Presentation on theme: "The student/supervisor relationship: negotiating identities Joan Wardrop with Susan Leong and Janice Baker"— Presentation transcript:
The student/supervisor relationship: negotiating identities Joan Wardrop with Susan Leong and Janice Baker email@example.com
development of skills problematising/conceptualising research writing/creating grant applications presentations publication
Pearson and Kayrooz (2004) four roles: Mentoring, Sponsoring, Progressing the candidature and Coaching (Pearson and Kayrooz (2004) in Nulty, et al.(2009):4).
the context/s increasingly, more than one supervisor : different areas and perspectives, length of project (leaving the University?), ASL/LSL
Contexts -2 research culture/environment: student-supervisor/s-School-Faculty- University student (supervisor/s) – discipline/s (conferences, publishing)- careers
student comments; qualities enthusiasm subject knowledge time given to students/accessibility capacity to give encouragement willingness to acknowledge student’s capacities: appropriate levels of independence; student as expert
student comments: problems supervisors “too busy” - even during the supervision not good procurers of resources feedback too slow/too minimal
the sinews of the relationship meetings: formal versus casual, email establish a schedule: recognise the variations, not always necessary to meet as often feedback - oral/written feedback records of meetings – reflecting/concretising “those students more satisfied with their supervision tended to be those who interacted more frequently with supervisor or supervisors, and who spent more time per week on research”. (Harman, 2003: 330) (40-49 hours per week for f/t students) mutually respectful
helpful Curtin guidelines Guidelines for Supervision and the Supervisory Relationship: http://research.curtin.edu.au/graduate/h drguidelines/durcand.cfm#supervisionhttp://research.curtin.edu.au/graduate/h drguidelines/durcand.cfm#supervision
select references: Bill Green (2005), ‘Unfinished business: subjectivity and supervision,’ Higher Education Research & Development 24, 2: 151-163. Grant Harman (2003), ‘PhD student satisfaction with course experience and supervision in two Australian research-intensive universities’ Prometheus 21, 3: 317-333. Catherine Manathunga (2005), ‘The development of research supervision: "Turning the light on a private space",’ International Journal for Academic Development 10, 1: 17-30. Duncan Nulty, Margaret Kiley, and Noel Meyers (2009), ‘Promoting and recognising excellence in the supervision of research students: an evidence-based framework,’ Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 1–15. Eve Bendix Pearsen (2007), ‘Negotiating academicity: postgraduate research supervision as category boundary work,’ Studies in Higher Education 32:4,475 — 487.