Supervision as Apprenticeship-like / Power Relationship
4.3 Category one - supervision as apprenticeship-like/power relationship
4.3.2 Supervisee-supervisor relationship
4.3.2.2 Understanding and working in the master’s domain in research topic selection
The task of research topic selection is an important one that occurs at the very initial stage of the research process. When asked about their experience of settling on a research topic, the following texts are some of the responses given by the participants:
…There were lots of challenges, key among them was getting a particular topic accepted…
(Moses, 13a).
Sincerely speaking to settle on a topic was not an easy task… (Naomi, 14a)
…Really …we have problems or challenges of getting a topic approved… the process of getting a topic through is cumbersome… I would say it is nothing to write home about...
You bring a topic and they say no and the supervisor is not involved or suggesting anything… that is a great challenge (Benjy, 2a).
From the data presented, the participants are of the view that settling on a research topic is one of the most challenging tasks for which they require assistance from the supervisors. But, from the data, most of the participants seem to be disappointed and frustrated due to the supervisors’ neglect and lack of concern at that initial stage of topic selection. The data clearly show that the supervisors adopted a hands-off approach, whereby, limited or no guidance is provided to the doctoral students, whereas, the doctoral students actually needed direction. This shows that there is misalignment between the supervision approach that the supervisors adopt and the need of the supervisees. When that happens at the initial stage of topic selection when supervisees are probably not yet acquainted with expectations and demands of a PhD, students are likely to struggle.
One major factor that contributes to students’ frustration in research topic selection, as revealed in the excerpt below, is the lack of understanding of their supervisors’ domain:
I went to all the institutions nearby to get topics… I will reframe, I will fine-tune and when I come he will just cancel all of them. So at a time I was embarrassed I said what does this man really want? …a PG student told me that the man is interested in evaluation, that’s his area of interest. That, if I’m choosing topics in other areas he may not tell me, but he
102 will not approve them for me. So I went and searched out three topics on evaluation and he approved one for me; and so I wrote on that one. …For my PhD, I didn’t have much problem in getting a topic (Doris, 4a).
For this participant, her challenge in getting a topic during her master’s study stems from two basic issues. First, is her inability to carry out a thorough investigation in her supervisor’s field of expertise. As the data indicate, the participant went about wasting time reading and probably writing on research topics that were constantly rejected by the supervisor. Arguably, if the supervisee had investigated her supervisors’ research interests, expectations, and probably who the supervisor really is as an individual, she might have found a common ground upon which to establish the supervision relationship. The second issue is the lack of information from the participant’s supervisor to explicitly communicate his expectations to the participant. This resonates with the earlier analysis where the supervisor seems to be using a hands-off approach.
But, what is noteworthy in these data is that, although the supervisor needed the participant to work within his area of interest, he did not appraise her on this expectation. On the contrary, he left the participant to discover it for herself without considering her struggles and how long it would take her to stumble upon her own enlightenment. Hence, in a way, the participant is being forced to abandon/alter her own interests to suit the supervisor’s interests, instead of the supervisor accepting to work with the participant in her area of research interest.
In line with that, another participant revealed how he ended up working in his supervisor’s field of study, as follows:
I will submit and she will cancel… Well, she eventually gave me a topic herself. … I didn’t know what to do at a point, because my topic has to do with programming and I was not familiar with that... So, I started going to people who do computer programming… I paid for the training. …She really didn’t do anything about it, you know… this was the same person that gave me the topic but, she was not there for me (Haman, 8a).
For this participant, the supervisor seems to show a level of concern about his struggles in trying to get a research topic and she simply gave him a research topic. This quick fix intervention by the
103 supervisor seems to have solved the immediate problem of getting a topic for the participant. But, as the data show, it also created another challenge for the participant, who did not have competency in the field of enquiry that his supervisor chose for him and, ironically, the supervisor could not provide the needed guidance. As such, the participant had to spend time and money to train to be able to handle the demands of his work. This shows that when doctoral students are not carried along and supported in the choice of research topic; they may be given topics for which they do not have the background and experience and, therefore, they may require a high level of dependence on supervisors. It then means that for doctoral students to understand their supervisors’
domain and to work in it comfortably, expectations between the supervisor and the supervisee must be clarified. Given that doctoral students are the ones that are likely to subordinate their research interests to achieve congruence in research interests with supervisors, doctoral students are likely to struggle when that is not plainly explained to them. This also suggests the hidden power undertone in the supervisory relationship.
Another participant revealed variation in the supervisees’ individual struggle to understand their supervisors’ domain with regards to research topic selection, thus:
…it took me up to five months before I could settle on a topic. I submitted more than twenty topics, but they were all turned down for reasons of technicalities and sometimes the supervisor tells me that the topic is over-flogged or is no longer relevant and many other reasons (James, 10a).
In this case, the supervisor seems to have repeatedly communicated his expectations to the participant each time he rejected the participant’s submission. Notably, the participant could not understand the feedback and was unable to receive meaningful direction. It is very likely that this participant had not learned his supervisor’s style of supervision, and the participant might also have been operating below the required standard. However, considering the effort made by the participant, astonishingly, to have submitted more than twenty different topics and to have been doing the same thing for five months without any breakthrough. This raises questions as to the quality of communication, feedback and direction that the supervisor was providing. In that, one should consider that a student failing in his/her studies is likely concomitant with the fact of a supervisor failing in his/her duties. Notably, the supervisor was also not able to diagnose the source
104 of confusion in order to respond to it appropriately. This means that both supervisees and supervisors could contribute to the challenges associated with the research topic selection if they do not operate within the bounds of some reasonable standard. The implication is that the supervisory relationship between them could become strained.
Again, another variation was revealed in the quotations below, with regards to research topic selection:
She said now that you are back for your PhD… this and this areas are pertinent and that is what we are going to focus on; and we agreed on the topic. So, I was involved in the whole thing (Gabriel, 7a).
Although the supervisor here appears to be directive in terms of suggesting the research topic to the participant, the participant was, however, part of the decision-making process. This shows that supervisors could be directive and at the same time be collaborative in their approach to supervision, in that they are able to both structure the project and still include doctoral students in the decision-making process.