Enlightening the Research Supervision Process Abstract This paper assesses the PhD experience of accounting and finance students enrolled in an Australian or New Zealand University, with regard to the supervision process and skills developed during the doctoral programme. We aim to provide a comprehensive picture of the current profile of accounting and finance PhD students and to explore the quality and effectiveness of the supervision process. To the best of our knowledge this is the first study that assesses the doctoral course experience, supervision and skills development from both, the students perceptions and the supervisors expectations. Our findings indicate that students are overall satisfied with their supervisor s availability, assistance and encouragement. Keywords: PhD studies; accounting and finance students; supervision experience; student perceptions; supervisor expectations; skills development. JEL Classification: A20; I20; I23; M00. This is an Incomplete Draft version. Please do not quote without authorization from the authors. Draft Version: 7 June. 1
1. Introduction By focusing on student satisfaction with course experience and research supervision, our study attempts to assess the quality and effectiveness of the supervision process of accounting and finance PhD students across Australian and New Zealand Universities. This is particularly relevant, given the rapid expansion in PhD enrolments at Australian Universities (Heaney et al., 2013), and at a time of declining funding for Universities (Harding, 2014; Harman, 2003b). This rapid increase in PhD numbers has led to concerns regarding the quality of doctoral degrees; specifically in terms of the research abilities of supervisors; the quality of supervision; the quality of new students at entry; timely completion rates; and the quality of research in successful theses. Expectations on high quality research supervision are also growing, in particular, with regards to skills formation, timely completion and career outcomes. Our study focuses mainly on the quality of supervision and student satisfaction. Faff (2015, 2016) highlights that research is increasingly difficult for students to start. If this is the case, then effective supervision may be critical to success for the student engaging in higher degree research. For the supervisor, increased understanding of the difficulties students face may lead to a more effective PhD experience for all concerned, which can also lead to a higher quality cohort for the university sector due to improved student experience and completion rates. Importantly, an increasing trend regarding the entrance to faculty academic positions is the requirement of a PhD qualification 1. Under this scenario, it becomes vital to analyse issues associated with PhD experiences and supervision; in particular, to explore the skills developed by PhD students, who will become tomorrow s faculty. 1 Beattie and Smith (2012b) raises similar concerns in the context of the United Kingdom for entry-level academics. 2
Given the aforementioned increased expectations of the university sector, our study is motivated by the need to understand how students regard their course experience, quality and effectiveness of supervision, as well as their career objectives because the findings from this study will have implications for the design of university research supervision process. Having had a recent PhD student experience, we consider it valuable to provide evidence of how students enrolled in a doctoral degree in Accounting and Finance assess their supervisory experience. Effective supervision is vital throughout the PhD to ensure successful and timely completion of the degree. We are particularly interested in knowing whether supervisors expected perceptions of the supervision process match student perceptions. This arises from the assertion that research degree supervision is a bilateral process that involves a complex interaction between the supervisor and the student (Hon Kam, 1997). In particular, this interaction might play a significant role in affecting the quality of the research supervision process. The relationship between students and supervisors is a dynamic one and is a key element in the success of a PhD student. The appropriate management of this relationship is required in order to reduce any communication barriers and sustain the relationship for mutual benefit (Phillips and Pugh, 2005). Finally, our research aims to provide useful information for current and potential PhD students including skill development, support and supervision process. It further provides information for supervisors to enlighten their understanding of the supervisory process from the student perspective which may lead to potential changes in supervisory communication and style to better assist students for timely completion. The contribution of our study are as follows. Firstly, we contribute to the limited research on PhD supervision satisfaction, providing evidence from both student perception and supervisor expectation. This approach will enable us the ability to match and mismatch the views of both 3
parties enabling a better understanding of different perspectives. We aim to further explore these differences with the potential to increase the understanding as to why those differences arise. We elaborate on the roles of the supervisors and also employ a more productive approach focused on what supervisors are doing in practice. Secondly, this research is framed with an internal perspective of the PhD process, as it is the first study of PhD students conducted by PhD students, who have an insightful perspective on the research supervision process. Thirdly, there is also limited research which has looked at both the supervisor s perspective and the student s perspective on the supervision process. Fourthly, there are no discipline specific studies which have looked at satisfaction in the supervisory process in accounting and finance students in Australia and New Zealand universities. Fifthly, it will lead to increased understanding for university research departments regarding the research process. Lastly, there has been a recent call by Linnenluecke et al. (2016) about the emerging trends in research in Asia Pacific and one of these novel streams is research processes. Our research fits into this area as we highlight the importance of understanding and improving the quality of the research supervision process, which is important given research s increasing importance both as a requirement for new academics to enter the discipline and for the increasing numbers of international students who choose to study in Australia. Our study has relevant implications. First, we aim to increase the understanding of PhD supervision process, which may enable the improvement of PhD program and improve the quality of doctoral studies. Second, we will inform education providers on what skills PhD students acquire and develop during their program and where gaps may exist which can improve the quality of the PhD program. Third, the findings of our study will inform those who have an interest in a viable academic accounting or finance profession to increase the understanding of the opportunities and pitfalls of the PhD process to enable informed choices. 4
Finally, as the number of international PhD students in Australia and New Zealand continues to increase, our research will provide useful insights for prospective doctoral candidates regarding student satisfaction and quality of supervision in these universities. This paper is organised as follows. Section 2 provides a summary of the relevant academic literature that helps to develop our research questions. Section 3 presents the methodology employed for the first stage of the study. Section 4 discusses the results of our research. Section 5 concludes the study, while Section 6 describes its limitations. 2. Literature review and development of research questions We provide a summary of the relevant literature regarding research supervision of doctoral students. In particular, we look at the different roles of PhD supervisors and other factors that shape the student-supervisor relationship. In the following sections, we analyse factors of the research supervision such as, academic support, pastoral care, supervisor training, and student satisfaction. Understanding these different aspects can help us to elucidate on the experience and satisfaction of accounting and finance doctoral candidates. 2.1 Academic support One of the primary dimensions of the PhD supervisory role is the involvement of supervisors in the provision of intellectual expertise to students. This academic expertise can be portrayed into two components: guidance and criticism, which generate a particular tension (Hockey, 1994). This tension is centred on decisions made by supervisors regarding the intellectual knowledge they provide for students. Most of the supervisors intellectual expertise is provided on the nature of the research and the standard expected, the formulation of the research question, the planning of the research project and the searching of the literature. As 5
Delamont, Atkinson, and Parry (1997) suggest, both the guidance and criticism need to be managed in order to encourage students to develop self-confidence to embark and maintain independent work. In addition, these academic components are in practice very difficult to separate because as Kleinman (1983) describes, criticism constitutes a particular kind of guidance. Under this scenario, the interaction between supervisor and research student can be regarded as an example tutorship. Rapoport, Yair, and Kahane (1989) note that three patterns of tutoring can be distinguished in the research supervision process. First, informal tutoring in which arrangements are made in a voluntary nature and it is predicated on trust. Second, comradeship tutoring in which personal trust flourishes. Third, professional tutoring in which the social relation is based on the supervision contract. The less confidence the supervisor has in the student s capacity, the greater the potential for the relationship to move in the direction of the 'professional' tutoring (Hockey, 1996). This discussion on tutoring may seem to indicate an implicit assumption of a dyadic relationship between the research supervisor and the student, where the supervisor contributes its academic expertise. Nonetheless, this intellectual process generally occurs against a background of different demands from students, supervisors and universities, which can potentially increase the complexity of the student-supervisor relationship. For example, as well as the pressure for timely completion, supervisors often have many candidates to supervise, they have limited allocated time for research supervision, and they are also expected to facilitate a broad research education (Pearson and Brew, 2002). Research supervision becomes a matter of providing a high-quality research learning environment for the student. PhD students depend on range of people to provide various forms of assistance in 6
learning the required expertise of the doctoral graduate. Access to resources, including the academic expertise, are essential to conduct high-quality research (Pearson, 1999). Consistent with this, Harman (2002), in a study of Australian PhD graduates, explains that there are issues regarding quality and effectiveness of supervision, particularly in relation to increasing workloads for academics, largely as a result from substantial reduction in government funding to universities. This is a concern given that unsatisfactory allocation of time for research supervision is more likely to have adverse effects on the quality and effectiveness of thesis supervision. The authors conclude that the surprisingly low PhD student satisfaction, is strongly linked to discontent on supervision, which is more related to the time supervisors give to students rather than to the supervisor s competence or skills. This supervision experience might differ based on gender. For example, in a study of 250 Australian graduates, Collins (1994) report that women have less positive supervision experiences than men. Similarly, Asmar (1999) in a follow-up study of a group of Australian PhD graduates, found that the departmental environment during the PhD candidature was overall more satisfying for men than women. These issues are of considerable importance in view of the increased proportion of female PhD students, while at the same time a majority of supervisors are still male (Harman, 2003b). Further, we argue that the most powerful influence on student satisfaction with the supervision is the academic support, which includes factors such as providing constructive feedback, available help from supervisor, direct assessment of PhD progress, and guidance in specific research practices or techniques based on the authors recent experiences. Nevertheless, personal or emotional support also directly influences the quality of the PhD experience. Zhao et al. (2007) finds personal touch as the second most powerful influence 7
after academic advising on doctoral students satisfaction. This indicator also serves as a measure of student satisfaction on supervision, and it is discussed in more detail in the next section. 2.2 Pastoral care The advisory role of supervisors is well documented in the existing literature on research supervision. The relationship between the student and supervisors develops over time and is often intellectually demanding and emotional (Thompson et al., 2005). In addition to constructive and critical appraisal and encouraging independent thinking, a good supervisor provides encouragement, advice, support and pastoral care (Gill and Burnard, 2008; Sheehan, 1993). Gill and Burnard (2008) also highlight that the supervisory role is broad and involves an advisory role, a quality control role, supporting role and a guiding role. Similarly, Pearson and Brew (2002) argue that the mentoring role of supervisors involves providing support of the emotional dimension of their students. Despite the importance of pastoral care for PhD students, it is not always available. For example, Beattie and Smith (2012a) report that some students sought additional emotional support from their supervisors which was not available. Therefore when the student-supervisor relationship is both a professional and personal; and personal touch is one of the most important variables influencing student satisfaction (Zhao, Golde, and McCormick, 2007), this study includes pastoral care to measure the level of student satisfaction with their supervision. It is documented in the literature that peer support from students complements the formal supervision process (McCallin and Nayar, 2012) and collective learning offers social and emotional support (Parker, 2009). Further, people who do not have formal supervisory responsibilities often play a coaching role for PhD students, which includes postdoctoral 8
researchers, other students and technicians (Pearson, 1996). The reliance on other students for emotional dimension may increase if there is a perceived lack of emotional support from supervisors, as students may turn to their peers to support through an informal peer support environment. This informal peer support may be particularly important when examining issues around pastoral care. 2.3 Supervisor training Elaborating on the role of the PhD supervisor is useful in assessing the supervision quality. The researcher role of the supervisor has been overemphasised, which undermines the importance of the teaching role of the supervisor towards research students (Pearson and Brew, 2002). This student-supervisor relationship is a complex teaching task, involving issues around curriculum, method, teacher/student interaction and educational environment (Connell, 1985). Zhao et al. (2007) report that supervisors reputation as a good teacher is ranked above their reputation as a good researcher when students choose their supervisors. If it is agreed that supervisors have a teaching role, they are responsible for educating, motivating and leading their students. Therefore supervisors must expand their skills as educators and leaders (Pearson and Brew, 2002), which can be achieved, at least in part, with research training. Consistent with this, Emilsson and Johnsson (2007) highlights the importance of training programs for higher education research supervisors. They suggest that formal training programs, over a period of time, save the supervisor from learning by trial and error, which may improve the quality of research supervision. McCallin and Nayar (2012) also suggest that supervisors need formal supervision training that addresses changes to policy, university requirements, supervision pedagogy, all of which affect the quality of research supervision. 9
This is partially acknowledged by the higher education sector, as increasing number of universities are offering formal training to research supervisors. 2.4 Student satisfaction Research studies have looked at student satisfaction and perceptions of outcomes of international students in Australia (Cannon, 2000; Gatfield, 1998). However, there is scarce research about the experience of international postgraduate research students. Evaluating the experience of international PhD students at Australian Universities is relevant given the increased proportion of their enrolments and since, they are enrolled on a full-fee tuition basis, they generate considerable income for their institutions (Harman, 2003a). Overall, Harman (2003b) finds international PhD students in Australia are satisfied with their course experience but there are concerns over the quality of supervision, the availability of adequate working space, and the adaption process to less deferential working arrangements with supervisors as well as less structure in research direction. In a similar vein, as argued by Willcoxson (1994), continuous efforts in supervisor training and enhancing the cultural sensitivities of supervisors are essential. In some cases, students appear to need more help with research project design. We will explore this in the second stage of the research project. In line with this, the supervisor-research student relationship is an important factor in the supervision experience. Cullen et al. (1994), in a report for the Australian Department of Employment, Education and Training, proposes to consider the student-supervisor relationship regarding its one-on-one nature. Although the deconstruction of the one-on-one nature is problematic, it provides an opportunity to re-look at the relationship in a much broader context. In this sense, it is important to consider other factors that contribute to the PhD experience such as, the support and assistance available from the institution, colleagues, 10
other students, and the opportunity to attend seminars and conferences. Consistent with this research, we intend to explore the student-supervisor relationship from a broader perspective in order to better understand the supervision experience of doctoral students. Our study poses critical questions on whether the students are part of study-group; seek help from academics other than their supervisors; have presented their work at a conference; or have attended PhD development workshops. The relationship between doctoral students and their supervisors has also been examined in other studies outside Australia. For instance, Barnes, Williams, and Stassen (2012), investigate advising experiences of 870 US doctoral students at a large research University focusing on possible differences in supervision experiences across four disciplines. They find that factors, which influence advisor selection, do differ across disciplinary clusters; however, their overall supervision satisfaction was similar across all disciplines. Importantly, although the relationship between student and supervisor is a crucial aspect of the doctoral training, it appears that the student-supervisor relationship falls more into the category of mentoring or an apprenticeship. Similarly, the Zhao et al. (2007) paper explores factors affecting students satisfaction with the advising relationship. By conducting a survey in 27 US universities, they find that the criteria PhD students used in selecting a supervisor and the corresponding behaviour of supervisors influenced the overall satisfaction of the PhD process. The authors suggest that students could be informed of which factors are important to consider when selecting a supervisor and supervisors could be informed of the factors which improve the doctoral experience for students. However, the factors that influences the supervisors in choosing their students were not examined in this paper. Our study extends this body of literature by 11
analysing criteria used by supervisors for selecting PhD students. The process by which PhD students and supervisors come together is also an essential step to understand and explore satisfaction with research supervision. Very few of these studies examines the level of satisfaction among accounting and finance PhD students in the supervision process. There exists concern to investigate the important issues regarding discipline-specific PhD supervisory process to counter the dearth of studies examining this issue. We argue that differences in supervisory practices produce different outcomes in completion rates and candidate satisfaction. In line with Kam (1997), we see the quality of research supervision as a subjective construct, given that this is based on the perceived satisfaction of the student with the supervisory process and practice. Behind this view, is the rationale from the premise that research supervision is a highly personalized process (Bennet and Knibs, 1986). Consistent with the aim of this research to provide evidence on research supervision satisfaction from both students and supervisors perspectives, we formulate the following research questions: RQ1a: To what extent do PhD students perceive that they are satisfied with their supervision process? RQ1b: What do supervisors perceive as their responsibilities in their role as supervisors of PhD students? 2.4 Skills development PhD course experience is not only of major importance in assessing the quality of the supervision process, but also in producing graduates with appropriate skills looking forward 12
to a research career (Harman, 2003b). Importantly, the doctoral programme is also meant to provide high quality research training environments for the students, where they can develop graduate research skills. In the past decade, there has been a marked push for the development of employability skills to be part of the PhD process (Mowbray and Halse, 2010). For example, a dominant government discourse regarding the PhD programme in Australia is the timely production of a particular, marketable product the skilled PhD graduate who can contribute to the economic growth of the nation (Usher, 2002). The research issue that we address in this article is the ability of a PhD degree to produce accounting academics who have the relevant skills to develop a future successful research career. Willison and O Regan (2007) propose a Research Skills Development (RSD) framework, which explicates six facets of research. Each of these facets are elaborated into five levels of student autonomy, where Level 1 indicates a low degree of student autonomy, with highly prescribed and guided tasks, and Level 5 indicates a high degree of student autonomy, with student-initiated research tasks. The RSD framework facilitates the assessment of students skills development within the research progress, whereby students embark on inquiry, find information/generate data, evaluate information/data and the research process, organize information/data and manage the research process, analyse, synthesise and apply new understandings, and communicate knowledge with an awareness of ethical, social and cultural issues. Academic literature on doctoral accounting students skills is relatively scarce, has not been recently updated, and mainly refers to US samples. For example, the Beard and Elfrink (1990) research looked at the profile of doctoral accounting graduates in 1985 and 1986, in 13
US universities, by summarising their academic skills and background. Since the study examined PhD students graduated in late 1980s, there is a need to provide fresh evidence on the skills development of accounting and finance doctoral students. In particular, we argue that students usually have different perspectives about the research skills developed during the doctoral studies. We are interested in knowing how these students perspectives differ from the supervisors expectations. This leads to the formulation of research question 2: RQ2a: What skills does a PhD student perceive that he/she has developed as part of his/her degree programme? RQ2b: What is the difference between student perceptions and supervisor expectations in terms of the skills that are developed by a PhD student? 3. Methodology Data for this study is collected from universities in Australia and New Zealand by distributing an online questionnaire to both doctoral students and supervisors in Accounting and Finance departments. We conduct the study for all universities to provide a more comprehensive picture of PhD experiences in accounting and finance. In addition, as reported by Heaney et al. (2013), the increase on PhD completions is evenly dispersed across sandstone and nonsandstone universities, after the changes initiated in 1988 in higher education in Australia. We focus on current PhD students as opposed to PhD graduates because our aim is to understand the research supervision process and include all doctoral candidates even those who may not complete their doctoral studies. We employ a modified version of the survey questions developed by Beattie and Smith (2012b), in which they investigate the degree of satisfaction with current PhD supervisory processes in the UK. Overall satisfaction with PhD experience is measured using factors such 14
as availability of supervisors, assistance from supervisor, guidance on literature review, topic selection and data analysis. Using these measures, students are found to be overall satisfied. Zhao et al. (2007) also included factors such as constructive feedback on research, assessment on progress, availability of supervisors, guidance on research practice and information on relevant research in the questionnaire to measure doctoral student satisfaction. Consistent with these earlier studies, we include questions on these factors to measure student satisfaction. For the skills development questionnaire, we frame our questions based on the attributes of research graduates, in accordance with the Australian Qualifications Framework (Australian Qualification Framework Council, 2013). The skills of graduates of a doctoral degree include: cognitive skills that demonstrate intellectual independence and critical thinking; creative skills applicable to the field of work; communication skills and analytical skills. In addition, we follow the framework for students becoming researchers of (Willison and O Regan, 2007). This is a conceptual framework for the explicit, coherent, incremental and cyclical development of the skills associated with researching, where students perceive their progression through the different research facets (curious, determined, discerning, harmonising, creative, and constructive), across the various levels of student autonomy. The details of the complete questionnaire are provided in the Appendix 1. The student survey comprised 36 questions, while the supervisor survey had a total of 14 questions, which include a mix of open ended and Likert scale questions. The Likert point scale ranges from 1 to 7, with 1 being strongly disagree and 7 being strongly agree. A pilot version of the survey instrument was sent to a small group of PhD students and supervisors. These individuals were asked to comment on the clarity and appropriateness of questions and the length of the survey. With the assistance of the Accounting and Finance Association of Australia and New Zealand (AFAANZ), these online questionnaires were sent 15
to Head of Departments/Schools of Accounting and Finance disciplines of all universities in Australia and New Zealand in November 2014. They were asked to distribute the email, which included the student (supervisor) survey link, to their current student cohort (RHD supervisors). Questionnaire responses were anonymous with the aim of eliciting frank and open responses. In the following months, we received 30 responses from PhD students and 19 from supervisors. The number of responses is believed to be restricted by gatekeepers and also by the unwillingness to participate, from students and supervisors. To increase the response rate, a second reminder was sent to the Head of the Departments/Schools in February 2015. Following this, we received 33 and 25 more responses from students and supervisors, respectively. The last survey response was received in September 2015. Overall, the survey was opened for an 11 month period, from November 2014 to September 2015. The total sample included 63 student survey responses and 44 supervisor survey responses. Due to incomplete responses, our final sample comprises 53 PhD students and 38 RHD supervisors. A total of 19 universities participated in our survey research, from which two are from New Zealand and 17 are from Australia. Table 1 reports on the Australian universities that undertook the survey, by State. Given that the survey was sent directly to the Head of Departments and then they had to forward it to their PhD student and academics, we cannot know for certain the number of students/supervisors who actually received the email with the survey link. This limits the calculation of the response rate of the present study. However, we are able to provide an estimate, based on the total number of students enrolled in a doctoral degree by research, which is 4041 students, as reported by Higher Education statistics website (Department of Education and Training, 2014). Although this information is 16
presented in an aggregated form, for all Management and Commerce students, we estimate that 13.81% of them belong to Accounting and Finance 2. The size of our population is approximately 558 students; hence, our student response rate is 8.42%. Table 1. Australian universities participating in the survey research State Number of universities Victoria 5 New South Wales 5 Queensland 5 South Australia 1 Western Australia 1 It should be noted that the survey research is the first stage of our research project to gain an understanding about supervision experience and skills development of accounting and finance research students. The second stage of our project involves conducting interviews to both groups in order to further explore the quality and effectiveness of PhD supervision, as well as, the graduate skills acquired and developed during the doctoral programme. We also hope to obtain a greater sample representativeness of current PhD students and supervisors for the study. 4. Results and discussion 4.1. Descriptive statistics Table 2 provides summary information on the student survey population by gender. It is noted that 56.5% of respondents were male. The highest age group of male students is 41-50 2 The estimated percentage of 13.81% is obtained from the University Survey Experience National Report (2014), corresponding to Accounting and Banking & Finance undergraduate students. 17
years, while for female students it is 31-40 years. Regarding disciplines, the majority of our PhD student sample is pursuing a doctoral degree in Accounting. Interestingly, the percentage of male students enrolled in a Finance doctoral programme (26.9%) is higher than the one for female students (5.0%). The vast majority of PhD students are enrolled as full-time students in the early years of the doctoral programme, with the highest percentage being second year PhD students. The majority of our sample respondents (89.36%) are enrolled in Universities outside the Group of Eight (Go8). There are not many students enrolled in a Year 5 or above of the doctoral programme, which could be attributed to the greater pressure on research students to complete their degrees in minimum time, due to university performance indicators and funding restrictions (Harman, 2003). Regarding educational background, PhD students hold in higher proportion a master s degree prior to commencing PhD, and around 72% of current students are financed by university scholarships. For the employment status, students are predominantly working in academia, although there is approximately 20% of respondents who are not working while doing a PhD. Those who are working report an average of 1-8 hours per week. Their financials show a gross income with a higher percentage in the range below AUD$30,000. Students were also asked about their career plans, and the vast majority of them intend to pursue an academic career (72%) after finishing their doctoral studies. Approximately, one third of students intend to work in academia in their home countries, probably due to funding obligations. Finally, other demographics, although not reported on the table, show that the majority of male and female students are married or in a de facto relationship, and there is also a majority in our student sample who have children. 18
Table 2. Social and educational backgrounds, enrolment, employment and financial support (%) 1 Male Female Total N = 26 N = 20 N = 46 26 20 46 Gender 56.5 43.5 100 Age Under 25 yrs 3.8 15.0 8.7 26-30yrs 23.1 15.0 19.6 31-40yrs 30.8 35.0 32.6 41-50yrs 34.6 20.0 28.2 51 yrs and over 7.7 15.0 10.9 Discipline Accounting 61.5 95.0 78.4 Finance 26.9 5.0 15.7 Multidisciplinary 11.5 0.0 5.9 Enrolment year of PhD Year 1 19.2 20.0 20.4 Year 2 46.2 30.0 44.9 Year 3 11.5 25.0 16.3 Year 4 15.4 15.0 14.3 Year 5 3.8 5.0 4.1 Enrolment status Full-time 69.2 70.0 70.6 Part-time 30.8 30.0 29.4 Educational background/language Honours 26.9 25.0 26.1 Masters (research component) 53.8 60.0 56.5 Masters (by coursework) 19.2 15.0 17.4 English - First language 34.6 45.0 39.1 PhD research scholarship Yes 76.9 50.0 71.7 No 23.1 26.9 28.3 Employment status In academia 57.7 42.3 56.5 Outside academia 15.4 3.8 10.9 Both 7.7 11.5 10.9 Not working 19.2 19.2 21.7 Gross income for last financial year Below AUD 30,000 34.6 26.9 34.8 30,001-50,000 3.8 3.8 4.3 50,001-80,000 3.8 15.4 10.9 Over 80,001 34.6 7.7 23.9 Blank responses 23.1 23.1 26.1 1. Percentages may not total 100% because blank responses are not shown. Our survey data also reveals that the PhD model by major thesis only is the main model employed by Australian and New Zealand universities for accounting and finance doctoral 19
degrees. Moreover, participants were also asked about the progress attained during their PhD candidature and the findings reveal that the majority have completed their research proposal, literature review, theory and hypotheses, and research methods sections of their thesis. This could be explained by the majority of our sample being first or second year PhD students. Table 3 provides demographic data for the supervisor sample. The majority of the respondents are currently serving in academia in a Professor position. Interestingly, both Professors and Associate Professors have on average 26 years in academia, while Senior Lecturers and Lecturers have 12 and 7 years, respectively. The participants supervisors in this study reported a total of 199 completed supervisions in accounting and finance. From this, 83% were supervised by Professors and 13% by Associate Professors. Table 3. Supervisor demographic information Professor Associate Senior Professor Lecturer Lecturer N = 17 N = 9 N = 7 N = 5 Average number of years in academia 26.5 26.3 11.9 7.1 Number of students supervised to completion 165 25 8 1 PhD student supervision role Principal supervisor 66% 21% 11% 2% Co-supervisor 32% 41% 15% 12% Associate supervisor 43% 36% 0% 21% Formal training in supervision 53% 35% 24% 18% These results might be driven by the greater percentage of senior academics (Professor and Associate Professor) in our sample (69%), compared to Senior Lecturers (18%) and Lecturers (13%). It could also be influenced by the number of years supervisors are in academia. Regarding the supervision role. The majority of Professors serve on a principal supervisor 20
role, while the majority of Associate Professors serve on a co-supervisor role. Academics on a Lecturer role are predominantly on an associate supervision role although there is a minority (2%) that act as principal supervisors. We asked supervisors what are the criterion for selecting PhD candidates. The top three factors taken into account for accepting research student supervision are: subject area, academic background and motivation expressed. These were followed by English language skills of the PhD candidate as well as their academic and professional qualifications. We enquire whether supervisors have completed formal training in supervision. Surprisingly, only 58% of the total survey respondents have completed supervisory training. A reason for this may be that some universities do not have this as a requirement for undertaking supervision of research students. For those with formal training, we further asked more details about the course, including completion date. The majority of respondents indicated that the supervision training was a requirement of the institution before supervising PhD students, with additional courses or workshops on various aspects of supervision undertaken at least every two years. Regarding completion date of the supervision training, responses range from 1999 to 2014. Both PhD students and supervisors were also asked about the factors that influence the decision to study for a PhD degree. Table 4 reports the accumulated percentage for agree/disagree choices, average score, standard deviation and t-test, for nine factors influencing the decision to study for a PhD. The top three factors for PhD students are: the ability to pursue a career in academic research; personal growth and development; and professional recognition. Although supervisors also agree that a decisive factor for undertaking a PhD study is to pursue a career in academic research, they indicated that the 21
encouragement from academics to continue into research and the requirement of an academic contract are relevant motivating factors for enrolling in a doctoral programme. Table 4. Factors influencing the decision to study for a PhD Students 1 Supervisors Factors for pursuing PhD Agree 2 Average Average Disagree Score 3 Std.Dev. N Agree Disagree Std.Dev. N (t-test) Score Personal growth and development 91% 2% 6.02 1.20 45 71% 17% 4.97 1.25 35 (-3.82)*** Ability to pursue career in academic research 89% 7% 6.11 1.30 46 94% 3% 6.40 0.95 35 (1.12) Professional recognition 85% 4% 5.80 1.28 46 60% 26% 4.49 1.60 35 (-4.13)*** Ability to pursue a career in teaching 76% 13% 5.52 1.70 46 69% 17% 5.06 1.61 35 (-1.25) Increase earnings potential 63% 24% 4.83 1.86 46 66% 23% 4.66 1.64 35 (-0.64) Encouragement from academics to continue into research Success in undergraduate or postgraduate study Limited employment opportunities prior to commencing PhD 72% 6% 5.38 1.38 47 91% 3% 5.51 0.85 35 (0.30) 70% 13% 5.28 1.55 47 89% 9% 5.43 1.12 35 (0.26) 34% 47% 3.53 2.10 47 49% 34% 4.26 1.60 35 (1.70) Requirement of an academic contract 45% 45% 3.89 2.45 47 80% 11% 5.46 1.52 35 (3.32)*** 1. Percentages may not total 100% as the neutral category is not shown. 2. Response categories, Agree = strongly agree, mostly agree, somewhat agree; Disagree = strongly disagree, mostly disagree, somewhat disagree. 3. Average score is based on a 7 Likert scale points. This table provides nonparametric test statistics t-test for the differences in mean values between the two groups (students, supervisors). Statistical significance level at *10%, **5%, ***1%. We compare the average scores of each factor within the two sample groups and we find that personal growth and development, and professional recognition, are highly ranked by PhD students in comparison to supervisors. What this potentially indicates is that students are motivated to study for a PhD degree in order to develop themselves as researchers given the powerful aspirational value of gaining a doctorate. Research studies have analysed similar motivational factors that could lead an individual to start a doctoral study. For example, Gill and Hope (2009) argue that professional development, entry into academia, professional advancement, entry to a new career and personal fulfilment, are five key motivational profiles of business doctorates. An interesting finding is that on average 55% of PhD students (3.89 average score on a 7 Likert scale point) agree that the requirement of an academic contract 22
was a factor influencing on their choice of pursuing a doctoral study. This however is not the case for supervisors responses, where 78% (5.46 average score on a 7 Likert scale point) agree that an academic contract condition of holding a doctoral degree influences the decision to study for a PhD. Table 5 shows the results of the factor analysis which extracts 83% of the variance in reducing nine variables related to why a student undertakes a PhD in accounting/finance to three factors. Factor 1 is the most significant of the three, and it represents 38% of the variance. It loads on four variables: ability to pursue an academic career (research), ability to pursue an academic career (teaching), professional recognition, and increased earnings potential. The reasons characterised in these variables generally denote career prospects for research students as a result of studying for a PhD. For this reason, Factor 1 is labelled career prospects. Factor 2, which explains about 27% of the variance, represent three variables, encouragement from academics, limited employment opportunities and requirements of an academic contract. Jointly, these variables seem to centre on future employment issues, which are relevant for a novice researcher when starting an academic career. As such, the dimension described by these three variables is referred to as employment opportunities. The last factor, explaining 18% of the variance, is made up of two variables: personal growth and development, and success in undergraduate/postgraduate studies. The common theme seems to centre on the attributes of the research students and the possibility to further develop their skills. In this context, this third factor is referred to as success and growth. 23
Table 5. Dimensions related to the decision of pursuing a PhD (Figures indicate rotated factor matrix) Factor Factor Factors for pursuing PhD 1 2 Ability to pursue career in academic research 0.97 Professional recognition 0.85 Ability to pursue a career in teaching 0.96 Increase earnings potential 0.82 Encouragement from academics to continue into research 0.76 Limited employment opportunities prior to 0.86 Factor 3 commencing PhD Requirement of an academic contract 0.91 Personal growth and development 0.76 Success in undergraduate or postgraduate study 0.74 Eigen value 3.4 2.4 1.6 Percent of variance explained 38.1 27.1 17.7 Cumulative percent 38.1 65.2 82.9 Note: Factor loadings less than 0.45 have been omitted for clarity 4.2. Research question 1 The survey research collected considerable data regarding PhD course experience that help us assess student satisfaction with their thesis supervision. Firstly, students were asked about what factors influenced their decision to study at their current university. More than one third of students agree that supervisor reputation was a relevant factor on the university choice. Respondents also indicated that university ranking/reputation and other factors such as, previous Honours degree or current work in the same university as well as proximity to home and scholarship offer influenced them to enrol in their universities. Secondly, students were asked about interaction with their supervisors. Phillips and Pugh (2005) suggest, supervisors usually expect to have formal meetings with their research students every four to six weeks. In our sample, about 39% reported meeting their supervisor 24
at least every two weeks, 22% at least once a week, 15% every month and 11% every two months. The remaining 13% indicated that they meet their supervisors as often as needed, suggesting that supervisory meetings are available when needed. We argue that supervisors time availability could contribute to higher levels of student satisfaction. Thus, these data provide a satisfactory picture that the sample universities in our study are taking supervision seriously despite constraining factors such as declining financial and staff resources. Not surprisingly, full-time students meet more frequently with supervisors than part-time students. 25.0% of full-time students reported that they meet with their supervisors at least every week, and 36.1% at least every two weeks. On the other hand, 8.3% of full-time students reported that they met their supervisors infrequently (more than 4 weeks). Of parttime students, 6.7% and 33.3% report that they meet their supervisor every week and every two weeks, respectively, and nearly 26.6% of students meet either every month or two. Female students (25.0%) are more likely than male students (19.2%) to meet their supervisors at least weekly. Thirdly, information was also collected on the satisfaction of respondents with regard to their course experience, particularly the supervision process. The feeling of not being well supervised can be derived from the fact that students define supervision/supervision responsibilities quite differently from how supervisors do (Phillips and Pugh, 2005). Table 6 summarises data on the percentage of respondents who rated various aspects of their PhD course. Ratings were given based on a seven Likert point scale. We report their experience as Agree if students somewhat agree, mostly agree and strongly agree with the given factors, or Disagree, when students somewhat disagree, mostly disagree and strongly disagree with those factors. The table also reports average satisfaction scores, standard deviation, and t-test for the differences in mean values between the two groups, PhD students and supervisors. 25
Table 6. Satisfaction with different aspects of PhD course Students 1 Supervisors Supervision Experience Agree 2 Disagree Average Score 3 Std.Dev. N Agree Disagree Average Score Std.Dev. N (t-test) Supervision is available when you need it 88% 10% 6.00 1.51 49 86% 11% 5.83 1.50 36 (-0.50) Your supervisor/s make a real effort to understand difficulties you face Your supervisor/s provide additional information relevant to your topic You are given good guidance in topic selection and refinement Your supervisor/s provide helpful feedback on your progress 88% 8% 5.96 1.49 49 92% 8% 5.81 1.51 36 (-0.55) 82% 10% 5.80 1.59 49 94% 6% 5.75 1.32 36 (-0.14) 82% 10% 5.61 1.62 49 92% 6% 6.19 1.50 36 (1.52) 82% 12% 5.80 1.35 49 94% 6% 6.39 1.08 36 (2.73)*** You receive good guidance in your literature search 80% 16% 5.37 1.66 49 92% 8% 5.75 1.41 36 (0.32) You are given good guidance on data analysis or statistics Your supervisor set clear expectations from the beginning regarding PhD progress You are given pastoral care (emotional support) during your PhD 71% 10% 5.31 1.56 48 94% 6% 5.97 1.25 36 (2.08)** 87% 9% 5.77 1.58 47 94% 6% 6.23 1.37 35 (1.38) 65% 16% 5.12 1.87 49 81% 14% 5.42 1.61 36 (0.81) Cultural differences between you and your supervisor 13% 67% 5.48 1.80 46 9% 88% 5.33 1.24 33 (0.57) have negatively affected the supervision process 1. Percentages may not total 100% as the neutral category is not shown. 2. Response categories, Agree = strongly agree, mostly agree, somewhat agree; Disagree = strongly disagree, mostly disagree, somewhat disagree. 3. Average score is based on a 7 Likert scale points. This table provides nonparametric test statistics t-test for the differences in mean values between the two groups (students, supervisors). Statistical significance level at *10%, **5%, ***1%. Students were asked about their experience with the supervision process, while supervisors were asked about their responsibilities during the supervision process. Students mostly indicated that supervision is available when need it and they also perceive that supervisors make a real effort to understand the difficulties they face. Having this supervisor guidance during the doctoral programme might contribute to students achieving their goals. This will be further explored in the second stage of this project, when interviews will be conducted to assess the quality and effectiveness of PhD supervision. Next in line in order of ranking is the agreed student perception that the supervisor provides additional information relevant to the topic and helpful feedback on the student s progress. This is also confirmed by the supervisor s view of their responsibilities as they agree that providing helpful feedback on students progress is a primary responsibility. Nonetheless, there is a significant difference 26
between students perceptions and supervisors expectations on providing helpful feedback on research progress. In fact, 82.85% of students (5.80 average score on a 7 Likert scale) agree that they were given feedback on their progress, compared to 91.29% (6.39 average score on a 7 Likert scale) from supervisors. Thus, it appears that students expect their supervisors to provide more constructive and critical feedback. In particular, it is important that there is knowledge on all sides of how the research work is progressing. As suggested by Phillips and Pugh (2005), if students do not receive helpful feedback, there is a high probability that they will become discouraged and lose confidence. Additionally, PhD supervisors agree that providing information relevant to the student s research topic and refinement, and guiding students on data analysis/statistics are other relevant tasks in their duty as supervisors of a doctoral student. However, the latter contrasts with the students views, as there is a significant lower average score reported for the student sample (5.31) in contrast to the supervisor sample (5.97), regarding the guidance received on data analysis or statistics. This seems to be a concern for accounting and finance PhD students who indicate they require more guidance from their supervisors to conduct the statistical and data analysis for their studies. While supervisors have indicated support on data analysis as part of their responsibilities of being supervisors (which show to be inadequate), an alternative is to offer university research training to students. For example, McCallin and Nayar s (2012) study, proposes that data analysis techniques courses should be offered to research students. We will gain further insights regarding the supervision process in the interview stage. Finally, from a supervisor s perspective, it is also reported that setting expectations from the beginning is relevant to the success of the student-supervisor relationship. An appropriate supervision strategy is more likely based on an understanding of the role expectations of both students and supervisors, and the needs arising from those traits 27