Supervision and the PhD Process: Perspectives of Research Assistants

Abstract

-

Keywords

• -

Supervision and the PhD Process: Perspectives of Research Assistants

Abstract

The aim of this phenomenological study was to examine the supervisor-supervisee relationship in the PhD process based on Turkish PhD students‘ views. Eight PhD students who work as research assistants in educational sciences participated in the study. The data were gathered through semi-structured interviews with the participants, and analyzed by means of Interpretive Phenomenological Analysis. As a result of the analyses, three main themes, “My PhD”, “My Supervisor” and “My Expectations”, were revealed. The findings showed that the participants perceived doing a PhD as a means for actualizing themselves and their dreams. The PhD students described their supervisors as guiding, supportive and instructive. They spoke of the personal and professional characteristics that their supervisors should have and how these characteristics affect them. They expected the PhD education to be student-centered and more practice-based. They argued that their relationship with supervisors should have a balance, and it should not go beyond the professional dimension. Moreover, they underlined the necessity that their supervisors‘ intervention to the process should be limited to guidance

Keywords

• Supervision, PhD Education, Phenomenology, Metaphor

References

1. Akbulut İpek, H., Şahin, Ç., & Çepni, S. (2013). Doktora tez sürecinde karşılaşılan problemlerin belirlenmesi: Eğitim fakültesi örneği. Dicle Üniversitesi Ziya Gökalp Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 20, 50-69.
2. Alam, F., Alam, Q., & Rasul, M. G. (2013). A pilot study on postgraduate supervision. Procedia Engineering, 56, 875-881. doi:10.1016/j.proeng.2013.03.210
3. Arabacı, B. İ., & Akıllı, C. (2013). Lisansüstü öğretimde öğrenci sorunları. In Proceedings of VI. National Symposium on Graduate Education (pp. 124-133). Sakarya University Graduate School of Educational Sciences.
4. Bakioğlu, A., & Gürdal, A. (2001). Lisansüstü tezlerde danışman ve öğrencilerin rol algıları: Yönetim için göstergeler. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi 21, 9-18.
5. Bakioğlu, A., & Yaman, E. (2004). Araştırma görevlilerinin kariyer gelişimleri: Engeller ve çözümler. Marmara Üniversitesi Atatürk Eğitim Fakültesi Eğitim Bilimleri Dergisi, 20, 1-20.
6. Beer, M., & Mason, R. (2009). Using a blended approach to facilitate postgraduate supervision. Innovations doi:10.1080/14703290902843984 and Teaching International, 46(2), 213-226.
7. Bibi-Nawaz, S., Stronach, I., Grant, D., & Frankham, J. (2015). A reflexive autoethnography of doctoral supervision. International Review of Qualitative Research, 8(4), 419-441.
8. Biggerstaff, D., & Thompson, A. (2008). Interpretative phenomenological analysis (IPA): A qualitative methodology of choice in healthcare research. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 5(3), 214-224.

9. Boud, D., & Lee, A. (2005). “Peer learning” as pedagogic discourse for research education. Studies in Higher Education, 30(5), 501-516. 0.1080/03075070500249138
10. Campbell, L. F. (2000, August). Mentoring and functions in supervision. Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the American Psychological Association. Washington, DC.
11. Campbell, L. F. (2001, August). The role of mentoring in supervision. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Psychological Association, San Francisco, CA.
12. Creswell, J. W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches. (2nd ed.). USA: Sage.
13. Creswell, J. W. (2013). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. USA: Sage.
14. Çakıcı, C. A. (2006). Turizm alanında lisansüstü tez hazırlayan öğrencilerin danışman öğretim üyelerini ve danışman öğretim üyelerinin de öğrencilerini değerlendirmesi. Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 8(3), 74-104.
15. Emilsson, U., & Johnsson, E. (2007). Supervision of supervisors: on developing supervision in postgraduate education. Higher Education Research & Development, 26(2), 163-179. doi:10.1080/07294360701310797
16. Ersoy, A. (2015). Doktora öğrencilerinin ilk nitel araştırma deneyimlerinin günlükler aracılığıyla incelenmesi. Pegem Eğitim ve Öğretim Dergisi, 5(5), 549-568.
17. Ersoy, A. F. (2016). Fenomenoloji. In A. Saban & A. Ersoy (Eds.), Eğitimde nitel araştırma desenleri (pp. 51-109). Ankara: Anı.
18. Firth, A., & Martens, E. (2008). Transforming supervisors? A critique of post-liberal approaches to research supervision. Teaching in Higher Education, 13(3), 279-289.
19. Fraser, R., & Mathews, A. (1999). An evaluation of the desirable characteristics of a supervisor. Australian Universities‘ Review, 42(1), 5-7.
20. Gallacher, K. (1997). Supervision, mentoring and coaching. In P. J. Winton, J. A. McCollum, & C. Catlett (Eds.), Reforming personnel in early intervention (pp. 191-214). Baltimore, MD: Brookes.
21. Grant, K., Hackney, R., & Edgar, D. (2014). Postgraduate research supervision: An ‘agreed’ conceptual view of good practice through derived metaphors. International Journal of Doctoral Studies, 9, 43-60.
22. Guss, C. (1961). How is supervision perceived? Educational Leadership, 19(2), 99-102.
23. Hockey, J. (1994). Establishing boundaries: problems and solutions in managing the PhD supervisor’s doi:10.1080/0305764940240211 Cambridge Journal of Education, 24(2), 293-305.
24. Ismail, A., Abiddin, N. Z., & Hassan, A. (2011). Improving the development of postgraduates’ research and supervision. International Education Studies, 4(1), 78-89.
25. Işıksoluğu, M. (1994). Tezler ve danışmanlık. Eğitim ve Bilim, 18(94), 57-62. Retrieved from http://egitimvebilim.ted.org.tr/index.php/EB/article/view/5915.
26. Johnson, L., Lee, A., & Green, B. (2000). The PhD and the autonomous self: Gender, rationality and postgraduate pedagogy. Studies in Higher Education, 25(2), 135-147. doi:10.1080/713696141
27. Lee, A., & Green, B. (2009). Supervision as metaphor. Studies in Higher Education, 34(6), 615- 630.
28. Lessing, A. C., & Schulze, S. (2002). Graduate supervision and academic support: students’ perceptions. South African Journal of Higher Education, 16(2), 139-149.
29. Lessing, N., & Lessing, A. C. (2004). The supervision of research for dissertations and theses. Acta Commercii, 4(1), 73-87.
30. Malfroy, J. (2005). Doctoral supervision, workplace research and changing pedagogic practices. doi:10.1080/07294360500062961 Education Research & Development, 24(2), 165-178,
31. Manathunga, C. (2005). Early warning signs in postgraduate research education: A different approach to ensuring timely completions. Teaching in Higher Education, 10(2), 219-233. doi:10.1080/1356251042000337963
32. Manathunga, C. (2007). Supervision as mentoring: the role of power and boundary crossing. Studies in Continuing Education, 29(2), 207-221. doi:10.1080/01580370701424650
33. Manathunga, C., & Goozée, J. (2007). Challenging the dual assumption of the “always/already” autonomous student and effective supervisor. Teaching in Higher Education, 12(3), 309-322. doi:10.1080/13562510701278658
34. McCallin, A., & Nayar, S. (2012). Postgraduate research supervision: a critical review of current practice. Teaching in Higher Education, 17(1), 63-74. doi:10.1080/13562517.2011.5909
35. Mental Health Coordinating Council [MHCC] (2008). Mental health recovery philosophy into practice: http://mhcc.org.au/home/publications/workforce-development-guide.aspx. workforce development guide. Retrieved from
36. Mueller, S. (2004). Electronic mentoring as an example for the use of information and communications technology in engineering education. European Journal of Engineering Education, 29(1), 53-63. doi:10.1080/0304379032000129304
37. Neumann, R. (2005). Doctoral differences: Professional doctorates and PhDs compared. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 27(2), 173-188.
38. Parker, R. (2009). A learning community approach to doctoral education in the social sciences. Teaching in Higher Education, 14(1), 43-54. doi:10.1080/13562510802602533
39. Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative evaluation and research methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
40. Sevinç, B. (2001). Türkiye’de lisansüstü eğitim uygulamaları, sorunlar ve öneriler. Ankara Üniversitesi Eğitim Bilimleri Fakültesi Dergisi, 34(1), 125-137.
41. Smith, J. A., Flowers, P., & Larkin, M. (2009). Interpretative phenomenological analysis: Theory, method and research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
42. Welde, K., & Laursen, S. (2008). The “Ideal Type” advisor: How advisors help STEM graduate students find their ‘Scientific Feet’. The Open Education Journal, 1(1), 49-61. doi:10.2174/187492080080101004
43. Wisker, G., Robinson, G., & Shacham, M. (2007). Postgraduate research success: communities of practice involving cohorts, guardian supervisors and online communities. Innovations doi:10.1080/14703290701486720 and Teaching International, 44(3), 301-320.
44. Yeatman, A. (1995). Making supervision relationships accountable: graduate student logs. Australian Universities Review, 2, 9-11.
45. Yıldırım, A., & Şimşek, H. (2016). Sosyal bilimlerde nitel araştırma yöntemleri. (10th ed.). Ankara: Seçkin. Please cite as:
46. Sever, I., & Ersoy, A. (2017). Supervision and the PhD process: Perspectives of research assistants. Eğitim Bilimleri Araştırmaları Dergisi - Journal of Educational Sciences Research, 7(1), 182. http://ebad-jesr.com/