Hi James,
Sounds like you had good supervision experiences.
From observation though there's a whole bunch of supervision problems occur
as a result of new PhD supervisors emulating the conditions of their own
PhD. For example, supervisors whose own PhD used ethnographic methods tend
to assume that all PhDs require ethnographic methods...
Another group of problems occurs from PhD supervisors 'going beyond the call
of duty'...
We seem to need something more like 'competent, evidence-based professional
best -practice processes in PhD supervision' .
Some universities are trying to do this by moving a lot of the supervision
input onto online research training units that are assessed. Other
strategies for improving supervision outcomes seem to be through the use of
standard research protocols for PhD students to follow.
Both of the latter strategies help reduce idiosyncratic and potentially
unhelpful aspects of supervision, whilst helping set a minimum level for
PhD candidates' competencies in research practices.
Best wishes,
Terry
==
Dr Terence Love, FDRS, AMIMechE
School of Design and Art, Curtin University, Western Australia
Researcher, Social Program Evaluation Research Centre, Psychology and Social
Science,
Researcher, Sellenger Centre for Justice and Law,
Edith Cowan University, Western Australia
Honorary Fellow, IEED, Management School, Lancaster University, UK
PO Box 226, Quinns Rocks, Western Australia 6030
[log in to unmask] +61 (0)4 3497 5848
==
> I was lucky enough to have a supervisor who continually went above and
beyond the call to be as sure ...This has indeed instilled a sense of how to
conduct the supervision of a PhD (in me) that I will try to emulate as I
move through a career in academia. ... that experience that will, in part,
inform how I (others?) handle my (their?) own supervision.
|