Presentation on theme: "RESEARCH SUPERVISION - THE RELATION Ph.D. symposium Institute of Health and Society Faculty of Medicine May 15th. 2012 Arne Skodvin Group for Faculty and."— Presentation transcript:
RESEARCH SUPERVISION - THE RELATION Ph.D. symposium Institute of Health and Society Faculty of Medicine May 15th Arne Skodvin Group for Faculty and Curriculum Development
Introduction The Group for Faculty and Curriculum Development –research on higher education –courses - basic pedagogical competence (100 hours) –consulting with various faculties/institutes/individuals Elective module on ”research supervision” –supervising master students and Ph.D. candiates –(rather than beeing supervised!)
Supervision metaphors –to understand the unknown, we must always compare it to something known –metaphore (Greek) meta - via, along or between pherein - carry –is created by figurative speech –when a word or concept is transferred from a known context to an unknown context –which is your favorite metaphor on the relation between supervisor and candidate?
Director - Follower Master - Servant Guru - Disciple Teacher - Pupil Expert - Novice Guide - Explorer Project manager - Team worker Editor - Author Councellor - Client Doctor - Patient Senior partner - Junior professional Friend - Friend
What is supervision? -Colleagues may ask one another for advice -Instructors may be legally responsible for actions carried by candidates during training -Delegation of reponsibility may be agreeed upon in hierarchical relations -Supervision differs from teaching in that learning outcomes cannot be clearly defined beforehand -Supervision differs from therapy in that the purpose is to help someone to perform better academically, not to better someone’s personal well-being
Teacher – student model Continuation of school responsibilities Asymmetrical relation Dependability upon supervisor Monological communication Feed-back on texts as corrections Rewriting as repairing errors Lack of explorative texts / thought-texts
Master – apprentice model Enculturation into a professional culture Learing by observing a master Participating in and carrying out tasks with some one more experienced Several tutors, supervision as a joint project Explorative sketches may be discussed in a research group
Partnership model Tends towards symmetry Common responsibilities - mutual obligations Dialogical communicaton Promotion of individual thinking Feed-back open for negotiation Rewriting as rethinking Use of exploratory texts
Some themes to be discussed The use of supervision time Expectations and roles for supervisor Expectations and roles for candidate How to respond to text drafts How to elaborate text drafts Ongoing evaluation of supervision
11. april 2011Ny Powerpoint mal
Communication Utterances are ellipticial – we tend to leave out what is (tacitly) taken for granted Utterances er proleptic (anticipatory) – we expect them to be understood in an appropriate context Utterances imply (intuitively) contracts for communication that are based on assumptions of shared presuppositions Communication contracts are not ‘agreed upon’, and one becomes aware of them only when they break down
Metacommunication communication that indicates how verbal information should be interpreted communicate about communication clarify use of concepts comment upon roles and relationship explicate supervision strategy (or a change in supervision strategy) a tool for clarification of what goes on during supervision and how those involved experience and understand it.
Ethical guidelines for supervision Respect for personal and academic integrity Asymmetry in the context of supervision Double relations Trust and confidence Academic honesty Gifts and remunerations Invoving a third part in the case of any dispute
The relation revisited Students maintain that “… the heart of a successful supervision process is in the quality of the relationship between the student and supervisor” (Grant & Graham 1999) Supervisors maintain that … the relationship to the student is by far the most difficult part of being a supervisor (Bergenheim 2001).
The supervisor is probably the more knowledgeable of the two about research, but The candidate is more knowledgeable about –the candidate’s understanding or misunderstanding of a problem, –what he finds difficult (and how), –how she thinks and feels about her research, her status, her supervisor and herself. These things are crucial for the supervisor to learn about and relate to in the supervisory tutorial - to make it effective.