & Singh, 2002). While there is a sense in which skills such as critical thinking are valued across disciplines, it could be argued that these skills are inextricable from subject specific knowledge and, as such, are not necessarily transportable across varying fields of knowledge.…”