Dear David,
Thanks for your note. I agree with everything you write. Mauricio’s questions on supervision and the related responses were indeed relevant and interesting.
Discussing supervision does not require an examination of national legislation, national accounting, educational finance policy or resource provision. While these affect supervision, discussing accounting and finance requires detailed information, knowledge, experience, and skill. The intersections of law, public policy, and university programs also require details. Without details and facts, the discussion becomes meaningless.
Mauricio’s initial thread on supervision and research seemed quite interesting and well focused. Following one reply, Terry directed questions at me on national policy and financial accounting. I attempted to explain why I did not wish to discuss national policy and financial accounting.
In discussing “dream teams” and management experience, I focused only on public finance accountancy, legislation, and their high-level effects on university systems. These issues require expertise. Public policy legislation and finance make more sense on a list dedicated to those issues.
I responded to say that “We can [all] address the interesting issues here through our personal practices as supervisors and through our direct engagement with PhD students.”
Your note put it better.
Jack Whalen summarized what I tried to say: “Perfectly expressed, David …. Yes, there are always resource issues, and yes, control of resources is not in the hands of the faculty. But at the end of the day, the actual everyday activity and experience of supervising – or better put: mentoring – is completely in our hands, and is our special responsibility / duty. Who is it the student regularly meets with, works with, struggles and debates with, and learns with (in the role of an apprentice, essentially) over the course of several years? It is plainly not some university administrator or government official. And the ‘sweetness’ of that experience, for both student and supervisor – how we can make it so, as well as master its irremediable hardness ... this what I think we should be discussing.”
Yours,
Ken
Ken Friedman, PhD, DSc (hc), FDRS | University Distinguished Professor | Swinburne University of Technology | Melbourne, Australia | University email [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]> | Private email [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]> | Mobile +61 404 830 462 | Academia Page http://swinburne.academia.edu/KenFriedman About Me Page http://about.me/ken_friedman
Guest Professor | College of Design and Innovation | Tongji University | Shanghai, China
--
David Durling wrote:
—snip—
It seems reasonable to me that the allocation of resources to doctoral students, the funding and organisation of supervisors, and possible changes in training arrangements for students and supervisors, could all be interesting topics for discussion on this list. Irrespective of whether we individually have control of funding allocations or management decisions, we have a part to play in helping to shape policy.
Terry is right to raise the matter of supervision capacity, though in my experience supervision capacity is not directly a matter of finance. Much of design in the academy has moved from design practice to research practice in a relatively short space of time, and experienced supervisors have been thin on the ground. It takes time to grow a research community and to have a sufficient number of supervisors who are both qualified and experienced. Back in the mid 90s when I started out as a research director I was the only PhD holder in the design school (that changed after faculty merger which brought a number of design historians into the fold). However, I knew nothing about supervision practice, and the first handful of students that I took through to completion were the means by which I gained that experience. It’s not something that you can learn from reading books - just like designing, it’s learning by doing.
By encouraging existing academic staff to undertake part-time PhD study, and by employing new academic staff already suitably trained, qualified supervisors may be obtained, sometimes in suitable numbers. But it takes much longer for a supervisor to take students through to successful completion and, crucially, to learn from that experience. It is clear to me that the views of for example Klaus and Terry are shaped by this practical experience.
Supervision is the hardest and sweetest thing to do in teaching research. It is immensely rewarding, and I am very grateful for the discussions that I continue to have with bright students wrestling with their research problems. Supervision is also changing. I sense much more online working, both for the research student in their studies and in supervision meetings. The growth of more stringent university requirements (f.ex. in UK), such as independent chairs for PhD vivas, has added to the supervisor’s workload - however, much is to be gained from experiencing vivas across disciplines, and I always encourage staff to undertake these extra duties.
Anyway, I am perfectly happy that these topics are discussed here. I like to hear others’ views, whether or not they have direct management responsibilities.
—snip—
-----------------------------------------------------------------
PhD-Design mailing list <[log in to unmask]>
Discussion of PhD studies and related research in Design
Subscribe or Unsubscribe at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/phd-design
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|