Dear all
I have only read a couple of emails on the supervision topic and am travelling etc - so forgive me if I am repeating some things.
I did a Masters of Construction Management (research) and then did a doctorate in Construction Economics. I received good supervision in both cases and they were very different. The first supervisor for the Masters was appropriate at the level - the only problem I see now is that the theory in the Masters was beyond the Masters and I should have been encouraged to upgrade to a PhD - and I was always going to be an academic and I stated that to my supervisor and so I think I lost years in my career. However...having said that I also believe the flip side... he trained me extremely well in doing a piece of research and finding closure and submitting... that is wrapping it up and actually getting a completion.
I had two supervisors for my Phd - and they each played a different role. The technical supervisor (that is what he was called)... was the intellectual driver and he showed me by example an extremely high standard. it was the constant questioning and requestioning of my work and the drive to pursue a high level of critical thinking that stands me in good stead now...I supervise in the same manner.
I learnt a lot from both.
Bad supervision problems... I see this at our Uni from time to time. I have also been asked to come in and assist when students have been lead astray. In all the situations (from my observations) it comes back to the actual research experience of the supervisor - one did not have a postgrad research degree and the other had a PhD but it did not push the boundaries. In both cases these two supervisors don't have what I would call a research ethic... supervising students to them is simply something that they do not because they love research or even love training minds but because it makes them look good. This is playing around with people's lives... and I don't think is a very good thing to do. If you don't have the skills nor care about research then it is unethical to take on research students. In both situations what I have noticed is that students were not asked to write early enough and of course this is my pet theory - that students should begin to write and clarify their thoughts as soon as possible.
of course these are my own personal opinions
regards
Kerry
Kerry London
Senior Lecturer
Postgraduate Director (Architecture and Industrial Design)
School of Architecture & Built Environment
University of Newcastle
AUSTRALIA
tel: + 61 2 49 21 5778
>>> Rosan Chow <[log in to unmask]> 04/27/05 8:07 AM >>>
Dear Susan
I am happy that you have received very good supervision. Since you are a
good-supervised Ph.D. According to some, you are the most capable to teach,
research and supervise and contribute to the field in general. So you must be
able to make contribution to solving the problem of bad supervision!? We rely
on people like you!
All the best
Rosan
"Susan M. Hagan" wrote:
> Hi TIm and others,
>
> Tim, I really enjoyed reading your post on the master/apprentice
> relationship. I felt that your description was very much my experience. And
> like Carl, I have been fortunate to study in an atmosphere that has left me
> feeling ready to go on my own. From coursework to dissertation writing,
> each step has been a springboard to the next. It was that supervision that
> helped me think outside of my own box, pushing at my discipline, while
> still working within that discipline.
>
> But I also believe every advisor brings strengths and weaknesses -- just as
> every student brings strengths and weaknesses. It's a part of being human.
> My experience of strengths and weaknesses on both sides (but on the
> receiving end of many strengths) will, I'm sure, drive my own supervisory
> role. I hope that I will springboard my students almost perfectly through
> each stage of the process. But that's probably not possible. I will miss
> details that other members of my students' committees will not miss. I
> think that's one reason why the committee is so important, and why my own
> role in the process should start by being on a committee rather than
> heading a committee. By discussing goals with multiple professors, a
> student stands a better chance of feeling ready to go it alone.
>
> In saying these things, I make no contribution to the thread on
> unsatisfactory supervision. I do not know how you overcome that experience.
> But even within the best situation, I believe the committee is hugely
> important.
>
> It takes a village...
>
> Best,
>
> Susan
>
> --On Tuesday, April 26, 2005 9:10 AM +0200 Tim Smithers
> <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> > Dear Ken,
> >
> > I hope you won't mind my joining in here, on the issue of PhD
> > supervision. I would like to try to counter what strikes me
> > as some mistaken thinking, recently posted on this subject.
> >
> > I take a PhD be to a training in doing research; and having a
> > PhD to denote an ability to carry out independent research.
> > And I take it that this is NOT a controversial view of what we
> > are talking about.
> >
> > The PhD training is necessarily a supervised training, where
> > supervision is provided by one or more supervisors. The
> > training involves a Master-Apprentice like relationship
> > between the PhD candidate and his or her supervisor or
> > supervisors; it is one that gives necessarily different and
> > distinctive roles to the players involved, but which is
> > essentially a collaboration: if there is no Master, there is
> > no apprentice, and thus no apprenticeship. And a Master does
> > not become a Master without first being an Apprentice.
> >
> > Now, as we know, presenting a thesis and being awarded a PhD
> > certificate does not necessarily mean, in and of itself, that
> > the candidate has received a proper training in doing
> > research. But, just obtaining a PhD degree certificate should
> > NOT be the objective of any PhD candidate: getting though
> > despite the lack of supervision, or despite the lack of any
> > good supervision, should not be the aim of any PhD candidate.
> > Why? Because this will not get what he or she set out to
> > obtain, when he or she elected to join a PhD programme: a
> > training in doing research.
> >
> > All PhD programmes and all PhD supervisors have a professional
> > responsibility to provide high quality supervision. Now I know
> > full well that this does not always happen, and that people do
> > get awarded PhD degrees after having had nothing like a proper
> > supervised training in doing research, and yet others fail to
> > present a thesis for the lack of good enough supervision. That
> > this is sadly true does not change the fact that a PhD is
> > necessarily a supervised training in doing research. It means
> > that some people have PhDs without actually having received the
> > necessary kind of training. This is not to be simply accepted.
> > It is to be continuously struggled against. This struggle
> > includes the students involved. Thinking that an option--to escape
> > an unhappy, inadequate, or useless supervision situation--is
> > to go without supervision, is a basic mistake; a clear indication
> > that the student has not yet learned what research is about,
> > and thus, that he or she needs some proper supervised training
> > in doing research.
> >
> > The need for a Master-Apprentice like collaborative relationship,
> > in any PhDing, is NOT something imposed by some self-proclaimed
> > higher authority, which can be dismissed as being out-dated,
> > irrelevant, and disconnected from today's realities. It is
> > a well tried and tested, and widely practiced way to train new
> > researchers who are good enough to take on the responsibilities
> > of doing good research in today's world. These responsibilities
> > necessarily include training more new researchers.
> >
> > For me, and I believe for all of us who supervise PhDs, one of
> > the most important, and often one of the most enjoyable
> > aspects of collaborating with PhD students, is what I (as the
> > supervisor) learn, including what I learn about doing research
> > and about supervising students. A necessary part of any
> > training in doing research is thus seeing that your supervisor
> > (or supervisors) learns from working with you: the training
> > is not a one-way process; from Master to Apprentice. It is a
> > collaborative learning process. And if you don't experience
> > this first hand in your own PhD training, you do not easily
> > pick it up and know how to do this when you come to have
> > your own PhD students.
> >
> > A good PhD training is not the end; it is just the beginning:
> > the beginning of future PhDs. Obtaining a PhD without a
> > proper supervised training simply destroys this truth.
> >
> > Best regards,
> >
> > Tim
> > Donostia / San Sebastián
> >
>
> :::::::::::::::::::::::::::
> Susan M. Hagan, Ph.D., MDes.
> Postdoctoral Fellow
> Carnegie Mellon University
> Pittsburgh PA 15213
>
> v. 412.268.2072
> f. 412.268.7989
|