Literature Review
2.5 Learning in doctoral supervision
Teaching and, particularly, learning in doctoral supervision can be understood within the strand of scholarship literature that identifies research/doctoral supervision as pedagogy (Hill, 2008;
Zeegers & Barron, 2012). Most writers on this subject address learning from two viewpoints that are identified by Sfard (1998, p. 5) as the ‘acquisition’ viewpoint and the ‘participation viewpoint’.
Based on the ‘acquisition viewpoint’, learning is considered as acquiring something (e.g.
knowledge), and learning ends once the objective has been achieved. This view, according to Sfard, aligns with the traditional perspective of learning. On the other hand, learning in the
‘participation viewpoint’ is recognised as a “never ending, self-regulatory process of emergence in a continuing interaction with peers, teachers, texts” (Sfard, 1998, p. 6); and this view aligns with more recent/modern thinking about learning (the postliberal approach to learning). In doctoral education, learning is increasingly recognised not only in terms of acquisition and ‘production of knowledge’, but also in the ‘construction of identity’ (Foot, Crowe Tollafield & Allan, 2014;
Green, 2005, p. 162).
In relation to supervision, Khene (2014) argues that doctoral students are likely to approach their learning based on the two main approaches to learning – the surface approach and the deep approach (Biggs, 2003, p. 20). She posits that a doctoral student who adopts a surface approach to
44 learning shows little or no initiative for learning, and prefers to be directed as opposed to being solely guided (Khene, 2014). Such a surface approach to learning is observed by Qureshi & Vazir (2016, p. 102). The authors report that the Pakistan graduate student they supervised showed low agency in their learning as they preferred that supervisors should provide feedback, which would specify corrections to be made, rather than those supervisors that questions their submissions or require them to give justifications for their viewpoints/arguments. Waghid (2006, p. 428), in the course of his study on postgraduate supervision, also observed that the postgraduate students in the institution where the study was conducted were mostly driven by certification motives. The author tends to see the neoliberal agenda that would focus attention on fast completions and employability as having an effect on postgraduate student motivation and non-critical attitude to learning. Similarly, Lonka (2012) finds that doctoral students who perceive their doctoral studies as an avenue towards acquiring certification, show a low interest and a low motivation.
Considering the demand of doctoral education, higher cognitive learning that leads to the development of critical and autonomous thinkers, the surface approach to learning is said to be inadequate (Chiappetta-Swanson & Watt 2011, p. 16). With regards to the deep approach to learning, Khene (2014) emphasises engagement, participation, relating, questioning, critiquing, theorising, and the application of concepts as important activities that doctoral students are to autonomously release of their own volition to their supervisors, peers, cohorts using the supervision process, and the study itself. This approach to learning seats well with Sfard’s
‘participatory view’ of learning and also bears out Waghid’s explanation of the necessary requirement for “authentic learning” - a high level of epistemic engagement between the supervisor and supervisee and the text (Waghid, 2006, p. 428). There is widespread agreement among scholars as to the necessity for doctoral students to adopt a deep approach to learning (Wisker, 2005).
Since, doctoral research cannot be rigidly structured as in undergraduate studies with a specific teaching and learning curriculum due to a number of factors - e.g. doctoral students having different entry points (Kobayashi, 2015); learning in supervision is likely to happen in unpredictable ways. However, some authors suggest that “the supervisory dialogue is most often (in the humanities at least) the primary teaching format available and applied during the doctoral process” (Bengtsen, 2014, p. 16), and it is considered as “the heart of the research student’s
45 learning” (Wisker, 2012, p. 187). Factors that affect the quality of supervisory dialogue, as found in existing body of literature, may be categorised in several ways, including those ways that relate to the personal capital that each party (supervisor and supervisee, respectively) brings to the relationship – e.g. the supervisory skills of the supervisor, communication and coaching skills, and empathy (Delany, 2008; Ghadirian et al., 2014; Gill & Burnard, 2008); and for the student, intelligence, knowledge, skills, competence, experience, commitment, dedication, and resilience are commonly cited variables (Lovitts, 2005; 2008). The continuous negotiation of expectation that happens at the various stages of the research and writing processes, which are based on trust and mutual interdependence, are equally important (Prazeres, 2017).
With regards to the writing process, the giving of feedback and the discussions of the thesis constitute key elements/aspects of learning in doctoral supervision have been well-considered in the literature (Parry, 2007; Manathunga & Goozée, 2007; Price, Handley, Millar & O’Donovan, 2010). In that regard, studies by Overall, Deane & Peterson (2011) and by Chiappetta-Swanson &
Watt (2011) that identify the need for supervisors to provide a favourable/conducive climate that supports students in developing their own opinions and ideas. However, these studies emphasise the role of the supervisor in accomplishing the “core task of supervision” – developing critical thinking (Lee, 2012, p. 20); the onus is clearly on doctoral students to be resourceful, agentic, demonstrate initiative, and to exercise “self-direction or self-determination in learning” (Leonard, 2010, p. 39), in terms of being proactive in managing both their studies and their relationship(s) with supervisors. Several works have been undertaken with regards to different kinds of agency that students need to exercise – for example, ‘relational agency and ‘negotiated agency’ (Goode, 2010; Hopwood, 2010b; Jazvac-Martek, Chen & McAlpine, 2011; John & Denicolo, 2013). A study by Hadingham (2011, p. 68) in Wits university, South Africa found that doctoral students are “...capable of making decisions about their research without the need for direction… should they require…direction, they have the agency to ask for it”. However, some “students are not necessarily automatically aware of the need to develop their own agency” (Keane, 2016, p. 97), and they still require support, direction and guidance from supervisors in order to do so.
Learning in postgraduate/doctoral supervision has been considered from the perspective of teaching conception of the supervisor and their approach to supervision (Chiappetta-Swanson &
46 Watt, 2011). In terms of the supervisor perspective of teaching, this could be either teacher-centred or learner-centred (Brew & Peseta, 2004). Where the teacher-centred perspective to teaching is used, the supervisor who is believed to be more knowledgeable or more expert in a particular field uses the ‘transference or transmission model’ that focuses more on knowledge transfer rather than co-construction of knowledge between supervisor and student (Bartlett & Mercer, 2000, p. 196).
The supervisor inducts the research student into the disciplinary codes and the student over time comes to learn the ‘craft’ (Yeatman, 1995, p. 9). This kind of relationship is commonly found “in the humanities and social sciences” (Dysthe et al. 2006, p. 299; Yeatman, 1995, p. 9). But, more often than not such a relationship has been perceived as domineering and dehumanising (Yeatman, 1995, p. 9), leaving the research student at the mercy of the supervisor (Dysthe, Samara &
Westrheim, 2006). Further, what transpires in the supervisory relationship is believed to be what takes place between autonomous persons, and this tenet has remained unquestioned and unchecked in many quarters (Fraser & Mathew, 1999; Zuber-Skerrit & Ryan, 1994).
With regards to supervisors’ approaches to supervision, Bruce & Stoodley (2013, p. 4) for example, argues that supervisors who adopt a skills-focused approach to supervision (functional approach) are likely to be concerned with training that could promote the development of research and writing skills of students. Thus, students learn to develop critical research skills. Also, supervisors who adopt the learning outcome-focused approach to supervision (critical thinking approach) are likely to be more concerned about enabling students to overcome difficulties in their learning. One study in the literature that explores threshold concepts in doctoral education finds that doctoral students experience conceptual difficulties, in terms of the development of strong and justifiable arguments in their thesis, and in arguing for ‘the significance of the findings’ (Kiley &
Wisker, (2009. P. 435). The stage whereby the student learns to understand conceptually difficult knowledge, and crosses the learning/understanding threshold, is recognised as a necessary condition for learning – as it helps the student to experience a transformation and to acquire new ways of seeing (Bruce & Stoodley, 2013, p. 4; Kiley & Wisker, 2009, p. 432). Another approach employed by supervisors as identified by Bruce & Stoodley (2013) is the expanding awareness focus (enculturation approach). The authors explain that where expanding awareness is the focus, supervisors enhance student learning by exposing students to a wide range of experiences along the pathway to becoming independent researchers. The key idea about this approach is that
47 learning is seen as a socialisation process which happens within a community of practice. Learning in a community of practice follows the apprenticeship model of supervision, which some authors have criticised for not acknowledging that knowledge is in the process, but not the supervisor (Vikinas, 2005). With regards to a newcomer to the community - researchers/doctoral students begin as legitimate peripheral participating members, and gradually learn the disciplinary norms and values through engagement with established academics, and eventually the novice becomes a fully-fledged participating member (Dias & Paré, 2000 in McAlpine & Norton 2006; Lave &
Wenger, 1991; Wenger, 1998); this may be through conference attendance (Eley & Jennings, 2005). It is also believed that group supervision plays an important role in supporting doctoral student learning (Fenge, 2012)
Another strand of work in the literature is doctoral learning in the wider context. Studies such as those by McAlpine & Norton (2006, p. 6) and Lovitts (2005), identify the multiple and complex contexts (department/faculty, institution and national contexts) in which doctoral learning is
‘nested’. Within these contexts, various stakeholders, institutional structures and policies in terms of ‘selection/admission’, ‘programme requirements’, ‘academic climate’, ‘disciplinary mode of research’ are all important factors that shape student learning (Baptista, 2011, p. 3579; Bitzer &
Albertyn, 2011; Dysthe et al., 2006; McAlpine & Norton, 2006, p. 9; McFarlane, 2010). Also, it has been noted that not only do institutional structures, in terms of availability of infrastructure and important resources matter but the wider context of government policies are equally important (Abiddin, Ismail, & Ismail, 2011; Green, 2005a; Holbrook et al., 2014; Jiranek, 2010; Jones, 2013).
Bitzer, (2011) notes that there has been so much research effort on increasing the effectiveness of postgraduate supervision but, limited attention has been given to the role that the institution/university play in learning and knowledge creation in postgraduate education. Gardner (2010) argues for research to pay attention to specific departmental context in which graduate students study. In line with the foregoing, my student research has a focus on a particular program within vocational and technical education programme (business education programme) in order to investigate the impact of student supervision experiences on student learning in the doctoral journey.
48