Introduction
Although the University of Melbourne attempted to introduce the PhD in the interwar period, it was only soon after World War II that the University was able to lead the then six other universities in the country to establish the degree. By the late 1940s, all of the universities had adopted the PhD, and the first was awarded by Melbourne in 1948 (Zobel, 2018).
By 1958 there were 10 universities in Australia, and a further nine had been added by 1975. In the 1980s there was a national program of mergers of universities with Colleges of Advanced Education and Institutes of Technology, and by 1994 there were 38 accredited universities within the Unified System, some of them new and others as a result of mergers1.
In these new institutions, there were many academics who did not have PhD degrees; most were expected to undertake doctoral studies while others were required to do so. This led to a substantial increase in PhD enrollments by the late 1980s.
Another outcome of the mergers was the combination of fine and performing arts institutes with universities. As a result, Australia was one of the pioneers in introducing practice-led doctorates in dance, music, and fine arts. Here, scholars produced an original artifact with an accompanying exegesis explaining its creation (see Paltridge, Starfield, Ravelli, & Nicholson, 2011).
At that same time, doctoral enrollments were boosted by the introduction of the first professional doctorates (Maxwell, Evans, & Hickey, 2004). These new doctorates were aimed at professionals in a range of occupations, and they normally involved an instructional component followed by a research project based upon professional practice.
With additional enrollments in these new kinds of doctorates, as well as increases in both domestic and international student numbers, the totals of doctoral scholars and graduates rose substantially in the 21st century. By 2013 there were 9,209 Higher Degree by Research (HDR)2 graduates with 7,787 doctoral graduates and 1,422 research masterās graduates (McGagh et al., 2016, p. 5). By 2017 there were 8,400 doctoral graduates (World Economic Forum, 2017).
With that background, the remainder of this chapter is divided into two parts. The first outlines the major influences upon research supervision in Australia that have emerged since the 1990s, while the second examines the various strategies that Australian universities have developed to select, support, and evaluate their supervisors.
Influences upon research supervision since the late 1990s
There have been six key influences on research supervision in Australia since the 1990s: 1) the style of research degrees, 2) entry requirements for the doctorate, 3) the substantial increase in enrollments, particularly of international candidates, 4) the various policies and funding methods for research and research education, 5) the Good Practice Principles of the Australian Council of Graduate Research (ACGR, 2018), and 6) the focus on graduate employability.
Style of research degree in Australia
Based on the British model of supervision, traditionally the Australian PhD did not involve coursework with the expectation that the candidate would have already developed the skills needed, or that the supervisor would provide the necessary coaching (Pearson & Kayrooz, 2004). The exception has been the professional doctorates, where there has always been a substantial coursework component.
Following the research project by Cullen, Pearson, Saha, and Spear (1994), which suggested that team supervision would be more effective than single supervision, most universities in Australia have required at least two members of the doctoral supervisory team.
Traditional entry requirements for a research degree
Until relatively recently, the usual qualification for direct entry into the PhD program was successful, high level completion of the Honours year of an undergraduate program (Kiley, Boud, Cantwell, & Manathunga, 2011). The Honours system in Australia was based on the earlier Scottish model of a fourth undergraduate year when the program generally involved approximately one-third each of disciplinary coursework, research methods, and a thesis. A student with First Class Honours was considered to have achieved the criteria for entry into a PhD and be scholarship competitive.
What is particularly relevant here is that supervisors and Honours students who had worked together successfully were likely to stay together and segue into a PhD, with each knowing the other and having completed what might be considered a pilot study for the PhD (Kiley & Austin, 2000). Most universities still have as their scholarship requirements āFirst Class Honours or equivalentā even though fewer and fewer candidates are entering PhD programs through this route. One of the main reasons for this change has been the increase in international and even domestic candidates who are recruited with a masterās entry qualification rather than undergraduate Honours. With masterās entry, it is often the case that supervisors and candidates will not know one another in the way they might with Honours entry.
Increase in enrollments
Another development that has had a substantial impact on research supervision in Australia is the increase in enrollments of international HDR candidates, with the number more than tripling from 6,249 in 2001 to 20,384 in 2014. International candidates now represent 32% of enrollments, up from 16% a decade earlier (McGagh et al., 2016, p. 3). However, these enrollments are not evenly spread across disciplines with Trounson (2014) reporting that the most popular area for international doctoral candidates is engineering. With the increasing numbers of international enrollments, particularly from China, there has been a heightened focus in many institutions on supervisor development relating to recruiting, selecting, and supporting international candidates.
Policies and funding models
Following the institutional mergers in the 1980s, the next major policy development relevant to research education was the introduction of the Research Training Scheme (RTS) in the late 1990s. In very simple terms, the RTS changed the funding model that covered the tuition fees for domestic candidates from one based on enrollments to one based on completions. If a candidate failed to complete the degree, then the institution received only a small percentage of the funding for that enrollment. Furthermore, the amount was for four years (full-time equivalent), so if a candidate went over four years, the institution was expected to bear the costs. This new system brought about a number of changes, including a greater emphasis on the professional development of doctoral supervisors to ensure that candidates completed in a timely manner (Kiley, 2011a). A further funding review (Watt, 2015) proposed a number of modifications to the previous system; however, the impact on supervisor development was not as obvious as with the RTS.
Coordination and good practice guidelines
In Australia, there is a regulatory framework for doctoral education. The Australian Qualifications Framework (Australian Qualifications Framework Council, 2013) determines the criteria for a Level 10, doctoral award, while the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency (https://www.teqsa.gov.au/) oversees the quality of all levels of tertiary education, including the doctorate. However, with regard to supervision, a main influence has been the Australian Council of Graduate Research (ACGR), which has provided good practice guidelines that have been adopted or modified by most Australian universities (ACGR, 2018, pp.1ā2). While membership of ACGR is voluntary, the collaborative activities of members have resulted in a wide range of shared, although not required, resources and guidelines. For example, the ACGR Guidelines for Quality Graduate Research Supervision suggest that with regard to accreditation of doctoral supervisors:
- āA register or accreditation system for supervisors be in place
- A system [that] includes the ability to suspend or remove those supervisors who do not meet expectations
- [And that it] recognizes the different levels of supervisory experience, including both scholarly and practice based, that provide candidates with support for all aspects of their researchā. (ACGR, 2018, p. 1)
With regard to professional development, the ACGR recommends that:
- Universities have a clear strategy for supervisory professional development;
- A suite of online and face-to-face supervisor professional development modules are available that ensure knowledge of best practice;
- Continuing professional development is mandatory for all supervisors and should be repeated on a regular basis; and
- Orientation to the rules and practices of the institution is provided to all new supervisors and is mandatory. (ACGR, 2018, p. 2)
The focus on graduate employability
Over the past several years, there has been a considerable focus on the employability of doctoral graduates (ACER, 2010; McGagh et al., 2016). This emphasis has stemmed from the fact that only around one in four graduates will gain academic posts, while the rest will be employed elsewhere in the public or private sectors (McGagh et al., 2016). As a result, there is now a strong emphasis upon supervisor support for candidates regarding non-academic employment (e.g., developing and supporting internships and discussing employment options with candidates).
Supervisor eligibility, development, and evaluation
Most Australian universities have requirements for supervisor eligibility, particularly for the principal or primary supervisor. In order to find out more about them, and with the help of many Deans of Graduate Research, in 2018 the author undertook a survey of supervisor eligibility and professional support. Responses were received from 29 (74%) of the 39 members of Universities Australia (https://www.universitiesaustralia.edu.au/) and included institutions from across the various university groupings. Respondents included all of the Group of Eight universities, five of the seven Innovative Research Universities, two of the four Australian Technology Network institutions, five of the nine Regional Universities Network, and nine of the 13 non-aligned institutions. The key findings are set out below.
Supervisor eligibility
In general, most universities require at least one member of the supervisory t...
