research degree supervision and examination...in my practice as an arts-based researcher whose...

27

Research Degree Supervision and Examination Portfolio Reflection by Ornette D Clennon 13501029

In looking for a suitable format for my reflections of the sessions, I have chosen to

use an adapted version of Boud’s Evaluative framework (Boud, et al., 1985). In

Dyment & O'Connell’s (2011) review of students’ reflective practice they identified

Wessel & Larin’s (2006) adaptation of Boud’s framework as effective because the

format of the journals produced “highly reflective entries” (p. 82). I have chosen to

work with Wessel & Larin’s (2006) adaptation of Boud’s framework because of their

additional questions.

5/27/2015

Research Degree Supervision and Examination: Portfolio Reflection by Ornette D Clennon 13501029

1

Contents

Introduction ................................................................................................................................................. 2

Session 1 ....................................................................................................................................................... 2

Session 2 ....................................................................................................................................................... 3

Session 3 ....................................................................................................................................................... 5

Session 4 ....................................................................................................................................................... 6

Session 5 ....................................................................................................................................................... 8

Works Cited ................................................................................................................................................. 9

Appendix .................................................................................................................................................... 12

Action Plan Summary ............................................................................................................................ 23


2

Introduction In looking for a suitable format for my reflections of the sessions, I have chosen to use an adapted version of Boud’s Evaluative framework (Boud, et al., 1985). In Dyment & O'Connell’s (2011) review of students’ reflective practice they identified Wessel & Larin’s (2006) adaptation of Boud’s framework as effective because the format of the journals produced “highly reflective entries” (p. 82). I have chosen to work with Wessel & Larin’s (2006) adaptation of Boud’s framework because of their additional questions.1 I feel that the additions of the questions are useful starting points for the collecting of my reflective thoughts on each session. Bearing this in mind, I will structure my evaluation by answering questions one to three in my individual session evaluations. I will also include an appendix of materials that I collected from the sessions where I will also address questions four and five, as well as any further reflective thoughts. Session 1 This session focused on these two activities. Activity 1 – Describing what research is and looks like In this session we explored the concept of research; what it is and what it looks like. We were asked to imagine that we had to explain this concept to a stranger for whom this concept was unfamiliar. We were then asked to make this subject specific and apply our definitions to our own areas of expertise. I found this exercise of describing what research is, quite challenging. When we were asked to think about what research was and how it looked in our respective disciplines my conflicted thoughts were characterised by Egan (1997, pp. 115-116)2 In my practice as an Arts-based researcher whose practice sits between artistic research (practice as research), cultural theory (social constructionism) and quantitative social science research (positivism), trying to describe what research is and looks like outside of an interdisciplinary perspective (as this perspective is far from being universal in the academy) was difficult to say the least. However, with all of the complexities that I have outlined3, I would attempt to characterise research as a process of understanding the world through the building on previous knowledge to generate new knowledge or understanding. In my area of research, this takes the form of starting with an artistic enquiry and expanding it outwards, via treating it as an intervention, to ask questions about its effect on human behaviour, to which I apply quantitative research methodologies in the form of effect size research to measure its effect on behaviour.

1 In original italics, see appendix, introduction, p.12

2 See appendix, session 1, p. 13



3

In terms of relevance for a PhD student, this question about what research is and what it looks like becomes more of a point about practicality in terms of how they will need to “pitch” or orientate their research to meet the requirements of their institution. Yates (2004, p. 83) writes that “the heart of the PhD is mastery of the conventions…..and adding something recognisable for the existing masters or gatekeepers of those conventions…” (original italics). We returned to this crucial definition of PhD research in session 4. Activity 2 – Arranging Research Degree Milestones In this activity we were asked to arrange the research degree milestones into the correct order on to a chart4. This was a great exercise in thinking through the process for the candidate and gave a great insight into the institutional expectations of the candidate. The chart also set the tone for the rest of the sessions by introducing me to the following issues:

Supervision meetings (RD9s - what are they?) (session 2)

Skills development for the student (session 3)

PhD Examination (Viva Voce) (session 4)

When to publish and what? (session 5) I became particularly aware of the need for the student to be engaged in the programme, as it became obvious in this activity that the student needed to be very proactive in their approach to both their studies and relationship building with their team. Vekkailaa, et al. (2013, p. 19) write that the student’s engagement is very much affected by “…participation and interaction arenas including research collaboration, receiving constructive feedback and discussions, and sharing interest and expertise with more experienced researchers, supervisors, and peers on research work in general and especially on their own doctoral research”. This made me think deeply about my practice as a supervisor and its impact on my students, which we explored in the following session. Session 2 Although we were introduced to the notion of the research degree student having training needs, we explored this in more detail in the following session. In this session, however, we discussed the role and function of the supervision team in the research degree programme. Activity 1 – Reflecting on my supervisory experience We were asked to reflect on our own experience of Research degree supervision, as a means of placing these important issues about relationship building and pedagogy into a personal context. My PhD was in Musical Composition. Essentially, my research

4 See appendix, session 1, pp.14 - 15


4

required me to put together a monograph of musical compositions, which explored the aesthetic and technical confluence between Western (Contemporary) Classical Music traditions, World Musics (West African drumming, Native American Spiritual Chanting, South Indian Classical and Tibetan/Mongolian Overtone singing) and Popular Musics (soul and jazz).5 As musical composition is a complex creative activity that combines elements of convergent and divergent thinking (Webster, 1988), social psychology (MacDonald, Miell, & Mitchell, 2002) and ‘flow’ (optimal performance) (Csikszentmihalyi & Csikszentmihalyi, 1988),6 the skill set for the supervisor in this type of research needs to be finely balanced in a way that promotes maximum creativity, scholarship and reflection from their student. Bruce & Stoodley (2013, p. 235) describe an approach that I recognise from being supervised, myself, called “drawing upon student expertise” where the supervisor is “likely to consider relevant to supervision student interests and expertise, student insights, the student as a source of knowledge and student control”. This formative experience of a collaborative style of supervision has very much influenced my own approach to supervising and teaching which I will discuss later. Uncovering our formative experiences of being supervised led us to discuss other contrasting styles of supervision in the next activity. Activity 2 – Discussing the Metaphors for Supervision style We were introduced to various supervision styles.7 In our group discussions, we discovered that we all had experienced elements of these supervision styles and sometimes in one supervisor! This led us to appreciate the importance of having a balanced supervision team for the candidate. We were informed that one of the main responsibilities of the Director of Studies was to assemble a balanced team of supervisors and to look after the management of the Research Degree (RD) Milestones (Manchester Metropolitan University, 2009-10). This would very much imply a directorial style of delivery that was more concerned about fulfilling the research degree protocols for the institution. As Deuchar (2008) reminds us, this style of supervision and this aspect of the role of the Director of Studies is increasingly important in our marketised education system, where there is an emphasis on the need for timely completions. However, building on the pastoral and contractual styles outlined by Deuchar, I personally most identify with the ‘pastoral’ role that finds me in the position of the ‘caring, expert professional’ (Grant, 2005, p. 340) because I am naturally more drawn to helping the student to become an independent researcher. In my research degree supervision and undergraduate teaching, my overall pedagogical leanings are towards “model[ling]” where I try to communicate my tacit knowledge in a meaningful way to my students through my actions, where I “coach” my students by 5 See appendix, session 2, p. 15, My Compositional Research for more details 6 See appendix, session 2, p. 15 7 See appendix, session 2, p.16, Supervision Styles


5

supporting them in certain tasks and where I “fade” out my input over time as they grow in expertise and independence (Deuchar, 2008, p. 491). I find that this is very much done in an organic manner that requires implicit negotiation with my students and relies heavily on building a balanced and dynamic relationship with them. I think that this approach is very much influenced by my work as a community practitioner (as well as my formative experience of supervision) where these are pre-requisite skills for my community enterprise work, which involves the facilitation of the community voice and self-empowerment.

Activity 3 – Filling out a questionnaire that identified Supervision style In this activity, we were asked to fill out a questionnaire that identified our propensities for the following supervision traits/styles; Functional, Enculturation, Critical Thinking, Emancipation and Relationships8. My scores seemed to be evenly spread across the categories. Surprisingly, bearing in mind that I do seem more drawn to issues around ‘Relationships’ and self-actualisation (or ‘Emancipation’ where the student is encouraged to question and develop themselves), these facets drew my joint lowest scores at 16 points. My highest scoring facets were ‘Functional’ and ‘Critical Thinking’ at 18 and 19 points respectively (followed by ‘Enculturation’ at 17 points where I encourage the student to explore their disciplinary community). On reflection, these results were slightly unexpected as perhaps they betrayed a more directorial (functional) tendency in my approach than I was aware, although the conscious value I put on critical reflection was mirrored by my highest score, Critical Thinking. Delamont, et al. (1998) write about the need for balance in the approach to supervising candidates where the supervisor avoids stifling originality by being too directorial and where they give enough input to ensure that the student succeeds and completes on time.9

Session 3 Since I was attending a conference about Innovation and Partnerships in the museum/gallery and education sector, (Clennon, 2013b), I was unable to attend this session. However, I did manage to do some preparatory work for the session that included looking at the training needs of research degree students and summarising and discussing a report about PhD completion rates. Activity 1 - Skills Development: Listing the skills Research Degree Students need at various times during their study We were asked to identify ten of the most important skills that we felt that a PhD student would need at the start and by the end of their study. Using the Researcher


9 See appendix, session 2, p. 16, for the Implications on my practice


6

Development Framework (Vitae.ac.uk, 2011), I listed ten skills (in bold) that I think a student would need10 11 Activity 2 – Presenting information relating to PhD completion rates in the UK from the report published by HEFCE (2007) ‘PhD research degrees: update Entry and completion’ My colleagues integrated my powerpoint summary of the HEFCE (2007) report12 into their general presentation as part of our formative assessment for the unit. HEFCE (2007) concludes in its report that overall, full-time students finish in a more timely fashion than do part-time students. HEFCE observed that when looked at over 10 years (instead of 7 years), rates of completion for both full and part-time candidates had increased but the rate of increase was greater for part-time candidates (9 percentage points greater). This observation varies across the disciplines, for example Rodwell & Neumann (2008) and Neumann & Rodwell (2009) report in their Australian studies that part-time students in the life sciences with an English Speaking Background (ESB) actually outperformed full-time students in terms of Time to Degree (TTD) or completion, although they did not seem to explain why this was the case outside of the discipline variations they found. However, Rodwell & Neumann (2008) did explain the quicker TTD times for full-time students in terms of institutional factors such as immersion in the subject, amount of contact with supervisors etc where for obvious reasons part-time students could find themselves at a disadvantage, especially for subjects requiring full immersion (such as languages). This ‘immersion’ issue would perhaps explain why part-time students seem to need more time to complete according to HEFCE (2007). van de Schoot, et al. (2013) in their Dutch study looked at completion rates in the Netherlands and identify factors that can both positively and negatively affect TTD. This latter study seems more useful to me as it identifies more ‘tangible’ factors and possible solutions that I, as part of a supervision team, can be aware of and alert my colleagues to.13 Session 4 Activity 1 – Conducting a Vive Voce Examination

“the heart of the PhD is mastery of the conventions…..and adding something recognisable for the existing masters or gatekeepers of those conventions…”

(Yates, 2004, p. 83) (session 1)

10

See appendix, session 3, p. 17, for my list 11 See appendix, session 3, p.18, for additional reflective thoughts about the impact research training could have on academic independence 12 See appendix, session 3, p. 19 13 See appendix, session 3, pp. 19 – 20, for more details


7

In order to prepare for this session we were asked to read Holbrook, et al.’s (2007) study, which outlined a taxonomy of PhD pass that was determined by the extent of its interaction with its discipline’s literature, as implied by Yates (2004). In two groups, we were asked to treat this article as a mock thesis and prepare vive voce examination questions for a candidate that was role played by one of our tutors. One group was chosen to conduct the mock exam using the questions they had devised, whilst the other group observed the examination. This activity worked on three levels:

Examining the content of the study

Treating the study as a “thesis”

Examining the “thesis” Examining the content of the study Holbrook, et al.’s (2007) study looked at examiners’ expectations of theses and the framework that they use for assessing quality. Their study found that although factors such as methodology and presentation played a part in the evaluative process for the examiners, the deciding factor was the extent to which the candidate had interacted with their discipline’s literature or as Yates (2004, p. 83) would put it, their “conventions”. Their study categorised a pass that displayed; coverage, working understanding and basic critical appraisal of the literature. However, for the thesis to be considered to have arrived in the academy it would need to demonstrate scholarliness in their disciplinary field with at least an advanced critical appraisal of the literature or better still, an explicit linkage of the literature to their findings. Kiley & Wisker (2009, p. 439) break these elements down further to suggest that a successful PhD thesis must demonstrate mastery of the following ‘threshold concepts’: “argument; theorising; framework; knowledge creation; analysis and interpretation; and research paradigm.”

Treating the study as a “thesis” Bearing in mind that Holbrook, et al.’s (2007) study focussed on the importance of displaying an outstanding grasp of the conventions (literature) within the discipline, I was surprised to discover that my colleagues had prepared, almost exclusively, methodological questions for their mock examination. They argued that the methodology in the study was not thorough enough. I disagreed with them on two counts. Firstly, as the study was only a paper and generally “a good thesis includes a lot more detail than in articles” (Mullins & Kiley, 2002, p. 375), I thought that the description given of the precise coding of the data for entry into what seemed to be a version of NVivo (a QRS International qualitative data processing software) was adequate. Any further methodological explanation would have rendered the use of the software redundant. Secondly, I thought that it would have been better to have asked questions about the paradigm behind the study’s taxonomy of assessable knowledge (literature), as Kiley & Wisker (2009) suggest, since this seemed to be the deciding factor for examiners in determining quality.


8

Examining the “thesis” We observed a mock viva. We discussed the role of the independent chair. This was a particularly interesting discussion in the context of the chair acting as a mediator for potential conflicts in the examination process (as was explored in the mock exam). Powell & McCauley (2002) found that for those correspondents for whom an independent chair was useful, the role was thought to be at its most efficacious if the chair was deemed a “’’super’’ examiner who would judge the work on its scholarly value rather than be biased towards any one kind of ideology or methodology.” (p. 111).14 Session 5 I was unable to attend this session. However, I did manage to do some preparatory work for the session that included reading a paper about publishing papers during the doctoral programme (Kamler, 2008). Activity 1 – Examining my own PhD and assessing its suitability for publishing Applying some of the underlying arguments from Kamler (2008) to my thesis which was in Musical Composition, I see that this would have been very difficult to do in terms of joint publishing with my supervisor. Creative enquiry in the arts tends to be a solitary process unless explicitly collaborative. Cole & Knowles (2008, p. 61) illustrate the challenges of arts-informed research where “the researcher’s artistry is also predominant. By artistry, we include conceptual artistry and creative and aesthetic sensibilities, not only technical skills or an externally sanctioned title of “artist.”” Assessing personal ‘artistry’ in a collaborative partnership would require an entirely new paradigm around collaborative doctoral research, specifically in the area of Practice as Research (PaR) and especially in the context of producing what would be regarded as a monograph, in my field. However, if my PhD had had a slightly (but crucially) shifted focus away from my artistic practice as a composer towards the external application of my creative processes, in other words “the use of the arts in research is not for art’s sake. It is explicitly tied to moral purposes of social responsibility and epistemological equity” (Cole & Knowles, 2008, p. 62), then co-authoring written works with my supervisor for publishing could have been a more likely outcome.15 2859 words

14 See appendix, session 4, p.21, for additional reflective thoughts about the role of the examiner and choosing them 15 See appendix, session 5, p.22, for additional reflective thoughts about the role of the publishing within the doctoral cycle.


9

Works Cited

Aboelela, S. W., Larson, E., Bakken, S., Carrasquillo, O., Formicola, A., Glied, S. A., et al. (2007).

Defining Interdisciplinary Research: Conclusions from a Critical Review of the Literature.

Health Services Research, 42(1 Part 1), 329 - 346.

Boud, D., Keogh, R., & Walker, D. (1985). Reflection: Turning experience into learning. London: Kogan

Page.

Bruce, C., & Stoodley, I. (2013). Experiencing higher degree research supervision as teaching. Studies

in Higher Education, 38(2), 226 - 241.

Carless, D., & Douglas, K. (2010). Performance ethnography as an approach to health related

education. Educational Action Research, 18(3), 373 - 388.

Clennon, O. (2013a). How effective are music interventions in the criminal youth justice sector?

Community music making and its potential for community and social transformation: A pilot

study. Journal of Music, Technology & Education, 6(1), 103 - 130.

Clennon, O. (2013b, November 22). Innovation in Partnerships. Retrieved January 6, 2014, from

National Coordinating Centre for Public Engagement (NCCPE):

http://www.publicengagement.ac.uk/how-we-help/event-reports

Cole, A. L., & Knowles, J. G. (2008). Arts-informed research. In J. Knowles, & A. Cole (Eds.), Handbook

of the arts in qualitative research (pp. 55 - 70). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Csikszentmihalyi, M., & Csikszentmihalyi, I. (1988). Optimal Experience: Psychological Studies of Flow

in Consciousness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Delamont, S., Parry, O., & Atkinson, P. (1998). Creating a Delicate Balance: the doctoral supervisor's

dilemmas. Teaching in Higher Education, 3(2), 157-172.

Denzin, N. K. (2001). The reflexive interview and a performative social science. Qualitative Research,

1(1), 23 - 46.

Deuchar, R. (2008). Facilitator, director or critical friend: Contradiction and congruence in doctoral

supervision styles. Teaching In Higher Education, 13(4), 489 - 500.

Dyment, J. E., & O'Connell, T. S. (2011). Assessing the quality of reflection in student journals:a

review of the research. Teaching in Higher Education, 16(1), 81 - 97.

Egan, K. (1997). The Educated Mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Fogli, H. (2014, January 5). Divergent Thinking. Retrieved January 5, 2013, from creativegibberish:

http://creativegibberish.org/439/divergent-thinking/


10

Foucault, M. (1977). Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison. (A. Sheridan, Trans.) New York:

Random House.

Gilbert, R., Balatti, J., Turner, P., & Whitehouse, H. (2004). The generic skills debate in research

higher degrees. Higher Education Research & Development, 23(3), 375 - 388.

Grant, B. M. (2005). Fighting for space in supervision: Fantasies, fairytales, fictions and fallacies.

International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 18(3), 337 - 354.

HEFCE. (2007). PhD Research Degrees: update Entry and Completion. London: HEFCE.

Holbrook, A., Bourke, S., Fairbairn, H., & Lovat, T. (2007). Examiner comment on the literature

review in Ph.D. theses. Studies in Higher Education, 32(3), 337 - 356.

Kamler, B. (2008). Rethinking doctoral publication practices: writing from and beyond the thesis.

Studies in Higher Education, 33(3), 283 - 294.

Kiley, M., & Wisker, G. (2009). Threshold concepts in research education and evidence of threshold

crossing. Higher Education Research & Development, 28(4), 431 - 441.

Laird, D. (1985). Approaches to training and development. Reading, Mass: Addison-Wesley.

Leeds-Hurwitz, W. (2009). Social Construction of Reality. In S. Littlejohn, & K. Foss (Eds.),

Encyclopedia of communication theory (pp. 892 - 895). CA: SAGE Publications.

Lyotard, J.-F. (1979[1984]). The Post Modern Condition: A Report on Knowledge. (G. Bennington , &

B. Massumi, Trans.) Retrieved August 22, 2013, from http://www.futuroscopio.org/wp-

content/uploads/2010/07/Lyotard-the_postmodern_condition_a.pdf

MacDonald, R. R., Miell, D., & Mitchell, L. (2002). An Investigation of Children's Musical

Collaborations: The Effect of Friendship and Age. Psychology of Music, 30, 148 - 163.

Macionis, J. J., & Gerber, L. G. (2010). Sociology (Seventh Canadian ed.). Quebec: Pearson Canada.

Manathunga, C., Pitt, R., & Critchley, C. (2009). Graduate attribute development and employment

outcomes:tracking PhD graduates. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 34(1), 91 -

103.

Manchester Metropolitan University. (2009-10). MMU Research Student Handbook. Manchester:

Academic Board Research Committee, Research Degrees Sub-committee, MMU.

Mullins, G., & Kiley, M. (2002). 'It's a PhD, not a Nobel Prize': How experienced examiners assess

research these. Studies in Higher Education, 27(4), 369 - 386.

Neumann, R., & Rodwell, J. (2009). The "invisible" part-time research students: a case study of

satisfaction and completion. Studies in Higher Education, 34(1), 55 - 68.

Powell, S., & McCauley, C. (2002). Research degree examining- common principles and divergent

practices. Quality Assurance in Education, 10(2), 104 - 115.


11

Rodwell, J., & Neumann, R. (2008). Predictors of timely doctoral student completions by type of

attendance:the utility of a pragmatic approach. Journal of Higher Education, 30(1), 65 - 76.

van de Schoot, R., Yerkes, M. A., Mouw , J. M., & Sonneveld , H. (2013). What Took Them So Long?

Explaining PhD Delays among Doctoral Candidates. PLoS ONE, 8(7), e68839.

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0068839 (1 - 11 pdf version).

Vekkailaa, J., Pyhältöa, K., & Lonkaa, K. (2013). Focusing on doctoral students’ experiences of

engagement in thesis work. Frontline Learning Research, 1, 10 - 32.

Vitae.ac.uk. (2011, April 2). Research Development Framework. Retrieved January 6, 2014, from

vitae.ac.uk: http://www.vitae.ac.uk/researchers/428241/Researcher-Development-

Framework.html

Webster, P. R. (1988). Creative Thinking in Music: Approaches to Research. In J. T. Gates (Ed.), Music

Education in the United States; Contemporary Issues (pp. 66 - 81). Tuscaloosa: University of

Alabama Press.

Wessel, J., & Larin, H. (2006). Change in reflection of physiotherapy students over tome in clinical

placements. Learning in Health and Social Care, 5(3), 119 - 132.

Williams, P., Stevenson, I., Nicholas, D., Watkinson, A., & Rowlands, I. (2009). The role and future of

the monograph in arts and humanities research. Aslib Proceedings, 61(1), 67 - 82.

Winner, E., & Cooper, M. (2000). Mute those claims: No evidence (yet) for a causal link between arts

study and academic achievement. Journal of Aesthetic Education, 34(3), 3 - 3, 11 - 75.

Yates, L. (2004). What does Good Education Research look like? Maidenhead: Open University Press.


12

Appendix Introduction This is an adaptation of Boud’s Evaluation Framework (Wessel & Larin, 2006, pp. 122 - 123) that I am using (questions 1 to 3 are answered in my session summaries, questions 4 and 5 in the appendix):

1. Describe the learning event, issue or situation. Describe prior knowledge, feelings or attitudes with new knowledge, feelings or attitudes. What happened? 2. Analyse the learning event, issue or situation in relation to prior knowledge, feelings or attitudes. What was your reaction to the learning event, issue or situation? Your response may include cognitive and emotional reactions. Why did it happen? 3. Verify the learning event, issue or situation in relation to prior knowledge, feelings or attitudes. What is the value of the learning event, issue or situation that has occurred? Is the new knowledge, feeling or attitude about the learning event, issue or situation correct? 4. Gain a new understanding of the learning event, issue or situation. What is your new understanding of the learning event, issue or situation? 5. Indicate how the new learning event, issue or situation will affect future behaviour. Determine the clarification of an issue, the development of a skill or the resolution of a problem. How will you approach the same or similar event, issue or situation in the future?


13

Session 1

What is your new understanding of the learning event, issue or situation? How will you approach the same or similar event, issue or situation in the future?

Activity 1 – Describing what research is and looks like

My conflicted thoughts about the artificial separation between paradigms is summed up here: Egan (1997, pp. 115-116)

Positivism is marked by the final recognition that science provides the only valid form of knowledge [...] Ethics, politics, social interactions, and all other forms of human life about which knowledge was possible would eventually be drawn into the orbit of science [...] The positivists' program for mapping the inexorable and immutable laws of matter and society seemed to allow no greater role for the contribution of poets than had Plato. [...] What Plato represented as the quarrel between philosophy and poetry is resuscitated in the "two cultures" quarrel of more recent times between the humanities and the sciences.

This was an interesting exercise in view of the plethora of research methods that broadly form a spectrum between two philosophies; Social Constructionism and Positivism. Leeds-Hurwitz (2009) describes Social Constructionism as knowledge that is co-constructed by social agents (individuals), who construct their own personal social models of the world and communicate these models through language. This philosophy of enquiry yields qualitative research methodologies that tend to be applied to the process of understanding human behaviour. Positivism on the other side of the spectrum views knowledge as being constructed by mathematical and scientific observations, sometimes referred to as empirical evidence (Macionis & Gerber, 2010). Positivism will generate quantitative research methodologies that tend to rely on mathematical, statistical and computational processes for uncovering knowledge. This exercise encouraged me to continue to develop my interdisciplinary practice because having an understanding of both positivist and social constructionist paradigms gives me a broader view of research that I can apply to my role as a supervisor. I will be able to give better advice on guidance on methodological issues as well as the philosophical when looking at helping to shape and contextualise a thesis. I have also become more aware of the need for a PhD thesis to reflect the conventions of its field whilst simultaneously offering a new insight into those conventions in the field. Aboelela, et al.. (2007) suggest that an interdisciplinary approach can broaden the scope of investigation and yield new and possibly unexpected insights into a discipline. So my position as an interdisciplinary researcher on a supervision team could well be useful to a PhD candidate.


14

Activity 2 – Arranging the Research Degree (RD) Milestones

Action Plan Point 1 I will definitely fully familiarise myself with the correct chart (see below), as I think that being aware of the institutional protocols for the RD Milestones, will be invaluable to my student (and also support the Director of Studies (DoS) in terms of management). I will also try to cultivate a relationship with my student that is as supportive and stimulating as possible where they can gain other insights and connections in their field, as I apply my interdisciplinary perspective. This will be of particular importance to my current student who is leading research into community perceptions of health disparities. I will be able to introduce her to other community groups, informal networks and new elements of social constructionist thinking (e.g. cultural theory) that will hopefully bring a fresh insight into her ethnographic enquiry.

Session 1 Resource: Research Degree (RD) Milestones Taken from the MMU Research Student Handbook 2009-10 (Manchester Metropolitan University, 2009-10)

First year Second year Third year Fourth year

Enrolment and submit RD Pre-registration form Induction with Health and Safety/Library/ICT Discuss Personal Development Portfolio [PDP]/Skills Audit and Personal Development Programme with DoS Contact Learning Support Office [where necessary] University Induction Day [Month 1] Submit draft proposal to DoS [Month 2] Complete Ethics Checklist Submit RD1 and Research

Enrolment Discuss PDP/Skills Audit and Personal Development Programme with DoS Submit RD2 and Transfer Report [Month 12] Attend workshops from Student Development Programme Regular meetings with supervisor [RD9] Annual Review [RDAR] [Summer Term] Oral or poster

Enrolment Discuss PDP/Skills Audit and Personal Development Programme with DoS Attend workshops from Student Development Programme Regular meetings with supervisor [RD9] Submit complete draft of thesis to DoS/supervisors [Month 33] DoS submits RD6 form for the approval of examiners [Month 33]

Enrolment Mock Oral examination Oral examination and outcome [Month 38/39] Amendments completed and submission of final copy of Thesis [RDEXIT] [Ethos form] Conferment deadline [Month 48]


15

Proposal [Month 3] Regular meetings with supervisor [RD9] Attend workshops from Faculty and or RED Student Development Programme Annual Review [RDAR] [Summer Term] Oral or poster presentation at Annual Research Conference

presentation at Annual Research Conference Submission of research publication

Annual Review [RDAR] [Summer Term] Oral or poster presentation at Annual Research Conference Submission of thesis for examination with RDDEC form [Month 36] DoS to arrange Oral examination (Viva voce) [RDORAL] [Month 36]

Session 2


Activity 1 – Reflecting on my supervisory experience

Social Psychology Elsewhere (Clennon, 2013a), I have written about distributive learning in terms of authentic, situation and process directed learning. These forms of learning recognise the potential embeddedness of the learning process in social interactions. This is important for my future practice as I model and coach my students towards finding their own distinct research path within the relationships I build with them. Optimal Performance and Drawing upon student expertise For me, I am inclined to use Stimulation Theory (Laird, 1985) as a metaphor, where I take the student’s interests and expertise as a starting point (their “stimulation”), and embed the learning process of research skill acquisition into my interactions with them resulting in them being more motivated to learn (Winner & Cooper, 2000) and being in the creative “flow”.

My Compositional research This area of research led me to explore the effect of psychoacoustic phenomena on the perception of sound, spectral analyses of sound (their implications on psychoacoustic perception and its use as a musical parameter in its own right) and different intonations and temperaments of the music scale (from other musical cultures and traditions). In my field, the research monograph is considered essential for career progression because it is supposed to represent the pinnacle of primary research and original scholarship (Williams, et al., 2009) but it does raise a few interesting questions about the role of the supervisor and mine in particular. My formative supervisory experience was characterised by the following pedagogic processes: Divergent and Convergent Thinking Fogli (2014, para 2) usefully gives us this description of divergent thinking:

So, from the problem – or whatever triggers your creativity – to the solution, instead of taking


16

obvious steps and walking on a straight line, you force yourself to see different aspects of the situation, using unusual points of view, no matter how abstract of absurd they seem at the first place.

As a composer and musician I find that these models of thinking are my starting points for musical composition. The important converse of these processes is “convergent thinking” where I need to be able to apply an equally creative process that narrows down and synthesises the options I have generated into a workable solution. This is a subconscious and tacit process. However, through the discipline of critical reflection, this process can be made explicit and applied to other (non-arts based) areas of problem solving. Action Plan Point 2 I intend to be more mindful of how I “model” my divergent (and convergent) thinking to my research degree students

Activity 2 – Discussing the Metaphors for Supervision style

Supervision Styles Deuchar (2008, p.490) identifies four broad categories of approach to supervision:

The Laissez-faire style assumes that the candidate is capable of managing both their research project and themselves

The Pastoral style assumes that the candidate can manage their research project but will need personal or pastoral support

The Directorial style assumes the candidate can manage themselves but not their research project

Contractual style assumes that the supervisor and the candidate will negotiate to what extent support is given and to what extent

Implications on my practice This activity brought home to me the importance of not taking my tacit creative thinking processes for granted. I discovered that I need to apply my interdisciplinary leanings towards consciously building conceptual bridges which do not assume that everyone shares the same philosophical or creative starting points, as myself. Action Plan Point 3 In the context of supervision style, this will call for the need of explicit “contractual” negotiation with the candidate where my tacit knowledge is made explicit and also perhaps the encouraging of closer team working and distributive mentoring within the supervision team (Director of Studies (DoS) management role notwithstanding).


17

Activity 3 – Filling out a questionnaire that identified Supervision style

Action Plan Point 4 I will use the information gained from this questionnaire to be more aware of my directorial tendencies and to ensure that I continue to strike a balance between my other pedagogical facets.

Session 3


Activity 1 - Skills Development: Listing the skills Research Degree Students need at various times during their study

Session 3 Resource: Introducing the Researcher Development Framework (Vitae.ac.uk, 2011)

Area of skill At the start of the degree the student must have

By the end of the degree the student must have

Knowledge and Intellectual Abilities

A firm Knowledge base: Excellent Subject knowledge

Creativity: Innovation and Intellectual Insight, Argument construction

Good Cognitive Abilities: Critical thinking, Synthesising, Analysing

Personal Effectiveness Personal Qualities that include: Enthusiasm and Perseverance

Professional and Career development ideas: Networking, CPD

Research Governance and organisation

Knowledge of Professional Conduct: Ethics, Respect and Confidentiality

Strategies for generating finance and using resources: Writing funding bids

Engagement, influence and impact

The Ability to work with Others: team work, supervision, mentoring

Skills around Engagement and Impact: Enterprise, Teaching Knowledge of Communication and Dissemination: Publications, Social media

http://www.vitae.ac.uk/researchers/428241/Researcher-Development-Framework.html

http://www.vitae.ac.uk/researchers/428241/Researcher-Development-Framework.html


18

Action Plan Point 5 I will discuss the Researcher Development Framework (RDF) with my student (and DoS) and ascertain which areas she would like specific help with. This could form part of what I described as a “contractual negotiation”, in the last session. Perhaps the RDF could be used as an informal skills assessment document that the DoS could administer (as recommended by the RD Milestones chart). This could potentially form part of what Manathunga, et al. (2009) would consider a process of constant re-evaluation and improvement of the PhD programme. My thinking behind this would be that if certain skills are identified at the start for the student, the task of incorporating that training into the supervision relationships could be deliberately distributed throughout the team to make sure that student receives the balance that they need. Additional reflective thoughts Gilbert, et al. (2004) discuss the thorny issue of providing generic training to provide some of the skills identified in the earlier in this appendix. Like some of their correspondents, I am concerned about the standardization of research skills. I believe that the acquisition of these transferable skills should not be left until the PhD stage of study. These important skills should be taught throughout the academic career of the student. We forget that the average PhD candidate will already hold an undergraduate degree and most likely also hold some form of Master’s degree. However, it is not always possible to control what sort of prior training a PhD candidate has received especially if they are coming from another institution. Gilbert, et al. (2004, p. 382) mentioned the possibility of a “Masters in Research” that could act as a training programme for a doctorate. I do think that this would be a good start. Although I recognise the need for the PhD student to develop useful skills for their career, I see this happening more in my “modelling” and “coaching” the student through my relationship with them, as discussed in the last session. In order to keep to the notion of Academic and Creative independence (just as pressing for subjects that research Arts, Culture and Social Science), I think that those skills should be individualized according to need. For me, part of the creative skill set for the PhD student should entail the development of divergent and convergent thinking models. So by using these thinking models, finding the transferability of their skills and applying them to other areas should be an organic part of their academic journey, especially if interdisciplinarity is encouraged. However, I am alarmed at the creeping institutionalization of the market in academe, where a generic skills development programme would encourage more control over producing a prescribed type of academic that fits the purposes of the market. Foucault (1977) writes about how what he calls “discipline” (a form of power wielded by an institution) produces ‘knowledges’ that self-validate and embed self-regulating control in the subject (individual). This process of power validating itself and embedding itself into the individual at a subliminal level is how Foucault describes the state of institutionalisation. I see a generic skill training programme as the emergence of a new set of ‘knowledges’ whose only purpose is to validate the ‘new’ institution of marketised Professional Practice. As this new practice is in large part encouraged by Research Councils (Gilbert, Balatti, Turner, & Whitehouse, 2004), the economic/market factors really cannot be ignored and more importantly, the impact of inherent political cultures/market biases must also be acknowledged. We could be perhaps witnessing, through stealth, the creeping restrictions of Academic independence under the guise of market progress, which Lyotard (1979[1984]) predicted in his Post Modern Condition. I will add one important caveat. For those industries (which exert Foucaldian control over its practitioners) that require specialised research skills in order to progress in their field, I would say that Professional Doctorates are appropriate. However, based on my previous argument, I would still maintain the nuanced distinction between those degrees which have an element of training (taught elements, influenced by market demands) and those which are entirely research based (‘in theory’ academically independent of the market)


19

Activity 2 – Presenting information relating to PhD completion rates in the UK from the report published by HEFCE (2007) ‘PhD research degrees:

updateEntry and completion’

Pointers for the supervision team: valuable factors to look out for at an institutional level: van de Schoot, et al. (2013, pp. 8-9) predict delays in TTD when institutional issues are left unaddressed:

Admit doctoral candidates who demonstrate the least amount of knowledge about their potential PhD topic.

Base admission decisions on written material only – do not invite candidates for face-to-face interviews.

Do not test the (English) language proficiency of PhD candidates from abroad.

Restrict supervision to one supervisor who is overloaded with responsibilities, has multiple PhD candidates and offers no team supervision.

Restrict supervision to a supervisor who does not care about PhD planning, who will meet with the candidate once every two or three months at the most and who will let the PhD candidate independently determine which criteria are applied in assessing the thesis and if/when progress will be monitored.

Do not assess whether the candidate possesses the basic and necessary qualities for designing and completing a PhD project prior to enrolment.

Have the candidate focus solely on reading and do not provide any training in rigorous, academic writing or any other research skills.

Isolate the candidate: Communication with other experts or peers to discuss one's work should be avoided.

And please, let the candidate teach for at least for three or four

HEFCE (2007) PhD research degreesEntry and completion

January 2005/02A Summary Part 1

Ornette Clennon

Kevin Gallimore

Trevor Brown

(Please double-click on image for the ppt) Pointers for the supervision team: valuable factors to look out for at a personal level: van de Schoot, et al.’s , (2013, p. 10) study predicts delays in TTD when personal issues are left unaddressed:

Female PhD candidates who experience a change in marital status;

Female PhD candidates who invest time in international contacts;

Male candidates with children;

Male candidates who experience a change in supervisor;

Candidates who experience practical setbacks (such as problems with data collection);

Candidates who do not adhere to the original thesis plan;

Candidates suffering from the absence of clear communication with and guidance from their supervisor(s); and

Candidates with extenuating personal circumstances.


20

days a week.

Pointers for the supervision team: valuable factors to look out for possible solutions. van de Schoot, et al. (2013, p. 9) propose the following as possible solutions to the issues faced:

ensuring PhD planning takes place within a reasonable timeframe;

by conducting structural reviews of PhD progress;

working to ensure effective communication between candidates and supervisors;

and providing structural support to PhD candidates, for example support for those individuals with caring duties.

My Comments van de Schoot, et al.’s (2013) institutional observations for delays in TTD seem to coincide with my previous suggestion of an informal skills audit for the candidate that would identify potential areas of weakness and strength. This seems to justify the use of the RDF as an informal tool for discussion with the supervision team and candidate. In terms of the personal issues that they identify, as a supervision team we would need to make sure that structural procedures at an institutional level are put in place (or widely promoted) to support some of these complex issues mentioned. Their possible solutions seem reasonable if we have a well-functioning supervision team because in the RD Milestones, as discussed earlier, we already have the annual RDAR reviews where progress is formally reviewed as well as the regular RD9 Supervision meetings. For my practice, it will be important for me to be as familiar with all of the university’s support systems in order to contribute to delivering a satisfactory student experience to my candidate.


21

Session 4


Activity 1 – Conducting a Vive Voce Examination This is a useful passage to keep in mind when giving advice on written work. I am particularly drawn to the artistic metaphors that are used to describe outstanding quality. This rather emphasises for me the importance of creativity: Mullins & Kiley (2002, pp. 379 - 380)

What Makes an Outstanding Thesis? Interviewees were asked to comment on what they thought set apart a ‘good’ PhD from a standard or passable PhD. There was considerable unanimity across the disciplines with regard to these characteristics, and one of the unifying responses was the use of the artistic metaphor. For example, words and phrases such as the following were used, particularly by scientists, to describe a good PhD: · ‘an artistic endeavour where the student is designing the work and there is elegance of design, of the synthesis, and executions’ (Sc/Male/22); · creativity; · design—where it all fits together; · elegant; · a well-sculpted piece of work. The use of the artistic metaphor extended to such terms as ‘elan’, ‘passion’, ‘excitement’ and ‘sparkle’. Clearly, these experienced examiners believed there was a level of ‘art’ involved in producing a particularly good thesis. Examiners were looking for students who exhibited a

My reflections Bearing in mind Mullins & Kiley’s (2002) findings, it strikes me that the creativity and innovation they describe could come from an interdisciplinary perspective that (Aboelela, et al., 2007) describe as being able to yield new insights. As mentioned earlier, as part of the supervision team, I intend to offer this perspective to my candidate. Examining the “thesis” Powell & McCauley’s (2002) idea of the “super” examiner poses some interesting questions around the appropriate experience and expertise of a potential examiner. They recognise that examiners can act either as positive or negative gatekeepers. Those examiners in the latter category can often appear confrontational and unwilling to welcome a thesis into academia. However, Powell & McCauley (2002) warn against examiners failing theses purely on the grounds of their own research interests. So they recommend that “examiners should therefore be trained to understand the formative nature of supervision and the relationship between that supervision, individual student achievement and tangible research outcomes.” (p. 110) Mullins & Kiley (2002) echo this in their findings when they observe that experienced examiners seem to be more reluctant to fail theses because they appreciate the work and its summation of a relationship with a supervision team. They also recognise the personal work entailed for them to re-examine a thesis, particularly in the case of substantial rewrites. Action Plan Point 6 If I were asked to examine a thesis at this stage I would seek the advice of a more experienced examiner, as a strategy to guard against some of the mistakes I would be prone to


22

make due to my own inexperience. Choosing an examiner In order to counter some of these complex issues around selecting an examiner for a candidate, I would suggest that a lot of time is put aside for this process. Mullins & Kiley (2002) observe in their study that examiners thought that they were chosen because of their expertise in the field but also in some cases because of the potential sympathy they could feel towards a certain student’s situation. However, one strong piece of the advice from the study was to avoid inexperienced examiners “at all costs…. because they often have a sample size of one on which to judge—their own—and so anything that comes to them will be judged on whether it is better or worse than their own” (Mullins & Kiley, 2002, p. 374) – implying that less experienced examiners are more likely to fail ‘borderline’ theses. Action Plan Point 7 The above are issues that I will advise my team on in due course. If I were to be invited to be an examiner, I would try to view the thesis in as positive a light as possible, where I would concentrate on offering constructive suggestions where ever possible. Prepping the examination In the mock exam activity in our session, we also discussed how important it was to (at the very least) informally (over lunch) prepare for the examination as a board of examiners in order to counter potential issues beforehand. Powell & McCauley (2002, pp. 110 - 111) remind us that:

Most participants agreed that examiners need to be informed about the work they are examining and need to understand the approach used, even if they do not practise it themselves. It was clear that problems were likely to arise where the examiner had not been made fully aware of the nature of the substantive content of the thesis or the procedures and methods employed in the study at the time of appointment. The usefulness of briefing the potential examiners by giving them access to an abstract (or similar) of the thesis was suggested.

I would like to see a slightly more formalised approach taken to examiner preparation, perhaps taking the form of some sort of checklist pro forma that potential examiners could be given in advance of an examination. Perhaps, it could be that checklist that would be discussed over lunch, which would give the lunch meeting more structure.

sense of confidence in the way they dealt with the material and a level of sophistication in the way the presented their argument. Also, as one examiner said; ‘The outstanding PhDs have beautifully conceived ideas that open up a new area or really answer an important question, and are critical of previous work in the area or make a critical assessment of their own work’ (Sc/Male/13). Or, put another way: All PhDs are not equal and yet most get through. You form an impression that it is OK but not dazzling. This is often when the student applies standard theories in a rather pedestrian way. It’s not wrong, and you can’t fail it, but it’s not dazzling. In other cases you can see that the material is taken and used originally at every level—methodology, literature review, etc. Right from the beginning it makes you see an area that you thought you knew in a way that you hadn’t thought about before. (Hum/Male/8)


23

Session 5


Session 5 Resource: Kamler, B. (2008). Rethinking doctoral publication practices: writing from and beyond the thesis. Studies in Higher Education, 33(3), 283–294. http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/03075070802049236#.Usz7srSYbIU

Activity 1 – Examining my own PhD and assessing its suitability for publishing

Action Plan Point 8 In terms of Kamler’s (2008) suggestions about using the co-authoring process as a pedagogic tool for mentoring my candidate in publishing, I feel that now my own practice as a researcher has moved from (but still informed by) purely researching my arts practice to using my arts practice as a research tool to look at social and community issues around empowerment, social inequality etc* there will be a greater chance of my suggesting to my candidate that we should consider co-authorship as a possible learning pathway. As I have mentioned elsewhere, this will lend an interdisciplinary perspective to her thinking which will increase the likelihood of yielding innovative insights in her research, as well as providing her with much needed practice in researching and presenting her research findings. *using approaches such as performance ethnography (Carless & Douglas, 2010) which is particularly suited to areas around health research (my candidate’s research will be an ethnographic enquiry into health disparities) or performative social science (Denzin, 2001).

Action Plan Summary I will…. Point 1 Thoroughly familiarise myself with the RD Milestones chart Point 2 Find ways of “modelling” divergent and convergent thinking practices for my

candidate (towards encouraging an interdisciplinary perspective)

Point 3 Develop a “contractual” contract with my candidate and supervision team that outlines what areas of support I can offer (based on point 5)

Point 4 Monitor and regularly evaluate my own supervision pedagogic practices Point 5 Discuss the Researcher Development Framework with my candidate and DoS Point 6 Seek a mentor for myself if asked to examine a thesis; I will be as constructive as

possible when examining Point 7 Advise the team on choosing an examiner; I will remember the pitfalls of inexperience

and suggest the need for procedures to compensate for my inexperience (or that of an examiner)

Point 8 Develop co-authoring as a pedagogic tool for mentoring my candidate’s research and writing skills

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/03075070802049236#.Usz7srSYbIU

research degree supervision and examination...in my practice as an arts-based researcher whose...

Documents