Literature Review
2.6 Doctoral student experience regarding research supervision
48
49 in which the participants took agency for their learning in terms of being able to make their own decisions and to act independently of their supervisors – which, according to the authors suggests that although supervisors are ‘important’, they “are not paramount in the doctoral journey” (p.
278).
In the Australian context, Heath (2002) conducted a quantitative study on the PhD student perspective of supervision with a population sample of 355 students at the University of Queensland, of which 58% of the students were full-time students. One-third of the students were in a single-supervision relationship while the rest were engaged in a group/co-supervision relationship. As with the earlier study in the UK context, the findings show that almost all of the participants were satisfied with the expertise of their supervisor (p. 41). The findings further show that the participants had regular meeting with supervisors, attended at least one conference, and had one or two publications in the course of their candidature. In contrast, a recent study in Finland investigated the doctoral student perception of supervision and burnout – lack of well-being (Cornér, Löfström & Pyhältö, 2017). The study employed an online survey method, where open ended questions were used to generate data from 248 informants from the faculties of “social science, art and humanities, and natural and life sciences” (p. 91). The study found links between the unsatisfactory experiences of students with respect to well-being and attrition. For instance, the finding of the study established a relationship between “lack of satisfaction with supervision and equality within the research community and a low frequency of supervision” and the
“experience of burnout”. Also, “experiences of burnout were connected to students’ attrition intentions”; and “attrition intentions were related to source of supervision” (p. 91). The authors recommend that further studies which employ a qualitative research method be carried out to provide deeper insight into the forces at play in the doctoral student experience. This points to a limitation of the methodology employed in the data gathering of the study, and the possibility of obtaining richer data through qualitative methodologies, which is also aligned with the purpose of student research.
A study based on the Malaysia context examined Malaysian postgraduate student learning experiences regarding postgraduate supervision in two public universities. The study used both the questionnaire and the semi-structured interview as instruments to collect data. The finding shows
50 that students were, averagely satisfied with their supervision experience but, consider institutional support to be poor. This was basically due to the way that supervisors provided guidance at the proposal development stage, but towards the completion and writing-up stage supervisors offered little or no support which constituted a challenge for participants, as they indicated being inexperienced and lacking in the required skills in research. From the findings, some of the challenges stemmed from the lack of attention by supervisees to their studies (particularly regarding the part-time students); as well as from some supervisors (in terms of providing timely and constructive feedback). Within the same context, Ismail, Majid & Ismail (2013) “examined the role of supervision from the perspective of research students” through the use of a semi- structured interview with 4 participants from different institutions in Malaysia as study subjects.
The study found that students encounter three major challenges with respect to their supervisors:
(1) lack of positive communication; (2)lack of necessary expertise to give support; and (3) power conflicts (p. 65).
Wadesango & Mashigambi (2011) conducted a study to examine postgraduate student experiences and challenges with supervisors from two universities located in South Africa. The study adopted a mixed research method (qualitative and quantitative) by employing a case study research design, whereby, one-on-one interviews were conducted with 40 postgraduate students, and backed-up with a questionnaire to elicit data for the study. The findings show that the majority of the participants (75%) were unsatisfied with their supervisors due to issues relating to feedback on their submissions, supervisors’ “insufficient knowledge of the relevant field, change of supervisors due to transfer to other institutions, lack of supervisory support and supervisor’s other work load”
(p. 31).
Another study by Govender & Dunphat (2011) explored the experiences of twelve participants engaged in a cohort model of supervision in South Africa, comprising of eight doctoral students that have had two cohort contact sessions and are at different stages of their studies; and four academics that recently completed their studies through the same cohort model of supervision. The study used open-ended questionnaires, face-to-face or telephonically undertaken interviews and focus group interviews to collect data for the study. The study findings show that, despite reports of some short-comings of the model in terms of conflicting commentaries from different
51 supervisors, the cohort model provided an opportunity for students to engage, collaborate and learn in a deeper ways than by using the conventional one-to-one supervision model.
The findings in a study by Heeralal (2015) that focused on an open and distant learning context in South Africa showed that, although students encountered challenges with the supervisory process - proposal writing, research methodology and data analysis, and supervisor allocation; majority of students are generally satisfies with their supervision experience in terms of timeous, detailed and critical feedback from supervisors and a positive relationship. A similar study on distance- learning-based doctoral students, showed that the matching of student and supervisor expectations is important in enhancing the completion of the studies (Orellana, Darder, Pérez & Salinas, 2016).
Increased internationalisation/globalisation has also encouraged students to study outside of their countries of origin, and research that foregrounds doctoral supervision experience in inter/cross- cultural settings contributes to our knowledge of different dynamics that play out in the supervision relationship (McGinty et al., 2010, p. 517). Abiddin & West (2007) employed survey method to investigate Malaysian PhD student supervision experiences in universities in the United Kingdom.
Their study revealed that the majority of the respondents (66.4%) were satisfied with the progress of their study, while 20% of the respondents were very dissatisfied with their progress due to uncertainty in research, poor supervision, loss of motivation and interest, and financial difficulties.
A similar cross-cultural study was conducted by McClure (2005), which explored research supervision experiences of newly enrolled Chinese postgraduate students in a foreign context in Singapore. Issues of mismatch in expectations due to cultural differences were found to contribute to negative experiences for students – feelings of being marginalised, inadequate guidance and attention, and language difficulties, especially at the early stages of the research process. The study emphasises the implications of the Chinese Confucian culture of respect for elders in supervisory relationships – in terms of how supervisees could view the fact of being assertive as being disrespectful to supervisors.
Other Chinese postgraduate students formed the population sample in a study by Leong (2010), who employed a survey method to investigate how Chinese postgraduate students experience mentoring in research supervision. The study revealed that the 27 postgraduate students that were
52 surveyed expected a supervisory relationship in which the ‘ideal supervisor’ becomes a mentor, a guide, a friend and a supporter who provides regular feedback on performances (p. 151). The finding diverges from a commonly held belief that, Chinese postgraduate students are less likely to seek a close and friendly supervision relationship with supervisors due to the aforementioned Chinese Confucian culture of seniority and respect for elders. Friendship in the Chinese context is, however, for moral education where self-transformation is the focus (p. 151).
Furthermore, another intercultural supervision study was carried out by Kidman, Manathunga &
Cornforth (2017, p. 1208) in a New Zealand university that focuses on the supervision experience of 75 PhD students who were mostly international students in the first-two years of their studies.
The study used a mixed method research approach to collect data (online survey, focus group, and interview). The study findings indicate that issues of stereotype, power, and ethnicity were found to be a hidden curriculum that impacted supervisee experiences of the supervision relationship and the kind of knowledge that is privileged. The study further shows that the international students were able to navigate intercultural interaction with supervisors through peer support from indigenous students in the faculty with whom they formed some alliance. They also “find ways of speaking out, often in highly coded forms, that complicate their subaltern academic status” (p.
1208).
In the Nigerian context, available studies mostly used the quantitative – survey method to investigate doctoral student experiences of supervision (Agu & Odimegwu, 2014), the attitude of supervisors towards research supervision, and the programme completion by postgraduate students (Adeniyi & Oladejo, (2012). With the exception of the Okeke (2010) study that employed the personal reflection approach to explore his personal experience of doctoral supervision, limited studies abound that explore the perspective of doctoral students, using qualitative methodologies.
Some of the supervision challenges identified in the Okeke (2010) study include the lack of involvement of doctoral students with regards to the admission process and the allocation of supervisors. Thus, according to the author this increases the likelihood of a mismatch in research interests between students and supervisors, which contributed to delays in research topic selection by students. Another challenge relates to the process of approval of the research topic which starts with approval by the supervisor and then the final approval by the supervisory committee. The
53 author sees this as a mechanism to ensure that all topics approved for students are aligned with the institutional mode of knowledge creation (predominantly, the positivist tradition), otherwise, the topics are likely rejected by the committee. Other issues related to in-fighting among committee members during oral defence; the demand by the department that students provide refreshment for defence panel members; and intimidation by supervisors whose relationship with students are more like the ‘master-servant relationship’ (p. 123). Thus, the author recommended further investigation of these challenges. My student research thesis would add to this emerging body of work that has a focus on the Nigerian context, by exploring the supervision experience of doctoral students in the business education programme.