Literature Review
2.3 Theoretical and conceptual framework
2.3.1 Conceptual approaches to research supervision
The framework is premised on the belief/inference that an “academic’s approach to creating a research environment will have an impact on how a student will do their research, and the academics’ approach to teaching will have impact on how those students develop” (Lee, 2012, p.
12). In developing the conceptual framework on approaches to supervision, Lee (2008; 2012) evaluated earlier work from the body of literature and popular models on supervision in order to be able to provide a holistic framework. These prior works include the supervision model by Acker, Hill & Black (1994) which identifies the “technical rational model” and the “negotiated order model” which is a model by Lovitts (2008) that presents the micro- and macro-environments in which supervision occurs. The empirical study of Gatfield (2005) was based on the Blake and Mouton Managerial Grid model (Blake & Mouton 1964). In her work, Gatfield used data that were collected through in-depth interviews with 12 PhD supervisors. The study finds support and structure along two axes, divided into a four-quadrant matrix – pastoral, contractual, laissez-faire and directorial. Lee paired each of the items in Gatfield’s model with her conceptual approach and
31 found some fit. For instance, pastoral was paired with the relationship approach; contractual with the enculturation approach; laissez-fair with emancipation; and directorial with functional; noting that Gatfield’s framework neglected a core aspect of the supervision task – which is critical thinking. Another model evaluated by Lee was that of Murphy et al. (2007) which is similar to that of Gatfield in terms of so being a four-quadrant matrix. But, in this case, Murphy’s model was found on one axis - guiding and controlling and also on the other axis - person and task focus. For Lee, this model is also similar to her model in some ways but, differing in terms of the merging of the core task of supervision (developing critical thinking) with the functional task of the institution (fast completions) in one of Murphy’s quadrants.
Returning to Lee’s conceptual approaches to supervision, Lee’s model presents five different but interdependent approaches to supervision; including functional, enculturation, critical thinking, emancipation and relationship development. This model was based on earlier work by Brew (2001) that suggests that the conception of research held by supervisors influences the approaches they adopt for supervision. These supervision approaches describe the roles, responsibilities, expectations, focus of supervision, the dispositions of both the supervisor and the postgraduate student to the supervision relationship, as well as the likely activities that characterise the kind of relationship they engage in the research cycle.
The functional approach: this is regarded as the initial stage in the supervision process that describes the professional role of the supervisor (Lee, 2008). Based on this view, the supervisor provides “structure early in the candidature by clarifying the student’s role, devising a monthly plan and developing an overview of the thesis” (Bruce & Stoodley, 2010, p. 9). Supervisors that adopt a functional approach to supervision are more directive in the management of the project, so as to ensure that the student progresses with the task as s/he goes through the research circle (Lee, 2008). The student in this view is obedient, organised and can negotiate. This approach appears to align with the current trend in higher education that is focused on completions (Sinclair, 2004).
The enculturation approach is viewed as a ‘social practice’ approach that exposes the research student to ‘a wide range of actors within the field’, where s/he learns the norms and values of the discipline and develops within the social context (Boud & Lee, 2005, 2008; Bruce & Stoodley,
32 2013, p. 4). Since the goal in this approach is to induct the student into the disciplinary community of practice (Lave, 1998), which according to Bengtsen, (2014) is “about good research craftsmanship” (p. 8); the supervisor helps the student to identify writers in the field, opportunities for collaboration and/or joint field work, and looks for ways to advance the field through departmental seminars and conferences (Lee, 2008; 2012). The supervisor’s role is to diagnose deficiency and to coach the student and to be a ‘gatekeeping master to the apprentice’ s/he enables the student’s epistemological access. The student on the other hand, sees the supervisor as a role model as such serves as an apprentice (Lee, 2008, p. 272). The gatekeeping role of the supervisor raises concerns about the issue of power, whereby the supervisor is in a position to decide on the doors to open/close in terms of ‘learning resources, specialist opinion and networks’, and especially at the initial stages of the supervision relationship. There could also be possibilities for
“power games and arguments about who ‘owns’ the research and subsequent conference presentations and publications” (Lee, 2008, p. 272). In the context of international students, learning within this approach may be a challenge/problem with “students who expect to receive instructions and believe that to do anything other than nod and agree with the teacher is poor behaviour” (Lee, 2011, p. 60). Some study subjects in the study by Waghid (2006) show this tendency. But, through an empathetic/humanistic relationship they developed their confidence.
Critical thinking is traditionally viewed as the core of doctoral supervision. In this approach, the supervisor focuses on developing the cognitive ability of the student by challenging her/him to be critical in evaluating ideas and arguments, so as to develop new ways of thinking. “In practice, this approach addresses such questions as what is the underlying conceptual framework, what are the arguments for and against, what has been considered and what has been left out” (Lee, 2008, p.
273). Under this view, the student is able to constantly make inquiries, analyse arguments and justify their view-points rather than accepting ideas uncritically. That way, the student gradually moves towards independence. However, some students have problems in terms of learning “the skills of critical thinking, to be able to formulate an argument, anticipate complex problems and put it coherently on paper” (Lee, 2012, p. 60). Lee cites a student in another study who found the supervisor’s coaching of her to mean writing one argument per paragraph to be of great benefit (Ryan & Zuber-Skerritt, 1999).
33 The emancipation approach ‘implies both support and challenge’ (Lee, 2010, p. 19). In terms of support, the supervisor plays a facilitative role, as suggested by Pearsn & Kayrooz, (2004), “which includes: progressing the candidature, mentoring, coaching the research project, and sponsoring student participation in academic practice” (Lee, 2008, p. 274). Mentoring appears to be the overarching role of the supervisor. Mentoring students in this case is achieved through a supportive and constructive manner, whereby the supervisor is seen as a critical friend, and a ‘non-judgmental adviser’ (Bruce & Stoodley, 2013; Lee, 2008, p. 274). The supervisor also challenges the research student to constant inquiry because a disorienting manner is believed to be transformational in terms of learning and development. In other words, the student is able to develop “self-awareness, autonomy and self-actualization” which fosters personal growth and ontological development in students (Lee, 2010, p. 22; 2012). It is believed that “towards the end of the doctoral learning journeys, supervisors embraced an emancipator approach in which they wanted the students to find their own research voice and writing style” (Odena & Burgess, 2017, p. 586).
In terms of supervision meetings, the supervisor can encourage emancipation through providing a supportive environment with feedback - “by the academic offering and seeking information and seeking the student’s opinions” (Lee, 2012, p. 94). The supervisor “will be acting as a non-directive mentor who offers challenge and support” (p. 95).
The relationship development approach is viewed as a method in which expectations between supervisees and supervisors are effectively negotiated, and the supervisor is genuinely concerned about the supervision relationship. Bruce & Stoodley (2010) opine that “when adopting a relationship approach, we emphasize personal interactions. The relationship approach is concerned with the interactions and needs of the people involved in supervision” (p. 10). In line with this view, the supervisor is willing to share his/her “own research methods, experiences and concerns.”
S/he also shares ‘the interpretative process’, ‘publications and presentations’ (Lee, 2012). The supervisor, therefore, performs friendship and a nurturing role but at the same time they strive for quality. S/he has emotional intelligence with which to manage conflicts and to encourage the student to work as a team member. The student on the other hand becomes affirmed (Lee, 2010).
Consequently, the relationship is influenced in a positive way. Lee (2012) cites a study subject displeasure about a supervisor’s judgemental attitude and negative commentary, and Lee posits
34 that students are more interested in knowing that their supervisors’ “critical judgement is good enough and their communication skills are clear enough to ensure that students understands accurately where they stand” (p. 65). In terms of practice, “there seems to be little research on how extensively it is practiced” (Calma, 2007, p. 93). Table 1 below shows Lee’s framework on supervision in terms of the research process.
Table 1. Lee's framework in terms of the research process
Adapted from Lee’s (2012, p. 14) framework to explore doctoral students’ experiences at the different phases of the research cycle.
Functional phase of managing research
Enculturation Critical Thinking Emancipation Relationship Development Framing Looking at other
examples in the discipline
Asking: What is excluded? What is assumed? Completing a risk analysis
Assessing where this approach could take the student both professionally in the career and personally
Discussing whether this is something that ‘we can work on together’
Negotiation Asking who else in the department or discipline is doing similar work? What opportunity for collaboration might be approached?
Looking at
collaboration and links to work in or across other disciplines
Who else in the society might be usefully included or involved in this study?
Discussions about the tenor of the approaches to be made and how to negotiate effectively
Generating By reviewing the research methods most commonly used in the
discipline. Looking for opportunities for joint fieldwork
By identifying and arguing for the most appropriate research methods. Creating new research methods
By exploring and understanding the methodological imperatives behind different
approaches to research and the implications of these approaches
By sharing own research methods, experiences and concerns
Creating Through team
discussion, By analyzing data, looking for
By creating new models and theories and critiquing their generalisability
By linking advances to areas of personal growth
By sharing the interpretative process
35 advances in the
field Disseminating Through
departmental seminars and conferences
Through conference discussions, responding to referees’ report, writing journal
publications and books Further grant
applications
Through performance and open discussions Wider publications (not necessarily just academic journals)
Shared
publications and presentations
Reflecting On epistemological progress. On how the team supported and were involved in the research process
On how knowledge is created/discovered On the appropriateness or otherwise of the implicit and explicit frameworks employed
On impact on self and ontological development
On impact on relationship development and ability to work productively Also assessing the impact on friends and family