Supervision as transacting in the social space
5.2 Participants’ conception of supervision as transacting in the social space
5.2.3 Participants’ transaction with supervisory panel/committee
130 share ideas and experiences with the doctoral student. In other words, the participants suggest that the use of the group/co-supervision model of supervision could widen epistemological access for doctoral students.
One of the participants, although not engaged in a co-supervision relationship, shared a divergent view with regards to the advantage of group/co-supervision model, thus:
Looking at the problem we face here… I think it will be better to have at least two supervisors so that, if one person is not available, you can see the other person (Isaac, 9a).
For this participant, the co-supervision relationship is advantageous to doctoral students in terms of dealing with the challenge of the unavailability of supervisors. Hence, the concern here is the issue of the supervisor’s availability, instead of the supervisor’s expertise. This suggests that the group/co-supervision relationship could provide some ease of physical access to supervisors.
Furthermore, doctoral students could quickly get learning support from the supervisors. Overall, the participants seem to be saying that, if all the advantages revealed here are realized, the group/co-supervision model of supervision is likely to improve the quality of supervision experience for most of the doctoral students who are a part of the sample population in my thesis.
131 We do seminars and up to three defences, the proposal defence, internal defence and external defence… after presenting, they will ask you questions… give you chance to defend your work …starting from your topic, your objectives, statement of problem, research questions and… It is now left for the panel to judge whether you can go ahead or not (Benjy, 2b).
From the presented data, the choice of research topic is not only made between the supervisor and the doctoral student. It must go through various stages of scrutiny/screening and the selection of the topic by departmental/faculty panel members before approval is granted, as no student defence is required at this stage. The data further show how defence happens at various stages of the thesis development, whereby, the proposal defence happens at the initial stage of the thesis development;
the internal defence happens at an advanced stage of the thesis development; and the external defence happens after the write-up stage and is handled by external examiners. During these stages, the doctoral students are afforded the opportunity to express their views, ideas and thinking orally and to receive feedback immediately, as indicated in the data. This means that doctoral students would be able to gain insight from the more-established academics all through the various stages of the research process. Thus, the interactions between doctoral students and supervisory panel/committee could also be a form of socialisation, whereby, doctoral students become aware of the disciplinary norms and acceptable modes of knowledge generation. However, the supervisory committee may be construed as playing a critical role in the developmental stages of the thesis and also of the doctoral student; the data also suggest an all-too-powerful committee. It seems that doctoral students are at the mercy of the committee, as they must settle on the topic that has been selected for them, even though it may not have been their first choice. This could be a problem if there is no consideration for the topic/focus being on what the field is actually needing, in terms of new knowledge.
This could be the reason why ninety percent of the participants in this study consider the committee’s process of topic selection to be tiresome and cumbersome, as shown below:
Really…we have problems or challenges in getting a topic approved…which has to go through one or two committees and in the end the topic is approved. …the process of getting a topic through is cumbersome (Benjy, 2a).
132 For this participant, the multiple layers of committee involved in vetting the topic seems to be time-wasting and, possibly, unnecessarily lengthening the process. It seems that the participant does not understand that there must be a quality assurance mechanism to vet topic selection and, probably, the doctoral student research process, the doctoral student research progress, and also the doctoral student research outputs. This shows that institutional structures that are put in place to ensure the quality of student research work could be wrongly perceived by doctoral students as obstacles to their progress. Although it is also possible for such quality assurance mechanisms to be the causes of the delays for the research students, if not properly monitored and especially when it takes so much time for the panel members to meet, deliberate and take decisions. Also, considering that doctoral students see the process as daunting and time-consuming, suggests that the doctoral students have not been sufficiently prepared/advised about these necessary steps. It is arguable, therefore, that had the doctoral students been appraised/guided about the public nature of academic/postgraduate work, they would then appreciate that such types of exposure are a necessary part of being accepted into the community of scholars.
Another participant revealed a variation in the experience with regards to transacting with the supervisory committee, in the following excerpt:
…of course, not every defence is successful. If you are not able to defend your work properly for them to see that yes, this person has something new to contribute, they [the panel] will cancel it. …they use to announce it that, ‘please students, we don’t want so and so topics again, go and look for topics in other areas’ (Cecelia, 3b).
The data here show that when students put out their research work to the gaze of the public (the supervisory panel/committee) during its defence, the committee scrutinises the work to determine its relevance. As such, some doctoral students have their topics rejected. This suggests that the supervision process would not have prepared the doctoral students sufficiently to argue convincingly for the significance of their proposed research topic. This could have a negative impact on student self-esteem as doctoral students may begin to perceive themselves as failures, when this might not be the case, per se.
133 Another participant indicated that sometimes the supervisory panel/committee constitutes a problem for doctoral students, as shown below:
…the area we experience problem is where you come out for oral defence or proposal…if there are extreme issues between the lecturers…they try to transfer these things to students (Isaac, 9a).
For this participant, the challenge was not only with the interrogation and critiquing, that is common in defence presentations. The data show a situation where members of the supervisory panel sometimes turn the defence venue into an arena for conflict and rivalry. As a result, the presenting student becomes a victim and bears the brunt of the conflict. This means that some of the panel members (supervisors/academics) could deliberately become harsh towards a presenting student, by asking difficult and challenging questions that they would not otherwise have asked had the panel members been collegial, friendly and approachable. It seems that personality, power and ego take precedence over the knowledge creation process/or whatever the field requires. The implication is that the presenting students could receive detrimental or undeserving commentaries on their student research proposal or oral defence that could frustrate or traumatise them.
Another participant revealed similar experience with regards to the issue of conflict between panel members, thus:
I had that experience when I did my pre-data presentation…there were arguments here and there… that, at times the supervisors do not help… They just wants to present you and count the number of students they have graduated, and in such circumstance students are at the mercy of other examiners (Moses, 13a).
From the data presented here, the participant indicates that conflict between panel members sometimes arises due to premature defence, that is, when students are underprepared. The data show how some academics make allegations that other supervisors are more concerned with output (counting the number of students they graduate), instead of focusing on knowledge generation as a process. In other words, by alluding to the fact that other academics/supervisors are expedient, the panel members tend to question the integrity of those supervisors. This suggests that the panel presentation process is a vicious space as opposed to a supportive, developmental space and it is
134 likely to become even more antagonistic if the panel members believe that supervisors are being expedient. It also points to the level of collegiality and professionalism at play among the academics, as the perceived problem created by the supervisor is not addressed to the supervisor directly, but is rather debated/contested/fought through the unsuspecting doctoral student. The implication for doctoral students is that their work could be rejected by the panel in order that the panel can effectively attack their supervisors. As a result, valuable research that could contribute to the body of knowledge may potentially be missed.
Another participant revealed a variation in conception with regards to the cause of conflict between panel members, as follows:
One of them [the panel members] said, some of these students will not really go to meet their supervisors or…do…corrections given…to…them appropriately, and they will be hurrying their supervisors to present them for defence and when they come, you will see that the supervisors will just be thrown off-balance… because…other examiners…from…other sections of the faculty will want see how much work the supervisees have done…that…made the supervisors to be comfortable to present them (Abel, 1a).
The participant here reveals how panel members sometimes blame doctoral students for pressurising their supervisors to present them for defence, and probably because they are only interested in obtaining the certificate. But, the question is, how much power do students really hold as a tool to pressurise supervisors? Given the earlier analysis in my thesis, which indicated that doctoral student in this context are marginalised, it would not be out of place to argue that supervisors who claim to be pressurised by a doctoral student do so to excuse themselves for not providing proper guidance to their students.
While some of the participants revealed negative experiences during defence presentations, others revealed positive experiences, as shown in the following quotation:
135 It is compulsory… So, I have been attending other peoples’ defence, I don’t miss it. So, when it was my turn I didn’t have problem. Because those things I learnt really helped me…but you know there is no perfect work anywhere, there were still one or two things they corrected (Doris, 4b).
The data here show that postgraduate students attend the defence presentations to observe and to listen to their colleagues’ presentations. This gives doctoral students the opportunity to learn how valid arguments are presented to avoid the kind of mistakes that students make and how the supervisory panel critique students’ work, give feedback, and give advice and/or give corrections to students. This practice, as shown in the data, enables doctoral student to become better prepared for their own defence presentations. This means that the participants consider the departmental practice, whereby, research students have access to attend defence sessions, as an important learning opportunity and as a valid support system for doctoral students.
A variation is revealed by another participant with regards to his encounters with the supervisory panel, as follows:
My internal defence was so tough, in short they grilled me… But, I thank God because it helped me to work harder… I did not just stop at the corrections they ask me to effect, I took my time to look at all the matter they raised on that day and I later discovered many other things myself, before I could submit it finally for external defence. … I might have had problem with my external defence, because, the man was so thorough (Kenneth, 11b).
For this participant, the defence exercise was both overwhelming and empowering. The concern here relates to why the participant considered the exercise as gruelling as opposed to being a robust academic debate. From the data, it seems that the participant was underprepared for the defence and, as such, he might have received harsh comments from the panel. However, the data indicate that the participant was able to reflect and to learn from the experience. The participant probably reflected on the questions asked of him during the defence, the critiques, harsh comments, oral and written feedback from the supervisory panel, and he then might have used these to challenge himself towards improving and becoming better prepared for his external defence. This shows that the ability of a doctoral student to be open to criticism could evoke critical awareness of himself
136 and also the world around him. Here, the experience of internal defence awakens the participant to the need for him to be diligent and committed to his work, and it also awakens the consciousness of the absent-present reader of his thesis, who is the external examiner in this instance.