enhancing postgraduate supervision through a process of conversational inquiry
TRANSCRIPT
This article was downloaded by: [Kungliga Tekniska Hogskola]On: 10 October 2014, At: 05:22Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Higher Education Research &DevelopmentPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cher20
Enhancing postgraduate supervisionthrough a process of conversationalinquiryDorothy Spiller a , Giselle Byrnes b & Pip Bruce Ferguson aa Teaching Development Unit , The University of Waikato ,Hamilton , New Zealandb Office of the Deputy Vice Chancellor , The University ofWaikato , Hamilton , New ZealandPublished online: 24 Jun 2013.
To cite this article: Dorothy Spiller , Giselle Byrnes & Pip Bruce Ferguson (2013) Enhancingpostgraduate supervision through a process of conversational inquiry, Higher Education Research &Development, 32:5, 833-845, DOI: 10.1080/07294360.2013.776519
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2013.776519
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &
Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Kun
glig
a T
ekni
ska
Hog
skol
a] a
t 05:
22 1
0 O
ctob
er 2
014
Enhancing postgraduate supervision through a process ofconversational inquiry
Dorothy Spillera*, Giselle Byrnesb and Pip Bruce Fergusona
aTeaching Development Unit, The University of Waikato, Hamilton, New Zealand; bOffice ofthe Deputy Vice Chancellor, The University of Waikato, Hamilton, New Zealand
This paper argues for, outlines and begins to evaluate a process of building a criticaland reflective community of postgraduate supervisors who can develop theirsupervision practice through reflective conversations, with the sharing of bestpractice and reference to research-based evidence. In 2009, the initiative of thePostgraduate Supervisors’ Conversations was set up through the collaboration ofthe Pro Vice-Chancellor (Postgraduate) and the Teaching Development Unit atthe University of Waikato, New Zealand. This initiative was designed tocomplement the compulsory workshops for postgraduate supervisors that areintended to provide foundation skills. We aimed to create a professionaldevelopment opportunity that could meet institutional requirements as well asenhance supervisors’ capacity to manage the ongoing interpersonal and academiccomplexity of the supervision process and its dynamic character. This paperoutlines the rationale for the Postgraduate Supervisors’ Conversations, describesits implementation and discusses the implications of an initial evaluative focus-group discussion with attendees.
Keywords: conversation; conversational inquiry; postgraduate supervision;professional development; reflective community
Introduction
Historically, the supervisory relationship has been characterised by the model of astudent acolyte learning from an expert supervisor. Commentators have used a rangeof terms to characterise this traditional hierarchical relationship (Grant, 2008;Manathunga, 2005). However, the current quality agenda in higher education hasmeant that this once zealously guarded ‘private space’ (Manathunga, 2005, p. 21) isnow under increased scrutiny and questions are being asked about the quality of post-graduate studies and the supervision process. Universities are obligated to satisfy theseexternal requirements for evidence of improvements at the postgraduate level.However, there is a danger that linear compliance models for supervision improve-ments may not accommodate the intrinsic complexity of the supervision relationship,unique disciplinary contexts and academics’ dispositions and preferred modes of learn-ing. A response to enhancing postgraduate supervision is needed that can both satisfyexternal exigencies and is compatible with the inherent complexity of the supervisoryprocess. This paper explores the external and internal challenges that impinge on post-graduate supervision, argues for the model of collaborative conversational inquiry and
© 2013 HERDSA
*Corresponding author. Email: [email protected]
Higher Education Research & Development, 2013Vol. 32, No. 5, 833–845, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2013.776519
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Kun
glig
a T
ekni
ska
Hog
skol
a] a
t 05:
22 1
0 O
ctob
er 2
014
outlines and begins to evaluate a case study of postgraduate supervisors’ conversationsestablished at the University of Waikato, New Zealand.
The challenges for postgraduate supervision
The need to respond to external challenges
The changes in the higher education environment over the past two decades have beenwidely recognised and documented (Akerlind, 2005; Camblin & Steger, 2000; Knight,Tait, & Yorke, 2006; Pearson & Brew, 2002). For the purposes of this paper, only thosechanges that are pertinent to postgraduate supervision are documented. Underlyingmany of the changes are financial concerns. One common theme in this literature isthat in Western societies the financial contribution made by governments to universityeducation has progressively diminished (Fullan & Scott, 2009; Mouewen, 2000;Ramsden, 1998). In Australia, for example, between 1995 and 2005, public fundingin higher education declined from 64.8 to 47.8% (Fullan & Scott, 2009).1
In this tight fiscal environment, all universities have been compelled to seek othersources of income, including external research income. One associated consequencehas been the pursuit of international students who pay full cost (unsubsidised) fees.From a postgraduate supervision perspective, the increased diversity of the postgradu-ate student cohort brings additional complexity into the supervision process (Owens,2007). These complexities include recognising and respecting different culturalvalues and backgrounds, language and writing issues, and differences in prior learning(Owens, 2007). The diversity of the contemporary postgraduate student cohort is alsoassociated with the far greater numbers of students now undertaking study at this level.Changes to funding of higher education have also influenced students’ expectationsabout the quality of their teaching and learning experience. Students who are payinghigh fees tend to expect more from academics than in the past – contemporary studentshave been bred (and fed) on the notion of the market-driven university model in whichthey are consumers and they expect good value for money (Davies, Hides, & Casey,2001; Fullan & Scott, 2009; Mora, 2001).
Corresponding to the financial cutbacks, central government and external stake-holders are demanding greater accountability from all higher education institutions.The accountability agenda operates at all levels, including postgraduate education.For example, in New Zealand, universities are expected to provide evidence of thequality of their teaching and research in a range of ways. The quality of the postgradu-ate research experience is reflected in the Performance-Based Research Fund exercise,through university academic audits and the Australasian Survey of Student Engage-ment.2 The accountability agenda not only prioritises the quality of the learning experi-ence, but also the quantity and volume of student completions – there is pressure onhigher education institutions to achieve the timely completion of increased numbersof research degrees (Brew & Peseta, 2004; McWilliam & Taylor, 2001; Pearson &Brew, 2002). In this climate, supervision has been catapulted into the public domainand come under intense scrutiny (Wisker, 2005).
The need to respond to the inherent complexity of the supervision process
Increased external scrutiny means that universities cannot allow the quality of post-graduate supervision to be simply a matter of individual choice or chance. Instead,
834 D. Spiller et al.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Kun
glig
a T
ekni
ska
Hog
skol
a] a
t 05:
22 1
0 O
ctob
er 2
014
they need to systematically address themselves to enhancing the quality of supervision,maintaining high standards and achieving higher and timely completion rates.Approaches to improving supervision cannot only be about complying with externaltargets, which may often involve minimalist measures. There is also a need to establishsupervision development processes that can cater for the inherently complex anddynamic nature of the postgraduate supervision process (Smyth & Maxwell, 2008).Grant (2008) observes the messy character of the supervision process as well as itscomplex power dynamics. Smyth and Maxwell (2008) point to some of the ways inwhich the supervision process involves a unique blend of elements that co-exist in adynamic way and that may, at times, be difficult to anticipate, recognise andmanage. For example, they discuss the way that the control of and responsibility forthe process shifts between supervisor and student, the importance of maintaining thedelicate balance between process and achieving a finished product, and the distinguish-ing feature of higher degree research – the creation of new knowledge.
The fluidity and complexity of the supervisory relationship is further intensified bythe increasingly diverse nature of the postgraduate student population in terms ofculture, gender, age and experience (Wisker, 2005). Linear training modules often donot align well with this complexity, which is simultaneously relational, process andproduct-oriented, organisational and intellectual. Furthermore, a standardised trainingexperience cannot accommodate distinctive disciplinary differences, multiple studentand supervisor learning approaches and potentially negative academic perceptionsabout imposed professional development schemes (Wisker, 2005). Manathunga(2005) notes that a generic ‘fix the problem’ approach can be based on a deficit modelof academics and does not acknowledge the diversity of academics, their disciplinesand understandings of the supervision process as well as the rich knowledge and experi-ence that they bring into these settings. She suggests that linearmodels can aggravate aca-demic resistance to change and the belief that these programmes are institutionalimpositions. As noted by Pearson and Brew (2002), ‘supervisor development in thenew context of higher education has to focus on supervisors becoming adaptable.Being locked into one model and set of behaviours is no longer acceptable’ (p. 143).The delivery of generic training sessions on supervision cannot accommodate thisdegree of complexity and more apposite approaches need to be developed.
The case for conversational inquiry
Wisker (2005) summarises the elements that need to be present in order to engagesupervisors in her introduction to her book on supervision:
It has been absolutely crucial that the book should engage readers in dialogue betweenresearch and experience, between supervisor and supervisor, supervisor and student. …It could not succeed if it tried to talk down to or ‘train’ supervisors. Instead this bookencourages reflection, dialogue and an exchange of good practice. Developmental sugges-tions are built upon and out of these practices. (p. 1)
In line with Wisker’s vision of collaborative engagement in reflective dialogue, the goalfor this initiative was to create an environment in which supervisors could exchangeand explore narratives, draw on their own contextual understandings and backgroundand explore values and assumptions about the supervision process. The hope wasthat this process would encourage participants to examine their own practices and
Higher Education Research & Development 835
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Kun
glig
a T
ekni
ska
Hog
skol
a] a
t 05:
22 1
0 O
ctob
er 2
014
ideas and enlarge their perspectives through the sharing of these ideas. A community ofsupervisors who engaged in regular conversations seemed to offer a starting point fordeveloping this learning culture.
Rationale for setting up a conversation group for supervisors
Lessons from practiceThe Teaching Development Unit (TDU) members of the planning team (TDU and ProVice-Chancellor Postgraduate [PVC (Postgraduate)]) have immediate knowledge of thereasons why many academics tend to resist professional development opportunities. Inpart, resistance among university academics relates to a reluctance to engage in pro-fessional development in a culture where academics have traditionally been auton-omous and self-regulating (Ramsden, 1998). In this cultural context, professionaldevelopment may be easily dismissed and seen simply as an imposed institutionalimperative. Furthermore, there has been a powerful and long-cherished assumptionamong academics that a sophisticated and rigorous command of an academic disciplineautomatically translates into competent teaching as well as supervisory practice. Pro-fessional development around teaching (and supervision) is correspondingly often per-ceived as unnecessary and conducted by people who do not understand therequirements, expectations and vocabulary of specific disciplines and fields of study.
Resistance to professional development for teaching could be evenmore pronouncedin relation to postgraduate supervision. As the supervision process requires a sophisti-cated research-based disciplinary background, it is fairly natural for supervisors toassume that they are uniquely well qualified to undertake the activity of supervision.Furthermore – depending on the discipline orfield of research – postgraduate supervisionsits somewhere between research and teaching in terms of definition and this uncertainty(or ‘fuzziness’) can lead academics to disregard or underplay the pedagogical aspects ofthe supervision process. The private nature of the supervision relationship may sublim-inally diminish any sense of accountability and may also lead academics to see externalguidance as an intrusion into what has traditionally been considered a private space.Finally, many supervisors also tend to be senior longstanding academics, many ofwhom may never have undertaken any kind of formal professional development andmay consequently see it as anathema in the context of their career.
A conversational model was selected to ameliorate some of these concerns andmaximise the unique knowledge that each supervisor could bring to the conversation.The idea of ‘supervisors’ conversations’ signals an informal gathering of like-mindedpeers, rather than an institutional or obligatory training session. It thus corresponds wellwith academics’ preference for self-regulation and communicates the notion that this istheir own space. More positively, many academics might welcome the opportunity tomeet and converse with colleagues across the campus. The planning team believed thata hospitable and comfortable environment would help to build an atmosphere of trustand encourage supervisors to examine and discuss concerns that had previously beenkept private or perhaps only discussed with close colleagues. It therefore chose avenue at the WEL Trust Academy of Performing Arts and was supported by the Uni-versity in this regard. Fortunately for purposes of creating a ‘retreat-type space’, thebuilding is set among greenery on the edge of the Hamilton campus and overlooks atree-lined lake. The team also decided to provide a catered lunch for the meetings,both to welcome and nourish our colleagues, but also to allow the scheduling of themeetings over a two-hour period in the middle of the day.
836 D. Spiller et al.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Kun
glig
a T
ekni
ska
Hog
skol
a] a
t 05:
22 1
0 O
ctob
er 2
014
The choice of a conversational community was also driven by the prior successfuluse of a conversational approach in an academic development context at the Universityof Waikato. For example, for some years, the TDU has used reflective conversations onpractice that reference research as the primary teaching approach in the PostgraduateCertificate for Tertiary Teaching. Interviews conducted with past participants in theCertificate for a previous research project showed that they valued both the individualconversations conducted on a regular basis with teaching staff as well as the sharing ofpractice and research findings in group gatherings. Another conversational group thathas been developed is the Teaching Network, where participants share practices andperspectives on teaching-related topics. The appropriateness of the conversationalcontext for academics’ dispositions and learning preferences has also been seen inthe monthly conversational forums that the University of Waikato Human Resourcesgroup oversees on a monthly basis. These forums are well attended and enablesharing of approaches as well as mutual support and mentoring. The success of theseforums, in part, prompted the planning team to try the model in the context of post-graduate supervision. These practical examples demonstrated that conversationalforums could embrace many of the factors that needed to be accommodated in super-vision education. They provided successful models of learning opportunities that gaveownership to the participants and were responsive to individuals, particular contextsand disciplines. The planning team hoped in these ways to ensure that the conversationswould locate ‘discussion in the practice of supervision and the behaviour of partici-pants, ensuring that their learning is situated in their particular research contexts’(Pearson & Brew, 2002, p. 139). The literature indicated that there was a number ofvariants of a group conversational model already in place (Amundsen & McAlpine,2009; Manathunga, 2005; McCormack & Pamphilon, 2004). These models reinforcedthe team’s commitment to building a conversational community of supervisors.
Theoretical rationale
The conversational model for supervisor learning is supported by a number of theoreti-cal perspectives about the nature of learning. In broad terms, the adoption of the super-visors’ conversational model is underpinned by Wenger’s (1998) notion ofcommunities of practice. Wenger’s social theory of learning challenges the assumptionthat learning is an individual activity, a supposition that he suggests underlies the struc-ture of learning institutions. Wenger (2009) instead invites us to see learning as ‘in thecontext of our lived experience of participation in the world’ (p. 209). Correspondingly,the setting up of a conversational community of supervisors was designed to bring apreviously hidden, intensely private activity into a collaborative conversationalforum. The team hoped that the conversations would be an opportunity for each super-visor to bring his or her ‘situated learning’ (Lave, 2009) into the common space andcollectively revisit these understandings and possibly refine or even transform theminto something different.
Research has identified a number of components of conversation that seemespecially well suited to the supervision context. Haigh (2005) cites Senge’s (1990)view that conversation is a necessary precursor to professional development and isan important tool for prompting people to ‘unearth’ their ‘mental models’ andexpose them to scrutiny (p. 8). Clark (2001) also claims numerous benefits for partici-pants in the conversations that take place in professional development and inquirygroups. These include the ‘articulation of implicit theories and beliefs’ and ‘perspective
Higher Education Research & Development 837
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Kun
glig
a T
ekni
ska
Hog
skol
a] a
t 05:
22 1
0 O
ctob
er 2
014
taking’ (p. 173). Of particular pertinence to the supervision context is Clark’s view thatconversations of these kind can be helpful in ‘developing a sense of personal and pro-fessional authority’ (p. 173). It is this kind of ownership of the development of theirpractice that the supervisors’ conversations were designed to nurture.
Learning through conversation potentially also has benefits for the wider organis-ation. Writing in a management context, Ford and Ford (1995) argue for the benefitsof conversation as a tool for organisational change. From this perspective, it washoped that the supervision conversations would help to change organisational cultureand so also help to meet institutional goals. At the same time, the conversationalcontext allows academics to protect the sense of autonomy that remains a core belieffor many of them (Akerlind, 2005).
An important caveat regarding the use of conversations for academic developmentis raised by Nelson, Deuel, Slavit, and Kennedy (2010). While the context of their studywas a collaborative inquiry group of teachers in a secondary school setting, they none-theless highlight a number of pertinent questions about translating conversationalinquiry into effective changes in practice. In particular, they distinguish between ‘con-genial conversations’ and ‘collegial conversations’ (p. 176). They argue that ‘conge-nial’ conversations, in which the need to avoid conflict is at a premium, cannot bringabout change, whereas ‘collegial conversations’ can be genuinely transformative. Fur-thermore, they emphasise the importance of developing trust among participants as anabsolute pre-requisite if a detailed and honest examination of practice is going to occur.
A case study: the development of the postgraduate supervisors’ conversationsat the University of Waikato3
The context
The demand for quality and accountability has been a theme in the New Zealand highereducation sector over the last two decades. In the research context, the governmentbody the Tertiary Education Commission (TEC) requires evidence of improvementin research capability and capacity (TEC, 2009). The introduction of PerformanceBased Research Funding process in 2003 intensified the focus on research. Each indi-vidual academic is required to document their research contribution in their Portfolio,which has significant funding implications. One element in this funding process is the25% funding allocation that is specifically associated with the number of completingpostgraduate research students at each tertiary institution.
These national imperatives have been matched by the strategies and goals that havebeen developed by the University of Waikato. From the perspective of this paper, themost significant goal is the University’s commitment to growing the proportion ofresearch graduate students and enhancing both the quality and quantity of researchpostgraduate students and research postgraduate outcomes.
In 2008, a PVC (Postgraduate) was appointed at the University of Waikato andundertook to find ways of meeting these strategic goals as well as to strengthen theculture around postgraduate research. Inevitably, she recognised the need to enhancesupervision processes as part of this goal and initiated conversations with the TDUto explore possible developmental options. The Postgraduate Supervisors’ Conversa-tions were a direct outcome of these discussions and are planned and facilitated colla-boratively by the PVC (Postgraduate) and members of the TDU. Both groups saw thiscollaboration as essential to the direction of the initiative in that it brings together a
838 D. Spiller et al.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Kun
glig
a T
ekni
ska
Hog
skol
a] a
t 05:
22 1
0 O
ctob
er 2
014
representative from senior management, who has to demonstrate responsiveness toexternal drivers and institutional goals, and academic developers, whose focus ismore on shifting thinking and actual practice.
Description of the initiative
Prior to the initiative, the University required all new supervisors to attend supervisors’training workshops and to serve an apprenticeship as a member of a supervisory panelor committee before assuming the role of chief supervisor. These provisions provide adegree of quality assurance in postgraduate supervision. However, the workshops focuslargely on the role and expectations of the supervisor as well as what might be termed‘institutional compliance’. Foundational training sessions and the dominant supervision‘apprenticeship model’ were not enough to develop critical awareness of the complexchallenges of the supervisory relationship and process and to support supervisors inmanaging supervision. Furthermore, there were few mechanisms in place to meet theongoing professional development needs of more experienced supervisors. Anadditional forum was needed that recognised the intrinsic complexity of the supervisionprocess, individual, contextual and discipline differences, and acknowledged aca-demics’ dispositions in relation to professional development for postgraduate students.
Accordingly, the Postgraduate Supervisors’ Conversations were held at six-weeklyintervals during 2009 and 2010. The meetings are structured around a particular theme,selected by the supervisors in advance of the session. Frequently, supervisors suggestfuture topics on the basis of matters that have generated lively discussion and interest inan earlier session. It is critical that the supervisors determine the choice of theme as thishelps to promote and enhance their ownership of the conversations. The format that hasbeen adopted for the conversations is relatively simple. Attendance at these sessions isentirely voluntary. Attendees register in advance and the TDU organises the catering,room booking and attendee reminders. Members of the TDU and the PVC (Postgradu-ate) oversee and share the hospitality and facilitation of the conversations. On arrival,supervisors usually begin with lunch and a brief period of mingling. In those meetingsthe invited discussants are asked to set the scene for the ensuing discussion by brieflyaddressing the theme from a particular disciplinary perspective. The planning teamsuggests to speakers that they present in a 5–10-minute timeframe and asks them tokeep the comments relatively informal (and, where appropriate, anonymous in termsof mentioning names). The team emphasises the brevity of the speakers’ presentationas it recognises the risk of falling (perhaps inadvertently) into a scenario where infor-mation is presented by authoritative ‘experts’, which would undermine the idea of alearning community in which peers evolve their supervision pedagogy together. Simi-larly, the team has made a point of celebrating local supervision knowledge and bestpractices: the majority of presenters are University of Waikato staff members. Fromtime to time, the team has invited people from outside the institution, or non-supervi-sors, to start the discussion and thus provide a fresh perspective or to draw on their par-ticular experience in the area of postgraduate supervision. In one instance, for example,(with reference to the supervision of international students) the panel comprised cur-rently enrolled international doctoral students at the University. The themes canvassedto date in the meetings have included, amongst others, cross-cultural supervision,co-publishing with students, negotiating understandings between supervisors and stu-dents and written feedback on students’ draft writing (see Appendix 1 for a list oftopics).
Higher Education Research & Development 839
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Kun
glig
a T
ekni
ska
Hog
skol
a] a
t 05:
22 1
0 O
ctob
er 2
014
Evaluation methods
Through 2009 and 2010, attendance at the conversations has been sustained at agood level (about 30 per session). Discussions have been lively and the ongoinginformal feedback from attendees has been extremely positive. Early in the secondyear it was recognised that there was a need to undertake a more systematic evalu-ation process in order to gauge the effectiveness of the conversations and also toinform planning, refining and developing future conversations. To this end, approvalwas sought from the University of Waikato Human Research Ethics Committee toinitiate a formal action research investigation of the Postgraduate Supervisors’Conversations.
In the application for ethical approval, the team outlined its proposal to run a finalend-of-year meeting of the supervisors’ conversations as a group discussion in order toevaluate the meetings to date and generate future topics for conversation. The groupwas not strictly a focus group as all supervisors who had participated in the conversa-tions over the previous two years were invited to attend. The application was approvedby the University Human Research Ethics Committee and the final meeting session wasadvertised in the Official Circular of the University. Those who were unable to attendwere invited to provide feedback via email. The purposes of the session were formallyexplained and the supervisors informed of the proposed research project (OfficialCircular 12 November 2010).
For the discussion, the organisers designed a short PowerPoint presentation explain-ing the research goals and the uses of the findings. They also provided a set of broadquestions to act as prompts for the discussion. The questions were as follows:
. How useful have you found these discussions/presentations?
. What has been of particular benefit?
. Please nominate the three most valuable aspects of these meetings.
. What have you found most challenging?
. Please nominate the top three most challenging aspects of these meetings.
. In what ways have these discussions encouraged you to reflect on your ownsupervision practice?
. What would you be interested in seeing on the list of topics for 2011?
After the presentation, organisers invited participants to discuss the questions in thegroups in which they happened to be seated and then a TDU member facilitatedgeneral discussion. The researchers recognise that this may be a limitation of thestudy as the TDU member has been actively involved in the conversation sessions,but this was acknowledged in the Ethics application.
A set of structured questions and small-group follow-up discussion was chosen tomaximise the limited time available and to encourage participation. The planningteam emphasised that its goal was to open up the discussion and capture a range of per-spectives, rather than attempting to reach any sort of ‘group consensus’. An independentadministrator recorded their discussions (in writing only). The small groups also tooknotes of their discussions. These were left behind to enrich the data capture process.
Findings
A total of 22 supervisors attended the final evaluative session and additional feedbackwas received via email from three supervisors. The findings in response to the key
840 D. Spiller et al.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Kun
glig
a T
ekni
ska
Hog
skol
a] a
t 05:
22 1
0 O
ctob
er 2
014
questions indicated a generally positive response to the initiative. There were no com-pletely negative sentiments about the conversations and some people were highlyenthusiastic about the usefulness of the sessions (six of the eight people who answeredthe question about usefulness used emphatic reinforcers such as ‘absolutely fabulous’and ‘excellent’). The strongest theme that emerged in terms of the benefits of the con-versations was appreciation for the process of learning from and with each other. Of the25 who responded to this question (including email responses), 13 used words related tocommunity, sharing and connection. Words and phrases included ‘networking’,‘sharing different perspectives and experiences’, ‘community’ and ‘listening, sharingand understanding’. There was also a sense of collaborative learning such as expressedin the phrase ‘the group can seek answers’. In addition to the strong sense that peopleexpressed that they were learning from each other, there were some specific commentsabout benefits of making sense of one’s own processes in relation to the narratives ofothers. Comments included ‘a sense of assurance that I’m ok’, ‘making tacit knowledgeexplicit’ and ‘gaining insight from practices in other disciplines’. There were also com-ments that suggested that this was an enjoyable learning space or simply an appreci-ation that the space had been created. The expressed preference for the collaborativemode of learning was also reflected in the comments of two participants who suggestedthat ‘local’ discussants were better than ‘outsiders’, with one of these respondentssaying explicitly that with outside discussants, while the information was valuable,the experience felt more like a ‘presentation than a conversation’.
In conjunction with the strong theme that emerged, that the attending supervisorsenjoyed learning from and with their colleagues, the main reservations relate to partici-pation and implicitly the desire to extend and enhance the peer learning opportunities.For some (four out of the 10 who discussed participation), the concern was that therewas not wider participation from across the campus.
The second set of comments about participation related to the view that there couldstill be more widespread participation in the discussion by conversation attendees andthat more time and space for open discussion was needed. Comments along these linesincluded phrases such as ‘wanted to hear from even more people’ and ‘more input fromemerging supervisory group’.
There was significant evidence that the conversations prompted reflection. Of the 13people who responded to the question about reflection on practice, six indicated that theconversations play a role as something of a touchstone for examining supervisors’ ownpractice or function as a place where they can test out concerns around their supervisionexperience and understanding. Words used in this regard include ‘confirming’,‘clarify’, ‘reflecting back’, ‘reflect on concern issues and competencies’, ‘see whatothers do, especially when it’s relevant to one’s own work’, ‘a debriefing venue’ and‘checking my own ideas and experience against others’’.
Other respondents indicated more specific areas of supervision practice that the con-versations had prompted them to reflect on. These include becoming more ‘consciousof teaching loads’, ‘[the] balance of research, supervision and lecturing’, ‘co-publishingwith students’, working with students in ‘developing the [research] proposals’, ideasabout ‘when to push and when to withdraw’ and different approaches to clarifyingand establishing student and supervisor expectations in the supervision relationship.Overall, the comments indicated a high degree of personal satisfaction with theconversational learning process, but there was also a sentiment expressed that partici-pation in the conversations should be recognised by the institution as professionaldevelopment.
Higher Education Research & Development 841
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Kun
glig
a T
ekni
ska
Hog
skol
a] a
t 05:
22 1
0 O
ctob
er 2
014
Discussion and conclusion
The planning team’s experience of supporting and facilitating the Supervisors’ Conver-sations over a period of two years, together with the findings from the group research,provide a starting point for evaluating the conversations and their efficacy – both forindividual staff members and for the institution. Such feedback has also been invaluableto assist in future planning. The following section evaluates the conversations and par-ticipants’ feedback in relation to the challenges outlined at the start of this paper and therationale for initiating these forums.
In terms of the University’s strategic intentions, the planning team’s experience andfeedback suggests that the conversations are contributing to the University’s collectiveeffort to foster and support a creative and dynamic research culture. Attendance hasbeen sustained at a healthy number (average of 30 per session), the discussion hasbeen lively and constructive and there has been a considerable and genuine sharingof views about supervisory practice. As one participant observed, the forums havetaken the experience of supervision from ‘an isolated experience’ to the ‘start of a com-munity’. A strong vote of confidence in the communal learning experience suggeststhat, given the right environment, academics will move out of their private spaces. Dis-cussion-group feedback suggests that participants value the shared exchange of ideasand practices and that these have provided a touchstone for evaluating individual prac-tice. These comments suggest a heightened attention to and reflection upon ‘thebusiness’ of postgraduate supervision, which can in turn enhance the research cultureand has real and lasting potential to improve practice as well as postgraduate researchstudent outcomes.
At this stage, it is evident that the Postgraduate Supervisors’ Conversations haveenlivened and stimulated the culture around postgraduate supervision and research,but it is difficult to evaluate their contribution to actual supervisor practices and stu-dents’ experiences of supervision. Additionally, the authors of this paper are not yetin a position to claim that they have improved the University’s capacity to respondto external demands around postgraduate learning (Brew & Peseta, 2004; McWilliam& Taylor, 2001; Pearson & Brew, 2002). This is partly because conversations havebeen deliberately designed as open-ended and participatory and do not, therefore, fitneatly into a training model. However, despite these limitations, the findings point toa need to further embed a process by which the conversations enhance supervision prac-tices (Brew & Peseta, 2004). The model presented by Brew and Peseta, where onlinecase studies of supervision practices are shared by participants on their SupervisionProgramme, may provide a way forward. Not only does this strategy provide a wayof sharing practices more widely, but it also provides evidence for recognising andrewarding positive supervision practice.
The authors chose a conversational community to provide a dynamic forum inwhich academics have the opportunity to explore, articulate, assess and redefine thecomplexities inherent in the supervision process. Their discussion-group findingsreveal that the two most valued benefits of the conversations are, first, the notion ofa network or community and, second, the opportunity to learn from each other. Thefindings endorse the team’s starting point that the conversations could be a place inwhich academics like to learn and that they would enjoy learning from each other ina peer-to-peer situation. Examination of one’s own practice in relation to the narrativesof others seems to provide a safe point of entry into a vulnerable teaching and learningspace and the group can draw on the ‘situated learning’ of all of its members (Lave,
842 D. Spiller et al.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Kun
glig
a T
ekni
ska
Hog
skol
a] a
t 05:
22 1
0 O
ctob
er 2
014
2009, p. 207). Participants’ appreciation of the relaxed environment, the hospitality andthe conversational sharing indicate that the planning team has made some progress inestablishing an open and inviting community and, moreover, one that is different fromthe context of a formal training session. On the basis of the findings and experience, it isdifficult to estimate the extent to which conversations went beyond ‘congenial’ discus-sions towards genuine ‘collegial discussions’ that were truly transformative (Nelsonet al., 2010, p. 176). Comments indicate that participants felt challenged to revisittheir own practice, but it is difficult to gauge the extent of this personal and professionalstocktaking. In this respect, perhaps the best way forward is to continue to work onbuilding trust and respect in the conversational community so that it can enablegenuine rigorous debate and self-evaluation.
The two most commonly reported challenges articulated by participants related tonon-participation. The first concerns the view that many other supervisors should beattending the sessions and that the supervisors who regularly attended should bemore widely representative of the University’s supervisor community. As mentionedin the previous section, one strategy for broadening the base of the conversationsmay be the development of some form of complementary online module (Brew &Peseta, 2004). At the same time, their wish to share the benefits more widely is astrong indicator of how positively attendees view the conversations. The second recur-ring thread in the feedback around participation concerned the expressed desire toincrease the amount of conversational space and to limit the time devoted to formal pre-sentations. This feedback endorses the team’s original view that academics like to feelthat they have authorship of their own professional development and learning. Atten-dees’ comments in this respect also have implications for planning and refinement ofthe forum for future years. Modifications to explore could include a more precise brief-ing to discussants and variation to the discussant format in terms of the initial conversa-tion stimulus. For example, one idea could be to select a reading or reported case studythat colleagues read prior to the session that provides the starting point for discussion.The range of specific benefits that participants reported and the comprehensive list ofideas for future conversations – particularly with regard to matters of managingrelationships – suggests that the conversations have begun to unlock the inherent com-plexity and dynamic character of the supervision process (Smyth & Maxwell, 2008;Wisker, 2005), while also becoming part of the fabric of the institutional culture. Itis significant that the institution has supported a process that supervisors have foundto be intrinsically satisfying. Nevertheless, it is difficult to argue that these benefitscan be translated into measurable outcomes and meet institutional performance indi-cators. Much of the learning is as much about ways of being a supervisor as aboutthe practice of supervision. While there is at least congruence between institutionalendorsement of the conversations and academics’ pleasure in them, it is difficult tosee a complete match between the language of quality measurement and the dynamiclearning that can happen through dialogue and collaborative intellectual exploration.
The planning team of the PVC (Postgraduate) and members of the TDU all haveimprovement of supervision practice and the learning experience and research capacityof postgraduate students as their goal. Feedback from participants (a self-selected, vol-unteer group), clearly indicate that the conversations prompt and encourage reflectionon practice. The University of Waikato’s policy of having more than one supervisor foreach doctoral student may help the robust conversations to be replayed in the practice ofsupervision, but there is no way of ensuring that reflection on practice will necessarilyresult in enhanced practice or that the learning will not be subverted by an unfortunate
Higher Education Research & Development 843
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Kun
glig
a T
ekni
ska
Hog
skol
a] a
t 05:
22 1
0 O
ctob
er 2
014
mix of the multiple elements that shape the supervision relationship. Still, the organis-ation needs to explore ways of embedding supervision conversations into faculty rou-tines and commitments. As planners of the initiative, the team realise there is still a longway to go. The first steps towards a community of practice have been taken, but it isacknowledged that further work is needed in terms of what is possible within this com-munity itself and for its potential impact on the wider university learning community.
Notes1. In New Zealand, government (public) expenditure on tertiary education has increased by 53%
from 1999/2000 to 2010 (http://www.educationcounts.govt.nz/indicators/resources/2047,retrieved January 26, 2011). However, the increase in student numbers at all New Zealand uni-versities, combined with the increase in university costs during this period, actually represents adecrease in real terms from 2007 to 2010. See further ‘Government funding fails to keep pacewith university costs’, 28 September 2010 (http://www.nzvcc.ac.nz/node/480, retrievedJanuary 26, 2011).
2. The Postgraduate Survey of Student Engagement (POSSE), which is part of the AustralasianSurvey of Student Engagement (AUSSE), see further http://ausse.acer.edu.au/ (retrievedJanuary 25, 2011).
3. The University of Waikato has over 600 postgraduate students, from a student population of11,000. A total of 45% are international students, explained largely by the domestic fee policyintroduced in NZ in 2006. There are approximately 450 supervisors, with an average of one totwo students per supervisors, though this varies dramatically (some have 10 students, othershave none).
ReferencesAkerlind, G.S. (2005). Academic growth and development: How do university academics
experience it? Higher Education, 50(1), 1–32.Amundsen, C., & McAlpine, L. (2009). Learning supervision: Trial by fire. Innovations in
Education and Teaching International, 46(3), 331–342.Brew, A., & Peseta, T. (2004). Changing postgraduate supervision practice: A programme to
encourage learning through reflection and feedback. Innovations in Education andTeaching International, 41(1), 5–22.
Clark, C.M. (2001). Good conversation. In C.M. Clark (Ed), Talking shop: Authentic conversa-tions and teacher learning (pp. 172–182). New York: Teachers’ College Press.
Camblin, L.D., & Steger, J.A. (2000). Rethinking faculty development. Higher Education, 39(1), 1–18.
Davies, J.M., Hides, T., & Casey, S. (2001). Leadership in higher education. Total QualityManagement, 12(7 and 8), 1025–1030.
Ford, J.D., & Ford, L.W. (1995). The role of conversations in producing intentional change inorganizations. Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 541–570.
Fullan, M., & Scott, G. (2009). Turnaround leadership for higher education. San Francisco,CA: Jossey Bass.
Grant, B. (2008). Agonistic struggle: Master-slave dialogues in humanities supervision. Arts andHumanities Education, 7(91), 9–27.
Haigh, N. (2005). Everyday conversation as a context for professional development.International Journal for Academic Development, 10(1), 3–16.
Knight, P., Tait, J., & Yorke, M. (2006). The professional learning of teachers in higher edu-cation. Studies in Higher Education, 31(3), 319–339.
Lave, J. (2009). The practice of learning. In K. Illeris (Ed.), Contemporary theories of learning(pp. 200–208). Milton Park, UK: Routledge.
Manathunga, C. (2005). The development of research supervision: ‘Turning the light on aprivate space’. International Journal for Academic Development, 10(1), 17–30.
844 D. Spiller et al.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Kun
glig
a T
ekni
ska
Hog
skol
a] a
t 05:
22 1
0 O
ctob
er 2
014
McCormack, C., & Pamphilon, B. (2004). More than a confessional: Postmodern groupwork tosupport supervisors’ professional development. Innovations in Education and TeachingInternational, 41(1), 17–30.
McWilliam, E., & Taylor, P.G. (2001). Rigorous, rapid and relevant: Doctoral training in newtimes. In B. Green, T.W. Maxwell, & P. Shanahan (Eds.), Doctoral education and pro-fessional practice: The next generation (pp. 229–246). Armidale, NSW: Kardoorair Press.
Mora, J. (2001). Governance and management in the new university. Tertiary Education andManagement, 7(2), 95–110.
Mouewen, K. (2000). Strategy, structure and culture of the hybrid university. Tertiary Educationand Management, 6(1), 47–56.
Nelson, T.N., Dueul, A., Slavit, D., & Kennedy, A. (2010). Leading deep conversations in col-laborative inquiry groups. The Clearing House, 83(5), 175–179.
Owens, R. (2007). Valuing international research candidates. In C. Denholm & T. Evans (Eds.),Supervising doctorates Downunder: Keys to effective supervision in Australia and NewZealand (pp. 146–154). Camberwell, VIC: Acer Press.
Pearson, M., & Brew, A. (2002). Research training and supervision development. Studies inHigher Education, 27(2), 135–149.
Ramsden, P. (1998). Learning to lead in higher education. London & New York: Routledge.Smyth, R., & Maxwell, T.W. (2008). The research matrix: An approach to supervision higher
degree research. HERDSA Guide. Milpera. New South Wales: Higher EducationResearch & Development Society of Australasia.
Tertiary Education Commission. (2009). Performance-based research funding. RetrievedJanuary 25, 2011, from http://www.tec.govt.nz/Funding/Fund-finder/Performance-Based-Research-Fund-PBRF-/
University of Waikato. (2010). Official circular. November 12. Hamilton, New Zealand: TheUniversity of Waikato.
Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning meaning and identity. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Wenger, E. (2009). A social theory of learning. In K. Illeris (Ed.), Contemporary theories oflearning (pp. 209–218). Milton Park, UK: Routledge.
Wisker, G. (2005). The good supervisor. Basingstoke, UK, & New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Appendix 1. The University of Waikato postgraduate supervisors’conversations 2009 and 2010
200915 July: Best practice in postgraduate supervision23 September: ‘Hot topics’ around supervision4 November: Interdisciplinary supervision: composition of panels, conversations
across disciplinary boundaries, opportunities and risks201023 April: Cross-cultural literacy4 June: Co-publishing with students21 July: Negotiating the terrain of supervision (‘MOU’ between students
and supervisors)29 September: Best practice for encouraging and supporting Maori doctoral students3 November: Feedback on student draft writing5 December: Reflections to date
Higher Education Research & Development 845
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Kun
glig
a T
ekni
ska
Hog
skol
a] a
t 05:
22 1
0 O
ctob
er 2
014