fast supervision: changing supervisory practice in changing times

This article was downloaded by: [Mount St Vincent University]On: 05 October 2014, At: 21:47Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Studies in Continuing EducationPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/csce20

Fast Supervision: Changing supervisorypractice in changing timesPam Green a & Robin Usher aa RMIT University , AustraliaPublished online: 25 Aug 2010.

To cite this article: Pam Green & Robin Usher (2003) Fast Supervision: Changing supervisory practicein changing times, Studies in Continuing Education, 25:1, 37-50, DOI: 10.1080/01580370309281

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01580370309281

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

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/csce20

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1080/01580370309281

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01580370309281

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Studies in Continuing Education, Vol. 25, No. 1, May 2003

Fast Supervision: changing supervisorypractice in changing timesPAM GREEN & ROBIN USHERRMIT University, Australia

ABSTRACT In a context where timely completions are paramount and where the nature ofresearch degrees is shifting dramatically, research supervision has become the focus ofresearch and debate. This paper will consider, first, the changing research environmentbrought about by the research performance regime in Australia and, second, changes in thenature of research degrees consequent on shifts in the way legitimate knowledge is recognised.It will be argued that the research process and its outcomes now exemplify a crossing ofborders hitherto considered impermeable and unchanging, such as the written thesis,disciplinary accountability, and research unbounded by time, with ramifications for re-search supervision both conceptually and in practice. This paper will present a blending oftheoretical and practical positions and an examination of challenges for the future with aview to extending and enhancing the current debate on research supervision.

The contemporary landscape of Australian higher education is increasingly charac-terised by a research performance regime where the production of knowledge is seenas needing to be consciously managed as a competitive “system”. Australia is notexceptional in this regard. Certainly, within the English-speaking advanced capitalisthigher education world, such regimes are increasingly becoming the norm—theResearch Assessment Exercise in the United Kingdom being a good case in point.In certain respects, however, Australia is leading the field in the sense that thefunding of research capacity and research training is now almost entirely perform-ance driven. In this paper we will concentrate mainly on research training.

With the Research Training Scheme (RTS) in place in Australia the mostimportant measures of success are now research income and research studentcompletions. In the case of the latter, the RTS stipulates that Higher EducationContribution Scheme (HECS) exempt places can only be occupied by researchstudents for 4 years FTE in the case of doctoral study and 2 years FTE in the caseof Master’s by research. Completions within these time horizons have now becomea critical factor in a university’s competitive position nationally in relation to theallocation of RTS funding dollars.

At the same time, we are witnessing in Australia a growth in the diversity ofresearch degree programs. As well as the traditional Master’s and PhD by thesis,there has been a growth in doctorates by publication, in professional doctorates andlatterly in doctorates and Master’s by project. This diversity in research degree

ISSN 0158-037X print; 1470-126X online/03/010037-14 2003 Taylor & Francis LtdDOI: 10.1080/0158037032000082128

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mou

nt S

t Vin

cent

Uni

vers

ity]

at 2

1:47

05

Oct

ober

201

4

38 P. Green & R. Usher

programs, alongside and perhaps linked to the research performance regime, is nowpart of the changing landscape of Australian higher education.

In this paper we will consider the impact of these two developments on changesin supervision practices. We will argue that, given the emphasis on performance andgrowing diversity of programs, supervision cannot, and indeed has not, remainedunchanged. We characterise these changes as a move to “fast” supervision. We willexplain what we mean by this shorthand term and in doing so relate supervision notonly to the changing landscape of higher education but also to the growth of theknowledge economy and the imperatives flowing from it in relation to universitiesand postgraduate education.

The paper draws upon our experience at RMIT—Australia’s largest technologicaluniversity—which, like all technological universities, is going through a period ofrapid and painful change as it seeks to adjust and perform in the Commonwealthgovernment’s new regime of performance-related funding for research and researchtraining. Our work in the central Research and Development service at RMITinvolves us in the strategic management of research degree programs and processesand the training and development of supervisors. As academics who now function asresearch managers as well as academics we are closely located in the problems andopportunities brought about by the transition to the research performance regime.We are closely involved in monitoring the impact of the RTS on research studentsand on the institution and in putting in place policies and processes that will enableRMIT to maintain its competitive position in the research performance regime thatnow characterises the Australian higher education landscape.

The Landscape of Research Training

We start with a brief discussion of what is understood by a “knowledge economy”.In this type of economy, the definition of knowledge is recast from an epistemolog-ical to an economic one. Knowledge is seen as being critical in the productionprocess, with economic performance coming to rely more and more heavily onknowledge inputs. A key driver of this is the growth of the knowledge intensityof economic activity—a driver itself caused by the information technology (IT)revolution, the impact of computer-mediated communication and the generallyincreasing pace of technological change.

The knowledge economy is one where knowledge is not only a key input but alsoan increasingly significant output. Furthermore, it is an output which can be grownin an unlimited way, although for this to happen it has to be shared and applied. Theimplication of this is that knowledge must be locked into systems and processes thatenhance knowledge production and where knowledge can be effectively andefficiently managed. Given that universities are significant knowledge producers,they take on a hitherto unrecognised role as agents of economic growth—as DavidBlunkett (2000) put it: “world class higher education ensures that countries cangrow and sustain high-skill businesses”. The attaching of universities to the driver ofeconomic growth is also one of the reasons why universities are themselves becom-

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mou

nt S

t Vin

cent

Uni

vers

ity]

at 2

1:47

05

Oct

ober

201

4

Fast Supervision 39

ing more corporate and managerial—one manifestation of this being the increasedinstitutional intervention in managing research performance and research training.

Given these characteristics, what then can be said about the kinds of workersneeded by such an economy? In very simple terms, one answer would be thatknowledge workers are needed for the knowledge economy. These knowledgeworkers need to have certain kinds of attributes and capabilities. They are seen asneeding to be flexible and multi-skilled, with an openness to learning. They must beat home in a work environment shaped by globalising processes and the informationand communication revolution. They must as a minimum be IT literate. These “softskills” of problem solving, collaborative work, leadership and knowledge applicationare themselves knowledge intensive.

The term “human capital” is used very frequently in the context of discussionsabout the knowledge economy. It points to the importance of a capital embodied inindividuals which enables them to assume a productive place in the knowledgeeconomy. Those with the necessary degree of human capital are individuals withhighly developed soft skills. The argument here, made by both government andbusiness, is that higher education institutions with their traditional emphasis on theproduction and transmission of disciplinary knowledge have not been very effectivein developing these skills. Graduates themselves realise that possessing a doctoraldegree is no longer a passport to a job for life. They are very much aware that theyneed human capital in the form of the soft transferable and flexible skills (Delanty,2001).

If knowledge, then, is the currency of the new economy, universities are inevitablyinvolved in its production. Their activities are knowledge intensive and knowledgeproducing. They are also critically involved in the formation of those who take theirplace in this economy as knowledge workers. This means that universities arerequired to ensure that their students graduate with the right amount and kind ofhuman capital—in other words, with the right skill set, attributes and capabilities.This is nowhere more critical than in the postgraduate area—postgraduates are themost knowledge intensive of knowledge workers produced by the university and area significant source of knowledge production in their own right. As the highest, mostspecialised and most knowledge-intensive and knowledge-producing form of edu-cation offered by universities, postgraduate education is now right in the middle ofa fierce contestation that pits the traditional values of the academy against the newvalues of the knowledge economy.

One aspect of this is the way “knowledge” has been redefined in the knowledgeeconomy and the way this redefinition clashes to an important degree with how theacademy traditionally understands knowledge. Indeed, a significant feature of thecontemporary landscape is that not only is knowledge constantly changing, andthrough the impact of IT becoming more rapidly and overwhelmingly available, butwhat constitutes knowledge is itself highly contested.

Increasingly, knowledge is now legitimated by its performativity or capacity toenhance the efficiency and effectiveness of the socio-economic system (Lyotard,1984). It is its performative usefulness rather than its adherence to epistemologicalcanons that is becoming significant. If knowledge is produced and legitimated

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mou

nt S

t Vin

cent

Uni

vers

ity]

at 2

1:47

05

Oct

ober

201

4


through its performativity, it must be partial and contingent upon specific contexts.Knowledge therefore ceases to be uniform in its configuration. Different kinds ofknowledge and different modes of producing knowledge have to be recognised, eachwith their own legitimacy. As Gibbons et al. (1994) point out, “knowledge can nolonger be regarded as discrete and coherent, its production defined by clear rulesand governed by settled routines” (p. 81).

It could be argued that one significant aspect of the redefining of what constituteslegitimate knowledge is the foregrounding of mobility and celerity. Mode 2 typeknowledge is mobile (it can circulate through many sites and undergo multiplechanges in form) and “fast”. It is essentially ephemeral or transient. Its rationale isits applicability or performativity in the solving of problems in the contemporarymoment. It quickly becomes obsolete. These dimensions of mobility and celerity ofknowledge are a function of the IT and communications revolution.

Gibbons et al. refer to Mode 1 type knowledge production as the kind of pure orcuriosity driven research that has predominantly characterised the knowledge pro-duced in universities—a knowledge production conducted by a disciplinary com-munity oriented to knowledge accumulation—“traditional ‘truths’ accumulated overtime … universal, objective, disciplined, planned, tested and reliable findings” (p. 8)and where the predominant vehicle of dissemination has been the PhD thesis. Mode1 type knowledge, if applied, has been understood as functioning through a linearmodel of application where the context of discovery is strictly separated from thecontext of application and where those who discover and those who apply aredifferent in nature and location. Mode 2 knowledge production is quite differentand, according to Gibbons et al., is becoming increasingly prevalent challenging thedominance of Mode 1 knowledge. With Mode 2 there is no distinction betweendiscovery and application. Furthermore, given that Mode 2 knowledge is producedin the context of application, it is inevitably performative. It is perhaps for thisreason that this socially distributed Mode 2 knowledge is seen as a more appropriateconception of knowledge for the knowledge economy.

The university forged in the nineteenth century and tempered in the early years ofthe twentieth century is changing fast (for more on this see Barnett, 2000; Delanty,2001; Smith & Webster, 1997). There are many factors at work here, all of theminteracting in complex ways. We have already mentioned the research performanceregime. Linked to this is the progressive reduction in state funding of highereducation and the pressure upon universities not only to develop closer relationshipswith business but to become businesses themselves. This is often referred to as theuniversities’ path towards corporatisation or the onset of academic capitalism andthe embracing of corporate values (Slaughter & Leslie, 1997). At the same time, theuniversities’ need for extra and different sources of funding has coincided with theimperative of the knowledge economy that businesses need to find new, knowledge-intensive inputs and outputs.

One way of looking at this is to argue that universities have had to give up someof their traditional autonomy and become more accessible and accountable tosociety. They can no longer detach themselves from the national economic agenda.They have to do things which society (or perhaps more accurately government and

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mou

nt S

t Vin

cent

Uni

vers

ity]

at 2

1:47

05

Oct

ober

201

4

Fast Supervision 41

business) want and, moreover, what they do needs to be measurable through somekind of accountability metric that makes sense in the context of a knowledgeeconomy. It’s a question of universities being seen to add value, and the mostobvious way of accounting for the added value is through the operation of a researchperformance regime.

At the same time, however, it has been argued that the university continues tohave an important role because Mode 2 knowledge production still needs Mode 1,albeit not in its pure form, and that it is still the case that Mode 2 knowledgeproducers need to be trained initially as Mode 1 researchers—hence perhaps the stillsignificant role that universities have in research training and in building researchcapacity. Universities still have the most prestigious credentials and a universitycredential, particularly at doctoral level, is still the best way of accumulating culturalcapital.

However, there is now a great deal of debate as to whether the conventionalMaster’s or PhD by thesis is the only or best way to generate the knowledge neededfor the knowledge economy or to train knowledge workers. Some of the criticismsmade that are relevant to our argument in this paper are:

• It is excessively narrow and specialised.• It does not encourage multi-disciplinary or trans-disciplinary work.• The kind of training involved does not provide a broad enough skill set.• Being open ended, timely completions are less likely.

(We make no comment about the accuracy of these criticisms. We note that they aremade and that they have an impact, accurate or otherwise.)

In effect, what these criticisms amount to is that the conventional research degreeby thesis is too embedded in Mode 1—that it is not flexible enough for the needs ofthe knowledge economy and that it doesn’t produce workers who are sufficientlyflexible. This is perhaps not entirely surprising given that certainly in the case of thePhD by thesis it was essentially an apprenticeship into an academic career. The veryculture of the research degree by thesis, it is argued, orients research into narrowdisciplinary channels and encourages a lone “ivory tower” way of working whichdoes not sit well with notions of usable knowledge collaboratively produced.

It is not too difficult, therefore, to account for the rise of alternative forms ofdoctoral education. Professional doctorates are a good case in point, their develop-ment owing much to a recognition of the need for doctoral education which wouldmore readily bring together the academy and the workplace. Doctorates by projectare another example, these being the logical extension of the former in the sense thatthe coursework element has been dropped and the emphasis is entirely work based.In all likelihood, the research will be multi- or trans-disciplinary. The outcome ofthis form of doctoral education is not a thesis but a short written exegesis. Moresignificant is the “artefact” produced through the project. This is the outcome of theproject with direct tangible benefit to the workplace. Its significance also lies in thefact that it subverts the primacy of the written thesis as the dominant assessableoutcome.

The growth of alternative forms of research degree programs also has an import-

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mou

nt S

t Vin

cent

Uni

vers

ity]

at 2

1:47

05

Oct

ober

201

4


ant bearing on the issue of skill sets and graduate attributes—the knowledgeeconomy required particular kinds of soft skills that mostly were not developed inthe conventional PhD by thesis. This is not the case in the doctorate by project.Here, the acquisition is embedded or situated in the research process. The kinds ofskills required in knowledge economy workplaces are developed through the locationin the workplace and through the research itself requiring these kinds of skills to bedeveloped for the successful realisation of the project.

Clearly, the doctorate by project is very much Mode 2 type knowledge productionin terms of content, outcomes and process. The curriculum is work itself and here,as a mode of doctoral education, it becomes radical and contentious. Such acurriculum and mode of researching is not sufficiently familiar and acceptable to theacademic community. There are fears about the dilution of the standing of the PhD.There are concerns about academic freedom and university autonomy and issues todo with projects satisfying both workplace needs and academic standards. There arealso significant aspects related to supervision which we will discuss below.

Whilst the issues are very complex and difficult to resolve, there is no doubt thatthese research degree programs are more likely to have performative outcomescongruent with Australia’s performance-based research and research trainingsystem. Given the significant part played by completions in determining fundedstudent places, effective completion strategies are now considered vital for thesecuring of the competitive edge in the funding stakes. These programs, with theirshaped processes and focused outcomes, are considered by research managers asmore likely to secure timely completions than traditional research degree programs.

In Table I we have attempted to summarise the contemporary landscape ofresearch training. On the left-hand side are listed some of the main characteristicsof the hitherto predominant research degree programs of Master’s and PhD bythesis. On the right-hand side, in contrast, are listed the characteristics of theevolving diversity of research training. The table depicts extremes, one might saypure forms. Even the most conventional PhD by thesis had some elements of thecharacteristics on the right-hand side of the table and certainly new research degreeprograms are likely to retain many of the characteristics of programs on the left-handside of the table. At the bottom of the table we characterise time horizon andsupervision as a shift rather than an extension—here perhaps is the most significantchange in the landscape. With appropriate words of caution, then, we present thetable as a useful heuristic and something which provides a reasonably accuratesnapshot of the contemporary landscape.

We are now in a position to consider the impact of these changing times andchanged landscape on supervisory practices. It is clear that the changes we havediscussed are significant and lasting enough to affect the nature of research degreesupervision. It would not be unreasonable to hypothesise that the imperatives,reinforced by government, of the knowledge economy, the move to a performance-based system of funding and the growing diversity of research degree programs areall bound to have a significant effect. It would be unrealistic, for example, to believethat what was good supervision in a context of PhD by thesis, where time forcompletion was unlimited, would also be the case in the changing and different

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mou

nt S

t Vin

cent

Uni

vers

ity]

at 2

1:47

05

Oct

ober

201

4

Fast Supervision 43

TA

BL

EI.

Cha

nges

inth

eco

ntem

pora

ryla

ndsc

ape

ofre

sear

chtr

aini

ng

Ext

endi

ngfr

omIn

to

Res

earc

hde

gree

prog

ram

sM

aste

r’s

and

doct

orat

eby

thes

isIn

crea

sed

dive

rsit

y,e.

g.pr

of.

docs

.,do

ctor

ate

bypr

ojec

tF

orm

Wri

tten

thes

is“A

rtef

act”

Loc

atio

nA

cade

my

Wor

kpla

ceK

now

ledg

epr

oduc

tion

Mod

e1

(dis

cipl

inar

y)M

ode

2(s

ocia

llydi

stri

bute

d)R

esea

rche

rIn

divi

dual

Col

labo

rati

veR

esea

rch

proc

ess

Ope

nF

ocus

edK

now

ledg

eS

ingl

edi

scip

line

Mul

ti-

and

tran

s-di

scip

linar

yS

kill

set

Res

earc

hsk

ills

Res

earc

hsk

ills�

gene

ric

skill

sC

omm

itm

ent

Dis

cipl

inar

ytr

uth

Per

form

ativ

ity

Gra

duat

eou

tcom

eIn

depe

nden

tre

sear

cher

Wor

ker

inth

ekn

owle

dge

econ

omy

Ass

essm

ent

Of

thes

is(b

yac

adem

ics)

The

sis

orex

eges

is/a

rtef

act

(sti

llm

ainl

yby

acad

emic

s)In

stit

utio

nal

inte

rven

tion

Min

imal

Man

aged

Res

earc

han

dac

adem

iclif

eR

esea

rch

isth

ece

ntra

len

deav

our

Com

mer

cial

isat

ion

ofre

sear

chis

the

and

focu

sof

acad

emic

life

cent

ral

ende

avou

ran

dfo

cus

ofac

adem

iclif

e

Shi

ftfr

omT

o

Tim

eho

rizo

nO

pen

Pre

-set

Sup

ervi

sion

Unc

onst

rain

edF

ast

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mou

nt S

t Vin

cent

Uni

vers

ity]

at 2

1:47

05

Oct

ober

201

4


environment we have been discussing. We have used the shorthand term “fastsupervision” to characterise the inevitable changes in supervision. “Fast” knowledgeand “fast” degrees require “fast” supervision.

Having said this, however, we now need to unpack this term. What exactly isinvolved in “fast” supervision and what are its consequences for supervisors andstudents?

Fast Supervision for Fast Times

By “fast supervision” we refer to supervisory practices in a context where theemphasis is placed firmly on successful, timely completion. The race to complete ison and contributing to the knowledge economy, it seems, must now not only besignificant but timely too. The term “fast” is appropriate here in that students needto be positioned so as to formulate their research questions from the outset, satisfydemands for research proposal hurdles on time, collect data in ways free ofunexpected impediments, and write (or produce a given artefact) without hesitation.Such tasks, and others along the research degree journey, must be undertaken at thevery least in no more than the maximum time frame allowed by the RTS. Super-visors need to be readily available, be succinct and speedy in their feedback, smartin their guidance along projected timelines, and resistant to intellectual meander-ings. Failure to behave appropriately carries sanctions. Candidates may literally haveto pay dearly for continued enrolment while supervisors may well be burdened withdecisions surrounding whether or not to supervise above and beyond recognisedworkloads.

The consequences of these fast times for both supervisors and students arebeginning to emerge, and it is becoming increasingly clear that supervisory practicewill demand greater recognition and support than ever before. A dilemma arises assupervisors juggle complex and heavy workloads, whilst supervising across a growingdiversity of degrees, at the same time being placed under growing pressure to focusmore strategically on their supervisory obligations. This dilemma was apparent, forinstance, in a survey of postgraduate supervisors at RMIT conducted in November–December 2000. Overwhelmingly the survey revealed that the role of the supervisorwas highly valued by staff as an important or “treasured” part of their work, but thatconstraints of limited time and resources posed threats to their ability and willing-ness to undertake supervision.

Clearly, we are now working in a context where accountability, performance, andspeed of supervision count as never before. At a time of close scrutiny and constantjudgement, where high levels of management are required, supervisors and studentsneed to be clearer than ever before about the nature of the journey on which theyare embarking.

In the remainder of this paper we will consider what fast supervision means inrelation to accountability, completion strategies, and communication. We will con-clude by looking at how the demands of the knowledge economy for a broader skillsset for graduates are affecting supervision.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mou

nt S

t Vin

cent

Uni

vers

ity]

at 2

1:47

05

Oct

ober

201

4

Fast Supervision 45

Accountability

In earlier times, accountability in relation to supervision rested for the most part withsupervisors—in effect, in terms of supervising students, academic staff were account-able only to themselves. Any accountability that did exist related to the duty ofinducting the student into the discipline within which a supervisor worked and wasbased on an unwritten code of practice as to what constituted appropriate academicwork at doctoral level. Supervisors were accountable only in that they had aresponsibility to ensure that students produced rigorous academic work in conformitywith norms of the discipline and as defined by disciplinary gatekeepers. Such scrutinycame at the end of the process in the form of examination reports with recommen-dations from examiners taken as an indicator of the effectiveness of supervision.

The increasing push for high levels of accountability has arisen in response to theconstraints of limited timelines and the race to completion. The increased account-ability of universities and of supervisors has resulted in the growth of university-levelpolicy, the development of quality systems, performance indicators, research super-visor training and development programs, as well as supervisor registration andaccreditation processes. In occupying scarce and valuable RTS places, students arethemselves also being held more accountable to both the university and to theirsupervisors.

Accountability for research training, which includes supervision, is being addressednationally through the newly formed Australian Universities Quality Agency(AUQA). At RMIT the Quality Assurance for Research Training (QART) scheme,Educational Quality Assurance (EQA), and International Standards Organisation(ISO) quality assurance and improvement processes work to enhance and tightenaccountability in the name of quality. Such quality measures do not lie only at centraluniversity level but trickle down into faculties and departments or schools. Closerscrutiny of supervisory practices as well as of student progress has resulted from thesemeasures.

The development of university-level policy is an important way of addressingaccountability issues and providing for closer scrutiny. A policy framework addressesissues surrounding the quality of research supervision, due recognition of supervision(within workloads and promotion guidelines), and clarification of the nature of thesupervisor role (including second supervisor). The allocation of time within work-plans for research supervision is considered essential if supervisors are to be recog-nised for what they do but also held accountable if this work is not given dueattention. While the complexities surrounding the establishment of formulae for suchtime allocation vary across disciplines, degree frameworks and supervisory models,and make the development of policy a difficult and contentious issue, it is nonethelessunavoidable. At RMIT our newly formulated policy agrees that allocation of time forall supervisors is essential and that faculties must develop their own formula andreport centrally through the QART process on their practices of research supervision.Furthermore, the policy stipulates that all research supervisors must be registered.Each faculty must develop a list of registered supervisors according to key criteria,namely: qualifications, research activity (grants, publications, completions), and

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mou

nt S

t Vin

cent

Uni

vers

ity]

at 2

1:47

05

Oct

ober

201

4


participation in research supervisor training and development activities. Such regis-tration lists are to be reviewed annually and reported on via QART. This movetowards registration of supervision represents a major shift in attitudes and a majorcrossing of borders. Traditionally, academic staff have resisted such registration onthe grounds that their position as academics is itself sufficient accreditation.

Similarly, the move to supervisor development and training is viewed, by some, ashighly contentious, and representative of another border crossing. This view is basedon the assumption that the ability to supervise rests on disciplinary expertise andthat therefore no explicit professional development is needed. However, the new eraof heightened accountability demands that supervisor training and development bea key component of the professional development made available to academic staff.Since supervisors are now to be accountable to the university and to students fortheir performance, the university must therefore assume responsibility for theprovision of professional development in this area. For those of us responsible forthe development of research supervisor training, the challenge is to provide pro-fessional development opportunities that are flexible enough to cater for the range ofneeds existing within faculties, to draw upon expertise within the university andbeyond, and to build an integrated approach with various components. At RMITthe professional development for supervisors includes a series of lectures/seminars,reflective practice workshops, scholarship workshops and a conference on researchinto research supervision.

Not only must the university and the supervisor now be held accountable for theprovision of appropriate supervision, research students, too, take on a range ofobligations or accountabilities as they enrol. Whereas once students could beallowed to ponder their research questions within fairly loose time frames, this is nolonger the case. Given that research places are now precious commodities, severelyrationed and limited to carefully designated research concentrations, candidates areobliged to demonstrate satisfactory progress in ways more overt and explicit thanever before. Mechanisms, such as regular progress reporting, scrutiny by reviewpanels, as well as presentations of proposals and work in progress, remind candi-dates of the need to proceed in timely ways. In addition, “at risk” procedures havebeen codified and clarified and a harder line is now taken with those who fail to showadequate progress. At this stage we can only take an optimistic view, such as thatsuggested by Leder (1998), perhaps a little cynically, that close monitoring ofprogress and completion rates will lead to increased understanding of both studentand supervisor needs. Taking this further, we assume that we will be then betterpositioned to help candidates complete successfully in a timely fashion. But un-doubtedly the room for slippage from the norm in terms of progress is now severelyrestricted.

Completion Strategies

Such strategies include program management, short-term scholarships, writinggroups, contracts, portfolios, induction and targeted workshops. The provision of anactive supportive net for both supervisor and student is the guiding theme here.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mou

nt S

t Vin

cent

Uni

vers

ity]

at 2

1:47

05

Oct

ober

201

4

Fast Supervision 47

More and better program management is becoming the catch cry of researchdegree programs, especially for professional doctorates and higher degrees by project.Program management is seen to afford well-organised, almost manicured, researchprojects that are clearly defined and pursued in step with a tight but achievabletimeline. When linked to doctoral seminars for proposal defences, updates andprogress reviews, the new era of strict deadlines and accountability promises timelycompletions as a highly valued and likely outcome. Just what program managementmeans in terms of the nature of the research now undertaken remains an issue thatmust be tackled. The opportunity for curiosity-driven research, where outcomes arenot known in advance, conceived of, and developed at a leisurely pace, has little placein this new landscape.

Another strategy to support timely completions is short-term scholarships. Thisidea is aimed at candidates to take time out from the demands of full-time work tofind consecutive and sustained time to collect data and/or write. Similarly, writinggroups are now seen as a way to enhance completion rates. The aim here is to supportwriting growth and to assist students in meeting deadlines for submission.

The move to the use of contracts has been adopted by some supervisors as astrategy to increase accountability and as a means for reaching overt agreement aboutroles and responsibilities within the supervisory relationship. Contracts are useful fordocumenting plans, agreements in terms of tasks and ways of working, meetings(frequency, duration, location, focus, nature: group or individual, structure), and thenature of the involvement of the supervisor and the student (responsibilities).

The provision of carefully timed and informative induction programs and otherworkshops for research students can be seen as another strategy to enhance com-pletion. These sessions are based on the premise that the more information that canbe made available to students about their research candidature (particularly policyand procedures, ethics, intellectual property, at-risk procedures), the experienceof undertaking a research degree, communication skills, research methodologiesand methods, and available support mechanisms and services, the better placed theywill be.

Communication

Given the pressured times in which supervisors now have to work, there is space onlyfor direct and focused dialogue between supervisors and students. What do suchdialogues mean for the supervisor/student relationship? If we return to the work ofDelamont et al. (1998), written not so long ago but located in a seemingly quitedifferent world, the delicate balance referred to there is related to the tension betweenthe need to guide and structure the work of the research student, and the desire topreserve the student’s autonomy. What happens to this delicate balance, which is sodifficult to achieve at the best of times, in situations where supervisors must push andprod students to maintain the necessary pace? How is it possible to be forceful anddirect yet avoid discouraging students at times of struggle? As supervisors structureand direct, what are the dangers to independence, autonomy and sense of self-worthfor the student?

The extension of dialogue between parties within the research community, now

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mou

nt S

t Vin

cent

Uni

vers

ity]

at 2

1:47

05

Oct

ober

201

4


spanning academe, industry and other professional contexts, is vital in this newlyfound space. Those involved in research supervision need the opportunity to interactwith others in order to gain appropriate information about policy and procedures,research-related events as well as content-specific knowledge. Clearly, while onlineinformation like fiRST (a Website on research supervision being developed througha consortium of universities) assists; and chat rooms, online modules and e-mailcommunication that break down barriers of distance are invaluable for developingregular moments for conversation, input and reflection in very flexible ways, there isclearly room for the extension of face-to-face opportunities for dialogue. AsMcWilliam and Taylor (2000) remind us, it is face-to-face contact that creates themomentum needed to motivate and drive students on to the next stage.

A Broader Skill Set

It is generally accepted that an adequate and appropriate provision of broadly basedresearch training should consist of:

• subject-specific training in research methodologies;• general research skills;• transferable employment-related skills.

Increasingly, it is recognised that, whilst some of these skills may be developedthrough the research process itself, some may not and it is therefore necessary thatskill development needs be structured into a student’s research program. Further-more, this development needs to be an integral part of a student’s program whichcan be taught and assessed and not be perceived as a burdensome extra.

However, making adequate provision for the development of a broader skill set isnot simply a matter of changing the curriculum. It also requires a change in mind-seton the part of academic staff and supervisors specifically, involving a change in howa research degree is perceived and what its outcomes are meant to be. As we havenoted, the landscape of university research is changing. Deep shifts in the organisa-tional and epistemological bases of research are at work. The traditional academicmodel of research and supervision is being replaced by one characterised byregulation, accountability, contracts and the decline of autonomy. No longer is thecreation of new knowledge the very purpose of the research process. It is no longera closed intellectual endeavour confined to the self-referential world of the academy.Increasingly the production of new knowledge takes place in a context of openengagement with the broader environment of stakeholders in the knowledgeeconomy.

Given this changing landscape, it is not surprising that the nature and purpose ofthe research degree is shifting. It is still the case that research candidates need tograduate as experts in their chosen field and with the capacity to be independentresearchers. However, it is becoming increasingly important that they graduate witha broader skill set and that the development of such a skill set becomes an explicitpart of the research training offered to students.

Earlier, we spoke of the need for “soft” skills as an essential feature of working in

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mou

nt S

t Vin

cent

Uni

vers

ity]

at 2

1:47

05

Oct

ober

201

4

Fast Supervision 49

the knowledge economy. These skills, it is argued, need to be part of the broaderskill set that research students need to have acquired on graduating. At the sametime, in many instances supervisors do not themselves possess these skills, let alonebe in a position to impart them to their students. We would argue that if this is thecase then supervisors need to acquire these “soft” skills, for how otherwise are theyto pass them on to their students? Furthermore, it is not enough that supervisorsleave these for others to develop; the need now is for “soft” skills to be embeddedin the research program. Undoubtedly, therefore, the need for a broader skill setimposes new demands on supervisors, demands that many are finding difficult tohandle. Here, supervisor training has a critical role to play.

Supervisors complain that they are now faced with increasingly impossible de-mands. On the one hand they are expected to ensure that their students acquire abroad skill set, whilst on the other they are expected to deliver timely and successfulcompletions. One answer to this is to reconfigure the research degree so that depthof knowledge is no longer the most significant criterion of success. The problemhere, however, is that skill development is not examined and therefore examinersneed to be educated in this way of thinking. This is likely to be a contentious andlong drawn out process. Another possibility might be to move away from the Britishmodel of one supervisor per student to a more collective mode of supervision wherethe demands of supervision, and hence the workload, are shared by a panel ofsupervisors. In relation to skill development, increasing the coursework element,even within the PhD by thesis, and incorporating skill development within that,could also be a way forward.

Changing Practices

We have pointed to a number of strategies and techniques that can be deployed inthe current climate of supervision. Which are most appropriate will depend largelyon local conditions. This suggests that there will be a much greater degree ofvariation in supervision practices than has hitherto been the case. But what will beinvariant is the need to change supervisory practices, since this need is generated bydrivers which no Australian university is in a position to ignore.

We have characterised the change as one of a move to fast supervision—a set ofsupervisory practices which reflect and respond to the fast times of the currentsituation. These are fast times in the sense of the demand for fast completions butthey are also fast in relation to changing legitimations of knowledge and thedemands of the knowledge economy. In the final analysis, what is required is a“reculturing” of research degrees, a reconfiguration of culture that takes account ofthe central importance of research training regimes, changes in the nature ofresearch degrees and the consequent impact upon supervisory practices.

Address for correspondence: Robin Usher, Research and Development, RMITUniversity, City campus, Building 3, 124 LaTrobe St, Melbourne 3001, Victoria,Australia. E-mail: [email protected]

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mou

nt S

t Vin

cent

Uni

vers

ity]

at 2

1:47

05

Oct

ober

201

4


References

BARNETT, R. (2000). Realising the university in an age of supercomplexity. Buckingham: SRHE/OpenUniversity Press.

BLUNKETT, D. (2000). Speech on higher education given at the University of Greenwich, UK, onFebruary 15, 2000.

DELANTY, G. (2001). Challenging knowledge: The university in the knowledge society. Buckingham:SRHE/Open University Press.

DELAMONT, S., PARRY, O. & ATKINSON, P. (1998). Creating a delicate balance: The doctoralsupervisor’s dilemmas. Teaching in Higher Education, 3(2), 157–172.

GIBBONS, M., LIMOGES, C., NOWOTNY, H., SCHWARTZMAN, S.L., SCOTT, P. & TROW, M. (1994).The new production of knowledge: The dynamics of science and research in contemporary societies.London: Sage.

LEDER, G. (1998). Higher degree supervision: A question of balance. In A. LEE & B. GREEN (Eds),Postgraduate studies/postgraduate pedagogy. Sydney: Centre for Language and Literacy andthe University Graduate School, UTS.

LYOTARD, J.F. (1984). The postmodern condition: A report on knowledge. Manchester: ManchesterUniversity Press.

MCWILLIAM, E. & TAYLOR, P. (2000). Reconciling rapidity and rigour: Strategies and structures for thenext generation of professional doctorates. Paper presented at the Third International Pro-fessional Doctorates Conference (Doctoral Education and Professional Practice: The NextGeneration), University of New England, Armidale, September 10–13.

SLAUGHTER, S. & LESLIE, L. (1997). Academic capitalism. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins UniversityPress.

SMITH, A. & WEBSTER, F. (Eds). (1997). The postmodern university. Buckingham: SRHE/OpenUniversity Press.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mou

nt S

t Vin

cent

Uni

vers

ity]

at 2

1:47

05

Oct

ober

201

4

fast supervision: changing supervisory practice in changing times

Documents