Doctoral Students’ Academic Supervision: A Systematic Review of Approaches to Conceptualization and Empirical Analysis
https://doi.org/10.15826/umpa.2021.01.004
Abstract
The article presents a systematic review of theoretical and methodological approaches to the conceptualization and empirical study of doctoral students’ supervision. Three approaches (mentoring, doctoral student-centered, and environmental) are distinguished depending on the main responsibility for the result. The mentoring approach attributes the responsibility for the result to the supervisor. This approach is generally associated with the so-called «apprentice model», which understands the doctoral student as a «neophyte» introduced to the academic world by the supervisor. The doctoral student-centered approach is characterized by imposing the responsibility mainly on the doctoral student. This approach assumes a more active role of the doctoral student and goes back to the models of student-centered pedagogy. The environmental approach focuses on studying the role of the environment and on the issues related to the academic and social integration of doctoral students. All these approaches notably have a number of limitations due to their concentration on certain factors of the educational process and less attention to the dynamic and relative nature of various aspects of academic supervision and its relationship with the effectiveness of doctoral training. There is substantiated the importance of developing a relational approach, which would synthesize the key points of the three approaches considered, and assume a distributed model of responsibility within the academic supervision. As it understands «learning alliances» more broadly than pairs or teams of scientific supervisors and graduate students, this approach focuses not only on the activity of individual actors, but also on the system of relationships between them.
About the Authors
A. V. Grigoryeva
National Research University Higher School of Economics
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Anna V. Grigoryeva – Research Analyst, Project Lab «University Development», Institute of Education
Potapovsky per. 16/b.10, Moscow, 101000
E. A. Terentev
National Research University Higher School of Economics
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Evgeniy A. Terentev – PhD (Sociology), Senior Researcher, Center for Sociology in Higher Education, Institute of Education
Potapovsky per. 16/b.10, Moscow, 101000
References
1. Nerad M. The PhD in the US: Criticisms, Facts, and Remedies. Higher Education Policy, 2004, vol. 17, nr 2, pp. 183–199. doi 10.1057/palgrave.hep.8300050. (In Eng.).
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, pp. 665–700. doi 10.1080/00221546.2005.11772304. (In Eng.).
3. Kehm B. M. Doctoral Education in Europe and North America: a Comparative Analysis. Wenner Gren International Series, 2006, vol. 83, pp. 67–82. doi 10.1007/s12564-018-9527-8. (In Eng.).
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, pp. 524–541. doi 10.1080/03075079.2016.1182481. (In Eng.).
5. Bednyi B. I. Novaya model’ aspirantury: pro et contra [A New Postgraduate School Model: pro et contra]. Vysshee obrazovanie v Rossii [Higher Education in Russia], 2017, nr 4, pp. 5–16. (In Russ.).
6. Bednyi B. I., Rybakov N. V., Sapunov M. B. Rossiiskaya aspirantura v obrazovatel’nom pole: mezhdistsiplinarnyi diskurs [Doctoral Education in Russia in the Educational Field: an Interdisciplinary Discourse]. Sotsiologicheskie issledovaniya [Sociological Studies], 2017, nr 9, pp. 125–134. doi 10.7868/S0132162517090148. (In Russ.).
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, pp. 18–20. doi 10.1007/s10734-018-0267-9. (In Eng.).
8. Bekova S. Does Employment During Doctoral Training Reduce the PhD Completion Rate? Studies in Higher Education, 2019, pp. 1–13. doi 10.1080/03075079.2019.1672648. (In Eng.).
9. Castello M., Pardo M., Sala-Bubaré A., Suñe-Soler N. Why do Students Consider Dropping out of Doctoral Degrees? Institutional and Personal Factors. Higher Education, 2017, vol. 74, nr 6, pp. 1053–1068. doi 10.1007/s10734-016-0106-9. (In Eng.).
10. Bourke S., Holbrook A., Lovat T., Farley P. Attrition, Completion and Completion Times of PhD Candidates. AARE Annual Conference, Melbourne, 2004, vol. 28, pp. 2–14. (In Eng.).
11. Ali A., Kohun F. Dealing with Isolation Feelings in IS Doctoral Programs. International Journal of Doctoral Studies, 2006, vol. 1, nr 1, pp. 21–33. doi 10.28945/58. (In Eng.).
12. Vypusk aspirantov po napravleniyam podgotovki [Graduation of PhD Students by the Areas of Training], available at: https://www.gks.ru/folder/13398?print=1 (accessed 21.12.2019). (In Russ.).
13. Balabanov S. S., Bedny B. I., Mironos A. A. Podgotovka nauchnykh kadrov sotsiogumanitarnogo profilya v aspiranture [Education of Post-Graduate Students in Social Sciences and Humanities]. Sotsiologicheskie issledovaniya [Sociological Studies], 2008, nr 3, pp. 70–78. (In Russ.).
14. Shestak V. P., Shestak N. V. Aspirantura kak tretii uroven’ vysshego obrazovaniya: diskursivnoe pole [Postgraduate Studies as the Third Level of Higher Education: Discursive Field]. Vysshee obrazovanie v Rossii [Higher Education in Russia], 2015, nr 12, pp. 22–34. (In Russ.).
15. Terentiev E. A., Bekova S. K., Maloshonok N. G. Krizis rossiiskoi aspirantury: istochniki problem i vozmozhnosti ikh preodoleniya [The Crisis of Postgraduate Studies in Russia: what Bears Problems and how to Overcome them]. Universitetskoe upravlenie: praktika i analiz [University Management: Practice and Analysis], 2018, vol. 22, nr 5, pp. 54–66. (In Russ.).
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. (In Eng.).
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, pp. 5–12. (In Eng.).
18. Mironos A. A., Bednyi B. I. K voprosu o gosudarstvennoi itogovoi attestatsii v aspiranture novogo tipa [On the Issue of Final State Certification in the Postgraduate School of a New Type]. Universitetskoe upravlenie: praktika i analiz [University Management: Practice and Analysis], 2016, nr 3 (103), pp. 118–128. doi 10.15826/umj.2016.103.022. (In Russ.).
19. Wunsch M. New Directions for Mentoring: An Organizational Development Perspective. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 1994, vol. 57, pp. 9–13. doi 10.1002/tl.37219945703. (In Eng.).
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, pp. 199–277. doi 10.1353/rhe.2000.0004. (In Eng.).
21. Harman G. Producing PhD Graduates in Australia for the Knowledge Economy. Higher Education Research & Development, 2002, vol. 21, nr 2, pp. 179–190. (In Eng.).
22. Lovitts B. E. Leaving the Ivory Tower: The Causes and Consequences of Departure from Doctoral Study, Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 2002, 336 p. (In Eng.).
23. Gruzdev I. A., Terent’ev E. A. Dannye protiv mifov: rezul’taty sotsiologicheskogo issledovaniya aspirantov vedushchikh vuzov [Data Against Myths: Evidence from the Survey of PhD Students in Leading Russian Universities]. Vysshee obrazovanie v Rossii [Higher Education in Russia], 2017, nr 7, pp. 89–97. (In Russ.).
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, pp. 43–60. doi 10.28945/1952. (In Eng.).
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, pp. 227–241. doi 10.28945/354.1
26. Taylor R. T., Vitale T., Tapoler C., Whaley K. Desirable Qualities of Modern Doctorate Advisors in the USA: a View through the Lenses of Candidates, Graduates, and Academic Advisors. Studies in Higher Education, 2018, vol. 43, nr 5, pp. 854–866. doi 10.1080/03075079.2018.1438104. (In Eng.).
27. Reznik S. D., Chemezov I. S. Institut aspirantury rossiiskogo vuza: sostoyanie, problemy i perspektivy razvitiya [Postgraduate Education in Russian Universities: State, Problems and Prospects of Development]. Vestnik Tomskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta [Tomsk State University Journal], 2018, nr 430, pp. 159–168. doi 10.17223/15617793/430/22. (In Russ.).
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, pp. 209–234. (In Eng.).
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, pp. 313–348. (In Eng.).
30. Mainhard T., Rijst R. van der, Tartwijk J. van, Wubbels T. A Model for the Supervisor–Doctoral Student Relationship. Higher Education, 2009, vol. 58, nr 3, pp. 359–373. (In Eng.).
31. Lipschutz S. S. Enhancing Success in Doctoral Education: From Policy to Practice. New Directions for Institutional Research, 1993, vol. 80, pp. 69–80. (In Eng.).
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, pp. 115–118. (In Eng.).
33. Kapshutar’ M. A. Motivatsiya kak faktor kachestva podgotovki aspirantov [Motivation as a Post-Graduate Training Quality Factor]. Tsennosti i smysly [Values and Meanings], 2016, nr 5 (45), pp. 39–47. (In Russ.).
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, pp. 117–141. (In Eng.).
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, pp. 173–192. doi 10.1007/s10734-019-00473-6. (In Eng.).
36. Bøgelund P. How Supervisors Perceive PhD Supervision – And How They Practice It. International Journal of Doctoral Studies, 2015, vol. 10, pp. 39–55. (In Eng.).
37. Akerlind G., McAlpine L. Supervising Doctoral Students: Variation in Purpose and Pedagogy. Studies in Higher Education, 2017, vol. 42, nr 9, pp. 1686–1698. doi 10.1080/03075079.2015.1118031. (In Eng.).
38. Flores E., Nerad M. Peers in Doctoral Education: Unrecognized Learning Partners. New Directions for Higher Education, 2002, nr 157, Spring 201, pp. 73–83. doi 10.1002/he.20007. (In Eng.).
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, pp. 223–241. (In Eng.).
40. Shulman L. S. The Paradox of Teacher Assessment. In: Shulman L. S. The Wisdom of Practice: Essays on Teaching, Learning and Learning to Teach, San Francisco, Jossey-Bass, 2004, pp. 336–349. (In Eng.).
41. Kwiram A. L. Time for Reform? In: 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, pp. 141–166. (In Eng.).
42. Halse C., Bansel P. The Learning Alliance: Ethics in Doctoral Supervision. Oxford Review of Education, 2012, vol. 38, nr 4, pp. 377–392. doi 10.1080/03054985.2012.706219. (In Eng.).
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, pp. 311–325. doi 10.1080/13600800500283585. (In Eng.).
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, pp. 263–281. doi 10.1080/03098770701424983. (In Eng.).
45. Deuchar R. Facilitator, Director or Critical Friend? Contradiction and Congruence in Doctoral Supervision Styles. Teaching in Higher Education, 2008, vol. 13, nr 4, pp. 489–500. doi 10.1080/13562510802193905. (In Eng.).
46. Lee A. How Are Doctoral Students Supervised? Concepts of Doctoral Research Supervision. Studies in Higher Education, 2008, vol. 33, nr 3, pp. 267–281. doi 10.1080/03075070802049202. (In Eng.).
47. Lee A. How Can We Develop Supervisors for the Modern Doctorate? Studies in Higher Education, 2018, vol. 43, nr 5, pp. 878–890. doi 10.1080/03075079.2018.1438116. (In Eng.).
48. Devos C., Linden N. van der, Boudrenghien G., Azzi A., Frenay M., Galand B., Klein O. Doctoral Supervision in the Light of the Three Types of Support Promoted in Self-Determination Theory. International Journal of Doctoral Studies, 2015, vol. 10, pp. 438–464. doi 10.28945/2308. (In Eng.).
49. Boehe D. M. Supervisory Styles: A Contingency Framework. Studies in Higher Education, 2016, vol. 41, nr 3, pp. 399–414. doi 10.1080/03075079.2014.927853. (In Eng.).
50. Bastalich W. Content and Context in Knowledge Production: a Critical Review of Doctoral Supervision Literature. Studies in Higher Education, 2017, vol. 42, pp. 1145–1157. doi 10.1080/03075079.2015.1079702. (In Eng.).
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, pp. 773–789. doi 10.1007/s10734-019-00437-w. (In Eng.).
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. (In Eng.).
53. Taylor S., Kiley M., Humphrey R. A Handbook for Doctoral Supervisors (2-nd ed.), London, Routledge, 2018, 276 p. doi 10.4324/9781315559650. (In Eng.).
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, pp. 3–27. (In Eng.).
55. Watts J. H. Challenges of Supervising Part-Time PhD Students: Towards Student-Centred Practice. Teaching in Higher Education, 2008, vol. 13, nr 3, pp. 369–373. doi 10.1080/13562510802045402. (In Eng.).
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, pp. 648–661. doi 10.1080/13562517.2020.1731449. (In Eng.).
57. Naidoo D. Understanding Non-Traditional PhD Students Habitus – Implications for PhD Programmes. Teaching in Higher Education, 2015, vol. 20, nr 3, pp. 340–351. doi 10.1080/13562517.2015.1017457. (In Eng.).
58. Winchester-Seeto T., Homewood J., Thogersen J., Jacenyik-Trawoger C., Manathunga C., Reid A., Holbrook A. Doctoral Supervision in a Cross-Cultural Context: Issues Affecting Supervisors and Candidates. Higher Education Research & Development, 2014, vol. 33, nr 3, pp. 610–626. doi 10.1080/07294360.2013.841648. (In Eng.).
59. Rober tson 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, pp. 560–569. doi 10.1080/14703297.2017.1355261. (In Eng.).
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, pp. 165–170. doi 10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.07.078n. (In Eng.).
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, pp. 33–50. doi 10.1080/0158037X.2010.515572. (In Eng.).
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, pp. 4–16. doi 10.1080/14703297.2014.981836. (In Eng.).
63. Franke A., Arvidsson B. Research Supervisors’ Different Ways of Experiencing Supervision of Doctoral Students. Studies in Higher Education, 2011, vol. 36, nr 1, pp. 7–19. doi 10.1080/03075070903402151. (In Eng.).
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, pp. 91–106. doi 10.28945/3754. (In Eng.).
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, pp. 259–270. doi 10.5901/mjss.2016.v7n2p259. (In Eng.).
66. Gardner S. Stress Among Prospective Teachers: a Review of the Literature. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 2010, vol. 35, nr 8, pp. 18–28. doi 10.14221/ajte.2010v35n8.2. (In Eng.).
67. Clark M. S. Record Keeping in Two Types of Relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1984, vol. 47, nr 3, pp. 549–557. doi 10.1037/0022-3514.47.3.549. (In Eng.).
68. Gardner S. K. «I Heard It through the Grapevine». Doctoral Student Socialization in Chemistry and History. Higher Education, 2007, vol. 32, pp. 383–408. doi 10.1007/s10734-006-9020-x. (In Eng.).
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, pp. 669–682. doi 10.5175/JSWE.2006.200500506. (In Eng.).
70. Halse C., Malfroy J. Retheorizing Doctoral Supervision as Professional Work. Studies in Higher Education, 2010, vol. 35, nr 1, pp. 79–92. doi 10.1080/03075070902906798. (In Eng.).
71. Tinto V. Leaving College: Rethinking the Causes and Cures of Student Attrition (2-nd ed.), Chicago, University of Chicago Press, 1993, 246 p. (In Eng.).
72. Valero Y. F. de. Departmental Factors Affecting Timeto-Degree and Completion Rates of Doctoral Students at One Land-Grant Research Institution. The Journal of Higher Education, 2001, vol. 72, nr 3, pp. 341–367. doi 10.1080/00221546.2001.11777098. (In Eng.).
73. Litalien D., Guay F., Morin A. J. S. Motivation for PhD Studies: Scale Development and Validation. Learning and Individual Differences, 2015, vol. 41, pp. 1–13. doi 10.1016/j.lindif.2015.05.006. (In Eng.).
74. Nelson C., Lovitts B. 10 Ways to Keep Graduate Students from Quitting. Chronicle of Higher Education, 2001, June 29. (In Eng.).
75. Shacham M., Od-Cohen Y. Rethinking PhD Learning Incorporating Communities of Practice. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 2009, vol. 46, nr 3, pp. 279–292. doi 10.1080/14703290903069019. (In Eng.).
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, pp. 9–23. (In Eng.).
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. (In Eng.).
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. (In Eng.).
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, pp. 811–830. doi 10.1080/13540602.2014.995483. (In Eng.).
80. Delany D. A Review of the Literature on Effective PhD Supervision, Trinity College, Centre for Practice and Student Learning, 2012, 45 p. (In Eng.).
81. Freire P. Pedagogy of the Oppressed, New York, Seabury Press, 1970, 86 p. (In Eng.).
82. Darling-Hammond L. Evalu ating Te a cher Effectiveness: How Teacher Performance Assessments Can Measure and Improve Teaching, Washington, D. C., Center for American Progress, 2010, 36 p. (In Eng.).
Review
For citations:
Grigoryeva A.V., Terentev E.A. Doctoral Students’ Academic Supervision: A Systematic Review of Approaches to Conceptualization and Empirical Analysis. University Management: Practice and Analysis. 2021;25(1):49-61. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.15826/umpa.2021.01.004
Views:
1031
Email this article 