Научное руководство аспирантами: систематический обзор подходов к концептуализации и эмпирическому анализу

В статье представлен систематический обзор теоретико-методологических подходов российских и зарубежных исследователей к концептуализации и эмпирическому изучению научного руководства аспирантами. В зависимости от того, кому приписывается основная ответственность за итоговый результат, выделяются три подхода: наставнический, аспирантоцентрированный и средовой. В рамках наставнического подхода ответственность за результат приписывается научному руководителю. Этот подход укоренен в так называемой модели наставничества, когда аспирант рассматривается в качестве «неофита», которого научный руководитель вводит в академический мир. Для аспирантоцентрированного подхода характерно возложение значительной части ответственности на аспиранта, и в фокусе изучения оказываются его характеристики (мотивационные, коммуникационные, психологическое благополучие и др.), а также ожидания от научного руководства и его результаты. Этот подход предполагает активную роль аспиранта и восходит к моделям студентоцентрированной педагогики. Средовой подход фокусируется на изучении роли среды, помещая в центр изучения вопросы, связанные с академической и социальной интеграцией аспирантов. Отмечается, что все эти подходы обладают рядом ограничений, связанных с фокусировкой на отдельных факторах образовательного процесса и с недостаточным вниманием к динамическому и относительному характеру различных аспектов научного руководства и их связи с результативностью аспирантской подготовки. Обосновывается важность развития реляционного подхода к изучению научного руководства, который синтезирует ключевые положения рассмотренных подходов, предполагая распределенную модель ответственности в процессе научного руководства и обращение к изучению «образовательных альянсов», понимаемых шире пар или команд научных руководителей и аспирантов. В фокусе такого подхода – не только активность отдельных акторов, но и система взаимоотношений между ними.

1. Nerad M. The PhD in the US: Criticisms, Facts, and Remedies // Higher Education Policy. 2004. Vol. 17, nr 2. P. 183–199. DOI 10.1057/palgrave.hep.8300050.

2. Golde C. The Role of the Department and Discipline in Doctoral Student Attrition: Lessons from Four Departments // The Journal of Higher Education. 2005. Vol. 76. P. 665–700. DOI 10.1080/00221546.2005.11772304.

3. Kehm B. M. Doctoral Education in Europe and North America: a Comparative Analysis // Wenner Gren International Series. 2006. Vol. 83. P. 67–82. DOI 10.1007/s12564-018-9527-8.

4. Bao Y., Kehm B. M., Ma Y. From Product to Process. The Reform of Doctoral Education in Europe and China // Studies in Higher Education. 2018. Vol. 43, nr 3. P. 524–541. DOI 10.1080/03075079.2016.1182481.

5. Бедный Б. И. Новая модель аспирантуры: pro et contra // Высшее образование в России. 2017. № 4. С. 5–16.

6. Бедный Б. И., Рыбаков Н. В., Сапунов М. Б. Российская аспирантура в образовательном поле: междисциплинарный дискурс // Социологические исследования. 2017. № 9. С. 125–134. DOI 10.7868/S0132162517090148.

7. Maloshonok N., Terentev E. National Barriers to the Completion of Doctoral Programs at Russian Universities // Higher Education in Russia and Beyond. 2019. Vol. 3, nr 9. P. 18–20. DOI 10.1007/s10734-018-0267-9.

8. Bekova S. Does Employment During Doctoral Training Reduce the PhD Completion Rate? // Studies in Higher Education. 2019. P. 1–13. DOI 10.1080/03075079.2019.1672648.

9. Why do Students Consider Dropping out of Doctoral Degrees? Institutional and Personal Factors / M. Castello, M. Pardo, A. Sala-Bubaré, N. Suñe-Soler // Higher Education. 2017. Vol. 74, nr 6. P. 1053–1068. DOI 10.1007/s10734-016-0106-9.

10. Attrition, Completion and Completion Times of PhD Candidates / S. Bourke, A. Holbrook, T. Lovat, P. Farley // AARE Annual Conference. 2004. Vol. 28. Melbourne, 2004. P. 2–14.

11. Ali A., Kohun F. Dealing with Isolation Feelings in IS Doctoral Programs // International Journal of Doctoral Studies. 2006. Vol. 1, nr 1. P. 21–33. DOI 10.28945/58.

12. Выпуск аспирантов по направлениям подготовки // Россия в цифрах. Краткий статистический сборник ; Росстат : официальный сайт. URL: https://www.gks.ru/folder/13398?print=1 (дата обращения: 21.12.2019).

13. Балабанов С. С., Бедный Б. И., Миронос А. А. Подготовка научных кадров социогуманитарного профиля в аспирантуре // Социологические исследования. 2008. № 3. С. 70–78.

14. Шестак В. П., Шестак Н. В. Аспирантура как третий уровень высшего образования: дискурсивное поле // Высшее образование в России. 2015. № 12. С. 22–34.

15. Терентьев Е. А., Бекова С. К., Малошонок Н. Г. Кризис российской аспирантуры: источники проблем и возможности их преодоления // Университетское управление: практика и анализ. 2018. Т. 22, № 5. С. 54–66. DOI 10.15826/umpa.2018.05.049.

16. Kemp D. A. Knowledge and Innovation: a Policy Statement on Research and Research Training. Canberra : Department of Education, Training and Youth Affairs, 1999. 29 p.

17. Nerad M. Globalization and its Impact on Research Education: Trends and Emerging Best Practices for the Doctorate of the Future // Quality in Postgraduate Research: Knowledge Creation in Testing Times. Canberra : ANU, 2006. P. 5–12.

18. Миронос А. А., Бедный Б. И. К вопросу о государственной итоговой аттестации в аспирантуре нового типа // Университетское управление: практика и анализ. 2016. № 3 (103). С. 118–128. DOI 10.15826/umj.2016.103.022.

19. Wunsch M. New Directions for Mentoring: An Organizational Development Perspective // New Directions for Teaching and Learning. 1994. Vol. 57. P. 9–13. DOI 10.1002/tl.37219945703.

20. Golde C. M. Should I Stay or Should I Go: Student Descriptions of the Doctoral Attrition Process // Review of Higher Education. 2000. Vol. 23, nr 2. P. 199–277. DOI 10.1353/rhe.2000.0004.

21. Harman G. Producing PhD Graduates in Australia for the Knowledge Economy // Higher Education Research & Development. 2002. Vol. 21, nr 2. P. 179–190.

22. Lovitts B. E. Leaving the Ivory Tower: The Causes and Consequences of Departure from Doctoral Study. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 2002. 336 p.

23. Груздев И. А., Терентьев Е. А. Данные против мифов: результаты социологического исследования аспирантов ведущих вузов // Высшее образование в России. 2017. № 7. С. 89–97.

24. Grant K., Hackney R., Edgar D. Postgraduate Research Supervision: An «Agreed» Conceptual View of Good Practice through Derived Metaphors // International Journal of Doctoral Studies. 2014. Vol. 9. P. 43–60. DOI 10.28945/1952.

25. Ali P. A., Watson R., Dhingra K. Postgraduate Research Students’ and their Supervisors’ Attitudes towards Supervision // International Journal of Doctoral Studies. 2016. Vol. 11. P. 227–241. DOI 10.28945/3541.

26. Desirable Qualities of Modern Doctorate Advisors in the USA: a View through the Lenses of Candidates, Graduates, and Academic Advisors / R. T. Taylor, T. Vitale, C. Tapoler, K. Whaley // Studies in Higher Education. 2018. Vol. 43, nr 5. P. 854–866. DOI 10.1080/03075079.2018.1438104.

27. Резник С. Д., Чемезов И. С. Институт аспирантуры российского вуза: состояние, проблемы и перспективы развития // Вестник Томского государственного университета. 2018. № 430. С. 159–168. DOI 10.17223/15617793/430/22.

28. Umbach P. D., Porter S. R. How Do Academic Departments Impact Student Satisfaction? Understanding the Contextual Effects of Departments // Research in Higher Education. 2002. Vol. 43. P. 209–234.

29. Marsh H. W., Rowe K. J., Martin A. PhD Students’ Evaluations of Research Supervision Issues, Complexities, and Challenges in a Nationwide Australian Experiment in Benchmarking Universities // The Journal of Higher Education. 2002. Vol. 73. P. 313–348.

30. A Model for the Supervisor–Doctoral Student Relationship / T. Mainhard, R. Van Der Rijst, J. Van Tartwijk, T. Wubbels // Higher education. 2009. Vol. 58, nr 3. P. 359–373.

31. Lipschutz S. S. Enhancing Success in Doctoral Education: From Policy to Practice // New Directions for Institutional Research. 1993. Vol. 80. P. 69–80.

32. Evans T., Kamler B. The Need for Counter-Scrutiny: Taking a Broad View of Doctoral Education Research // Higher Education Research and Development. 2005. Vol. 24, nr 2. P. 115–118.

33. Капшутарь М. А. Мотивация как фактор качества подготовки аспирантов // Ценности и смыслы. 2016. № 5 (45). С. 39–47.

34. González-Ocampo G., Castelló M. B. Research on Doctoral Supervision: What We Have Learnt in the Last 10 Years // Traversing the Doctorate. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham, 2019. P. 117–141.

35. Pappa S., Elomaa M., Perälä-Littunen S. Sources of Stress and Scholarly Identity: the Case of International Doctoral Students of Education in Finland // Higher Education, Early Online. 2020. Vol. 80, nr 1. P. 173–192. DOI 10.1007/s10734-019-00473-6.

36. Bøgelund P. How Supervisors Perceive PhD Supervision – And How They Practice It // International Journal of Doctoral Studies. 2015. Vol. 10. P. 39–55.

37. Akerlind G., McAlpine L. Supervising Doctoral Students: Variation in Purpose and Pedagogy // Studies in Higher Education. 2017. Vol. 42, nr 9. P. 1686–1698. DOI 10.1080/03075079.2015.1118031.

38. Flores E., Nerad M. Peers in Doctoral Education: Unrecognized Learning Partners // New Directions for Higher Education. 2002. Nr 157, Spring 201. P. 73–83. DOI 10.1002/he.20007.

39. Kehm B. M. New Forms of Doctoral Education and Training in the European Higher Education Area // The European Higher Education Area. Brill Sense, 2009. P. 223–241.

40. Shulman L. S. The Paradox of Teacher Assessment // Shulman L. S. The Wisdom of Practice: Essays on Teaching, Learning and Learning to Teach. San Francisco : Jossey-Bass, 2004. P. 336–349.

41. Kwiram A. L. Time for Reform? // C. M. Golde, G. E. Walker (eds.). Envisioning the Future of Doctoral Education: Preparing Stewards of the Discipline. Carnegie Essays on the Doctorate. San Francisco : Jossey-Bass, 2006. P. 141–166.

42. Halse C., Bansel P. The Learning Alliance: Ethics in Doctoral Supervision // Oxford Review of Education. 2012. Vol. 38, nr 4. P. 377–392. DOI 10.1080/03054985.2012.706219.

43. Gatfield T. An Investigation into PhD Supervisory Management Styles: Development of a Dynamic Conceptual Model and Its Managerial Implications // Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management. 2005. Vol. 27, nr 3. P. 311–325. DOI 10.1080/13600800500283585.

44. Zhao C. M., Golde C. M., McCormick A. C. More than a Signature: How Advisor Choice and Advisor Behavior Affect Doctoral Student Satisfaction // Journal of Further and Higher Education. 2007. Vol. 31, nr 3. P. 263–281. DOI 10.1080/03098770701424983.

45. Deuchar R. Facilitator, Director or Critical Friend? Contradiction and Congruence in Doctoral Supervision Styles // Teaching in Higher Education. 2008. Vol. 13, nr 4. P. 489–500. DOI 10.1080/13562510802193905.

46. Lee A. How Are Doctoral Students Supervised? Concepts of Doctoral Research Supervision // Studies in Higher Education. 2008. Vol. 33, nr 3. P. 267–281. DOI 10.1080/03075070802049202.

47. Lee A. How Can We Develop Supervisors for the Modern Doctorate? // Studies in Higher Education. 2018. Vol. 43, nr 5. P. 878–890. DOI 10.1080/03075079.2018.1438116.

48. Doctoral Supervision in the Light of the Three Types of Support Promoted in Self-Determination Theory / C. Devos, N. Van der Linden, G. Boudrenghien [et al.] // International Journal of Doctoral Studies. 2015. Vol. 10. P. 438–464. DOI 10.28945/2308.

49. Boehe D. M. Supervisory Styles: A Contingency Framework // Studies in Higher Education. 2016. Vol. 41, nr 3. P. 399–414. DOI 10.1080/03075079.2014.927853.

50. Bastalich W. Content and Context in Knowledge Production: a Critical Review of Doctoral Supervision Literature // Studies in Higher Education. 2017. Vol. 42. P. 1145–1157. DOI 10.1080/03075079.2015.1079702.

51. Gruzdev I., Terentev E., Dzhafarova Z. Superhero or Hands-Off Supervisor? An Empirical Categorization of PhD Supervision Styles and Student Satisfaction in Russian Universities // Higher Education. 2020. Nr 79. P. 773–789. DOI 10.1007/s10734-019-00437-w.

52. Sinclair M. The Pedagogy of «Good» PhD Supervision: A National Cross-Disciplinary Investigation of PhD Supervision. Canberra : Department of Education, Science and Training, 2004. 134 p.

53. Taylor S., Kiley M., Humphrey R. A Handbook for Doctoral Supervisors. 2-nd ed. London : Routledge, 2018. 276 p. DOI 10.4324/9781315559650.

54. Mascolo M. F. Beyond Student-Centered and TeacherCentered Pedagogy: Teaching and Learning as Guided Participation // Pedagogy and the Human Sciences. 2009. Vol. 1, iss. 1. P. 3–27.

55. Watts J. H. Challenges of Supervising Part-Time PhD Students: Towards Student-Centred Practice // Teaching in Higher Education. 2008. Vol. 13, nr 3. P. 369–373. DOI 10.1080/13562510802045402.

56. Andriopoulou P., Prowse A. Towards an Effective Supervisory Relationship in Research Degree Supervision: Insights from Attachment Theory // Teaching in Higher Education. 2020. Vol. 25, nr 4. P. 648–661. DOI 10.1080/13562517.2020.1731449.

57. Naidoo D. Understanding Non-Traditional PhD Students Habitus – Implications for PhD Programmes // Teaching in Higher Education. 2015. Vol. 20, nr 3. P. 340–351. DOI 10.1080/13562517.2015.1017457.

58. Doctoral Supervision in a Cross-Cultural Context: Issues Affecting Supervisors and Candidates / T. WinchesterSeeto, J. Homewood, J. Thogersen [et al.] // Higher Education Research & Development. 2014. Vol. 33, nr 3. P. 610–626. DOI 10.1080/07294360.2013.841648.

59. Robertson M. J. Ages and Career St ages: Considerations in Providing Support for Mid-Late Career Stage Doctoral Students // Innovations in Education and Teaching International. 2017. Vol. 54, nr 6. P. 560–569. DOI 10.1080/14703297.2017.1355261.

60. Ismail H. M., Majidb F. A., Ismail I. S. «It’s a Complicated» Relationship: Research Students’ Perspective on Doctoral Supervision // Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences. 2013. Vol. 90. P. 165–170. DOI 10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.07.078n.

61. Stubb J., Pyhältö K., Lonka K. Balancing between Inspiration and Exhaustion: PhD Students’ Experienced Socio-Psychological Well-Being // Studies in Continuing Education. 2011. Vol. 33, nr 1. P. 33–50. DOI 10.1080/0158037X.2010.515572.

62. Pyhältö K., Vekkaila K., Keskinen J. Fit Matters in the Supervisory Relationship: Doctoral Students and Supervisors Perceptions about the Supervisory Activities // Innovations in Education and Teaching International. 2015. Vol. 52, nr 1. P. 4–16. DOI 10.1080/14703297.2014.981836.

63. Franke A., Arvidsson B. Research Supervisors’ Different Ways of Experiencing Supervision of Doctoral Students // Studies in Higher Education. 2011. Vol. 36, nr 1. P. 7–19. DOI 10.1080/03075070903402151.

64. Corner S., Lö fströ m E., Pyhältö K. The Relationships between Doctoral Students’ Perceptions of Supervision and Burnout // International Journal of Doctoral Studies. 2017. Vol. 12. P. 91–106. DOI 10.28945/3754.

65. Jonck P., Swanepoel E. Quality of Postgraduate Research Supervision and Training: A Mixed-Method Student Perspective // Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences. 2016. Vol. 7, nr 2. P. 259–270. DOI 10.5901/mjss.2016.v7n2p259.

66. Gardner S. Stress Among Prospective Teachers: a Review of the Literature // Australian Journal of Teacher Education. 2010. Vol. 35, nr 8. P. 18–28. DOI 10.14221/ajte.2010v35n8.2.

67. Clark M. S. Record Keeping in Two Types of Relationships // Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1984. Vol. 47, nr 3. P. 549–557. DOI 10.1037/0022-3514.47.3.549.

68. Gardner S. K. «I Heard It through the Grapevine». Doctoral Student Socialization in Chemistry and History // Higher Education. 2007. Vol. 32. P. 383–408. DOI 10.1007/s10734-006-9020-x.

69. Bennett S., Saks L. V. A Conceptual Application of Attachment Theory and Research to Social Work StudentField Instructor Supervisory Relationships // Journal of Social Work Education. 2006. Vol. 42, nr 3. P. 669–682. DOI 10.5175/JSWE.2006.200500506.

70. Halse C., Malfroy J. Retheorizing Doctoral Supervision as Professional Work // Studies in Higher Education. 2010. Vol. 35, nr 1. P. 79–92. DOI 10.1080/03075070902906798.

71. Tinto V. Leaving College: Rethinking the Causes and Cures of Student Attrition. 2-nd ed. Chicago : University of Chicago Press, 1993. 246 p.

72. Valero Y. F. de. Departmental Factors Affecting Time-to-Degree and Completion Rates of Doctoral Students at One Land-Grant Research Institution // The Journal of Higher Education. 2001. Vol. 72, nr 3. P. 341–367. DOI 10.1080/00221546.2001.11777098.

73. Litalien D., Guay F., Morin A. J. S. Motivation for PhD Studies: Scale Development and Validation // Learning and Individual Differences. 2015. Vol. 41. P. 1–13. DOI 10.1016/j.lindif.2015.05.006.

74. Nelson C., Lovitts B. 10 Ways to Keep Graduate Students from Quitting // Chronicle of Higher Education. 2001. June 29.

75. Shacham M., Od-Cohen Y. Rethinking PhD Learning Incorporating Communities of Practice // Innovations in Education and Teaching International. 2009. Vol. 46, nr 3. P. 279–292. DOI 10.1080/14703290903069019.

76. Winston G. C., Zimmerman D. J. Peer Effects in Higher Education // Williams Project on the Economics of Higher Education DP-64. Department of Economics, Williams College, 2003. P. 9–23.

77. Sisson K., Jackman P. From Enrolment to Completion: An Exploration of Psychological Wellbeing in Doctoral Students during the PhD Journey // International Conference on the Mental Health & Wellbeing of Postgraduate Researchers. Brighton, UK, 2019. P. 13.

78. Jacobsson G., Gillströ m P. International Postgraduate Student Mirror: Catalonia, Finland, Ireland, and Sweden. Hö gskoleverket, Swedish National Agency for Higher Education Report, 2006. 37 p.

79. Pyhältö K., Pietarinen J., Soini T. Teachers’ Professional Agency and Learning from Adaption to Active Modification in the Teacher Community // Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice. 2015. Vol. 21, nr 7. P. 811–830. DOI 10.1080/13540602.2014.995483.

80. Delany D. A Review of the Literature on Effective PhD Supervision. Trinity College : Centre for Practice and Student Learning, 2012. 45 p.

81. Freire P. Pedagogy of the Oppressed. New York : Seabury Press, 1970. 86 p.

82. Darling-Hammond L . Evalu ating Tea cher Effectiveness: How Teacher Performance Assessments Can Measure and Improve Teaching. Washington, D. C. : Center for American Progress, 2010. 36 p.