Listening and feeling doctoral students’ perceptions of their doctoral supervision. The PhD students’ point of view.
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.14738/assrj.612.7573Abstract
Doctoral education has been subject to research and analysis by researchers in the last fifty years. Nevertheless, doctoral supervision still a private issue among supervisor and PhD student; if the relationship between them goes wrong, a shadow undermines the doctoral research, hindering student support of others, which may result in attrition and dropout. Breaking this situation, transforming the “private place” in a “public matter”, requires a profound reflection about the doctoral education aim, institutions goals, institution policy, but also a supervisor and PhD students’ perspectives (careers, goals, development, financial support). It is necessary to know, where we want to go, to outline a path to achieve the goals.
During the last three years, doctoral supervision has been studied at Universidade Nova de Lisboa (UNL). A qualitative case study method was used. This was the first study (a pilot study) that covered all the nine UNL schools, is intended to identify the supervision practices, but also captures a glimpse of doctoral students’ life in the academy, their difficulties, their thoughts and feelings related to doctoral education. The documentary analysis, concerning the institution rules related to doctoral education, was the study first step (already published). The second was the implementation of a survey with closed and open questions to allowed students to express their opinion regarding doctoral education, especially doctoral supervision. During three months, a survey, centred in doctoral supervision, applied online in all schools. This paper aims to describe what was found and what was unexpected in the context of a young university.
References
Ӑkerlind, G. & McAlpine, L. (2017). Supervising doctoral students: Variation in purpose and pedagogy. Studies in Higher Education, Routledge 42, 1686-1698.
Ayers, N., Kiley, M., Jones, N. Mcdermontt, M-L. & Hawkins, M. (2016). Using learning plans to support doctoral candidates. Innovations in Education and teaching international. DOI: 10.1080/14703297.2016.1233074.
Baptista, A. & Huet, I. (2011). Perfil de um supervisor de investigação de doutoramentos de qualidade: um contributo para o desenho de um referencial integrador. In actas do II Encontro Nacional de Investigadores da Qualidade. Troia, Portugal
Baptista, A. (2013). Qualidade do Processo de Supervisão da Investigação Doutoral. Tese de Doutoramento apresentada na Universidade de Aveiro, Aveiro.
Bastalich, W. (2017). Content and context in knowledge production: a critical review of doctoral supervision literature, Studies in Higher Education, 42, 1145-1157.
Benmore, A. (2016). Boundary management in doctoral supervision: how supervisors negotiate roles and role transitions through the supervisory journey. Studies in Higher Education, 41, 1251-1264.
Bǿgelund, P. (2015). How supervisors perceive PhD supervision- And how they practice it. International Journal of Doctoral Studies, 10, 39-55.
Brew, A. & Peseta, T. (2004). Changing postgraduate supervision practice: a programme to encourage learning through reflection and feedback. Innovations on Education and Teaching International, 41, 5-22.
Can, G & Walker, A (2014). Social science doctoral students’ needs and preferences for written feedback. Higher Education, 68, 303–318.
Castelló, M., Pardo, M., Sala-Bubaré, A. & Suñe-Soler, N. (2017). Why do students consider dropping out of doctoral degrees? Institutional and personal factores. High Educ., DOI 10.1007/s10734-016-0106-9.
Christensen, M. & Lund, O. (2014). Doctoral education in a successful ecological niche: a qualitative exploratory case study of the relationship between the microclimate and doctoral students‘ learning to become a research. International Journal of Higher Education, 3, 103-113.
Collins, B. (2015). Reflections on Doctoral Supervision: Drawing from the Experiences of Students with Additional Learning Needs in Two Universities. Teaching in Higher Education, 20(6), 587-600.
Cornér, S., Löfström, E. & Pyhältö, K. (2017). The relationships between doctoral students´perception of supervsision and Burnout. International Journal of doctoral Studies, 12, 91-106.
Coutinho, S. (2007). The relationship between goals, metacognition, and academic success. Educate, 7, 39-47.
Deuchar, R. (2008). Facilitator, director or critical friend? Contradiction and congruence in doctoral supervision styles. Teaching in Higher Education, 13, 489–500.
Driessen, E., van der, C., Schuwirth, V., TartwijkJ. & Vermunt J. (2005). The use of qualitative research criteria for portfolio assessment as an alternative to reliability evaluation: a case study. Medical Education, 39, 214-220.
Evans, T. (2002). Part-time research students: Are they producing knowledge where it counts? Higher Education and Research and Development, 21, 155–165.
Gardner, S. (2007). I heard it through the grapevine. Doctoral student socialization in chemistry and history.
Gardner, S. (2008). Fitting the model of graduated school: a quantitative study of socialization in doctorate education. Innovations in Higher Education, 33, 125-138.
Gardner, S. (2008a). What‘s too much and what‘s too little? The process of becoming an independent research in doctoral education. The Journal of Higher Education, 79, 326-350.
Gardner, S. (2009). Student and faculty attributions of attrition in high and low-completing doctoral programs in the United States. High Educ, 58, 97-112.
Gardner, S. (2010). Faculty perspectives on doctoral student socialization in five disciplines. International Journal of doctoral Studies, 5, 39-53.
Gittings, G., Bergman, M., Rose, K. & Shuk, B. (2018).The impact of student attributes and program characteristics on doctoral degree completion. New Horizons in Adult Education & Human Resource Development, 30, xx-xx (20 pp).
Golde, C. (1998). Beginning graduate school: explaining first-year doctoral attrition. New directions for higher Education, 101, 55-64.
Halse, C. (2011). Becoming a supervisor: the impact of doctoral supervision on supervisors‘ learning. Studies in
Hermita, M. & Thamrin, W. (2015). Metacognition toward academic self-efficacy among Indonesian private university scholarship students. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 171, 1075-1080.
Hockey, J. (1996). Motives and meaning among PhD supervisors in the social sciences. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 17, 489– 506.
Hum, G. (2015). Workplace during the science doctorate: What influences research learning experiences and outcomes? Innovations in Education and Teaching Internationak, 52, 29-40.
Hyatt, I., Williams, P. (2011). 21 St Century competencies for doctoral leadership faculty. Innovative Higher Education, 36, 53-66.
Jakesová, J., Kalenda, J. & Gavora, P. (2015). Self-regulation and academic self-efficacy of Czech university students. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 174, 1117-1123.
Jones, M. (2013). Issues in Doctoral Studies - Forty Years of Journal Discussion: Where have we been and where are we going? International Journal of Doctoral Studies, 8, 83-104.
Keeling, R. (2006). The Bologna Process and the Lisbon Research Agenda: the European Commission‘s expanding role in higher education discourse. European Journal of Education, 41, 203-223.
Kiley, M. (2015) I didn‘t have a clue what they were talking about‘: PhD candidates and theory. Innovations in Education and teaching International, 52, 52-63.
Kleijn, R., Mainhard, T., Meijer, P., Pilot, A. & Brekelmans, M. (2012). Master’s Thesis supervision: relations between perceptions of the supervisor-student relationship, final grade, perceived supervisor contribution to learning and student satisfaction. Studies in Higher Education, 37, 925-939.
Kumar, V. & Stracke, E. (2007). Na analysis of written feedback on a PhD thesis. Teaching in Higher Education, 12,
Lafont, P. (2014). Knowledge production of the doctoral thesis: between scientific utility and social usage. Procedia - Social and Behavioural Sciences, 116, 570-577.
Coutinho, I. R. (2019). Listening and feeling doctoral students’ perceptions of their doctoral supervision. The PhD students’ point of view. Advances
Lepp, L., Remmik, M., Karm, M., Leijen, Ä. (2013). Supervisors’ conceptions of doctoral studies. Trames: Journal of the Humanities and Social Sciences, 17, 401-415.
LERU (2014). Good Practice Elements in Doctoral Training. Retirado em 2 de Julho de 2018 de https://www.leru.org/publications/good-practice-elements-in-doctoral-training.
Lindsay, S. (2015). What works for doctoral students in completing their thesis? Teaching in Higher Education, 20,
Mainhard, T., van der Rijst, R., van Tartwijk, J. & Wubbels. (2009). A model for the supervisor–doctoral student relationship. Higher Education, 58, 359-373.
Maxwell, T. & Smyth, R. (2010). Research supervision: The research management matrix. Higher Education, 59,
Maxwell, T. & Smyth, R. (2011). Higher degree research supervision: From practice toward theory. Higher Education Research & Development, 30, 219-231.
McAlpine, L & Amundsen, C. (2012). Challenging the taken-for-granted: How research analysis might inform pedagogical practices and institutional policies related to doctoral education. Studies in Higher Education, 37,
McAlpine, L. (2012). Shining a light on doctoral reading: implications for doctoral identities and pedagogies. Innovations in Education and teaching International, 49, 351-361.
McCallin, A., & Nayar, S. (2012). Postgraduate research supervision: A critical review of current practice. Teaching in Higher Education, 17, 63-74.
Mello, A., Fleisher, M. & Woehr, D. (2015). Varieties of research experience: Doctoral student perception of preparedness for future success. The International Journal of Management Education, 13, 128-140.
Mullins, G. & Kiley, M. (2010). It's a PhD, not a Nobel Prize': How experienced examiners assess research theses. Journal Studies in Higher Education, 369-386. Published online: 25 Aug 2010. Download citation • https://doi.org/10.1080/0307507022000011507.
ORPHEUS (2011) homepage (www.orpheus-med.org).
Overall, N., Deane, K. & Peterson, E. (2011). Promoting doctoral students’ research self-efficacy: combining academic guidance with autonomy support. Higher Education Research & Development, 30, 791-805.
Park, C. (2005) New Variant PhD: The changing nature of the doctorate in the UK. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 27, 189–207.
Pearson, M. (2012). Building bridges: higher degree student retention and counseling‘s support. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 34, 187-199.
Pearson, M., Evans, T. & Macauley, P. (2012) Exploring the nexus between research and doctoral education. AARE APERA Internationa conferece, Sydney, 1-9.
Pickering, C. & Byrne, J. (2014). The benefits of publishing systematic quantitative literature reviews for PhD candidates and other early career researchers. Higher Education Research and Development. 33: 534-548
Pyhältö, K., Toom, A., Stubb, J. & Lonka, K. (2012). Challenges of becoming a scholar: a study of doctoral students´ problems and well-being. International Scholarly Research Network, 2012, 1-12.
Rahmati, Z. (2015). The study of academic burnout in students with high and low level of self-efficacy. Procedia –Social and Behavioral Sciences, 171, 49-55.
Ribau, I & Alves, M. (2017). Doctoral supervision at NOVA LISBON UNIVERSITY: an exploratory study. The European Proceedings of Social & Behavioural Sciences. http://dx.doi.org/10.15405/epsbs.2017.10.51
Ribau, I & Alves, M. (2018). Doctoral supervision at NOVA Lisbon University: an overview. Universal Journal of Educational Research, 6, 2530 – 2542.
Sidhu, G., Kaur, S., Fook, C. & Yunus, F. (2014). Postgraduate supervision: Comparing Students perspectives from Malaysia and the United Kingdom. Procedia – Social and Bahavioral Sciences, 123, 151-159.
Spronken-Smith; R., Camron, C & Quigg, R. (2018). Factors contributing to high PhD completion rates: a case study in a research-intensive university in New Zealand. Assessment & Evalauation in Higher Education, 43, 94-109.
Titus, S. & Ballou, J. (2014). Ensuring PhD development of responsible conduct od research behaviors: who´s responsible? Scien. Eng. Ethics, 20, 221-235.
Wao, H & Onwuegbuzie, A. (2011). A mixed research investigation of factors related to time to the doctorate in Education. International Journal of Doctoral Studies, 6, 115-134.
Watts, J. (2008) Challenges of supervisiong part-time PhD students: towards student-centred practice. Teaching in
Woolderink, M., Putnik, K., van der Boom, H., & Klabbers, G. (2015). The voice of PhD candidates and PhD supervisors. A qualitative exploratory study amongst PhD candidates and supervisors to evaluate the relational aspects of PhD supervision in the Netherlands. International Journal of Doctoral Studies, 10, 217-235.
Wright, A., Murray, J. & Geale, P. (2007). A phenomenographic study of what it means to supervise doctoral students. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 8, 458-474.
Yarwood-Ross L. & Haigh C. (2014). As others see us: what PhD students say about supervisors. Nurse Researcher, 22, 1, 38-43.
Zimmerman, B. J. (1998). Academic studying and the development of personal skill: A self-regulatory perspective. Educational Psychologist, 33 (2/3), 73-86.
Zimmerman, B. J. (2000). Self-efficacy: An essential motive to learn. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25,
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2020 Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
