Graduate Research Supervision in the Developing World

Policies, Pedagogies, and Practices

Erik Blair, Danielle Watson, Shikha Raturi, Erik Blair, Danielle Watson, Shikha Raturi

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2020
• eBook ISBN: 9781000028669
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Education
• Subtopic: Education General

Recognising that graduate supervisory practice is not an abstracted academic pursuit, but an activity that is subjectively bounded by content and context, impacted by the experiences and beliefs of supervisee and supervisor, this text explores the unique dynamics of graduate supervision in the Global South, as perceived and experienced by students and academics within those same contexts.

Bringing together contributions which reflect a rich diversity of perspectives on supervisory practices at regional universities in the Caribbean and South Pacific, Graduate Research Supervision in the Developing World explores how supervisors navigate unscripted supervisory terrain; contextualise supervisory best practices; establish roles and relationships, and work to understand supervisees' needs. By highlighting the effect on graduate supervision of complex sociocultural interplay and the relationship between learning environments and student success, contributors look to locate best practices through analyses of stories of success and failure. As the contributors demonstrate, there is a need to restructure the standardised operation of graduate supervision across diverse faculties.

This text will be of great interest to graduate supervisors and their supervisees as well as scholars in the fields of continuing professional development and higher education, in international and comparative education and Sociology of Education.

Part I
Negotiating Unscripted Supervisory Terrain

1 Peer Learning and Intercultural Expectations of the PhD Journey

Lynn Beckles

Introduction

The successful completion of a PhD means that an original contribution to knowledge in a field of study has been made. Receiving this academic designation presumes that the recipient has transitioned from a “period of self-doubt and questioning … [emerging] with a new identity as [a] competent professional, able to argue their viewpoint with anybody regardless of status, confident of their own knowledge, but also aware of its boundaries” (Phillips & Pugh, 2005, p. 4). Rugg and Petre (2010) describe the PhD as a professional qualification, a training in how to do research, and an initiation rite, notes Raineri (2013), where the recipient becomes “an authority, in full command of the subject right up to the boundaries of current knowledge, and able to extend them” (Phillips & Pugh, 2005, p. 21). There are differences between the research cultures of universities and disciplines, particularly when comparing the laboratory-based sciences to that of humanities and the social sciences. Notwithstanding these comparisons, the student needs to take responsibility for managing their learning, determining what is required, as well as carrying it out in order to acquire the PhD. The student experience can be long, lonely and frustrating, punctuated with but not limited to the competing interests of their supervisors, examiners, university and research councils (Cassuto, 2013; Kirchherr, 2018a; Phillips & Pugh, 2005; Raineri, 2013) and the need to have tacit knowledge about the overall journey (Landis, 2013; Rugg & Petre, 2010; Stanley, 2015). Several books exist on how to successfully complete a doctoral programme of study. They serve primarily as guides, providing technical information on how to write a thesis or conduct research but do not pretend to provide a definitive roadmap.

Empirical studies on the succession and completion rates of doctoral studies have been primarily conducted within Western institutions (Bourke, Holbrook, Lovat, & Farley, 2004; de Valero, 2001; Groenvynck, Vandevelde, & Van Rossem, 2013; Park, 2005). Research highlights that financial uncertainty and increased time to complete decreases the overall completion rate, negatively affecting morale and contributing to the overall unattractiveness of the institution to potential doctoral students. There is a dearth of empirical data on graduates from island states served by the University of the South Pacific and the University of the West Indies. Both the Pacific and Caribbean regions have been researched in the context of their potential development given their respective post-colonial placement within international knowledge systems. The Pacific has had a longer history as a research locale for Western intellectual gaze as compared to that of a region producing graduate students (Crocombe, 2013; Teaiwa, 2006). Efforts to increase the number and quality of graduates at all levels of educational achievement in both regions remain a critical focus of national, regional and international educational policy agendas (University of the South Pacific & Pacific Islands Forum Secretariat, 2018; The University of the West Indies, 2017). In examining the throughput rates of graduate students at the St. Augustine campus of the University of the West Indies, Pun (2014), suggests that “flexible curriculum structures, encouraging student engagement through varied learning opportunities, and a range of teaching styles, curriculum alignment, embedding of academic literacies in curricula, enhanced effective support, and social connectedness, as well as staff and tutor development” (p. 23) could improve the observed lag. Succession rates for graduates in both regions appear to have complex histories (Thaman, 2003; Thurab-Nkhosi, Gift, Quamina-Aiyejina, & Harvey, 2013), influenced simultaneously by institutional and individual decisions, punctuated by an urgent need for nuanced responses that could play a crucial role in driving innovation and growth of nation states while contributing to both national and international knowledge generation (Halse & Mowbray, 2011).

Peer group support can be used to mitigate the isolating aspects of the PhD process (Phillips & Pugh, 2005; Rugg & Petre, 2010). There can be negative consequences, as peer groups could also be a source of misinformation and depression if the communicated disappointments are not constructively managed (Rugg & Petre, 2010). Vygotsky highlights the advantages of peer groups based on the social constructivist view of learning that emphasises the role of students in generating learning through social interaction within their zones of proximal development (Clarkson & Luca, 2002). Pragmatically, peers could provide a community of like-minded individuals to achieve deadlines and provide constructive feedback while developing competency as a researcher and a subject matter expert. Peer learning’s long history is now extended to making positive strides in social and emotional gains for its beneficiaries when embedded across the learning institution (Boud, 1999; Topping, 2005). Zambrano and Gisbert (2015) discussed three modalities of peer interaction: tutoring, cooperation and collaboration, insisting that the teacher/supervisor can facilitate mutuality and positive outcomes in the interactive structure of the groups through task development and monitoring. In addition to the pressures for a timely completion of the PhD, several other discriminatory factors such as racism, sexism, heterosexism, ageism and barriers erected against the disabled (Phillips & Pugh, 2005) exist. Therefore, the deliberate selection and monitoring of peer groups within an overarching philosophy of collaborative learning (Laal & Ghodsi, 2012; Zambrano & Gisbert, 2015) could enhance the supervision process, allowing educational institutions to optimise on graduate learning and research opportunities with scarce resources.

Knowledge creation has been privileged from the developed world perspective; developing world and island theories are not yet considered mainstream knowledge (Balasopoulos, 2008; Christensen & Mertz, 2010; Depraetere, 2008a, 2008b; Grydehøj, 2017; McCall, 1996). Further, knowledge capital in developing economies is potentially threatened by an expanding international trade agenda in higher education (Anonymous, 2014; The World Bank, 2012). The impact of the doctorate is becoming a priority in the developing world (Auriol, 2007; Halse & Mowbray, 2011; Kirchherr, 2018b) as global concern from government, industry and private organisations are interested in understanding the social and economic impact of research. Publicly funded research initiatives have invited global comparisons for monitoring research outputs and there is a need to develop metrics to measure and monitor the changes and benefits flowing from research, such as reductions in poverty, crime or health problems, and improvements in educational outcomes or life expectancy (Halse & Mowbray, 2011). The PhD journey becomes an unavoidable intercultural experience in the pursuit of situating local problems within global knowledge systems. As a tourism practitioner entering academia to investigate a practical issue, the practitioner/academic praxis in knowledge creation is confronted in the data collection and analysis phases (Brown, Stacey, & Nandhakumar, 2008; Cunliffe, 2003a; Feighery, 2011; Neuman, 2014). Coming from Barbados, the opportunity to complete data collection in Fiji’s tourism industry introduced an unintended dimension of culture (Adler, 1977; Clifford, 1986; Schatzki, Cetina, & Savgny, 2001) which necessitated a dualism that pushed the research process toward a standard that could be accepted within a multicultural knowledge system. The epistemological dichotomy between Eastern and Western research methodologies, though globally recognised in learning and practice (Ong, 2016), is not the only example of a non-Western knowledge system unaccounted for. The Pacific is one of several other globally marginalised voices in academia in a post-colonial era (Girei, 2017; Nabobo-Baba, 2008). In acknowledging the need to go beyond these differences in the production of research knowledge, Bozalek (2011) draws on Vygotsky’s theorising and makes the case for interrogating one’s positionality and beliefs when researching in contexts where the normative expectations of the daily lives of the research participants differ from that of the researcher.

Reflection and reflexivity consequently provide the opportunity to discuss the researcher’s positionality by being conscientious, acknowledging how personal biases can impact on sense making. In the context of research, this practice has the potential to deepen the understanding of the experience for the researcher as well as the applicability of the research outcomes. Within a peer group, therefore, this practice can unlock social and emotional barriers within the research experience while facilitating the exploration of the practitioner/academic and researcher/participant praxis encountered in designing the research and/or interpreting its findings. Reflection is of utility to the all of the stakeholders involved in the research process, allowing for the acknowledgement of positive and negative incidents encountered on the journey (Pässilä, Oikarinen, & Vince, 2012; Reynolds & Vince, 2017; Vince & Reynolds, 2004). Reflection, though, must be accompanied by reflexive practices as the need to take action that is deliberate, informed, ongoing and recursive need not be delayed (Cunliffe, 2003b; Ryan, 2005; Ryan, 2006). It can happen immediately, leading to the improved rigour of the research outcomes (Orr & Bennett, 2009; Tracy, 2013) and the overall experience for both the researcher and the research participant. Interpersonal issues encountered within the doctoral journey are discussed as the cognitive ability of the student, where practical skills in the technical aspects of conducting research would inform the available solutions. Cultural experiences that may exist alongside cognitive challenges have been the focus of teaching and learning strategies and curriculum design; not necessarily seen as contributing to success or failure rates in graduate education. Culture and the successful completion of doctoral studies is a nuanced research inquiry and so the paucity of studies in this area is not surprising. Research does not happen in a vacuum, and this narrative (reflection) on my personal experience could be used to inform the design of such a study. Reflection and reflexive practices alongside peer mentoring proved to be invaluable tools in mediating the complexities in my intercultural research journey.

Context of My Reflections

The critical incident technique (CIT), “a set of procedures for collecting direct observations of human behaviour in such a way as to facilitate their potential usefulness in solving practical problems and developing broad psychological principle” (Flanagan, 1954, p. 1) was the methodological approach used to identify meaningful moments where I learnt from my Fijian peers. The CIT is a flexible qualitative research approach exploring a social or human problem in a natural setting (Creswell, 2009; Denzin & Lincoln, 2011). Though developed initially for use in industrial and organisational psychology, its influence has been extended to other disciplines, including education and learning (Butterfield, Borgen, Amundson, & Maglio, 2005), and as a technique to elicit the beliefs, opinions and suggestions that formed part of the incident rather than concentrating solely on the incident itself (Cheek, O’Brien, Ballantyne, & Pincombe, 1997).

The incidents, “any observable human activity that is sufficiently complete in itself to permit inferences and predictions to be made about the person performing the act” (Flanagan, 1954, p. 1), that informed this narrative occurred over a two-year time frame in Fiji. My interactions with graduate students occurred on the Lacaula Campus in social settings of three persons; one-on-one conversations; during scheduled meetings on campus as a group; and conversations over meals, on and off campus. These incidents specifically sought to discuss some aspect of the doctoral research process. I would have extensively discussed the research ideas of 19 Pacific graduate students, which included seven Fijian doctoral students and 12 Master’s students (eight Fijians; three Solomon Islanders, and one Cook Islander) that were registered at the Lacaula Campus in Suva.

The observations guiding this narrative are those of the Barbadian PhD student. A noted limitation is the absence of the Fijian students’ perspectives. Future inquiries guided by this methodological approach could capture reflections from all of the ethnicities and stakeholders within the peer learning experience – the analysis of the narratives completed by a researcher external to the peer group.

Reflections on Select Issues in the PhD Journey

The issues presented here had repeatedly surfaced when discussing activities required to complete our doctoral research. These findings do not pretend to be exhaustive in the intercultural dialogues that occurred; they represent moments around which deep learning (Beattie, Collins, & McInnes, 1997; Smith & Colby, 2007; Warburton, 2003) occurred, resulting in a significant shift in my perspective and influenced the final design of my doctoral research inquiry.

Supervisor Relations

The attributes of the desired supervisor are perceived as facilitating the working relationship needed by graduate students to complete their research. Two areas critical to the peer group were the accreditation of prospective supervisors to our regional universities and their willingness to work within an interdisciplinary space. In each circumstance, students were able to influence the choice of supervisors, but there were institutional barriers that made it difficult or impractical to have those persons officially assigned. Distance was a genuine concern and while an informal consulting relationship existed, it wasn’t useful to progressing the journey as the officially assigned supervisor’s perspective would prevail. Even where the research topic lent itself to a multidisciplinary investigation, framing the research project depended on the expertise and final vision of the chief supervisor.

Phillips and Pugh (2005) discussed the importance of a student rapport and good communication with their supervisor, observing that the closeness required could exceed that of a marriage. My Fijian colleagues and I desired relationships where there was constant support and reassurance. Within our cultural expectations, the supervisor would become like family – those interpersonal skills just as important as their expertise. As I had experienced both local and international supervisors, I exemplified the possibility of having a successful supervisor-student relationship based on professionalism without that level of friendliness our cultures might expect. It was evident from the discourse that unless the student had a positive experience, they may perceive unmet expectations as insurmountable obstacles. The challenges of distance and available expertise meant that we needed to be focused on completing the doctoral research – the intangible elements of the interactions not critical to the desired outcome. This goal was further exasperated by the disciplinary silos that persist if the opportunity to work with an interdisciplinary supervisory panel is not possible.

Student Time Management Practices

Work-life balance coupled with the demands of graduate studies could make successful time management extremely difficult. Prioritising doctoral studies meant that some aspect of the student’s personal life was on hold. Reduced income, less time with family, and emotional exhaustion are some of the areas impacted by our decision to pursue doctoral studies. This, coupled with the frustrations imposed with the elusive and ideal supervisor-student relationship, contributed to increased stress levels amongst all of us. Time to reflect on your research topic was a luxury where other responsibilities would compete for your attention. Time to complete tasks important to progressing the research journey was an equal luxury in the absence of clear supervisory guidance. What resulted was slow progression, which was frustrating for students, particularly in the initial stages of the research journey.

The doctoral student must be proactive in their time management, inquiring about the activities required by the institution to be able to complete as expected (Phillips & Pugh, 2005). There could be financial and professional implications, but in a developing world context, other extenuating circumstances influence an institution’s ability to assist with timely completion of doctoral studies. Constraints exist around funding, allocation and retention of supervisors, and the need to have more regional students engaged in research-based studies. These are outside of the immedia...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Series
• Title
• Copyright
• Contents
• Notes on Contributors
• Acknowledgements
• Introduction
• Part I Negotiating Unscripted Supervisory Terrain
• Part II Contextualising Supervisory Best Practices
• Part III Supervisory Roles, Responsibilities and Relationships
• Part IV Understanding Supervisees’ Needs
• Index