1. Supervision in Postgraduate Programmes, Feb 10, 2015 1.09.30-09.40 Local regulations, appointment procedures, previous evaluation and steps taken. 2.09.40-10.30 Course participants presentation: a) university, b) department/subject/research interest, c) experience of being a supervisor (of doctoral students), d) expectation on this course? 3.10.30-10.45 Break 4.a) Schedule and literature, b) Group 1 and 2, c) what to prepare for every meeting, d) examination requires, e) nonattendance? 5.10.45-12.00 i) Criteria for Academic Thesis. ii) Discussion around: a) Guo, b) Christie et al and ”Successful Supervisor A Dialogue Facilitator” 6.12-13 Lunch 7.13-16 The Swedish culture - values and gender related topics within Swedish postgraduate programmes (Senior Professor Leif Lindberg)

2. Local regulations for third cycle education programmes Linnéuniversity, Dnr LNU 2010/1313

3. Guide to Appointment procedures for the appointment of teachers at Linnaeus University ( Approved by the Rector, 17 December 2012, ) Dnr:LNU 2012/518

4. Previous evaluation 1 Session 3 and 4, content overlap also “Strategies for publication” 2 Handouts, PPT:s, documentation 3 more statistics 4 mixed courses (international and Swedish) Steps taken 1 reduction of days, one moment deleted 2 PPT:s are published and Ethical Rules and Guidelines, rules and regulations 3 included in Session 1 afternoon 4 the course is primarily focused on international participants 20142015

5. 1.University 2.Department/subject/research field 3.Supervision experience 4.Expectations?

9. Local regulations for third-cycle education programmes a)p 13, 4.1, General study syllabus + b)p 14, 4.2 Individual study plan, ISP.

10. Criteria for Academic Thesis February 10, 2015 Thomas Sandstedt & Martin Stigmar 1.Background 2.Aim 3.Method 4.Results: Form, content and socialisation 5.Answers from: a) director of studies, doctoral students and supervisors 6.Discussion-what did we find?

11. Background and research questions -are there any failed dissertations in Sweden by the examining committee, if so in what subjects? Limitations: -i) humanities and social sciences, -ii) 1984-2003 -iii) Gothenburg, Linköping, Lund, Sthlm, Umeå, Uppsala

12. Dissertation work, from start to end B) Notification is posted at the Library and electronically A) Research courses and writing C) Public defence/viva see page 279 in ”How to write a Thesis” D) Examining committee assesses the doctoral thesis with Pass or Fail.

13. ssubject Använ darna mn: Lösen ord: sgrade Använ darna mn: Lösen ord: Political science Law Economy Sociology Theater and film Psychology Religious history Pedagogy Art

15. Results: Form, content and socialisation - Abstract - Title - Aim/relevance - Problem/-s - Coverage/main thread/constructive alignment - Originality and own contribution/-s - Method och empirism - Theory and previous research - Analysis - Argumentation - Resultats/Discussion Form: Motivates ”How to Write a Thesis”, Murray, p 14, p 22, 24-25, 26, 31

16. Content Three criteria: 1.Societal relevance 2.Scientific relevance 3.Communicative/understandable

17. Socialisation Learn how to understand the scientific community, through: a) regulations, norms, language, rituals, etc, b) active participation in seminars, conferences, applications etc, c) independence, d) originality– but not too much, legitimacy and identity.

18. curiosity, endurance, self-discipline, target oriented, communicative, intellectual capacity, working discipline, carefulness and stubborness (Erasmie, 1983). Desired abilities amongst doctoral students

19. ”För att bli antagen till forskarutbildning krävs det att den sökande har grundläggande behörighet och den särskilda behörighet som fakultetsnämnden kan ha föreskrivit, och bedöms ha sådan förmåga i övrigt som behövs för att klara utbildningen” (Högskoleförordningen, 1993:100, 9 Kap., 2 §). Önskvärda karaktärsdrag/egenskaper/förmågor hos forskarstuderande: nyfikenhet, uthållighet, självdisciplin, målinriktning och god kommunikativ förmåga, intellektuell kapacitet men även arbetsdisciplin, noggrannhet och envishet (Erasmie, 1983). a) att kunna se vad man inte vet, dvs. att inse sin egen begränsning samt ha förmåga till självkritik, b) att kunna se vad som går att ta reda på, dvs. att ha kunskap om metoder och tekniker samt ha förmåga att prioritera, c) att kunna se vad som är värt att veta, dvs. att kunna relatera forskningsproblem till samhällsbehov, d) att kunna bygga upp en strategi för kunskapssökande, dvs. förmåga att hämta relevant information. Which abilities do you find important?

20. No criteria exist

21. i)Why do you think criteria are often left out? ii)How does this affect the process of writing a thesis?

22. Play tennis-no fence?

23. Discussion 1) Criteria are not regarded as necessary, but the ground for judgement needs to be discussed: 2) The thesis as process and/or product? 3) Mini demands (according to Torstendahl, 2005) a) Logical consistancy, b) Empirical testability, c) All relevant material is taken into consideration, d) Coherence in presentation of results, e) New results/contributions (not only what has been shown in previous research) (Torstendahl, 2005, p. 214).

24. Different subject traditions Criteria might obstruct innovative thinking, Consensus between senior researchers is more important than criteria, however risk for group-think. Discussion (cont.)

25. Thesis as process or product? Mini demands-relevant for your doctoral student´s work? Independent work and/or innovative? How can you be supportive as supervisor?

26. Conclusions Tacit knowledge, experienced based. Agreement about what is a complete and finished thesis. Difficult/impossible to agree on criteria. Flexibility in judgements by experts.

27. Page 100, twenty memorable lessons-discuss or any other relevant aspect of Guo’s memoir

28. Using Communicative Action Theory to Analyse Relationships Between Supervisors and Phd Students in a Technical University in Sweden Michael Christie, Ramon Garrote Jurado 1) p 189: ”…different disciplines induce different styles of supervision” -how about your discipline? 2) p 192: ”…most of the incidents concern researchers in the natural sciences where collaborative laboratory work is important.” -what is your experience? 3) p 193: ”…situations where communication broke down because of different expectations from the supervisors and students in matter of writing and feedback…” -How can misunderstadnings be prevented? 4) p 194: ”It is debatable whether or not it is a supervisor’s duty to provide emotional support”. - What is your opinion?

29. Successful Supervison- A Dialogue Facilitator Mental preparation Myself as a person Goals and vision Fact box Discuss usability