The Postgraduate Research Experience Survey (PRES) is an annual online survey designed to collect feedback from research students. PRES is a national survey supported by the HEA, and universities can choose whether or not to participate. Unlike the National Student Survey for undergraduates, the information published by PRES is not attributed to individual institutions. The public data are a snapshot of the collective experience of research students from the institutions that took part in PRES. For a given university, the PRES data are meant to provide an evidence base from which to enhance the quality of the student experience and it is becoming increasingly useful in benchmarking performance within the institution and against information from across the sector.
Looking at the overview results for 2007 (Park et al., 2007), the headlines reveal that Ph.D. students consistently identify the level and quality of supervision they receive as the most important contributor to the successful completion of their Ph.D. Intellectual climate was also an important factor in overall satisfaction. Research students were also positive about their overall experience, with 81 per cent indicating that the programme as a whole met or exceeded their expectations. The authors’ PRES findings are similar to those from the Australian Postgraduate Experience Questionnaire on which PRES is based.
Supervising research students ❘ 171
FORMING THE STUDENT–SUPERVISOR RELATIONSHIP
This part of the chapter will review some of the early stages in the research student life cycle and will draw out some essential aspects which are important in starting to build an effective and professional relationship.
Entry requirements, selection and induction of students
Entry requirements
Entry requirements vary between disciplines and also to some extent between institutions. It is increasingly common to require students to complete a programme at Masters level before they embark on a research degree. This may be a programme such as an M.Eng. where the Masters-level work is integrated within an undergraduate programme, a free-standing Master ’s programme which provides broad disciplinary preparation for research or alternatively a more specialised research training programme, such as an MRes. Some students are still admitted to a research degree following successful completion of an Honours degree. There is no robust evidence to demonstrate that any of these routes is consistently associated with higher levels of completion.
However, it is clear that institutions need to recognise the different forms of research preparation offered by these different routes and to develop a personalised approach to supporting and training students appropriately at the beginning of their research degree programmes.
Selection
Selection procedures for research students should be based on institutional recruitment and selection principles. Studentships should be advertised and interview processes should align to equal opportunities policies and procedures. It is the selection process that many new supervisors find particularly challenging, trying to counterbalance the academic qualifications, experience, research potential and motivations of the applicants.
All Codes of Practice will require the selection process to include at least two members of academic staff experienced in making selection decisions, often with a requirement that they should be ‘research-active’. This requirement applies to overseas applicants where it is now commonplace to interview using Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP). In making decisions, it is usual to consider applicants’ undergraduate work, such as final- year dissertations, and it is usually a requirement to use references to inform decisions.
Induction
Inductionis increasingly seen as vital in establishing a relationship with the new student.
Formal induction is meant to provide students with the information they need to enable them to begin their studies with an understanding of the academic and social environment in which they will be working (QAA, 2004). Induction events usually take 172 ❘ Teaching, supervising, learning
Supervising research students ❘ 173
place at institutional or graduate school level, at departmental and/or team level, and each has its different role to play. It is essential that supervisors take a supportive attitude to institutional induction and make clear its value. In many institutions this part is often followed by a social event and so begins the social cohesion and integration of the student.
Supervisors will need to be sure that the induction needs of any international student who arrives late can be met if they miss scheduled induction activities. Institutional induction events vary greatly. In its Code of Practice, Aberystwyth University (2007) sets out information (in English or Welsh) about the registration and induction for research postgraduates which provides comprehensive information about the organisation and facilities of the university.
Supervision
Arrangements for supervision vary somewhat between institutions and details of supervisory arrangement are clearly set out in Codes of Practice. In the majority of cases, two designated supervisors are appointed, or a ‘supervisory team’ of two or more.
Whatever the arrangements, there must be one designated supervisor who is clearly the first point of contact for the student. This principal, main or primary supervisor will normally be an experienced supervisor who has seen at least one student through to completion, has overall responsibility for the student and will be the line of com- munication with the university. The secondary supervisor or other main member of the supervisory team may not necessarily be fully experienced in supervision, will have a supporting role, may be required to stand in for the primary supervisor in his or her absence and/or provide support to the student in specific aspects of the research degree.
In all Codes there is a statement of responsibilities for the principal supervisor. This formally sets out the full range of responsibilities, such as:
• providing satisfactory advice and guidance on the conduct of the research and preparation of the thesis;
• being accountable to the relevant department, faculty or graduate school for monitoring the progress of the research;
• establishing and maintaining regular contact with the student and being accessible at appropriate times for consultation;
Interrogating practice
Reflect on your own experience of being supervised for a research degree.
How would you rate the experience? What aspects of that supervision would you wish to import into you own practice and what aspects would you reject?
174 ❘ Teaching, supervising, learning
• having input into the student’s development needs and ensuring the student has access to appropriate education and training opportunities;
• reading drafts produced by the student and providing timely, constructive and effective feedback on the student’s work and overall progress within the programme;
• ensuring that the student is aware of the need to exercise probity and to conduct research according to ethical principles, and of the implications of research misconduct;
• helping the student to interact with others working in the field of research, for example by helping to identify funding;
• providing effective pastoral support and/or referring the student to other sources of support if relevant;
• maintaining necessary supervisory expertise, including the skills to perform the role satisfactorily, supported by relevant professional development activities;
• being sensitive to the diverse needs of students.
Apart from these formal requirements, there are some other practices which will help ensure that the student–supervisor relationship is built on firm foundations.
Agreeing supervisory guidelines
It is important to set out guidelines for the student–supervisor relationship, just as in other forms of teaching. This means that at the beginning, both parties should agree what the supervisor will do, what the student is responsible for, what both agree to do and what the supervisor will not do. These should be documented and signed by both sides.
This sets out clarity over roles, responsibilities and expectations. Also at this time, there should be some discussion about supervisor accessibility and what the student should do if there is a problem that cannot be dealt with by the principal and/or secondary supervisor. When problems develop later in supervisory relationships, it is sometimes because these discussions have not taken place.
Frequency of supervisory meetings
At the outset, students and supervisors need to set out and agree the intervals at which they should meet for formal supervisions and dates should be recorded for the next few months at least. Many universities in their Codes specify the minimum frequency at which supervisions take place. Thus, for example, the University of York (2006: section 6d) specifies: ‘Formal supervisory meetings at which substantial discussion of research progress normally takes place, should be held at least twice a term’ and that: ‘A meeting with the supervisor, if requested by a student, should take place within one week, if this is practicable’. The purpose of these formal meetings should be discussed with students and the difference between formal and informal meetings made clear. This type of clarity may help to prevent any confusion at a later stage.
Supervising research students ❘ 175
Records of supervisory meetings
It is considered good practice for the student to write records of supervisory meetings in which topics discussed are logged, progress against milestones monitored and future objectives set. These should be dated and then e-mailed to the supervisors to sign off. This helps students to take an interest in managing their own work and seeing progress being made. It is important for the supervisor to keep such action plans as records of their own performance, should this be challenged. There is a positive correlation between establishing a routine of keeping effective records of supervision and successful outcomes of supervision.
Skills for supervision
Supervisionis a professional relationship. How supervisors work with their students may vary according to custom and practice, from one discipline to another. In its key principles for research degree supervision, the University of East Anglia (UEA, 2007: 3) says of supervision that: ‘It should be guided by the principles of intellectual and inter- personal integrity, fairness, respect, clarity about roles and responsibilities, student autonomy and working in the best interest of the student.’ A discussion of ways of conceptualising the supervisor–student relationship is given by Taylor and Beasley (2005).
The approach to the supervision of research students is not dissimilar to that for supervision of undergraduate projects and dissertations (Chapter 11). Supervision is a front-loaded activity which requires significant input in the early stages to be effective.
Towards completion there is another major commitment in supporting writing. Research supervision is about facilitation, nurturing and where appropriate challenging students to ensure development of their critical understanding and self-evaluation. In this way they can take responsibility for the development of their own research over the period of the degree. The process involves being able to let the students go and take chances as they move through the research.
Supervision requires high-level teaching skills that have developed from the same skill set as may be used in other settings, such as small group teaching (Chapter 6). In addition, it requires empathy. In supervision the skills set includes effective questioning, active listening and responding. Supervisors need to provide effective feedback on when things are going well and, importantly, if things are not going so well. The PRES data mentioned earlier indicate the importance research students attach to prompt and high-quality feedback. Owens (2008) outlines expectations of students starting their Ph.D. programmes for their own role and that of their supervisors, and how these may be used to start building the student–supervisor relationship.
Case study 1 shows an approach used by the University of Durham to acknowledge and set criteria for excellence in research degree supervision.
Context
Over the past two decades or so, virtually all UK universities have adopted awards for excellence in teaching and learning, but not for doctoral supervision.
This is in marked contrast to universities in Australia and the USA, where such awards are common. In 2005, and with the strong encouragement and support of the then Vice-Chancellor Sir Kenneth Calman, Durham University instituted such awards. These have attracted a significant number of high-quality applications and have helped to raise the status of doctoral supervision.
The purpose of this award is to promote, recognise and reward excellence in doctoral supervision. The award will be made to members of the university’s staff who can demonstrate excellence in the supervision of doctoral students, including those studying for the Ph.D., the DBA and the Ed.D.
Eligibility
Academic and research staff who have normally participated in the supervision of at least three doctoral students to successful completion and who have not previously won an award.
Nomination
Nominations are invited from heads of department, in consultation with directors of postgraduate research. Agreement should be obtained from prospective nominees to their names going forward for consideration for the award.
The university expects all of its supervisors to enable their students to:
• where appropriate, initiate and plan a research project;
• acquire the research skills to undertake it and gain adequate access to resources;
• complete it on time;
• produce a high-quality thesis;
• be successful in examination;
• disseminate the results;
• lay the basis for their future career.
It would expect that an excellent supervisor would also be able to demonstrate:
• a strong interest in, and enthusiasm for, supervising and supporting research students;
176 ❘ Teaching, supervising, learning
Case study 1: Vice-Chancellor’s award for excellence in doctoral supervision
• the ability to recruit and select good candidates and establish effective working relationships with them and, where appropriate, with co- supervisors;
• the ability to offer appropriate support to students’ research projects, including encouraging and supporting them to write up their work, giving useful and prompt feedback on submitted work, advising on keeping the project on track, and monitoring progress;
• a concern to support the personal, professional and career development of doctoral students;
• an ability to support students through the processes of completion of their thesis and final examination;
• an ability to critically evaluate their practice as supervisors and, where appropriate, disseminate it.
Awards
Three awards, each to the value of £1,000, will be available to successful staff to support their academic development in the field of doctoral supervision.
Procedure
For details go to: http://www.dur.ac.uk/academicstaffdevelopment/vcsawards/.
The statements of successful candidates will be published in the newsletter Quality Enhancement in Durham, and on the university’s website as examples of good practice in doctoral supervision.
(Dr Stan Taylor, Academic Staff Development Officer, University of Durham)