[RESEARCH METHODS FESTIVAL] 2010

Transcription

1 STUDYING DOCTORAL SUPERVISION QUALITY TO DESIGN A REFERENCE FRAMEWORK: A METHODOLOGICAL APPROACH Ana V. Baptista* ana.vitoria@ua.pt Isabel Huet* huet@ua.pt Alan Jenkins** alanjenkins@brookes.ac.uk * Laboratory for the Evaluation of Educational Quality in Higher Education (LAQE/ES), Research Centre for Didactics and Technology in Teacher Education, University of Aveiro, Portugal ** Oxford Brookes University, UK Abstract: With this poster and handout the authors intend to briefly present (i) the generic context in which the study supports itself, namely its pertinence, the main theoretical guidelines as well as the challenges when discussing this issue; and (ii) the methodological approach of the study about doctoral supervision quality which is being run at a specific Higher Education (HE) institution with the greater objective of designing a reference framework. Although this research is being developed at a specific HE institution, it is undoubtable the general relevance of engaging academic community in discussing conceptions, experiences and practices, since the enhancement of doctoral supervision quality is a pertinent subject to most countries and HE institutions. Thus, the transversal and supra national character of this issue is unquestionable. Keywords: Doctoral Supervision, Quality, Reference Framework. 1. INTRODUCTION In the international HE agenda, there has been a growing concern with the extension and impact of research at postgraduate level, where doctoral studies and more specifically doctoral supervision are acquiring bigger significance and value. In fact, the international context demonstrates the existence of an increasing number and a greater diversity of students enrolling in doctoral programmes. Therefore, it is considered an international issue and concern to discuss doctoral research and supervision based on quality standards. Bearing in mind this context, it is observed that in Portugal as it happens also in other countries, there is an urgent need in starting or continuing to develop research in this area, 1 Studying Doctoral Supervision Quality

2 due to emergent discussions and concerns at HE institutions, the lack of studies and the conceptual, theoretical and empirical gap in many settings concerning this subject. Therefore, more generically this study aims to contribute to rethink and jointly discuss this issue: it is essential to reflect about doctoral supervision quality and to make a regular balance of the actions which must be put into practice to improve its quality. Thus, more specifically this study aims to share a contribution to the improvement of doctoral supervision both from supervisors and students perspectives, by designing a reference framework to enhance and evaluate the quality of doctoral supervision. This framework will be based on both theoretical and empirical data that will be gathered through the analysis of international and national literature, and empirical data which will be collected at a Portuguese HE institution: the University of Aveiro (UA). It must be highlighted that, although this research is being run at a specific HE setting, the pertinence of discussing and engaging Academia within this reflection is undoubtable. This must be considered a transversal and supra national issue: academic community will benefit from a desirable and enriching dialogue between experiences, practices and conceptions, where national borders must be considered liquid due to the importance of sharing and reflecting this subject at an international level. Thus, if research run at different HE settings may highlight specificities and contextual data, when properly framed in an international background it may contribute to broaden and enlighten a wider discussion where the greatest challenge is to enhance the quality of doctoral experiences and practices. 2. THE RESEARCH CONTEXT Nowadays, there is an increasing number of international studies that emphasise the need of evaluating and continuously enhancing the quality of teaching, learning and research at HE settings. In fact, it is being strengthen the importance of promoting a culture based on success, quality and excellence in all those processes. However, this culture must not be empty : it must be constituted of commitment, ethical, ideological and political principles, so that concepts like excellence and quality do not lose their epistemological content. The quality of postgraduate research supervision (particularly focused on doctoral studies) is having an increasing relevance both at national and international settings. Thus, it is essential to reflect on the definition of criteria that characterise the quality of doctoral supervision, as 2 Studying Doctoral Supervision Quality

3 [RESEA ARCHMETHO ODSFESTIVAL] 2010 well as the roless and respo onsibilities of supervisorrs and studeents (Pearso on & Brew, 2002; P ; Park, , 2007, ), also co onsidering the emergen nce of Kandlbinder & Peseta, ofdoctoratessthatsuitsth hissituationofamoreco omplexapprroach(park,2005, differrentformso 2007, 2008; Kehm m, 2009; Co ostely & Lestter, 2010). Simultaneous S sly, it is cruccial to discusss the uation of do octoral supeervision quality (Aspland d et al., ) where the definition of evalu superrvisors and students profiles and d competen nces, the process p of ((new) know wledge consttruction, and d the acadeemic experieence are ve ery importan nt aspects tto be considered (Culleen et al., 1994; Barlett & & Mercer, 2001; 2 Bills, 2004; 2 Soothill, 2006; Pettersen, ; Lee, 2008;Felton,200 08). n focusing our o attention n in those previous p asp pects, it is also fundameental to take e into When accou unt several contextual c f factors that, even thouggh they are permanentlyy dialoguing,, they arealwayschangginganddiveersifying,inflluencingthediscussions andapproachtothissu ubject. n approach to today s world charracteristics must m be co onsidered, so o this Conseequently, an reseaarchmaybeproperlycon ntextualised (figure1): Figure1:Contextuallfactors 3 StudyinggDoctoralSup pervisionquaality

4 In fact, those previous aspects will influence the institutional culture (Hodson & Thomas, 2003), its dynamics and policies as well as the approach to doctoral supervision quality. Nevertheless, those aspects also give us some lights about the challenges which HE institutions are dealing with and that are particularly related with this issue (figure 2). Figure 2: Challenges when approaching this issue 3. The research project: The design of the reference framework In the specific Portuguese HE background, we can observe a high number of theoretical and empirical studies about clinical and pedagogical supervision (Alarcão, 1995; Abreu, 2003; Vieira et al., 2006; Sá Chaves, 2007; Alarcão & Roldão, 2008). But the same is not true when focusing on doctoral supervision: there is, in fact, a lack of conceptual and empirical studies about this subject. Nevertheless, although we do not have collected evidence nor research based proofs, it must be emphasised that the Portuguese academic community is starting to be concerned and more aware of the growing number and a greater diversity of students enrolling in postgraduate studies. As a consequence, this situation is promoting some discussions regarding (i) the strategies of research/doctoral supervision that must be adopted, (ii) the quality of those strategies and interventions, and also (iii) the competences and roles which 4 Studying Doctoral Supervision Quality

5 are required from supervisors and students. Moreover, within some scientific areas (particularly on the Education area), some discussions and reflections are being focused on the higher demand from the same number of supervisors to support an increasing number of doctoral students who are showing (many of them) a lack or a low pattern of research competences and skills. Thus, facing this context and again bearing in mind the international context, the authors are developing a project at a Portuguese HE institution (the UA) with the major objective of designing a reference framework that can (i) systematise some issues regarding this underresearched topic at Portuguese settings, (ii) stimulate the debate within national and international HE institutions and Academia, (iii) discuss policy and institutional measures, (iv) analyse discourses and conceptions, and (iv) further on be used for systematic and cyclic evaluation of practices, regarding the quality of doctoral supervision. In fact, being aware of the existence of isolated questionnaires to assess the quality of doctoral supervision that are not usually supported by an integrated evaluation reference framework or model, this framework is intended to integrate validated perspectives based on theoretical and empirical findings. Also, it is planned to be holistic and flexible, adaptable to different HE contexts. This framework will gather theoretical, conceptual, ethical and empirical (qualitative and quantitative) perspectives on the quality of doctoral supervision, supported on national and international findings. Accordingly, the research method chosen to this research is the case study, since it will be analysed a contemporary event that cannot be manipulated (Yin, 1994, p.8) and the research questions are centred on the how and what of a contemporary reality (Yin, 1994, p.9): o o o What theoretical basis and concepts should be considered to design the reference framework about the quality of doctoral supervision in Portugal and abroad? How to dialogue theoretical and empirical findings, as well as international and national ones, to design the reference framework? How to guarantee the flexibility of the reference framework concerning the quality of doctoral supervision process? To answer those questions, the sample is constituted by doctoral students and supervisors of several academic domains at the UA, and the methodological design is broadly constituted by 5 Studying Doctoral Supervision Quality

6 a first set of interviews to set up the interviews and questionnaires (figure 3). Figure 3: Methodological design background, focus groups, another set of in depth It was consideredd that would be important to run the first Portuguese research on this topic only in a HE institution so that variables such as institutional culture could be more or less controlled. After gathering, analysing and discussing all data not only within national borders but mainly dialoguing them with the international results and achievements, it will be useful to continuously discuss, rethink and study this subject to enhance the quality of doctoral supervision and research. REFERENCES Abreu, W. (2003). Supervisão, qualidade e ensinos clínicos: Que parcerias para a excelência em saúde? Coimbra: Edições Formasau. Alarcão, I. & Roldão, M.C. (2008). Supervisão: Um contexto de desenvolvimento profissional dos professores. Mangualde: Edições Pedago. Alarcão, I. (ed.) (1995). Supervisão de Professores e Inovação Educacional. Aveiro: CIDInE (Centro de Investigação, Difusão e Intervenção Educacional). Aspland, T., Edwards, H., O Leary, J. & Ryan, Y. (1999). Tracking new directions in the evaluation of postgraduate supervision. Innovative Higher Education, 24(2), Barlett, A. & Mercer, G. (2001). Introduction. In Postgraduate research supervision: Transforming (re)elations. Accessed in %20book%20intro.htm [29 January 2009] ]. Barnett, R. (2000). Realizing the University in an age of supercomplexity. Buckingham: Open University Press/SRHE. Bills, D. (2004). Supervisors conceptions of research and the implications for supervisor development. International Journal for Academic Development, 9(1), Brew, A. (2007). Evaluating academic development in a time of perplexity. International Journal for Academic Development, 12(2), Studying Doctoral Supervision Quality

7 Burgess, R., Band, S. & Pole, C. (1998). Developments in Postgraduate Education and Training in the UK. European Journal of Education, 33(2), Chambaz, J., Biaudet, P. & Collonge, S. (n/d). Implementing Bologna in your institution: Developing the doctorate. Accessed in 0Jean%20Chambaz%20et%20al%20on%20doctoral%20training%20plans [29 January 2009]. Costley, C., & Lester, S. (2010). Work based doctorates: professional extension at the highest levels. Accessed in [29 May 2010] Cullen, D., Pearson, M., Saha, L. & Spear, R. (1994). Establishing effective PhD supervision. Australian government Publishing Service: Department of Employment, Education and Training. Felton, S. (2008). The student experience of supervision: Towards the Student Supervisor agreement. Accessed in [29 January 2009]. Harman, G. (2003). PhD student satisfaction with course experience and supervision in two Australian Research intensive Universities. Prometheus, 21(3), Hodson, P. & Thomas, H. (2003). Quality assurance in Higher Education: Fit for the new millennium or simply year 2000 compliant? Higher Education, 45, Kandlbinder, P. & Peseta, T. (2006). In supervisors words An insider s view of postgraduate supervision. Sydney: The Institute for Teaching and Learning. Kehm, B.M. (2009). New forms of doctoral education and training in the European Higher Education Area. In B.M. Kehm, J. Huisman & B. Stensaker (eds.), The European Higher Education Area: Perspectives on a Moving Target ( ). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers. Lee, A. (2008). How are doctoral students supervised? Concepts of doctoral research supervision. Studies in Higher Education, 33(3), Park, C. (2005). New variant PhD: The changing nature of the doctorate in the UK. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 27(2), Park, C. (2007). Redefining the doctorate. York, The Higher Education Academy. Park, C. (2008). The taught postgraduate student experience: Overview of Higher Education Academy survey. York: The Higher Education Academy. Pearson, M. & Brew, A. (2002). Research training and supervision development. Studies in Higher Education, 27(2), Peters, M.A., & Olssen, M. (2005). Useful knowledge : Redefining Research and Teaching in the Learning Economy. In R. Barnett (ed.), Reshaping the University: New Relationships between Research, Scholarship and Teaching (37 47). Berkshire: Open University Press/SRHE. Petersen, E. (2007). Negotiating academicity: Postgraduate research supervision as category boundary work. Studies in Higher Education, 32 (4), Sá Chaves, I. (2007). Formação, Conhecimento e Supervisão: Contributos nas áreas da formação de professores e de outros profissionais. Aveiro: Universidade de Aveiro. Soothill, K. (2006). Experience of supervision: Continuities and change. Accessed in [29 January 2009]. UK Council for Graduate Education (1996). Quality and standards of postgraduate research degrees. Accessed in DC D4B3A4&mode=link&guid=a57997aa5a9f4450bb141144a86634e6 [29 January 2009]. Vieira, F. et al. (2006). No Caleidoscópio da Supervisão: Imagens da Formação e da Pedagogia. Mangualde: Edições Pedago. Yin, R. (1994). Case study research: Design and methods. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publishing. 7 Studying Doctoral Supervision Quality