Ian Green

Supervision pedagogies: narratives from the field

In designing supervisor development programmes that are appropriate to changing research contexts, it is necessary to draw on both established best practice and emerging innovations that respond to the changing contexts of higher degree research. We undertook a narrative enquiry at an Australian university to establish a clearer understanding of the supervisory models and pedagogies currently employed by effective supervisors. Three key findings have emerged: these supervisors employ a broad range of approaches informed by their own experiences of being supervised; they place great importance on their relationships with students; and they reveal a strong awareness of their own responsibilities in actively developing the emerging researcher identities of their doctoral candidates. These aspects of supervision models should be emphasised in supervisor development programmes.

‘They’re the bosses’: feedback in team supervision

Team supervision of PhDs is increasingly the norm in Australian and UK universities; while this model brings many improvements on the traditional one-on-one research supervision, it also introduces new complexities. In particular, many students find the diversity of opinions expressed in teams to be confusing. Such diversity in supervisor feedback is often experienced as unsettling, and the study indicates that students generally seek consensus from their supervisory team. The power dynamics existing in the relations between team members in this situation need to be carefully considered, and supervisors must be alert to the ways in which doctoral students can be effectively and productively inducted into the norms of academic debate and collaborative research projects. The paper explores the implications of diversity in feedback in relation to developing a pedagogy of supervision.

Cultural diversity and the imagined community of the global academy

Transnational academic mobility and the ongoing push towards “internationalization” together raise challenges for the cultural climate of todays universities. This paper explores these issues from the perspective of supervisors of research degrees in an Australian university in which “internationalization” and “academic mobility” apply to supervisors as much as to students. The concepts of the imagined community and cosmopolitanism are employed to interpret a series of one-on-one and group interviews conducted with international academic staff, conversations which reported surprisingly untroubled negotiation of cultural difference. Using the insights provided by the concepts of “imagined community” and “cosmopolitanism”, we investigate the mechanisms mobilized by these supervisors in apparently backgrounding cultural diversity in the workplace, and consider the implications of the academic subjectivities they perform.

A coordinated framework for developing researchers’ intercultural competency

Background and context In keeping with global trends, there is a national imperative in the terrain of higher education in South Africa to increase the percentage of university students studying at the postgraduate level (RSA DHET 2012). With this comes mounting pressure to increase the throughput rates of postgraduate students in the country’s universities for economic, social and political reasons, and critically in order to maintain and further what has become known as the ‘knowledge project’. However, as a result of the inequities of the apartheid era, the higher education arena is faced with a complex and diverse student population (Quinn 2012) and ever-increasing student numbers (Snowball & Sayigh 2007) as it attempts to grapple with issues of epistemological access, redress and quality. To date, there is evidence to suggest that our higher education system is failing the majority of students, at both the undergraduate and the postgraduate levels (Letseka & Maile 2008; Scott, Yeld & Hendry 2007). Higher education in South Africa, therefore, must be understood to speak to both the ‘knowledge project’ and the issue of social justice, as without a sustained emphasis on the latter, the country will have failed in its mandate to engage in equal and equitable transformation of the higher education system.IntroductIon: AcAdemIc mobIlIty While the concept of the wandering scholar is not new, the speed and frequency of academic mobility have rapidly gained momentum in the 21st century (Kim 2009). Linked to the notion of the ‘borderless’ university (Cunningham et al. 1998; Hearn 2011; Watanabe 2011), scholars today expect to study and work in more than one country, to present their research at international conferences, and to collaborate with colleagues from all around the world. The result is a multicultural academic workforce in many universities for whom boundaries between national cultures are increasingly being erased and where all members require high levels of intercultural competence.

‘Collaborative critique’ in a supervisor development programme

Supervision of research degrees is currently undergoing significant re-evaluation, as the research environment itself responds to new and ongoing external policy and funding pressures, internationalisation, increasing cross-disciplinarity and the proliferation of sub-specialisations amongst other factors. The Exploring Supervision Program is designed to aid new supervisors of research students to find effective ways of negotiating supervision in the context of this changing academy. To this end, a workshop facilitation approach is employed that we call ‘collaborative critique’, a technique designed to extend understandings of complex situations through discussion and debate stimulated by narrative, case studies and role plays. Here, we outline the rationale of collaborative critique and then demonstrate how it is used in a workshop on working in the multicultural academy.