Doctoral Supervision in Southern Africa: From Theory to Practice (Springer Texts in Education) 3031468988, 9783031468988

Citation preview

Springer Texts in Education

Kakoma Luneta Jennie Golding Hileni M. Kapenda Patricia Phiri Nalube   Editors

Doctoral Supervision in Southern Africa From Theory to Practice

Springer Texts in Education

Springer Texts in Education delivers high-quality instructional content for graduates and advanced graduates in all areas of Education and Educational Research. The textbook series is comprised of self-contained books with a broad and comprehensive coverage that are suitable for class as well as for individual self-study. All texts are authored by established experts in their fields and offer a solid methodological background, accompanied by pedagogical materials to serve students such as practical examples, exercises, case studies etc. Textbooks published in the Springer Texts in Education series are addressed to graduate and advanced graduate students, but also to researchers as important resources for their education, knowledge and teaching. Please contact Yoka Janssen at Yoka.Janssen@ springer.com or your regular editorial contact person for queries or to submit your book proposal.

Kakoma Luneta · Jennie Golding · Hileni M. Kapenda · Patricia Phiri Nalube Editors

Doctoral Supervision in Southern Africa From Theory to Practice

Editors Kakoma Luneta University of Johannesburg Johannesburg, South Africa Hileni M. Kapenda Faculty of Education University of Namibia Windhoek, Namibia

Jennie Golding Institute of Education University College London London, UK Patricia Phiri Nalube Department of Mathematics Education University of Zambia Lusaka, Zambia

ISSN 2366-7672 ISSN 2366-7680 (electronic) Springer Texts in Education ISBN 978-3-031-46898-8 ISBN 978-3-031-46899-5 (eBook) https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-46899-5 © The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. The publisher, the authors, and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. This Springer imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Switzerland AG The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland Paper in this product is recyclable.

Foreword

Structuring Doctoral Supervision Practice At a time when postgraduate studies have become an obstacle course for many aspiring students, this book presents a way forward for them and for their supervisors. In a collaborative project in which a model from the Institute of Education at the University College London (UCL) is shared with 15 researchers from three universities in the Southern African Development Community (SADC) came together to forge a supervisor community. The book is a pleasant read, with ample information and a convincing proposition regarding the UK Council for Graduate Education (UKCGE) accreditation model. When Jennie Golding invited two colleagues as ‘critical friends’ to workshops in at UCL, she started off on journey with 14 others, sharing the essence of a model for doctoral supervision with them in six virtual workshops, giving rise to the forming of the Southern African-UCL (SAUC) group. The workshops resonated with the authors of this book as much as the chapters of the book resonate with me. In a career of several decades, I navigated my supervision around the students’ thinking—trying to identify with their research questions and their personal and institutional resources. Trying hard to see the research topic through the eyes of the students was not a good idea. I listened to the students and somehow neglected my role as ‘guide by the side’. The chapters in this book argue coherently for such a guide and for systematic and strong supervision that fits with the student’s needs and with what the supervisor can provide. Referring to South African studies, of which there are not many, the authors show that there has been an increase in doctoral research. I am always encouraged but also concerned when I see these figures, knowing what it requires from a supervisor and the advising committee to get the work done timeously. Knowing that full-time study is rare in the field of educational research in the SADC region, I often wonder how students make time to read widely and to discuss the development of their research, not only with supervisors, but also with fellow students. The chapters in this book emphasise communication and the building of relationships. And with strong relationships comes consistent communication. v

vi

Foreword

Although virtual communication is certainly useful, it cannot match face-toface interaction. When students come to campus, they have a different experience. When Prof. Luneta goes on a writing and supervision retreat with his students, he builds a learning community, which invariably morphs into a community of practice—students start communicating with one another and support their fellow students. The structure of the book and the selection of authors for each chapter are part of its appeal. When I read it, I skipped some chapters and returned to them after having read the last two chapters. Eventually I had to read the first two chapters again, realising that the UCL’s Institute of Education has succeeded in convincing me that my own supervision model needs a remodelling. I trust that readers will have a similar experience. Johannesburg, South Africa August 2023

Elizabeth Henning

Introduction

This book opens a window on the potential of systematic scholarly reflection on doctoral supervision practice by academics in southern Africa. Each chapter addresses one aspect of doctoral supervision, summarising some key literature in the area and then harnessing genuine vignettes of practice to illustrate both issues within that area and possible solutions to those issues. The book is authored by 12 experienced doctoral supervisors from the universities of Johannesburg, Namibia and Zambia who collaborated over a series of six interactive workshops facilitated by an external academic from University College London. Unusually, the initiative drew heavily on the literature in the field of doctoral supervision, harnessing that to catalyse the development of informed, personal and systematic reflection on practice. The result was ‘exciting, transformational of my thinking and practice around doctoral supervision’, to quote one author. The book’s contribution is to offer some of the benefits of that process to a wider audience, to catalyse more widespread knowledge and use of the scholarly literature in the field—and to offer a distinctively southern African contribution to what is in many ways a global practice. But why is such work necessary? In Chap. 1, we show how the nature and aims of doctoral study have proliferated in several key respects over the last 25 years or so—and with those changes, doctoral supervision has become even more complex and demanding. Yet in many HEIs globally, postgraduate research supervision is under-valued, under-provisioned and under-developed (Taylor, 2021), with tensions between traditional nurture of embryonic researchers fit to contribute to the curation and development of an academic field (Golde & Walker 2006) and managerial imperatives towards a scientific-technical postgraduate education that serves wider purposes of market economies (Halse & Mowbray 2011). Additionally, doctoral supervision takes place against a background of contextual, political, economic and cultural affordances and constraints, but in an inevitably globalised higher education system. The result can be multiple and significant tensions for supervisors, and often, an unsatisfactory experience for students, with low rates of progression and completion, especially in non-laboratory settings (Sverdlik et al., 2018). Systematic preparation for, or development of, doctoral supervision capacity in universities globally is unusual and/or prohibitively expensive at scale

vii

viii

Introduction

(Manderson et al., 2017), although initial induction of some sort is comparatively common (Taylor & Wisker 2023). This book provides evidence of a model that offers an affordable, sustainable, locally responsive approach to deep development of doctoral supervision—and so enhancement of the quality of doctoral graduates, in a virtuous circle. The main body of the book builds on the authors’ collaborative work and shared scholarly analysis of supervision experiences. Each chapter outlines a critical engagement with key literature, thinking and issues related to one important facet of supervision practice, in a way that opens up the evidence base for wider use. Each author relates that to informed reflection on the area through use of shared personal exemplifications and reflections on the solutions or approaches adopted in the light of the literature. Such ‘vignettes’ draw on the supervision work carried out by colleagues from different higher education systems and working in different local contexts. As such, they point to the complexity of doctoral supervision work as both teaching and research, as part of a global practice but enacted within local cultural and contextual both affordances and constraints. But excitingly also, they also underline the commonalities of our global practices (and challenges), they expose a range of novel and creative approaches to supervisory pedagogy and research, and they serve to encourage others to engage in an equally exciting and rewarding journey into the systematic enrichment of our doctoral supervisors and supervision. The book will be of interest and, we hope, stimulus to all those working in, or with, doctoral supervision, but particularly supervisors themselves, and those with direct or indirect responsibility for supervisor development or for the quality of supervision available to doctoral students. It is of course of especial interest to those in universities across southern Africa, and students, but should also have a wider audience: conceptualisations of what is desirable or possible in nurturing new researchers have historically been dominated by voices from the global north. This book redresses the balance somewhat, identifying challenges that are often more intense and/or severe in young, rapidly expanding university systems and relatively poorly resourced contexts such as southern Africa—but it also identifies values that prioritise the wellbeing of the whole doctoral candidate, and of research as often community-triggered, supported and directly beneficial to those communities. While focused on the complexity and rapidly developing field of doctoral supervision, it also finds space to celebrate that, notwithstanding pressures on time, energy—and sometimes on knowledge and resources—the southern African academics whose voices are heard in this volume still exude an embrace of that challenge, but also the joy to be found in nurturing beginner researchers and contributing to growth in their own academic field.

References Golde, C.M. & Walker, G.E. (Eds.)(2006). Envisioning the future of doctoral education: Preparing stewards of the discipline. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Halse, C., & Mowbray, S. (2011). The impact of the doctorate. Studies in higher education, 36(5), 513–525.

Introduction

ix

Manderson, L., Bondjers, G., Izugbara, C., Cole, D. C., Egesah, O., Ezeh, A., & Fonn, S. (2017). Enhancing doctoral supervision practices in Africa. Journal of Higher Education in Africa/ Revue de l’enseignement supérieur en Afrique, 15(2), 23–40. Sverdlik, A., Hall, N. C., McAlpine, L., & Hubbard, K. (2018). The PhD experience: A review of the factors influencing doctoral students’ completion, achievement, and well-being. International Journal of Doctoral Studies, 13, 361–388. Taylor, S. (2021). Towards describing the doctoral education landscape. UK Council for Graduate Education. http://www.ukcge.ac.uk/article/towards-global-doctoral-landscape-475.aspx. Taylor, S., & Wisker, G. (2023). The changing landscape of doctoral education in the UK. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 60(5), 759–774.

Contents

1

The Global Practice of Doctoral Supervision in Southern Africa . . . Jennie Golding

2

Policies and Ethical Issues in Doctoral Supervision: The Southern African Context . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Jennie Golding and Cornelia Ndahambelela Shimwooshili-Shaimemanya

1

17

3

Recruitment and Selection of Doctoral Candidates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Kakoma Luneta

41

4

Supervisory Relationships with Doctoral Candidates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Frans N. Haimbodi

59

5

Supervisory Relationships with Co-supervisors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Hileni M. Kapenda

71

6

Supporting Candidates’ Research Projects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Patricia Phiri Nalube and Mwansa Mukalula-Kalumbi

85

7

Encouraging Doctoral Candidates to Write and Giving Feedback . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Kashinauua Faustina Neshila and Jennie Golding

95

8

Keeping the Doctoral Research on Track and Monitoring Progress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113 Suraiya Rathankoomar Naicker

9

Postgraduate Student Growth Trajectory: Supporting Personal, Professional and Career Development in the 21st Century . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129 Kabunga Nachiyunde, Gift Masaiti, and Jennie Golding

10 Supporting Doctoral Candidates Through Completion and Final Examination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145 Cornelia Ndahambelela Shimwooshili-Shaimemanya

xi

xii

Contents

11 Supporting Doctoral Candidates to Disseminate Their Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159 Bilainu Oboirien 12 Enhancing Supervisory Practice: Reflecting on the Enablers and Constraints for Meaningful Postgraduate Student Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 173 Lydia Mavuru, Sam Ramaila, and Kathleen Fonseca 13 Doctoral Supervision in Southern Africa: Challenges, Achievements and the Way Forward . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 193 Jennie Golding and Hileni M. Kapenda Author Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 201 Subject Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 203

Editors and Contributors

About the Editors Kakoma Luneta is Professor of mathematics education at the University of Johannesburg, South Africa. His research interest is in mathematics teacher education; mathematics/numeric cognition and professional development and mentorship of mathematics teachers. He has taught mathematics and physics internationally and has supervised to completion 23 Ph.Ds. and 21 Masters students. He has published widely and is Editor-in-Chief of the African Journal of Teacher Education and Development. https://www.ajoted.org Jennie Golding serves as graduate tutor, ethics lead, and Associate Professor at UCL Institute of Education, London. Her background, nationally and internationally, is in mathematics, in teaching learners aged 3–93, teacher education and education policy. Jennie’s research and publication focuses on the policy/practice interface in education, and the professional development of academics as teachers and supervisors. She has supervised ten doctoral students, and many Masters students, to successful completion, and won awards for her supervision. Hileni M. Kapenda is Associate Professor of mathematics education as well as a UKCGE Recognised Research Supervisor with main interest in mathematics and science education. She worked at the University of Namibia for 25 years and has graduated a number of postgraduate students including several doctoral students. She has published book chapters, refereed journal articles and many conference papers. Patricia Phiri Nalube is a lecturer of mathematics education in the School of Education, Department of Mathematics and science education at the University of Zambia, Zambia, since 2003. Patricia holds a Doctor of Philosophy in mathematics education from University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa. Her research interests are in the teaching and learning of mathematics in secondary and primary schools as well as researching mathematics teacher education. She taught secondary school mathematics in Zambia before joining the University of Zambia. She has supervised to completion one Ph.D. and 20 Masters candidates. She has published book chapters and journal articles. xiii

xiv

Editors and Contributors

Contributors Kathleen Fonseca University of Johannesburg, Corner Kingsway Ave and University Road, Auckland Park, Johannesburg, South Africa Jennie Golding University College London, London, England; UCL Institute of Education, London, UK Frans N. Haimbodi University of Namibia, Windhoek, Namibia Hileni M. Kapenda School of Education, University of Namibia, Windhoek, Namibia Kakoma Luneta University of Johannesburg, Johannesburg, South Africa Gift Masaiti University of Zambia, Lusaka, Zambia Lydia Mavuru University of Johannesburg, Corner Kingsway Ave and University Road, Auckland Park, Johannesburg, South Africa Mwansa Mukalula-Kalumbi University of Zambia, Lusaka, Zambia Kabunga Nachiyunde University of Zambia, Lusaka, Zambia Suraiya Rathankoomar Naicker University of Johannesburg, Johannesburg, South Africa Patricia Phiri Nalube University of Zambia, Lusaka, Zambia Kashinauua Faustina Neshila University of Namibia, Windhoek, Namibia Bilainu Oboirien University of Johannesburg, Johannesburg, South Africa Sam Ramaila University of Johannesburg, Corner Kingsway Ave and University Road, Auckland Park, Johannesburg, South Africa Cornelia Ndahambelela Shimwooshili-Shaimemanya University of Namibia, Windhoek, Namibia

Abbreviations

COVID-19 HEI IOE OEDC PhD SAUSC SSA UCL UJ UKCGE UNAM UNZA

Coronavirus Disease 2019 Higher Education Institution Institute of Education Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development Countries Doctor of Philosophy Southern Africa-UCL Supervision Collaboration Sub-Saharan Africa University College London University of Johannesburg United Kingdom Council for Graduate Education University of Namibia University of Zambia

xv

1

The Global Practice of Doctoral Supervision in Southern Africa Jennie Golding

Abstract

This book was catalysed by, and primarily draws on, the reflective experiences of fifteen southern African academics working collaboratively to enhance their doctoral supervision knowledge and practice. This first chapter explores the need for such work, it’s positioning within global supervision practices, development and norms, and the cultural and contextual constraints on those. It begins by introducing the shape of the book as a whole, contextualising the book’s contribution by scoping what is known internationally about recent developments in doctoral study and its supervision. It analyses the genesis of the recent southern African collaborative supervisory development structures adopted, and the related design and comparative research, offering early evidence of the model as a richly generative, systematic, sustainable and affordable approach to developing an area of academic work that is often under-valued in institutional structures and rewards. Further, it argues for the wide transferability of such a model. It concludes by analysing some of the key contextual features of the systems within which contributors work and develop their academic supervision practices. Headings

Doctoral developments • Doctoral supervision • Local constraints • Supervisor development • Collaborative workshops

J. Golding (B) University College London, London, England e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 K. Luneta et al. (eds.), Doctoral Supervision in Southern Africa, Springer Texts in Education, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-46899-5_1

1

2

1.1

J. Golding

Introduction: Why is This Book Needed?

This first chapter outlines both longstanding and more recent need for doctoral supervision development in southern Africa, contextualising that within an overview of the global picture. It outlines the design considerations underlying an initiative developed in response to that need, focused around collaborative workshops for experienced doctoral supervisors from three southern African contexts in South Africa, Namibia and Zambia. Building on this collaborative academic work and supervision experiences of workshop participants, each chapter outlines key literature, thinking, and issues related to one area of supervision practice. Central chapters make clear links with practice through specific and personal exemplification of such issues, and reflections on the solutions or approaches adopted. Such ‘vignettes’ draw on the supervision work carried out by colleagues from different Higher Education systems, and working in different local contexts. As such, they point to the complexity of doctoral supervision work as both teaching and research, as part of a global practice but enacted within local cultural and contextual both affordances and constraints. Because of the sources of the data, we cannot claim to give authoritative accounts of doctoral supervision across universities in southern Africa—rather, all we can point to is the indicate nature of the accounts presented here, which are presented I relation to the global literature, including that emanating from sub-Saharan Africa where possible. But first, we point to the need for such a focus.

1.2

Doctoral Supervision: The State of the Art

Taylor (2012) synthesises and expands on a range of global phenomena concerning doctoral study, and more recent literature underlines the range and spread of evolution in the field. Recent years have widely seen changes to the nature of the doctoral degree, and to that of the doctoral student cohort; there have often also been considerable changes to the ways in which students are expected to engage in their doctoral studies; and in many Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) or national systems, postgraduate research supervision is frequently under-valued, under-provisioned and under-developed. Additionally, and representing mass frustration and disillusion on the part of both doctoral students and their supervisors, as well as arguably poor use of resources, timely doctoral completion rates remain stubbornly low. Related to these changes, and to western neo-liberal norms, is a tension in the core aim of doctoral work: • Traditional PhDs focused on the nurture of beginner researchers fit to contribute to the curation and development of an academic field. However, in recent years we have seen the emergence of:

1 The Global Practice of Doctoral Supervision in Southern Africa

3

• A scientific-technical postgraduate education that serves wider purposes of market economies, sometimes incorporating new industry/university partnerships and reflecting a perceived need for specialist human capital to build advanced knowledge economies. Other considerable changes over the last 30 years or so, and which are present to a greater or lesser extent in the southern African region, include (Taylor, 2012): • massification: a considerable increase in the numbers undertaking doctoral study; • internationalisation: a trend for early career researchers to study in countries other than their country of origin; • diversification: an expansion in the range of backgrounds (including life-stages) of domestic doctoral students; • commodification: a shift from a traditional master-apprentice model of supervision, to one of ‘provider-consumer’; • ‘McDonaldisation’: increased pressure from individual or university (including government) funders for improved completion rates and timeliness; • regulation: replacement of private, ‘behind closed doors’ and sometimes idiosyncratic supervision by institutional mechanisms intended to assure and enhance the quality and uniform minimum standards of supervision; • casualisation: an expansion of part-time doctoral study, often linked with greater maturity of student; • dislocation: doctoral students often now studying wholly, or in part, away from the university campus; • proliferation: a shift to offer professional, industrial-, or practice-based doctorates as well as the more traditional PhD; • augmentation: a move to a supervisory team or two or more supervisors, rather than a single supervisor; • cross-fertilisation: a shift towards more multi, inter- and trans-disciplinary doctoral studies; • capitalisation: an expectation that doctorates will not only reproduce an academic workforce, but will support the proliferating advanced needs of knowledge economies. Of course, these changes are not all independent, and have arisen for a variety of reasons. They have occurred to different extents in different countries. Further, they each bring both advantages and (sometimes unintended) consequences for individual students and for societies. But critically for the focus of this book, they have together fundamentally altered the traditional (western) role of the supervisor to one which is considerably expanded, and markedly more complex. Much of the relevant literature emanates from the global north, and predominantly, from western systems, and does not transfer unproblematically to other contexts: many universities in the global south function within post-colonial and rapidly-evolving contexts where historical norms, while predicated on colonial systems and values,

4

J. Golding

have to be re-developed for local cultures, contexts and ownership. However, universities in the global south are necessarily drawn into the aforementioned range of profound developments. How, and why, have such changes spread? In part, and as above, the catalysing contexts are global. In particular, our economies and our education systems necessarily operate in a global context, in which less affluent countries see little choice but to adapt the priorities and emerging practices of the global north. Higher education systems are not immune to such pressures, and university research, including the nurture of doctoral students, has to adapt or remain marginalised. Academics (and increasingly, doctoral students) are mobile, their worth measured sometimes almost-exclusively on the quality and quantity of their published contribution to knowledge, so that in a globalised world, the above changes, while not reflected in identical ways across, or even within, jurisdictions, have been widely experienced. In southern Africa, then, we see most of these developments replicated (e.g. Bitzer, 2011; Pillay & Balfour, 2011). They bring with them a range of significant challenges for universities: how are tensions of purpose to be resolved, and what sort of doctoral education is appropriate for the range of outcomes now valued by society? Who should provide that education? After all, it is not self-evident that a cloistered career academic is the best support for a professional doctorate—or even for a scientific-technical doctorate where industrial and entrepreneurial skills might be as highly valued as the purely academic. Some universities now employ, for example, industrial partners as co-supervisors for appropriate doctoral studies. However, the core challenge of a vastly enhanced role for academic supervisors remains. Even before many of these changes took root, supervision was understood as a complex and demanding endeavour: Brown and Atkins (1988, p.15) note that: Research…supervision is probably the most complex and subtle form of teaching in which we engage. It is not enough for us to be competent researchers ourselves—although this is vital. We need to be able to reflect on research practices and analyse the knowledge, techniques, and methods that make them effective. …We have to be skilled at enabling our research students to acquire these techniques and methods themselves without stultifying or warping their own intellectual development. In short, to be an effective research supervisor, you need to be an effective researcher and an effective supervisor.

Concerningly, Taylor et al.’s (2021) scoping study of supervisor preparation and development in twenty-one major doctorate-awarding jurisdictions across the globe, suggests that in very few of them is the challenge of appropriate equipping of doctoral supervisors addressed systematically and effectively. Their analysis suggests that of the 21 systems represented, ten operate near a ‘restricted’ pole of professionality in supervision, with little support reward, or development available to supervisors. Just six systems were judged nearer to an ‘extended’ professionality in terms of the conceptualisation of supervision reflected: often substantial initial professional development available to supervisors, and supervision recognised and rewarded in a variety of ways, including via promotions and awards. However,

1 The Global Practice of Doctoral Supervision in Southern Africa

5

practice even for this group typically varied considerably across constituent HEIs. The remaining five systems were analysed as in transition between the two poles. Within those systems closer to an ‘extended’ professionality, in the UK, the UK Council for Graduate Education UKCGE has recently introduced accredita tion of experienced doctoral supervisors as part of an effort to support deliberate systematic and scholarly reflection on, and valuing of, a wide range of aspects of doctoral supervision. Accreditation is dependent on a 5000-word scholarly reflection across ten key areas of supervision, together with references from a former student and from a supervisory colleague. The whole is peer-assessed by a panel of those already accredited, with formative feedback to the applicant. This initiative was foundational to the work analysed in the current book. UKCGE accreditation is made available to experienced supervisors anywhere in the world, and indeed, is beginning to attract applications form a range of jurisdictions. However, such initiatives remain unusual, globally. How much does that matter? Supervision is a critical aspect of doctoral study systems. The literature demonstrates unequivocally that the quality of supervision contributes to degree completion, to length-of-time to candidacy, to doctoral student wellbeing and satisfaction with the overall doctoral experience, as well as to central and broader competencies developed while studying (Meyer et al., 2005; Pyhältö et al., 2012)—so a well-equipped supervisor has the potential to very positively influence a range of highly-valued outcomes of the doctoral process. Concerningly, previous research has also identified a variety of ethical problems sometimes embedded in supervision. These include incompetent and inadequate supervision, supervision abandonment, intrusion of supervisor views, abusive and exploitative supervision, dual relationships, encouragement to commit fraud, and authorship issues (Goodyear et al., 1992; Löfström & Pyhältö, 2014; Mahmud & Bretag, 2013). While not all these specific challenges are widely evidenced in southern Africa, it would be naïve to imagine they do not exist. Conversely, ethically-conducted supervision, including respect for students’ research decisions, has been shown to improve the ethical attitudes of students (Jordan & Gray, 2012). But the situation is complex: Löfström and Pyhältö (2020) demonstrate that effective supervision requires inspection and development of provision at a number of levels simultaneously: a macro/meso level (enabling infrastructures, rules, and regulations), a meso level (local practices of research communities), and a micro level (individual relationships). Within these last, inter-supervisor relationships as well as supervisor-student relationships, need serious consideration where there is more than one supervisor—and yet, as we shall show later, there are also often multiple advantages to a plurality of supervisors. The evidence, then, is clear: The quality and integrity of supervision is critical to doctoral student thriving, and professional development of supervision, by appropriate means, is a clear route to achieving enhanced quality of doctoral study and outcomes.

6

1.2.1

J. Golding

Global Norms or Contextualised Practice in Southern Africa?

As identified above, doctoral supervision takes place against a background of contextual, political, economic and cultural affordances and constraints but in a global higher education system. Southern Africa’s systems have necessarily been shaped and influenced by their colonial past and the related inherited education systems. Since independence, southern African nations have perforce had to develop their higher education systems to be agile and responsive to the social and economic drivers of relatively new nations. They have usually sought a rapid but cost-effective expansion of higher education, bringing not only greater equity of opportunity, but challenges of capacity and quality (e.g. Bitzer, 2011; Pillay & Balfour, 2011). Such policy issues are explored further in Chap. 2. In relation to supervisor development, though, the policy context means that the global challenges for doctoral supervision capacity are exacerbated: development of ‘extended’ supervision in Taylor et al.’s (2021) terms requires confident and knowledgeable leadership—and often, significant resources. One aim of this book is to demonstrate that the latter requirements can be over-stated, and that novel, more affordable, alternatives can be very effective. However, for southern African academics this is usually only one small facet of concern in their academic work (Bickton & Lillie, 2019). They often find it difficult to establish themselves in global academic communities, or publish in international journals (Tijssen, 2007)—or to support their doctoral students or doctoral graduates in doing so. There are a variety of reasons for this, including that of resource, and that the originality of southern work is often not recognised where the field elsewhere has ‘moved on’, despite the fact that the core knowledge still has to be established for southern contexts. The challenges are being addressed, slowly, by international academic communities and through development of southern-focused journals, but that is no substitute for development of academic capacity, and increase of selfdetermination and agency in southern academia. This book is based on mutual capacity development that makes a small contribution to addressing that challenge.

1.2.2

Our Response: Collaborative Doctoral Supervision Workshops

The book derives from a collaborative experience of building on the UKCGE accreditation structure outlined earlier, to support development of an enhanced quality of supervision for more experienced supervisors, namely those who have already seen a candidate through every stage of the doctoral journey to successful completion. This is a prerequisite for UKCGE supervisor recognition: the focus was built on a perception that there are often introductory, and early career, supervision development opportunities available within a university or online—and that deeper development draws on productive use of accumulated wisdom of experience. As academics, the UKCGE model of informed scholarly reflection on

1 The Global Practice of Doctoral Supervision in Southern Africa

7

experience speaks to core values shared in academia, of respect for systematic and rigorously-accumulated evidence, together with philosophical argument. The first author, based at University College London Institute of Education, in late 2021/ early 2022 adopted a design research approach to facilitating a series of six online collaborative workshops for experienced doctoral supervisors within her own faculty. This was intended to support activity related to ‘personal, recent, analytical, example-based, scholarly and systematic’ reflection on doctoral supervision, and catalyse both enhanced supervision practice and also foundations for successful application for the related UKCGE accreditation. Core workshop aims were to support sustainable and affordable, deliberate and academically informed reflection on related issues. The chosen theoretical approach was via the establishment of a genuine ‘professional learning community’ (Vescio et al., 2008), with transference to supervisory practice supported by approaches adapted from Timor-Shlevin et al. (2021). Related research questions asked: RQ1: How can workshops be designed so as to support supervisor development in affordable and sustainable ways that also enhance mutual collaboration and learning across the contexts concerned?

For the first iteration, with IOE participants all working within the academic discipline of education and social science, the first author invited two external academics from Egypt and the University of Johannesburg, as ‘critical friends’, initially to observe and comment—but in fact both participated actively, and both in due course applied for and received UKCGE supervisor recognition. Their successful participation has underlined the global accessibility of the initial approaches adopted, though not necessarily a cross-discipline suitability, and through the initiative of both chapter authors, it catalysed the instigation of a similar locallyinformed approach in southern Africa (South Africa, Namibia, Zambia), and in parallel, a comparative element to the research, within SAUSC (the Southern Africa-UCL Supervision Collaboration). The editors of this book have led that collaboration. The second research question therefore asked: RQ2 (for SAUSC): How do contextual affordances and constraints across the four universities involved, inform academics’ supervision practices, and their reflections on, and learning about, doctoral supervision in and through such workshops?

Given the theoretical framing of the initiative, the outline structure of workshops in both contexts was as below, focused around six fairly intensive hour-long workshops, each subdivided into two areas of focus. The central ten such halfsessions each took as a theme one of the ten areas of supervision for which the UKCGE submitted ‘Reflective account’ has to provide ‘personal, recent analytical, example-based, scholarly and systematic’ evidence. That structure also offers a broad framework for the main body of this book. In order to build a genuine ‘professional learning community’, participants were asked each to take an area

8

J. Golding

of supervision, scope some of the literature in that area, and relate it to practice in ways which would simulate active reflection and critique across the group, framed as follows (Fig. 1.1). UKCGE recognition requires submission of a scholarly reflection that evidences thinking and personal practice around each of the areas ‘recruitment and selection’ through to ‘reflecting upon and enhancing (supervisor) practice’—together with validating references from each of a completed student and a colleague. These areas are not exhaustive of facets of doctoral supervision—for example, they do not include explicit mention of education for ethical research, or explicit consideration of the ethical issues that might rise during doctoral supervision—but they do include opportunity to demonstrate reflection on such issues. For the focus workshops, the first author made a deliberate decision to ensure such issues were at least pointed to, by their incorporation in the first session. Taylor et al. (2021)

Please volunteer for an area that is of particular interest or use to you, and use that half hour to lead group engagement, reflection and critique focused around both experience and some relevant literature. Feel free to be fairly ‘straight’ or to use whatever approach you think might be stimulating for the group. Thank you! Note that eventual applications are required to be ‘personal, recent, analytical, example-based, scholarly and systematic’. Workshop 1 • Introduction, overview and developing ethical researchers • Recruitment and selection Workshop 2 • Supervisory relationships with candidates • Supervisory relationships with co-supervisors Workshop 3 • Supporting candidates’ research projects • Encouraging candidates to write and giving appropriate feedback Workshop 4 • Keeping the research on track and monitoring progress • Supporting candidates’ personal, professional and career development Workshop 5 • Supporting candidates through completion and final examination • Supporting candidates to disseminate their research Workshop 6 • Reflecting upon and enhancing (supervisor) practice • Final steps for submission Fig. 1.1 Outline structure of collaborative supervisor workshops

1 The Global Practice of Doctoral Supervision in Southern Africa

9

suggest that it is unusual for doctoral supervisors to be familiar with any significant part of the literature around doctoral supervision, which is curious given their identity as academics—but also reflective of some of the pressures experienced by academics globally, at least some of which are identified above.

1.3

Our Research

Within a design research (Bakker, 2019) and interpretivist paradigm, we wanted to understand the extent to which a genuinely professional learning community was evolving, and what was supporting or hindering that; also, to identify early indications of the ways in which the associated learning was transferring to practice. Here, we outline our approach and some early findings in order to illuminate the background to this book, but more detailed, and later, findings are analysed elsewhere: workshop design, and comparative aspects, underpin, but are not themselves, the main thrust of the book, which is focused on the substance of emerging workshops and subsequent reflective accounts. Data collection included workshop video recordings and associated transcripts, participant post-workshops surveys, interviews with key personnel probing workshop experiences and learning, and anonymised submitted reflective accounts. Design of questionnaires focused initially around structure, people organisation, reported practices and content, and comparative interview elements included also Halse and Malfroy’s (2010) dimensions of supervision (the learning alliance, habits of mind, scholarly expertise, technê and contextual expertise), as well as Bruce and Stoodley’s (2013) categories of supervision-as-teaching (promoting the supervisor’s development, imparting academic expertise, upholding academic standards, promoting learning to research, drawing upon student expertise, enabling student development, venturing into unexplored territory, forming productive communities, and contributing to society). Both research tools drew on Vescio et al. (2008) characterisation of (school-based) professional learning communities as: • • • •

a highly interdependent community with shared goals; shared values and norms with respect to the goal of improving student learning; clear, consistent and structured focus on developing that learning; reflective dialogue that leads to extensive and continuing conversations about curriculum instruction and student development; • de-privatisation of practice for the purpose of improving practice; • and a focus on collaboration to achieve that. As such, a professional learning community is a particular sort of ‘participatory inquiry group’ as drawn on in Timor-Shlevin et al.’s (2021) identification of productive approaches to transference of learning (in their case, within social worker development). They set out to address (p. 278) ‘the tension between critical and hegemonic discourses …linked to the evolving agency of professionals to operate with critical professionalism under hegemonic rationality’, which we argue is

10

J. Golding

well aligned to our aims in the SAUSC collaboration. They address such tensions through a lens of critical theory, using a critical reflexivity approach to develop awareness of the persona meanings of political structural mechanisms that shape the distribution of resources such as money, status respect, etc., in order to resist those where appropriate. Reflexive attention then, can address personal and interpersonal dynamics, and collective perceptions and assumptions (Chiu, 2006). The processes adopted by Timor-Shlevin et al. (2021) therefore successively address, in our case, awareness of (often tacit) perceptions of practice, received hegemonic meanings and implications, and the reconstruction of those with critical perspectives informed by the supervision literature, in a virtuous cycle of learning, sharing of experience, reflection and co-processing. The aim is that participants acquire perceptions of greater, and specific, agency, informed by knowledge of both the evidence base and reflective accounts of (their own and others’) practice. Two further, important, issues remained: first, the key role of the facilitator in enactment of these principles, a role initially taken by the first author but, consistent with a professional learning community, delegated through much of each half-session to the colleague responsible for that work; and second, the threat of constraining power relations between the first author, herself the instigator of the initiative and a UKCGE assessor, and other colleagues. That was addressed in part through the intra-mediation of the first editor, who had already experienced one series of workshops, and in part by the framing of hegemonic, and personal, supervision practices as external to all collaborators and so open to critical reflection. This last required not only a de-privatisation of practice, but also deep interdependencies and trust built up through the collaboration: interviews probed the extent to which that was achieved. Ethical Approval of the related work given by University College London’s IOE Research Ethics Committee, reference REC1590. Analysis was thematic within each of the above themes, and again, is reported in detail elsewhere. In terms of workshop design we wanted to understand the extent to which emergence of a genuine professional learning community fit for achieving the intended outcomes was being supported, and what changes would improve that. We found, for example, in response to first iteration ‘in’ UCL, that participants reported: • ‘The best professional development I’ve had in 17 years at IOE: challenging, refreshing, reconstructive of both thinking and practice’; • ‘(It was) transformative to approach supervision with a parallel academic and professional lens’; • ‘A wonderfully supportive, stimulating and humbling experience that is already impacting my supervision practice’; • ‘I feel privileged to have had access to so much wisdom and experience: my thinking about doctoral supervision has deepened and grown, and my practice is both renewed and developing further’.

1 The Global Practice of Doctoral Supervision in Southern Africa

11

But participants also felt that: • ‘Time for small group discussion of a stimulus question or case study is the jewel and shouldn’t be rushed’; • ‘I should have been more disciplined about making notes on my learning as I went—as was suggested!’. Further, the main goal of workshops was development of supervision, but as a valued accreditation of that, not all applications for UKCGE recognition were initially successful (though resubmissions were). That was a challenging experience for mature academics who had invested heavily in active participation in workshops and in crafting a substantial reflective document. For the second iteration ‘in’ southern Africa, then, we introduced: • An induction session to explain workshops, but also lay out basics of the four national/university doctoral supervision contexts, as a foundation for mutual understanding (and so development of a professional learning community); • A stronger steer on the centrality of small group discussion (and limited number of slides) to support depth of reflection on the symbiosis between supervision literature and practice; • A stronger steer on making notes of reflections and experiences during and after sessions, to support both depth of writing and manageability of producing the final reflective account; • Active listening to, and probing for, contextual or cultural affordances and constraints on supervision practice: for example, most students were working in a second/third/… language; there were usually institutional incentives for timely completion; early academic foundations were often insecure; there was commonly insufficient supply of experienced supervisors; and across institutions, a range of doctoral assessment systems… • A semi-formal optional, peer assessment of draft submissions, so that participants both better understood assessment criteria, and through assessing others’ work and themselves receiving feedback, could produce a stronger submission themselves.,

1.4

The Broader SAUSC Collaboration

As indicated, the supervision literature is quite extensive, but often underappreciated, and UKCGE have produced a related 20-page bibliography. However, there is very little representation within that of southern African literature in the field. Complementary activities therefore included development of an annotated bibliography of sub-Saharan African literature focused on postgraduate research supervision, as well as this book focused on doctoral supervision as academic practice in southern Africa. However, the sub-Saharan supervision literature is very

12

J. Golding

dominated by academics working in South Africa, making it difficult to identify wider southern African concerns and evidence and scholarship in the field. Future possibilities include further expansion of the model, as affordable and sustainable, and/or the instigation of a similar supervisor development and recognition programme in southern Africa.

1.5

Origins and Genesis of This Book

This book originated in the desire of participant supervisors to share some of the benefits of working in this way, and the fruits of academic study of, and collaborative reflection on, doctoral supervision in the context of three southern African universities in different jurisdictions. There is no claim to generalisation across southern African academics’ experiences, even within their own university, but the work outlines indicative scholarship and reflection. Rather more than the initial UCL participation which was entirely by academics working in Education, the SAUSC collaboration included academics from a range of disciplinary backgrounds. Unsurprisingly, academics from e.g. engineering found engagement with the social science-framed supervision literature quite challenging—but not prohibitive. All three home universities work within an Anglophone context, which supported communication across the collaboration—but also reflects a further limitation to transferability of specific reflections. The book is not primarily drawn from the research analysed above, but from individual participant scholarship and academic reflection, and from the range of ten reflective accounts initially submitted for UKCGE recognition after this first set of SAUSC workshops, together with slides used for those workshop sessions: all were generously shared by their owners. Chapter authors have then drawn on those sources, attempting to achieve both breadth and balance, to give an overview of reflections on each area of supervision, as represented in the literature and as experienced by participant supervisors working in a southern African context. Inevitably the literature drawn on is often derived from the global north—but as will be seen, often resonates with, or poses questions for, the southern African academics involved. Taken together, we hope the book communicates the potential for a systematic approach to supervision development which is affordable, sustainable, and transferable. Within that, the book points to participants’ many joys—and challenges—in supervising doctoral students. Very many of those are experienced in ways that will resonate with academics working in very different contexts, but there are areas also, where the identified issues may take on a particular nature in southern African contexts and cultures. These include: • • • •

recruitment strategies and discrimination in Chap. 3; the use of WhatsApp (mentioned in Chaps. 4 and 6); the lack of institutional support and role of hierarchy in Chap. 5; language barriers, in Chap. 7;

1 The Global Practice of Doctoral Supervision in Southern Africa

13

• gender issues, identified in Chaps. 3, 9 and 12; • the particular nature of workload issues discussed in Chaps. 5 and 7; • connection to policy officials and community engagement, identified in Chaps. 9 and 12; • the problems of supervising colleagues, in Chap. 10; • public vivas and performing well in public, also discussed in Chap. 10.

1.6

Institutions Represented in the Book

Finally, it is important for the reader to have an overview of the similarities and differences between the universities represented in this volume.

1.6.1

The University of Namibia (UNAM)

Dates from 1992, and in 2022 had four faculties and 12 campuses across Namibia, hosting over 30,000 students from 41 countries. UNAM offers a variety of 39 models of Doctoral and 63 of master’s degrees. UNAM doctoral theses are required to be 46–75,000 words in length, and to offer a ‘substantial and significant contribution to knowledge’ defended in a three-hour ‘viva’. Assessment of the doctorate is by at least three examiners, normally two external and one internal. Students submitting for a PhD by dissertation focused on a supervised research project are required to have a minimum of two Scopus-indexed articles accepted or published with supervisor/s before graduation. Those submitting for a PhD by publication present as chapters at least four published or accepted peer reviewed articles with the student as main author and co-authored with supervisor(s). Challenges for UNAM doctoral study are reported to include delays in time allocation for doctoral supervision, low completion rates for part-time and distance doctoral students, and student funding (UNAM academic).

1.6.2

The University of Johannesburg (UJ)

Was founded in 2005 as a merger between three pre-existing institutions, and in 2022 had over 50,000 students. UJ is 4th among the 13 South African top universities by World University Ranking. UJ offers a PhD and DEd by thesis, full time or part time, with the thesis making a significant contribution to the field. Before submission, a student makes three presentations to the faculty and two manuscripts must be submitted to accredited journals. The final thesis is examined by three examiners (two local, one international) and all examiners must pass the thesis. At the time of writing (2023) there is no viva voce, but one is to be introduced from 2024. Alternatively, there is an article-based PhD based on five articles published

14

J. Golding

in high impact journals, plus a short dissertation. Doctoral supervision is predominantly one-to-one but co-supervision is promoted; a PhD or other doctorate is sufficient to be eligible for supervision, but there is no formal training. Challenges are analysed as lack of supervision training/skills, poor supply of high-quality doctoral students, student finance, high attrition rate, prolonged completion periods, and high workload for supervisors (UJ academic).

1.6.3

The University of Zambia (UNZA)

Dates from about 1966, on two campuses in Lusaka. In 2022 there were about 25,000 students, studying for 157 different first and postgraduate degrees. Among the top 100 universities in Africa, in April, 2023 UNZA was ranked number 11, and in the world it was ranked in 501–600. Doctoral degrees are offered by research (fulltime, part-time, campus-based or distance), with students required to take appropriate department-recommended courses; plans are underway to also offer taught/research doctorates. The University also offers Higher Doctorates via published research. Doctoral theses are of up to 100,000 words that are required to make a significant contribution to knowledge. These are assessed by two internal and one external examiners (all experts in the field of the thesis), followed by a viva of about three hours where questions are asked by both audience and examiners. Supervision is usually one-to-one, except in the case of interdisciplinary or sandwich programmes, and supervisory guidance and updating is provided. Challenges are reported to include delays in paying external examiners, delays in students receiving or responding to supervisor feedback, and low completion rates (UNZA academic).

1.6.4

University College London (UCL)

Dates from 1826. Historically it was located (on a loosely-connected set of sites) in central London, but has recently developed an additional site in east London. In October 2022 UCL had about 44,000 students of whom just over half are from outside the UK and about 6,000 are postgraduate research students. UCL is commonly found in the top ten or twenty of world university rankings, with individual departments often exceeding that—for example, IOE, UCL’s Faculty of Education and Society (formerly known as the Institute of Education), has topped the World QS rankings in Education every year from 2014 to the present (2023). UCL offers fulltime or part-time doctorates, on-site, remote or mixed mode, and as well as the traditional PhD, offers professional research doctorates such as the EdD. These require assessment of a thesis which makes a significant contribution to knowledge, and evidence of preparedness to conduct high quality independent research. Entry expectations to a doctorate normally include a strong Masters Dissertation and fluent use of academic English. Co-supervision of doctoral students

1 The Global Practice of Doctoral Supervision in Southern Africa

15

is mandatory, and assessment is by one internal and one eternal examiner, both eminent in the field of the thesis and without any significant connection with the candidate, supervisors or thesis. Challenges include very limited funding available for UK research students; high attrition and poor completion rates, especially by part-time students; very limited supervisor development; and poor recognition, status and sometimes workload allowance made for doctoral supervision.

1.7

Conclusion

We have outlined the global and fluid nature of doctoral work, while also pointing to continuities and to a deeply contextual facet of doctoral development. Doctoral supervision, then, is necessarily complex, involving a subtle and shifting blend of teaching and of research—and yet we have also evidenced a widespread undervaluing of, and under-equipping for, that work, and so a pressing rationale for the initiative on which this book rests. We have analysed at a high level the structures and the approaches we adopted, the associated research that is still ongoing, and the nature of the universities whose academics contributed to the collaboration and whose work is represented here. The rest of the book draws in evidence generated by workshops and recognition applications, to offer exemplification of the work undertaken, building on the authors’ collaborative work and shared scholarly analysis of supervision experiences. Each chapter outlines a critical engagement with key literature, thinking, and issues related to one important facet of supervision practice, in a way that opens up the evidence base for wider use. Each author relates that to informed reflection on the area through use of shared personal exemplifications, and reflections on the solutions or approaches adopted in the light of the literature. Such ‘vignettes’ draw on the supervision work carried out by colleagues from different Higher Education systems, and working in different local contexts. As such, they point to the complexity of doctoral supervision work as both teaching and research, as part of a global practice but enacted within local cultural and contextual both affordances and constraints. They do so via a supervision development model we suggest is generative, systematic, sustainable, affordable and transferable. But excitingly also, they also underline the commonalities of our global practices (and challenges), they expose a range of novel and creative approaches to supervisory pedagogy and research, and they serve to encourage others to engage in an equally exciting and rewarding journey into the systematic enrichment of our doctoral supervisors and supervision.

16

J. Golding

References Bakker, A. (2019). Design research in education: A practical guide for early career researchers. NY: Routledge. Bickton, F. M., & Lillie, T. (2019). Strengthening human resources for health in resource-limited countries: The case of Medic to Medic in Malawi. Malawi Medical Journal, 31, 99–101. Bitzer, E. M. (2011). Knowledge with wisdom in postgraduate studies and supervision: Epistemological and institutional concerns and challenges. South African Journal of Higher Education, 25(5), 855–874. Brown, G., & Atkins, M. (1988). Effective teaching in higher education. Methuen. Bruce, C., & Stoodley, I. (2013). Experiencing higher degree research supervision as teaching. Studies in Higher Education, 38(2), 226–241. Chiu, L. F. (2006). Critical reflection: More than nuts and bolts. Action Research, 4, 183–203. https://doi.org/10.1177/1476750306063991 Goodyear, R. K., Crego, C. A., & Johnston, M. W. (1992). Ethical issues in the supervision of student research: A study of critical incidents. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 23(3), 203–210. https://doi.org/10.1037/0735-7028.23.3.203 Halse, C. M., & Malfroy, J. (2010). Retheorizing doctoral supervision as professional work. Studies in Higher Education, 35, 79–92. Jordan, S. R., & Gray, P. W. (2012). Responsible conduct of research training and trust between research postgraduate students and supervisors. Ethics & Behavior, 22(4), 297–314. https://doi. org/10.1080/10508422.2012.680350 Löfström, E., & Pyhältö, K. (2014). Ethical issues in doctoral supervision: The perspectives of PhD students in the natural and behavioral sciences. Ethics & Behavior, 24, 195–214. Löfström, E., & Pyhältö, K. (2020). What are ethics in doctoral supervision, and how do they matter? Doctoral students’ perspective. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 64(4), 535–550. https://doi.org/10.1080/00313831.2019.1595711 Mahmud, S., & Bretag, T. (2013). Postgraduate research students and academic integrity: ‘It’s about good research training’. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 35, 432–443. Meyer, J. H., Shanahan, M. P., & Laugksch, R. C. (2005). Students’ conceptions of research. I: A qualitative and quantitative analysis. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 49, 225– 244. Pillay, G., & Balfour, R. J. (2011). Post-graduate supervision practices in South African universities in the era of democracy and educational change 1994–2004. South African Journal of Higher Education, 25(2), 358–372. Pyhältö, K., Toom, A., Stubb, J., & Lonka, K. (2012). Challenges of becoming a scholar: A study of doctoral students’ problems and well-being. ISRN Education, 2012, 1–12. Taylor, S. E. (2012). Changes in doctoral education: Implications for supervisors in developing early career researchers. International Journal for Researcher Development, 3(2), 118–138. Taylor, S. E., Kiley, M., & Holley, K. A. (2021). The making of doctoral supervisors. Routledge. Tijssen, R. J. (2007). Africa’s contribution to the worldwide research literature: New analytical perspectives, trends, and performance indicators. Scientometrics, 71, 303–327. Timor-Shlevin, S., Aharon, T., Segev, S., Mazor, S., & Ishai, E. (2021). From critical reflection to critical professional practice: Addressing the tensions between critical and hegemonic perspectives. Qualitative Social Work, 21, 277–293. Vescio, V. A., Ross, D. D., & Adams, A. (2008). A review of research on the impact of professional learning communities on teaching practice and student learning. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24, 80–91.

2

Policies and Ethical Issues in Doctoral Supervision: The Southern African Context Jennie Golding and Cornelia Ndahambelela Shimwooshili-Shaimemanya

Abstract

Doctoral supervision takes place against a background of contextual and cultural affordances and constraints—but in a global, and mobile, higher education system. Recent years have also seen widespread diversification of the student body and of doctorates, massification, and formalisation of doctoral study. In Southern Africa, as elsewhere, this landscape has been both driven by, and reflected in, national and local university policies which frame the choices available to supervisors, and which frequently bring with them unintended tensions in relation to professional and ethical conduct. In this chapter, we interrogate at a high level, and with outsider’s/insider’s lenses, some aspects of the doctoral education policy landscape in Southern Africa. We focus in particular on those areas of policy which appear to bring particular ethical challenges to the practice of doctoral supervision, and, where illuminating, draw on a comparative analysis of policy and practice in the contributing universities. Foci include the structures, pedagogy for, and assessment of, doctorates; the supply, status and development of doctoral supervisors; and preparation, funding and opportunities for doctoral students. Keywords

Doctoral education policy • Capacity development • Doctoral supervision • Southern Africa • Globalisation • Brain drain • Ethical issues • Institutional structures • Funding

J. Golding (B) University College London, London, England e-mail: [email protected] C. N. Shimwooshili-Shaimemanya University of Namibia, Windhoek, Namibia e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 K. Luneta et al. (eds.), Doctoral Supervision in Southern Africa, Springer Texts in Education, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-46899-5_2

17

18

J. Golding and C. N. Shimwooshili-Shaimemanya

2.1

Doctoral Education as a Global and Evolving Enterprise

Doctoral supervision is a global, and mobile, endeavour that takes place against a background of contextual and cultural affordances and constraints. Supervision in Southern Africa is therefore necessarily impacted by a variety of recent political, social and economic changes, whether or not those are driven by local needs. Such changes impact the perceived purposes of doctoral studies, and, we shall show, have catalysed moves towards producer–consumer models of doctorates, to collectivisation and greater institutional structuring of doctoral work, and numerical growth, diversification, obligation and, particularly recently, physical dislocation in doctoral study. This section draws on Taylor’s (2012) analysis of such changes. Discussion is illuminated by boxed quotations, sourced from SAUSC (Southern Africa–UCL Supervision Collaboration) workshops or from colleagues’ reflective accounts of supervision. However, only some of the literature on which this chapter draws, is fully conversant with, or accommodating of, the range of doctoral supervision contexts. In a globalised enterprise, evidence from any part of the world can inform our thinking, but, as with other aspects of our collaborative work, we have been constrained by limited exposure of, and access to, Southern African supervision literature. Chapter 1 outlined one step we plan to take towards addressing that challenge.

2.1.1

Purposes of Doctoral Studies

Historically, doctoral education was focused on nurturing the future of our academic fields: ‘The PhD is expected to serve as a steward of her discipline or profession, dedicated to the integrity of its work in the generation, critique, transformation, transmission, and use of its knowledge’ (Golde & Walker, 2006, p. 3). Even within this, there were recognised risks for supervisors: ‘Taken seriously, there is a risk serious engagement with such expectations imposes intense and sometimes unrealistic emotional, physical, intellectual, and time demands given the other pressures of academic work’ (Halse & Gearside, 2005). In parallel, though, support for the development of transferable skills was recognised: ‘Transferable skills, which are among the key skills need-ed in the twenty-first century, enhance an individual’s employability and ability to compete in the labour market’ (Dimitrova, 2016; Fillery-Travis et al., 2017). Partly in consequence, researchers began to note pressure to increase the volume of doctoral work: Over time, this both catalysed and worked with economic globalisation to drive a situation where ‘need for researchers capable of engaging in both knowledge creation and innovation has become a totemic dimension within policy. …Increasing the number of researchers is taken as a pre-requisite in maintaining or creating a competitive advantage’ (Loxley & Kearns, 2018, p. 828).

2 Policies and Ethical Issues in Doctoral Supervision: The Southern African …

19

In recent years, perceived economic drivers and financial incentives have also resulted in a proliferation in purpose, and so in structure and focus, of the doctorates offered, so that modern universities across the globe are now likely to offer several of a ‘traditional’ PhD, though studied perhaps part-time or at a distance, a Business/management doctorate such as the DBA, DPM, DM, DPA, practice-led doctorates e.g. DClinPsy, DEdCPs, professional doctorates such as the EdD, doctorates by publication, and sometimes, industrial doctorates. However, there are still contested, and sometimes poorly understood, purposes for newer doctorates:

As my masters students draw closer to completion, I …encourage those I am sure can withstand the PhD journey to think about doing so as they exhibit signs of creativity, enthusiasm, commitment and knowledge about the trending discourse in the field of mathematics education (Lovitts, 2005). Their response has always been that as a secondary or primary school teacher, having a masters is not rewarding in terms of remuneration, what more with a PhD. They lack foresight that having such qualifications opens other opportunities that might be rewarding as their research experiences are broadened and deepened as they contribute to knowledge through publications. Hence, promoting both scholarship and research (Boote & Beile, 2005) (UNZA academic).

Southern African governments typically argue a need to increase the production rate of PhD graduates since doctoral education is an engine for growth of the knowledge economy. However, the consequence is that postgraduate study in SubSaharan, including Southern, Africa is faced with many challenges: paucity of skills to train PhDs, lack of supervision capacity, inability to fund postgraduate studies. These shortcomings hinder the independence of universities and abet a brain drain. Large classes of undergraduate and graduate students, and limited time for individual supervision and supervisors’ own research and writing, are other difficulties. Higher education, though, can play a crucial role in the economic and social development of a country, and is often a natural mechanism with which to develop international relations (Austauschdienst, 2018). International organisations, such as the World Bank, and the United Nations especially UNESCO, have recognised the potential of higher education and postgraduate studies to act as a strategic economic resource for Africa, and have recommended the development of specific public policies in this area (Quintana & Calvet, 2012). Quintana and Calvet further posited that according to this new paradigm, higher education systems are facilitating instruments in achieving the Millennium Development Goals, now Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), and are perceived as sources of creation of socioeconomic transformation and long-term growth, given that they promote strategic development in science, technology and innovation. To contribute to the realization of the SDGs on the African continent, African universities are encouraged and supported to strengthen their research capacities to address the skills demands of their knowledge societies and to emerge as

20

J. Golding and C. N. Shimwooshili-Shaimemanya

nodes of excellence to improve quality of life and the well-being of their citizens (Khodabocus, 2016).

2.1.2

Numerical Growth and Southern African Drivers

The consequent growth in numbers has been significant: for example, OECD (2019) shows that between 2000 and 2017, China’s number of doctoral students has increased by 453%, Mexico’s by 451%, the Netherlands’ by 332%, Canada’s by 260%, …Inevitably, even in well-established doctoral provision, that has brought challenges of providing high quality supervision, of funding for doctoral study, and of meeting the expected associated employment premium. In Southern Africa corresponding figures are not always available, though rapid growth is widely reported, for a variety of reasons which include the above but also mirror the more recent establishment of national university systems, as we discuss further below. Figure 2.1, for example, shows growth in PhD graduates over the last hundred years in South Africa. National figures are not available for Namibia or Zambia, but Fig. 2.2 shows growth in a single university, University of Zambia, in just the last 13 years—though Khodabocus (2016) suggests that growth has recently slowed in some other ‘flagship’ universities in sub-Saharan Africa. Since about 1980 there has also been a global growth in managerialism in, and marketisation of, universities and in doctoral education, manifesting itself in an intense scrutiny of successful completion rates and times to completion, both found to be unacceptably poor by any reasonable measure. In response, systemic targets and levers, and national quality assurance systems, have often been introduced, together with sometimes forensic guidance/regulation of many aspects of doctoral education (Hasgall et al., 2019). As discussed in chapter one, universities in the global south have not been immune to these pressures, as is evidenced in

Fig. 2.1 Growth in South African PhD graduates 1920–2017 (Cloete et al., 2015; Council on Higher Education, 2019)

2 Policies and Ethical Issues in Doctoral Supervision: The Southern African …

21

80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Fig. 2.2 Growth in UNZA PhD graduates, 2010–2023

subsequent chapters—but they are often manifested in different ways, because of other contextual imperatives. The research results of a five-year study, with yearly discussion forums, carried out by the Center for Higher Education and Trust (CHET) for seven flagship universities in Africa revealed that the total doctoral enrolment at seven subSaharan African flagship universities (namely the University of Cape Town (UCT), Makerere University, the University of Ghana, the University of Botswana, the University of Mauritius, the University of Nairobi, and Eduardo Mondlane University) for the period 2000–2001 to 2013–2014 was 3,538 doctoral graduates, with a share of 57 percent for UCT and the remaining 43 percent for the other six flagship universities (Khodabocus, 2016). Khodabocus further indicated that a slow growth in doctoral enrolments was observed for the six flagship universities, which contrasted with the increase in master’s degree enrolments for the same period. Results indicate that, recently, not many master’s degree graduates move on to enrol for a PhD after completion of their studies. There is a lack of incentives at the levels of the higher education institutions and of private and government sectors, to motivate African students to pursue higher level studies. The study found two major factors affecting the production of doctorates at the six flagship African universities: Academics holding a PhD end up doing either consultancy and/or additional teaching, which are more rewarding than producing more doctorates. This is not surprising given that at institutions of higher learning in the region such as the University of Namibia (UNAM) production of doctoral graduates is not a criterion for promotion to professorship. We discuss some of those issues later in this chapter. Postgraduate research studies in Sub-Saharan Africa are then faced with numerous challenges, which include: paucity of skills to train PhDs, lack of supervision capacity, inability to fund postgraduate studies and brain drain (Rugut, 2017). Mouton (2011) argued that one of the main challenges was the limited number of PhDs produced in the region: there was a paucity in the development of basic research skills that hinders appropriate training of doctoral students to be future

22

J. Golding and C. N. Shimwooshili-Shaimemanya

scholars. That issue is slowly being addressed, but takes time, with relatively few highly trained academics in universities who have the experience of training the doctoral students and inducting them into the scholarly world of research. Limited supervision capacity also impacts the completion rate of candidates who do join doctoral programmes (Grossman & Crowther, 2015)—because the few available supervisors are busy with administrative work or are out on other university business, and have limited time for their doctoral students. These fundamental issues are further discussed below.

2.1.3

Collectivisation and Greater Institutional Structuring of Doctoral Work

One result of increased oversight of supervision has been, in well-endowed universities, a move away from the traditional model of a single supervisor working with a research student, to a ‘supervisory team’ of at least two: the advantages of a single line of responsibility and source of support for the student can be quickly outweighed if the supervisor is negligent or unexpectedly unavailable or the relationship unsatisfactory and supervision teams typically offer a wider range of expertise and of perspective—though that has to be positively managed if it is to benefit those concerned (e.g. Ngulube, 2021). Halse and Bansel (2012) argue for a more distributed responsibility still for doctoral development, through embedded supervisors-plus-institutional co-construction of doctoral learning as a ‘learning alliance’. Such institutional involvement and structuring have sometimes resulted in physical, or at least organisational ‘doctoral schools’: the presence or absence of such structures has profound implications for supervisors:

Our institution does not receive direct funding from government subsidy for PhD studies and currently we do not have a stand-alone Centre for Postgraduate studies and neither a through-put program is in place. Therefore, it is very crucial for every supervisor of postgraduate students and more specifically for doctoral students at my institution to keep the research projects on track and to continuously monitor the progress of doctoral students so that they could complete their studies within the allocated time given (UNAM academic).

The variety of supervisory models entails also variation in approach to programme development. Traditionally, individual programmes of study were determined independently by supervisor and candidate, whereas now, doctoral curricula are often embodied in formal doctoral programmes that sometimes include taught components. They are often located within institutional structures, organisationally and sometimes also physically, in graduate schools, doctoral colleges, or doctoral

2 Policies and Ethical Issues in Doctoral Supervision: The Southern African …

23

training centres. These have variously been experienced as supportive and communicative of shared responsibility—or of being overly-managerial: a productive balance is challenging to establish: Provision of supervisory teams for a single student obviously increases the demand for number of supervisors, or else an increased supervision load, and in some instances the resultant unrealisable demands on supervision quantity and quality can lead to models of cohort supervision. Again, this can bring advantages such as peer support and cross-fertilisation in what can otherwise be a very lonely pathway—but it does also bring a risk of insufficient guidance in the development of the doctoral project (Leland et al., 2020). Halse and Bansel (2012) argue that the variety of new doctoral paradigms indicted above counteract the aridity, supervisory isolation and sometimes unhelpful power relations within traditional one-to-one supervisory structures. However, even within broad models of ‘learning alliances’ in doctoral education, the key resources available to doctoral students are their supervisors, who still have to work within, and negotiate, institutional and societal norms and constraints, including the ethical norms.

2.1.4

Diversification

The growing marketisation of doctoral education in a digitally connected and physically mobile world has inevitably led to opportunities as well as challenges. Doctoral schools, especially in the more prestigious and well-funded universities, now commonly feature an international diversification that brings with it exchange of ideas and increase in mutual understanding as well as international collaboration, but also raises issues of cultural and contextual awareness, and a threat of ‘brain drain’ from less well resourced, or socially challenging, areas. Even within a national Higher Education system increasing domestic diversification brings challenges for supervisors and others, including students, of changing preparedness, background, reason for study, career trajectories, and study modes, though, there are issues of equality, diversity and inclusion of some groups persist: Doctoral candidates now include… many… aspirants who, by historic cultural conditioning, have not been invited to imagine themselves as subjects of genius. These include all those who have been marginalised by the academic scholarly culture; women and men and women from the non-dominant class, ethnic or race positions (Yeatman, cited in Johnson et al., 2000, p. 137).

2.1.5

Obligation

Marketisation and other drivers such as increasingly litigational cultures (Hasgall et al., 2019) have also increased universities’ perceptions of their obligation for

24

J. Golding and C. N. Shimwooshili-Shaimemanya

candidates’ well-being, mental health, academic and career preparation and development. From a position that doctoral candidates are adults responsible for their own wellbeing, institutions are often now seen as having an obligation for the welfare and mental health of doctoral students—but note a shift in some cases, from institution to supervisor: Supervisors potentially are uniquely positioned to notice when their PGRs slip the wrong way on [the well-being and mental health] spectrum as spotting subtle signs of distress often requires knowing what is ‘normal’ for that particular person. They need to be sensitive and confident about initiating a conversation and following up appropriately. This is an arena where many… understandably lack confidence about what to say and their boundaries (what not to say and when to seek help) (Metcalfe et al., 2018, p. 30–31).

2.1.6

Dislocation in Doctoral Study

While most doctorates were traditionally studied fulltime on-campus, new models of doctoral study led to a trend for studying off-campus, often part-time, even before the covid pandemic from 2020 (Maor et al., 2015). That pandemic brought a near-universal move to online supervision (and often also, research), and with that, a range of associated challenges, identified by Kumar et al. (2020) as spanning most facets of doctoral supervision. While the ‘new normal’ is still in flux, and Kumar et al. point to significant limitations to remote working, it should also be noted that where there is stable internet access and good bandwidth, there are also multiple advantages to carrying out some aspects of teaching and research remotely. For example, such approaches can offer time efficiency and flexibility, and increased access to communications and conferences otherwise prohibitively expensive or geographically unrealistic. In an inter-connected, economically inter-dependent if not yet equitable world, students and academics in southern Africa have inevitably been affected by such changes, and have had little option but to accommodate and include many aspects of them, if they are to remain attractive to at least local, and preferably also international, students. But differential starting points have brought unique challenges to that enterprise. I argue elsewhere Golding (2023) argues elsewhere that the relatively strong social structures and rapid shifts in economic infrastructures enjoyed in many southern societies, as well as the pressing need for low-resource solutions, have often supported a place-based creativity and ‘leap-frogging’ of western development patterns, including in the harnessing of digital technologies. However, limitations in digital infrastructure and other material resources, such as reliable power, continue to place considerable constraints on the choices available. A generally low level of basic education in Southern Africa, while having a profound impact on the standards easily achieved, even at doctoral level, has focused tertiary education on priorities for pedagogy and content (Cross & Backhouse, 2014). Poor access both to the international knowledge base and to publication in internationally-renowned journals (Abrahams et al., 2008) has limited the

2 Policies and Ethical Issues in Doctoral Supervision: The Southern African …

25

opportunities to learn and to network, for southern academics, and so for their doctoral students. Comparatively late development of large-scale university education has meant supply of doctoral-level graduates, and availability of suitably qualified supervisors, has, at least until very recently, been a major challenge to economic aspirations (Mouton et al., 2015). Within Southern Africa, these challenges vary in scale and scope: South Africa, for example, is relatively wealthy compared with many of its neighbouring countries, and that wealth, together with an already-strong university system for whites at the end of apartheid, has supported considerable investment in tertiary education more widely, and considerable funding for research publications, doctoral study and doctoral completions (op.cit.) At the same time, economic constraints have driven very deliberate selection of new doctoral models, and those, together with limitations on availability of supervisors, has often led to development of creative models of supervision, such as part-cohort models, that have also had some unexpected benefits (Leland et al., 2020). Digital, and core utility infrastructures still limit opportunities to fully participate in local and wider academic (and other) networks, including for knowledge creation, curation and dissemination (Maor et al., 2015). For academic communities globally, such issues, including those relating to global equity, play out differently depending on the local context and culture. They bring challenges which, again, impact differentially across the globe, and even in different departments within a single university. Of particular interest for this chapter are those challenges which have an ethical dimension. Research ethics and supervision ethics are, of course, not same thing even though they are related through the many practices embedded in researcher communities. In research ethics, which as an integral part of a researcher’s responsibilities is part of the ‘substance’ of the supervisor’s teaching role, focus in on the processes of conducting research. In supervision ethics focus is on supervision as pedagogical transaction and interaction, and the ethical challenges that might arise as part of those. It is the latter I we focus on below. First, a reminder that although national contexts, norms and cultures have considerable impact on the choices available to supervisors, individual institutional characteristics are also influential. Chapter 1 outlined some of those for the universities represented in this book, and also some perceived specific challenges for doctoral supervision in those institutions. Those are reflected in the discussions below.

2.2

Challenges in the Global Practice of Doctoral Supervision in Southern Africa

The issues and tensions identified for Southern Africa are interdependent and often overlapping. For example, the already-limited supply of experienced doctoral supervisors is further threatened if there are inappropriately powerful inducements for the strongest academics to move elsewhere—although that has to be balanced by the need for academics globally to collaborate and enrich one another’s work.

26

J. Golding and C. N. Shimwooshili-Shaimemanya

There is a related need, globally, for an enhanced appreciation of the distinctive contributions that academics from the global south can bring to academicallyshared endeavours, and that can arguably be enhanced by geographical co-location of academics from different backgrounds. The literature around challenges in doctoral supervision largely addresses three areas which we address in turn, namely structures, pedagogy and assessment in doctoral supervision; supply, status and development of doctoral supervisors; and preparation, funding and opportunities for doctoral students. We also focus in on related ethical issues. We first note, as above, that there are two aspects to the consideration of ethics within doctoral supervision. One is the education of doctoral students for ethical research and for functioning with research integrity. There are debates about whether that education is best conducted reactively, proactively, explicitly or implicitly (e.g. Hyytinen & Löfström, 2017), but discussion is generally muted. For example, they feature only implicitly in UKGCE documents supporting supervisor recognition, and only rarely in their associated supervision bibliography that runs to over 200 pages. Such issues are inherently deeply embedded in culture and so values, and therefore in need of problematising across different research locations—but they are not the main focus of this chapter. The other aspect to consider is the ethics of conduct and relationships within the supervisory, or wider ‘learning alliance’. That, considered often in Scandinavia contexts, is the focus of work by for example Löfström and Pyhältö (2019) but in principle is applicable globally. Drawing from supervisor and doctoral student voice, they, and others, evidence that the specific ethical issues prevalent vary both across discipline and across university, but they are able to show the profound impact on student reported self-efficacy, engagement, and attrition of the quality of supervision and of wider structural support. They also evidence ethical issues that arise for supervisors from structural factors, and peer and student behaviours. It is these supervision-process issues, for supervisors and for students, that are of interest in this chapter, and we address them as they arise, below.

2.2.1

Structures, Pedagogy and Assessment in Doctoral Work

Policies which hinder the independence of universities and as such, negatively affect improvements in these institutions of many countries in Sub-Saharan Africa (Imma & Calvet, 2013) are also a challenge. This they argue, affects the standards of teaching, supervision and research in universities. Such policies complicate improvement in the university system and influence the quality of teaching and research in the Region (Quintana & Calvet, 2012). Quintana and Calvet argue that legal framework relative to higher education varies a lot between countries, and higher education is not always on the political agenda and there is no specific legislation that allows more strategic development. Efforts are however underway in the region to emancipate institutions of higher learning to have complete autonomy and to reform the systems (Imma & Calvet, 2013).

2 Policies and Ethical Issues in Doctoral Supervision: The Southern African …

27

Southern African universities have a largely-inherited colonial doctoral education structure of a post-Masters minimum 3-years of study, though even in the relatively wealthy South Africa, Mouton et al., (2015, p. 3) cite evidence that many students are “woefully underprepared” for their studies and so often spend at least five years to completion. There are of course tensions between internationally-prevalent standards (and academic markets) and what is achievable from a low basic education base. However, prevailing perceptions are it is necessary to educate large numbers to doctoral level if southern jurisdictions are to participate fully in global markets and not be further marginalised from global wealth (Cross & Backhouse, 2014). As a result, several national governments have instigated considerable incentives to universities to recruit and progress doctoral students. Sometimes those numbers are met from international students, and supervisors point to tensions inherent in incentives to recruit potentially lucrative doctoral students: sometimes ‘creative marketing’ of doctoral programmes, and doctoral students who then perhaps work with the additional challenges of a second or third or subsequent language, and often an alien culture also. The resultant large numbers have brought economic- and supply-driven pressures to develop new models of supervision, sometimes via a cohort teaching structure, or to reduce supervision contact hours. Each of these affects the range of pedagogical approaches available. Leland et al. (2020) build on previous work to evidence that cohort structures can support enhanced collaborative research skills and to offer peer group support and critique—but often at the expense of expert and timely input specific to the student’s research project, so that completion rates are often reduced. They suggest a hybrid cohort/individual supervision model, as in some professional doctorates, might address the challenges while also retaining the benefits, although the cost of such an approach could be prohibitive in many contexts. There are similar challenges with reduced supervision hours: a successful doctorate is usually required to evidence preparedness to embark on independent, if not individual, research, which preparation might be argued to be promoted by limited supervision—but equally, occasional supervision limits opportunities for timely intervention, guidance, and the breadth of teaching needed for full equipping as a researcher, as well as for successful completion of a thesis to doctoral level. The ideal balance differs across disciplines and contexts, with for example students working in lab-based projects often living the practice of research and with extensive access to supervisor(s), although that might be focused on the project rather than the student. However, funded projects of all sorts bring their own pressures and priorities, which might not align with those of doctoral students. Each approach has it implications for supervisors:

Usually in UNAM, one supervisor is allocated per student due to lack of supervisors/limited capacity and this can be a challenge to novice supervisors. Individual/ traditional approach to supervision, while it offers private space, lacks accountability, is regarded as a transmissive approach to education, entails power issues, dependence and is paternalistic (Manathunga, 2005; Parker, 2009; Pearson & Kayrooz,

28

J. Golding and C. N. Shimwooshili-Shaimemanya

2004). The university can also have committee/team/panel supervisory approaches. The group approach counteracts isolation (students can overcome “stuckness” when they work with others), offers interaction and develops research identity (Samara, 2006; Wisker, 2007) (UNAM academic).

Within national or intra-university systems, developing pressures and incentives for timely completion are often framed as ‘in the students’ interests’—and of course they are, provided the process and outcomes are of a high quality. Colleagues in oversight roles were well aware of individual supervisors who generally feel pressured to prioritise other aspects of their work, perhaps responding to students only reactively: Gatfield’s (2005) ‘pedagogy of indifference’. Indeed, Gatfield quotes those who defend such approaches as a positive option that forces doctoral students to develop (arguably, premature) independence. In contrast, supervisors in our workshops spoke of pressures to ‘over-teach’, and to ‘over-support’, perhaps ‘over-editing’ student writing—in other words, editing pedagogy—in order to reach completion targets—and so undermining student opportunity to develop, to critique, to take responsibility for the shaping and progress of their own research. Overly zealous incentives for timely completion can result in further marginalisation of those already under-represented at a doctoral level (Manathunga, 2019), as well as threats to supervisor wellbeing. From all these perspectives, resisting such pressures then becomes an ethical issue—and one which might carry penalties in terms of promotion or reputation. Of course, poor progression rates attributable to limited supervisor attention, or worse, supervisory neglect, also harm students. Across the universities represented in workshops, UJ, via the South African government, can offer considerable incentives for timely doctoral completion, though such valuing of doctoral work is less reflected in pathways to promotion, where publishing is privileged. The University of Namibia does not offer financial incentives, but doctoral pathways often require student-supervisor co-publication, so that supervisors are able to develop their own academic reputation in parallel with their students’. Across the globe, even the traditional model of supervision as apprenticeship can be enacted via a range of pathways that include a well-balanced expert/novice paradigm, but also a ‘pedagogy of indifference’, and pastorally-oriented control…; more recent ‘person-centred’ models are now often guided by ‘best practice’ lists, reflecting variety of concern for people and for product: ‘laissez-faire’ models can focus on the pastoral, might be dictatorial, or might be overly-contractual (Gatfield, 2005). Most recently, scientific-technical paradigms of supervision construe postgraduate research supervision as an aggregation of identifiable, universal factors that can be reduced to quantifiable metrics, and so addressed through training and mechanisms for student support. Supervisors have to work within such constraints:

2 Policies and Ethical Issues in Doctoral Supervision: The Southern African …

29

If a student is awarded a bursary, the student is usually expected to complete his/her study in record time and with expectations of quality work. This is very pressurising for me as a supervisor. My institution has strict timeframes and targets for throughput. Trying to meet these timeframes often means working after normal working hours and weekends, something that my family is used to….It is my view that the efforts and challenges of the doctoral supervision process is overlooked in favour of the final product and graduation target (UJ academic).

Supervisors can work within any of these paradigms with concern for a balance between thesis product and emerging-researcher process, with concern for the student’s developing identity as well as for knowledge generation—and sensitivity to a range of personal circumstances and lived lives that also constrain the choices available to the student. However, crafting a balance that enables the doctoral student to thrive both through the doctoral journey and beyond, and in ways which benefit their personal, professional and career development, is a demanding task that requires a focus on the ethically defensible, especially when institutional expectations serve to promote choices that do not always obviously privilege the long-term needs of the student. Across participating universities, one obvious area of variation was the approach to doctoral assessment, with different colonial roots visible, and bringing a variety of benefits:

UNAM has a system of public viva and members of the audience can ask the candidate questions not only the viva panel. The viva is also an opportunity for the student to display and celebrate their ‘doctorateness’ (UNAM academic).

2.2.2

Supply, Status and Development of Doctoral Supervisors

Cloete et al. (2015) emphasized that to produce high quality doctorates, adequate importance and emphasis must be given to the quality of supervision, and this must be supported by doctoral tracer studies analyses, to show whether there is a reasonable match between the demands of the labour market and the knowledge and skills presented by the doctoral graduates. Studying towards a PhD is a very demanding experience for many candidates due to the independent nature of the programme. Sibomana (2021) suggests that ‘research loneliness’ may leave the candidates unsure what they need to do to meet the universities’ expectations which themselves are not always made clear (Hunma & Sibomana, 2014). Makoni (2021:135) argues that “successful PhD supervision requires ongoing interaction between the supervisor and student from inception of the project to completion”. Makoni (2021)

30

J. Golding and C. N. Shimwooshili-Shaimemanya

further emphasizes that doctoral supervision is one major underlying factor that impacts on completion and attrition rates of doctorates—so that Hence, higher education institutions (HEIs) and those mandated to supervise doctoral students should take the role of supervision very seriously. Southern Africa has seen rapidly expanding (often, both public and private) university systems, and an obvious consequence of that at least in the short- and medium-term is that there are few supervisors with significant experience of doctoral oversight. One response has been the promotion of group supervision, with unintended benefits but also significant tensions—but also a push towards cosupervision, initially because of shortage of experience of supervisors but also with significant advantages (Molla & Cuthbert, 2016). None of these routes is without ethical tensions—for example, related to whether student academic or wider difficulties are noticed and addressed, and if so by whom—and within shared responsibility, how the time and effort are shared, and how inevitable, but also potentially productive, differences in approach and priorities are resolved. Such issues are addressed in more depth in Chap. 5. Whatever the approach adopted, it frequently results in supervisory overload, and so sometimes, pressures on the quality of assessment and student development for both research process and thesis product. It is also likely to result in a stretch in the range of thesis focus supervised, but without the time for core, let alone expanded, academic reading and reflection. The inevitable result is that either the quality of supervision is compromised, or the academic’s own wellbeing threatened (Mouton et al., 2015). Resolving such conundrums is arguably the responsibility of both the wider system and the university: it is not possible for individual supervisors to find a good solution. Within Southern Africa, expectations are still rapidly developing to accommodate support of economically-driven and marketised doctorates (Molla & Cuthbert, 2016). Globally there is considerable evidence that the changing and distinctive natures of different student cohorts, and different doctorate models, offer differential opportunities to students, but also require significantly different supervisory skills, knowledge and other expertise that takes time to build (e.g. Fillery-Travis et al., 2017; Pederson, 2014). Coupled with the relative inexperience of many supervisors in the region, then, there is a pressing need for substantial opportunities for development of supervisory knowledge and skills—and yet simultaneously, pressures of university finances, and poor supply of suitably qualified academics, serve to undermine that goal. The universities represented here can offer some limited opportunities for such development, but we argue that affordable, systematic and sustained development of supervision should be a priority if universities, and societies, are to realise their doctoral-level goals for full and equitable participation in an international knowledge society. We suggest that the programme represented in this book offers precisely such an opportunity, though it still requires the commitment of time and energy that are not then available for other aspects of academic work—or a balanced lifestyle. There are, of course, other possibilities (e.g. Manderson et al., 2017).

2 Policies and Ethical Issues in Doctoral Supervision: The Southern African …

31

Within the competing demands on academics’ time, pressures on the quality of supervision are often exacerbated by academic and career status more aligned with publication in peer-reviewed journals than with successful doctoral completions, and again, this brings with it ethical tensions related to the choices made, and in particular, the extent to which an academic’s resources are devoted to high quality supervision, to the benefit of the student and the academic or professional field—or to publication, which benefits the institution and wider academic community, and enhances professional advancement. Of course, effective supervision also requires active recent engagement in other research—but we suggest that university rewards and incentives could be somewhat re-balanced to better privilege both completion of doctorates and their impact—perhaps via metrics than incorporate supervisorstudent co-productions of both academic and professional publications and other impactful outputs, which have multiple benefits, as this supervisor argues:

I ensure that candidates are made aware that a requirement to graduate is the dissemination of their research in the form of submitting two articles for publication. This compulsory requirement is made by our university to increase research output. However, the supervisor should view the need for publication “as a pedagogic practice” and a way to convey the new knowledge from the research (Kamler, 2008, p. 283) (UJ academic).

High quality research supervision is crucial for successful PhD journeys, yet it continues to pose challenges globally, with important contextual factors impacting the quality of supervision (Manderson et al., 2017). Guwatudde et al. (2013) argue that although many challenges in doctoral training are generic, universities and research institutions in Africa face particular difficulties of a greater scale. Academics typically have large classes of undergraduate and graduate students, and limited time for individual supervision and their own research and writing. Senior academics including in Sub-Saharan Africa often carry substantial professional and administrative duties and may be required to participate in university governance. Conditions of employment—and in some settings the need to take on additional work to supplement income—may limit their capacity to supervise effectively. The challenges pertaining to supervision of postgraduate students in open and distance learning (ODL) modes are arguably exacerbated in contexts of limited digital resource and experience, so are likely to limit the success of both supervisors and postgraduate students. They include already-limited supervision skills, change of supervisors, and mode of supervision employed (Mhlangu, 2021). Often, supervisors simply interact with their own students as they were supervised, and/or they learn by doing (Halse, 2011). Dietz and colleagues, reflecting on South African PhD supervisors noted (2006: 11):

32

J. Golding and C. N. Shimwooshili-Shaimemanya Few supervisors are selected on, let alone trained in, advanced methods of supervision. Appointed supervisors therefore seldom have a conceptual map of what constitutes acceptable supervision. Supervisors themselves are often the products of poor supervision, and do not therefore hold experience of what constitutes competent supervision.

Worldwide, universities have moved to make supervisor training compulsory to enhance the quality of doctoral experience. In Europe, this has been addressed in discussions on strengthening research capacity within a ‘Europe of Knowledge’, leading to the Salzburg Principles of 2005, and its later iterations, of (inter alia) research excellence, interdisciplinary options and transferability of skills (European Universities Association, 2005). In Kenya, public universities have been asked by the Ministry of Higher Education and the Commission for Higher Education to examine and improve higher degree training and supervision (Manderson et al., 2017). In his 2021 study, Akala addressed the challenges encountered by doctoral (PhD) supervisors as they interact with their PhD students in varying social, cultural, economic, political, and other contextual forces in South Africa. He offers evidence that doctoral supervision encounters are not only affected by personal, interpersonal, intellectual, and institutional factors but also national, social, economic, cultural, and political factors that form part of the context. Data analysis showed that doctoral supervisors experienced multiple challenges including overworking, time, and a set of academic characteristics of PhD students. Overall, Akala’s (2021) study provides a starting point for understanding the selection of doctoral students and ongoing research in doctoral supervision in the South African context. His findings align with those of Mouton, Boshoff and James (2015) who argue that doctoral supervision in South Africa has become a challenging and highly stressful undertaking because many doctoral supervisors in South Africa conduct their supervision under less-than-optimal conditions, increasing student numbers, demands for constant monitoring and accountability, the pressure of throughput rates and efficient completion coupled with moderate-to-poor quality students. Rugut (2017) argued that the relationship between the student and the supervisor is central to the successful completion of doctoral studies and that production of more PhDs in Africa is of great significance, as there is a growing need for highly trained researchers to support the national social, economic and environmental goals of African countries. This issue is addressed more fully in the next section of this chapter, as well as in Chap. 4. Effective supervision draws on a capacity and experience of high-quality academic work—and so, of opportunities for supervisors to fully develop their own academic capacity, including as an active participant in global academic communities (Abrahams et al., 2008). Supervisors also need access to global knowledge, and are supported in this by increasingly ‘open access’ publication, though article processing charges remain a barrier. Workshop participants often evidenced institutional support for participation in national and international conferences—and

2 Policies and Ethical Issues in Doctoral Supervision: The Southern African …

33

yet, it remains the case that southern academics and scholarship are underrepresented in the most prestigious international journals, for example—and so arguably, under-valued globally (e.g., Manderson et al., 2017). In response, there has been a growth in open-access institutional repositories in Southern Africa (e.g., Tapfuma & Hoskins, 2020). Doctoral assessments that require the participation of international examiners, as in UJ and UNZA, also serve to promote wider networking. As a ‘flip side’ of incentives to recruit onto doctoral programmes, discussed above, there are incentives (for supervisors and doctoral students) to become part of a global south ‘brain drain’ to universities elsewhere, perhaps with better scholarly and physical facilities, and sometimes in more politically or economically stable environments (though perversely, sometimes with reduced status or relative economic reward) (Quintana et al., 2012). The best university students graduate in European, Asian and North American universities, and very few return to their country of origin (Adams et al., 2010). As was the case a few decades ago in countries such as India and China, the continent is losing a significant number of its best scientists and specialists who emigrate to other regions in the world (African Union, 2005), also depleting the supply of doctoral supervisors. For decades now, the African diaspora has provided trained scientists and intellectuals, in many cases in the African continent, but as they return to other countries, the benefit of this high level of training is minimal for the Region. This reality forms an extended vision in many African decision-makers, who say that investment in higher education fuels the brain drain, and this is how they justify reduced investment in the university system (Bloom et al., 2005). Therefore, it is a challenge to develop professionals with the required skills and knowledge for the Sub-Saharan African region. Van der Wende (2015) argues such moves benefit the global north more than they do the global south. Where students or supervisors then return to the home country, they of course bring enhanced and internationally-informed knowledge and expertise, but such moves, whether temporary or permanent, also deprive the home community of capacity, so related decision again bring moral and ethical conundrums.

2.2.3

Preparation, Funding and Opportunities for Doctoral Students

In global terms, Southern African doctoral applicants are still often “woefully underprepared” for their studies (e.g. Mouton et al., 2015, p. 3), unsurprising when mass access to a good quality basic education is still developing. In a vicious circle, doctoral student opportunity to access an appropriate range of scholarly work, and themselves to publish, is directly constrained by the same challenges their supervisors face, as well as by indirect effects on supervisor knowledge and international status. The financial and experienced supervisor supply issues analysed above, that have resulted in moves to more group and co-supervision, also have their impact

34

J. Golding and C. N. Shimwooshili-Shaimemanya

on students of course. There have been unanticipated benefits—but there are also limitations, especially where they involve under-experienced supervisors. A core issue in supervision globally is the supervisor-student relationship, but harder to achieve when the context is already stressed. The University of Johannesburg (UJ) has a Policy of Student-Supervisor Relationship because that is an integral part of the holistic research experience as the student develops and is guided towards mastery of the research process, the research discipline, and the field of specialisation. The policy reiterates that the relationship between student and supervisor is an important factor in determining student success as well as the quality of a qualification. In a study conducted at a university in the Eastern Cape, South Africa and focusing on the relationship between students and supervisors, findings revealed that communication breakdown, poor feedback, non-availability of some supervisors and lack of ethical consideration were some of the major factors that contributed to negative supervisory experiences of the students who participated in the study. The study recommended a number of intervention strategies that could be put in place for both students and supervisors to improve the supervision experience. Among these are the adoption of collaborative cohort model, supervisor training, and communication guidelines (Cekiso et al., 2019). Rugut (2017) explored the nature of the student-supervisor relationship in the completion of educational doctoral studies in Nelson Mandela University in South Africa and Moi University in Kenya. He showed that there were moments of cooperation or opposition, as well as instances of dominance or submission in the student-supervisor relationship. However, it appeared that negotiation was at the centre of the relationship, as it was evident that it strengthened the affiliation between the student and the supervisor and thus created a harmonious working relationship, while a lack of proper negotiation created discontent and opposition between the student and the supervisor. He concludes with recommendations for university management in improving postgraduate supervision and so support the success rate of doctoral studies in African universities. Completion rates of doctoral studies should be improved (Kiley, 2009), including, arguably, through a better understanding of supervision practices in the African setting, to understand the role those play in the completion of doctoral studies (Rugut, 2017). Rugut further argues that there are few documented studies that have established the nature of the relationship in the context of African universities—and that ‘best practices’ elsewhere may not transfer unproblematically to African universities because of resource constraints, culture, and other factors: there might well be some commonalities but also differences within the studentsupervisor relationship compared with other parts of the world, and those should be understood, potentially enhancing student-supervisor dynamics in doctoral studies and so improving doctoral completion rates in Africa (Rugut, 2017). Another issue within unstable or stressed economies, is insecure or inadequate funding for doctoral study, even when the source is governmental:

2 Policies and Ethical Issues in Doctoral Supervision: The Southern African …

35

The challenge is that even when such students are accepted, very few manage to register because of lack of scholarships, and those who manage are usually selfsponsored (UNZA academic).

I note the absence of mechanisms at my institution to support marginalised groups with their unique supervision needs or to address particular circumstances. Manathunga (2019, p. 1232) writes about “equity concerns” that affect the “time resources”, “material resources” and “cultural capital” of candidates from marginalised groups. As far as possible I try to secure bursaries for students with financial needs (UJ academic).

Sub-Saharan African countries are developing countries with unstable economies (Mouton, 2011), leading to challenges of funding postgraduate studies. Caillaud et al (2009) emphasise that poor financing of postgraduate education is one of the main problems of the Region’s higher education systems. The poor financing negatively affects the quality of teaching and training researchers (Bloom et al., 2005). According to Quintana and Calvet (2012), the reduction in public spending per student has adverse impacts in terms of quality and teaching, and research training. Mouton et al. (2015) cite robust evidence that this often leads to students seeking to supplement core funding with increasing hours of part-time work that do not allow sufficient high-quality time for academic development. Coupled with financial pressures to complete in a minimum time (usually three years), students often experience tensions in balancing the needs of doctoral process and doctoral product, with the product the priority measured outcome. Overly high-stakes such requirements can result in considerable pressures on both students and supervisor to work to short-term, and sometimes, overly supported. As an alternative solution to funding pressures and a parallel reluctance to give up existing employment that might not be easily regained, universities are thought to have accelerated development of occupational-linked, usually part-time, doctorates where academic and professional work are mutually complementary. While these issues are common across the world, they are often exacerbated in the relatively weak Southern African economies. Temporary or longer-term academic opportunities overseas—as international universities compete for the brightest and best—are very tempting for doctoral students as well as academics, and as above, bring both creative and productive opportunities for mutual knowledge enhancement and cross-cultural fertilisation, and ethical challenges.

36

2.3

J. Golding and C. N. Shimwooshili-Shaimemanya

Conclusion

What we see then, is a situation in which Southern Africa is inevitably drawn into global practices, priorities and developments in doctoral supervision—but with significant constraints on resources, and particularly, on the supply of well-equipped supervisors. There are opportunities to strengthen global trends, and to re-think for the context, but academics and postgraduate students are mobile, and universities in less well-resourced jurisdictions must find ways to add their own value if they are to survive. Digital and open-access approaches to learning and teaching/ supervision, as well as to wider academic exchange, have much to offer, though even within those, there remains considerable inequity of access. In this chapter, we have outlined a range of issues and challenges related to both local policies and globalisation of doctoral studies. Many of these are common across the globe, though some are exacerbated in less wealthy and still rapidlydeveloping Higher Education contexts that build on a relatively impoverished Basic Education. We have pointed to some of related ethical issues—for supervisors and for students—and those are often, again, exacerbated in the contexts focused on here. Other ethical challenges will emerge in other chapters of the book. They might relate to issues that are relevant to supervisors worldwide, but are often of particular concern where colleagues are under-resourced or poorly-networked. However, one strategy clearly ripe for related supervisory knowledge, skills and informed reflective enhancement, and despite the relatively constrained starting point of the southern context, is investment in people-capacity development—and especially if that can be achieved in affordable, sustainable and transferable ways. Our claim is that this book offers robust evidence of one route to such development, for those aspects of academic capacity related to doctoral supervision. That capacity lies at the intersection of teaching and research, and so, is fundamental to the future thriving of our disciplines, universities, and professions.

References Abrahams, L., Burke, M., Gray, E., & Rens, A. (2008). Opening access to knowledge in Southern African universities: A report to the Southern African Regional Universities Association. In SARUA. Retrieved from https://www.sarua.org/files/publications/OpeningAccess/Opening_ Access_Knowledge_2008.pdf Adams, J., King, C. Y. & Hook, D. (2010). Africa global research report. Evidence, Ltd. and Thompson Reuters, Leeds. African Union. (2005). Africa’s science and technology consolidated plan of action. Akala, B. U. (2021). Challenges in doctoral supervision in South African universities. Open Science Journal, 6(2), 1–24. Austauschdienst, D. A. (2018). Building PhD capacity in Sub-Saharan Africa. International Higher Education Department. Retrieved from https://www.britishcouncil.org/sites/default/files/h233_ 07_synthesis_report_final_web.pdf Bloom, D., Canning, D. I., & Chan, K. (2005). Higher education and development in Africa. Harvard University.

2 Policies and Ethical Issues in Doctoral Supervision: The Southern African …

37

Boote, D. N., & Beile, P. (2005). Scholars before researchers: On the centrality of the dissertation literature review in research preparation. Educational Researcher, 34, 3–15. https://doi.org/10. 3102/0013189X034006003 Caillaud, F., Experton, W., Fevre, C., Foko, B., Gioan, P. A., Johnstone, B., Marcucci, P., Righetti, P., Saint, W., & Salmi, J. (2009). Financing tertiary education in Africa. Task Force pour l’Enseignement Supérieur en Afrique, UNESCO. Cekiso, M., Tshotsho, B., Masha, R., & Saziwa, T. (2019). Supervision experiences of postgraduate research students at one South African higher education institution. South African Journal of Higher Education, 33(3), 8–25. Cloete, N., Mouton, J., & Sheppard, C. (2015). Doctoral education in South Africa: Policy, discourse and data. In African minds. Retrieved from http://www.africanminds.co.za/doctoral-edu cation-in-south-africa/ Council on Higher Education (2019). VitalStats, public higher education, 2017. Pretoria, South Africa: Council on Higher Education. Cross, M., & Backhouse, J. (2014). Evaluating doctoral programmes in Africa: Context and practices. Higher Education Policy, 27, 155–174. Dietz, A. J., Jansen, J. D., & Wadee, A. A. (2006). Effective PhD supervision and mentorship: A workshop based on experiences from South Africa and the Netherlands, Amsterdam, the Netherlands and Pretoria. Rozenberg Publishers and UNISA Press. Dimitrova, R. (2016). Ingredients of good PhD supervision: Evidence from a student survey at Stockholm University. Retrieved from http://du.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:1257192/FUL LTEXT01.pdf European Universities Association (EUA). (2005). Bologna seminar on doctoral programmes for the European knowledge society. Retrieved from http://www.eua.be/Libraries/CDE_website/ Salzburg_Conclusions.sflb.ashx Fillery-Travis, A., Maguire, K., Pizzolatti, N., Robinson, L., Lowley, A., Stel, N., Mans, P., et al. (2017). Insights from practice: A handbook for supervisors of modern doctorate candidates. Retrieved from http://superprofdoc.eu/?page_id=71 Gatfield, T. (2005). An investigation into PhD supervisory management styles: Development of a dynamic conceptual model and its managerial implications. Journal of Higher Education and Policy Management, 27(3), 311–325. https://doi.org/10.1080/13600800500283585 Golde, C., & Walker, G. (Eds.). (2006). Envisioning the future of doctoral education: Preparing stewards of the discipline. Carnegie Essays on the Doctorate. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Golding, J. (2023). Foreword. In B. Chirinda, K. Luneta, & A. Uworwabayeho (Eds.), The fourth industrial revolution: Mathematics education in Africa. Springer. Grossman, E., & Crowther, J. (2015). Co-supervision in postgraduate training: Ensuring the right hand knows what the left hand is doing. South African Journal of Science, 111(11/12), 1–8. Guwatudde, D., Bwanga, F., Dudley, L., Chola, L., Leyna, G. H., Mmbaga, E. J., Kumwenda, N., Protsiv, M., Atkins, S., Zwarenstein, M., Obua, C., & Tumwine, J. K. (2013). Training for health services and systems research in Sub-Saharan Africa—a case study at four East and Southern African Universities. Human Resources for Health, 11, 68. Halse, C., & Gearside, A. (2005). A genealogy of becoming researchers: The discursive and interactive construction of postgraduate supervision. University of Western Sydney. Halse, C. (2011). ‘Becoming a supervisor’: The impact of doctoral supervision on supervisors’ learning. Studies in Higher Education, 36, 557–570. Halse, C. M., & Bansel, P. (2012). The learning alliance: Ethics in doctoral supervision. Oxford Review of Education, 38, 377–392. https://doi.org/10.1080/03054985.2012.706219 Hasgall, A., Saenen, B., Borrell-Damian, L., Van Deynze, F., Seeber, M., & Huisman, J. (2019). Doctoral education in Europe today: Approaches and institutional structures. European University Association. Hunma, A., & Sibomana, E. (2014). Academic writing and research at an afropolitan university: An international student perspective. In L. Thesen & L. Cooper (Eds.), Risk in academic writing: Postgraduate students, their teachers and the making of knowledge (pp. 100–128). Multilingual Matters.

38

J. Golding and C. N. Shimwooshili-Shaimemanya

Hyytinen, H., & Löfström, E. (2017). Reactively, proactively, implicitly, explicitly? Academics’ pedagogical conceptions of how to promote research ethics and integrity. Journal of Academic Ethics, 15, 23–41. https://doi.org/10.1007/10805-016-9271-9 Imma, Q. & Calvet, A. (2013). Current situation and future challenges of PhD studies in sub-Saharan Africa. Chantal Connaughton: A publication of Catalan association of public universities. ACUP Report | Drupal. Johnson, L., Lee, A., & Green, B. (2000). The PhD and the autonomous self: Gender, rationality and postgraduate pedagogy. Studies in Higher Education, 25(2), 135–147. https://doi.org/10. 1080/713696141 Kamler, B. (2008). Rethinking doctoral publication practices: Writing from and beyond the thesis. Studies in Higher Education, 33(3), 283–294. Khodabocus, F. (2016). Challenges to doctoral education in Africa. International Higher Education, 85, 25–27. Kiley, M. (2009). Identifying threshold concepts and proposing strategies to support doctoral candidates. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 46(3), 293–304. Kumar, S., Kumar, V., & Taylor, S. (2020). A guide to online supervision. UK Council for Graduate Education. UKCGE Guide to Online Supervision ★ UKCGE Research Supervision Recognition Programme. Leland, A. S., Firestone, W. A., Perry, J. A., & McKeon, R. T. (2020). Examining cohort models in the education doctorate. Studies in Graduate and Postdoctoral Education, 11(3), 249–262. Löfström, E., & Pyhältö, K. (2019). What are ethics in doctoral supervision, and how do they matter? Doctoral students’ perspective. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 64, 535–550. https://doi.org/10.1080/00313831.2019.1595711 Lovitts, B. E. (2005). Being a good course-taker is not enough: A theoretical perspective on the transition to independent research. Studies in Higher Education, 30(2), 137–154. https://doi. org/10.1080/03075070500043093 Loxley, A., & Kearns, M. (2018). Finding a purpose for the doctorate? A view from the supervisors. Studies in Higher Education, 43(5), 826–840. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2018.1438096 Makoni, P. L. (2021). Novice doctoral supervision in South Africa: An autoethnographic approach. International Journal of Higher Education, 11(2), 135–142. Manathunga, C. (2005). The development of research supervision: “Turning the light on a private space”. International Journal for Academic Development, 10, 17–30. Manathunga, C. (2019). ‘Timescapes’ in doctoral education: The politics of temporal equity in higher education. Higher Education Research & Development, 38(6), 1227–1239. https://doi. org/10.1080/07294360.2019.1629880 Manderson, L., Bondjers, G., Izugbara, C., Cole, D. C., Egesah, O., Ezeh, A., & Fonn, S. (2017). Enhancing doctoral supervision practices in Africa: Reflection on the CARTA approach. Journal of Higher Education in Africa/revue De L’enseignement Supérieur En Afrique, 15(2), 23–40. Maor, D., Ensor, J. D. & Fraser, B. J. (2015). Doctoral supervision in virtual spaces: A review of research of web-based tools to develop collaborative supervision. Higher Education Research & Development, 35(1), 172–188. Metcalfe, J., Levecque, K., Wilson, S. (2018). Exploring wellbeing and mental health and associated support services for postgraduate researchers. Vitae. Mhlangu, V. P. (2021). Exploring challenges of supervising postgraduate students in open distance learning in higher education settings. Bulgarian Comparative Education Society. Molla, T., & Cuthbert, D. (2016). In pursuit of the African PhD: A critical survey of emergent policy issues in select southern African nations, Ethiopia, Ghana and South Africa. Policy Futures in Education, 14, 635–654. https://doi.org/10.1177/1478210316641567 Mouton, J. (2011). The state of doctoral training in Sub-Saharan Africa: Statistics, analysis and challenges. In African union (AU) conference of rectors, vice-chancellors & presidents (COREVIP), Stellenbosch. Mouton, J., Boshoff, N., & James, M. (2015). A survey of doctoral supervisors in South Africa. South African Journal of Higher Education, 29(2), 1–22.

2 Policies and Ethical Issues in Doctoral Supervision: The Southern African …

39

Ngulube, P. (2021). Postgraduate supervision practices in education research and the creation of opportunities for knowledge sharing. Problems of Education in the 21st Century, 79, 255–272. https://doi.org/10.33225/pec/21.79.255 OECD. (2019). Education at a glance 2019: OECD indicators. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/ 10.1787/f8d7880d-en Parker, R. (2009). A learning community approach to doctoral education in social sciences. Teaching in Higher Education, 14(1), 43–54. Pearson, M., & Kayrooz, C. (2004). Enabling critical reflection on research supervisory practice. International Journal for Academic Development, 9(1), 99–116. Pederson, H. (2014). New doctoral graduates in the knowledge economy: Trends and key issues. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 36(6), 632–645. Quintana, I., & Calvet, A. (2012). Current situation and future challenges of PhD studies in SubSaharan Africa. African Spanish Higher Education Platform. Rugut, C. K. (2017). The nature of postgraduate student-supervisor relationship in the completion of doctoral studies in education: An exploration in two African universities. Doctoral dissertation, Nelson Mandela University. Samara, A. (2006). Group supervision in graduate education: A process of supervision skill development and text improvement. Higher Education Research & Development, 25(2), 115–129. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360600610362 Sibomana, E. (2021). How to get through a PhD journey: A personal reflection and experience. Journal of Language, Technology & Entrepreneurship in Africa, 12(1), 111–125. Tapfuma, M. M., & Hoskins, R. G. (2020). Visibility and accessibility of indigenous knowledge on open access institutional repositories at universities in Africa. In Digital libraries and institutional repositories: breakthroughs in research and practice. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-17998-2463-3.ch028. Taylor, S. E. (2012). Changes in doctoral education: Implications for supervisors in developing early career researchers. International Journal for Researcher Development, 3(2), 118–138. Van der Wende, M. (2015). International academic mobility: Towards a concentration of the minds in Europe. UC Berkeley: Center for Studies in Higher Education. Wisker, G. (2007). Supervising postgraduates: Internationally, and at a distance. Connections: Sharing the learning space. Articles from the Learning and Teaching Conference. Falmer Press.

3

Recruitment and Selection of Doctoral Candidates Kakoma Luneta

Abstract

Research maintains that the existence of a higher institution of learning is dependent upon the preeminence of the recruitment drive and the quality of the candidates it attracts to the project of scholarship. Institutions of higher learning have devised a range of strategies to both inform and fascinate candidates about the institution and the programs they offer. At postgraduate level supervisors are also taxed to overtly and covertly appeal to potential candidates with their expertise, guidance and research skills, through faculty and personal websites, biographies, and research labs. This chapter explores the supervisor’s role and the implications of recruitment and selection within the ambit of a broader context of a university. It is informed by deep theories of the pedagogy of supervision, supported by reflective accounts of supervisors and their experiences on the subject.

3.1

Introduction

The buoyancy of any institution of higher learning depends on the recruitment and sustainability of student numbers. Universities have become brands with diverse landscapes, defined logos, colours and other persuasive and visible strategies as ways of raising awareness of their brands (Kim & Spencer-Oatey, 2021). They are so competitive for students, staff, research funds and grants that they have become business-like entities, especially competing for research and high calibre doctoral students. Urbanoviˇca et al. (2016) assert that the spread of neo-liberal ideology, and marketisation of higher education internationally and locally, have K. Luneta (B) University of Johannesburg, Johannesburg, South Africa e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 K. Luneta et al. (eds.), Doctoral Supervision in Southern Africa, Springer Texts in Education, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-46899-5_3

41

42

K. Luneta

increased exponentially as higher education has become a profitable revenuegenerating commodity. In Southern Africa universities have adopted cooperate marketing strategies in order to maximise recruitment of both international and local students at both under and postgraduate levels (Maringe & Gibbs, 2008). In one study (Hanover Report, 2014, p. 4), it was reported that there has to be “a change in culture where Higher Ed realizes that ‘sales’ is not a dirty word and admissions offices need to be run like a business.” The commodification of higher education has meant that universities have had to adopt stringent selection policies in order to ensure that it is not only those who can afford to pay who enter higher education, and also that the quality of their applications meets university standards (Cross, 2021; Hadi & Muhammad, 2019). In order to ensure the academic quality of the candidates, universities have for example involved post graduate supervisors in the selection of doctoral students (Pete & Jonathan, 1999). In order for universities and other institutions of higher learning to select doctoral students, they first must recruit them. The Lund University “Recruiting Doctoral Students” document published by the Faculties of Science and Engineering emphasises that ‘Recruiting a new doctoral student is a strategically important decision and often a major investment for the organisation’ (p. 2). Success in recruiting means attracting doctoral students from diverse backgrounds who are able to take on the rigour of doctoral research and adapt to the departmental and faculty culture and university environment (Cross, 2021; Liu et al., 2021). However, the recruitment and selection of doctoral students is varied and complex (Chireshe, 2012; Mellors-Bourne et al., 2014). Hanover Research (2014, p. 4) for instance reports that, ‘unlike undergraduate admissions, graduate recruitment is often not handled with an optimal level of direction, efficiency, and precision, resulting in a much more irregular and unpredictable process’. Critical to note is that recruitment drives, and approaches used to fascinate undergraduates, are different from those adopted for attracting doctoral students (Bruscia, 2001; Wisker et al., 2003). In order to attract and recruit undergraduate universities use strategies such as running events off and on campus where prospective students are invited, offering internships, roadshows, and good public relations. In doing so universities table their offerings, including academic programmes and research, using social media, peer networks, guest lectures, use of societies and alumina (Ophey & van Adrichem, 2016). However, it has been noted that recruiting doctoral candidates who have both the financial means and the capability to conduct independent research has been a daunting task for most universities in Southern Africa (Ugadi, 2021). Suitable doctoral candidates are those who can contribute to research output, citations and league tables, issues which have become pivotal to university statue and international recognition (Cross, 2021; Kálmán et al., 2022).

3 Recruitment and Selection of Doctoral Candidates

3.2

43

Strategies Used by Universities to Recruit Doctoral Students

All universities have an established approach to recruiting doctoral students. The COVID-19 pandemic has had a significant effect on recruitment drives, and has increased remote learning, accelerating a decline in campus-based academic study (Potane & Mariano, 2022; Trowler, 2022). Current literature seems to show that Ph.D. students are often choosing off-campus programmes in preference to inperson on-campus study, with supervisions being conducted on Microsoft teams and other platforms (Cross, 2021; Trowler, 2022). Amid these factors, universities have had to shift to hybrid programmes, so recruiting strategies have had to refocus and realign with the changes in students’ priorities and the new world order. Among the strategies recently used by universities to recruit doctoral students were: a. The awarding of scholarship and Assistantships with work obligations attached—found to be a good strategy to attract local and international doctoral students (Mapasela & Wilkinson, 2005) b. Development of a clear university brand. The competition to attract capable students who can take up independent research, publish their work and accomplish the doctoral project, implies that a university should have a clear brand and presence (Boaden, 2022). c. Use of social media to target prospective doctoral candidates. Such communication has increased rapidly in recent years, and universities have had to adapt and keep pace with the various ways that they communicate and attract prospective doctoral students. Social media (Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, LinkedIn, Snapchat, Whats’up) have had to be used by universities to attract students (Cekiso et al., 2019). Before the pandemic there were studies that indicated that while social media use was a popular means of communication to students by most universities ‘It ranked as the third-least effective marketing practice among public graduate institutions’ (Hanover Research, 2014, p. 4). While the majority of institutions regard recruitment as a pressing issue and technology as acknowledged solution, there is little evidence that show social media is an effective mode of recruiting doctoral students, but it might open eyes to possibilities, and those universities who do not engage in such advertisement might miss out. d. Development of an effective student tracking system with telephonic follow-ups for incomplete doctoral applications was also found to be an effective approach to recruiting Ph.D. students. e. For certain doctoral studies such as those in labs, a description of the program with requirements, average time to complete the research, and employment statistics upon completion, was found to be an effective attracting factor for doctoral candidates.

44

K. Luneta

f. Specific search engines can be optimised to ensure the university appears in search results: also among strategies most used and found to be effective and appropriate in attracting doctoral students. g. Financial support, such as university-established bursaries to enhance students’ financial welfare, especially international students, was deemed attractive in recruiting doctoral students. h. Using commercial website such as ResearchGate, LinkedIn, Academia and general job recruiting websites is also widely used. i. The development of webpages designed to attract doctoral students and to expose supervisors and faculty expertise, including major faculty or departmental research, and laboratories in place, was commonly identified as important in recruiting doctoral students. Of course, these patterns are changing as use of digital tools and social media develop. While a number of universities globally tend to use local television and radio advertisements, printed advertisements, social media such as Twitter and Facebook, vehicle (buses, taxi) trains, billboards and other outdoor adverting techniques, research found them to be the least used by doctoral students who were surveyed (Hannover Research, 2014). Literature (e.g. Hanover Research, 2014, p. 7) has further stressed that among the challenges most universities globally encounter is “managing declining or growing enrolments, competition for prospective graduate students, challenges in attracting a diverse applicant pool, challenges in recruiting international students, and recruiting quality graduate students.” In southern Africa the recruitment of international and high quality graduate students tends to be among the furthermost challenges at many universities (Cekiso et al., 2019; Mouton, 2011).

3.3

Selecting Doctoral Students

The second phase of attracting doctoral students is the selection of those who have been recruited by the university (Chireshe, 2012; Lessing & Schulze, 2003). Recruitment drives often specify the academic requirements for selection into a doctoral program, with natural sciences often publicising laboratories and the research being undertaken. The LABS, as they are often referred to, specify the subject specialisation and the research classifications and funding available for doctoral students. There are three types—academic laboratories, government laboratories and private sector laboratories—and within these classifications research laboratories, development laboratories and test laboratories. University research laboratories are headed by research experts who can assign doctoral students to carry out new research or extension and tests of existing findings. Selection for these laboratories is often stringent because of the bursaries and funding linked to scholarships. According to Childers and Rye (1987) the selection of quality applicants for doctoral programmes such as counselling, engineering, medicine and recently (Kalman et al., 2022) Fourth Industrial Revolution (4IR) careers

3 Recruitment and Selection of Doctoral Candidates

45

and courses that determine them, are receiving increasing attention in this age of accountability, accreditation, citations, league tables and limited budgets. Some programmes have selection criteria stipulated to candidates and interviews are conducted. For instance, for a doctorate in educational counselling, four areas of interview questions are considered, namely counselling skills, level of professional knowledge, interpersonal effectiveness, and credentials (Childers & Rye, 1987). Other programmes require the selected candidates to write a comprehensive research proposal, select a prospective supervisor, prepare and submit an application upon ensuring that they meet the basic criteria which is often a master’s degree in the field.

3.4

Procedure Used in the Selection and Assignment of Doctoral Students to Supervisors

During the selection process, supervisors read through the proposed research interest of the student and can request their master’s research. In this project one supervisor noted ‘Staff have implored me, as the Head of Department (HOD), to provide a democratic and transparent supervisor-student allocation process. Thus, a departmental meeting is held where supervisors select prospective candidates who they can further interview’. By contrast, some institutions allocate candidates without supervisors’ participation in the selection process (Manyike, 2017, p. 1). It would be interesting to explore the involvement of doctoral candidates in the process of selecting their supervisors (Ives & Rowley, 2005, p. 536). At the University of Johannesburg a selected candidate enters a pre-registration phase for six months. The pre-registration period enables supervisors to determine the level of preparedness of the doctoral applicant. During this phase the expectations that might be considered are their disciplinary foundation, research skills, critical thinking, independent learning and proficiency in reading and academic writing. During pre-registration, supervisors schedule meetings with the candidate to work towards finalisation of the proposal including the selection of a topic, the research questions, development of timeframes for the study, methodological decisions and scholarly contribution of the study. It is assumed that at this stage the candidate can gauge whether the Ph.D. degree is something they wish to pursue. Research shows that South African doctoral applicants are “woefully underprepared” for their studies and spend on average five years to complete doctoral research (Mouton et al., 2015, p. 3). Hence, during the pre-registration period supervisors consider the type of support a candidate will need and whether institutional systems such as library support and postgraduate school workshops will be relevant for student needs. The pre-registration phase is often an ideal opportunity to assess whether the candidate can make a transition to independent research, ‘an aspect that I have not thought about until embarking on this programme’ one UJ supervisor confessed.

46

K. Luneta

3.5

Research Methodology

This chapter reports on qualitative research that used the data from the reflections of 15 Ph.D. supervisors who took part in a doctoral supervision research project. The requirement to be part of the study was to have supervised at least one doctoral student to completion. Participants were from the University of Johannesburg (n = 5), University of Namibia (n = 5), University of Zambia (n = 4) and one from University College London. The project required them to include critical reflective accounts in response to the two questions stipulated below. Critical reflection is widely used in in qualitative research as a data collection method especially in educational research (Mohan, 2020): it is the use of oral or written accounts in response to specific research question/s (Gopichandran, 2020). In an effort to achieve authentic rigor the reflections are married to research on recruitment and selection of doctoral students (Welch, 2004). Participants reflected on: How does your university recruit and select doctoral students? How are you as a supervisor involved in the recruitment and selection drive?

3.6

Data and Analysis of Individual Reflections

3.6.1

Self-reflection

At the University of Johannesburg, recruitment is conducted by the university at large and then cascaded to faculties and departments. The students have the right to choose a supervisor. In some instances, students are assigned to a supervisor by the Head of Department. The criterion for selection for doctoral candidates is a score 65% or above at master’s level. The University of Johannesburg has billboards in the city outlining what is offered and why they are one of the best in the country. The Faculty of Education has a marketing officer who provides information about the faculty. The University of Johannesburg, like most universities globally provides an introductory page on the departmental website that explicates the staff expertise, areas of specialisation and research (Pete & Jonathan, 1999). Staff also use several marketing strategies and are mandated to take part in recruitment campaigns of their own through conferences and other academic gatherings. Like many academic colleagues, I have my own website where I publicise myself and that includes my research areas, current research, my publications and google scholar citation, all in the name of marketing both myself and the university in order to attach doctoral candidates. After students have been accepted by the university, departments hold their own internal selection and assignment of students to supervisors. Upon receiving my applicants, I set up a meeting to interview the student. I usually request the student send me a two-page document that describes the intended area of research and the problem at hand. This is where I think I could improve and

3 Recruitment and Selection of Doctoral Candidates

47

engage colleagues so that my view of the candidate is also informed by my colleagues’ expertise as well. I have individualised the selection of my students and this might have denied me the opportunity to see a different side of my students which could have been picked up by colleagues if I had involved them. While I have never denied a student an opportunity to study under my guidance, involving a colleague would have been more transparent and informative. Bruscia (2001) however, warns that there is no blueprint for selection of doctoral candidates, and neither are there guarantees of completion.

3.7

Themes Developed from the Supervisors’ Data on Recruitment and Selection

The descriptive information from the supervisors’ answers to the questions underwent a process of ‘content analysis’ whereby the identified main themes that emerged from their descriptions were developed (Kumar, 2019, p. 379).

3.7.1

Theme 1: Using One’s ‘Grown Timber’ as the Source of Recruitment and Selection

‘Growing one’s timber’ as it is popularly known, in other words, looking to one’s own institutional masters and undergraduate students, seems to have been a strategy used by many supervisors in their effort to select doctoral candidates they regarded as capable to undertake a doctoral study. Researchers used previous master’s students as their would-be doctoral students. For instance, two UJ academics and one UNAM academic wrote:

Personally, I prefer to recruit doctoral students that I have previously trained either through the supervision of their undergraduate final year projects and/or master dissertations. The reason being I would have been able to assess if they will be able to make the transition to independent researchers based on the combination of their academic performance and noncognitive skills such as knowledge and creativity, communication skills, teamwork, resilience, planning and organization, and ethics and integrity as advised by Lovitts (2008) (UJ Academic).

Almost all the doctoral candidates I have been supervising so far are my former Masters students who had obtained an average pass of 60% or more and thus they have prior knowledge of research. Holbrook et al. (2014) support this by noting that when Ph.D. students come to enrol for their studies, they need to have already experienced an extended education and have excelled in academic work. Therefore, it is also

48

K. Luneta

important to keep in mind during the recruitment and selection process that Ph.D. candidates are mature and experienced students, so that they treated as such (UNAM Academic). Recently, I co-supervised a master student and after the student completed his master degree he indicated that he wants me to supervise his doctoral thesis now as the main supervisor. I politely declined because he did not show much knowledge and creativity, communication skills, and planning and organization skills even after three years of training (UJ Academic).

3.7.2

Theme 2: Level of Preparedness as Criteria for Selecting Doctoral Candidates

Research in the supervision pedagogy points out that candidates that show preparedness for the doctoral program are most preferred by supervisors and postgraduate program administrators (Lessing & Schulze, 2003; Wisker et al., 2003). The level of doctoral candidate preparedness for the program by show of extensive reading and knowledge of basic research was preferred and noted by the supervisors in the project. An extract from a UJ academic asserts the point.

The last stage is when I get to interview the individual applicants to assess their level of preparedness with the rigour associated with a Ph.D. study. This is meant to also test their optimism which I consider to be one of the crucial factors for adaptability as Scheier and Carver (1985) described it as the expectation of achieving positive outcomes in the future. Highly resilient students have been found to possess adaptive skills which enable them to learn from stressful situations (Campbell-Sills et al., 2006). In this interview, I get to ask the prospective Ph.D. student on the following: Reasons for wanting to embark on a Ph.D. study, how one would balance life (family and social commitment), work (if not intending to fulltime), and Ph.D. study (which is demanding and intended to be completed within a maximum of four years). These constructs will determine not only the capabilities of the candidate but also assess their work ethics and attitudes which are important attributes to successful completion of a Ph.D. study. My selection process is informed by Ophey and van Adrichem (2016) who categorised the competences for Ph.D. candidates as knowledge, skills, and attitude (UJ Academic).

This UJ supervisor summaries the selection of doctoral candidates as—‘I therefore employ their configuration of such competences encapsulated in Fig. 3.1’. Two UNAM academics wrote:

3 Recruitment and Selection of Doctoral Candidates

49

Assessing the candidates’ knowledge and skills of the science education discipline they want to research on.

Assessing the candidates’ skills and attitude in working in the project of choice since education is a social science which involves working with humans

Assessing the candidate’s social skills, working as a team with other, the supervisor and attitude based on personality and cultural background.

Fig. 3.1 Selection criteria (adapted from Ophey & van Adrichem, 2016)

Currently, I assisted my HOD with the admission of a doctoral student Y whose application documents and concept note were not quite in line with our admission criteria at the school level; however because the candidate had completed another master’s degree in education which increases her research experience, we waived the admission criteria and accepted student Y in the our study program in order to increase the admission number of our Ph.D. students. Neumann (2005) stated that sometimes professional doctorates call for an additional selection criterion related to professional experience and the selection of doctoral students within universities usually rests at the faculty and departmental level where decisions on student selection are significantly based on past academic performance of a particular student. So, in our case, student Y was selected based on her extensive past experience and good academic performance both at a local and an international university abroad (UNAM Academic); Given the demands and challenges of the doctoral journey (Lindsay, 2015), once given the Preliminary Research Proposal of a doctoral applicant to process together with other departmental postgraduate committee members, I look for students who are not only knowledgeable about their own area of study, enthusiastic and committed but also those that are creative because knowledge and creativity are some of the skills that contribute to degree completion (UNAM Academic).

50

K. Luneta

3.7.3

Theme 3: Use of Postgraduate Publications as Yardstick for Selection

One of the selection criteria that a number of supervisors documented was students’ potential to publish their research in accredited journals, identifying this as a sign of a research-ready candidate, one that will hit the ground running with little support regarding basic research knowledge and ability to analyse, critic and document research processes (Mapasela & Wilkinson, 2005). UJ academics and a UNAM academic exemplify this selection criterion below:

When selecting Ph.D. students, I consider those who have presented their masters dissertation or part at conferences or published a journal article. Such an experience is crucial in determining one’s exposure to criticism through feedback at conferences or reviewer comments on journal article. I consider resilience as an important factor to determine one’s ability to complete quality studies within a specified time frame (UJ Academic); As part of recruitment process at our school, I made sure that during the M. Ed coursework classes, I motivate my students to study hard, read more and be passionate about publishing their work. I have made it a culture to always co-publish a paper or two with my Masters students. This culture has inspired most of my former Master students to pursue further studies up to doctoral level (UNAM Academic); However, I make an exception if I see that a student’s project is aligned to his work and also shows most of noncognitive skills such as knowledge and creativity, communication skills, teamwork, resilience, planning and organization, and ethics and integrity, (UJ Academic).

3.7.4

Theme 4: Selections Aligned to Supervisor Area of Expertise—Subject Knowledge and also Personality Match

Grant et al. (2014) show that the match of the supervisor’s expertise to the wouldbe doctoral student’s area of interest is the most prominent selection criteria used by most supervisors—and also by doctoral candidates to select their would-be supervisors. Most of the supervisors who took part in the project indicated that they supervised students who were interested in research in their areas of specialisation. Comments from UNAM, UJ and UNZA academics support the theme:

Most prospective students I attract are those that are interested in issues that relate to the teaching and learning of school mathematics for the improvement of practice and

3 Recruitment and Selection of Doctoral Candidates

learning outcomes. Hence, aligning with my expertise which is in mathematics education. Having done a masters, my expectations of prospective Ph.D. students is that they are coming to the programme with research skills which they hope to enhance towards becoming creative, independent and reflective researchers. The 500 words motivation which they submit on what they intend to focus on in the Ph.D. provides a window through which the envisaged skills can be seen (UNZA Academic); I also ensure that my published works are made visible by uploading them on Research Gate, Google Scholar and Academia. Potential students are directed to these so that they assess whether and how they can align such works with their research interests. To improve my current situation, I intend to create my own website/profile so that I can widen my visibility to as many potential doctoral candidates as possible (UNZA Academic); To facilitate recruitment and selection of postgraduate students, I provide a clear description of my research focus areas and expertise on the departmental website with a view to afford prospective students opportunities to broadly understand my profile in terms of research interests (UJ Academic); There have also been instances when I simply offered to supervise a student outside my area because a colleague who was supervising that student has passed away/ retired/relocated and colleagues in that area are overloaded and cannot supervise the student/s. For instance last year, I lost a colleague in inclusive education due to Covid-19 and I offered to take over two of his students because other supervisors in this area are overloaded since each one of them has more than 5 postgraduate students to supervise (maximum number as per the university regulations is 5) in addition to their teaching and undergraduate supervision. The pros for the student is that she is able to continue with her postgraduate studies albeit under the guidance of someone in a different area. The disadvantage is that there comes a time when there would be a need to have someone well-grounded in her specialisation area. It is for this reason that a specialist in inclusive education has been appointed this year to co-supervise one of the students with me (UNZA Academic); I have offered to co-supervise with those who have just obtained a doctorate degree or those that are overloaded or where my expertise is needed. For Example, I co-supervised student X since his doctoral study was on HIV/AIDS and Science Education in Namibia Secondary Schools and there was a need to have someone who understands and knows the medicinal plants in the local languages. X works and writes on medicinal plants but does not know the Namibian local languages. He is also author of a new book Green Medicines, and a 2015 book Indigenous Knowledge of Namibia, with a lead chapter on ‘green diamonds’, a term for green plants used for treating HIV/AIDS (UNAM Academic); In deciding who I would supervise, I consider the applicant’s research area and its topicality rather than focusing only on my own research interests. Almusaed and Almssad (2020, p. 25) maintain that a supervisor’s expert knowledge of the field is essential to effective supervision. This argument might apply to specific fields, however, due to the wide scope of research required for my discipline, I have successfully supervised 10 Masters and 1 doctoral candidate to completion without having specific knowledge of their research topics. I believe that the value of the intended research influences the selection of my candidates (UJ Academic).

51

52

3.8

K. Luneta

Factors that Affect Recruitment of Capable Doctoral Candidates

Notably, a factor that influences “student choice” for South African doctoral candidates, especially for students under the age of 30, is the student-supervisor “relationship” (Mouton et al., 2015, p. 17). Our faculty website provides a list of programmes offered in each department and information about the selection criteria. One supervisor at UJ pointed out that her department had seldom recruited students using a set of strategy possibly because they often have numerous applicants each year.

3.9

Challenges in Selection of Doctoral Students

Among the issues that impinge effective doctoral selection is the strained supervision capacity in most universities in southern Africa (Chireshe, 2012; Cross, 2021; Mutula, 2009). There is scarce supply of postgraduate supervisors: for instance, Mouton et al. (2015) demonstrate that the trends in South Africa to rapidly grow doctoral admissions has placed a burden on the present supervision capacity. Universities could consider recruitment drives that provide more information to prospective candidates and employment of strategies that enhance the visibility of the discipline (Wadesango & Machingambi, 2011). One UJ supervisor pointed out that departmental websites should provide information concerning the application and selection process, who would be suitable to apply, the skills required for doctoral studies, candidates’ expectations and the milestones of the doctoral journey.

3.10

Areas that Need Redress in Doctoral Candidate Selection

There are related issues that require attention, especially in South Africa where there was a deliberate policy in the past to discriminate against Black scholars (Cekiso et al., 2019; Lessing & Schulze, 2003). While doctoral candidates in other countries in the region (Zambia, Namibia, Zimbabwe, Eswatini, Botswana and Lesotho) are predominantly selected and supervised by black African academics and there are few known policies to deliberately isolate supervisors and students by colour, the South Africa apartheid government had deliberate policies to that effect in place (Cross, 2021). The new government in South Africa has had to put in place policies to mitigate the shortage of black postgraduate supervisors and selection of students (Council on Higher Education, 2004; Mouton et al., 2015). However, one UJ supervisor wrote ‘There has not been any requirement from my institution to deliberately select or recruit applicants from under-represented groups in the doctoral programme’.

3 Recruitment and Selection of Doctoral Candidates

53

To address inequality and promote social justice, the marginalisation of females in academia as transformation, decolonisation and language policy issues must receive greater attention (Mapasela & Wilkinson, 2005). Mouton et al. (2015) pointed out that in South Africa funding constraints hinder access to postgraduate education particularly for Black candidates (Mouton et al., 2015, p. 21). Declared that “Intersectional” factors such as gender, race and socio-economics exacerbate inequity. Research (Cekiso et al., 2019; Cross, 2021; Lessing & Schulze, 2003; Wadesango & Machingambi, 2011) identify that recruitment of postgraduate students in Southern Africa is also hampered by the high dropout rate that has discouraged aspirant candidates. Internationally some universities are proactive in addressing access to postgraduate research for marginalised and underrepresented communities. The Michigan State University prospectus for doctoral students recruitment, for instance, has a specific appeal for recruitment of doctoral students from underrepresented sectors of the community that reads ‘MSU recruit, retain, and support a diverse group of traditionally underrepresented domestic doctoral students who will contribute in meaningful ways to the intellectual, geographical, racial, and ethnic diversity of the future professoriate and professional fields’. While such a drive is a nominal requirement in South Africa, most universities do not adhere to it especially in science and engineering programmes.

3.11

Limitations of the Study

The sample was conveniently selected and made up of extracts from ten submitted reflective accounts from doctoral student supervisors from three southern African universities. As such the study findings may be limited to the sample and the region, indicative rather than easily generalisable.

3.12

Conclusion

Regional problems in postgraduate research are resolved amicably when addressed by those immersed in them. We have pointed out in chapters one and two in this book that doctoral supervision is under-researched and barely taught, resulting in little or no related curricula. As a result, the quality and criticalities of the pedagogy are usually not scrutinised. What is revealed in the critical reflections of the supervisors in this chapter is that, while there are similarities in the recruitment approaches, the way students are selected differ to the point that even departments in the same faculty adopt different approaches when selecting doctoral student ranging from interviews to written proposals. This chapter attempted to address how to some extent southern African universities, particularly in Namibia, South Africa and Zambia recruit and select doctoral students, the approaches they use, and the difficulties encountered in the exercise and the affordances. The themes

54

K. Luneta

developed provide a summary of how supervisors view the recruitment and selection drives carried out by their universities in addition to how they support the recruitment and selection initiative of doctoral students.

References Akala, B. U. (2019). Pedagogies of doctoral supervision in South African universities. Unpublished doctoral thesis. University of Johannesburg. Akerlind, G., & MCAlpine, L. (2015). Supervising doctoral students: Variation in purpose and pedagogy. Studies in Higher Education. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2015.1118031 Almusaed, A., & Almssad, A. (2020). The Role of the Supervisor on Developing PhD Students’ Skills. International Society for Technology, Education, and Science. Amundsen, C., & McAlpine, L. (2009). “Learning supervision”: Trial by fire. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 46(3), 331–342. Bair, C. R., & Haworth, J. G. (2004). Doctoral student attrition and persistence: A meta-synthesis of research. In Smart, J. C. (Ed.), Higher education handbook of theory and research X1X, pp. 481–533. Dordrecht, Kluwer Academic Publishers. Barnacle, R., & Mewburn, I. (2010). Learning networks and the journey of ‘becoming doctor.’ Studies in Higher Education, 35(4), 433–444. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075070903131214 Barnes, B., Williams, A., & Archer, S. (2010). Characteristics that matter most: Doctoral students’ perceptions of positive and negative advisor attributes. NACADA Journal, 30(1), 34–46. Ball, S. (2008). The education debate. Policy Press. Boaden, C. (2022). 10 Student recruitment strategies for your higher education institution. https://www.tribalgroup.com/blog/10-student-recruitment-strategies-for-your-higher-edu cation-institution Bruscia, K. (2001). A model of supervision derived from apprenticeship training. In Forinash, M. (Ed.) Music therapy supervision. Phoenixville. Barcelona Publishers. Cekiso, M., Tshotsho, B., Masha, R., & Saziwa, T. (2019). Supervision experiences of postgraduate research students at one South African higher education institution. South African Journal of Higher Education, 33(3), 8–25. Charlesworth Author Services. (2021). Ph.D. writing 4: How to write the conclusion chapter of your Ph.D. https://www.cwauthors.com/article/phd-writing-4-how-to-write-the-conclusion-chapterof-your-thesis Childers, J. H., JR. & Rye, D. R. (1987). Doctoral student selection in counsellor education: A multidimensional assessment strategy. Journal of Counselling and Development, 65(10), 555– 557. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1556-6676.1987.tb00708.x Chireshe, R. (2012). Research supervision: Postgraduate students’ experiences in South Africa. Journal of Social Sciences, 31(2), 229–234. Cloete, N., & Mouton, J. (2015). Doctoral education in South Africa. African Books Collective. Council on Higher Education. (2004). South African higher education in the first decade of democracy. Pretoria: Council on Higher Education Cross, M. (2021). Chapter 10 supervising doctoral students in South African higher education. In Transformative curricula, pedagogies and epistemologies. Leiden, The Netherlands: Brill. https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004468443_010 Department of Education (DoE). (2007). The higher education qualifications framework (HEQF). Government Gazette, 508, 3–29. DoE. Department of Higher Education and Training (DHET). (2013). Statistics on post school education and training in South Africa. http://www.dhet.gov.za/DHET%20Statistics%20Publication/ Statistics%20on%20Post-School%20Education%20and%20Training%20in%20South%20A frica%202013.pdf (Accessed 3 July 2016).

3 Recruitment and Selection of Doctoral Candidates

55

East, M., Bitcheher, J., & Basturkmen, H. (2012). What constitutes effective feedback to postgraduate research students? The students’ perspective. Journal of University Teaching and Learning Practice, 9(2), 8–31. Gopichandran, V. (2020). Using critical reflection in public health research: Identifying and mitigating emotional harms. Indian Journal of Medical Ethics, 1, 20–22. https://doi.org/10.20529/ IJME.2020.015. PMID: 32103802. Golding, C., Sharmini, S., & Lazarovitch, A. (2014). What examiners do: What thesis students should know. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 39(5), 573–576. https://doi. org/10.1080/02602938.2013.859230. Grant, K., Hackney, R., & Edgar, D. (2014). Postgraduate research supervision. An ‘agreed’ conceputal view of good practice through derived metaphors. International Journal of Doctoral Studies, 9, 43–60. Grant, B. M. (2005). The pedagogy of graduate supervision: Figuring the relations between supervisor and student. Ph.D. thesis, University of Auckland, Auckland, NZ. Grossman, E., & Crowther, N. (2015). Co-supervision in postgraduate training. Ensuring the right hand knows what the left hand is doing. South African Journal of Science, 111, 11–12. https:// doi.org/10.17159/sajs.2015/20140305 Guerin, C., Kerr, H., & Green, I. (2015). Supervision pedagogies: Narratives from the field. Teaching in Higher Education, 20(1), 107–118. Hadi, N. U., & Muhammad, B. (2019). Factors influencing postgraduate students’ performance: A high order top-down structural equation modelling approach. Educational Sciences: Theory and Practice, 19(2). Hanover Research. (2014). Strategies for improving student retention. Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 81–112. Heyns, T., Bresser, P., Buys, T., Coetzee, I., Korkie, E., White, Z., & McCormack, B. (2019). Twelve tips for supervisors to move towards person-centred research supervision in health care sciences. Medical Teacher. https://doi.org/10.1080/0142159X.2018.1533241 Ives, G., & Rowley, G. (2005). Supervisor selection or allocation and continuity of supervision: Ph. D. students’ progress and outcomes. Studies in Higher Education, 30(5), 535–555. Johnson, L., Lee, A., & Green, B. (2000). The Ph.D. and the autonomous self: Gender, rationality and postgraduate pedagogy. Studies in Higher Education, 25(2), 135–147. Kálmán, O., Horváth, L., Kardos, D., Kozma, B., Feyisa, M. B., & Rónay, Z. (2022). Review of benefits and challenges of co-supervision in doctoral education. European Journal of Education, 57, 452–468. https://doi.org/10.1111/ejed.12518 Kim, K. H., & Spencer-Oatey, H. (2021). Enhancing the recruitment of postgraduate researchers from diverse countries: Managing the application process. Higher Education, 82(5), 917–935. Kumar, R. (2019). Research methodology, a step-by-step guide for beginners (5th ed.). SAGE. Lessing, A. C., & Schulze, S. (2003). Lecturers’ experience of postgraduate supervision in a distance education context. South African Journal of Higher Education, 17(2), 159–168. Lindsay, S. (2015). What works for doctoral students in completing their thesis? Teaching in Higher Education, 20(2), 183–196. Liu, S., Chen, Y., Li, S., Xu, N., Tang, C., & Wei, Y. (2021). What are the important factors influencing the recruitment and retention of doctoral students in a public health setting? A discrete choice experiment survey in China. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18, 9474. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18189474 Manyike, T. V. (2017). Postgraduate supervision at an open distance e-learning institution in South Africa. South African Journal of Education, 37(2), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.15700/saje.v37n2a 1354 Mapasela, M. L. E., & Wilkinson, A. C. (2005). The pains and gains of supervising postgraduate students from a distance: The case of six students from Lesotho. South African Journal of Higher Education, 19, 1238–1254. Maringe, F., & Gibbs, P. (2008). Marketing higher education: Theory and practice. McGraw-Hill Education (UK).

56

K. Luneta

Martin, B. (2013). Countering supervisor exploitation. Journal of Scholarly Publishing, 45(1), 74– 86. McKenna, S., Clarence-Fincham, J., Boughey, C., Wels, H., & van den Heuvel, H. (Eds.). (2017). Strengthening postgraduate supervision. Stellenbosch: African Sun Media. Mellors-Bourne, R., Metcalfe, J., Pearce, E., & Hooley, T. (2014). Understanding the recruitment and selection of postgraduate researchers by English higher education institutions. Report to HEFCE by CRAC/Vitae and iCeGS: https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/46170827.pdf Mohan, M. (2020). Use of critical reflection as a research method: A case of research-induced distress? Indian Journal of Medical Ethics, 1, 19–20. https://doi.org/10.20529/IJME.2020.014. PMID: 32103803. Mouton, J., Boshoff, N., & James, M. (2015). A survey of doctoral supervisors in South Africa. South African Journal of Higher Education, 29(2), 1–22. Mouton, J. (2011). Doctoral production in South Africa: Statistics, challenges and responses. Perspectives in Education: The Changing Face of Doctoral Education in South Africa, 3(29), 13–29. Mutula, S. M. (2009). Building trust in supervisor-supervisee relationship: Case study of East and Southern Africa. In: Paper presented at the progress in library and information science in Southern Africa (PROLISSA) conference at the University of South Africa (UNISA), March 4–6, 2009. Neumann, R. (2005). Doctoral differences: Professional doctorates and PhDs compared. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 27(2), 173-188. Ngulube, P. (2019). Mapping supervision trends in doctoral research in library and information science in Nigeria and South Africa: Implications for collective learning. African Journal of Library, Archives and Information Science, 29(1), 1–16. Olmos-Lopez, P., & Sunderland, J. (2017). Doctoral supervisors’ and supervisees’ responses to cosupervision. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 41(6), 727–740. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 0309877X.2016.1177166 Ophey, L., & van Adrichem, M. (2016). PhD selection guide: How to get the right PhD candidate. [Google Scholar] Pete, N., & Jonathan, I. (1999). The marketing strategies of universities in the United Kingdom. The International Journal of Educational Management, 13(3), 126–134. Philpott, C. (2015). Reasons for doctoral non-completion: One non-completing doctoral student’s voice on limitations in the academic literature. Practitioner Research in Higher Education, 9(1), 67–72. Potane, J. D. & Mariano L. J. B. (2022). Benefits and difficulties of postgraduate studentresearchers: A qualitative inquiry. International Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities Inventions, 9(3), 6852–6861. https://doi.org/10.18535/ijsshi/v9i03.02 Spiller, D., Byrnes, G., & Bruce Ferguson, P. (2013). Enhancing postgraduate supervision through a process of conversational inquiry. Higher Education Research and Development, 32(5), 833– 845. Turner, G. (2015). Learning to supervise: Four journeys. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 52(1), 86–98. Trowler, P. (2022). Doctoral supervision: Sharpening the focus of the practice lens. Higher Education Research and Development. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2021.1937955 Ungadi, B. A. (2021). Challenges in doctoral supervision in South African Universities. Open Science Journal, 6(2) University of Georgia: Best Practices for Recruiting Underrepresented Students. http://gradschool. uga.edu/forms&publications/faculty/recruiting/Underrepresented.pdf Urbanoviˇc, J., Wilkins, S., & Huisman, J. (2016). Issues and challenges for small countries in attracting and hosting international students: The case of Lithuania. Studies in Higher Education, 41(3), 491–507. Van Schalkwyk, S., Mouton, J., Redelinghuys, H., & McKenna, S. (2020). A systematic analysis of doctoral publication trends in South Africa. South African Journal of Science, 116(7/8), Art. #7926, 9. https://doi.org/10.17159/sajs.2020/7926

3 Recruitment and Selection of Doctoral Candidates

57

Wadesango, N., & Machingambi, S. (2011). Post graduate students’ experiences with research supervision. Journal of Social Anthropology, 2(1), 31–37. Welch, A. J. (2004). The researcher’s reflections on the research process. Nursing Science Quarterly, 17(3), 201–207. https://doi.org/10.1177/0894318404266424. PMID: 15200719. Wisker, G., Robinson, G., Trafford, V., Warnes, M., & Creighton, E. (2003). From supervisory dialogues to successful Ph.D.: Strategies supporting and enabling the learning conversations of staff and students at postgraduate level. Teaching in Higher Education, 8(3), 383–397.

4

Supervisory Relationships with Doctoral Candidates Frans N. Haimbodi

Abstract

Scholars concur that the supervisory relationship is fundamental to doctoral students’ success. The gradual development of the supervisory relationship occurs through encounters in which supervisors and supervisees evaluate each other in terms of ideologies, values, and behaviours as well as tones and manners of communication. In positive cases, the quality of the supervisory relationship contributes to the candidates’ overall wellbeing, satisfaction, and progress regarding research. In less fortunate cases, a tense or otherwise unsatisfactory supervisory relationship can lead to distress and dropouts. This chapter explores the experiences of doctoral supervisors related to the supervisory relationships by discussing accounts of 14 doctoral supervisors from three universities in Southern Africa. The chapter adds a critical view of issues affecting progress of research supervision on the successful completion of a doctoral studies.

4.1

Introduction

Good supervisory relationships are fundamental to the success of the learning experience, for the sense of satisfaction of both supervisors and doctoral student, for the students’ growth of research skills, and for the shaping of successful career trajectories of both student and supervisors (Cekiso et al., 2019). The gradual development of the supervisory relationship occurs through encounters during which supervisors and students evaluate each other in terms of ideologies, values, and behaviours as well as tones and manners of communication. Collins (2015) demonstrates that supervisory relations are multifaceted and dynamic, lengthy and F. N. Haimbodi (B) University of Namibia, Windhoek, Namibia e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 K. Luneta et al. (eds.), Doctoral Supervision in Southern Africa, Springer Texts in Education, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-46899-5_4

59

60

F. N. Haimbodi

may involve conflicts. In positive cases, the quality of the supervisory relationship contributes to the candidates’ overall wellbeing, satisfaction, and progress regarding research. In less fortunate cases, a tense or otherwise unsatisfactory supervisory relationship can lead to distress and dropouts. Several scholars have studied factors contributing to successful doctoral supervision at universities, and have highlighted a mismatch in expectations from students and supervisors as one common aspect delaying success (Boehe, 2016; Cekiso et al., 2019; Leijen et al., 2016). To be aware of the expectations of both supervisors and students, it is necessary to highlight the experiences of both parties, related to supervisory relationships. Understanding the experiences of supervisors and students could help to improve provision of postgraduate programmes by ensuring a focus on the needs of both (Cekiso et al., 2019). This chapter, therefore, explores the experiences of supervisors related to the supervisory relationships. It adds a critical view of issues affecting progress of research supervision.

4.2

Supervisory Relationships

The supervisory relationship is considered fundamental to success in doctoral studies as it plays a crucial role in the realization of the research goals (Boehe, 2016; Cekiso et al., 2019; Vähämäki et al., 2021). A supervisor has a role of a mentor, a coach, a co-traveller, and a friend providing guidance and support to candidates towards developing scholarly and research skills such as academic writing, creativity, and collecting and interpreting data with the aim of contributing to improving practice (McFarlane, 2010). Although supervisors oversee the supervision process, many have reported to have experienced difficulties in nurturing supervisory relationships (Collins, 2015). The relationship between the student and supervisor influences successful completion of the work. Supervisory relationships develop through encounters during which supervisors and supervisees evaluate each other in terms of ideologies, values, and behaviours as well as tones and manners of communication (Lee & Green, 2009). Problems associated with supervisory relationship have been attributed to, for example, supervisory styles (Lee, 2008), interpersonal compatibility (Gatfield, 2005; Mainhard et al., 2009), incompatibility of topics (Ives & Rowley, 2005), conflicting expectations (Zhao & Liu, 2007), and paternalistic supervisory style (Manathunga, 2007). Supervisors might lay out too many expectations for students which students perceive as not immediately aligned with realizing the completion of the project. Students could also be expecting more of the supervisors’ involvement in the study, looking for easier routes to the completion of projects and avoiding ‘research adventures’. Many institutions at least implicitly adopt the apprenticeship style to doctoral supervision (Halse & Bansel, 2012; Mainhard et al., 2009), whereby the doctorate is viewed as a rite of passage: the student is a neophyte researcher who gains credential as a scholar through the guidance and direction of an expert

4 Supervisory Relationships with Doctoral Candidates

61

(supervisor) in the discipline. This practice has impacts on supervisory relationships and has attracted criticism by some scholars (Halse & Bansel, 2012). In a positive supervisor/student relationship, apprenticeship offers students an opportunity to learn from and be mentored by an experienced scholar who also acts as an advocate and sponsor for the student during candidature and in his/her postdoctoral career. In contrast, a negative apprenticeship can involve a destructive ‘master–slave’ relationship that reduces doctoral education to an ‘oedipal model of scholarly training’ (Damrosch, 2006, p. 40) that inhibits innovation. Some scholars believe that there is a need for personal and holistic style of supervision to maximize learning and quality outputs of postgraduate students. However, care should be taken to allow students the autonomy to learn, conduct research independently and grow into scholars. Other scholars (e.g. Vähämäki et al., 2021) frame the supervisory relationship as not only a knowledge-based research teaching effort but also as a mentorship kind of co-operation and collaboration (Ugrin et al., 2008) that brings two or more individuals together to work over a period of several years. Many academics believe that the focus of the study should be clear and shared, and all parties should commit to task (e.g. Snowden, 2014). Students and supervisors should also have a clear idea of what is required at every stage of a research degree. Others (e.g. Halse & Bansel, 2012) argue that doctoral supervision is not ‘just’ a pedagogical practice and propose that doctoral supervision is viewed as a praxis involving a ‘learning alliance’ between multiple institutional agents grounded in a relational ethics of mutual responsibility. Although unsuccessful supervisions are frequently reported to have had poor student-supervisor relationship (Snowden, 2014), this does not necessarily imply that relationship quality should be of central concern in the supervisory process (Snowden, 2014). Snowden (2014) concludes by arguing that the most important aspect of research supervision is clarity of focus: in a clear supervisory process, all parties can focus on the tasks necessary to successfully complete a study. If the focus of the process is on successful outcome, as measured by completion of the study, then there is perhaps no need to deconstruct the supervisory relationship further.

4.3

Methodology

In this chapter, the author relates to accounts from doctoral supervisors at Universities in Southern Africa. A total of 14 academics who participated in the Southern African – UCL Supervision Collaboration [SAUSC] series of 12 workshops in 2022 freely gave personal accounts of experiences with doctoral supervision. These academics were from University of Namibia [UNAM], University of Johannesburg [UJ] and the University of Zambia [UNZA]. The participants further suggested possible ways to improve supervisory relationships at southern African universities.

62

F. N. Haimbodi

4.4

Supervisors’ Experiences

Participants provided accounts of personal experiences with doctoral research supervision. This chapter analyses supervisors’ experiences successively by supervision styles, communication, nurturing the relationship, supporting students, supervision agreement, power struggles, and enhancing supervisory relationships.

4.4.1

Supervision Styles

Boehe (2016, p. 400) defines the supervisory style “as the principles that govern the relationship between supervisor and supervisee in research, be they intended or unintended, explicit or implicit”. It is therefore important to adopt clear and agreed guidelines on the style of supervision, to establish a smooth supervisory relationship with one’s doctoral students. Participating supervisors indicated their preferred style/approach to supervision of doctoral studies: some preferred the high support and high structure supervisory style, also called the “contractual” style, as it is considered more successful in terms of high and timely completion (Gatfield, 2005). One supervisor related to her experience: From my first meeting with each of my doctoral students, I ask them to draw up their own workplan clearly stipulating what they want to complete at what date and most importantly encouraging them to try and meet their own deadlines (UNAM Academic).

Students were reported to have found this strategy helpful and are often then very motivated to work towards achieving their own set targets. The approach appears in line with Lindsay’s (2015) argument that students and supervisors need a clear vision of what standard they are working towards and a strategy of how to attain it. This may take the form, for example, of a strong supervisory relationship that supports continuous writing, project management and feedback. Doctoral students are mostly expected to work independently but supervisors should be flexible (Collins, 2015) and accommodative, given the demands and challenges of the doctoral degree and most importantly students’ varying needs. As advocated by Hanse and Bansel (2012), it is important to build up relationships among doctoral students, as well as between supervisor and the students, by creating a supportive learning environment that can enhance timely completion and high quality outputs. Emphasising the need for supervisors to be flexible in their supervision approach, one supervisor indicated that she recently had to reduce the high structure supervisory style such as having weekly meetings and regular progress reports for most of her doctoral students because of the COVID-19 impact on their experimental research work and lack of frequent data generation. The supervisor had, instead, promoted a flexible period of meetings and progress reports for most of her students.

4 Supervisory Relationships with Doctoral Candidates

63

A supervisor from a South African university believes in a rather different approach to doctoral supervision as opposed to the contractual style, suggesting that might not be adequate for research tasks that have a high degree of uncertainty: I prefer the high support and high structure supervisory style especially at the early stages (first year) of the doctoral programme as that allows for a better refinement of the key research questions and helps the student to better grasp the main aim of their project and the role of the student in their project. This also helps in better tracking of the students’ progress and evaluation of the level of transition to an independent researcher, which is key in a doctoral programme (UJ Academic).

Another supervisor indicated that he strives to always develop a sense of community with his students. As members of that community, students are responsible not only to themselves, but to the other members of the community, including their supervisor. This is in line with scholars such as Vahamaki et al. (2021) who perceive the supervisory relationship as consisting of the development of students with research-based knowledge but also as a process of mentoring students (Ugrin et al., 2008): both shape the working relationship between the two parties for the Ph.D. study period. This supervisor further reiterated the importance of working with socio-cultural perspectives on learning in ensuring high quality supervision, and felt that had resulted in his students feeling empowered, appreciated, and included in their own learning of requisite research skills, as in a typical constructivist learning environment. Previous studies have attributed successful supervision to a healthy student-supervisor relationship (e.g. Bekessy & Wintle, 2006 in Snowden, 2014) though as above, Snowden (2014) objects to considering the quality of the relationship as central to supervision. For some supervisors, the preferred style changes from high support and high structure supervisory style to only high support through the doctoral journey as students mature academically. This is consistent with the literature suggesting that supervisory styles may vary over time or along the different research phases (e.g. Gatfield, 2005). In other studies, supervisory styles may vary according to the characteristics of research students (Murphy et al., 2007). For example, there is naturally minimum physical meeting with doctoral students who are mostly staying far from the campus or candidates who are working in fulltime jobs and can only meet the supervisor at irregular intervals, and that will to some extent be reflected int eh supervisory relationship.

4.4.2

Communication

Participating supervisors indicated that communication is crucial for a successful doctoral supervision, and highlighted that they make efforts to keep good communication with their doctoral students. One supervisor said:

64

F. N. Haimbodi I rely heavily on using emails, phone calls and WhatsApp communications to build a strong, healthy relationship with my students and give them encouragement and support (UNAM Academic).

Frequent communication has allowed supervisors and their doctoral students to gradually develop a meaningful supervisory relationship, as identified by Lee and Green (2009), who see supervisor and supervisees constantly evaluating one another in terms of ideologies, values and communication behaviours. Supervision of postgraduate students’ research at doctoral level needs to be informed by students’ sociocultural background (Mavuru & Ramnarain, 2020): supervisors need to create meaningful and academically productive working relationships with doctoral students, whatever their background, and be able to care and empathise while simultaneously maintaining a disciplined and accountable work ethic. On the use of WhatsApp for communications between students and supervisors, Rambe and Mkono (2018) note that WhatsApp creates “ambient, protected habitats for student self-expression, which allowed supervisors to engage friendlier, candidly and assertively” in comparison to face-to-face and email conversations (p. 25). Rambe and Mknono (2018), therefore, recommend the use of WhatsApp or similar tool in supervision, as sustaining academic relationships and promoting an efficient mentorship process. Additionally, supervisors emphasized creation of contact time with doctoral candidates (cf. Collins, 2015) so that students share their developing thoughts about their research focus and allow supervisors to provide constructive feedback, which, if taken into consideration, moves the candidate to another level of understanding in terms of thinking about their research. Ideally candidates should be treated as individuals requiring unique attention according to their needs (Collins, 2015).

4.4.3

Nurturing the Relationships

Snowden (2014, p. 1132) in her study on Against intimacy: focusing on the task in hand in doctoral supervision, advised that “the best way of showing a student that you are interested in them is to understand exactly how they can get from where they are to where they need to be. This requires clarity of action as understood by both parties.” One supervisor narrated an incident with his doctoral student: I had a doctoral student who was not making good progress for the whole of last 2021 due to Covid-19 related problems. Then early 2022 I decided to meet the student via a Zoom meeting. I then realized in that meeting that my student had several family issues that are affecting his study progress. The student blamed me for only reaching out to him at that moment. I immediately realized that if I do not address the students’ concerns, we were likely going to have strained relationship. Therefore, in the future, I will make sure that I will be pro-active in discussing supervisor-supervisee roles during first meetings with my candidates so that we could all start on the same page with regards to these roles (UNAM Academic).

4 Supervisory Relationships with Doctoral Candidates

65

As a mentor, the supervisor should be mindful that the students’ personal lives do influence their commitment to the study. Understanding the role of social relationship in enhancing learning is important, ensuring that this is established so that the supervisor can relate to doctoral candidates professionally (Halse & Bansel, 2012) - including by making sure that there is clarity of focus at each stage of the research journey (Snowden, 2014).

4.4.4

Support to Students

Providing support to doctoral candidates is considered by participating supervisors to be part of the mentoring process. Support can range from organisation of research seminars where candidates are encouraged to present their work and receive feedback from academics and fellows alike, so that students collaboratively build each other (Grant, 2005). Through this process the candidate is given the opportunity to articulate and refine their thinking, as other candidates and supervisors ask questions and provide alternative ways of enhancing the focus of the research. On providing support, one supervisor related: Based on the supervisory relationship with candidates, I have learnt that it is about providing guidance and support, creating contact time, providing constructive feedback, considering candidates as individuals requiring unique attention, clarity of focus at each stage of research, and networking so that learning is collaboratively constructed amidst tensions that might arise (UNZA Academic).

Grant (2005, p. 340) alludes to the “Psy-Supervisor” who possesses expertise but is primarily concerned with motivating and supporting candidates. Unfortunately, the attributes of “Psy-Supervision” cannot be properly measured (Grant, 2005, p. 341). However, Psy-Supervision should resonate as at least an element of supervisory relationships. Firth and Martens (2008, p. 284) caution that “excessive or inappropriate emotions” expressed by the candidate or supervisor can result in supervision difficulties. Supervisor-supervisee personality influences the supervision process, and “defensive and interpersonal” attributes are helpful when reflecting about supervisory relationships (Eagle, 2017, p. 125).

4.4.5

Conflict Resolution

Supervisory relationships with candidates are not without tensions. Firth and Martens (2008) highlighted the need for an appropriate balance between emotional and rational elements within any effective supervisory practice. Most supervisors will have observed fragile and tenuous supervisory relationships that can negatively impact sustainable pursuit of research studies by postgraduate students. For instance, one supervisor relates that:

66

F. N. Haimbodi I experienced a situation where Brian (Pseudonym) found it increasing difficult to adhere to agreed timelines regarding submission of drafts. To resolve the issue at hand, I adopted a rational approach by constructively engaging the student on the merits and demerits of adhering to agreed timelines during the research journey. My rational approach is predicated on values such as professional integrity and social justice. I make every effort to urge my postgraduate students to fully embrace these values for the benefit of their professional growth as researchers and aspiring academics (UJ Academic).

Another supervisor related an incident with a student not submitting work of the expected standard: I recall how my doctoral candidate was not ensuring that the literature review makes sense in terms of relating it to the focus of the study. This observation was made time and again and the candidate did not seem to be addressing the problem (UNZA Academic).

On the one hand in doctoral studies students experience an overwhelming and stressful search for literatures. On the other hand, supervisors draw on deep disciplinary knowledge, experience and possess networks to locate the appropriate information and sources (Warburton & Macauley, 2014). Doctoral supervision should be a mentorship process where supervisors for example guide their students to improve the quality of the literature review. As mentors, the supervisors must model what it means to relate literature to the focus of the study using a selected text. Only through such modelling will the student be sufficiently guided to produce work of the required standard.

4.4.6

Supervision Agreement

A student-supervisor agreement contract clearly articulates the specific roles of supervisors and postgraduate students, and Snowden (2014) argues that it is always helpful to have such clarity. Supervisors should always ensure that postgraduate students under their supervision commit to the student-supervisor agreement before embarking on their research studies. Once signed by all parties involved, the contract is stored in the student file for safe keeping. The student-supervisor agreement contract has been extremely helpful in managing conflict that arose as part of the supervisory relationships with candidates, itself provides a plausible mechanism through which simmering tensions can be resolved. Snowden (2014) argues that both student and supervisor need to have a clear idea of what is required at every stage of doctoral degree.

4.4.7

Power Struggles

One factor affecting student-supervisor relationships is power differences (Hodza, 2007) arising from positions in agency hierarchies. “If not managed well, power discrepancies may negatively affect the student’s progress” (Frick et al., 2010).

4 Supervisory Relationships with Doctoral Candidates

67

Supervisors might experience pressure from their institutions regarding research outputs, which in turn might influence them in being more, perhaps overly-, directive in the research output of their students. Power differences could also arise via conflicting expectations between student and supervisor ultimately affecting the style and approach to the supervision process (Frick et al., 2010). Participating supervisors indicated several conflicts related to power struggles: I recently mediated a student grievance lodged against a supervisor. The experience yielded learnings about keeping within boundaries of professionalism in the supervisory relationship and reinforced that supervisors are in an inescapable power relationship (UJ Academic).

Manathunga (2007, p. 208) argues that “power” is a central aspect of all pedagogic practice and that the notion of supervisor as mentor does not remove the play of power in a supervisory relationship. Benmore (2016, p. 1255) further points out that handling “primary boundaries” of supervision namely the “temporal and cognitive dimensions,” are necessary but there is also an interplay with “secondary boundaries” of the “physical, emotional and relational” elements throughout the supervision process. The master/apprentice model has increasingly been replaced by group/team supervision because it actively encourages self-regulation for supervisors; students take more active role in managing their supervision and it simply changes the way power operates in supervision; there is no more command and control, and there is more nuanced and negotiated power issue with trust (Robertson, 2017). Okeke-Uzodike (2021) notes that power dynamics are influenced by socioeconomic factors such as “culture, gender, ethnicity, expertise, age and race” (p. 1179). In academic settings, supervisors often possess the expertise and age power and this is used in leading discussions, sharing of ideas, guiding the research project and encouraging quality work from students. Research supervision is determined by continuity and change. Good research practice for a particular discipline is dependent on that discipline’s traditions, customs, and practices and such traditions, practices and customs may be interpreted by supervisors in terms of their political, epistemological as well as ideological baggage (Grant et al., 2014). These different models of supervision offer advantages and disadvantages. For instance, the traditional approach, though it provides some private space, does bring some power issues (Manathunga, 2005). In the group model, power is diffused, there is less tension and isolation (Dysthe, et al., 2006; Parker, 2009 and there is an increased sense of community, supportive learning environment, enculturation, and networks (Manathunga, 2005). Manathunga (2005) describes the challenges we have to manage in the supervisory relationship, suggesting that identity and power in supervisory relationships involve emotional struggles. There is a shift of power and change in identity for student and supervisor, and to manage the relationship requires critical implementation. The supervisor has a key role to play in each boundary: the time boundary (e.g., during the early days/data collection stage and stages leading to study completion), cognition boundary (exploring,

68

F. N. Haimbodi

discovering, and critically thinking about the originality of research and contribution to knowledge) and secondary boundary – there are possible supervisory roles through relational, emotional and physical secondary boundaries. Supervision is a balancing act: supervisors need to find balance of how to inspire, secure and maintain students’ well-founded trust.

4.4.8

Enhancing Supervisory Relationships

According to Cornér et al. (2017), a functional supervisor-student relationship is one of the most important determinants of success on the doctoral journey because doctoral students face high and potentially strenuous demands. Hence, anyone who has completed his/her Ph.D. will agree with these authors (Cornér et al., 2017). One supervisor related: Using my own experience as a doctoral student studying in foreign countries, there so many times I felt like quitting because one of my supervisors had swinging moods. I felt depressed most of the time and I cried a lot. Luckily, we had postgraduate support groups during seminars, and I got support from other colleagues. I encourage the use of peer groups by sharing contact details of other students and encourage them to meet via WhatsApp or other social forms for support and encouragement (UNAM Academic).

Cornér et al. (2017) therefore suggest that doctoral students benefit from having the opportunity to use several and varying sources of doctoral supervision, including other postgraduate students, as well as other members of the research group.

4.5

Conclusion

Supervisory relationships are crucial for the realisation of research goals. Students need to be efficiently and effectively supervised to ensure success. Supervisors should offer high quality mentorship which monitors students’ outputs to the required standards and delivers timely outputs. Supervisors need be aware that the supervision process is a unified learning and developmental process that takes place within a bond between supervisors and the doctoral candidate. Both supervisors and candidates need the right interactive skills, and to show tolerance and appreciation towards each other in order to achieve their shared goals.

References Benmore, A. (2016). Boundary management in doctoral supervision: How supervisors negotiate roles and role transitions throughout the supervisory journey. Studies in Higher Education, 41(7), 1251–1264. Boehe, D. M. (2016). Supervisory styles: A contingency framework. Studies in Higher Education, 41(3), 399–414.

4 Supervisory Relationships with Doctoral Candidates

69

Cekiso, M., Tshotsho, B., Masha, R., & Saziwa, T. (2019). Supervision experiences of postgraduate research students at one South African Higher Education Institution. South African Journal of Higher Education, 33(3), 8–25. https://doi.org/10.20853/33-3-2913 Collins, B. (2015). Reflections on doctoral supervision: Drawing from the experiences of students with additional learning needs in two universities. Teaching in Higher Education, 20(6), 587– 600. Cornér, S., Löfström, E., & Pyhältö, K. (2017). The relationship between doctoral students’ perceptions of supervision and burnout. International Journal of Doctoral Studies, 12, 91–106. Retrieved from http://www.informingscience.org/Publications/3754 (CC BY-NC 4.0). Damrosch, D. (2006). Vectors of change. In C. M. Golde & G. E. Walker (Eds.), Envisioning the future of doctoral education: Preparing stewards of the discipline (pp. 34–43). JosseyBass. Dysthe, O., Samara, A., & Westrheim, K. (2006). Multivoiced supervision of master’s students: A case study of alternative supervision practices in higher education. Studies in Higher Education, 31, 299–318. Eagle, G. (2017). The role of personality styles in the supervision process. Strengthening Postgraduate Supervision, 11, 119. Firth, A., & Martens, E. (2008). Transforming supervisors? A critique of post-liberal approaches to research supervision. Teaching in Higher Education, 13(3), 279–289. Frick, T. W., Chadha, R., Watson, C., & Zlatkovska, E. (2010). Improving course evaluations to improve instruction and complex learning in higher education. Educational Technology Research and Development, 58(2), 115–136. Gatfield, T. (2005). An investigation into Ph.D. supervisory management styles: Development of a dynamic conceptual model and its managerial implications. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 27(3), 311–325. 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. Grant, K., Hackney, R., & Edgar, D. (2014). Postgraduate research supervision: An ‘agreed’ conceptual view of good practice through derived metaphors. International Journal of Doctoral Studies, (9), 43–60. Retrieved from http://ijds.org/Volume9/IJDSv9p043-060Grant0403.pdf Halse, C., & Bansel, P. (2012). The learning alliance: Ethics in doctoral supervision. OXford Review of Education, 38(4), 377–392. https://doi.org/10.1080/03054985.2012.706219 Hodza, F. (2007). Managing the student-supervisor relationship for successful postgraduate supervision: A sociological perspective. South African Journal of Higher Education, 21(8), 1155– 1165. Ives, G., & Rowley, G. (2005). Supervisor selection or allocation and continuity of supervision: Ph.D. students’ progress and outcomes. Studies in higher education, 30(5), 535–555. Lee, A., & Green, B. (2009). Supervision as metaphor. Studies in Higher Education, 34(6), 615– 630. Lee, A. (2008). How are doctoral students supervised? Concepts of doctoral research supervision. Studies in Higher Education, 33(3), 267–281. Leijen, Ä., Lepp, L., & Remmik, M. (2016). Why did I drop out? Former students’ recollections about their study process and factors related to leaving the doctoral studies. Studies in Continuing Education, 38(2), 129–144. Lindsay, S. (2015). What works for doctoral students in completing their thesis? Teaching in Higher Education, 20(2), 183–196. Mainhard, T., Van Der Rijst, R., Van Tartwijk, J., & Wubbels, T. (2009). A model for the supervisor–doctoral student relationship. Higher Education, 58(3), 359–373. Manathunga, C. (2007). Supervision as mentoring: The role of power and boundary crossing. Studies in Continuing Education, 29(2), 207–221. https://doi.org/10.1080/01580370701424650 Manathunga, C. (2005). The development of research supervision: ‘Turning the light on private space.’ International Journal for Academic Development, 10(1), 17–30. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 13601440500099977

70

F. N. Haimbodi

Mavuru, L., & Ramnarain, U. (2020). Learners’ socio-cultural backgrounds and science teaching and learning: A case study of township schools in South Africa. Cultural Studies of Science Education. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11422-020-09974-8 McFarlane, J. (2010). Group supervision: An appropriate way to guide postgraduate students? Acta Academica, 42(4), 148–170. Murphy, N., Bain, J. D., & Conrad, L. (2007). Orientations to research higher degree supervision. Higher Education, 53(2), 209–234. Okeke-Uzodike, O. E. (2021). Postgraduate supervision in a South African transforming academic environment: A reflexivity approach. Issues in Educational Research, 31(4), 1175–1194. Parker, S. (2009). Faith development theory as a context for supervision of spiritual and religious issues. Counselor Education and Supervision, 49(1), 39–53. Rambe, P., & Mkono, M. (2018). Appropriating WhatsApp-mediated postgraduate supervision to negotiate “relational authenticity” in resource-constrained environments. British Journal of Educational Technology, 1, 1–33. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12688 Robertson, M. J. (2017). Team modes and power: Supervision of doctoral students. Higher Education Research and Development, 36(2), 358–371. Snowden, A. (2014). Against intimacy: Focusing on the task in hand in Ph.D. supervision. British Journal of Nursing, 23(21), 1126–1132. Ugrin, J. C., Odom, M. D., & Pearson, J. M. (2008). Exploring the importance of mentoring for new scholars: A social exchange perspective. Journal of Information Systems Education, 19(3), 343. Vähämäki, M., Saru, E., & Palmunen, L. M. (2021). Doctoral supervision as an academic practice and leader–member relationship: A critical approach to relationship dynamics. The International Journal of Management Education, 19(3), 100510. Warburton, J., & Macauley, P. (2014). Wrangling the literature: Quietly contributing to HDR completions. Australian Academic and Research Libraries, 45(3), 159–175. Zhao, Z., & Liu, H. (2007, June). Spectral feature selection for supervised and unsupervised learning. In Proceedings of the 24th international conference on Machine learning (pp. 1151–1157).

5

Supervisory Relationships with Co-supervisors Hileni M. Kapenda

Abstract

Research ind‘icates that there is little evidence about doctoral supervisory relationships with co-supervisors, specifically in the Southern African context. Supervising a research project is not an easy task, let alone having two or more supervisors assigned to one doctoral student. However, the end results of supervision can be very rewarding. Recently, with higher institutions of learning putting emphasis on research output, most universities have established policies and regulations on how to supervise doctoral candidates. This chapter analyses benefits, challenges and resolving conflicts within co-supervisor relationships. Qualitative data were collected from more than ten virtual workshop sessions in which the participants were given a case study to analyze or a scenario focused on handling conflicting advice from co-supervision. This chapter underscores the importance of establishing decent, respectable supervisory relationships within or among co-supervisors.

5.1

Introduction: What is Co-supervision?

Paul et al. (2014) define the term co-supervision as a process where “two academics sharing the entire responsibility of guiding a doctoral student from admission to program completion, including the selection of other committee members and/or examiners” (p. 1). In this chapter, I have used the terms cosupervision, joint supervision and team supervision interchangeably. According to Manathunga (2012), “…team supervision represents both an increase in the intensity of surveillance and disciplining of students by several supervisors and H. M. Kapenda (B) University of Namibia, Windhoek, Namibia e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 K. Luneta et al. (eds.), Doctoral Supervision in Southern Africa, Springer Texts in Education, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-46899-5_5

71

72

H. M. Kapenda

a diffusion of this intensity as supervisors are engaged in watching (and at times disciplining) each other” (p. 31). That means co-supervision is not just about supervisors but it involves supervisees as well as librarians, who very often assist with surfing the internet and getting relevant information concerning literature reviews, journals, books etc. In recent times, most higher institutions of learning globally are putting emphasis on research output and have often, especially in the northern hemisphere, established policies and regulations on how to supervise doctoral candidates. According to Johansen et al. (2019), “the increasing frequency of team supervision at Norwegian universities may be considered as result of a forced development since government funding models on completion rates and completion time has exerted pressure on institutions” (p. 72). Additionally, Robertson (2017) states that team supervision has been seen as offering a ‘safety net’ in response to concerns about risks connected with traditional dyadic models of supervision in which a single supervisor works with a single doctoral student. McFarlane (2010) explains that supervision includes helping students to engage in research that will play a role in improving practice and at the same time paying attention to important process objectives such as developing the researchers’ skills in academic writing, rigorous reasoning, and in collecting and interpreting data. Consequently, team supervision, co-supervision or joint supervision is broadly understood as the formally agreed, regular supervision of a research student by two or more academics with the aim to facilitate effective progress for the student in his/her research project (Olmos-Lopez & Sunderland, 2013). This chapter specifically highlights the importance of establishing decent, respectable supervisory relationships within or among co-supervisors in their supervisory roles of doctoral candidates. Researchers such as Olmos-López and Sunderland (2017), Grossman and Crowther (2015), have highlighted several responsibilities to be negotiated between supervisors, including who will organize meetings; how to split workload; means and ways of communication; who will take final responsibility for the content; how conflicting advice to the postgraduate will be handled, and so on. To highlight more on this aspect on co-supervision or team supervision, the following sections include my own experience as a co-supervisor specifically describing my supervisory relationships with other supervisors, as well as giving vignettes from other colleagues at other higher institutions of learning in the Southern African region. The colleagues took part in the online Southern Africa-UCL Supervision Collaboration (SAUSC) project on supervision recognition training program that involved more than six two-part collaborative developmental sessions on doctoral supervision.

5 Supervisory Relationships with Co-supervisors

5.2

73

My Own Experience as a Co-supervisor

For my first supervision of doctoral students, I was asked to co-supervise a Ph.D. candidate with a senior member of staff who has lots of experience in supervising research projects. This put me at ease because I mostly relied on the main supervisor to provide guidance—so that when I was not sure about certain things, I approached the main supervisor first before I acted on things. Holtman and Mukwanda (2014) in their study on ‘Challenges confronting the quality of postgraduate research supervision and its effect on time-to-degree and throughput rates: A case of a South Africa university’, noted that the majority of study participants stated that co-supervision is beneficial to novice supervisors and that it helps the students to cope with the problems that they experience. Although at the very beginning of my supervisory duties I had a tendency to rely more on my mentor, this did not mean I did not do my duties. I made sure that I read all the student’s work and provided comments through the main supervisor. We would first meet as supervisors and discuss our comments before the main supervisor sent the feedback to the student and I was always copied in all the correspondences. Of course, I do believe that there is no one simple formula for co-supervision and the situations could differ from institution to institution. Therefore, whatever the case may be, supervisors should have a common understanding and work harmoniously in order to make sure that their differences or disagreements cannot affect the student (supervisee). Undeniably, supervisory disagreements are not always a bad thing, as long as they are constructive. In fact, from their study done in Norway on ‘Team supervision of doctoral students: a qualitative inquiry’, Johansen et al. (2019), expressed that the diversities or differences in supervisory approaches were regarded as complementary for the interactions within the supervisory team and hence, perceived as an advantage. However, as a junior co-supervisor at that time, I tried to leave the final decision with the main supervisor as an accountable person; since Grossman and Crowther (2015) noted that co-supervision can be used for supervision training especially for novice supervisors. Thus, Olmos-López and Sunderland (2017) critically recommend that the discussion of co-supervision should highlight issues of communication, not forgetting that healthy academic disagreements during discussions are also vital. In the next section, I therefore present the personal experiences of academics from neighbouring Southern African universities, by sharing their involvements and experiences on supervisory relationships with other co-supervisors; using verbatim quotes as shown in the paragraphs under the sections below.

5.3

Relationships with Co-supervisors: Benefits

Olmos-López and Sunderland (2017) state that co-supervision or what they termed ‘team supervision’ is beneficial in the context that it offers a more transparent and visible form of supervision than solo supervision. Moreover, Holtman and

74

H. M. Kapenda

Mukwanda (2014) also reported that co-supervision is helpful especially to novice supervisors because it helps them to cope with the problems that they experience in their supervisory roles. Guerin (2017) states that in some situations, cosupervisors are recruited to contribute their expertise in disciplinary knowledge or specific research techniques and for many co-supervision offers the opportunity for junior academics to learn about supervisory practices by working alongside more experienced colleagues on the team. With some examples shown below, several colleagues were clear that as novice supervisors themselves they had both benefited from good co-supervision relationships with a more experienced colleague, who could offer practical wisdom of pacing, often complementary methodological knowledge, knowledge of administrative systems, handling students’ emotional and psychological stresses, just to mention but some. This colleague could not have put it clearer than this:

We should not overlook the benefits that come with having two supervisors or what others refer to as group supervision. The student stands to benefit from both the main and the co-supervisors because he/she is exposed to varying perspectives and is also exposed to various levels of expertise. The supervisors, especially novice supervisors also gain some skills by working with the experienced supervisors (UNAM academic).

Other colleagues emphasized the importance of co-supervision as follows:

The reasons for co-supervision can either be for sharing the load or for mentoring purposes. I have been a beneficiary of both instances where I recruited a co supervisor to share the supervision tasks due to high workload and also agreed to co supervise because I needed to learn from seasoned supervisor. I consider the later very important as I concur with Grossman and Crowther (2015) that “Supervision pedagogy and research teaching is a sophisticated skill worthy of professionalisation (p. 1). As such, in that ‘co-supervision-mentoring’ relationship I have co-supervised with my former PhD supervisor, now as a colleague. The co-supervision of his Doctoral student equipped me with not only the important supervisory skills, but I also learned the don’ts of a healthy relationship between supervisors. Such knowledge is important as one learns how to deal with differences in supervisory expectations, discipline norms, and on the best methods to tackle students’ demands (UJ academic).

I was formally appointed as co-supervisor to work cooperatively with principal supervisor to enhance candidate’s progress in the research (Olmos-Lopez & Sunderland, 2013) where I supervised a masters and a Doctoral candidate. My University allows for co-supervision in that one is bringing expertise and experience to bear on

5 Supervisory Relationships with Co-supervisors

75

the candidate’s research. Albeit to say that without coordination between the supervisor and the co-supervisors, the supervisory process becomes a futile venture (UNZA academic).

Similarly, some colleagues highlighted the benefits of co-supervision:

I have worked well with the co supervisors I engaged with. I attribute this to the selection of the appropriate co-supervisor whose strengths complement mine, whose personality does not clash with mine, and whom I can freely share, communicate, and agree to differ on certain matters without affecting our working relationship (UJ academic).

Before students undertake their research studies, I make every effort to engage the co-supervisor on the roadmap. In my experience, this engagement proved to be central to the successful execution of research projects which culminated in timeous completion of studies by postgraduate students. Constant engagement with co-supervisors enabled me to develop a pro-active approach which I employed to diagnose potential pitfalls that may hinder successful execution of research projects. In my view, constant engagement with co-supervisors is beneficial to postgraduate students as chances for the provision of conflicting feedback on submitted drafts is curtailed to a significant extent. I have also observed that sharing a common intellectual passion with co-supervisors is a central pillar upon which meaningful progress can be made on the pursuit of the research enterprise (UJ academic).

I enjoy the dynamic of having a co-supervisor attending meetings with the candidate. I have found co-supervision to be helpful to me in terms of greater critical feedback for candidates and support for me as the main supervisor. Advantages of co-supervision include providing more views which can promote rigour in research, pooling of expertise, alternating responsibilities, relieving of workload, thorough feedback and even motivating the supervisors (Paul et al., 2014, p. 3) (UJ academic).

Furthermore, as in the quote below, there is the importance of sharing workload:

76

H. M. Kapenda

I am co-supervising a Masters student with a post-doctoral research fellow (PDRF) in a role that is described as “expert advice” and “load sharing” (Grossman & Crowther, 2015, p. 2). The PDRF is an expert in quantitative research and his expertise is valuable in the methodological aspects of the study as well as the analysis of results. We share the supervision load as I led the introductory chapter, the literature review and fulfil the administrative functions. I am currently serving as a co-supervisor for two emeritus professors. The role that I play here is to provide “an academic mobility safety net” (Grossman & Crowther, 2015, p. 2) since my colleagues are post-retirement. The emeritus professors take the lead in the supervision process and I provide input at meetings and provide feedback on the final drafts of the proposal or the chapters (UJ academic).

The testimonies above illustrate how co-supervision can be used in a rewarding manner to benefit not just mentees and mentors but supervisees also. As alluded to earlier, several authors have highlighted the benefits and importance of team supervision, specifically when supervision involves doctoral, rather than masters, students. Paul et al. (2014) agreed with the advantages of co-supervision identified in the literature. They stated further that co-supervisory practices bring added know-how and knowledge to the supervisory process, such that beyond the content and operational expertise that is multiplied in co-supervision, the combined backgrounds of each supervisor brings a wide scope of experience to the student’s supervisory team. According to Grossman and Crowther (2015), co-supervision is used to support 33–70% of all South African Ph.D. candidates and can take various forms. Usually there is a main (principal) supervisor and formally appointed co-supervisors. So, if you have supervised a doctoral candidate to completion, you will know that doctoral supervision is not an easy task: team supervision can not only assist supervisors but can greatly contribute to students’ completion as well. Therefore, Grossman and Crowther (2015) stated that “co-supervision needs to be actively managed with all co-supervisors starting on common ground with periodic, built-in reviewing activities signposted within the programme on an ongoing basis”(p. 3). Corroborating these views, McFarlane (2010) and Parker (2009) expressed that group or team supervision is also seen as a way of diffusing power and increasing social learning in collaborative and collective environments. Consequently, supervisors should respect one another and work together in harmony with mutual understanding irrespective of their academic differences that might arise during their supervision contracts or tenure. Guerin (2017) cements the importance of co-supervision by stating that co-supervision has great benefits for both doctoral students and supervisors, ensuring that multiple perspectives and personalities are managed amicably and everyone gets what they want from their efforts. Further, Robertson (2017) suggests that the productive functioning of the team for all parties hinges largely on harmonious power relationships. It is therefore of utmost importance to create a conducive environment during the supervision process that could benefit both team players, namely, supervisors and students.

5 Supervisory Relationships with Co-supervisors

5.4

77

Relationships with Co-supervisors: Challenges

From my experience as a supervisor of postgraduate students, conflicts can easily arise between supervisors, for example if one supervisor is always late in providing feedback, if supervisors cannot reaching consensus, if there are delays in receiving updates from student’s progress, etc. At master level, I realized that it is easier to supervise solo rather than doing team supervision. On the other hand, doctoral supervision is really demanding, specifically if you have heavy workload and/or you are novice—and students need a richly informed, which might sometimes mean academically contested, experience. The colleagues who participated in these workshops have this to say concerning some of the challenges that may arise from team supervision:

Various challenges with co-supervision have also been reported. These problems centre around issues of commitment from the co-supervisor, conflicting feedback, disagreement on matters and the candidate putting one supervisor up against the other (Paul et al., 2014, pp. 4–5). In one of our supervision meetings I was providing critique of the candidate’s work when she caught me off guard and asked the co-supervisor what his view was. At that point I really felt that the candidate did not want to take my advice and was putting us up against each other. However, the co-supervisor did not enter into a debate on the matter (UJ academic). As co-supervisor for a Doctoral and Masters candidates, my experience is that in both scenarios, the candidates would have contact with the principal supervisor and me as co-supervisor at different appointed times, and the candidates would have submitted their work prior to the meetings. There was no coordination between the principal supervisor and me so that we could agree on what feedback to give the candidate. Furthermore, the same candidates I co-supervised at doctoral and masters level published the research with the principal supervisor. They did not recognise my supervisory contribution. This kind of supervisory relationship with co-supervisor disoriented the candidate in terms of what feedback to incorporate and why (UNZA academic).

In my experience as a co supervisor myself I learned and realised that the main supervisor should not throw his or her weight on the co-supervisor when it comes to decision making. My experience was that decisions were made such as appointment of Doctoral committee members without my involvement. Not only that, but the main supervisor also carried on as I did not exist to write manuscripts and publish with the student despite my immense input in supervising the student. It shows the complexity in the hierarchy and task allocation in co supervision. This negative experience has helped me to create a better relationship with my own co-supervisors where everyone is treated equally with appreciation and respect (UJ academic).

78

H. M. Kapenda

From the scenarios given above, it appears as if junior academics, who in this case acted as co-supervisors, felt that they were not given enough opportunities to showcase their strengths and academic talents in the supervisory work. In this context, Robertson (2017) cautions that more senior supervisors should allow for differences of opinion to be openly discussed and negotiated, allowing for more fluid relations within which both students and co-supervisors are able to share their views and learn from one another and from more senior supervisors. Therefore, it is important to note that although conflicts may emanate during the co-supervisory process; this should not hinder the ultimate goal of making sure that students should benefit from the co-supervisory exercises and as such not made to suffer from conflicts that may arise. The International Center for Academic Integrity (ICAI, 2021) explains and highlights ‘respect’ as one of the fundamental values of academic integrity by noting that scholarly community members usually succeed when there is respect for community members and for the diverse and sometimes contradictory opinions expressed. It further noted that the most vibrant and prolific learning environments are the ones that foster active engagement, including rigorous testing, and lively disagreements over ideas tempered by civility and courtesy to those who voice them. ICAI (2021) also emphasizes that members of academic communities could show respect by acknowledging intellectual contributions of other scholars through proper identification and citation of sources. Therefore, by nurturing environments in which all members show and enjoy respect becomes both an individual and a collective responsibility; hence augmenting a positive supervisory atmosphere.

5.5

Relationships with Co-supervisors: Resolving Conflicts

In this context, I will refer to the term (human) conflict as the incompatibility of interests, goals, values, needs and expectations (Dennen, 2005); more specifically by referring to cross-cutting conflicts (Dennen, 2005) as a way of being able to willingly negotiate disputes and seek ground for compromise. If team supervisors are able to handle human conflict, it will not only benefit their relationship but will also improve their connection with supervisees. The quotes below illustrate how some of the colleagues tried to handle conflicts as team members in the supervisory role:

I realised that there is a need to evaluate the evolution of the supervisory relationship with co-supervisors on an ongoing basis to proactively identity potential pitfalls for timeous resolution. In support of this sentiment, Taylor et al (2018) recommend regular reviews of the relationships between co-supervisors and students to ensure sustainable execution of research projects. With a view to proactively identify potential pitfalls during the supervisory process, Parker-Jenkins (2018) advocates for a need for co-supervisors to clarify their expectations of the research project itself,

5 Supervisory Relationships with Co-supervisors

79

who supervises what (e.g. one the theoretical foundation, the other the empirical), and arrangements for feedback to the candidate” (UJ academic).

Co-supervision can be helpful for a doctoral supervision process and can also be a problem if it is not well managed. My experience is that co-supervisors who bring different expertise, resources and experience to the supervisory team can be helpful and those who do not play an active role in the supervision and bring a complementary supervisory style could be a problem (UJ academic).

I have also come to the realization that in co-supervision there has to be negotiation of responsibilities between supervisors which include organisation of meetings, sharing workload, means and ways of communication, taking final responsibility of the content, and handling conflicting advice given candidate (Olmos-López & Sunderland, 2017; Grossman & Crowther, 2015). With this realisation, I will change my perception and experiences of co-supervision and participate as informed. I will also bring to the realisation of the principal supervisor about the importance of coordination through negotiation of responsibilities so that we are both aware of what each one is doing in the process of supervision. Hence, enhance the relationship between supervisors towards developing an independent researcher who is critical and innovative as well as contributing to practice in important and diverse ways (UNZA academic).

The adoption of egalitarian approaches serves to give quality to my interaction with co-supervisors. For instance, I successfully resolved clashes on the research roadmap with Prof Smith (Pseudonym) by identifying the source of conflict. The issue was essentially resolved through the adoption of egalitarian approach and by remaining firmly rooted in the key pillars underpinning our professional working relationship (UJ academic).

Trowler (2021) in his article “Doctoral supervision: sharpening the focus of the practice lens”, talked about ‘power relations’ and more specifically asked these vital questions in relation to doctoral supervision: Who makes decisions, how are they made, and what do they concern? What effects do they have? Who is empowered to be agentic and creative, who is not, and how is this enacted? Interesting enough, Trowler (2021), offer a case study in which he explains that power play

80

H. M. Kapenda

game occurring among supervisors could disrupt the candidate’s progress. It is therefore of utmost important to be able to handle and resolve any human conflict, especially in our roles as supervisors because the main aim in supervision is to assist students in achieving their goals and complete their studies. The ICAI (2021) report highlights different ways on how to establish and show respect to other colleagues as follows: • • • • • • •

Practise active listening; Receive feedback willingly; Accept that others’ thoughts and ideas have validity; Show empathy; Seek open communication; Affirm others and accept differences and; Recognize the consequences of our words and actions on others (p. 8).

Therefore, one way to foster and nurture conflicts among co-supervisors is to put into practice these guidelines.

5.6

Summary

The participants in this study expressed mixed emotions about the supervisory relationship with co-supervisors. Some had been appointed supervisors and/or cosupervisors, and conveyed the advantages as well as the disadvantages one could expect during the supervisory role, as team members rather than working solo. Robertson (2017) concluded that co-supervision or “team supervision may then become a site not only of doctoral education or knowledge production, but also of supervisor training for all level of experience” (p. 370). In agreement with Robertson views above, (as one of the participants in the training sessions on supervisory roles of doctoral students), I found the training more informative and very enriching with a variety of literature across the globe which I had previously been barely aware of. In summary, some of the advantages of co-supervision are presented below: • Co-supervision can be useful for a doctoral supervision process because cosupervisors who bring different expertise, resources and experience to the supervisory team can be helpful. • If the selection process of the appropriate co-supervisors whose strengths and weaknesses complement each other, then they could work well together. • Co-supervision is good practice; and if it is well-coordinated, it becomes a learning point for novice supervisors concerning problems that they experience in this supervisory relationship. • Co-supervision should involve negotiation of responsibilities between supervisors which include organisation of meetings, sharing workload, means and

5 Supervisory Relationships with Co-supervisors

81

ways of communication, taking final responsibility of the content, and handling conflicting advice given to candidates or supervisees. • Constant engagement between postgraduate students and their co-supervisors is beneficial to students as chances for the provision of conflicting feedback on submitted drafts is curtailed to a significant extent. • Some benefits that come with having two supervisors or what others refer to as group supervision is the fact that a student stands to benefit from both the main and the co-supervisors because he/she is exposed to varying perspectives and is also exposed to various levels of expertise. • Co-supervisors have an advantage of sharing the supervision load among themselves. It is obvious that there are a variety of reasons why universities encourage cosupervision in the postgraduate programs and I just summarized some of the advantages above. They include providing more views on the students’ work which can promote rigour in research, pooling of expertise, alternating responsibilities, relieving of workload, thorough feedback and even motivating the supervisors (Paul et al., 2014). However, Paul and others also noted that the first challenge of co-supervision is the possibility that the commitment of each co-supervisor is less than when there is one supervisor, thus resulting in a ‘diffusion of responsibility’. In such cases there is a possibility that a student’s problem is unnoticed because each co-supervisor thinks the other is dealing with it. Therefore, as indicated in most of the excerpts above, co-supervisory roles could create friction between supervisors (if not handled well). I summarized some of the disadvantages of co-supervision as shown below: • Co-supervision exercise can be expensive since it needs administrative support and sometimes there is little institutional support and at PhD level, the research dissertation as product is all that is credit bearing. • Working in solo rather than working as a team could be very detrimental to the whole supervisory process. • If the main supervisor throws his or her weight on the co-supervisor when it comes to decision making, then this shows the complexity in the hierarchy and task allocation in co- supervision process. • Co-supervision requires negotiation of responsibilities between supervisors which include organisation of meetings, sharing workload, means and ways of communication, taking final responsibility of the content, and handling of conflicting advice given candidate. Numerous challenges with co-supervision have been reported and most of these problems centre around issues of commitment from the co-supervisor, conflicting feedback, disagreement on matters and the candidate putting one supervisor up against the other (Paul et al., 2014, pp. 4–5). There is always a need to evaluate the evolution of the supervisory relationship with co-supervisors on an ongoing basis in order to proactively identity potential pitfalls for timeous resolution. In

82

H. M. Kapenda

recognising these challenges and technical hitches, Wald et al. (2022), hence suggest that co-supervisors should meet at the outset of a project without the student and discuss their expectations in relation to the project, the student’s roles and responsibilities, their own roles and responsibilities as co-supervisors, and their supervisory styles. Notwithstanding these tensions, Wald et al. (2022) concluded from their study that there was enough evidence to support early discussions and negotiations among co-supervisors as a form of good practice, with clear potential to inform academic development initiatives.

5.7

Conclusion

Based on the evidence and testimonies arising from the data above, it can be concluded that although the co-supervision process has great potential and is being encouraged, supervisors should note both the benefits and the conflicts that may rise during co-supervision. The whole supervision process, especially supervising doctoral candidates, is not an easy task, so many universities with postgraduate programs have policies and guidelines in place underlining how to supervise postgraduate students. For example, according to Robertson (2017), “team supervision of doctoral students has become policy across Australian universities subsequent to guidelines issued by the peak body, the Australian Council of Graduate Researchers in 2010” (p. 358). Such policies and guidelines assist institutions in achieving their goals and as such enhance students’ completion rate and research output. In this chapter, I discussed the supervisory relationships among co-supervisors and summarized the advantages as well as some of the challenges that could arise, especially if there is no clear communication of division of labor. I therefore conclude by reiterating the importance of establishing a decent and respectable supervisory relationships between co-supervisors.

References Dennen, J. M. G. V. D. (2005). Introduction: On conflict. The socio-biology of conflict (pp. 1–19). Chapman & Hall. Grossman, E. S., & Crowther, N. J. (2015). Co-supervision in postgraduate training: Ensuring the right hand knows what the left hand is doing. South African Journal of Science, 111(11/12), 8. https://doi.org/10.17159/sajs.2015/20140305 Guerin, C. (2017). Co-supervision in doctoral education: Challenges and response. UK Council for Graduate Education. Available on: https://supervision.ukcge.ac.uk/2017/06/01/co-supervisionin-doctoral-education-challenges-and-responses/. Retrieved on November 10, 2022. Holtman, L., & Mukwada, G. (2014). Challenges confronting the quality of postgraduate research supervision and its effects on time-to-degree and throughput rates: A case of South African University. Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences, 5(6), 179–190. ISSN 2039-2117 (online). MCSER Publishing, Rome-Italy.

5 Supervisory Relationships with Co-supervisors

83

International Center for Academic Integrity [ICAI]. (2021). The fundamental values of academic integrity (3rd ed.). Available on: www.academicintegrity.org/the-fundamental-valuesofacademic-integrity. ISBN: 978-0-9914906-7-7 (pbk). Johansen, B. T., Olsen, R. M., Øverby, N. C., Garred, R, & Enoksen, E. (2019). Team supervision of doctoral students: A qualitative inquiry. International Journal of Doctoral Studies, 14, 69–84. https://doi.org/10.28945/4177 Manathunga, C. (2012). Supervisors watching supervisors. Australian Universities’ Review, 54(1), 29–37. McFarlane, J. (2010). Group supervision: an appropriate way to guide postgraduate students? Acta Academia, 42 (4), 148–170. ISSN 0587 -2405 ©UV/UFS Available at http://www.ufs.ac.za/Act aAcademia Olmos-Lopez, P., & Sunderland, J. (2013). The how and why of co-supervision of Ph.D. students: reported understanding of supervisors and supervisees. In B. O’Rourke, N., Bermingham, & S. Brennan (Eds.), Opening New Lines of Communication in Applied Linguistics. Proceedings of the 46th Annual Meeting of the British Association for Applied Linguistics (pp. 381–392). ISBN: 978-0-9559533-6-1. Olmos-López, P., & Sunderland, J. (2017). Doctoral supervisors’ and supervisees’ responses to cosupervision. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 41(6), 727–740. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 0309877X.2016.1177166 Parker, R. (2009). A learning community approach to doctoral education in the social sciences. Teaching in Higher Education, 14(1), 43–54. Parker-Jenkins, M. (2018). Mind the gap: Developing the roles, expectations and boundaries in the doctoral supervisor–supervisee relationship. Studies in Higher Education, 43(1), 57–71. https:// doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2016.1153622 Paul, P., Olson, J. K., & Gul, R. B. (2014). Co-supervision of doctoral students: Enhancing the learning experience. International Journal of Nursing Education Scholarship, 11(1), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1515/ijnes-2012-0004 Robertson, M. J. (2017) Team modes and power: supervision of doctoral students, Higher Education Research & Development, 36(2), 358–371. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2016.120 8157. ISSN: 0729-4360 (Print) 1469-8366 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfo nline.com/loi/cher20. Taylor & Francis Group. Taylor, S., Kiley, M., & Humphrey, R. (2018). A handbook for doctoral supervisors (2nd ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315559650. Trowler, P. (2021). Doctoral supervision: Sharpening the focus of the practice lens. Higher Education Research & Development. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2021.1937955 Wald, N., Kumar, V., & Sanderson, L. J. (2022). Enhancing co-supervision practice by setting expectations in a structured discussion using a research-informed tool, Higher Education Research & Development. Taylor & Francis Group. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2022. 2082390.

6

Supporting Candidates’ Research Projects Patricia Phiri Nalube and Mwansa Mukalula-Kalumbi

Abstract

This chapter focuses on the intricacies of supporting postgraduate students through enhanced supervision during their studies. The need to interrogate processes and measures put in place has permeated the higher education arena over the years. Globally, universities are making unprecedented efforts to effectively manage postgraduate learning which will support timely deliverables, though by default, the support provided is a process propelled by issues of time, policy and administrative guidelines, interaction, diversity, as well as perceptions on which all academic engagement hinges. Universities offering postgraduate studies have invested in reform of institutional procedures, students’ and supervisors’ roles in order to graduate students within the stipulated time frame. This has come at a cost, with a plethora of changes and challenges being experienced. This chapter therefore explores ways through which supervisors can provide meaningful support to students. It is imperative that the two parties ensure that the partnership is right for the project: the supervisor needs to know the students and carefully assess their needs. Establishing these needs through reflective accounts of supervisors on doctoral supervision provides a window for reasonable and workable expectations.

P. P. Nalube (B) · M. Mukalula-Kalumbi University of Zambia, Lusaka, Zambia e-mail: [email protected] M. Mukalula-Kalumbi e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 K. Luneta et al. (eds.), Doctoral Supervision in Southern Africa, Springer Texts in Education, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-46899-5_6

85

86

6.1

P. P. Nalube and M. Mukalula-Kalumbi

Introduction

Attaining a doctoral accolade is considered to be the highest academic achievement, yet attaining it can be a demanding and gruelling process. Most entrants underestimate the expectations and demands of the academic journey thereby falling short and failing to graduate. This has been happening amid the realisation that doctoral holders are economic drivers who provide the much-needed innovation through scientific research. With this realisation, has come the need to recast and discern how Higher Learning Institutions can adopt workable policy directives to attract and enhance completion rates among those with the greatest academic potential. The focus is on the need to put in place systems from point of enrolment onwards, that serve to enhance completion rates and timeliness. New doctoral candidates may have little or no experience of research, and hence little or no idea of what they are letting themselves in for. One primary responsibility of the supervisor is therefore to induct them into research, key issues, demands that come with it and of course best practices to employ during the process. Our initial interactions provide insight on the needs of the students and in most cases, they range from support with academic writing to timely constructive, actionable feedback (Bitchener, 2018). In order to provide meaningful support to the students, it is imperative that the two players ensure that the partnership is right for the project: the supervisor needs to know the student and carefully assess their needs. Establishing these needs will provide a window for reasonable and workable expectations (James & Baldwin, 1999). With a robust start, the supervisor must encourage students to write through regular contact and follow it up with high quality feedback. This should culminate in final production and presentation of the research. Therefore, this chapter will interrogate some practices employed in participating universities in Southern Africa to ensure that students are able to complete their postgraduate studies within the stipulated period, in the face of high dropout rates and poor completion rates (Jairam & Kahl, 2012; van Rooij et al., 2021).

6.2

Comprehending Dynamics of Postgraduate Studies in Modern Times

Higher education has seen fundamental shifts and ramifications as countries make efforts to reposition the role of postgraduate training to contribute to market-led economies. Recent times have witnessed a shift in supervision of postgraduate students from a makeshift in nature of interacting with students to practices with enhanced precision involving the application of systematic professional practices encompassed in a research training framework, Anderson et al. (2018). These trends have been observed globally as pointed out by Carton and Kelly (2014) and Taylor (2014), and have centered on the pedagogy of research supervision, anchored on the realization that supervision is in essence a means of teaching and learning—as well as of research.

6 Supporting Candidates’ Research Projects

87

A study conducted by Anderson et al. (2018), among Australian academics who interacted with postgraduate research students, noted problems associated with the process of supervision which was largely poorly structured. Such problems are not peculiar to Australia as can be seen in Sweden, where according to Ezeblilo (2012), doctoral students commonly struggle with issues of poor mentorship, leading to lack of confidence in sharing or presenting their work. Such issues were also observed in Malaysia, where students were faced with challenges of a deficit in preparation for formalized research writing (Costa, 2018; Jeyaraj, 2018). These authors identify that universities are now promoting supervision better focused on students’ needs. Additionally, another notable direction has been the considerable investment by governments in the research output supported by universities. This has seen increased funding to facilitate quality supervision—for example, in South Africa, each doctoral candidate graduating earns their institution R250 000. Additionally, via the National Research Fund, the state awards lecturers in universities research grants to enable them to train students at Masters and Doctoral levels. This investment has underpinned the creation of research training frameworks across universities, building a body of knowledge anchored on the understanding that postgraduate supervision is a peculiar pedagogy between students and supervisors shaped by the shared relationship (Green & Lee, 1999). This relationship is seen through the lens of collegial approaches, mentoring availability, responsiveness, access to independent support and advice. Additionally, Palmer (2010) identifies other issues such as lack of consistency in supervision, undue pressure of completion times, and difficulties with university administrative frameworks. As noted in Chap. 1, the past decade has seen an increase in people pursuing postgraduate studies—with many not completing them. Paglione (2020) points out that, in the case of the United States of America which retains the highest number of PhD graduands with approximately 70,000 annually, over a quarter of the students never get to finish their studies across disciplines. In OECD countries, 1.1% of those in the age range of 25–64 are able to complete their Ph.D.s but women are significantly under-represented. In African universities, the scenario is even less impressive as highlighted by World Bank (2014) cited by Jowi (2021): Sun-Saharan Africa accounts for 12% of the World’s population, yet it accounts for only 1% of the global research output and has the lowest number of researchers per 1 million of the population, comparatively to all parts of the world.

The poor research output is exacerbated by the high rates of ‘brain drain’ in African countries, leading to low numbers of qualified researchers. According to UNESCO (2018) a report by the International Monetary Fund projects that between 2013 to 2050, migrants from Africa will increase from 7 to 34 million with the bulk being young and educated workers. As highlighted by Aibinu (2015), over 23 000 lecturers emigrate annually from Africa to other countries, which poses a great challenge to Doctoral training. This situation has undermined the ability of higher learning institutions such as universities to play the needed

88

P. P. Nalube and M. Mukalula-Kalumbi

role of alleviating societal problems—providing a lens for African Universities to interrogate the many challenges faced in doctoral training. It is imperative that they come to understand the challenges that hinder progression and completion among doctoral students. In so doing, they will be able to generate responsive measures to Africa’s never ending social-economic issues. There is a dire need to nurture a ‘supportive knowledge production and research environment for the development of the requisite human capacities that can undertake research’ (Jowi, 2021). The drive to rethink and reposition doctoral studies has seen an increase in the number of graduands—particularly in South Africa, Ghana, Nigeria and Kenya. The increase is attributed to a number of policies propelled by the liberalization of higher education in African countries which has seen increased access; the provision of a wide spectrum of market driven programmes; and extensive policy reforms to boost investments in research within universities. Perhaps more importantly, is the introduction of aggressive institutional policies in the management of doctoral students from the point of enrolments, widely evidenced in African postgraduate literature.

6.3

Doctoral Supervision Experiences from African Universities

Doctoral supervision studies conducted in Africa present common themes that include issues of lack of access to materials, need for proposal training, unavailability of lecturers for consultation, and negative feedback from supervisors (Costa, 2018; Desmennu & Owoaje, 2018; Manchishi et al., 2015). In the face of these challenges, it is imperative that doctoral supervision practices are enhanced. Doctoral studies can be a very lonely undertaking for the student, hence the need to have thriving systems to maintain motivation. At point of entry the immediate link to their academic journey is the allocated supervisor, who retains a pivotal role in the progression and completion of the doctoral journey, and yet limited research has been undertaken to explore the intricacies of research on doctoral supervision, especially in sub-Saharan Africa (Mouton et al., 2015). This realization has driven universities to build systemic structures to ensure that doctoral students are given the needed support to ensure progression and timely completion. It is from this standpoint that data in this book was collected from academics in three southern African universities who have been actively involved in the supervision of doctoral students and have participated in the Research Supervision Recognition Programme. The data collected focused on some of the practices being used to ensure that the needed scaffolding is provided for students to progressively pursue their doctoral studies to completion. As they dive into their initial interactions with their supervisors, it is paramount that both the student and supervisor build a platform of shared responsibility and commitment to this huge responsibility. Students need to be made familiar with the academic processes, ethics, accepted academic practices, and their responsibilities in relation to research processes and writing (Kumar & Johnson, 2014). These are discussed in the themes that follow.

6 Supporting Candidates’ Research Projects

6.3.1

89

Induction into the Demands of the University

As argued by Kumar et al. (2020), orienting students to knowledge and skills needed for a thesis/dissertation, such as selection of a research topic, design and implementation of research, or writing the thesis, is critical. All three institutions that participated in the programme saw induction as an important aspect of supporting students’ research projects as indicated in their reflective accounts. We provide UNAM Academic account as a typical example:

My priority over the years as the Director of Postgraduate Studies School has been to provide support to both postgraduate students and supervisors at an institutional level to provide effective supervision and ensure that students graduate in the prescribed time possible. I have done this through organisation of Orientation Workshops for New Postgraduate Students early each year. Such workshops would last all day and would entail aspects such as Understanding of Postgraduate Guidelines and Regulations, Research Proposal Writing and Ethical Clearance, Supervisory Relationships and so on. Usually, the day before the Orientation Workshop, I would link them up with the Library so that they can be given an Overview of the Databases and how to navigate such databases. Then after the Orientation Workshop, I would closely work with the Librarian to have all the new postgraduate students sign up for database navigation sessions. Through this initiative, a new position of the Postgraduate Librarian was created (UNAM Academic).

The role of induction cannot be over emphasised in that the following UJ Academic observed that since the faculty induction was no longer in place, there was a need to introduce the induction at departmental level. This is emphasized in the following reflective account:

In the past a faculty induction for new students was held, but this is not the case any longer. I would like to revive the departmental induction where supervisors can once again enlighten students on what to expect and past students can be invited to share their experiences. Currently, I believe that inducting doctoral students into the research process and the nature of research is a gap in my supervision practice. I tend to assume that candidates have knowledge from their Masters research but the doctoral study expects far more from students and it will assist candidates to know more specifically what the journey entails. If candidates have an understanding of what research entails they can avoid misconceptions but also adopt a strategic approach (Garcia-Perez & Ayres, 2012, p. 297). Such an understanding can be elaborated upon in the envisaged departmental induction for doctoral student (UJ Academic).

90

P. P. Nalube and M. Mukalula-Kalumbi

6.3.2

Reading and Writing Throughout the Ph.D. Journey

As argued by Kumar et al. (2020), the supervisor should encourage students to read and write continuously throughout the PhD journey so that ideas and thoughts about their study can be enhanced and organised. They can also develop and understand their work through writing, as well as express their emerging arguments and conclusions and share these with their supervisors. Supervisors should encourage students to learn from reading lists, online research tutorials, good theses and seminal scholarship. From these, they can learn about academic writing, in-text citation and references. We provide UNZA Academics’ reflective accounts concerning supporting students in reading and writing throughout their Doctoral journey:

As new-comers, candidates come with ideas on what it is they want to focus on in their research journey so I encourage my candidates to read and write throughout the process. This has helped my candidates enhance and organise their ideas and thoughts, learn and understand their work, and express their emerging arguments and conclusions and share them with me. For example, initially my PhD candidate wanted to focus on the teaching and learning of Number Bases in primary schools. When he was immersed in literature and wrote a lot about the focus, and received constructive feedback from me and others (peers and experts), it became clear that the candidate was concerned with evaluating teachers’ Subject Matter Knowledge (SMK) and Pedagogical Content Knowledge (PCK) of Number Bases (UNZA Academic). The other experience I had with the same candidate concerning literature review was that I always emphasised that he needed to strengthen it with current literature. This was not done to a Ph.D. level. The same problem was identified by all the three examiners that is when it was satisfactorily attended to by the candidate. What I learnt from this experience is that I should be persistent when I notice that the candidate is not performing to the required expectation concerning some areas of the research project. One of the reasons could be that the candidate was not aware of the resources that the institution makes available to support research, and as a mentor, it is my responsibility to bring about this realisation (UNZA Academic).

6.3.3

Attending Workshops and Seminars

In supporting students’ research projects, it is important for the supervisor to encourage students to present their work to colleagues and fellow students, collaborate and interact with peers and experts, in order to both develop their own thinking and open it to the critique of others. A typical example of how supervisors can enhance collaboration among students are presented in the reflective accounts of UJ Academics and UNAM Academic:

6 Supporting Candidates’ Research Projects

91

I sometimes send my students overseas to my collaborators’ laboratory to carry out experiments if they are not available in my laboratory. For example, I sent one in 2018 to Sweden, and to China in 2019. I am presently in the process of sending one of my doctoral students to Sweden to carry out the last part of experiments in the laboratory of a collaborator who is also her co-supervisor. As part of the support on research projects, I encourage them to analyze their data when they are doing experiments and do not leave it till the end because sometimes the result might be negative, and repetition might be easier earlier rather than towards the end. According to the literature, this approach helps supervisors to identify any discrepancies in data or procedures, and also to model processes for candidates, if necessary (Stracke & Kumar, 2010). For example, when the experiments do not work out, I Intervene and evaluate if the right experimental procedure was followed, and if so, we both troubleshoot and find a solution (UJ Academic). In addition, I always urge my postgraduate students to attend regular workshops coordinated by the Postgraduate School at the University of Johannesburg. These workshops play a pivotal role in the development of postgraduate students’ research expertise as they are afforded meaningful opportunities to learn and interact with established scholars from all walks of life. In particular, the workshops provide mentorship opportunities on various research perspectives, methodologies, paradigms as well as theoretical and conceptual frameworks (UJ Academic). Our school (unit) supports postgraduates’ research projects by arranging compulsory Seminars twice per year. In these seminars students must present their research proposals or on-going research projects. During these seminars, they will receive comments from both department staff members as well as other students. Therefore, as a supervisor I will immediately sit down with my students and discuss all the comments given during the seminars in order to rule out which comments are not in line with their research topics and which ones are beneficial; then I will advise accordingly. In most cases, the comments/feedback from these seminars help the students to improve on their research projects and at the end of the year they will get a credit (pass) for attending the seminars (UNAM Academic).

6.3.4

Maintaining Effective Communication

In supporting students’ research projects, maintaining effective communication is key, especially since the Ph.D. journey can be lonely and challenging. As argued by Kumar et al. (2020), if students are not able to be full time because of work and family, the supervisor can opt to supervise online—although as we have seen in recent (pandemic) times, that comes with its own challenges. Further, the supervisors should ideally provide feedback which is in both written and verbal form. Maintaining effective communication involves the supervisor: requesting the student to report on progress so often; being flexible and providing encouragement; and understand the social and cultural differences that can influence expectations, communication and understanding. Moreover, setting deadlines for sharing

92

P. P. Nalube and M. Mukalula-Kalumbi

drafts and giving feedback is also critical so that both the student and supervisor are accountable towards making the student an independent researcher. Students should also be encouraged to network with students who are advanced in the journey or those who have completed so that they are enlightened on student and supervisory roles. We provide UNZA Academics’ reflective accounts as typical examples:

If my candidates cannot make it in person for feedback, I arrange for online supervision and ensure that the meeting is recorded. Before the online meeting, I share the draft thesis with comments in track changes so that the candidate can familiarise himself/herself with the comments made, and so providing both written and verbal feedback. I find this approach necessary to keep the research on track irrespective of the challenges that come with online supervision (as also recommended by Kumar et al., 2020) (UNZA Academic). Effective communication is another attribute that I employ in supporting my candidates research in view of the loneliness and challenge the doctoral journey comes with as also argued by Kumar et al. (2020). This is made possible by ensuring that I arrange for regular supervision meetings to monitor candidates’ progress. I also listen to the candidate and exercise flexibility when the candidate fails to meet what was supposed to be attended to before the appointed supervision. I always commend my candidates for good progress after each supervision session so that they are encouraged to be critical and creative as this develops in them autonomy to own their research projects towards their successful completion (as argued by Lovitts, 2005, 2008). By engaging with literature in the Research Supervision Recognition Programme, I have realised that developing in candidates’ skills to be critical and creative is affected by social and cultural difference which have an effect on communication, expectations, and understanding. I hope to pay particular attention to how this is at play as I supervise candidates’ research projects (UNZA Academic).

6.3.5

Enhancing Ethical Requirements

The supervisor also needs to orient students to the importance of upholding research ethics in their doctoral journey. We provide the reflective account of a UJ Academic as a typical example:

Ethics clearance from the university as well as from the education department is a specific milestone that I embark on with the candidate after the proposal is accepted. Having served on the research ethics committee for four years, I am well equipped to guide my candidates on the various ethical requirements and expectations of a researcher. Wiles and Boddy (2013, p. 2) support “quality and integrity” in the

6 Supporting Candidates’ Research Projects

93

research process and developing attitudes that place ethical concerns at the forefront of research decisions (UJ Academic).

6.4

Conclusion

As can be observed from supervisors’ reflective accounts, the supervisor in supporting students’ research projects plays the role of both mentor and coach. They have to induct students in the doctoral demands of the institution. They also have to encourage students to read and write throughout the doctoral journey. Supervisors also need to direct students to workshops and seminars where their work can be enhanced as a result of collaboration with the knowledgeable others. The importance of maintaining effective communication cannot be overstated as it enhances supervisor-student as well as student-knowledgeable other relationships towards successful completion of doctoral studies. Equally important, supporting ethical requirements is key for completion of doctoral research with integrity, as students will become sensitized to the ethical impact of, and responsibilities to, others through the lifetime of their research, and so develop both robustness and credibility in their findings. Postgraduate supervision is therefore a particular pedagogy of teaching and learning, and shared research enterprise between students and supervisors, underpinned and shaped by the shared relationship.

References Aibinu, M. M. (2015). Creating and sustaining a qualitative pool of education sector professionals—solution options. Available at www.PremiumTimes. Anderson, M., Mitchell, B., Northcote, M., Williams, A., Petrie, K., de Waal, K., Carton, J., McLoughlin, C., & Lemke, G. (2018). The construction of a postgraduate student and supervisor support framework: Using stakeholder voices to promote effective postgraduate teaching and learning practice. Journal of University Teaching & Learning Practice, 15(2). http://ro.uow. edu.au/jutlp/vol15/iss2/6 Bitchener, J. (2018). Teacher written feedback. In J. I. Liontas (Ed.), The TESOL encyclopedia of English language teaching (pp. 1–7). John Wiley. Carton, J., & Kelly, A. (2014). Lessons learned from a multi-institutional collaboration to develop a national framework for research supervisor support and development. In Quality in postgraduate research (pp. 1–23). University of Adelaide, University of South Australia and Flinders University Adelaide, South Australia. Costa, K. (2018). A systematic review of challenges in research supervision at South African universities. Desmennu, A. T., & Owoaje, E. T. (2018). Challenges of research conduct among postgraduate research students in an African University. Educational Research and Reviews, 13(9), 336–342. Ezebilo, E. E. (2012). Challenges in postgraduate studies: Assessments by doctoral students. Higher Education Studies, 2(4).

94

P. P. Nalube and M. Mukalula-Kalumbi

Garcia-Perez, A., & Ayres, R. (2012). Modelling research: A collaborative approach to helping Ph.D. students develop higher-level research skills. European Journal of Engineering Education, 37(3), 297–306. Green, B., & Lee, A. (1999). Educational research, disciplinarity, and postgraduate pedagogy: On the subject of supervision. In Holbrook, A. & Johnston, S. (Eds.), Postgraduate education in education (pp. 88–104). Australian Association of Research in Education. Jairam, D., & Kahl, D. (2012). Navigating the doctoral experience: The role of social support in successful degree completion. International Journal of Doctoral Studies, 7. James, R., & Baldwin, G. (1999). Eleven Practices of effective postgraduate supervisors. The Centre for the Study of Higher Education and The School of Graduate Studies, University of Melbourne. Jeyaraj, J. (2018). It’s a jungle out there: Challenges in postgraduate research writing. Journal of Language Studies, 18(1). Jowi, J. O. (2021). Doctoral training in African universities: Recent trends, developments and issues. Journal of the British Academy, 9(s1), 159–181. https://doi.org/10.5871/jba/009s1.159 Kumar, S., Kumar, V., & Taylor, S. (2020). A guide to online supervision. UK Council for Graduate Education. http://www.ukcge.ac.uk/media/download.aspx?Mediald=2268 Kumar, S., & Johnson, M. (2014). Research and dissertations: Challenges overcome by online doctoral students. In P. Lowenthal, C. York, & J. Richardson (Eds.), Online learning: Common misconceptions, benefits, and challenges (pp. 115–124). Nova Science Publishers. Lovitts, B. E. (2005). Being a good course taker is not enough: A theoretical perspective on the transition to independent research. Studies in Higher Education, 30, 137–154. https://doi.org/ 10.1080/03075070500043093 Lovitts, B. E. (2008). The transition to independent research: Who makes it, who doesn’t, and why. The Journal of Higher Education, 79(3), 296–325. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221546.2008.117 72100 Manchishi, P., Ndhlovu, D., & Mwanza, D. (2015). Common mistakes committed and challenges faced in research proposal writing by University of Zambia postgraduate students. International Journal of Humanities, Social Sciences and Education, 2(3), 126–138. Mouton, J., Boshoff, N., & James, M. (2015). A survey of doctoral supervisors in South Africa. South African Journal of Higher Education, 29(2), 1–22. Paglione, L. (2020). Democratizing tech/research and revolutionalizing businesses. LauraPaglione.com Palmer, N. (2010). Minimum resources for postgraduate study 2010. Council of Australian Postgraduate Associations (CAPA). Stracke, E., & Kumar, V. (2010). Feedback and self-regulated learning: Insights from supervisors’ and Ph.D. examiners’ reports. Reflective Practice, 11(1), 19–32. Taylor, S. E. (2014). Towards a framework for the professional development of doctoral supervisors. SDF Digest: A Practitioner Journal for HE Staff Development, 2, 84–87. UNESCO. (2018). African brain drain—Is there an alternative? Many voices, one world. e—ISSN, 2220–2293, UNESCO. van Rooij, E., Fokkens-Bruinsma, M., & Jansen E. (2021). Factors that influence PhD candidates’ success: The importance of PhD project characteristics. Studies in Continuing Education, 43(1), 48–67. https://doi.org/10.1080/0158037X.2019.1652158 Wiles, R. & Boddy, J. (2013). Introduction to the special issue: Research ethics in challenging contexts. Methodological Innovations. https://doi.org/10.4256/mio.2013.009. World Bank. (2014). A decade of development in Sub-Saharan African Science, Technology, Engineering & Mathematics Research. World Bank.

7

Encouraging Doctoral Candidates to Write and Giving Feedback Kashinauua Faustina Neshila and Jennie Golding

Abstract

Literature maintains that doctoral writing is both the channel used by students to communicate their ideas and also the primary evidence on which their degree is awarded. Despite the integral role played by such writing, there is fairly limited knowledge about the development of doctoral students’ writing skills or the associated roles of the supervisor. Institutions of higher education are expected to ensure high postgraduate student completion rates, and often make efforts to support doctoral writing of students by offering academic writing courses. However, the assumption that the supervisor can necessarily provide appropriate feedback and feedforward for writing needs to be addressed. Evidently most doctoral students require encouragement and support to develop confidence in writing. Feedback is one principal pedagogy through which students learn writing skills. Furthermore, receiving and giving feedback involves emotions which if not well handled may become a barrier to learning. This chapter evaluates the evidence around the supervisor’s role in encouraging doctoral candidates to write, especially through written feedback, and discusses the implications of receiving/giving inappropriate feedback. It draws from theories of the pedagogy of feedback supplemented by reflective accounts of supervisors and their experiences of giving/receiving feedback on written doctoral work.

K. F. Neshila (B) University of Namibia, Windhoek, Namibia e-mail: [email protected] J. Golding UCL Institute of Education, London, UK e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 K. Luneta et al. (eds.), Doctoral Supervision in Southern Africa, Springer Texts in Education, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-46899-5_7

95

96

7.1

K. F. Neshila and J. Golding

Introduction

For doctoral candidates, academic writing is an essential skill that moulds their academic identity and significantly determines their completion rate. Writing, according to the theory of academic literacies, is a “socio-cultural practice occurring within a complex social system which incorporating issues of: epistemology, power and identity, where students are active participants in the process of meaning-making” (Lea & Street, 2006, p. 274). Kamler and Thompson (2006) discuss text as an extension of the scholar, a putting of “self” out there which can either be successful or not. This uncertainty of the outcome of written work may lead to high levels of anxiety and fear of receiving negative feedback. Despite the importance of writing in doctoral research supervision, little is known about the writing skills of doctorate students or the supervisory role in that (Aitchison et al., 2012). Rather, we as academics often assume that doctoral students begin as proficient writers or they will develop these skills during their studies (Caffarella & Barnett, 2000). Given such an assumption there can be unmet supervisor expectations that may lead to strained supervisor-student relationship and perhaps very slow progress in the doctoral study. The supervisor might feel the student is not ready for doctoral studies—whilst the student believes that ‘if only my supervisor could support me through giving appropriate feedback through which I clearly understand what is expected of me, then I can complete my studies in the required time frame’. According to Lee and Murray (2015) some supervisors describe the process of supervising students’ writing as sometimes painful, tedious, frustrating and time-consuming. This is similar to the experiences of supervisors in southern Africa: the first author’s experience was it was difficult to decide how much of the supervisor’s voice should be in the student’s thesis. Thus, writing is perceived as a measure of achievement or graduate competency or as a barrier to timely completion (Aitchison & Lee, 2006). At the university of Namibia, the system assumes, and most supervisors act as if, postgraduate students, with a degree behind them, are already good writers; similarly Aitchison et al. (2012) argues that there is a relatively persistent belief that doctoral writing is an unimportant by-product of research. Cotterall (2011), though, maintains that writing occupies a key role in doctoral research since it is the channel used by students to communicate their ideas and the basis on which their degree is awarded. Lindsay (2015) goes further, promoting the notion of ‘writing to develop knowledge’, with reference to writing as a ‘knowledge-producing activity’ (Wellington, 2010), and Murray (2011) argues that serial writing is ‘critical for the development of our thinking through writing’. Therefore, doctoral students require support and encouragement to develop confidence and productivity as writers, including through using feedback as a pedagogy for teaching writing skills. This chapter seeks to respond to the following questions: (1) What support do supervisors receive in this regard from their universities? (2) How do they, and should they, support students’ writing? (3) What are supervisors’ experiences of receiving or giving feedback on a thesis? We illustrate the answers to these questions with quotations from colleagues’ reflective accounts of their supervision.

7 Encouraging Doctoral Candidates to Write and Giving Feedback

7.2

97

Overview

As argued above, writing in postgraduate research is crucial and should be nurtured by both the student and the supervisor. Feedback is the principal mechanism for writing development. Through receiving of appropriate feedback students learn how to write, and importantly, how to relate theory to practice. Support for this stance is found in the work of Carter and Kumar (2017), where feedback supports the two key doctoral goals: (1) completion of the thesis that contributes significantly to knowledge and (2) emergence of the student as a competent researcher. However, the experience widely relayed in the source workshops is that owing to institutional pressure for high completion rates, and considerable work pressures, supervisors can sometimes opt to become editors of the student’s written work and may marginalize the more time-consuming and longer-term task of teaching students how to write well. Consequently, the student might graduate but is under-equipped: they will not be able to disseminate their research findings through publications. In turn, this will reduce the impact of the research findings. Development and consideration of writing and of feedback therefore intertwine, and they build on students’ earlier experiences and development. We first consider issues around the development of academic writing, taking a broad view of its development over time, of the approaches and tools that supervisors adopt, and of the different stages typically experienced that culminate in the production of the doctoral thesis. We then focus in on the literature relating to feedback, and contextualise that with reference to several examples of workshop participants’ reflections around feedback.

7.3

Development of Doctoral Writing

7.3.1

Scholar Before Researcher

One early theme exposed in workshops was that supervisors often find that their doctoral students are ill-equipped in terms of scholarship: they have not yet acquired either a good grasp of the focus field, or, central to the development of their writing, absorbed a range of approaches to academic communication, together with a capacity to critique and position that in relation to their own project. These concerns are echoed in Boote and Beile (2005), who argue that both characteristics are needed as foundations before students can successfully embark on doctoral research. Such skills of course have to be nurtured and perhaps exemplified, by supervisors, via central university provision, or by other means suggested below, perhaps over a protracted period. Workshop colleagues adopted a range of approaches to such development as exemplified by UNAM Academic and UJ Academics:

98

K. F. Neshila and J. Golding

In their book, Kamler and Thompson (2006) emphasise the development of scholarship; communication with peers as novice members of the academic community; and the ability to critique academic literature with both depth and precision. What this all mean to my supervisory practice is that I should not assume that the students know the academic writing process but should take them through the process (UNAM Academic); I am mindful of the fact that the development of academic writing skills is central to the timeous completion of studies as well as the quality of the dissertations and thesis produced (so) I …afford students opportunities to collaboratively engage with literature in order to develop their awareness of various writing styles (UJ Academic); I encourage my students to start with reading and critiquing five journal articles on the topic/field of interest and then another five articles, to inform their understanding of the field and their writing, and so they experience different academic voices. I also provide articles or ideas from conferences that I might have come across to the candidate from the onset and throughout the study. I remember a colleague saying that reading the literature and writing go hand-in-hand (UJ Academic).

7.3.2

English as an Additional Language

Almost universally, English is the language of high-profile academic writing—and so, very often, the language expected for doctoral theses. While academia is now, as has been shown, a global endeavour, and a lingua franca among academics therefore of high value, both access to literature and the norms of doctoral writing in English can prove sources of considerable challenge to those who have minimal English in their background or education. One result can be exacerbated student stress, for which the main solution seems to be extended exposure and time as indicated by UNZA Academic:

Doctoral writing can be a source of anxiety because of challenges associated with it if support is not provided (Cotterall, 2011; Wellington, 2010). It is even more challenging for those doctoral students who are writing in another language that is not their mother tongue. I have observed this in the writings of some of my students, especially those who are international students, but the writing tends to get better after many interactions, so giving students opportunity to build up practice is important (UNZA Academic).

7 Encouraging Doctoral Candidates to Write and Giving Feedback

99

Other colleagues such as UNAM Academics adopted a variety of additional approaches and routines to address this challenge over time (and some supervisors said they still adopt similar approaches themselves):

I constantly remind them that research is finished only after it is written up and that what they write must communicate and persuade. The hallmarks for scientific writing are precision, clarity and brevity. I encourage my students to write as if they were speaking to someone to get to say it directly and clearly (UNAM Academic).

In my country, the majority of people speak more than three local languages and before we gained independence, English was not an official language, (so…) the majority of our local students who used English as a Second language need very much to be encouraged to write and use academic language at the doctoral level. To address this challenge, I encourage my students to always read and re-read their work and then ask a friend or editor to proof read their work before it is submitted. Moreover, Cotterall (2011) notes that most doctoral candidates therefore require assistance if they are to become competent and confident scholarly writers (UNAM Academic).

7.3.3

Purposes of Writing

Supervisors report that doctoral students can resist the effort needed for regular academic writing, especially if in a language other than their first, so that it is important to identify and share the (multiple) purposes of writing within a doctorate. Such purposes centre on the need, ultimately, to communicate and persuade, in the shorter-term especially through the thesis and related publications. But as above, there is evidence that writing in itself be actually productive of ideas and of developing meaning; also productive of emerging academic identity as argued by UNAM Academic:

Writing is a socio-cultural practice occurring within a complex social system incorporating issues of epistemology, power and identity, where students are active participants in the process of meaning making (Lea & Street, 2006:274). Kamler and Thompson (2006) argue that academic identity is developed and maintained through writing (UNAM Academic).

100

K. F. Neshila and J. Golding

Other benefits identified by both UNZA Academic and UJ Academic related to complex learning stages in well-established doctoral study, although still needing early and sustained foundations included the following:

I encourage my candidates to write from the onset as they journey the Ph.D. road. Through writing, candidates have to bring into play what the aspect of grasping theory (Kiley, 2009) and the integration of reading and thinking (Bitchener, 2018) towards achieving the 100,000 words required at the time of submission for examination (UNZA Academic);

There is a crucial need to develop postgraduate students’ academic writing proficiency early in order to enable them to submit academically sound and intellectually credible drafts (UJ Academic).

Of course, there are a variety of ways in which such development can be supported, and some supervisors shared specific approaches they adopt. In the next section the chapter highlights the specific tools employed by supervisors to nurture and develop the writing skills of their students.

7.3.4

Specific Tools

Many, if not all, southern African universities offer academic writing courses that are well attended, even if they are not mandatory, and supervisors were quick to point to their own former or current need for further development in such directions, as well as to encourage (at least some of) their students to enrol on such courses. Other colleagues used specific tools such as mind maps or powerpoint slides or ‘Styles’ in Word, to organise thinking around writing, and many encouraged their students to use research journals or diaries as long term sources for capturing thoughts and incidental evidence for their writing, as well as returning to writing ‘models’ such as well-written academic papers or, especially, other theses. We provide UNAM Academics and UJ Academics reflections as typical examples of such specific tools used:

I not only encourage weak student writers to enrol for academic writing module (a module which most students are quick to seek exemption from because they think it is about English!) but I guide them to write with the reader in mind for them to communicate successfully (UNAM Academic);

7 Encouraging Doctoral Candidates to Write and Giving Feedback

101

In my experience, I came to realize that most people (including myself) need training in academic writing. Our institution therefore has a strict requirements that state that every postgraduate student (fulltime or part-time) should first enrol for ‘Academic writing’ module before they commence thesis writing (UNAM Academic); I normally train them in using a mind map (Lee & Murray, 2015) to …make the writing easier. For example, with a doctoral student (with whom I) published a review articlewe used a mind map to develop a well-structured content. Recently, I also guided another doctoral student to write a review paper based on his draft Chap. 2, so as to develop a more rigorous overview to this thinking. It has recently been accepted in the Journal of Power Sources (UJ Academic); I … refer my students to well written theses for them to emulate (UNAM Academic); I suggest my postgraduate students keep research journals and diaries as part of an evidenced-based approach I adopt to the development of academic writing. My approach is informed by findings in various research studies (e.g., Lee & Murray, 2015; Lindsay, 2015) which demonstrate that postgraduate students often commence their research studies with inadequately developed capacity for academic writing (UJ Academic).

Literature revealed that there are however various approaches to writing with benefits in terms of support and collaborative learning, which will be discussed in the next part of the chapter.

7.3.5

Approaches to Writing

Of course, supervisors adopt a variety of other strategies to the development of doctoral writing. In the high-pressured, relatively low-resourced contexts in which many supervisors, including those participating in workshops, find themselves, the use of peers for mutual benefit is a very attractive option, and that was taking a variety of forms, including through the introduction of cohort supervision, which, while widely thought to have been introduced for resourcing reasons, was also considered to have benefits in terms of support, confidence and direct learning as argued by UJ Academic:

Peer learning via cohort supervision appears to be an innovative approach that can essentially serve to maximise the academic experience of postgraduate students within the Faculty of Education. This mode of supervision can be harnessed to facilitate achievement of envisaged throughput targets, including writing, without compromising coherent development of the requisite scholarly craft (UJ Academic).

102

K. F. Neshila and J. Golding

However, peer support in other (formal or informal) formats was also valued as indicated by UJ Academics:

In a process of developing and supporting students to write and give appropriate peer review feedback, I have involved my students in a community of practice where they assist each other in reviewing and critiquing each other’s documents before sending them to me their supervisor. This process has resulted in an improvement in the quality of the work students submit to me for review. By its very nature, peer assessment develops students’ metacognitive skills, such as communication skills, self-evaluation skills, observation skills, and self-criticism (McDowell & Havnes, 2008) and develop critical thinking skills (Topping, 1998), which are critical skills for doctoral studies (UJ Academic).

Caffarella and Barnett (2000) found that critiquing their peers’ writing, and receiving feedback from professors and peers on successive drafts helped the students understand the process and produce better texts (UJ Academic).

7.3.6

Different Stages

Pervading supervisors’ oral and written accounts was a sense of the development of writing being a programme-long endeavour, often informed by their own previous experiences and underpinned by regular guided practice and support. We provide UJ Academic reflection as a typical example:

When I started my postgraduate studies, I struggled with academic writing especially during my master programme. It got better during my doctoral studies, the reason being that I learnt how to structure and present my points in a more logical sequence from my both master and doctoral supervisors. I also observed this with my students they struggle with writing from master level and it gets better at doctoral level after much training of writing progress reports, conference papers and master dissertation (UJ Academic).

Within such accounts there was also a clear sense of progression from basic critique and positionality, developing sense of audience, through to quite sophisticated ideas of ‘writerly identity and authorial self’ as indicated by UNAM Academic:

7 Encouraging Doctoral Candidates to Write and Giving Feedback

103

Aitchison et al. (2012) write about writerly identity and authorial self. Writerly identity would include autobiographical self, where writing is influenced by aspects of one’s history, ideas and beliefs, discourse self (the sense of the author that is conveyed in their writing, for example when a writer explicitly takes on the practices of the community he/she is writing for; adopting the style, genre and citation conversations of a discipline. Aichison et al. posit that authorial self has a degree of authoritativeness in the writing for example when writers make strong claims calling on appropriate evidence to position themselves as expert and credible knowers (UNAM Academic).

7.3.7

Writing the Thesis

Over time, many supervisors had developed a practical wisdom about two aspects of development in doctoral writing: the nature and sequential development of different components of the thesis itself, and within that, the development of depth, rigour and coherence. The former varied across disciplines and also between individuals, but the latter was commonly a labour of time, effort and vision. We provide UNAM Academics and UNZA Academic reflective accounts as typical examples:

As I reflect, I realise that students struggle with the Background of the Study and Problem Statement because they simply do not understand their functions, and therefore they cannot write them. They cannot figure out what to include. Generally, under the Background of the Study the student introduces the topic, begins to set the scene, and quotes the literature to strengthen his/her case. The problem statement states the complexity of problems associated with the topic, it gives the justification for the study/niche area and it assists the university to decide whether the research is worthy of/appropriate for the degree the student is undertaking (Millar, 2020): Why is there a problem and what special angle will the student bring to the issue? (UNAM Academic).

I expect my students to write their theses chapters (after they have collected and analysed data especially from chapter 2 onwards) in four drafts: first- putting the facts together. Second—checking for coherence and fluency of ideas; third—readability and fourth—editing. The thesis must tell a story clearly and convincingly (UNAM Academic).

104

K. F. Neshila and J. Golding

What I emphasize most is the higher levels of writing development of a coherent argument throughout the thesis taking into consideration that ways of doing so are unique for each candidate (UNZA Academic).

Of course, the pedagogy for supporting such development also varied. Central to most accounts, and indeed, too much of the literature in this area, is the nature and role of feedback, and it is to that we now turn.

7.4

Receiving and Giving Feedback

Feedback involves playing editor, correcting or fixing students’ writing—balancing the critique and enablement—and all to a sensitive and constructive degree as argued by UNZA Academic:

As argued by Cotterall (2011), I …agree that writing occupies a centre role …Support and encouragement is therefore required for candidate to develop confidence in writing, and giving constructive feedback is one of such pedagogy of enhancing candidates’ research skills (UNZA Academic).

Turner (2010) states that too much writing input from the supervisor gives rise to the question of “whose work is it”. Thus, supervisors are often uncertain about how and how much help to give student around their writing: supervisory support of writing should transcend thesis completion, yet it would appear to be underresearched. Writing appropriate feedback is an art which requires effort from the supervisor and should maintain a balance between the support given to the student’s writing to ensure that the final thesis echoes the voice and ideas of the student. It aims to achieve two main goals: completed thesis and competent researcher (Aitchison et al., 2010). Some supervisors are less strong at discussing text and may be inarticulate in providing feedback—thus reducing the potential of the advice they give to students. Students’ views of what constitutes appropriate feedback include: timely, developmental and formative rather than entirely summative comments, written in an instructive manner (McAlpine & Amundsen, 2011). Feedback should also be timely as it is discouraging when students receive feedback after a long period of time has lapsed—they might have lost track of a particular thought or have moved onto other foci. However, achieving timely feedback is not always easy and university structures can support prioritisation here. We provide UNAM Academic and UJ Academic reflective accounts as typical examples:

7 Encouraging Doctoral Candidates to Write and Giving Feedback

105

Most importantly, I try my best to provide high quality feedback, both written and verbal, to my students within two weeks as per the University of Namibia Postgraduate Regulations. Timely feedback is an important part of supervisory practices and is a strategy to promote engagement, retention and more rewarding supervisor-student relationships (James & Baldwin, 1999) (UNAM Academic).

Due to my workload, my feedback has not always been timely and I have observed that this affects the momentum of the study and delays the time to completion: I need to address this (UJ Academic).

7.4.1

Approaches to Feedback

Feedback which is developmental and formative is more effective as it is student focused and gives an indication of areas where improvement is required (Tan, 2013). According to Tan, students’ enhanced learning depends on the opportunities for students to receive and act on such feedback. Furthermore, formative feedback provides transferable skills that promotes lifelong learning. The advantage of transformative feedback is that it reflects the supervisor assessing the process of learning as opposed to the end product. There is mixed evidence around ideal feedback. For example, the ‘sandwich model’ where the supervisor starts with a positive comment, proceeds to areas of improvement and finally concludes with summarizing what the student has done well, is widely embraced in the popular development literature, but has a mixed evidence base (Parkes et al., 2013) with proponents arguing it has the potential to motivate students to do well and emulate good writing as well as corrective advice. The nature of feedback needed also varies with the stage of doctoral study, and with the individual student and nature of the student-supervisor relationship. Participating colleagues often felt that the early stages of doctoral feedback were critical for establishing constructive norms around writing development; they also pointed to a need for a supervisor to continuously develop their practice through reflection—and some direct academic benefits for the supervisor in doing so. We provide UNAM Academic reflective account as a typical example:

Wei et al. (2019) in their study that examines the first-time exchange of writing and feedback between doctoral students and supervisors as a crucial stage in setting up protocols and expectations, reported on ‘emotional responses to feedback’ as

106

K. F. Neshila and J. Golding

follows: “A tsunami of feedback on the first submission may sink the student’s emotions. Too much criticism is demoralizing” (p. 165). I could relate to these sentiments as a supervisor where on several occasions I have noticed that my students experienced a lot of anxieties after receiving the first written feedback on their written work. More specifically, since in most cases I usually use track-changes in reviewing their work, I noticed that these many corrections, changes and suggestions always look overwhelming and demoralizing to my students. So, in order to address this challenge I have now learned, especially in the early stages, to arrange formal meetings (either over phone or using Zoom meetings) to discuss feedback comments before I give written comments to the students. Lindsay (2015) reported that supportive approaches given by supervisors enable students to develop themselves as academic writers (UNAM Academic).

Carter and Kumar (2017) address ‘Feedback vs Feedforward’, where feedback consist of a judgmental part and a suggestion to direct the writer, whilst feedforward is advice which does not pass critique on what has been submitted but directs the author to the next level (Kumar & Stracke, 2007). Providing honest feedback is important but receiving feedback is an emotional business (Boud & Molloy, 2013) and some emotions can hinder learning. Boud & Molloy recommend supervisors should be cautious of the type of feedback they provide and avoid general dismissive feedback such as: ‘irrelevant’, ‘re-write’, ‘this is not Ph.D. quality’— but clearly, there is a fine line to be trodden if feedback is also to be honest, and students vary in their capacity to process and act on more subtle messages. Several supervisors embraced proactive oral feedback in parallel with the written form as exemplified by UJ Academics reflective accounts:

Feedback is a key support tool in improving doctoral writing and it should concentrate upon the substance rather than just the style. I support my doctoral candidates’ writing by giving prompt and structured feedback, with enough information to help revise and improve their drafts. I do this by asking probing questions and giving clear instructions on how to restructure the writing…. My experience shows oral feedback in addition to written feedback seems to be more beneficial to my students: they use the oral feedback to clarify things that are not clear in the written feedback and tends to reduce the number of iterations of written feedback (UJ Academic).

I try my best to provide detailed feedback on submitted work from students. I do not just comment of the work, but I give suggestions where necessary. Whilst this kind of feedback adds to my workload, I have recently adopted a practice of where I just do not send reviewed work and wait for the student to come for consultation to clarify matters. I now send a meeting invite as soon as the student has engaged with

7 Encouraging Doctoral Candidates to Write and Giving Feedback

107

the reviewed work. This is a culmination of the techniques learned during COVID-19 pandemic where online consultation commenced (UJ Academic).

Receiving and giving feedback can involve apprehension and anxiety. For example, the supervisor may experience fear of critiquing a student’s work or self-doubt, or worry about the emotional impact of negative feedback on a vulnerable student as argued by UNAM Academic:

Supervisors need to note that feedback is an emotional business and emotions can hinder learning (Boud & Molloy, 2013). Supervisors should therefore understand that the purpose of the feedback is to make progress and effective feedback demands that you maintain a balance between the appreciation and the criticism (Phillips & Pugh, 2005). Give positive feedback when students have done well, that is reinforce to motivate students (UNAM Academic).

Despite these possibly stressful aspects of giving and receiving feedback, it is only through the experience of writing, editing, getting feedback and re-writing that the skills of writing are developed. According to Carter and Kumar (2017) it is helpful to set up early conversational agreement on how to negotiate around constructive feedback and difference in opinion, so that frustrations are minimized. This might include education for working with complementary or sometimes, even contradictory feedback from members of a supervisory team: as in reviews of draft papers, academic judgment varies, and a student can learn to use variability in feedback constructively, emerging a stronger academic. Nevertheless, academics need to critically reflect on the matter of giving feedback on student’s written work, and put measures in place which can mitigate the impact of (inevitably subjective) feedback which has the potential to damage the academic identity of the students. In part, this may be a question of knowing the student and their stage of academic development, so that the feedback is challenging but actionable for the individual and stage. However, it is not always possible to predict how students will receive feedback, and tailoring feedback to both challenge and support in ways which are appropriate to the individual student, can be difficult as reflected by UNAM Academic:

A key aspect of supervision is providing written feedback to students, and there has been extensive research and publication about how, when, how much, and in what form feedback should be given (Bitchener, 2018; Taylor et al., 2017). Within the research literature however, responding to feedback there is scant advice to students about how they should respond to feedback, although there are some blog discussions of how to respond to overly negative feedback (Cacciotti & Hayton, 2015). I do

108

K. F. Neshila and J. Golding

provide detailed written feedback to my students which form the basis of our supervisory meeting before the student moves to the next chapter. However, not every student takes critical feedback well. I have had to remind some students that if they produce sub-standard work, it will be a bad reflection of me and I would certainly not want my name on a thesis that is poorly written (UNAM Academic).

It is important to remember that the student starts from a fairly moderate level of knowledge. With only the experience obtained in undergraduate studies, the graduate student can feel inadequate and ill prepared for what is ahead. If in addition she receives feedback from her supervisor which contains comments such as: ‘unclear’, ‘so what?’, ‘This sentence is hanging’, ‘Justify the need for conducting this study’…, all the self-doubt will be re-affirmed. These comments may be understandable to an experienced supervisor but for a student they give rise to many more questions—for example, ‘which part of the sentence or paragraph is unclear?’ ‘How do I make it clearer?’ If attempts to answer these questions were not fruitful the student will likely opt to delete the sentence which is not clear and in turn disturb the cohesion of the written work. Thus, at times the student does not know what a supervisor’s comment objects to, or at what level a section labelled ‘unclear’ is failing (Carter & Kumar, 2017). Depending on the nature of the relationship between the student and the supervisor, and the opportunities to meet, alternatively the student might have a conversation with the supervisor and ask what the supervisor means by these comments—though if you are supervised by a colleague, there can be the matter of pride and protecting your image amongst your academic peers, so the student may not feel comfortable to ask for help from the supervisor. The situation can be even more taxing when the student has two supervisors, because now she receives double feedback on her written work. Often these two supervisors do not give collective feedback. The student receives one feedback earlier and then she waits for the second feedback so that she addresses all the comments at once and this leads to loss of time. Sometimes the feedback is contradictory, and the student might be advised that the main supervisor’s comments are what matters (in which case, why is the second supervisor spending time and energy commenting?). It can also be confusing for a student when, for example, one supervisor compliments her statement of the problem and the other says ‘this is not a statement of a problem’. The student is left in a dilemma on how to proceed forward and at times starts to doubt the credibility of one of the supervisors if not both. Part of the learning process is that academic judgment is not absolute, and academics therefore have to learn to assess and steer a way through sometimes contradictory feedback. Discussion of such issues can catalyse quite deep learning, but sometimes time pressures militate against that, and the result can be both confusion and loss of confidence. As an early career academic, it can be a daunting task to give feedback on a student’s written work. At UNAM, as in many other universities, there is an

7 Encouraging Doctoral Candidates to Write and Giving Feedback

109

assumption that once you hold a Ph.D. you are equipped to be a good supervisor. In fact, you may have the qualification but not the writing skills to guide students through research. Consequently, when students submit their written work, you might delay attending to them because you do not feel confident nor capable of critiquing their work and in return you end up delaying their progress. Some supervisors give limited advice on ‘language and discourse organisation issues’ (Woodward-Kron, 2007, p. 254), due to the feeling of uncertainty about the complexities of writing (Paré, 2011). Thus, as a supervisor you give feedback and somehow hope that it will be meaningful to the student. Workshop discussions on the challenges of giving feedback on students’ written work, reveal that with experience and professional reflection the situation can improve. There are, in addition, some specific tools so support such development, for example, Stracke and Kumar’s ‘feedback expectation tool’, and these perhaps need greater familiarity. UNAM Academic reflective account provides an example of how this can be so:

Stracke and Kumar (2020) argue that feedback is a key element of learning and development and essential in developing scholarship. They further posit that literature indicates that supervisors and candidates often have different expectations about feedback. As such they developed the feedback expectation tool (FET) as a tool to encourage dialogue on feedback between supervisors and candidates so that they could understand each other’s expectations, negotiate, and work together in the most beneficial way possible. I have adopted the FET not just in giving feedback since this pedagogical innovation allows negotiation to understand expectations and establish boundaries through transparent practices (Stracke & Kumar, 2020) but also in setting up a memorandum of understanding for supervision with their students (UNAM Academic).

7.5

Conclusion

In conclusion, formative detailed and progressive support for writing is needed for both the supervisor and the student, perhaps through university writing centers, but also through the active harnessing of peer support, arguably to mutual benefit. Doctoral students require support and encouragement to develop confidence and productivity as writers, including through using feedback as a pedagogy for teaching writing skills. Evidently writing is an essential skill in postgraduate studies. The process of giving or receiving feedback is accompanied by anxiety and the fear of critique, thus both the student and the supervisor’ wellbeing plays crucial role in a doctoral journey. Appropriate and timely feedback is one major key to developing students’ writing skills and successful completion of a doctoral thesis. Given its important role, deliberate efforts should be made to enhance feedback capacity building for both supervisor and supervisee. Equally important

110

K. F. Neshila and J. Golding

is the student and the supervisor’s expectations, unmet expectations can lead to unhealthy supervisor-supervisee relations which in turn can hinder the progress of the doctoral study. Proactive approaches would ensure healthy supervisorsupervisee relationships that lead to graduates who are competent researchers capable of supervising future postgraduate students, and we hope the writing of this chapter will contribute to sensitizing scholars to pressing concerns around feedback on written work: both supervisors and students need a comprehensive understanding of related issues.

References Aitchison, C., & Lee, A. (2006). Research writing: Problems and pedagogies. Teaching in Higher Education, 11(3), 265–278. Aitchison, C., Kamler, B., & Lee, A. (Eds.). (2010). Publishing pedagogies for the doctorate and beyond. Routledge. Aitchison, C., Catterall, J., Ross, P., & Burgin, S. (2012). ‘Tough love and tears’: Learning doctoral writing in the sciences. Higher Education Research & Development, 31(4), 435–447. Bitchener, J. (2018). The relationship between reading, thinking and writing the literature review component of a doctoral confirmation proposal. In S. Carter & D. Laurs (Eds.), Developing research writing: A handbook for supervisors and advisors (pp. 9–16). Routledge. Boote, D. N., & Beile, P. (2005). Scholars before researchers: On the centrality of the dissertation literature review in research preparation. Educational Researcher, 34(6), 3–15. Boud, D., & Molloy, E. (2013). Feedback in higher and professional education: Understanding it and doing it well. Routledge. Cacciotti, G., & Hayton, J. C. (2015). Fear and entrepreneurship: A review and research agenda. International Journal of Management Reviews, 17(2), 165–190. Caffarella, R. S., & Barnett, B. G. (2000). Teaching doctoral students to become scholarly writers: The importance of giving and receiving critiques. Studies in Higher Education, 25(1), 39–52. Carter, S., & Kumar, V. (2017). ‘Ignoring me is part of learning’: Supervisory feedback on doctoral writing. Innovations, Education and Teaching International, 54(1), 68–75. https://doi.org/10. 1080/14703297.2015.1123104 Cotterall, S. (2011). Doctoral students writing: Where’s the pedagogy? Teaching in Higher Education, 16(4), 413–425. James, R., & Baldwin, G. (1999). Eleven practices of effective postgraduate research supervisors. Melbourne. http://melbournem-cshe.unimelb.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0004/1761502/11p ractices.pdf Kamler, B., & Thomson, P. (2006). Helping doctoral students write: Pedagogies for supervision. Routledge. Kiley, M. (2009). Identifying threshold concepts and proposing strategies to support doctoral candidates. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 46(3), 293–304. Kumar, V., & Stracke, E. (2007). An analysis of written feedback on a Ph.D. thesis. Teaching in Higher Education, 12, 461–470. Lea, M. V., & Street, B. V. (2006). Academic literacies: A pedagogy for course design. Studies in Higher Education, 29(6), 739–756. Lee, A., & Murray, R. (2015). Supervising writing: Helping postgraduate students develop as researchers. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 52(5), 558–570. https://doi. org/10.1080/14703297.2013.866329 Lindsay, S. (2015). What works for doctoral students in completing their thesis? Teaching in Higher Education, 20(2), 183–196.

7 Encouraging Doctoral Candidates to Write and Giving Feedback

111

McAlpine, L., & Amundsen, C. (2011). To be or not to be? The challenges of learning academic work. In L. McAlpine & C. Amundsen (Eds.), Doctoral education: Research-based strategies for doctoral students, supervisors and administrators (pp. 1–13). Springer. McDowell, L., & Havnes, A. (2008). Introduction: Assessment dilemmas in contemporary learning cultures. In L. McDowell, & A. Havnes (Eds.), Balancing dilemmas in assessment and learning in contemporary education (pp. 3–14). (Routledge Research in Education). Taylor & Francis. Millar, G. (2020). Writing dissertations: A guide based on editions of the publication manual of the American Psychological Association up to and including the 7th Edition. Lucerne University of Applied Sciences and Arts. Business. Murray, R. (2011). How to write a thesis (3rd ed.). Maidenhead: Open University Press-McGrawHill. Paré, A. (2011). Speaking of writing: Supervisory feedback and the dissertation. In L. McAlpine & C. Amundsen (Eds.), Doctoral education: Research-based strategies for doctoral students, supervisors and administrators (pp. 59–74). Springer. Parkes, J., Abercrombie, S., & McCarty, T. (2013). Feedback sandwiches affect perceptions but not performance. Advances in Health Sciences Education, 18, 397–407. Phillips, E. M., & Pugh, D. S. (2005). How to get a Ph.D.: A handbook for students and their supervisors (4th ed.). Stracke, E., & Kumar, V. (2020). Encouraging dialogue in doctoral supervision: The development of the feedback expectation tool. International Journal of Doctoral Studies, 15, 265–284. Tan, K. (2013). A framework for assessment for learning: implications for feedback practices within and beyond the gap. International Scholarly Research Notices,. Taylor, S., Kiley, M., & Humphrey, R. (2017). A handbook for doctoral supervisors (2nd ed.). Routledge. Topping, K. (1998). Peer assessment between students in colleges and universities. Review of Educational Research, 68, 249–276. Turner, J. (2010). Rewriting writing in higher education: The contested spaces of proofreading. Studies in Higher Education, 36, 427–440. Wei, J., Carter, S., & Laurs, D. (2019). Handling the loss of innocence: First-time exchange of writing and feedback in doctoral supervision. Higher Education Research & Development, 38(1), 157–169. Wellington, J. (2010). More than a matter of cognition: An exploration of affective writing problems of postgraduate students and their possible solutions. Teaching in Higher Education, 15(2), 135–150. Woodward-Kron, R. (2007). Negotiating meanings and scaffolding learning: Writing support for non-English speaking background postgraduate students. Higher Education Research & Development, 26, 253–268.

8

Keeping the Doctoral Research on Track and Monitoring Progress Suraiya Rathankoomar Naicker

Abstract

Doctoral supervision is not a linear journey, for either candidates or supervisors. Research indicates various challenges that candidates encounter which might stall the research resulting in slow progress, drop-out or sub-standard research. Effective supervision pedagogy can assist supervisors in keeping the doctoral candidate’s research on track. This chapter explores reasons that impede candidates’ progress with their research and provides warning signs of stalling students. Global challenges but also those in the southern African landscape are highlighted. Furthermore, it offers ways to monitor progress and to keep the research on track. The important role of the supervisor is elucidated as a key factor that can keep the doctoral candidate on the path towards success. The chapter is informed by the relevant literature on supervision pedagogy. The unique contribution this chapter offers is the experiences of supervisors in three countries in southern Africa namely Zambia, Namibia and South Africa.

8.1

Introduction

My supervision experience commenced in 2014 after graduating with my PhD and entering academia in a lecturer position at a South African university. With a year’s experience of supervising a class of 28 Honours students’ research projects and no supervision training at Masters or doctoral levels of study, I thus entered the academic world of supervision. The doctoral journey is not a linear process that proceeds smoothly from the onset to completion. It is for this reason that the doctoral journey has been described as a “rollercoaster” ride with highs and S. R. Naicker (B) University of Johannesburg, Johannesburg, South Africa e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 K. Luneta et al. (eds.), Doctoral Supervision in Southern Africa, Springer Texts in Education, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-46899-5_8

113

114

S. R. Naicker

lows, or ups and downs (Brennan, 2019, p. 365). This chapter is concerned with how to navigate through these challenges that might cause delays or increase student dropout. The context of the current research is southern Africa with a focus on Namibia, Zambia and South Africa. Models of doctoral supervision in southern Africa have followed European conventions (Manderson et al., 2017). The doctoral undertaking is a long journey spanning three to five years: for example, Banja (2015) identified the long time to completion as a doctoral challenge perceived by candidates at a Zambian university. In South Africa, the recent average time to completion of a doctoral degree is seven years (Mouton et al., 2015). Furthermore, South Africa does not achieve the required number of doctoral graduates which is benchmarked at a hundred graduates per million people when compared with other countries (Mouton et al., 2015). However, doctoral candidates are on the increase worldwide (Murphy et al., 2007) including southern Africa where an expansion in doctoral programmes is evident (Jowi, 2021). It is of concern, however, that the completion rate of doctoral candidates in southern Africa is inefficient varying from 25 to 50% (Jowi, 2021). Nonetheless, Ahern and Manathunga (2004) maintain that the completion rate of doctoral candidates it is a common concern at Higher Education institutions across the world. Hence, the doctoral supervision process must be efficient so that students can complete in minimum time and supervisors can take on new candidates. Yet, uncertain and unforeseen occurrences may delay research progress and completion (Boehe, 2016). For instance, doctoral students are often studying while they hold full time jobs which impacts on their pace to completion. There are times during postgraduate studies when candidates are prone to stalling or become demotivated, and as a result their progress wanes (Ahern & Manathunga, 2004). Herman (2011) investigated doctoral student attrition and identified “academic challenges, financial challenges, work commitments and family obligations” as the main threats to South African doctoral completion. Hence, monitoring postgraduate students’ progress and being sensitive to major deviations from the usual pace of progression is important as is the supervisor’s ability to intervene and get the doctoral research back on track. The concern that this chapter seeks to address is how to ensure that the student stays on track in order to attain completion of their doctoral study. If we look at the doctoral timeline broadly as having three phases of “inception—getting into it”, “research—getting on with it” and “completion—getting it finished” (Loudoun et al., 2020), this chapter’s concern is located in the middle phase. In the inception phase students would have completed the proposal and in the middle phase they would move on to the writing of the thesis and accompanying research execution. Hence, this chapter is concerned with the middle phase which requires keeping candidates on track and monitoring progress in order that they reach the completion phase. The intent of this chapter is to make a contribution with a view to promote doctoral graduate success with a focus on southern Africa. The approach that will be used is a literature review and empirical research stemming from written reflective accounts from eight doctoral supervisors in three countries in southern Africa.

8 Keeping the Doctoral Research on Track and Monitoring Progress

8.2

115

Reasons that Impede Doctoral Progress (Students and Supervisors)

Time management was identified as a barrier to doctoral progress. In South Africa, Mouton et al. (2015) draw attention to candidates’ inability to manage time in terms of balancing their studies, their work and their personal life. Similarly, postgraduate students in Malaysia could not find sufficient time for their studies due to holding full time jobs (Sidhu et al., 2013). The need to work, whether part-time or full-time, is attributed to a lack of funding reflecting the “socio-economic” challenges for doctoral students in South Africa (Leitch et al., 2022, p. 19). However, the challenges of funding for doctoral students is a widespread problem across the African continent (Vilalta & Gmelch, 2012). Hughes (2020) points out that managing time is a widespread difficulty experienced by doctoral candidates and goes on to relate from his personal experience that it took him over seven years to compete his doctorate. In my field which is education leadership and management, postgraduate students are often in high profile school management and leadership positions. For this group of students comprising principals, district officials and chief executive officers of private institutions, completing doctoral studies while effectively managing their own institutions requires a steadfast commitment and resilience. A good case in point is that these doctoral students situated in the discipline of education leadership and management had to focus on completing their research whilst leading their institutions though the recent COVID-19 crisis. Finding the right work-family-study balance, which includes time for oneself, is a dilemma and requires the support of one’s family members (Hughes, 2020). However, it is highlighted by Holbrook et al. (2014) that the current supervision context with increasing supervision numbers, issues pertaining to financing the study, and low completion rates, contributes to pressure on the “student-supervisor relationship and study-work-life balance” (p. 331). Research by Liu et al. (2019) reveal that when students struggle to manage their study-work-life balance, they are prone to “depression and anxiety” (p. 206). In order to understand particular threats which are different for each candidate (Cantwell et al., 2012), a holistic consideration of the specific candidate’s professional and personal circumstances, research background, their values and their expertise is required (Holbrook et al., 2014). Boehe (2016, p. 399) further draws attention to the “contingent nature” of supervision which can arise from personal circumstances or research related matters that can add to the strains of a doctoral candidate. The Covid-19 pandemic is an example of such a contingency that affected candidate’s research progress. In the initial stages of their doctorate, students might be misled, thinking that they have enough time to complete their studies and so creating an “illusion” (Saunders, 2020, p. 1) that might cause students to work without urgency. Time lost in the early stages cannot be recovered as candidates might later come to realise, thus, students should be advised to make the best use of time from the onset. Similarly, students frequently underestimate the difficulty of doctoral study and are not as prepared for doctoral studies as they might have thought (Holbrook et al., 2014). Supervision typically decreases after the proposal phase and at later

116

S. R. Naicker

stages (Sidhu et al., 2013). Momentum therefore needs to be maintained after the proposal is approved, or time to completion is lost. The quality of supervision that candidates experience is another factor that affects progress. Sidhu et al. (2013) maintains that in Malaysia the high dropout rate of doctoral candidates is due to the “nature of postgraduate supervision” (p. 134), which considers aspects such as supervisor-supervisee communication, feedback, interest in the candidate’s study, meetings, the nature of discussions amongst others. Manathunga (2019) highlights that supervisors are busy people who are involved in teaching, co-ordinating classes, publishing, securing research funding, working with external agencies and stakeholders, and dealing with the administrative demands of doctoral supervision. In the context of southern Africa, Manderson et al. (2017) point out that effective supervision is constrained by the overall workload of academics which includes teaching, their own research, heavy administrative responsibilities and participation in the governance of their institutions. Furthermore, the growth of doctoral programmes in southern Africa has not been supported by increased supervision capacity (Bacwayo et al., 2017; Jowi, 2021). This implies that existing supervision capacity in affected southern Africa countries is strained, and hence the quality of supervision is likely to be compromised. Based on their context in Pakistan, Saleem and Mahmood (2018) report that the process of supervision may lack structure and rigour with regard to how often meetings are held and confirmation by way of minutes of meetings with the supervisor. They posit that formal processes and regulations pertaining to the scheduling of meetings, due dates for student work, accessibility to resources and reporting structures are likely to provide greater clarity and direction in the supervision process (Saleem & Mahmood, 2018, p. 23). Doctoral candidates encounter many challenges which may compromise their mental health during their candidature. “Urgency, worry and stress” may lead to depression and anxiety (Liu et al., 2019) and thus impede doctoral progress. Experiencing “stress” was found to be a cause of academic procrastination for 48% of doctoral students at one University in the United Kingdom (He, 2017, p. 23). Reflecting on her doctoral experience, Service (2012, p. 170) elucidates the concept of “emotional turmoil” which impeded her journey. The higher than normal levels of anxiety and nervousness she experienced arose from unanticipated events that came into conflict with her own preconceived notions (Service, 2012). For instance, her participants were not as passionate about her research as she expected, securing her participants went over her set timeframes, she could not control her interviews and observations and the coding process was not as simple as she thought (Service, 2012). In other words, Service (2012) experienced a mismatch between her expectations and her lived experiences. Interestingly, research by Holbrook et al. (2014) was conducted to investigate doctoral students’ expectations and the subsequent mismatch they experience that stalls their progress. Amongst other findings, their research indicated that students experienced “an emotional sink” which extended into loss of “self-efficacy” and “depression” when mismatches between their expectations and reality arose (Holbrook et al., 2014, p. 339). Supervisors can play a role to assist with debriefing the student when they

8 Keeping the Doctoral Research on Track and Monitoring Progress

117

experience such mismatches. Data from progress reports and student satisfaction surveys can assist to identify the mismatches between student expectations and their actual experiences (Holbrook et al., 2014). Doctoral candidates may experience various “cognitive, social and emotional” blocks which lead to “academic procrastination” (Ahern & Manathunga, 2004, p. 252). Cognitive blocks might be a result of candidates being fearful of expressing their difficulties for fear of being deemed incapable while social blocks may result from relational problems and social environments (Ahern & Manathunga, 2004). Emotional blocks may be attributed to “performance anxiety, poor self-esteem or personality clashes” (Ahern & Manathunga, 2004, p. 245). It is important for supervisors to identify these potential blocks when monitoring their students’ progress and intervene with relevant solutions to assist students to get their research back on track. Working with peers or finding a “study buddy” can reduce the loneliness of a doctoral journey and making it a more pleasant “social experience” (Brennan, 2019, p. 366). The COVID-19 pandemic was a crisis that impeded doctoral progress as have other crises arising from civil unrest, natural disasters and other contextual challenges particular to certain countries. A main change during the pandemic was the shift from on-site sessions to online modes of communication (Stevens et al., 2021). However, the pandemic brought on other challenges affecting students’ research such as trips to data collection sites, logistical issues, safety protocols to adhere to and restrictions on the movement of people (Stephen, 2020, p. 3). The digital divide was exposed during the pandemic (Harris & Jones, 2020) and candidates who did not have online resources would have faced setbacks during the pandemic (Stevens et al., 2021). Bob et al., (2020, p. 233) cautioned against assuming that South Africa’s “postgraduate students have internet connectivity” or funding “to acquire data and laptops.” In a Zambian study, doctoral students’ challenge in accessing current information was highlighted (Banja, 2015) well before the pandemic. During times of crises, supervisors play an important supportive and strategic role in assisting the candidates to rethink and redesign the research. Under normal circumstances doctoral candidates experience stress and pressure which would have been elevated during the pandemic. Therefore, keeping students committed amongst the trauma and fears of Covid-19 was an important aspect for supervisors (Stevens et al., 2021). Stephen (2020, p. 5), relays her personal experience of wanting to quit her own doctoral study during the pandemic but that this was averted by her supervisor’s provision of “mentorship and peer support.” Mentoring included “counselling” and discussing alternative research possibilities while peers provided moral support, “empathy” and motivation (Stephen, 2020, p. 4). Mentoring, empathy and resilience are further highlighted by Stevens et al., (2021, p. 6) as powerful supervision practices during COVID-19. Doctoral candidates are expected to make a transition to working independently. In this regard Brennan (2019) asserts that “doctoral students are being trained to be independent researchers and therefore need to take responsibility for their research” (p. 364). Candidates who struggle to make this shift to independent research students lack “practical intelligence,” are “dependent” on their

118

S. R. Naicker

supervisors to “make decisions,” have difficulty with problem solving and do not embrace constructive criticism (Lovitts, 2008, pp. 303–313). Some characteristics that promote candidates’ degree completion are “self-discipline,” “perseverance,” and “striving for excellence,” while personality traits that enable doctoral success are a willingness to work hard, having initiative, persistence and intellectual curiosity (Lovitts, 2008, p. 309). Doctoral candidates may begin their journey with high motivation which then fluctuates (Hughes, 2020). However, motivation is a quality that is important for the completion of a doctoral degree (Lepp et al., 2016) together with having passion for the study topic or project (Lovitts, 2008). When students encounter problems where they feel they are losing control “motivation, confidence and energy” are eroded (Holbrook et al., 2014, p. 336). It is important that doctoral candidates keep motivated by being patient and that they remain committed for the long-term despite their shortcomings or drawbacks experienced during the course of the journey (Lepp et al., 2016).

8.3

Monitoring Progress and Keeping the Research on Track

Supervisors should be alert to warning signs of students who might be ‘stuck’ and noticeable changes in work ethic or behaviour of the students they supervise. Inability to settle on a topic, the absence of all modes of communication with supervisors, withdrawing from departmental activities or peers and avoiding the submissions of drafts to supervisors are signals of stalling students (Ahern & Manathunga, 2004, p. 238). Research undertaken by Lepp et al. (2016) found that there were several reasons for candidates’ poor progress such as the recruitment of unsuitable candidates in the first instance, candidates who lacked preparedness for doctoral studies, breaks in communication between supervisor-supervisee, infrequent meetings, academic writing difficulties and language barriers. Other reasons for stalling were attributed to students’ long periods away from their studies to attend to personal matters which results in losing study habits (Lepp et al., 2016). A study by He (2017) found “laziness, illness, negative influence of peers, difficult course/assignment, absence of role models, teacher’s attitude and feedback, impatience and inability to study” (p. 22) as reasons for academic procrastination in doctoral students. Marshall (2003) contemplates on how a supervisor would know “when to be hands on or hands off” which is tantamount to achieving the right supervision “balance” (p. 105). If supervisors use a structured approach this enables effective monitoring of supervisees’ progress though the set milestones but this approach could be inflexible (Marshall, 2003). However, with an unstructured approach to supervision, the supervisees may have too much leeway that causes them fall behind (Marshall, 2003). A supervisor should intervene rather than use a “wait and see” approach if there are signs of students’ stalling, procrastinating or being anxious, as waiting tends to worsen the problem (Ahern & Manathunga, 2004, p. 239). Furthermore, it is important for students to share with their supervisors any obstacles that threaten

8 Keeping the Doctoral Research on Track and Monitoring Progress

119

their doctoral progress. Brennan (2019) advises that, “It is okay to confess if you do not understand, or if your research is taking more time than expected, or even if you have a health problem” (p. 366). In this regard supervisors should be approachable so that openness and transparency can be encouraged in the supervisor-supervisee relationship. It is a widely held claim in the literature that the quality of the supervisory relationship between the supervisor and the candidate is the main aspect that enables progress towards achieving the PhD (Johansson & Yerrabati, 2017; Saleem & Mahmood, 2017; Sambrook et al., 2008; Wellington, 2010). The choice of supervisor is thus, probably, the most crucial decision in the doctoral journey, as a good supervisor can make or break the doctoral experience (Brennan, 2019). However, candidates may not always be at liberty to choose their supervisors. In some institutions it is the supervisors’ prerogative to select their candidates. A challenge revealed in a Zambian study was the strained supervision capacity in terms of insufficient suitably qualified senior staff (Banja, 2015, p. 45). Sidhu et al. (2013) provide an apt description of the supervisor’s role, stating that “an effective supervisor is a people oriented person who is a motivator, a confidence booster and one who respects the student as a fellow researcher.” From this description the relational element, motivational element and professional elements are deemed important. In addition Sidhu et al. (2013) contend that a supervisor should be “engaged, involved and interested.” Supporting the views of Sidhu et al. (2013) is Saleem and Mahmood (2018, p. 10) who describe a good supervisor-supervisee relationship as having “good communication, agreed standards, professionalism, consideration of needs of the other party and ethical behaviour.” In southern Africa, students self-fund their studies and make other great sacrifices in order to complete their postgraduate studies timeously and progress in their careers (Bacwayo et al., 2017). Thus, it is incumbent for supervisors to understand and meet the expectations of their supervisees, and satisfy the “enormous task of ensuring quality mentoring” (Bacwayo et al., 2017, p 29).

8.4

Effective Supervision Pedagogy

In this section various suggestions for effective supervision pedagogy are made from scholars. Supervision has a great influence on doctoral progress (Murphy et al., 2007) and thus effective supervision pedagogy is key to the successful completion of a thesis. Kritsonis (2008) advises supervisors to have presence, to promote peer support, to respond to students not later than ten working days and to be “available, flexible and adaptable” (p. 4). Furthermore, supervisors should ensure that it is the candidate that takes on the responsibility of meeting deadlines and ask candidates for gentle reminders if supervisors do not respond timeously (Kritsonis, 2008). A supervisor’s diligence draws in the supervisee’s interest (Kritsonis, 2008) which in turn keeps the research on track. Lovitts (2008, p. 317) noted that some qualities of supervisors who were highly successful were that they took

120

S. R. Naicker

“personal responsibility” to see students succeed, provided direction with the complex aspects of the research and who adjusted their supervision style to the needs of their students. A study by Liu et al. (2019) found that the mentoring relationship of a supervisor “mediated the correlation between research self-efficacy and depression/anxiety” (p. 205). Saleem and Mahmood (2018) hold the view that research supervision has different stages which renders the supervisory process “dynamic” (p. 9) but also requires that different advice is provided to according to the stage of research and the associated tasks that need to be accomplished. Their research revealed “negative supervision experiences” from candidates at the various phases of the research (Saleem & Mahmood, 2018, p. 24). The greatest area of dissatisfaction that supervisees reported was “monitoring the work progress, timelines and providing support to accomplish their stage specific tasks” (Saleem & Mahmood, 2018, p. 21). Hence, understanding what difficulties might arise in the different stages of research and how it might affect supervisees’ progress can assist in preventing supervisees going off track (Saleem & Mahmood, 2018). Postgraduate schools, faculty workshops and seminars can play an important role to support candidates and supervisors in providing stage specific skills. Research was conducted by Sidhu et al. (2013) where supervisees describe effective supervisors as being “easily contactable, provide prompt and constructive feedback at all times, place importance on students’ work beyond personal interest, keep to scheduled meetings, hold intellectual discussions, monitor students’ progress and allow them to make mistakes so that they can grow as fellow researchers” (p. 139). Furthermore, supervisees prefer supervisors who “understand the multiple roles that they [supervisees] take on as adult learners and hence prefer to work within a flexible time frame that allows them to take risks and encourage creativity” (Sidhu et al., 2013, p. 139). Much has been written about the supervisor’s role in the literature. However, a main concern is how this role is implemented (Almusaed & Almssad, 2020). How supervision takes place rests ultimately with the professionalism of the supervisor, the ability to reflect on their supervision practice and mastery of supervision pedagogy.

8.5

Role of Student

Students, being the persons who embarked on the doctoral journey have a significant role and tremendous effort to put in towards their own success. However, many find the doctoral journey overwhelming. Reflecting on his more than seven years doctoral experience, where he struggled with time management Hughes (2020) provides several suggestions to doctoral candidates. Firstly, manage the tasks that aren’t related to you doctorate; secondly, prioritise your activities and tasks turning down or redirecting tasks back to those responsible; thirdly, block out on your schedule your time for studies after discussion with your family; fourthly, set up conditions that will enhance your studies such as balancing family-workstudy time, managing distractors and finding an appropriate environment to work

8 Keeping the Doctoral Research on Track and Monitoring Progress

121

in; fifthly, work out and agree upon timeframes and goals for the month with your supervisor (Hughes, 2020). In addition Saunders (2020) offers insights regarding time related challenges namely, to develop and update a working plan with timeframes and keep this updated, identify the milestones with your supervisor and celebrate when you achieve them, keep a rhythm of working and keep the momentum throughout, stay on track and avoid distractions, factor in time into your plan for contingencies and be up-front with your supervisor with events that arise that slow your progress so they can be aware and guide you accordingly. Brennan’s (2019, p. 364) paper provides “100 PhD rules of the game” directed to doctoral students, which they will find valuable during their journey. Included in these are discussed various attributes that will assist doctoral candidates to remain on track. One attribute is “grit” which is marked by a student’s “determination, doggedness and persistence” and Brennan (2019, p. 365) argues is more valuable in completing doctoral studies than “IQ”. Another attribute is resilience which is the ability to “bounce back” in the face of adversity (Brennan, 2019, p. 365). Further suggestions are to remain focused, don’t take on extra workload, be selfdisciplined, work with a peer to reduce isolation and have a ‘plan to completion’ which you closely monitor (Brennan, 2019).

8.6

Progress Reporting

Progress reports add to the burden of administrative work but can play an important monitoring function in the doctoral journey. Marshall (2003) further supports that use of “documentation” pertaining to guidelines, supervisor-supervisee contracts, “schedules, action plans and checklists” can be useful to keeping the thesis on track (p. 114). Mewburn et al. (2014) describe progress reports as “key management” tools for doctoral progress used by institutions to “monitor” progress and obtain “feedback” (p. 2). Reports can assist managers to “see inside the supervisor-student relationship” (p. 3) and provide information as to the status of the research and actions taken which are signed-off (Mewburn et al., 2014). However, reports may indicate that all is going well, neglecting the difficulties encountered and are therefore not honest accounts as found by Cuthbert and Spencer (2001). Supervisors might try to avoid being exposed for neglecting their supervision responsibilities or not want to expose the candidate’s inadequate progress rendering the reporting ineffective (Mewburn et al., 2014). However, if there is a focus on aspects that thwart student progress when progress reporting this will encourage intervention (Cuthbert & Spencer, 2001). As educations systems move more and more of their administration systems that were previously undertaken manually to online modes, the use of web-based applications and its software is relevant and timely. The movement to a digital platform for tracking the milestones of postgraduate students is in a pilot phase at my own university. Zlatarov et al. (2019) report on an effective web-based application that is able to track the progress of doctoral students, keep evidence of candidates’ portfolios and generate reports as well as visual representations of

122

S. R. Naicker

progress. Such systems promote automation of the tracking of students, documents students’ ongoing progress in each phase of the journey and provides credibility with regarding to the progress of every doctoral student in the institution (Zlatarov et al., 2019).

8.7

Study Findings: Supervisor Reflections

Qualitative data was elicited from written accounts of supervisor reflections. There were reflections from eight supervisors from three universities in three countries in southern Africa namely, South Africa (UJ), Namibia (UNAM) and Zambia (UNZA). All participants have supervised at least one doctoral student to completion. Data was analysed using content analysis (Henning et al., 2004) to identify the insights pertaining to keeping the doctoral research on track and montitoring progress. A finding supported by four of the eight supervisors and across all three universities was that supervisors kept candidates engaged by using the strategy of getting doctoral students to present their work at conferences “even if the data were preliminary” (UJ Academic). Candidates then used the feedback from these draft conference powerpoints and feedback from conference “delegates” (UJ Academic) to improve the quality of their thesis. “I support my candidates to present at conferences and publish so that the feedback they get can advance their research focus” (UNZA Academic). Conferences were also a way to “provide professional and career development” (UNAM Academic) for candidates and encourage “them to network with other conference participants” (UNAM Academic). A UJ Academic mentioned that he/she supported candidates by utilising personal research trust funds to support students to attend conferences. In addition, two supervisors (UJ & UNAM Academics) encouraged their students to publish their work in journals during the supervision process and this made the writing up of the thesis easier. The literature review identified motivation as being important for doctoral completion (Lepp et al., 2016) and a requirement from supervisors. Supporting students with conference participation and publication opportunities was a positive behaviour that some of the supervisors in this study displayed. Four supervisors across all three universities raised the use of progress reporting. A UNZA academic suggested that progress reporting was taken more seriously for candidates employed by the institution. Two supervisors, however, shared positive experiences of the use of progress reporting. Although Cuthbert and Spencer (2001) found that not all reporting provides honest accounts, a supervisor stated, “I try to be as honest as possible and state if there are delays and challenges, and state ongoing efforts we are exploring in solving them” (UJ Academic). Although progress reporting is used for payment of incentives a supervisor felt that it renders “supervisors more accountable to the progress and completion of students’ studies” (UNAM Academic). Mewburn et al. (2014) reported that supervisors were reluctant to expose non-performance and this was corroborated by a supervisor who stated that “I remember trying to choose appropriate wording for that report so that my

8 Keeping the Doctoral Research on Track and Monitoring Progress

123

student could be allowed to continue with his studies” (UNAM Academic). It was also difficult to report on aspects such as “student mental health, anxiety, stress, work” (UNAM Academic). A supervisor explained that progress reports are effectively used “to show the milestones students have achieved” (UJ Academic) but that “letters from the faculty that warn students who are slackening has been very helpful” (UJ Academic). A supervisor relayed that his/her students were expected to “submit a progress report every 14 days” (UJ Academic) so that she/he could track progress. A UNAM academic spoke of progress reports being required by his/her institution every semester. Effective communication was a practice that five of the supervisors across all three universities enacted in order to keep students on track. A UNZA Academic relayed, “I ensure that I am in constant communication with my candidates.” A UJ Academic held “weekly meetings” with candidates but intended to revert to “monthly” meetings as his/her supervision workload increases. A UNAM Academic remarked, “as soon as I receive progress reports, I will contact my students and inform them immediately.” A supervisor explained, “I create continuous channels of communications through announcements on Blackboard, e-mails, WhatsApp groups and face-to-face contact by appointment in the office” (UJ Academic). Another supervisor used “platforms such as Zoom and Microsoft Teams” (UJ Academic) to hold meetings. Saleem and Mahmood (2018) support effective communication as the hallmark of a good supervisor-supervisee relationship. A UJ Academic relates “I have learnt not to cancel a meeting in the absence of written work using the time to teach a skill, such as interviewing technique, and in so doing keep the momentum of the study going.” Sidhu et al. (2013) encourages supervisors and candidates to keep to scheduled meetings. “Peer support” (UJ Academic) is another strategy that four supervisors across two of the three universities encouraged. Students are encouraged to attend “the viva voce examinations of other students” (UNAM Academic). This indicates the promotion of a community of scholarship. Another UNAM Academic similarly indicated that she/he encourages “students to interact with others especially through forums such as workshops where postgraduate students present their work and viva voce examinations.” The viva for doctoral candidates is not currently practised at all in South African universities (Mudzielwana, 2016), though UJ, for instance, will implement the viva voce from 2024. Peer support was further promoted by “forming a professional learning community for them [students] to interact, present work and critique work” (UJ Academic). Moreover, a WhatsApp group was used by a UJ Academic and it “provided opportunities to learn from fellow students as part of a community of practice.” Kritsonis, (2008) advises supervisors to encourage a peer community so that peers can “provide practical feedback and encouragement” to each other (p. 3). The setting of boundaries and expectations came up from academics at all three universities. A supervisor expounded on the importance of “establishing clear boundaries between supervisors and supervisees” in order to “help both parties to know what exactly is expected from their sides and it will minimise tension between supervisors and students” (UNAM Academic). A UJ Academic stated, “I share my

124

S. R. Naicker

expectations and responsibilities with them” and that “This strategy has assisted me in holding students accountable for submitting their work on time, attending consultation meetings…” Furthermore, boundary setting enables the supervisee to “hold me accountable, particularly when it comes to the turn-around time for marked submissions” (UJ Academic). Candidates are required to draw up “a plan and it seems to be working well in terms of making substantial progress towards completion of the research project” (UNZA Academic). Another UJ Academic spoke of measuring progress “against their [students] stipulated research plans” but also holding “students accountable in terms of the student-supervisor relationship agreement.” A UNAM Academic mentioned that students “like to shift the blame even if they are the reason for their own lack of progress.” A supervisor expressed that delays in progress were as a result of “proposals approved at different levels” including “Higher degree Board committees, ethics committees” (UNAM Academic). Nevertheless, one supervisor found the mandatary milestones helpful to report progress and keep the research on track. “Achieving milestones in the set times” was also supported by a UJ Academic as a way to keep the research on track. A supervisor emphasised that “it is these psychological challenges and not the intellectual ones, that are most stressful to PhD students” (UNAM Academic). In this regard the UNAM Academic stated, “I always try to encourage them [students] to call me at any time they have problems whether psychological or intellectual challenges in their studies.” Ahern and Manathunga (2004) elucidate the arising “cognitive, social and emotional” blocks (p. 252) for which this supervisor displayed “personal responsibility” to see students succeed (Lovitts, 2008, p. 317). A UNAM Academic recalled the support that was provided by his/her supervisor when all his/her data and stored information was lost and he/she contemplated quitting. She/he thus assures his/her students “to feel free to contact me anytime they have a query or when there is something bothering them” (UNAM Academic). A UJ Academic suggested that the University’s free psychological services “is an important avenue for support and mental health.” A UJ Academic spoke of neglecting candidates during “busy periods” and at such times expects them to work on their own as they “should be independent scholars.” Sidhu et al. (2013) states that candidates might be neglected due to the demands of academia, as supervisors are constantly “fighting for time” as they lecture classes, assess student work and have heavy supervision loads. This too is the case in southern Africa where supervisors are overloaded with too many candidates in addition to other academic demands, and as a result candidates have insufficient access to their supervisors (Bacwayo et al., 2017). Considering the emotional pressure on supervisors due to heavy workloads, co-supervision could play an important role in keeping the research on track. Co-supervision is discussed further in Chap. 5 of this book.

8 Keeping the Doctoral Research on Track and Monitoring Progress

8.8

125

Conclusion

This chapter sought to elucidate how supervisors and doctoral candidates can remain on track in order to compete the doctorate study. Effective time management, recognising the obstacles that struggling students encounter, understanding supervisor and supervisee roles, effective supervision pedagogy and honest progress reporting all contribute to the completion of the doctoral journey. The literature review further identified challenges encountered by doctoral students in southern Africa. These include slow time to completion, academic challenges, work commitments, family obligations as well as challenges that arise from students socio-economic circumstances. Keeping the momentum from the onset with the commitment from both the student and supervisor will promote doctoral success. Candidates must realise that the most important aspect of their doctoral research is completion (Brennan, 2019). The findings from participants of the study as they reflect on keeping their doctoral students on track include the use of progress reporting, effective communication and setting clear expectations and boundaries. The supervisor reflections are indicative of caring supervisors who engage frequently and on different platforms with students and who are available to support students in times of difficulty. Supervisors in the study develop scholarship by encouraging supervisee participation at conferences, publishing of articles and encouraging peer support. Research in postgraduate supervision is ongoing. However, it is important to zoom into “areas in need of further development” to further elucidate matters pertaining to doctoral supervision (Holbrook, p. 341). Greater dialogue is required regarding postgraduate supervision challenges in southern Africa and opportunities for “mediation and support” (Manderson et al., 2017). Hence, in the context of southern Africa, this article contributes to the discourse on the important function of a supervisor which is to keep the research on track by monitoring doctoral progress.

References Ahern, K., & Manathunga, C. (2004). Clutch-starting stalled research students. Innovative Higher Education, 28(4), 237–254. Almusaed, A., & Almssad, A. (2020, July 15–19). The role of the supervisor on developing PhD students’ skills. In R. Thripp & I. Sahin (Eds.), International Conference on Humanities, Social and Education Sciences. Washington, DC. Bacwayo, K., Nampala, P., & Oteyo, I. N. (2017). Challenges and opportunities associated with supervising graduate students enrolled in African universities. International Journal of Education and Practice, 5(3), 29–39. Banja, M. K. (2015). Student perceptions of the School of Education PhD programmes at the University of Zambia. Zambia Journal of Teacher Professional Growth, 2(2), 45–60. Bob, U., Munien, S., Gumede, A., & Gounden, R. (2020). Supporting research at South African universities during the Covid-19 crisis: Key areas for consideration and critical reflections on responses with a focus on postgraduate education. In J. A. Smit, N. Ndimande-Hlongwa, N. Mkhize, & L. Ramrathan (Eds.), Learner and subject at the dawn of digital research-led teaching

126

S. R. Naicker

and learning in the time of Covid-19 (pp. 224–244). CSSALL Publishers. https://doi.org/10. 29086/978-0-9869936-5-7/2020/AASBS04 Boehe, D. M. (2016). Supervisory styles: A contingency framework. Studies in Higher Education, 41(3), 399–414. Brennan, N. M. (2019). 100 PhD rules of the game to successfully complete a doctoral dissertation. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 32(1), 364–376. https://doi.org/10.1108/ AAAJ-01-2019-030 Cantwell, R., Scevak, J., Bourke, S., & Holbrook, A. (2012). Individual differences that affect the quality of learning in doctoral candidates. In M. Lawson & J. Kirby (Eds.), Enhancing the quality of learning: Dispositions, instruction and learning processes (pp. 93–114). Cambridge University Press. Cuthbert, D., & Spencer, C. (2001). White lies, damned lies and annual progress reports of HDR candidates and their supervisors. Australian Association of Institutional Researchers (AAIR) Forum 2001: Proceedings: University of Central Queensland. Retrieved December 5th, 2011 from http://www.aair.org.au/jir/html/Papers2001.htm Harris, A., & Jones, M. (2020). COVID 19—School leadership in disruptive times. School Leadership & Management, 40(4), 243–247. https://doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/13632434.2020.181 1479 He, S. (2017). A multivariate investigation into academic procrastination of university students. Open Journal of Social Sciences, 5, 12–24. https://doi.org/10.4236/jss.2017.510002 Henning, E., Van Rensburg, W., & Smit, B. (2004). Finding your way in qualitative research. Van Schaik. Herman, C. (2011). Obstacles to success—Doctoral student attrition in South Africa. Perspectives in Education, 29(3), 40–52 Holbrook, A., Shaw, K., Scevak, J., Bourke, S., Cantwell, R., & Budd, J. (2014). PhD candidate expectations: Exploring mismatch with experience. International Journal of Doctoral Studies, 9, 329–346. Hughes, C. (2020). Managing time and maintaining focus. In K. Townsend, M. N. K. Saunders, R. Loudoun, & E. A. Morrison (Eds.), How to Keep your doctorate on track (pp. 256–263). Edward Elgar Publishing. Johansson, C., & Yerrabati, S. (2017). A review of the literature on professional doctorate supervisory styles. Management in Education, 31(4), 166–171. Jowi, J. O. (2021). Doctoral training in African universities: Recent trends, developments and issues. Journal of the British Academy, 9(1), 159–181. https://doi.org/10.5871/jba/009s1.159 Kritsonis, W. A., & Green, W. R. (2008). Functions of the doctoral dissertation advisor. Focus on Colleges, Universities and Schools, 2(1), 1–6. Leitch, A., Burton, S., Ntshoe, I., Kaniki, A., & Ralebipi-Simela, R. (2022). National review of South African doctoral qualifications 2020–2021. Council on Higher Education. Lepp, L., Remik, M., Leijen, A., & Leijen, D. A. J. (2016). Doctoral students’ research stall: Supervisors’ perceptions and intervention strategies. SAGE Open, 1–12. Liu, C., Wang, L., Qi, R., Wang, W., Jia, S., Shang, D., Shao, Y., Yu, M., Zhu, X., Yan, S., Chang, Q., & Zhao, Y. (2019). Prevalence and associated factors of depression and anxiety among doctoral students: The mediating effect of mentoring relationships on the association between research self-efficacy and depression/anxiety. Psychology Research and Behavior Management, 12, 195–208. Loudoun, R., Morrison, E. A., Saunders, M. N. K., & Townsend, K. (2020). What we wish we had known: Lessons learned to keep your doctorate on track. In K. Townsend, M. N. K. Saunders, R. Loudoun, & E. Morrison (Eds.), How to keep you doctorate on track: Insights from students’ and supervisors’ experiences (pp. 1–9). Edward Elgar Publishing. Lovitts, B. E. (2008). The transition to Independent research: Who makes it, who doesn’t and why. The Journal of Higher Education, 79(3), 296–325. Manathunga, C. (2019). Timescapes in doctoral education: The politics of temporal equity in higer education. Higher Education Research and Development, 38(6), 1227–1239.

8 Keeping the Doctoral Research on Track and Monitoring Progress

127

Manderson, L., Bondjers, G., Izugbara, C., Cole, D. C., Egesah, O., Ezeh, A., & Fonn. (2017). Enhancing doctoral supervision practices in Africa: Reflection on the CARTA approach. Journal of Higher Education in Africa/Revue de l’enseignement supérieur en Afrique, 15(2), 23–40. Marshall, S. (2003). Supervising projects and dissertations. In H. Fry, S. Ketteridge, & S. Marshall (Eds.), A handbook for teaching & learning in higher education (pp. 105–120). Kogan Page. Mewburn, I., Tokareve, E., Cuthbert, D., Sinclair, J., & Barnacle, R. (2014). These are issues that should not be raised in black and white: The culture of progress reporting and the doctorate. Higher Education Research & Development, 33(3), 510–522. https://doi.org/10.1080/072 94360.2013.841649 Mouton, J., van Lill, M., Botha, J., Boshoff, N., Valentine, A., Cloete, N., & Sheppard, C. (2015). A study on the retention, completion and progress rates of South African postgraduate students. Department of Science & Technology. Mudzielwana, N. P. (2016). The viva voce: The living voice of a doctoral thesis. In L. Frick, C. Motshoane, C. McMaster, & C. Murphy (Eds.), Postgraduate study in South Africa (pp. 213– 221). Sun Press. Murphy, N., Bain, J. D., & Conrad, L. M. (2007). Orientations to research higher degree supervision. Higher Education, 53, 209–234. Saleem, T., & Mahmood, N. (2017). Influence of the supervision related background variables on the supervisees’ supervision experiences at postgraduate level. Pakistan Journal of Education, 34(2), 73–99. Saleem, T., & Mahmood, N. (2018). Assessing the quality of supervision experiences in the different research stages at postgraduate level. Journal of Education and Educational Development, 5(2), 8–27. Sambrook, S., Stewart, J., & Roberts, C. (2008). Doctoral supervision: A view from above, below and the middle. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 32(1), 71–84. Saunders, M. N. K. (2020). Time is waiting in the wings. In K. Townsend, M. N. K. Saunders, R. Loudoun, & E. Morrison (Eds.), How to keep you doctorate on track: Insights from students’ and supervisors’ experiences (pp. 238–247). Edward Elgar Publishing. Service, B. (2012). Keeping the faith: how reflective practice can turn emotional turmoil into a positive outcome in the context of doctoral study. Reflective Practice, 13(2), 169–182. https://doi. org/10.1080/14623943.2011.626029 Sidhu, G. K., Kaur, S., Fook, C.Y., & Yunus, F.W. (2013). Postgraduate supervision: Exploring Malaysian students’ experiences. Procedia–Social and Behavioral Science, 90, 33–141. Stephen, C. (2020). Research in time of crisis: Keeping my PhD on track. Faculty of Science, Medicine and Health—Papers: Part B. Available from: https://ro.uow.edu.au/smhpapers1/1695 Stevens, D. D., Chetty, R., Bertrand Jones, T., Yallew, A., & Butler-Henderson, K. (2021). Doctoral supervision and COVID-19: Autoethnographies from four faculty across three continents. Journal of University Teaching & Learning Practice, 18(5). https://ro.uow.edu.au/jutlp/vol18/ iss5/6 Vilalta, J. M., & Gmelch, N. (2012). Current situation and future challenges of PhD studies in sub-Saharan Africa. Associacio Catalana D’Universitats Publiques. Wellington, J. J. (2010). Making supervision work for you: A student’s guide. Sage. Zlatarov P., Ivanova, G., & Baeva, D. (2019). A web-based system for personalized learning path tracking of doctoral students. MIPRO Proceedings 2019/CE—Opatija, pp. 893–898, https://doi. org/10.23919/MIPRO.2019.8757071

9

Postgraduate Student Growth Trajectory: Supporting Personal, Professional and Career Development in the 21st Century Kabunga Nachiyunde, Gift Masaiti, and Jennie Golding

Abstract

This chapter provides reflections in terms of the nature and type of support postgraduate students (especially doctoral) need to be provided with around personal, professional and career development. In doing so, both empirical and theoretical studies, and colleagues’ scholarly reflections, are invoked, carefully exploring the different support systems that postgraduate students are provided with by examining the synergistic and symbiotic relation between supervisor and the supervised in higher education. The main aim of this chapter is to establish ways in which graduate students can be provided with the much-required competencies for them to develop skills that transcend individual and academic disciplines. Arguments regarding these competences are around issues related to communication, leadership, teaching and instruction, professional adaptability and generally, self-awareness. Keywords

Postgraduate ment

•

Personal growth

•

Professional development

•

Career develop-

K. Nachiyunde (B) · G. Masaiti University of Zambia, Lusaka, Zambia e-mail: [email protected] G. Masaiti e-mail: [email protected] J. Golding University College London, London, UK e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 K. Luneta et al. (eds.), Doctoral Supervision in Southern Africa, Springer Texts in Education, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-46899-5_9

129

130

9.1

K. Nachiyunde et al.

Introduction

The chapter further demonstrates that graduate students bring a multiplicity of experiences and wide array of needs to the process of pursuing their studies. After graduation, there is need for them to have enriched and holistic approaches which will be informed by systematic postgraduate development as part of the support system. At the core of this chapter, is the aspect of student mentorship in terms of research, coursework and teaching, examining the multiple roles of a professional supervisor and especially those related to funding and job opportunities. This chapter is based on desk review where data was gathered on available empirical and theoretical evidence. It is also supplemented by pertinent case study scenarios, especially from the outlook of challenging environments of postgraduate training. Theories of mentorship and professional growth are invoked as a way of enriching the understanding of graduate student growth trajectory in the 21st Century.

9.2

Supporting Personal, Professional and Career Development

In exploring the issue of creating solid support systems for postgraduate research students, it is imperative that focus should be on creating common ground towards a clear operational definition of what good supervision is and what it is expected to achieve, and adopting a policy framework so that the supervisee and supervisor are aware of aims and expectations (Oliver & Aggleton, 2002). In supporting overall growth of postgraduate students, it is important to draw on a study by Crane et al. (2016), who identified good practice whereby university staff knowledgeable about industry trends and specific employment options and opportunities would act as mentors and/or supervisors. Furthermore, it was noted that students wanted to have personalised conversations and career counselling with staff who knew them and could help shape their futures. Jacklin and Le Riche (2009) argue, further, that there should be reconceptualization of student support from ‘support’ as a mainly reactive response to perceived student problems, to university-wide ‘supportive’ (and proactive) cultures and contexts. From our observation as supervisors in the context of Zambia, the supervision support system for postgraduate students, when it works well, comprises a synergistic and symbiotic relation between supervisor and the supervised. This assertion is supported by the findings of Hadi and Muhammad (2019) who argue that the relationship between supervisor performance and postgraduate student performance is statistically significant, suggesting that the supervisor factor affects postgraduate student performance. This observation points to the inevitable conclusion that the effectiveness of the support system which a university might choose to adopt is partly dependant on the supervisor. A UJ colleague addressed the importance of attention to the whole student’s development, in supporting academic progress:

9 Postgraduate Student Growth Trajectory: Supporting Personal, Professional …

131

Barry et al (2018) reported that challenges such as personal, professional and career development during a doctoral training programme could lead to psychological distress and poor completion time. Personal challenges could be as a result of problems related to interactions with the academic community, problems with supervisors, problems related to financial resources and others, while professional and career challenges could be as a result of problems related to development and identity as a researcher. Support can also be positive promotion of opportunities for doctoral students. In my experience, my support to my doctoral students has taken the form of both addressing issues and providing opportunities for personal and career growth (UJ Academic).

There are also other significant factors that are worth discussing. These factors derive from adult education models as shown by Newman and Peile (2002), who explain that appropriate models of adult education are models that emphasise a facilitative approach, guided reflection, learning from experience, and an adult-toadult relationship between learner and trainer. In addition to education focused on groups, the learning needs of individuals need to be catered for and their wider experience acknowledged and used. Newman and Peile (2002) also argue that paternalism in an adult educational relationship, such as that obtaining at postgraduate level, is rarely appropriate and may not lead to effective personal growth but rather cultivate an unhealthy culture of dependence and perceptions of a supervisor as an “oracle of wisdom”. Discerning an appropriate balance between productive interest in students’ wider lives, and maintaining a professional distance, can be a challenge, as reflected on, and exemplified, by one UJ colleague:

I try to support the personal welfare of my doctoral candidates as much as I can but also try not to encroach on their personal lives. For example, one doctoral student’s wife gave birth to their first child in his home country two years ago, I gave time to travel back home to be with his wife and new born baby. Another example: two of my doctoral students were having challenges with funding and this was affecting their research work. I arranged short funding for them and also supported their application for external bursary (UJ Academic).

9.3

Supporting Professional and Career Growth

Postgraduate students are highly diverse and it is the authors’ experience that the resulting complexity of student prior experiences is often not sufficiently accommodated in universities. Further, it appears, as noted by other researchers, that in most third world countries, postgraduate students do not receive adequate support for their transition to postgraduate modes of study, and likewise, not much attention

132

K. Nachiyunde et al.

is paid to the actual details of the master’s programme or the doctoral related programmes (Asamoah, 2019; Crane et al., 2016; Heussi, 2012). Black and Plowright (2010), though, demonstrate that research provides a significant contribution to an understanding of reflection for learning and professional practice development for graduate education. In this area, supervisor action research could make an important contribution to providing deep reflective insights about graduate training and supervision. There is also need to unpack underlying issues related to professional and career growth of postgraduate students. In addressing issues of professional and career growth, we argue that there are three critical dimensions of approaches that must be considered: the students, the university and the employer. This view is echoed by Holaday et al. (2007) whose study shows that both graduate students and employers have expressed a desire for an educational experience that better prepares students for their professional roles. This experience should be integral to the university support system. Artess and Hooley (2017) show that the overwhelming majority of postgraduate students chose to undertake postgraduate programmes for career reasons. There is therefore a need to provide an infrastructure to support the career and skill development of students (Jones et al., 2012). It is our experience that the appetite for pursuing graduate studies is often focused on prospects related to career advancement, especially in Southern Africa and other developing areas. It is therefore important for supervisors to develop familiarity with their students’ aspirations, and to support those where they reasonably can, as suggested by the following UK colleague:

I also involved my doctoral students in contract research from industry, recently to evaluate the technical and economic feasibility of a new technology. I invited one of my doctoral students to work on the process modelling aspects and he also earned some stipends. Two other doctoral students have previously participated in different external industrial projects (UJ Academic).

Since graduate students bring a multiplicity of experiences and wide array of needs to the process of pursuing their studies, including after graduation, there is need for a holistic approach to postgraduate development as part of the support system. Crane et al. (2016) argue that graduate students should be well rounded and develop skills and competencies which should transcend individual academic disciplines. Toward that end, they identified five clear competencies, which cut across academic disciplines and degree programmes. It is also our view that these competencies should be emphasised as part of the support system. The five competencies are discussed in-depth in the subsequent paragraphs. Communication: This competency entails the ability to use written and oral communication effectively. In addition to the preparation of scholarly publications, this includes a range of skills related to communication in professional settings such as proposal writing, small group and meeting facilitation, negotiating, questioning, and interviewing. It also includes skills highly specific to certain fields.

9 Postgraduate Student Growth Trajectory: Supporting Personal, Professional …

133

In health care settings, for example, but also in supervision, this entails skills in empathy and responsiveness. One colleague was able to exemplify such qualities in practice:

Reflecting on my own experience in supervising students, communication is very important. At time a student could be experiencing difficult to cope with studies especially after losing a family member. Talking to one of my graduate students a couple of years ago after noticing some warning signs such as sudden slow progress, student seemingly withdrawn, helped me to intervene just in time and advise him to consider taking some time off from his studies which he did and that helped him to come back to his studies with a refreshed mind and complete in time. Students look up to us to guide them through to the end in their academic work. Literature on postgraduate supervision suggests that effective communication is a key element of the supervision process (Yousefi et al., 2017) (UNAM Academic).

The second competency is Leadership. Leadership, as used here, is the ability to direct and manage human and other resources. This includes a variety of skills related to developing and articulating an organisational vision, planning, managing staff and fiscal resources, delegating, monitoring, understanding and upholding the ethics of one’s profession. These two competencies for communication and leadership are central to grow a well-rounded academic. The third Competency Crane et al. (2016) identify is Teaching and Instruction. This competency is the ability to facilitate the learning of others in a variety of settings, including academic classrooms, workshops, seminars, staff development activities, and clinical settings. In addition to mastery of subject matter, this includes a variety of skills related to the planning and delivery of instruction, along with the evaluation and improvement of teaching itself. The fourth competency is Professional Adaptability. This is anchored in capacity to utilise theory and technical skills in practice, and is the hallmark of professional adaptability. It also includes the ability to anticipate and accommodate changes (e.g., technological, competitive) important to one’s profession, and the capacity to modify elements of professional practice accordingly, as well as a range of capabilities related to functioning effectively in “real world” settings such as working well with others, managing multiple tasks and demands simultaneously, setting work priorities, and developing sensitivity to organisational culture and politics. In understanding all the competencies above the fifth competency of SelfAwareness becomes very central. Self-awareness is the ability to honestly assess one’s interests, abilities, and values, and based on this assessment one should be able to develop the ability to make wise professional and personal decisions. This also includes knowledge of and preparation for career options, matching career goals with personal values, balancing personal and professional commitments, and maintaining personal values in the workplace.

134

K. Nachiyunde et al.

These five focus competencies do not exist in a vacuum or detached from other multiple realities in which higher education co-exists and can be influenced; their development can complement support for other aspects of supervisory practices at doctoral level of education. The authors propose that these key competencies, or a modified version depending on circumstances in a particular university, are considered for adoption as standard practice across Southern Africa.

9.4

Context of Supporting Personal, Professional and Career Development

Related issues include styles of assessment and access, and availability of relevant resources that can be influenced positively by higher education institutions through course design and structures of institutional support. Other influential factors include time, personal circumstances and support in the workplace. Although not controlled by higher education institutions, these factors might be influenced by partnerships between tutors, school managers and local advisory staff working together to plan participation from course design to final impact (Arthur et al., 2006). The most effective support system for doctoral supervision, therefore, is far-reaching and should involve a number of stakeholders. Higher education institutions do not influence, directly, other players in this multifaceted and intricate support system, but there are areas over which they have leverage. We can begin to understand this web by reviewing the work of Martirosyan et al. (2019) who looked at best practices in 20 US universities and found six thematic issues feeding into a good support system, namely: English language programmes, Academic support and student success initiatives; Targeted writing support; Social and cultural events; Professional development workshops; and Family member programmes. It is now also common place to undertake postgraduate studies online, by research and mostly with limited interaction with the faculty. In this regard, Crane et al. (2016) found that students studying online were mostly of the opinion that their universities did little to create a sense of ‘belonging’, an ingredient required for educational success as evidenced by Strayhorn (2018). Overlooking or underrating this dimension, especially for students studying at a distance, could be a major hindrance to the support system. In establishing a functional support system, we can draw heavily on the findings of Crane et al. (2016). These researchers argue that regardless of the discipline, whether students were studying online or face-to-face, whether they were enrolled in coursework or research, and which particular university they were attending, students and staff were consistent in conveying that in the context of good supervisory practice a high quality postgraduate student experience focuses on learning, is personalised and respectful of the students’ needs and expectations, provides opportunities for social interaction and networking, is supported by dedicated educators and supervisors, and is efficient and well-organised. Thriving postgraduate provision therefore requires that we have flexible systems that support a conducive atmosphere appropriate for divergent student populations

9 Postgraduate Student Growth Trajectory: Supporting Personal, Professional …

135

in their personal, professional and career development. In most cases, postgraduate interactions are limited mostly to: interaction with supervisors, fellow students within a programme and occasionally, with people from different backgrounds in conferences and various associations. It is imperative, therefore, that the net is widened by creating regular national forums for cross-university and crossdiscipline postgraduate conversations. The more interactions and experience the students have the better prepared they may become. We also contend that in supporting career development, it is important that postgraduate students are given the necessary value and incentives after completion. For instance, the Ministry of Education in Zambia does not automatically promote or provide upward salary adjustment upon completion of postgraduate studies. There are no perceived clear incentives for pursuing graduate education, especially in most developing countries where the first degree is deemed sufficient and expenditure in schooling is prioritised over higher education as argued by Psacharopoulos (1994). Another important issue which need to be contextualised within training of post graduates, is the importance of establishing responsibility and authority for coordination of postgraduate coursework programmes at the school/faculty/university level as appropriate. This action is critical as support and training must be valued and recognised through such means as protected time and recognition in workload and promotion criteria. Setting up civil service governance positions (nationally and locally) which recognizes graduate students to the calibre of doctoral student would be very valuable. In order to support this initiative, it is important to engage in dialogue so that postgraduate students, after graduating, are placed in such positions. With this approach, the support structure can reach all the necessary stakeholders, reaching out to the three-dimensional facets earlier mentioned. The student is treated with due recognition, the faculty effectively play their role.

9.5

Supervision is Central in Graduate Education

What is a good supervisor? We argue that a good supervisor for graduate students is someone who serves as a guide throughout their professional training—but supervisors who also mentor students are more than that. They provide both professional and personal advice in transitioning into, and out of, graduate school in many different higher education institutions. We argue, in line with Kilminster et al. (2007, that good supervision increases the probability of success. One approach shown to increase graduate student success is good supervision which goes beyond mentoring, though mentoring remains a cardinal component to the whole process of supervision. Although there is no consensus regarding the definition of mentoring, a mentor may be seen as a supervisor, instructor, or coach (Rose, 2005). An available and responsible mentor might be reflected in high completion rates for candidates—but every candidate is different, and that means there is no ‘one size fits all’. Investment in getting to know the student, and maintaining

136

K. Nachiyunde et al.

that relationship, will reap dividends, but will also look different for each supervisor pairing, and as the following supervisor suggests, there is also benefit in supporting the development of other support networks, including of peers:

When I supervise doctoral students I always try to relate to my own experiences as a doctoral student. Of course, sometimes there are limitations to this approach namely, I studied in a foreign country; hence my experience are only applicable to international students. Doctoral candidates in most cases are mature adults, students with various responsibilities e.g., working fulltime, having a family, business, etc. Hence, as a supervisor, I always try to have this kind of understanding when providing personal support especially during the proposal stage where most students struggled with coming up good feasible research proposals. Therefore, things like words of encouragement, providing feedback on time, an SMS or phone call just asking “how are you progressing?” etc. I have also learned to encourage the establishment of peer networks among my students or ask my students during the first meeting to give me a contact number of a close relative for future contact (in a case a student for some other reasons fails to respond to my emails or feel they want to quit) (UNAM Academic).

Among other issues, good supervision and mentorship include discussion and advice about teaching, conducting research, preparing for a job, learning about culture, and gaining support and friendship. A good supervisor and/or mentor needs to care about students and generally be accessible. A good PhD or post graduate mentor will endeavour to open the lines of communication. In doing so they talk regularly about research, coursework and teaching, examining the multiple roles of a professional especially those related to funding and job opportunities. A good supervisor should have an ability to provide constructive feedback in a supportive manner with the view of challenging students to acquire excellence and skills, gives prompt and appropriate feedback whenever there is a significant issue concerning their learning and provides guidance on the changes that are necessary regarding their thesis and dissertation (Kilminster et al. 2007). Such pervasive skills, knowledge, and attention to detail can meld together with interpersonal sensitivity and care, to make a significant difference to research students’ trajectories, and that needs to start from early in the doctoral journey. The role is complex and demanding—but can also be highly rewarding—and that is reflected in some colleagues’ accounts, for example:

I have realised that early identification of enablers and constraints of personal, professional and career development is imperative to ensure holistic empowerment of postgraduate students. In my view, progressive realisation of this key imperative is predicated on the multidimensionality and plurality of supervisor’s role in the research process. In support of this sentiment, Fragouli (2021) argues that the role

9 Postgraduate Student Growth Trajectory: Supporting Personal, Professional …

137

of the supervisor is multifaceted as supervisors face the imperative to be mentors, trainers, supporters, critics and fellow researchers (UJ Academic).

There was also a growing awareness among our colleagues that supervisors’ expertise is in the academic, and as an academic mentor, coupled with an appreciation of students’ personal and professional contexts. On occasion, a student needs access to expertise in other areas, such as mental health support, and then an appropriate role for supervisors is not usually to provide that expertise themselves, but rather, to be able to signpost students to the relevant support, as analysed by this UJ colleague:

In a practical sense, I have dealt with students’ personal circumstances that impinged on their research studies. I had to engage the university Psychological Counselling Unit to provide appropriate intervention which subsequently translated into successful resolution of the problem. Several research studies (e.g., McAlpine & Emmio˘glu, 2015) have highlighted the need for supervisors to develop capacity to handle students’ personal issues and problems which often adversely affect pursuit of research studies (UJ Academic).

Even though good supervision is desirable, there are challenges which can hinder its effectiveness. For instance, for international students there could be a challenge of cultural novelty (Hechanova-Alampay et al., 2002): international students need to deal with many such layers when pursuing their study in a foreign country. ‘Cultural novelty’ is a term that reflects the degree to which norms of the host culture differ from those of the international student’s home culture (Mendenhall & Wiley, 1994). Personal goals and qualified supervisors are key motivation for undertaking a PhD, and many doctoral candidates from developing countries travel to the developed countries for their advanced education; and sometimes within the same region to more resourced and high ranking universities such as those in South Africa. For example, in 2018, the Council on Higher Education in South Africa placed the total number of African foreign doctoral students at 36,058 (Ruwoko, 2021). This mobility is mostly on account of two reasons: related to personal goals, and perceived good supervision, but it does have implications for future careers and opportunities, as well as for source and host country thriving.

138

9.6

K. Nachiyunde et al.

Empirical and Theoretical Evidence on Post Graduate Student Trajectory

Dodson et al. (2006) show that postgraduate students have many important roles in universities, including facilitating research and teaching efforts as a clear demonstration of hope for the future of academia. They established evidence that compares perspectives of a new postgraduate student with those of their graduate mentor in a point-counter point manner and focused on a real life situation. Comparisons were made based on comments made by their graduate supervisor, response to each student, students’ day-to-day performance and the student’s degree objectives. Dodson et al. (2006) findings showed that generally students expressed concerns about writing, workload, and meeting expectations, while their graduate supervisor was more concerned about the student’s incorporation of the scientific method—and different levels of understanding of what it means to be a graduate student, were noted. This chapter brings a lot of hope in that presently, those who view a graduate advisor or supervisor as being someone who potentially is there to impose their authority and expertise on them, may actually alter their perspective, coming to identify with the advisor as a true mentor and genuinely concerned with students on the graduate programme. Indeed, it is a source of confidence that others might come to read such accounts as the following, where the supervisor clearly places the student’s overall best interests at the heart of the decisions made, notwithstanding the potential cost to his doctoral progress:

The candidate I saw to completion had a desire to complete his doctoral studies so that he can have opportunity to be considered as lecturer since their college was being transformed into a university. The candidate continued working as lecturer while pursuing his doctoral studies which was rather demanding on him and this contributed towards his delay in completing the research. As such I was considerate in terms of meeting the deadlines as agreed. I also encouraged my candidate to present at interdisciplinary seminars organised by the university, school and department. My understanding was that the feedback received and the experience of engaging with other colleagues’ work would contribute towards enhancing their research. Hence, enabling candidates have a sense of belonging (Crane et al., 2016) is important as the doctoral journey can be very lonely (UNZA Academic).

McCuen (2010) postulates that in conducting professional development selfassessment, it is not always easy to get unbiased or accurate assessments of the student’s academic progress, especially in graduate education. Supervisors may be biased and some may not want to give an accurate picture because they may not want to hurt the feelings of a student, while others may not be willing to take the time to make a thorough assessment which could negatively contribute to graduate training. Therefore, it is always desirable that assessment should start with selfassessment by the student, then possibly follow a process deemed appropriate by faculty or the supervisor in liaison with the student. McCuen (2010) observes that

9 Postgraduate Student Growth Trajectory: Supporting Personal, Professional …

139

for graduate students their goal is usually not only to complete all of the requirements for the degree because a degree alone does not ensure success. The bigger picture should be premised around developing the knowledge and accumulate the experience needed to sustain oneself especially during the initial part of a career. He argues that completing a degree is just an indication of having an opportunity to be involved in amassing the much desired experience and knowledge to succeed in innovating ideas, research and publication. It also enhances strong oral communication skills, and provides leadership opportunities for mentees and subordinates in the work space. As a graduate in graduate education, the bigger goal should be to achieve a modest national reputation in the field. The point McCuen is trying to make is that the process of good supervision, professional growth and future of post graduate trajectories is a continuous one of learning and navigating to achieve the much-desired professional competency. Graduation in itself does not make you an expert in the area. Hoberek (2002) in his study on Graduate Professionalism, promotes the seriousness to be attached to graduate education as professional training, as this helps in preparing students to perform the work of professional academics, among others. Preparation should not just be of professionals for the markets, but rather, to support qualities of critical thinkers and innovators who shape the world. In this way training solely for the market is not appropriate, though limited attention also risks leaving graduate students largely unprepared for their eventual work role. Hoberek (2002) makes an interesting proposal, that every PhD student should receive during their programme, a one-course teaching release and instead be paid for a semester’s worth of administrative activity in their department, working with journals, committees, mentoring others etc. His basic argument is that we need to think more deeply about how we are supervising, mentoring, managing and inducting the new career academic into the complicated teaching and researching environment which focuses on the academic, though there is an obvious question of how we should balance our training to get the desired end product. The argument for student professional growth in terms of performance, as advanced by Oestreich (1974), can still hold as we examine different trajectories. Oestreich (1974) posits that students’ involvement in teaching is the segment of professional preparation common to almost every higher education institution. Holaday et al. (2007) also discuss graduate professional development. They argue that re-visioning graduate professional development programmes is critical to enhancing graduate education across the globe. They identify that both postgraduate students and employers have expressed a desire for an educational experience that better prepares students for their professional, maybe future academic, roles within the market, and they suggest a professional-development programme using a systems-developmental framework where it is hoped the model will provide the much needed sustainability in post graduate growth trajectories. Such holistic support can only benefit students in the longterm, and was exemplified among our participants by reflective accounts such as the following:

140

K. Nachiyunde et al.

I engage students upfront on their personal, professional and career development goals and aspirations. I make students aware of personal sacrifices they have to make to ensure a seamless research experience. Opportunities are also provided to demystify personal circumstances that may hinder sustainable pursuit of research studies. I also make students aware of concomitant opportunities for professional growth that accrue from the supervisory process. Provision of opportunities for pursuit of rigorous research has enabled my postgraduate students to publish articles in accredited international journals and conference proceedings. This achievement augured well for their professional development goals and aspirations (UJ Academic).

Gemme and Gingras (2012), in making the case about career direction of postgraduate education, observe that professorship has traditionally been the single most valued career path for graduates of PhD programmes. However, it now looks like policies encourage graduate students to directly or indirectly engage with non-academic organisations to encourage the next generation of researchers to explore alternative careers, including opportunities in non-governmental organisations, industry and government. Gemme and Gingras (2012) conclude that even though students with close ties to non-academic partners may initially be more interested in non-academic career paths, over time many categories of students become more attracted to academic careers. It is therefore safe to say that faculty positions continue to dominate the professional dreams of fledgling doctoral researchers, and still remain their desired choice.

9.7

Implications, Conclusion and Way Forward

In establishing proactive support systems, it is important to take note of particular needs of students such as international students, perhaps those studying almost exclusively online, male or female and any other category of students who might need or be deserving special treatment. There are also other more refined or significant attributes that should be considered as we consider the complex issue of good supervision. Other significant attributes of a good support system that we have considered, include a facilitative approach, guided reflection, learning from experience, and an adult-to-adult relationship between supervisor and the supervised students. It is important that learning needs of individual students be catered for, and their wider experience acknowledged, and this can be achieved by developing appropriately productive relationships with the student: paternalism should always be avoided. It is with deep conviction that we argue that paternalism in an adult educational relationship may not lead to effective personal growth but rather cultivate a culture of dependency. Devine and Hunter (2017) express that as follows: “supportive supervision and the ability for doctoral students to be themselves’ should reduce doctoral student emotional exhaustion and self-presentation behaviours, thus leading to better student outcomes” (p.1). And so as we support our students, and

9 Postgraduate Student Growth Trajectory: Supporting Personal, Professional …

141

increasingly over time, most of the responsibility of learning should be shifted to the students and they should take charge of learning. It remains important for supervisors to understand what kinds of obstacles to effective learning and teaching may be attributable to ‘cultural’ factors, and what kinds to ‘sociological’ or other factors, and how to address those. In providing a comprehensive experience that supports candidates ‘personal, professional and career development, the effective supervisor will focus on learning; the relationship will be personalised and respectful of the students’ needs and expectations; supported by dedicated educators and/or supervisors, and efficient and well-organised. The partnership will contribute to regular national forums for cross-university and cross-discipline postgraduate conversations; and provides opportunities for social interaction and networking. In the same vein, Douglas (2020) argues that collaborations highlight the potential for creating networks where higher-level competences can develop from individual competences. The student must be treated as appropriate to a mature and academically sophisticated learner, the faculty effectively play their role, and the system that will receive the graduate must be involved. As a way of enhancing career and professional growth, students should be encouraged to attend academic and professional meetings and nurture connections to government officials and others with influence. This approach results in individual recognition, and recognition of the results and implications of research; it is a way of enhancing recognition and extending axis of control. It is our contention that competences around issues related to communication, leadership, teaching and instruction, professional adaptability and generally, self-awareness must be enhanced in the student throughout the doctoral journey and beyond. We have further opined that the supervisor must work towards providing an enjoyable experience for the students. It is this experience that will lead to more motivation and satisfaction and where possible reduce situations that will induce stress and depletion in the student (Gopee, 2015). It starts and ends with good supervision, and so, desirable and impactful mentorship.

References Artess, J., & Hooley, T. (2017). Towards a new narrative of postgraduate career. Springer. Arthur, L., Marland, H., Pill, A., & Rea, T. (2006). Postgraduate professional development for teachers: Motivational and inhibiting factors affecting the completion of awards. Journal of in-Service Education, 32(2), 201–219. Asamoah, M. K. (2019). Learner support services for postgraduate students: A qualitative approach. E-Learning and Digital Media, 16(5), 367–392. Barry, K. M., Woods, M., Warnecke, E., Stirling, C., & Martin, A. (2018). Psychological health of doctoral candidates, study-related challenges and perceived performance. Higher Education Research & Development, 37(3), 468–483. Bazrafkan, L., Yousefy, A., Amini, M., & Yamani, N. (2017). The journey of thesis supervisors from novice to expert: A grounded theory study. BMC Medical Education, 19(1), 1–12. https:// doi.org/10.1186/s12909-019-1739-z Black, P. E., & Plowright, D. (2010). A multi-dimensional model of reflective learning for professional development. Reflective Practice, 11(2), 245–258.

142

K. Nachiyunde et al.

Crane, L., Kinash, S., Bannatyne, A., Judd, M. M., Eckersley, W., Hamlin, G., & Smith, J. (2016). Engaging postgraduate students and supporting higher education to enhance the 21st century student experience. Final Report 2016. Department of Education and Training. Devine, K., & Hunter, K. H. (2017). PhD student emotional exhaustion: The role of supportive supervision and self-presentation behaviours. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 54(4), 335–344. Dodson, M. V., Fernyhough, M. E., & Holman, B. B. (2006). Advising graduate students: Mentor or tormentor? NACTA Journal, 50(4), 37–41. Douglas, A. S. (2020). Engaging doctoral students in networking opportunities: a relational approach to doctoral study. Teaching in Higher Education, 1–17. Fragouli, E. (2021). Postgraduate supervision: A practical reflection on how to support students’ engagement. International Journal of Higher Education Management, 7(2). Gemme, B., & Gingras, Y. Y. (2012). Academic careers for graduate students: A strong attractor in a changed environment. Higher Education, 63(6), 667–683. Published by: Springer. Gopee, N. (2015). Mentoring and supervision in healthcare. Sage. Hadi, N. U., & Muhammad, B. (2019). Factors Influencing Postgraduate Students’ Performance: A high order top down structural equation modelling approach. Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice, 19(2). Hechanova-Alampay, R., Beehr, T. A., Christiansen, N. D., & Van Horn, R. K. (2002). Adjustment and strain among domestic and international student sojourners: A longitudinal study. School Psychology International, 23(4), 458–474. Heussi, A. (2012). Postgraduate student perceptions of the transition into postgraduate study. Student Engagement and Experience Journal, 1(3), 1–13. Hoberek, A. (2002). Professionalism: What graduate students need, 10(1/2), 52–70. University of Nebraska Press. Holaday, B., Weaver, K. A., & Nilson, L. B. (2007b). Revisioning graduate professionaldevelopment programs. College Teaching, 55(3), 99–103. Jacklin, A., & Le Riche, P. (2009). Reconceptualising student support: From ‘support’ to ‘supportive.’ Studies in Higher Education, 34(7), 735–749. Jones, N., Torezani, S., & Luca, J. (2012). A peer-to-peer support model for developing graduate students’ career and employability skills. Intercultural Education, 23(1), 51–62. Kilminster, S., Cottrell, D., Grant, J., & Jolly, B. (2007). AMEE Guide No. 27: Effective educational and clinical supervision. Medical teacher, 29(1), 2–19. Martirosyan, N. M., Bustamante, R. M., & Saxon, D. P. (2019). Academic and social support services for international students: Current practices. Journal of International Students, 9(1), 172–191. McAlpine, L., & Emmio˘glu, E. (2015). Navigating careers: Perceptions of sciences doctoral students, post-PhD researchers and pre-tenure academics. Studies in Higher Education, 40(10), 1770–1785. McCuen, R. H. (2010). Conducting a professional development self-assessment: An activity for graduate students source. Water Resources, 12(6), 16–18 American Water Resources Association. Mendenhall, M. E., & Wiley, C. (1994). Strangers in a strange land: The relationship between expatriate adjustment and impression management. American Behavioral Scientist, 37(5), 605–620. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764294037005003 Newman, P., & Peile, E. (2002). Valuing learners’ experience and supporting further growth: Educational models to help experienced adult learners in medicine. British Medical Journal, 325(7357), 200–202. Oestreich, H. A. (1974). The professional growth of the student teacher. Competency/Performance Based Teacher Education, Phi Delta Kappan, 55(5), 335–337. Oliver, C., & Aggleton, P. (2002). Mentoring for professional development in health promotion: A review of issues raised by recent research. Health Education. Psacharopoulos, G. (1994). Returns to investment in education: A global update. World Development, 22(9), 1325–1343.

9 Postgraduate Student Growth Trajectory: Supporting Personal, Professional …

143

Rose, G. L. (2005). Group differences in graduate students’ cconcepts of the ideal mentor. https:// link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11162-004-6289-4 Ruwoko, E. (2021). PhD students who study in South Africa tend to return home. www.universit yworldnews.com/post.php?story=20210823085503435. Strayhorn, T. L. (2018). College students’ sense of belonging: A key to educational success for all students. Routledge.

Supporting Doctoral Candidates Through Completion and Final Examination

10

Cornelia Ndahambelela Shimwooshili-Shaimemanya

Abstract

Examination of a PhD thesis/dissertation marks an important stage in the student doctoral journey and in the early stages of candidature, doctoral students often do not know what the PhD thesis examiners favour and what their expectations are. This chapter synthesises the literature on the challenges and demands of transition to become independent scholars, and academic preparation of candidates for viva voce examinations through, a critical literature review methodology and reflections upon personal practice. Supervisors’ reflective accounts and experiences are incorporated to contribute to a supervision pedagogy for PhD studies. The study recommends that Southern African universities need to adopt the collaborative cohort model, systematic supervisor training and clear communication of guidelines to strengthen their research capacities, to address the skills demands of their knowledge societies and realise Sustainable Development Goals. Keywords

PhD supervision • Viva voce • Southern Africa • Supervisors reflective account • Supervision pedagogy • Knowledge economy

10.1

Introduction

This chapter explores challenges of individual and collective responsibility, transition to independent research, examiner expectations of a PhD thesis and academic preparation of candidates for viva voce examinations through a critical literature review methodology and reflection upon personal practice. Supervisors’ reflective C. N. Shimwooshili-Shaimemanya (B) University of Namibia, Windhoek, Namibia e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 K. Luneta et al. (eds.), Doctoral Supervision in Southern Africa, Springer Texts in Education, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-46899-5_10

145

146

C. N. Shimwooshili-Shaimemanya

accounts and experiences are incorporated to contribute to a supervision pedagogy for PhD studies.

10.2

Challenges and Demands of a Doctoral Journey

Literature shows that undertaking PhD research is a demanding enterprise and writing a doctoral thesis can present one of the most challenging aspects of the PhD journey overall (Lindsay, 2015 in Hodgson, 2020) because the student PhD experience is uniquely felt and involves practical, intellectual, and emotional struggles and transformations (Amran & Ibrahim, 2012; Deconinck, 2015; Trotter, 2003). Amran and Ibrahim (2012) consider that completing a PhD is a journey—a rite of passage.

It is a process; I like to tell my students who want to complete their PhDs in one year! I recall, my own PhD journey involved emotional, institutional, and several other struggles. My data was so rich and as such my supervisor was excited that he could recommend all sorts of analysis. Meanwhile, I wanted to finish and go home to my children! Mine seemed like a never-ending journey (UNAM academic).

10.3

Doctoral Supervision: Not an Individual but a Collective Institutional Responsibility

It should be noted that doctoral supervision is not an individual but a collective institutional responsibility (Mcalpine, 2013) that calls for explicit educational and curricular consideration.

Our current restructuring process is proving to be a challenge to students since postgraduate staff members have been re-allocated to other departments and new staff have been appointed. From my institutional experience, a supervisor can provide the much-needed support but without the institutional support such students experience some hurdles that are bound to delay their progress (UNAM academic).

10 Supporting Doctoral Candidates Through Completion and Final Examination

10.4

147

Difficulties Candidates Have with Theory

“I didn’t have a clue what they were talking about.”

A major challenge to some doctoral students is the concept of theory, a threshold concept (Kiley, 2015), that is, the use of theory to frame research as well as theorise findings. The concept of theory has been identified as a Threshold Concept. An understanding of theory is critical in learning to be a researcher. It identifies those candidates who are capable of high level research compared with their peers who struggle with understanding (Kiley, 2015). Some candidates have difficulty with grasping the idea of locating their research within a theoretical framework and why an understanding of theory in research is important (Kiley, 2015). It is important to locate a research within a framework because theoretical frameworks provide a particular perspective, or lens, through which to examine a topic. Literature provides many different lenses, such as psychological theories, social theories, organizational theories and economic theories, which may be used to define concepts and explain phenomena. Using a theoretical framework for their dissertations can help postgraduate students to better analyse past events by providing a particular set of questions to ask, and a particular perspective to use when examining their topics.

Reflecting on her supervisory experience, a supervisor from (UNZA) narrates: I have noted that candidates have challenges with theorising their research (as also suggested by Kiley, 2015). As a result, I focus on this aspect from the onset of the doctoral journey and encourage my candidates to reflect on how theory grounds their research as this is key in doctoral research as well as using up-to-date sources, and showing that they understand how theories have been critiqued (for example, Holbrook et al., 2015). I embark on this aspect with my candidates from the onset of the doctoral journey and I encourage them to always reflect on how theory is grounding their research as this is key in doctoral research (UNZA academic).

My experience with candidates is that they tend to undermine the role of theory in research in the sense that they tend to describe it and not say how it relates to the focus of the research. The idea of relating the findings to theory is also usually ignored. I always bring this to their attention. I also ensure that the title, the purpose of the study and the research questions are aligned and theoretically informed. During seminars conducted at departmental level, I usually take the candidates through the role of theory in research to make it more practical, I engage with their research to establish whether the theories espoused are appropriate. This enables them [to] have a hands-on experience and broadens and deepens their understanding of the role of theory in their research (UNZA academic).

148

C. N. Shimwooshili-Shaimemanya

From my supervisory experience, some students need coaching to link their study to the theory guiding the research and most importantly to interpret the research findings using the chosen theoretical framework. Theory is key in interpreting and analysing research findings. Understanding of theory is also key in writing articles based on the doctoral thesis. However, it is important to develop the theoretical understanding early given that theory is crucial for any research work to give it direction and to validate or disapprove a phenomenon. Theoretical framework is what I check in the first place because I expect my students to understand the research problem with the right theoretical framework. Everything starts with links. The student starts with the link to literature which is critical; links to articles are critical because there is a small link between literature and design which can easily be broken which affects research questions; the latter indicate the functions of the study (UNAM academic).

Denscombe (2002, p. 10) suggests that ‘theories don’t only describe what happens, they also explain why things happen’. An additional aspect of the Threshold Concept framework is liminality (Kiley and Wisker, 2010). Kiley and Wisker (2010) suggest that when research students are in a liminal space about not understanding a particular Threshold Concept, they are likely to experience considerable intellectual challenge with feelings of working in circles and not being able to make progress.

I was once assigned two doctoral students who are colleagues and teaching at a distant campus to supervise. They were not acting on feedback or doing the necessary readings. They never took my advice to come and see me in person even though they had serious gaps in knowledge, nor did they enrol for the research methods or academic writing courses. Consequently, they found themselves writing in circles at the very beginning of their studies. I think the major challenge was their attitudes – since I am a colleague, their expectation was that I would do them a favour and lower my standards. I provided the supervisory support as expected of me, invited them for face-to-face sessions, a call they never heeded but I was not prepared to spoon feed them and unfortunately, they dropped out of the programme. I must point out that I am not the only one who had experienced this kind of attitude from doctoral students who are also teaching staff. A colleague of mine have had to drop a very difficult to supervise colleague who was not prepared to take advice from her. He ended up having three supervisory divorces. Obviously, all those supervisors cannot all be bad; the student attitude was very bad (UNAM academic).

In the literature, the graphic term ‘being stuck’ or ‘stuckness’ is used to describe the situation of a learner who is no longer who she/he was but has not yet crossed the conceptual threshold required for understanding and thereby gaining that elusive light bulb moment (Kiley, 2009). Getting ‘stuck’ from time to time as Sibomana (2021) put it is one other aspect of a research journey. Narrating

10 Supporting Doctoral Candidates Through Completion and Final Examination

149

his experience, Sibomana (2021, p. 119) argues that: “PhD candidates may sometimes reach a point where there seems to be a closed gate ahead and, therefore, they cannot move forward. This could be a result of various factors including failure to understand a concept or a theory which they need to build on in presenting subsequent ideas and claims; not being able to find a way forward after exhausting all they have to say and yet feeling more is needed; not knowing where to start in order to start discussing a new aspect or topic and inability to understand their supervisor’s comments and suggestions and/or to know what to do about them.” Doctoral students should not lose hope or give up once they get stuck because “being stuck can also be a source of inspiration and a trigger for deeper thinking” as Sibomana (2021, p. 119) put it. He argues that “in trying to unlock the closed gate, I have discovered that the key may not necessarily be in the particular section or aspect one is stuck on. Stopping working on the section or aspect for a certain period of time and working with what one is more comfortable with at that time is one way of dealing with any ‘stuckness’. Working with other sections or aspects will sometimes give hints which will help understand the issues in the section one is stuck on. All sections, aspects, concepts and theories of a research project are related to one another to various extents. I have also noted that it is difficult to think creatively and thoroughly the moment one gets stuck, which is likely to prevent some alternatives and perspectives from surfacing. Leaving the section or aspect for a while in order for it to ‘ferment’ in one’s head is another way of dealing with ‘stuckness’ which may often be fruitful (Sibomana, 2021, p. 119)”. Through having students converse with each other about their own conceptual struggles, they can provide insights to each other about how to become ‘unstuck’ when they encounter writing problems (Kiley, 2009: p. 302). Sibomana (2021) also suggested that when one is stuck, sharing their work with fellow students helps because they all are facing the same challenges and are likely to understand each other better in both formal and informal conversations about their studies.

I have learned a lot about research from fellow doctoral students especially in much more relaxed atmospheres, for example over a cup of tea as opposed to formal settings where one usually operates under a lot of stress (UNAM academic).

Importantly, approaching writing and meaning-making as social activity can utilise effectively the diversity and massification of higher education (Aitchison, 2009).

10.5

Transitioning to Independent Research: Who Makes It, Who Doesn’t?

The transition necessary to become an independent scholar/creator of knowledge through original research and researcher is an inherent part of doctoral education (Bargar & Duncan, 1982; Delamont et al., 2004; Lovitts, 2001, 2005). However,

150

C. N. Shimwooshili-Shaimemanya

students face challenges in becoming responsible scholars, for example difficulty finding own voice (Lovitts, 2005), the process is not clear, even linear, or mechanical (Archer, 2008), frustration and uncertainty are inevitable elements in the development of original research (Lovitts, 2008), struggle to negotiate divergent views and expectations of supervisors, academic programmes do not always support students becoming (Lovitts, 2008). Sternberg and Lubart (1995) and Amabile (1996) argue that the following six personal and social resources are needed for creative work: Domain-relevant skills (intelligence and knowledge); creativity relevant processes (thinking styles and personality); and task motivation (motivation and environment). Lovitts (2005) contends that these same resources also contribute to degree completion. Research indicates that the most important factor in students’ decisions to continue and complete their doctoral studies or to withdraw is their relationship with their supervisors (Jones, 2013; Kiley, 2011). Scholars such as Akala (2021), Alfermann et al. (2021) equally advocated that the student-supervisor relationship plays a critical role in ensuring a successful completion of the journey as they carry out their multiple roles of advisor, supporter and mentor (Makoni, 2021). Naim and Dhanapal (2015) posited that the nature of the student supervisor relationship is exceedingly crucial as it could determine whether the thesis/dissertation is successful or a failure. The supervisor plays a formative role in facilitating the process (Peelo, 2010) and should ensure a strong supervisory relationship that supports continuous writing, project management and feedback (Lindsay, 2015) that includes close alignment between student and supervisor expectations and views about the forms and functions of supervision (Pyhältö et al., 2015).

I agree with the views of these scholars. I have been supportive and have provided emotional and moral support to my doctoral students and I believe that my students have been satisfied with the supervision process. Consequently, they have finished their studies within the stipulated time (UNAM academic).

10.6

Examiner Expectations of a PhD Thesis

In supporting students to prepare, supervisors need to help their students understand what examiners look for because understanding the examiner expectations is key in guiding candidates to prepare their theses/dissertation manuscripts for examination at the end of their doctoral journey. Hodgson (2020) argues that there is a body of empirical research that has looked at the question of what examiners favourably respond to and what they object to when examining PhD theses (Bourke & Holbrook, 2013; Holbrook et al., 2004, 2007, 2014, 2015; Kiley & Mullins, 2004; Mullins & Kiley, 2002).

10 Supporting Doctoral Candidates Through Completion and Final Examination

151

Examiners favour theses that demonstrate clear connections between introductions, conclusions, points made and claims asserted (Mullins & Kiley, 2002). Examiners expect broad coverage of literature, understanding and critical appraisal of literature, connections between literature and findings, and, importantly, evidence of a disciplinary perspective achieved through systematic use of literature throughout the thesis (Holbrook et al., 2007). Hodgson (2020) posit that examiners may enter into expert and gatekeeping roles, particularly in cases of re-examined theses, where they were examining according to standards that they see themselves as having a duty to uphold.

Familiarising students with examiner expectations of a PhD thesis helps supervisors guide candidates in preparing the thesis manuscripts for examination (Bourke & Holbrook, 2013; Holbrook et al., 2004, 2007, 2014, 2015; Kiley & Mullins, 2004; Mullins & Kiley, 2002). Holbrook et al. (2015)’s study on examiner comment on the use of theory in PhD theses found that examiners favoured a PhD thesis that demonstrated engagement with theory; the use of up-to-date sources and evidence of understanding pertinent theoretical criticisms and theoretical grasp, as evidenced by depth, breadth, and critique. Examiners look for the candidate’s understanding of theory and how he/she links everything together using theory. I ensure that there is theoretical consistency and alignment between use of theory, research design and research questions for me to determine whether the research project is ready for examination (UNZA). I also emphasize clarity in explaining the research project by ensuring that candidates refer to relevant and recent literature, as well as exhibit evidence of hard work and effort in the research (Mullins & Kiley, 2002). Moreover, I see to it that the thesis is coherent, well argued, original, and there is consistency in the use of theory and method (UNZA academic).

Since initiative, creativity and originality are key towards the completion of research (Gardner, 2008) and final examination, I ensure that these are taken into consideration as I provide the necessary support to my candidates. I also refer my candidates to the examiners’ expectations (Holbrook et al., 2015) of the doctoral thesis which are outlined in the postgraduate regulations for my institution. Using the regulations, I advise my candidates on possible revisions in their research before submission for examination (UNZA academic).

I support my postgraduate students when working on final drafts to ensure that they are ready for submission both in terms of quality and intellectual credibility. In addition, I make students aware of the logistical arrangements pertaining to final examination such as nomination and ratification of assessors by the Faculty Higher Degrees Committee. These logistical arrangements involve timelines for the

152

C. N. Shimwooshili-Shaimemanya

assessment to be completed and recommended amendments to be made which will culminate in graduation (UJ academic).

10.7

Preparing Students for Viva Voce Examinations

Equally important is preparation of postgraduate students for viva voce examinations. Most postgraduate programs in Southern Africa have viva voce or oral examination, or thesis/dissertation defense as a mandatory form of research assessment. Viva Voce Examination is a formal oral examination, or oral defence, administered to postgraduate research students to assess their in-depth understanding of a given research issue through an oral presentation of their thesis on the issue (Atibuni, 2019). The PhD viva voce or live voice, as oral examination of the doctoral thesis/dissertation, constitutes the final ‘test’ of the PhD endeavour (Watts, 2012) and at most Southern African universities (e.g., University of Namibia, South Africa universities, National University of Lesotho and University of Zambia, the viva is conducted in a public arena and the public is permitted to ask questions for example at UNAM although in other parts of the world, a viva is a private event. Viva voce examinations are conducted face-to-face except during the Covid-19 period when oral examinations were conducted online through a video-link.

Since viva voce is an institutional requirement, it is organised at the departmental level as a way of seeking clarity from the candidate. The process takes about three hours and the candidate is given thirty minutes to present their research. The experience I had with this process is that the doctoral candidate I saw to completion did not apply himself satisfactorily in the viva voce, and was given a second chance. What I learned from this experience just telling candidates that you have to be confident and show case that it is your work by clarifying issues raised is not enough. I saw the relevance of conducting mock viva voce (Sinclair, 2007) where I acted as an examiner and asked possible questions that could be asked to seek clarity in terms of rigour and expert knowledge in the study area. This helped the candidate to satisfy the examiners (UNZA academic).

Each university has Rules and Guidelines regarding Viva and these must be followed. The members of the viva voce panel are scholars who are sufficiently qualified and experienced in the research field and the Chairperson of the viva voce panel shall be a senior academic (at least at the rank of Associate Professor for Doctoral students and Senior lecturer for Master’s students) and shall not be one of the supervisors or examiners. The supervisor/s of thesis/dissertation are required to attend the viva voce of their candidates, but do not form part of the

10 Supporting Doctoral Candidates Through Completion and Final Examination

153

panel. The duration of the viva voce varies from university to university. For example at UJ, the viva presentation (face-to-face or via Zoom, Skype due to Covid-19) is not longer than an hour whereas at UNAM the viva is two hours for masters and three hours for PhD. Regardless of institution, the viva will usually raise questions on the originality of the work, areas of interest or curiosity, matters that require clarification and the quality of the arguments. The viva also offers an opportunity for guidance and advice to be presented to the doctoral student to enable the enhancement of the work and/or of the student’s career. The PhD viva is a necessary rite of passage (Sinclair, 2007; Watts, 2012) despite those who question why students should be put through the ritual of an oral examination. There are three critical functions of a viva (Potter, 2006): Firstly, the viva serves as an opportunity for a range of exploratory activities; it is an opportunity for examiners to test the knowledge of the student and verify the authenticity of the thesis (Trafford, 2003). The viva serves to test understanding and confirm the student is able to defend their choice of study, their choice of research methods, their findings and their conclusions. Secondly, the viva is aimed at testing the ability of the student to defend their work, with being ‘articulate under stress’ (Morley et al., 2003) seen as an important credential of being a professional researcher. The viva is also an opportunity for examiners to make a conclusive assessment of the student’s work and is particularly so when the thesis is deemed to be borderline. In these circumstances, the viva can be conceptualised as a rigorous intellectual exchange designed to offer the student an opportunity to expand on ideas and clarify areas of concern and, in essence, it is inquisitorial in nature (Trafford, 2003). Thirdly, the viva provides opportunities for students to clarify aspects of process (clarify any examiner concerns) and clear up any misunderstandings. Potter (2006) posited that this third function contributes to a fair assessment of the thesis that, if only marked as a written piece of work, might be subject to ambiguity or genuine differences in opinion. However, Morley et al., (2003, 66) argued that the balance between the assessment of the text and performance at the viva is ill-defined and generally unclear. For example, in some universities, it is possible for one to submit an adequate thesis but fail the PhD based on an unsatisfactory viva. Candidates can also give a robust oral defence of an unsatisfactory thesis and be given the award. Mullins and Kiley (2002) opined that the current practice does not always make clear whether it is the thesis (as a complete and comprehensive document) or the student (as an apprentice researcher) that is being examined at the viva, with some differences discernible across disciplines. Mullins and Killey’s (2002) work does not resonate with the Southern African context because at Southern African universities, the purpose of the viva voce examination is to confirm that the thesis/ dissertation is a student’s own work; confirm that the student understands what they have written; investigate the student’s awareness of where their original work sits in relation to the wider research field, and provide a developmental opportunity for considering future publication and research options. Critiques of Viva- examinations continue to take place according to largely unchanged and unchallenged procedures; there is a relative lack of research into

154

C. N. Shimwooshili-Shaimemanya

doctoral assessment; and a range of sometimes conflicting positions in academia about the viva’s purposes and conduct (Poole, 2015). Some academics hold contrasting views about the purpose, value, and degree of reliability associated with oral assessment at doctoral level (Poole, 2015).

From my experience, the issue of viva voce is an institutional decision. I was not subjected to this when I did my doctoral studies. Maybe because the doctoral journey was so rigorous that by the time I was completing in preparation for examination, there was no doubt that it was my work as I had defended and justified more vulnerable parts of my writing at different fora. This is an indication that there are contrasting views on the purpose, value and degree of reliability that is associated with oral assessment (as suggested by Poole, 2015). This is despite viva voce testing understanding and confirming that the candidate is able to defend their choice of study, research methods, findings and conclusions. Hence confirming that the candidate owns the research project (UNZA academic).

Preparation is the key to success. Hartley and Jory’s (2000) research findings suggest that ‘knowing your thesis inside out’ is a vital component of effective preparation. It is also important for students to focus on areas of potential debate such as the literature or methodology (Watts, 2012). Examiners, Watts (2012) argues, would be impressed by students who can discuss with clarity and confidence why they used the methods they did, why alternatives were rejected and what practical and ethical challenges they encountered. The issue of originality is also relevant and the extent to which a thesis contributes new knowledge may be the subject of debate between examiners and within the examination itself (Mullins & Kiley, 2002). It is essential for candidates to be aware of other work being undertaken in the field that may have some bearing on their own thesis as highlighted by Phillips and Pugh (2000) in Watts (2012) since it contributes to the candidate’s credibility as a member of the academic community.

Supervisors should help students practice their viva by staging a ‘mock’ viva voce. In my view, it is crucially important to effectively manage postgraduate students’ expectations through completion and final examination. I organise mock oral examination for students to obtain feedback from their peers in preparation for the final examination. I have observed that this intervention helps students to enhance their confidence and to speak authoritatively about their research work. The efficacy of mock oral examination is accentuated by Wellington (2010) and Watts (2012) who maintain that students gain some experience of oral examination through presentations and feedback from panels (UJ academic). The literature has discussed the extent to which a ‘mock’ viva can positively contribute towards the preparation of students for the ‘real thing’. Delamont et al. (2004) and Hartley and Fox (2004) highlight the significant benefits to students of such preparatory activity, and I give my students the trial run (UNAM academic).

10 Supporting Doctoral Candidates Through Completion and Final Examination

155

Research findings of Hartley and Fox (2004) indicate that, although students were frequently asked different questions in the mock and the real viva, the mock viva was considered useful by students as it allowed them to experience ‘typical’ viva arrangements and practice debating their work. Potter (2006) cautions that it requires a lot of effort to set up a ‘mock’ viva and, if it is to be beneficial, it must be taken seriously and enacted in a sufficiently searching way. To effectively take care of the emotional dimensions of candidates’ feelings and anticipation as Wellington (2010) put it, it would be ideal to arrange for a ‘mock’ viva in the setting in which the ‘real’ one will take place although this is not always possible.

A candidate becomes a doctor after successfully defending his/her thesis or dissertation. The viva is thus also an occasion to celebrate the student’s doctorateness. University of Namibia has a system of public viva and members of the audience can ask the candidate questions not only the viva panel. My personal view is that with this system, the student gets to display and celebrate their doctorateness to a wider audience and if the student does well, that will be an opportunity for both of them to shine. It also provides marketing and employability opportunities for the candidate if not working at a time as industry members may be part of the audience. However, should the viva performance be poor, this may be interpreted by a wider audience to mean that the student was not well supervised/prepared for the viva and would reflect badly on both the student and supervisor (UNAM academic).

What does it mean to a be a doctorate? It means contributing to new knowledge, stated gap in knowledge, explicit research questions, conceptual framework, explicit research design, appropriate methodology, correct fieldwork, clear concise presentation, engagement with theory, coherent argument, research questions answered, conceptual conclusions. These are all important components of doctorateness.

10.8

Conclusion

This study offered insights into challenges of supervising doctoral students from the beginning to the end of their doctoral journey Through literature review and reflection upon personal practice, the study provides insights on ‘how’ postgraduate supervisors can support their students through to completion. As we have seen repeatedly in earlier chapters, relationships between postgraduate students and their academic supervisors are critical to the quality and success of the learning experience, challenges and demands of a doctoral journey, and the supervisor and wider institution need to actively support candidates through difficulties with theory, transitioning to independent research, preparation for viva voce examinations and so on. When supervisors are not supportive, doctoral students are less likely to finish their studies within the stipulated time. It is especially important for

156

C. N. Shimwooshili-Shaimemanya

supervisors to support doctoral candidates through completion and final examination, to increase the production rate of PhD graduates because doctoral education is a fundamental engine for growth of the knowledge economy for Sub-Saharan African countries.

References Aitchison, C. (2009). Writing groups for doctoral education. Studies in Higher Education, 34(8), 905–916. Akala, B. U. (2021). Challenges in doctoral supervision in South African universities. Open Science Journal, 6(2). Alfermann, D., Holl, C., & Reimann, S. (2021). “Should I stay or should I go?” Indicators of dropout thoughts of doctoral students in computer science. International Journal of Higher Education, 10(3), 246–258. Amabile, T. M. (1996). Creativity in context. Westview Press. Amran N. N., & Ibrahim, R. (2012). Academic rites of passage: Reflection on a PhD journey. Procedia—Social and Behavioral Sciences, 59, 528–534. Archer, L. (2008). Younger academics’ constructions of ‘authenticity’, ‘success’ and professional identity. Studies in Higher Education, 33(4), 385–403. Atibuni, D. Z. (Ed.). (2019). Postgraduate research engagement in low resource settings. IGI Global. Bargar, R. R., & Duncan, J. K. (1982). Cultivating creative endeavor in doctoral research. Journal of Higher Education, 52(1), 1–31. Bourke, S., & Holbrook, A. P. (2013). Examining PhD and research masters’ theses. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 38(4), 407–416. Deconinck, K. (2015). Trust me, I’m a doctor: A PhD survival guide. Journal of Economic Education, 46(4), 360–375. Delamont, S., Atkinson, P., & Parry, O. (2004). Supervising the doctorate: A guide to success (2nd ed.). Open University Press’. Denscombe, M. (2002). Ground rules of good research: A ten-point guide for social researchers. Open University Press. Gardner, S. K. (2008). “What’s too much and what’s too little?”: The process of becoming an independent researcher in doctoral education. The Journal of Higher Education, 79(3), 326–350. Hartley, J., & Fox, C. (2004). Assessing the mock viva: The experiences of British doctoral students. Studies in Higher Education, 29(6), 727–738. Hartley, J., & Jory, S. (2000). Lifting the veil on the viva: The experiences of psychology PhD candidates in the UK. Psychology Teaching Review, 9(2), 76–90. Hodgson, D. (2020). Helping doctoral students understand PhD thesis examination expectations: A framework and a tool for supervision. Active Learning in Higher Education, 21(1), 51–63. Holbrook, A., Bourke, S., Fairbairn, H., et al. (2007). Examiner comment on the literature review in Ph.D. theses. Studies in Higher Education, 32(3), 337–356. Holbrook, A., Bourke, S., Fairbairn, H., et al. (2014). The focus and substance of formative comment provided by PhD examiners. Studies in Higher Education, 39(6), 983–1000. Holbrook, A., Bourke, S., & Fairbairn, H. (2015). Examiner reference to theory in PhD theses. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 52(1), 75–85. Holbrook, A., Bourke, S., Lovat, T., et al. (2004). PhD theses at the margin: Examiner comment on re-examined theses. Melbourne Studies in Education, 45(1), 89–115. Jones, M. (2013). Issues in doctoral studies. Forty years of journal discussion: Where have we been and where are we going? International Journal of Doctoral Studies, 8, 83–104.

10 Supporting Doctoral Candidates Through Completion and Final Examination

157

Kiley, M., & Wisker, G. (2010). Liminal spaces and doctoral examining: Evidence of research learning. In M. Kiley (Ed.), Quality in postgraduate research: Educating researchers for the 21st century (pp. 219–223). CEDAM, The ANU. Kiley, M. (2009). Identifying threshold concepts and proposing strategies to support doctoral candidates. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 46(3), 293–304. Kiley, M. (2011). Development in research supervisor training; Causes and responses. Studies in Higher Education, 36(5), 585–589. Kiley, M. (2015). ‘I didn’t have a clue what they were talking about’: PhD candidates and theory. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 52(1), 52–63. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 14703297.2014.981835 Kiley, M., & Mullins, G. (2004). Examining the examiners: How inexperienced examiners approach the assessment of research theses. International Journal of Educational Research, 41(2), 121–135. Lindsay, S. (2015). What works for doctoral students in completing their thesis? Teaching in Higher Education, 20(2), 183–189. Lovitts, B. E. (2001). Leaving the ivory tower: The causes and consequences of departure from doctoral study. Rowman and Littlefield. Lovitts, B. E. (2005). Being a good course-taker is not enough: A theoretical perspective on the transition to independent research. Studies in Higher Education, 30(2), 137–154. Lovitts, B. E. (2008). The transition to independent research: Who makes it, who doesn’t, and why. The Journal of Higher Education, 79(3), 296–325. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221546.2008.117 72100 Makoni, P. L. (2021). Novice doctoral supervision in South Africa: An autoethnographic approach. International Journal of Higher Education, 11(2), 135–142. Mcalpine, L. (2013). Doctoral supervision: Not an individual but a collective institutional responsibility. Infancia y Aprendizaje, 36(3), 259–280. https://doi.org/10.1174/02103701380753306 Morley, L., Leonard, D., & David, M. (2003). Quality and equality in British PhD assessment. Quality Assurance in Education, 11(2), 64–72. Mullins, G., & Kiley, M. (2002). ‘It’s a PhD, not a Nobel Prize’: How experienced examiners assess research theses. Studies in Higher Education, 27, 369–386. Naim, N. M., & Dhanapal, S. (2015). Students’ perception of the supervisory process: A case study at a private university in Malaysia. Malaysian Online Journal of Educational Management, 3(4), 31–49. Peelo, M. (2010). Understanding supervision and the PhD. Bloomsbury Publishing. Poole, B. (2015). Examining the doctoral viva: Perspectives from a sample of UK Academics. London Review of Education, 13(3). Potter, S. (2006). The examination process and the viva. In Doing postgraduate research (2nd ed., pp. 251–75). Sage. Pyhältö, K., Vekkaila, J., & Keskinen, J. (2015). Fit matters in the supervisory relationship: Doctoral students and supervisors’ perceptions about the supervisory activities. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 52(1), 4–16. Sibomana, E. (2021). How to get through a PhD journey: A personal reflection and experience. Journal of Language, Technology & Entrepreneurship in Africa, 12(1), 111–125. Sinclair, M. (2007). The PhD viva: A necessary rite of passage. Evidence-Based Midwifery, 5(4), 111. Online. http://tinyurl.com/qddgw32. Accessed 20 May 2022. Sternberg, R. J., & Lubart, T. I. (1995). Defying the crowd: Cultivating creativity in a culture of conformity. Free Press. Trafford, V. N. (2003). Questions in doctoral vivas: Views from the inside. Quality Assurance in Education, 11(2), 114–122. Trotter, J. (2003). Researching, studying, or jumping through hoops? Reflections on a PhD. Social Work Education, 22(1), 59–70.

158

C. N. Shimwooshili-Shaimemanya

Watts, J. H. (2012). Preparing doctoral candidates for the viva: Issues for students and supervisors. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 36(3), 371–381. Wellington, J. (2010). Supporting students’ preparation for the viva: Their pre-conceptions and implications for practice. Teaching in Higher Education, 15(1), 71–84.

11

Supporting Doctoral Candidates to Disseminate Their Research Bilainu Oboirien

Abstract

Dissemination of results of doctoral research should be a routine part of the process of postgraduate study, based on the requirements for the successful completion of a research degree, which is novelty and contribution to knowledge. The successful dissemination of results of doctoral research heavily depends on assistance from supervisors and institutional support. However, the effectiveness of the support has not been systematically explored. This chapter explores the effectiveness of the role of the supervisor and academic institution in dissemination of doctoral candidate’s research. The chapter will evaluate reflections from doctoral supervisors at Universities in Southern Africa against the developmental theory of socialization of publishing during a PhD and the competence framework for publishing for doctoral students. Keywords

Dissemination support

11.1

•

Doctoral research results

•

Supervisors support

•

Institutional

Introduction

Dissemination of research is extremely important for postgraduate students hoping to build their research profiles as aspiring academics. Dissemination includes communicating research results to the research community and relevant stakeholders and this can be in the form of journal publications, conference proceedings, book chapters (Chapman, n.d.)—though it can also include less formal communication perhaps in the student’s own faculty or department. Wilson et al. (2010) described B. Oboirien (B) University of Johannesburg, Johannesburg, South Africa e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 K. Luneta et al. (eds.), Doctoral Supervision in Southern Africa, Springer Texts in Education, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-46899-5_11

159

160

B. Oboirien

dissemination of research as “a planned process that involves consideration of target audiences and the settings in which research findings are to be received and, where appropriate, communicating and interacting with wider policy and service audiences in ways that will facilitate research uptake in decision-making processes and practice” (p. 91). There are several reasons why researchers choose to disseminate their research results; some notable ones are to build academic profile, enhance visibility, share new knowledge, build confidence, career advancement and many others (Chapman, n.d.). Publishing during doctoral studies has been reported to have a positive effect on the career research publication, visibility and collaborations, later on in the student’s career (Horta & Santos, 2016). Dissemination of results of doctoral research should be a routine part of the process of postgraduate study. However, Dinham and Scott (2001) found out it is not the case universally. In their international study, they evaluated the experience of disseminating results of doctoral research. They evaluated the experience of 159 doctoral students and 53 doctoral graduates, and found that the successful dissemination of results of doctoral research heavily depends on assistance from supervisors and institutional support (Dinham & Scott, 2001), the latter having a greater effect than the former. In the case of supervisor’s support, its effectiveness is reported to be a function of the experience and knowledge/expertise of the supervisor (Dinham & Scott, 2001; Jairam & Kahl, 2012; Sinclair et al., 2014). In the Southern African context, the forms of dissemination most relevant to doctoral students are publication of journal articles and of conference proceedings, based on the reflections from doctoral supervisors at Universities in Southern Africa. The reasons for this is that such publication is often an institutional requirement before the candidate submits their research for examination—but also, the doctoral students benefit from reviewer comments. In another study reported by Merga et al. (2020), the challenges of undertaking a doctoral thesis by publication, where that is permitted, were investigated by surveying 246 doctoral graduates from Australian Universities. They found that there were key challenges of thesis cohesion, time pressures, managing the publishing journey, and issues with supervisory and/or university support. Doctoral student dissemination of results during their doctoral studies can be a daunting task because of the lack of experience. One key challenge of publishing during doctoral studies is very long turnaround times for the peer-review process—sometimes it takes more than a year—and this could negatively impact the student’s ability to complete their thesis in a timely way (Powell, 2016). There is also the challenge, when publishing direct from a thesis, of devising a thesis structure that allows some chapters to be published and yet met the needs of a coherent thesis. Further, publishing during doctoral studies is demanding and time-consuming, involving dealing with selection of appropriate journals, formatting and reformatting of articles, revisions and dealing with rejections. It is not only the doctoral students that face challenges, it has been reported in the literature that supervisors, examiners and administrators also face challenges (Mason, 2018).

11 Supporting Doctoral Candidates to Disseminate Their Research

161

Disseminating doctoral research is, however, important and should be supported as it forms part of the candidate’s doctoral learning journey (Trafford & Leshem, 2009). It contributes to their successful completion in that the feedback received enhances creativity, ability to synthesize and to self-assess (Mullins & Kiley, 2002). Through dissemination, rigour and seriousness of candidates’ research are tested in advance of the defence (Trafford & Leshem, 2009). This chapter will present reflective thoughts from higher education academics who participated in the Southern Africa–UCL Supervision Collaboration UKGCE Supervisor Recognition workshops, on how they support their doctoral students in the dissemination of their results. It evaluates their support against the developmental theory of socialization of publishing during a PhD and the competence framework for publishing for doctoral students. The author is presently a full professor of chemical engineering at the department of chemical engineering at the University of Johannesburg. He has supervised and co-supervised two doctoral, and ten masters students to completion, and is at present supervising ten doctoral students and two masters students.

11.2

Theory of Publishing During PhD Study

The developmental theory of publishing during PhD study states that socialization toward greater collaborative engagement and knowledge network integration begins at the PhD level, and academic institutions must have a support and reward system to encourage it (Horta & Santos, 2016). This theory is based on developmental theory that individuals (doctoral students) must perform the maximum task (publication of articles and thesis) and their institution must support and reward them (Jung, 2014). This will lead to the highest performance of the individual and the effectiveness of the institution. For doctoral students, the support can be directly from the supervisor as well as from the institution (Dinham & Scott, 2001). Institutional support and reward/incentive systems have also been reported to be key drivers for publication, even for experienced academics (Allison & Stewart, 1974). Most universities do not have coherent policies on post-graduation publication even for PhD programmes with Thesis by Publication (Merga et al., 2020). In this case students face challenges in inconsistent requirements and systems between institutions, disciplines, schools, supervisors, and school/faculty research heads. This could present challenges for examiners because they need clarity on the guidelines for examination of the thesis (Merga et al., 2020). Universities who have formal university policies on publication of the results of postgraduate research have reported greater rates of publication of doctoral students during doctoral studies and after graduation (Dinham & Scott, 2001). Universities also benefit when they have formal university policies on pre- and post-doctoral publication—benefits such as an increased performance in measured research productivity and international standing/ranking of the university (Kwan, 2013).

162

B. Oboirien

Institutional support could be in the form of writing courses, writing workshops, writing seminars and writing groups, while supervisor support could involve reports to help with handling reviewers’ comments, and alignments of publication with the thesis amongst others (Kwan, 2010). Kwan (2013) developed a framework that supervisors can use in the training of their doctoral students to achieve competence in research publication during their doctoral studies. He identifies five types of training/support that supervisors should give to doctoral students interested in publishing their work during doctoral studies, namely: support in conceiving publishable projects; project/output management; research communication; handling of reviewers’ comment; and lastly, thesis publication alignment/transfers (Kwan, 2013). This typology emerged from a study that evaluated the various types of training that a group of PhD supervisors in Hong Kong provide in helping students publish during their doctoral studies and preparing them for the publishing demands in the early phase of their academic careers. Supervisors largely reported training in research communication and advice on how to handle reviewers’ comments; few specifically offered mentoring on conceiving and designing research for publishing. In South Africa, there is no national policy on the types of support required from doctoral supervisors: each academic institution is at liberty to develop guidelines that suit its programme. There is, however, a national policy to increase the number of doctoral students: The National Development Plan (NDP) (p. 278) has set a target to produce more than 100 doctoral graduates per million by the year 2030.

11.3

Source of Evidence

Below, extracts have been taken from reflective accounts from different higher education lecturers who participated in the Southern Africa–UCL Supervision Collaboration UKGCE Supervisor Recognition workshops, on how they support their doctoral students in the dissemination of the results. All the participants have supervised doctoral students to completion and they are from the University of Johannesburg in South Africa, referred to as ‘UJ Academic’, University of Namibia referred to as ‘UNAM Academic’, and University of Zambia and referred to as ‘UNZA Academic’. The number of workshops held were six and different topics related to support were discussed, as outlined in chapter one. Extracts for all participants on support given to doctoral candidates to disseminate their research was used as evidence in this chapter.

11 Supporting Doctoral Candidates to Disseminate Their Research

11.4

163

Participating Institutional Policies on Doctoral Publication

Some universities make the publication of two articles an institutional requirement before the doctoral thesis can be sent out for external examination. This is explained by UNZA Academic in the extract below:

Publishing two articles is an institutional requirement before the candidate submits their research for examination. To enhance this requirement, I have also shared with my candidates templates of what reviewers look for in a paper that has been submitted for possible publication. Although we ensure that this is done, I see it to be too demanding for the candidates in that they have two competing tasks at hand, namely completing the thesis, and getting published, albeit that carrying out both tasks help clarify and make authentic candidates’ arguments towards … (UNZA Academic).

This could add to the time pressure of publishing during the programme for the doctoral student, because managing the timelines of submitting the thesis and getting the paper accepted is beyond the control of the students (Merga et al., 2020). The level of support, and timeline adopted, need to be adequate in balancing the lengthy period of review of articles, chances of acceptance and quality of the journal and thesis submission (Kwan, 2013; Merga et al., 2020). Another observation is that supervisors who do not personally support the university requirement of publishing two articles before submission still support the students in publishing the articles and meeting the requirement. In some universities, though, publication of articles is only required after the external examiner reports has been received and is only needed when the faculty higher degree committee meets to approve the external examiners report. As explained by UJ Academic below:

I ensure that candidates are made aware that a requirement to graduate is the dissemination of their research in the form of submitting two articles for publication (UJ Academic).

This approach brings one notable advantage, in that comments from the thesis examiner can be useful in addressing comments from the reviewers from the journal submission; they make the revision process easier and increase the chances of acceptance of the paper quickly, although the same happens in reverse if publication is required pre-examination. According to Merga et al. (2020), for doctoral thesis with publications, familiarity with examination guidelines is one of the most worrisome areas in which university support is needed. Institutions need to communicate clear expectations to their examiners to ensure that this assessment

164

B. Oboirien

process is fair, appropriate, and rigorous, and some institutions may not be conveying expectations effectively. Such guidelines need also to be shared with doctoral students compiling their thesis. Often, this is not the case. This leads to challenges of both thesis cohesion and how publications relate to the thesis. Merga et al. (2020) argue support from universities should be flexible so as to allow students to structure their theses to optimize cohesion and ‘flow’.

11.5

Supervisors Support on Doctoral Publication

As above, Kwan (2013) reported that there are five types of training/support that supervisors should give to doctoral students that are interested in publishing their work during the doctoral studies. Our collaboration participant reflective accounts were analysed within Kwan’s framework. There was no report of support on conceiving and designing research for publishing amongst the participants, and that is also least reported in the literature (Kwan, 2013). It is relevant because advice on shaping research topics could lead to higher chances of publishing. Research topics that are not relevant and timely to the research community might be difficult to publish (Kaufer & Geisler, 1989). Based on the extracts from all the participants in this study, all supervisors encourage their students to publish and provide support/ facilitation in helping them publish some parts of their doctoral work, even if students are not interested in publishing during their doctoral studies—as explained by UNAM Academic below:

I encourage my doctoral students to write journal articles based on their preliminary findings after they have shared their findings at a workshop. Based on the feedback from the conferences, the papers are then improved and sent for publication to high impact journals. I assist them to select suitable journals by using the journal find platform. In addition, I guide them in addressing comments from the reviewers during the publication process. However, I have graduated doctoral students and masters students from the industry who were simply interested in the degree and nothing else. All the necessary support was provided but they did not seem to be interested in publishing (UNAM Academic).

For those students who are not interested in publishing, the training/support might not be appreciated as reported in the extract above. Therefore, internal student motivation, in addition to university and supervisor support, are necessary for effective dissemination of doctoral research in journals and other forms of publications. There was also no report on support on thesis-publication alignment. UJ Academic reported that publication only starts after the submission of the thesis, and hence there is no need for the thesis-publication alignment as reported in below:

11 Supporting Doctoral Candidates to Disseminate Their Research

165

As soon as the candidate’s thesis is submitted for examination, the discussion and writing of possible articles commence. I have not been able to assist my students to publish during the course of research as we are attempting to meet the deadline for the submission of the thesis (UJ Academic).

Training on how to be strategic in the choice of journals to increase the chance of their work being accepted, and how to set legitimate time-lines for various stages of publishing such as manuscript writing, submission, review, revision and resubmission, and getting the article(s) in print, and monitor their progress, are part of the related competence training in output management (Kwan, 2013). A range of supports focused on submission strategies have been reported in the literature (Henson, 1997; Kwan, 2013; Pierce & Garven, 1995), including fit between journals and the work submitted, acceptance rates of the journals, and their turnaround times. In this study, support in the selection of suitable journal was done by using modern tools such as journal finders as reported by UNZA Academic in the extract below:

I assist them in selecting suitable journals by using the “Journal finder platform”. The journal finder platform selects the best match for draft paper using the title and abstract. The factors used to select the text match score are acceptance rate, time to first decision, time to publication, impact factor and cite score. Major academic publishing entities such as Elsevier, Wiley, Springer and Taylor and Francis all have it (UNZA Academic).

Another area of output management training support reported by supervisors is to develop timelines and strategy on what to publish and when, starting with a review paper first based on the thesis chapter 2, usually the literature review, as recommended by Mason (2018). After that students can proceed to results and discussion chapters, as reported by UJ Academics and UNZA Academic in the extracts below:

My experience is that with support of my students with the dissemination of their research is to start with a review paper and publish them in reputable high impact journals. This after they have carried out a critical review of the literature and identified key gaps. We normally use a mind map strategy to develop the outline of the review paper. Recently I also guided another doctoral student to write a review paper based on his draft chapter (UJ Academic).

166

B. Oboirien

For experimental and modelling aspects of their study, Sometimes I encourage them to first present their work in specialist international conferences. Based on the feedback from the conferences, the papers are then improved and sent for publication to high impact journals. For example one of my doctoral students presented in the European conference of coal and its application in Cardiff, Wales and the work was later upgraded and published in Fuel, a high impact journal in the field of Fuel and Energy (UJ Academic).

During the PhD process, I also encourage my candidates to publish so that they can also benefit from comments from reviewers. I inform them that even the literature review, if argued thematically, can result into a paper worth submitting for publication (UNZA Academic).

Support with manuscript writing is the most commonly reported type in the literature (Kwan et al., 2013): all the participating supervisors reported that they all offered support in manuscript writing, with regards to research communications. The support is mainly in the logically presentation of argument and this could be challenging but rewarding if the manuscript is accepted as reported by UJ Academics in the extracts below:

My role in this process was to ensure that the argument is clear and well communicated and that the candidate has made an original contribution to knowledge (UJ Academic).

The most challenging part for me as a supervisor is the amount of guidance, I give to students to develop and synthesise a manuscript which makes me a co-writer, a mentor, an editor, proof-reader all at once. This also in a way diverts my attention from an ongoing review of chapters for the PhD study. Though it sounds a mammoth task, the students become excited and motivated when their work is accepted for presentation at a conference or for publication in a journal (UJ Academic).

Critical feedback from peer-reviewers can negatively impact students’ motivation and confidence, and rejection from peer-reviewers can put increased pressure on completion times (Merga et al., 2020). Doctoral students need training/support in the skills to decode reviews, carry out revisions that are legitimately requested,

11 Supporting Doctoral Candidates to Disseminate Their Research

167

and develop strategies to negotiate with (Williams, 2004). In this study, support was also given by supervisors in the handling of reviewer’s comments as reported by UJ Academic and UNAM Academic in the extracts below:

I also guide them in addressing comments from reviewers during the publication process. This support system has led to co-authoring of more than 20 journal publications with my doctoral students and recently another was accepted (UJ Academic).

In addition, I guide them in addressing comments from the reviewers during the publication process (UNAM Academic).

I have also shared with my candidates templates of what reviewers look for in a paper that has been submitted for possible publication (UNAM Academic).

There were also reflections on how feedback should be given to the students and by supervisors themselves. It should be given with empathy and be constructive as reported by UJ Academic in the extract below:

In my experience as a PhD student and as a co supervisor I have noted and felt with dismay and frustration at times on how the comments given as feedback can destroy the student’s confidence and willingness and focus to do better. Because of such experiences, I always put myself in the shoes of the student when I give feedback despite the frustration associated with the failure by students to adhere to deadlines, address the previously discussed weaknesses, and unexpected sloppiness in the submitted document (UJ Academic).

According to the UK Council of Graduate Education, supervisors have responsibilities to support candidates to disseminate their research findings and key examples are setting expectations at the candidacy, modelling the process of publication, encouraging candidates to publish as they go, co-publishing and establishing a post-doctoral publications plan. In this study, UNZA Academic and UNAM Academic supervisors pointed to support in setting expectations at the candidacy, co-publishing and establishing a post-doctoral publications plan as reported in the extracts below:

168

B. Oboirien

From the onset of the doctoral journey, I encourage my candidates to disseminate their research at seminars and workshops conducted by the department as well as at conferences that align with the discipline within which the study is being conducted, that is, mathematics education so that the feedback can be useful (UNZA Academic).

I love doing research and publishing articles and papers. Therefore, as a supervisor I always encourage my doctoral students to co-publish with me at least one paper after submitting their work for examination or after they graduate. This way, I still remain as a mentor and I usually find that it is much easier to publish together after the students have graduated (UNAM Academic).

Apart from journal publications, supervisors indicated the importance of oral presentations that culminate into publications. For example, UNZA Academic reported that:

Additional opportunities are also provided for students to deliver presentations on their research work at conferences which translates into publications in accredited conference proceedings and book chapters. The presentations take the form of oral presentations, roundtable presentations, and poster presentations (UNZA Academic).

Other forms of support reported by the supervisors after oral presentation are helping the students connect theory to the research design. For example, UNZA academics stated that:

In listening to my candidates disseminate their research, I ensure that I check whether the conceptual framework informs the research design, the choice of methodology, and data collection techniques (Trafford & Lesham, 2009) (UNZA Academic).

This is based on the understanding that engaging with literature results in coherent theoretical perspectives which guide the analysis of findings and identify conclusions which align with the concepts that guided the research. Hence, linking to the justifiable contribution the research has made to the identified gap and consequently advance what is known (Gardner, 2008) (UNZA Academic).

11 Supporting Doctoral Candidates to Disseminate Their Research

169

It is also important for supervisors and universities to provide opportunities earlier before publication to disseminate emerging work. Some supervisors indicated that they encourage their students to present at “university public engagements events” as reported by UJ Academic in the extract below:

For example, in 2019 one of my students presented in the University of A Three Minute Thesis Competition and came second. I do this because it forces the student to develop a strategy to be able present their work in a compelling story on their dissertation in a short period (3 minutes) to a non-specialist audience. This has also been a good experience for all my students even for those who are not prize winners (UJ Academic).

Three Minute Thesis competition (3MT® ) challenges were first developed by the University of Queensland in 2008, and are now global events. The 3MT challenges research students to communicate the significance of their projects to a non-specialist audience in just three minutes. One colleague reported that the competition started in 2018 at the University of Johannesburg, and the winner of the local competition is selected for the national competition, where the national winner will be expected to represent South Africa in the global competition. There is limited literature around wider dissemination such as non-academic community engagement or policy officials, in our extracts. Recently the National Research Foundation, the government agency responsible for the funding of research in South Africa, has made mandated inclusion of science engagement plans in funding applications. This should involve how results would be communicated to government and industrial stakeholders, as well as to the wider public.

11.6

Reward and Incentive System

There was no report by participant supervisors that any reward and incentive was provided to their students—nor is there much reference in the literature. Reward systems for early career academics to increase research productivity, though, have been reported (Jung, 2014). Such a system could be extended to doctoral students to increase research productivity and publication. In some South African universities there is a report of payment of financial incentives either to a research account or into the authors’ salary accounts or both (Muthama & McKenna, 2020). Payment of financial incentives into the authors’ salary accounts could lead to the publication in predatory publications (Muthama & McKenna, 2020). Tomaselli (2018) reported that universities demanding publications from postgraduates prior to graduation for scholarship should not be encouraged because it privileges exchange-value notions of outputs rather than use-value notions of knowledge dissemination. For example, in the University of Limpopo in research

170

B. Oboirien

policy reported by Muthama and McKenna (2020), “The Scholarship is renewable for a second year subject to satisfactory progress, indicating that an accredited publication has been published or proof that it is in press or under review. The Scholarship is renewable for a third year subject to satisfactory progress, indicating that the article for the second year was published and that a second accredited publication has been published or proof that it is in press or under review (University of Limpopo 2010 Research incentive policy)”. This reward and incentive system does work to increase research publication, but could also be exploited for non-ethical practices such as predatory publication and gaming of the system.

11.7

Conclusions and Recommendations

This chapter presents reflections from academics who participated in the Southern Africa–UCL Supervision Collaboration UKGCE Supervisor Recognition workshops, focused on supporting dissemination of doctoral research findings. It evaluates their support against the developmental theory of socialization of publishing during a PhD, and the competence framework for publishing for doctoral students. In summary, all participating supervisors encouraged their students to publish parts of their doctoral work, even students who are not interested in publishing during their doctoral studies. Based on the are five types of training/support that supervisors are required to give to doctoral students to achieve competence in publishing doctoral work, workshop reflective accounts showed that all the supervisors offered support in three areas, namely manuscript writing, handling reviewer comments, and selection of suitable journal; there was no report of support in conceiving and designing research, though that might have been referred to in another section, or of thesis-publication alignment for publishing. The guidelines for the examination of doctoral thesis with publication by universities should differ from those used in the examination of traditional theses. Some universities require publication before submission of thesis, and some after the external examiner reports have been received, being needed only when the faculty higher degree committee meets for final approval. University requirement of publication of two articles before the doctoral thesis can be sent out for external examination could add to the time pressure of publishing during the programme, because managing the timelines of submitting the thesis and getting the paper accepted is beyond the control of the students. The level of support needs to be adequate in balancing the lengthy period of review of articles, chances of acceptance and quality of the journal and thesis submission. A notable advantage of article publication being required only after the external examiner reports have been received, is that comments from the examiner can strengthen the article, and be useful in addressing comments from journal reviewers, making the revision process easier and increasing the chances of acceptance.

11 Supporting Doctoral Candidates to Disseminate Their Research

171

References Allison, P. D., & Stewart, J. A. (1974). Productivity differences among scientists: Evidence for accumulative advantage. American Sociological Review, 39, 596–606. Dinham, S., & Scott, C. (2001). The experience of disseminating the results of doctoral research. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 25(1), 45–55. Gardner, S. (2008). “What’s too much and what’s too little”: The process of becoming an independent researcher in doctoral education. Journal of Higher Education, 79(3), 326–350. Henson, K. T. (1997). Writing for publication. Phi Delta Kappan, 78(10), 781–784. Horta, H., & Santos, J. M. (2016). The impact of publishing during PhD studies on career research publication, visibility, and collaborations. Research in Higher Education, 57, 28–50. Jairam, D., & Kahl, D. H., Jr. (2012). Navigating the doctoral experience: The role of social support in successful degree completion. International Journal of Doctoral Studies, 7, 311–329. Jung, J. (2014). Research productivity by career stage among Korean academics. Tertiary Education and Management, 20(2), 85–105. Kaufer, D. S., & Geisler, C. (1989). Novelty in academic writing. Written Communication, 6(3), 286–311. Kwan, B. S. C. (2010). An investigation of instruction in research publishing offered in doctoral programs: The Hong Kong case. Higher Education, 59, 55–68. Kwan, B. S. C. (2013). Facilitating novice researchers in project publishing during the doctoral years and beyond: A Hong Kong-based study. Studies in Higher Education, 38(2), 207–225. Mason, S. (2018). Publications in the doctoral thesis: Challenges for doctoral candidates, supervisors, examiners and administrators. Higher Education Research and Development, 37(6), 1231–1241. Merga, M. K., Mason, H., & Morris, J. E. (2020). ‘What do I even call this?’ Challenges and possibilities of undertaking a thesis by publication. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 44(9), 1245–2126. Mullins, G., & Kiley, M. (2002). ‘It’s a PhD, not a Nobel Prize’: How experienced examiners assess research theses. Studies in Higher Education, 27, 369–386. Muthama, E., & McKenna, S. (2020). The Unintended Consequences of Using Direct Incentives to Drive the Complex Task of Research Dissemination. Education as Change, 24(August), 23 p. https://doi.org/10.25159/1947-9417/6688 Pierce, B., & Garven, G. (1995). Publishing international business research: A survey of leading journals. Journal of International Business Studies, 26(1), 69–89. Powell, K. (2016, February 10). Does it take too long to publish research? Nature. http://www.nat ure.com/news/does-it-take-too-long-to-publish-research-1.19320 Sinclair, J., Barnacle, R., & Cuthbert, D. (2014). How the doctorate contributes to the formation of active researchers: What the research tells us. Studies in Higher Education, 39(10), 1972–1986. Tomaselli, K. G. (2018). Perverse incentives and the political economy of South African academic journal publishing. South African Journal of Science, 114(11–12), 1–6. Trafford, V., & Leshem, S. (2009). Doctorateness as a threshold concept. Innovations in Education and Teaching Internationals, 46(3), 305–316. Williams, H. C. (2004). How to reply to referees’ comments when submitting manuscripts for publication. Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology, 51(1), 79–83. Wilson, P. M., Petticrew, M., Calnan, M. W., & Nazareth, I. (2010). Disseminating research findings: What should researchers do? A systematic scoping review of conceptual frameworks. Implementation Science, 5, 91.

Enhancing Supervisory Practice: Reflecting on the Enablers and Constraints for Meaningful Postgraduate Student Development

12

Lydia Mavuru, Sam Ramaila, and Kathleen Fonseca

Abstract

This chapter grapples with the nature of supervisory practices that can be embraced to support postgraduate students to engage in their studies. A reflection on the nature of these supervisory practices will enable supervisors to strike a healthy balance between work and life demands and to optimally manage concomitant relationship challenges. The evolving and complex nature of the supervisory role underscores the need to interrogate enablers and constraints with a view to fundamentally rethink and redefine pursuit of postgraduate research studies in diverse contexts. The chapter specifically seeks to provide insightful elucidation on how optimal support can be provided to postgraduate students to ensure meaningful engagement in their studies, how supervisors can strike a healthy balance between work and life demands and how the relationship challenges associated with the supervisory practice can be effectively managed. There is a crucial need to critically unpack the social and operational dynamics that characterise the student-supervisor relationship. To this end, the Basic Transactional Model of Student Engagement is invoked as a theoretical lens to demystify the complex nature of the social and operational dynamics in order to enhance supervisory practice. Supervisors’ reflections point to the significance of supervisory professional development and the need to strike a healthy work-life balance to enhance supervisory practice. Theoretical implications for sustainable enhancement of supervisory practice are discussed. L. Mavuru (B) · S. Ramaila · K. Fonseca University of Johannesburg, Corner Kingsway Ave and University Road, Auckland Park, Johannesburg, South Africa e-mail: [email protected] S. Ramaila e-mail: [email protected] K. Fonseca e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 K. Luneta et al. (eds.), Doctoral Supervision in Southern Africa, Springer Texts in Education, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-46899-5_12

173

174

12.1

L. Mavuru et al.

Introduction

This chapter captures reflections by practitioners on how to enhance their supervisory practice. Firstly, we discuss optimal supervisory support to enhance practice that can be provided to postgraduate students to ensure meaningful engagement in their studies. Secondly, we undertook a critical review of literature coupled with reflections made by Southern African academics who participated in supervisory professional development workshops. This undertaking was meant to establish how supervisors can strike a healthy balance between work and life demands in order to enhance their supervisory practice. Lastly, we discuss how relationship challenges associated with the supervisory practice can be effectively managed as relationship building is a critical process in supervision. The authors’ central argument is that postgraduate supervisors have been reported to be overworked worldwide (Mutula, 2009; Nasiri & Mafakheri, 2015) and overwhelmed (Van Rensburg et al., 2016). This is detrimental to the quality of support they provide for their doctoral students, who rightly have high expectations of their supervisors as mentors. A point to note is that under-preparation of supervisees results in high attrition rates, low throughput rates, and poor-quality research (Van Rensburg et al., 2016). There is a need for an assertive process that enhances supervisory practices whilst finding a healthy balance between work and life demands. The chapter seeks to provide insightful responses to the following research questions: 1. How can optimal support be provided to postgraduate students to ensure meaningful engagement in their studies? 2. How can supervisors strike a healthy balance between work and life demands? and 3. How can the relationship challenges associated with the supervisory practice be effectively managed? These research questions are answered through analysis of reflections on supervisory practice made by the academics who participated in supervisory professional development workshops held during the period March 2022–June 2022. A review of the literature is used to contextualise the supervisors’ reflections. Commensurate with Chap. 1, the current chapter provides a reflection on the enhancement of doctoral supervision practices from Southern African perspective. The theoretical framework that underpins the reflection is elucidated in the next section.

12.2

Theoretical Framework

The Basic Transactional Model of Student Engagement proposed by Lawson and Lawson (2013) informs the critical reflection on the enhancement of the supervisory practice in this chapter. This framework provides insights into the nature of interactions between supervisors and supervisees. By its very nature, the model provides a transactional view of student engagement which involves four central elements, namely: acts of engagement, benefits/competencies (and/ or consequences) of engagement, conditions, and contexts of engagement, and dispositions and drivers of engagement (Lawson & Lawson, 2013). An act of

12 Enhancing Supervisory Practice: Reflecting on the Enablers and Constraints …

175

engagement refers to the various states of experience of individuals as they participate in discrete activities at particular moments in time. In addition, these states can range from all-encompassing flow-like experiences (Bempechat & Shernoff, 2012) to more passive and/or deactivating states like boredom or disinterest (Pekrun & Linnebrink-Garcia, 2012). Lawson and Lawson (2013) argue that the quality of experiences students engender from their attentional, positional, and social-cultural engagement influences the benefits they receive (or not) from each engagementrelated act. Within the context of this chapter, the benefits and competencies of engagement that accrue from the supervision will be evaluated with a view to enhancing supervisory practices. Engagement disposition is viewed by Lawson and Lawson (2013) as students’ social agency, an important attribute required for the successful pursuit of postgraduate studies. Skinner et al. (2008) argue that the quality and nature of student engagement experiences and dispositions are often highly conditional upon surrounding organizational conditions and ecologies, namely, factors that are external to the student. Similarly, the enhancement of supervisory practice requires critical reflection on concomitant student engagement experiences, their dispositions, and the conditions under which they undertake postgraduate studies.

12.3

Optimising Supervisory Support to Enhance Practice

The first question that the chapter grapples with is: How can optimal support be provided to postgraduate students to ensure meaningful engagement in their studies? The role of the supervisor is multi-faceted and dynamic. A supervisor can play the role of mentor, trainer, supporter, critic, and fellow researcher (Fragouli, 2021). These roles underscore the importance of holistic supervisory and research skills development needed for both the supervisors and supervisees respectively. This is captured in the two reflections by UNZA and UNAM academics:

I have also attended a two-day workshop organised in February 2021 by my university. The two-day workshop explored contexts, models, and systems of supervision; institutional policy and procedures; supervisor-student relationships; and practical ways to engage constructively with the supervision relationship (UNZA Academic); Later over the last ten years, I enhanced my professional development as a supervisor by continually doing self-reflection and using my students’ evaluation report about my supervision work as well as listening to students’ feedback on supervision during seminars on postgraduate matters (UNAM Academic).

The pivotal role played by supervisors is central to successful completion of postgraduate studies. However, the supervisory role has become more challenging due to different ethnic, cultural, political, economic, linguistic, and educational backgrounds of postgraduate students (Fragouli, 2021). Globally, universities have

176

L. Mavuru et al.

a mandate to enrol international students from diverse backgrounds: these challenges are not only confined to Southern African universities, but are also prevalent in northern universities as indicated by Fragouli (2021). Wisker (2012) advises supervisors to ascertain if there are institutional regulations for international student language standards in place, and to establish whether there are courses or support available for international students. There is a need to demystify the complexity of the highlighted factors as they can hamper meaningful pursuit of postgraduate studies in diverse contexts. Fragouli (2021) argues that considerable emphasis ought to be put on socio/cultural differences/issues, learning differences, personal interests, and educational needs including language and writing challenges. Firth and Martens (2008) highlight the need for an appropriate balance between emotional and rational elements within any effective supervisory practice. This imperative underscores the need for clarity about roles and responsibilities of students and supervisors (Phillips & Pugh, 2000). The significance of the support provided to postgraduate students for sustainable completion of their research projects cannot be over-emphasized. Induction programmes can be organised for newly admitted students to acquaint them with the administrative and regulatory processes to manage expectations. Supervisors need to ensure that they are familiar with all university procedures and regulations involved (Wisker, 2012). The induction programmes can also be harnessed to provide training opportunities on access and use of library resources. In addition, regular workshops could be coordinated to empower postgraduate students with research skills. Workshops can play a pivotal role in the development of postgraduate students’ research expertise as they provide meaningful opportunities to learn and interact with a variety of established scholars. In particular, the authors’ institution has a vibrant Postgraduate School which organises workshops for doctoral students at various stages of their research journey. For instance, these workshops provide mentorship opportunities on: academic writing, various research perspectives, methodologies, paradigms as well as theoretical and conceptual frameworks. The following excerpt by a UJ Academic attests to this:

At our university, postgraduate students benefit from the targeted workshops. These works are presented by invited academics on various aspects of research such as proposal development, literature review, and methodology (UJ Academic).

The establishment of sustainable student communities of practice provides opportunities for postgraduate students to learn from one another through constant interaction with a view to providing vibrant intellectual experiences. It has been observed that data analysis remains a challenging and arduous task for a substantial number of supervisors and postgraduate students (Austin & Sutton, 2014), so it is important supervisors and students experience data analysis development as a key feature of the research process, as indicated by a UNAM Academic:

12 Enhancing Supervisory Practice: Reflecting on the Enablers and Constraints …

177

We formed a team of three supervisors for my first candidate. This arrangement helped me a lot in gaining confidence because we shared responsibilities especially during data analysis. Those who were good with quantitative methods assisted in that regard; while the ones with good understanding on qualitative designs, assisted in that respect (UNAM Academic).

Wisker (2012) proposed a variety of practices that can be adopted by supervisors to support students’ research projects, including increasing awareness of culturally different contexts, learning styles, expectations, and behaviours; acceptance of different learning approaches and research modes; ensuring that students have appropriate access to tertiary literacy support for writing and examination; supporting culturally contextualised and inflected topics; ensuring respectful interactions and challenging entrenched culturally originated learning behaviours of both supervisors and students. In a similar vein, Fragouli (2021) proposed mechanisms for supporting and engaging postgraduate students that include induction programmes, instructions tailor-made to the specific needs of students, continuous constructive feedback, and acknowledgement and reward of students’ efforts and achievement. In the authors’ institution, doctoral students are afforded opportunities to showcase their studies in competitions such as the ‘Visualize Your Thesis Competition’ which culminates in best presenters being awarded prizes for their efforts. Participation in doctoral seminars enables postgraduate students to obtain critical feedback on their research proposals in the initial stages of the research journey and critical interpretation of research findings in the later stages. In addition, regular student research conferences provide further interactive opportunities for postgraduate students to obtain peer feedback, central to their academic and intellectual growth. These interventions can be harnessed as effective mechanisms to keep doctoral research on track and closely monitor progress as discussed in Chap. 8. Furthermore, opportunities should be provided for postgraduate students to partake in inbound-outbound virtual student engagements. By their very nature, inbound-outbound virtual student engagements provide unique opportunities for postgraduate students to share their research studies and findings with students from other countries thereby fostering shared practice. Inbound-outbound virtual student engagements serve to broaden students’ awareness of institutional research cultures in other countries. This is corroborated by a UJ academic’s reflection:

In our department, we have organized virtual conferences which allowed our students to interact with students from universities in the USA and Thailand for the past three years. The students learnt from each other and shared good research practices. As supervisors we also exchanged ideas (UJ Academic).

178

L. Mavuru et al.

The expectations of both supervisors and students can be managed by using learning contracts, which may be set at the beginning of the supervision journey. Wisker (2012) asserts that this provides a formal way to agree on how expectations and responsibilities can be managed, and how the supervisor and the students can proceed to work together. As recommended by Anderson and Boud (1996), learning contracts should make each party’s expectations explicit to help everyone involved in supervision to manage their work, and to identify problems fairly and objectively. Whilst reflecting on students’ support for meaningful engagement in their studies, the authors of this chapter note the need to consider the challenges supervisors encounter in a bid to strike a balance between work and life demands.

12.4

Striking a Healthy Balance Between Work and Life Demands

First, it is important to outline some of the associated demands and their effect on supervisory practice and well-being of supervisors.

12.4.1

Supervisory Work Demands

Academics have many key roles and supervision is one of their core responsibilities (Van Rensburg et al., 2016). Unfortunately, other key roles are frequently not considered as supervisor’s capabilities are often measured by students’ throughput rate, and supervisor’s academic research output (Van Rensburg et al., 2016). Postgraduate supervision can be described as an interface between teaching and research (De Gruchy & Holness, 2007), which is a reflection of the complexity of work demands faced by supervisors. Teaching, supervision, and research are not the only key roles. For instance, there are community engagement initiatives which afford supervisors opportunities to showcase, apply and engage in meaningful projects. Within supervision there are still many expectations and roles, for example, mentoring, training, advising, supporting, counselling, critiquing, and being a fellow researcher to your student (Fragouli, 2021). In addition, Fragouli (2021) argues that students should be made aware of the roles and other tasks involving supervisors, to ensure meaningful management of expectations. The supervisory role is complex, being intellectual, methodological, and pastoral in nature (Fragouli, 2021); further supervisors receive institutional pressure as dropout and graduation delays negatively impact on the financial sustainability of universities. This is a pervasive practice in South African universities where the government “expects prompt, efficient and cost-effective postgraduate research students’ returns on its university subsidy investments to meet the developmental needs of the country” (Habib & Morrow, 2007, p. 114). The key question, then, is how can academics balance roles to ensure that high quality supervision of postgraduate students is not compromised, especially given rapidly-increasing numbers (Chap. 1). Doctoral participation in most African countries has increased since

12 Enhancing Supervisory Practice: Reflecting on the Enablers and Constraints …

179

university education became more accessible post-independence, and this phenomenon translates into high supervision workloads. Supervisor-doctoral student ratio depends on workload, availability of funding, level of supervision required, supervision model adopted, quality and rigour of research, and time management skills (Stapleton, 2023). Despite high workloads, academics have key issues to grapple with such as oversight of the quality of the supervisory process and of the research output (Lessing & Schulze, 2003). Most participants in the UKCGE workshops indicated that doctoral students are expected to publish articles from their doctoral studies as a key requirement for graduation. This requirement puts considerable pressure on supervisors, not only for supervision of quality research projects, but also for mentoring students on academic writing, so it is imperative to reimagine models of supervision: oneon-one pairings are not sustainable for increasing enrolment: cohort supervision and other participatory styles should be considered. These may include an apprenticeship approach (Christman, 2015), group approach (Samara, 2006) and team approach (Malfroy, 2005), and building supervision capacity of former doctoral graduates (alumni) is an untapped source of supervision capacity. Supervision aims to enhance postgraduate students’ knowledge and competencies (Emilsson & Johnsson, 2007): practices have evolved over time from an informal, sometimessuperficial process, to a demanding activity which Bartlett and Mercer (2000) refer to as ‘supervision as a pedagogy’. The expectations placed on supervisors are immense to the extent that Lee (2008) likens supervisors to ‘family doctors’. It is even more challenging for the supervisor to support a student who lacks foundational skills for postgraduate studies (Lessing & Schulze, 2003). Work or job demands refer to the physical, psychological, social, or organisational features of a job that requires the worker to exert cognitive and emotional energy or abilities (Bakker et al., 2014; Demerouti & Bakker, 2011). A study conducted by Mutula (2009) revealed that postgraduate students are dissatisfied with delayed feedback from supervisors as supervisors often struggle with heavy teaching loads. Such revelations show how overwhelmed supervisors are with work demands—though they could also be attributed to supervisors’ poor time management skills, inadequate time allowance for doctoral supervision, or unrealistic teaching expectations. In addition to being supervisors for many postgraduate students, most southern African academics engage in many other roles such as teaching, research, and administration (Brew et al., 2018)—unlike in the UK and Australia, where academics might be contracted as teaching-only staff members (Brew et al., 2018). Brew et al. (2018) explored how academics in some Australian and English universities navigate complex work demands and revealed varied practices. Some participants resorted to survival tactics where they ignored some of their duties such as research and mainly concentrated on teaching. The following reflection by a UJ academic was made on the navigation of associated demands:

180

L. Mavuru et al.

One needs to delineate on the research areas for supervision. I learned that I should never ‘chew what I cannot swallow’, i.e. never to enrol too many students for supervision (UJ Academic).

The implication here is that globally, academics struggle to strike a balance between life and work demands. These challenges are also encountered by African and Southern African academics who are expected to achieve excellence in teaching, doctoral supervision and research. Whilst academics acknowledge and accept the gravity of their roles, there are, however, contextual factors that militate against the smooth execution of their duties. According to Naidoo-Chetty and du Plessis (2021), these contextual factors negatively influence the wellbeing of academics. There has been a huge increase in the number of students enrolling in university programmes in most developing countries soon after the attainment of independence, and this phenomenon translated into increased work demands for academics (Theron et al., 2014). Higher education in Southern African universities operates under difficult conditions as lack of resources impacts not only on the performance of academics but also their wellbeing (Asamoah & Mackin, 2015). As such, Naidoo-Chetty and du Plessis (2021) pointed out that teaching at a university level is considered a high stress occupation. The high workload imposed on academics has also been reported to be a pervasive challenge in many African universities, e.g. in Ghana (Atindanbila, 2011); in Egypt, exacerbated by poor working conditions (El-Sayed et al., 2014); in South Africa where academics complained of being pressured to produce research outputs (Bezuidenhout & Cilliers, 2010); and a dearth of mental health support for academic staff (Naidoo-Chetty & du Plessis, 2021).

12.4.2

Personal Life Demands

In addition to being a supervisor, an academic is a family member who has various roles which demand attention. By virtue of being academics and supervisors themselves, the authors argue that an academic works continuously as ideas can emerge anytime whether it’s in the evening, on weekends, or on holidays leaving no room for quality family time. To maintain a healthy lifestyle, a supervisor needs to create time for family responsibilities and leisure as well. The authors advocate for ‘life audits’ for supervisors to determine how they manage to balance work and life demands whilst meaningfully engaging and supporting their postgraduate students. Life audits refer to identification of best practices on doctoral supervision that can be harnessed to equip other doctoral supervisors. Life audits can also serve as corrective measures for supervisors who may be paying inadequate attention to their supervisory responsibilities. Such a balance can enable supervisors to provide, support, and engage in supervision constructively and productively. A UJ academic reflected as follows:

12 Enhancing Supervisory Practice: Reflecting on the Enablers and Constraints …

181

I realised I need to create boundaries between personal time and space and working time (UJ Academic).

12.5

Striking a Healthy Balance Between Work and Life Demands to Enhance Supervisory Practice

Work-personal life balance refers to having control of the amount of time one allocates for work whilst creating time for family, friends, or leisure activities. Supervision is a serious professional commitment in view of the intensity of the supervisor-student engagement involved (Van Rensburg et al., 2016). Hence, postgraduate students need to commit themselves and develop an identity as researchers and new scholars in a particular field (Bitzer, 2011). In such a situation, there will not be any mismatch between the supervisor’s intentions and those of the student and success would be inevitable. We argue therefore that a supervisor-student relationship established at the beginning would serve to enhance supervisory practices (Van Rensburg et al., 2016). In this regard, Emilsson and Johnsson (2007) emphasised that successful supervision is also dependent on the nature of relationship established between supervisors and students which then reduces the demands placed on supervisors. There is a need to inform the student about their programme requirements in terms of rigour, student initiative, and intellectual autonomy at the beginning, (Thompson et al., 2005). Investment in the facilitation and development of students’ research skills, students’ self-esteem, and guiding them to be independent researchers who can conceptualise and think critically is of paramount importance (Kiani & Jumani, 2010; Ngcongo, 2000). In the long run, the supervisory load may be reduced as students work independently, are focused, motivated, and can map their studies in a meaningful manner leading students to become intellectually autonomous (Thompson et al., 2005). One UNZA academic made the following reflection on the need for supervisors to be fully equipped with skills to enhance supervisory practice:

Attending the UKCGE Research Supervision and Recognition sessions and engaging with literature on supervision as well as writing this reflective account has broadened and deepened my understanding of supervisory roles (UNZA Academic).

Co-supervision helps to share the load, hybrid of ideas, and expertise (Thompson et al., 2005). This is contrary to the situation where one is the sole supervisor and must take all the roles, sometimes resulting in low-quality interaction. The

182

L. Mavuru et al.

student benefits from co-supervision by receiving diverse perspectives that different supervisors bring, the supervisors’ content and methodological expertise may complement each other in assisting the student (Thompson et al., 2005). Thompson et al. (2005) also view co-supervision as a dual role not just as a way of managing the workload for the supervisors, but also as a mentoring process where experienced academics help in sharpening the supervisory knowledge and skills of novice supervisors. However, co-supervision can be challenging, particularly for novice supervisors as reflected by a UNZA academic in the excerpt that follows:

The aspect of co-supervision did not help me much, because there was no coordination between me and the principal supervisor. Through attending the workshops, I have learned how this relationship can be enhanced through coordination for the benefit of the candidate (UNZA Academic).

The above sentiment is encapsulated in Chap. 5 which focuses on the establishment of healthy relationship between supervisors and co-supervisors. Whilst postgraduate students are advised to research on areas that they are passionate about for their studies, the same advice also applies to supervisors to focus on research areas of interest. As a reflective academic, a supervisor needs to analyse their capabilities, areas of expertise, and research niche, and map the path for professional development. Such self-knowledge helps the supervisor to delineate the research areas for supervision and avoid supervising new areas without any expertise. Hence supervisors should have the necessary qualifications and experience in supervising a particular research area (Van Rensburg et al., 2016). A supervisor can initiate and create a community of practice (CoP) where students can build a support system for each other, providing opportunities for students to socially interact, share and create knowledge, and build identities as emerging academics (Wazni et al., 2021). In this way, senior students assist and induct junior students into postgraduate research. This distributes responsibilities, thereby lessening the supervisory work demands. The cohort model of supervision reduces supervisory demands. In this model, students share ideas and create safe havens to learn from each other (De Lange et al., 2011). It is also important for supervisors to reflect on students’ evaluation of their supervision, involve students more in decision-making, and empower them to take charge and responsibility for their own studies. Above all, supervisors need to create boundaries between personal time and space and working time. The following section reflects on the challenges associated with the enhancement of supervisory practices.

12 Enhancing Supervisory Practice: Reflecting on the Enablers and Constraints …

12.5.1

183

Challenges Associated with the Enhancement of Supervisory Practices

The relationship between supervisors and their students is at the heart of postgraduate research education (Hemer, 2012, Meinhard et al., 2009), as the successful and timely completion of the doctoral study is greatly dependent on the nature of the supervisory relationship (Adkins, 2009; Chiapetta-Swanson & Watt, 2011; Seeber & Horta, 2021). Furthermore, positive supervisor-student relationships have been strongly associated with a positive doctoral learning experience where research competencies are acquired, and new knowledge in the field is produced (Chiappetta-Swanson & Watt, 2011; Jung et al., 2021), and the extent to which students are satisfied with the postgraduate experience (Seeber & Horta, 2021). During this rite of passage of becoming a skilled and advanced researcher or practitioner, students tend to rely on the supervisor for guidance and support to publish, conduct collaborative research, and advice for the advancement of careers (Jung et al., 2021; Seeber & Horta, 2021). Thus, the development of the supervisory relationship is a blend of academic and personal relationships (Chiapetta-Swanson & Watt, 2011; Grant, 2003; Hockey, 1994). As further described by Wisker (2005), the relationship between the student and supervisor should be friendly and professional, where both parties get along professionally and personally. However, establishing a mutually effective and workable supervisory relationship is a complex endeavour as it requires balancing the tension between the two aspects, namely, the intellectual and pastoral aspects (Hockey, 1996). Rapoport et al. (1989) not only identified the importance of both relationships, but also the tension that might exist between the personal and academic relationship by stating that the “…significance of the relationship stems from its duality, the co-existence of intimacy, care, and personal commitments on the one hand, and commitment to specific academic goals on the other” (p. 15–16). To capture the complexity of the dual nature of supervisory relationships, Manathunga (2005) coined the term ‘compassionate rigour’ to explain that the relationship consists of both support and empathy as well as rigorous feedback. It is important to note that one cannot disassociate the intellectual and emotional aspects from the tension between agency and power in the supervisory relationship (Brown, 2009). The power dynamic is inherent in the supervisory relationship and the supervisor is referred to as the “all powerful category, boundary maintainer, gatekeeper, and judging eye” (Green, 2004, p. 154). This relationship was explored more in detail in Chap. 4. The supervisor plays a pivotal role when it comes to managing challenges associated with the supervisory practice. This role involves laying the foundation for a good relationship based on effective communication, clearly defined roles and responsibilities, shared expectations, concern for a student’s well-being, flexibility throughout the process, and reflection on practice (Chiapetta-Swanson & Watt, 2011). Frick et al. (2014) concur that the supervisor should take the lead in establishing the relationship that forms the foundation of the learning space that is created, but further argue that the student also plays a crucial part in negotiating

184

L. Mavuru et al.

the relationship. It is crucial to do so early in the relationship by clearly defining roles and responsibilities, shared expectations, and ways of learning and working to circumvent challenges from arising (Gill & Barnard, 2008). Chiapetta-Swanson and Watt (2011) highlighted challenges associated with supervision, including academic roadblocks, personal challenges, ethics, student motivation, loss of interest, disagreement, and timely completion. A combination of such challenges may lead to non-completion or late completion of the thesis (Chiapetta-Swanson & Watt, 2011). Academic roadblocks may be triggered by issues such as a lack of academic writing skills, inadequate English proficiency, and inadequately developed analytical skills. As a doctoral study can take several years to complete, the process is emotionally and intellectually demanding. It is thus normal for students to become demoralised and for their motivation and interest to fluctuate along the doctoral journey (Chiapetta-Swanson & Watt, 2011). Personal challenges can also have a negative impact on the level of interest in the study, especially when students deal with marital problems, taking care of their children and or parents, pressure from work, financial problems, and dealing with physical and mental health issues. Emotional challenges such as a lack of confidence and inability to cope well with supervisory feedback can exacerbate the situation. Disagreement between the student and supervisor on conceptual and methodological issues is inevitable and can also add to the student’s stress levels. Doctoral students suffer from high levels of stress and anxiety (Levecque et al., 2017), partly because of the pressure for timely completion and the need to publish articles emanating from the doctoral study (Horta & Santos, 2016). Failure to adhere to research ethics can have devastating consequences for both supervisors and students. The ethical behaviour of both students and supervisors is of crucial significance during the research process. Students can behave unethically towards research participants by misleading them and engaging in social rather than professional relationships. Showing up late or not at all for meetings with participants and the supervisor is another form of unethical behaviour. Unethical behaviour from the supervisor may take the form of abuse of power as well as sexual and academic harassment (Grant & Graham, 1999). Other forms of abuse of power include the provision of poor feedback, being inaccessible to students, and not keeping appointments (Grant & Graham, 1999). The challenges highlighted underscore the need to set and maintain boundaries between professional and personal relationships. It is imperative to effectively address these challenges as soon as possible to prevent an irretrievable breakdown in the working relationship. Furthermore, each supervisory relationship is unique and established through a balance tailored to the goals, needs, learning, and working approaches of both the student and supervisor (Chiapetta-Swanson & Watt, 2011). The following section reflects on the management of challenges associated with the enhancement of supervisory practices.

12 Enhancing Supervisory Practice: Reflecting on the Enablers and Constraints …

12.5.2

185

Managing Challenges Associated with the Enhancement of Supervisory Practices

Hemer (2012) contends that the supervisory relationship cannot be prescribed but instead must emerge out of a process of mutual negotiations between the supervisor and student, negotiations for mutual trust and respect. The need for mutual respect and trust in each other’s scholarship, academic credibility, practices, and boundaries is of paramount importance (Cryer, 2006; Hemer, 2012; Rugg & Petre, 2004; Wisker, 2005). Setting and managing boundaries and negotiating roles of the supervisor are at the heart of managing relationship challenges (Benmore, 2016; Hemer, 2012; Hockey, 1995). For instance, Hemer (2012) advocates for a more friendly, informal, and non-threatening approach to supervision. These sentiments are echoed in Chap. 4 which focuses on supervisory relationship with candidates. Supervision can take place in natural spaces such as coffee shops with friendly atmospheres and where supervision becomes a ‘humanising process’ (Hemer, 2012, p. 834). However, Hemer (2012) cautions that maintaining boundaries during supervision by adopting a coffee approach requires explicit consideration of the different students and different times in the supervisory journey. This implies that a more informal approach to supervision may not be suitable for all students but might be more suitable for a student who is close to submission, where the identity has shifted to that of a scholar. Benmore (2016) identified two primary boundaries (temporal and cognitive) which are integral to the supervisory process: the long-term nature of the journey, and the position or role of the student during the different stages of the supervisory journey. Each stage of the supervisory journey is associated with specific cognitive processes, namely: • • • •

Early days—exploring, discovering, and focusing Data collection—doing and finding out Progression to Ph.D.—analysis and sense-making Completion—critically thinking about originality and contribution

(Benmore, 2016, p. 1256).

One UJ academic underscored the need for related development:

The complexity of pervasive supervisory challenges I faced as a practitioner and mentor in pursuit of collaborative construction of knowledge underscores the critical need to strengthen professional learning communities with a view to enhance sustained professional commitment to contemporary innovative approaches to supervision (UJ Academic).

186

L. Mavuru et al.

Each stage requires specific supervisory roles suited for each unique supervisory relationship. However, the supervisory role is determined by the confluence of three primary boundaries—physical, emotional, and relational (Benmore, 2016). This implies that during the early days the supervisor needs to facilitate students’ research skills development. One UJ Academic reflected as follows:

To enhance my practice and students’ success, I came to the realisation that it is important to induct the students at the beginning of the year to ensure student commitment and identity development. It is also important to create a community of practice where senior students can assist and institutionalise the junior ones (UJ Academic).

This UJ academic also highlighted the development of independence through forming a relational boundary. Provision of guidance and encouragement depends on student’s needs. However, the supervisor also needs to be mindful of the fact that too much guidance might lead to dependence. Throughout each stage, an awareness and appropriate response to relational, emotional, and physical boundaries inform the choice of supervisory roles to meet the cognitive and temporal challenges (Benmore, 2016). The following section reflects on the implications for sustainable enhancement of supervisory practice.

12.6

Implications for Sustainable Enhancement of Supervisory Practice

It is argued in this chapter that postgraduate supervision should be viewed as a form of pedagogy: supervisory practice needs to enable postgraduate students to carve their own academic, intellectual, and professional identity, and is described by De Gruchy and Holness (2007) as an interface between teaching and research. It ought therefore to act as a catalyst for enhancing postgraduate students’ knowledge and competencies (Emilsson & Johnsson, 2007). In essence, supervisory practice ought to give practical expression to stipulated envisaged graduate attributes. The coherent realisation of this key imperative requires intellectual investment in the development of postgraduate students’ research skills and self-esteem with a view to enable them to be independent researchers who can conceptualise research projects and indulge in critical thinking (Kiani & Jumani, 2010). Postgraduate mentorship should provide meaningful opportunities for students to make an original contribution to prevailing academic discourses while ensuring that the contribution itself remains intellectually rich and provocative. Transformation of supervisory practice is an arduous task that requires sustained intellectual effort, and the need to constantly engage with peers for purposes of fostering best professional supervisory practices is of vital significance.

12 Enhancing Supervisory Practice: Reflecting on the Enablers and Constraints …

187

One UJ academic reflected on the benefits of supervisory professional development workshops attended and said:

Involvement in SAUSC workshop sessions provided a unique opportunity to critically reflect on my professional growth trajectory as a supervisor (UJ Academic).

The complexity of pervasive supervisory challenges faced by practitioners and mentors in pursuit of the collaborative construction of knowledge underscores the critical need to strengthen professional learning communities with a view to enhance sustained professional commitment to contemporary innovative approaches to supervision. There is a need to systematically enhance supervisory practice through self-, student- and peer reflection. More specifically, every effort has to be made to fully embrace formal and informal professional development opportunities on supervision to enhance supervisory practice. By their very nature, supervisory professional development workshops can provide meaningful platforms for sharing best practices. It is envisaged that shared best practices can be harnessed to strengthen the professional growth of supervisors. Sustainable enhancement of supervisory practice can also be informed by constructive feedback solicited from postgraduate students themselves. Postgraduate students’ experiences in the pursuit of research studies can be harnessed to further develop supervision skills. In the final analysis, it is imperative to fundamentally rethink and reimagine essential tenets that underpin supervisory practice. In terms of the Basic Transactional Model of Student Engagement proposed by Lawson and Lawson (2013), essential tenets such as acts of engagement, benefits/competencies (and/or consequences) of engagement, conditions, and contexts of engagement, and dispositions and drivers of engagement should guide the coherent and sustainable enhancement of the supervisory practices and students’ engagement. Emphasis should also be placed on the extent to which supervisors and their postgraduate students’ social agency can be harnessed to ensure meaningful and seamless experiences.

12.7

Conclusion

These reflections provide insight into enablers and constraints for the sustainable enhancement of supervisory practice. Coherent and sustainable enhancement of supervisory practice requires a fundamental paradigm shift predicated on the meaningful implementation of appropriate interventions that promote professional growth. Rethinking and reimagining the supervisory practice should be anchored on evidence-based innovative approaches that take the key aspirations of both students and supervisors into account. Demystifying the complexity of the roles of students and supervisors requires sustained intellectual interrogation with a view to providing a solid basis for the seamless completion of postgraduate studies

188

L. Mavuru et al.

in particular. It is envisaged that supervisory practice should make provision for appropriate modalities to be put in place that facilitates the provision of optimal support to postgraduate students to ensure meaningful engagement in their studies. Furthermore, supervisors face a key imperative to strike a healthy balance between work and life demands to provide vibrant intellectual experiences to postgraduate students under their mentorship. Effective management of relationship challenges associated with the supervisory practice is central to a successful pursuit of postgraduate studies in its broadest sense. A distinct feature of doctoral supervision that emerges from Southern African perspectives is the personal as well as professional relationships between the parties, including the mention of the supervisor as friend. This is a significant feature of Southern African supervisory relationships in a way that might not be fully reflected in northern universities.

References Adkins, B. (2009). Ph.D. pedagogy and the changing knowledge landscapes of universities. Higher Education Research and Development, 28(2), 165–177. Anderson, G., & Boud, D. (1996). Introducing learning contracts: A flexible way to learn. Innovations in Education and Training International, 33(4), 221–227. Asamoah, M. K., & Mackin, E. E. (2015). Breaking the fetters of higher education in Sub-Saharan Africa. International Journal of Educational Administration and Policy Studies, 7(1), 6–16. Atindanbila, S. (2011). Perceived stressors of lecturers at the University of Ghana. Journal of Emerging Trends in Educational Research and Policy Studies, 2, 347–354. Austin, Z. A., & Sutton, J. (2014). Qualitative research: Getting started. Canadian Journal of Hospital Pharmacy, 67(6), 436–440. Bakker, A. B., Demerouti, E., & Sanz-Vergel, A. I. (2014). Burnout and work engagement: The job demands–resources approach. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 1, 389–411. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-031413-091235 Bartlett, A., & Mercer, G. (2000). Mostly metaphors: Theorising postgraduate pedagogy from practice. In A. Bartlett & G. Mercer (Eds.), Postgraduate research supervision: Transforming relations (pp. 55–69). Peter Lang. Bempechat, J., & Shernoff, D. J. (2012). Parental influences on achievement motivation and student engagement. In S. L. Christenson, A. L. Reschly, & C. Wylie (Eds.), Handbook of research on student engagement (pp. 56–96). Springer. Benmore, A. (2016). Boundary management in doctoral supervision: How supervisors negotiate roles and role transitions throughout the supervisory journey. Studies in Higher Education, 41(7), 1251–1264. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2014.967203 Bezuidenhout, A., & Cilliers, F. (2010). Burnout, work engagement and sense of coherence in female academics in higher education institutions in South Africa. South Journal of Industrial Psychology, 36, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.4102/sajip.v36i1.872 Bitzer, E. M. (2011). Knowledge with wisdom in postgraduate studies and supervision: Epistemological and institutional concerns and challenges. South African Journal of Higher Education, 25(5), 855–874. Brew, A., Boud, D., Crawford, K., & Lucas, L. (2018). Navigating the demands of academic work to shape an academic job. Studies in Higher Education, 43(12), 2294–2304. https://doi.org/10. 1080/03075079.2017.1326023 Brown, T. (2009). The Doctorate: Stories of knowledge, power, and becoming. York: The Higher Education Academy Subject Centre for Education ESCalate.

12 Enhancing Supervisory Practice: Reflecting on the Enablers and Constraints …

189

Chiapetta-Swanson, C., & Watt, S. (2011). Good practices in the supervision and mentoring of postgraduate students. It takes an academy to raise a scholar. McMaster University, Centre for Leadership and Learning. Christman, J. S. (2015). Enhancing apprentice training through supervision of work experience. Doctor of Philosophy (Ph.D.), Dissertation, STEM Education and Professional Studies, Old Dominion University. Cryer, P. (2006). The research student’s guide to success. Open University Press. Demerouti, E., & Bakker, A. B. (2011). The job demands-resources model: Challenges for future research. South Journal of Industrial Psychology, 37, 01–09. https://doi.org/10.4102/sajip.v37 i2.974 El-Sayed, S. H., El-Zeiny, H. H. A., & Adeyemo, D. A. (2014). Relationship between occupational stress, emotional intelligence, and self-efficacy among faculty members in faculty of nursing Zagazig University Egypt. Journal of Nursing Education and Practice, 4, 183–194. https://doi. org/10.5430/jnep.v4n4p183 Emilsson, U. M., & Johnsson, E. (2007). Supervision of supervisors: On developing supervision in postgraduate education. Higher Education Research and Development, 26(2), 163–179. https:// doi.org/10.1080/07294360701310797 Firth, A., & Martens, E. (2008). Transforming supervisors? A critique of post-liberal approaches to research supervision. Teaching in Higher Education, 13(3), 279–289. Fragouli, E. (2021). Postgraduate supervision: A practical reflection on how to support students’ engagement. International Journal of Higher Education Management, 7(2), 1–11. Frick, B. L., Albertyn, R. M., & Brodin, E. M. (2014). A conceptualisation of the doctoral student-supervisor relationship as a negotiated learning space. In C. Nygaard, J, Branch, L. Scott-Webber & P. Bartholomew (Eds.). Learning spaces in higher education. Libri Publishing. Gill, P., & Burnard, P. (2008). The student-supervisor relationship in the Ph.D./Doctoral process. British Journal of Nursing, 17(9), 668–671. Grant, B. (2003). Mapping the pleasures and risks of supervision. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 24(2), 175–190. Grant, B., & Graham, A. (1999). Naming the game: Reconstructing graduate supervision. Teaching in Higher Education, 4(1), 77–89. Green, B. (2004). Understanding postgraduate supervision as pedagogy. Paper presented at postgraduate supervision seminar, November 24, in Charles Sturt University, Bathurst. De Gruchy, J. W., & Holness, L. (2007). The emerging researcher. Nurturing passion, developing skills, producing output. Juta and Co. Habib, A., & Morrow, S. (2007). Research, research productivity and the state in South Africa. Journal of Higher Education in Africa, 5(1), 113–130. Hemer, S. R. (2012). Informality, power, and relationships in postgraduate supervision: Supervising Ph.D. candidates over coffee. Higher Education Research and Development, 31(6), 827–839. Hockey, J. (1994). Establishing boundaries: Problems and solutions in managing Ph.D. supervisors’ role. Cambridge Journal of Education, 24(2), 293–305. Hockey, J. (1995). Getting too close: A problem and a possible solution in social science Ph.D. supervision. British Journal of Guidance and Counselling, 23(2), 199–210. Hockey, J. (1996). A contractual solution to the problems in the supervision of Ph.D. degrees in the UK. Studies in Higher Education, 21(3), 359–371. Horta, H., & Santos, J. M. (2016). The impact of publishing during the Ph.D. on career research publication, visibility, and collaborations. Research in Higher Education, 57(1), 28–50. Jung, J., Horta, H., Zhang, L.-F., & Postiglione, G. A. (2021). Factors fostering and hindering research collaboration with doctoral students among academics in Hong Kong. Higher Education. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-020-00664-6 Kiani, A., & Jumani, N. B. (2010). Mentoring model for research in higher education in Pakistan. International Journal of Academic Research, 2(5), 414–430.

190

L. Mavuru et al.

de Lange, N., Pillay, G., & Chikoko, V. (2011). Doctoral learning: A case for a cohort model of supervision and support. South African Journal of Education, 31(1), 15–30. https://doi.org/10. 15700/saje.v31n1a413 Lawson, M. A., & Lawson, H. A. (2013). New conceptual frameworks for student engagement research, policy, and practice. Review of Educational Research, 83, 432. Lee, A. (2008). How are doctoral students supervised? Concepts of doctoral research supervision. Studies in Higher Education, 33(3), 267–281. Lessing, A. C., & Schulze, S. (2003). Postgraduate supervision: Students’ and supervisors’ perceptions. Acta Academica, 35(3), 161–184. Levecque, K., Anseel, F., De Beuckelaer, A., Van der Heyden, J., & Gisle, L. (2017). Work organization and mental health problems in Ph.D. students. Research Policy, 46(4), 868–879. Mainhard, T., van der Rijst, R., van Tartwijk, J., & Wubbels, T. (2009). A model for the supervisordoctoral student relationship. Higher Education, 58(3), 359–373. Malfroy, J. (2005). Doctoral supervision, workplace research and changing pedagogic practices. Higher Education Research and Development, 24(2), 165–178. Manathunga, C. (2005). The development of research supervision: ‘Turning the light on a private space.’ International Journal for Academic Development, 10(1), 17–30. Manathunga, C. (2009). Supervision as a contested space: A response. Teaching in Higher Education, 14(3), 341–345. Mutula, S. M. (2009). Building trust in supervisor-supervisee relationship: Case study of East and Southern Africa. In Paper presented at the Progress in Library and Information Science in Southern Africa (PROLISSA) Conference at the University of South Africa (UNISA) on 4–6 March 2009. Naidoo-Chetty, M., & du Plessis, M. (2021). Job demands and job resources of academics in higher education. Frontiers in Psychology, 12(631171), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg. 2021.631171 Nasiri, F., & Mafakheri, F. (2015). Postgraduate research supervision at a distance: A review of challenges and strategies. Studies in Higher Education, 40(10), 1962–1969. Ngcongo, R. (2000). Self-esteem enhancement and capacity building in the process of supervising master’s students. South African Journal of Higher Education, 14(1), 211–217. Pekrun, R., & Linnenbrink-Garcia, L. (2012). Academic emotions and student engagement. In S. L. Christenson, A. L. Reschly, & C. Wylie (Eds.), Handbook of research on student engagement (pp. 259–282). Springer. Phillips, E. M., & Pugh, D. S. (2000). How to Get a Ph.D. (3rd ed.). Open University Press. Rapoport, T., Yair, G., & Kahane, R. (1989). Tutorial relations—the dynamics of social contracts and personal trust. Interchange, 20, 14–26. Van Rensburg, G. H., Mayers, P., & Roets, L. (2016). Supervision of post-graduate students in higher education. Trends in Nursing, 3(1), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.14804/3-1-55 Rugg, G., & Petre, M. (2004). The Unwritten rules of PhD research. Open University Press. Samara, A. (2006). Group supervision in graduate education: A process of supervision skill development and text improvement. Higher Education Research and Development, 25(2), 115–129. Seeber, M., & Horta, H. (2021). No road is long with good company. What factors affect PhD students’ satisfaction with their supervisor? Higher Education Evaluation and Development, 15(1), 2–18. Skinner, E. A., Furrer, C., Marchand, G., & Kindermann, T. (2008). Engagement and disaffection in the classroom: Part of a larger motivational dynamic. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100, 765–781. Stapleton, A. (2023). How many Ph.D. students can a professor take on? Academia Insider. Theron, M., Barkhuizen, N., & Du Plessis, Y. (2014). Managing the academic talent void: Investigating factors in academic turnover and retention in South Africa. South Journal of Industrial Psychology, 40, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.4102/sajip.v40i1.1117 Thompson, D. R., Kirkman, S., Watson, R., & Stewart, S. (2005). Improving research supervision in nursing. Nurse Education Today, 25(4), 283–290. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nedt.2005.01.011

12 Enhancing Supervisory Practice: Reflecting on the Enablers and Constraints …

191

Wazni, L., Gifford, W., Cantin, C., & Davies, B. L. (2021). A community of practice for graduate students in health sciences. Emerald Publishing Limited. https://doi.org/10.1108/heed-10-20200037 Wisker, G. (2012). Establishing and maintaining good supervisory practices. The good supervisor—supervising postgraduate and undergraduate research. Doctoral theses and dissertation, 2nd edition. Palgrave MacMillan. Wisker, G. (2005). The good supervisor: Supervising postgraduate and undergraduate research for doctoral theses and dissertations. Palgrave MacMillan.

Doctoral Supervision in Southern Africa: Challenges, Achievements and the Way Forward

13

Jennie Golding and Hileni M. Kapenda

Abstract

The last ten chapters have provided an overview of how supervisors in the participating universities think about, and address, a range of stages of the doctoral supervision journey. They locate such accounts within the wider literature, which, while largely emanating from the global north, does offer material for reflection on, and challenge to, supervision practice world-wide. In this final chapter we summarise what we have learned about what is the same and what is different, for participant supervisors compared with peers in the global north, and identify limitations to generalizability of the accounts in preceding chapters. The work represented, while wide-ranging, is not comprehensive in the field of doctoral supervision, and in this final chapter, we offer not only a retrospective view of the book, but also identification of some important areas of doctoral supervision which are under-represented in the book so far, and others which have evolved dramatically since we embarked on this collaborative project with the UCL IOE ‘critical friend’ relationship in October 2021. These include ‘new normal’ patterns of working, and developments in AI. Both these have the potential to disrupt, and either to undermine or to enrich our previous approaches to doctoral work. But we also evidence, among the challenges and issues apparent in colleagues’ reflections, something of the joy that we derive from working with beginner researchers in our fields, as we support serious and sustained academic work that leads to not only personal and academic growth, but a range of novel contributions that enrich academic and professional fields of human functioning. Finally, we reflect on the potential of the structures we

J. Golding (B) University College London, London, England e-mail: [email protected] H. M. Kapenda School of Education, University of Namibia, 340 Mandume Ndemufayo Avenue, Pioneers Park, P/Bag 13301, Windhoek, Namibia 9000 © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 K. Luneta et al. (eds.), Doctoral Supervision in Southern Africa, Springer Texts in Education, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-46899-5_13

193

194

J. Golding and H. M. Kapenda

have worked with. We argue that such approaches can underpin sustainable, affordable, and transferable approaches to supporting development of highquality doctoral supervision that benefits supervisors, students, academic and wider communities, and in itself affirms and values our supervisory colleagues. Keywords

Doctoral supervision in southern Africa • Challenges of doctoral supervision • Rewards of doctoral supervision • Post-pandemic ways of working • Artificial Intelligence (AI) • Supervisor development

13.1

A Retrospective on This Book

The origins of this book lie in collaborative, discursive and scholarly supervisor development workshops, and workshop participants’ related academic reflective accounts. Participants were working as doctoral supervisors in one of the universities of Namibia, Johannesburg, or Zambia, with representation from a number of different faculties, although a majority work in Education. As such, the lenses included are not necessarily representative of all academics based in southern African universities, or even in their own. In many important ways, their experiences and reflections resonate with the global doctoral supervision literature, which as we have seen, marginalises voices from the global south—but they also differ in significant respects that might be indicative of wider patterns. The African authors represented therefore provide a perspective that is unique, under-researched, and not very visible in global Higher Education. Some key challenges faced by these southern African researchers and supervisors currently appear to be of a different magnitude and intensity to those of the ‘global north’. The authors are well placed to draw out the differences and challenges faced in Namibia and/or Zambia as opposed to South Africa, especially as South Africa has advantages of resource and political voice in this space. In particular, we note that when taken together the core chapters of this book evidence an importance for policy influence, and for community engagement with, and impact of, (doctoral or academic) research. That appears significantly greater in these contexts than, say, for the UK: where academic research is young in international terms, it is often still close to the community in which it takes place, and so offers enormous potential, and responsibility, for effective research supervision. Beyond the specifics of the scholarly accounts given, and reflection on the related experiences included, the book illustrates a model for experienced supervisors to improve their practice that can be implemented in a variety of contexts, and across a variety of academic disciplines. Even if supervisors do not apply for UKCGE accreditation, the framework that is the basis of this book provides a compelling example of how institutions (via researcher/educational/staff developers) can enhance the professionalism of their doctoral supervisors. The model is not sophisticated, though it benefits from clear organisation and reasonably confident and informed facilitation. The role of accreditation is an interesting one:

13 Doctoral Supervision in Southern Africa: Challenges, Achievements …

195

while this model is affordable in terms of direct costs, it requires significant time commitment from participants and facilitator(s). Participants in SAUSC reported that the incentive of possible accreditation for their generally under-recognised supervisory work, was a key factor in their involvement—and that thereafter, the benefits accrued in two phases: through the semi-structured, deliberate and scholarly reflection experienced in workshops, and later, via the application of those to written academic reflection on supervisory practice—both were needed for full impact. Benefit to practice was reported to build in parallel with each of these two phases, but the initial benefits reinforced and deepened in the second phase. It would seem, therefore, that some sort of target formal and well-respected recognition catalyses serious attention and commitment to the process. We suggest there is an opportunity to develop a related and specifically African experienced supervisor recognition, that takes into account important aspects of supervision such as some of those identified above, and is slightly reframed to reflect regional priorities and values. We argue this would serve to re-position doctoral supervision as a highly valued academic role, that benefits from ongoing informed and deliberate professional reflection. The intersection of theory and practice is a major focus of the book and of the related development model, affording a real-world discussion of some of the literature in the field and using this as its starting point. In general terms, this approach appears to work very well for exploring doctoral supervision and pedagogy, and it also works well from the perspective of professional development of supervisors in key areas. But that focus also exposes a major limitation for those in low and middleincome countries: the vast majority of peer-reviewed literature in the area derives from the global north, and while we have seen that the available literature resonates with the contributing southern African academics, the voices and experiences of those in the global south, and specifically in sub-Saharan Africa, are underrepresented in global discourses in the field, and are not easily available to local academics to more closely inform their practice. There does exist a significant body of doctoral supervision literature emanating from sub-Saharan Africa, although much of that is not easily accessible, and the more accessible often originates from just one jurisdiction, South Africa. The authors’ next project is therefore to complete an indicative annotated bibliography of sub-Saharan literature in the field, both for local use, and to bring the published voices of sub-Saharan African academics more prominently into the global academic field. The core ten chapters of the book, then, have provided an overview of how supervisors in the participating universities think about, and address, a range of stages of the doctoral supervision journey. The authors locate such accounts within the wider literature, which, while largely emanating from the global north, does offer material for reflection on, and challenge to, supervision practice globally, as well as exposing aspects of that which seem of particular impact in at least the contributors’ contexts.

196

13.2

J. Golding and H. M. Kapenda

Other Important Aspects of Doctoral Supervision

However, the work represented, while wide-ranging, is not comprehensive in the field, and in this final chapter, we offer not only a retrospective view of the book, but also identification of some important areas of doctoral supervision which are under-represented in it, and others which have evolved dramatically since we embarked on this collaborative project via a University College London Institute of Education ‘critical friend’ relationship in October 2021. Our data sources were limited to those described, and were therefore largely circumscribed by the ten areas of supervision focused on by UKCGE supervisor recognition structures. We have not yet had a deliberate focus on (student or supervisor) wellbeing, although there are aspects of that referred to, especially in Chap. 8. Nor have we focused on community support and interactions, or on equality, diversity and inclusion issues. Further, given the unique cultural, social and political landscape of southern Africa, it is important to think about how factors such as race, gender, class and sexuality intersect and impact doctoral supervision in this context, and there is some evidence in the accounts offered to specific ethical problems, including abuse of power and sexual harassment. There is also evidence of the local importance of connecting to government officials and systems, and this may have greater significance in southern Africa than in some other regions. Such issues are not unique to particular contexts, and we would argue are of importance for doctoral supervisors globally—but they might take particular forms and have particular significances in southern Africa, or more locally. Research, publication, and scholarly reflection on practices in these areas would contribute to wider scholarly conversations on doctoral education and academic practice. One other area ‘missing’ in the accounts given, is consideration of the similarities in, and differences between, supervising across different sorts of doctorates. Chapter 1 shows that the employing universities of all the authors offer doctorates beyond the Ph.D.—although even within that, there are fulltime and part-time, distance-learning and on-campus PhDs, undertaken by young graduates or those with many years of life experience, and for a variety of purposes. UKCGE recognition guidelines encourage reflection around the variation in needs of students across differing doctoral routes, and there is some academic literature in the area—but the limitations of recognition-submitted five-thousand-word reflections on supervisory practice mean that such issues do not feature prominently in our data. Importantly, one pervasive strand within authors’ reflections, is the individual nature of doctoral candidates’ needs: one of the challenges of doctoral supervision, anywhere on the globe and whatever the nature of the doctoral programme in focus, is to discern and provide a changing level of academic, personal and professional support as the student grows from an insecure beginner academic, into a confident independent researcher, making a significant contribution to academic and/or professional knowledge. But that challenge, and the focus growth, are also a source of great professional joy for supervisors. The nature of the reflective

13 Doctoral Supervision in Southern Africa: Challenges, Achievements …

197

accounts required for UKCGE recognition is that they major on supervisory issues, critique and development, rather than on the rewards and significant pleasures also experienced in doctoral supervision. Within workshop semi-structured and academically-informed discussion around supervisory issues and challenges, time and accountability pressures, and sometimes-unreasonable expectations from a variety of source, there was evidence also of a pervasive and sometimes-surprising professional satisfaction, and sometimes a real joy, that we derive from working with beginner researchers in our fields, as we support serious and sustained academic work that leads to not only personal and academic growth, but to a range of novel contributions that enrich academic and professional fields of human functioning. Colleagues’ accounts frequently identified, either implicitly or explicitly, the centrality in successful supervision of robust and mutually respectful relationships, and the reader will have noticed numerous references to personal as well as professional relationships between the parties, including the mention of the supervisor as friend. This may be a significant feature of southern African supervisory relationships in a way that is at least less visible in northern Universities. And if this is indeed a distinctive feature, it should be celebrated as such, particularly with respect to the wellbeing of both supervisor and candidate.

13.3

Emerging Issues

At the inception of this work, online supervision was still in its relative infancy in southern Africa. Some workshop participants were, as we show below, aware of its potential. However, the abrupt necessary pivoting to distance learning required by the onset of the global covid pandemic in 2020, caused significant problems to universities in terms of personal digital access and wider digital infrastructures in the region, as evidenced for example in Chirinda et al. (2022). Even in the source workshops and with participation from colleagues based in some of the region’s better-resourced universities, digital access to participation was sometimes stressed, not least by local pressures such as electricity ‘load-shedding’ in South Africa. These are constraints unlikely to be experienced in higherresourced regions. Workshop participants, then, were experiencing ‘live’ issues around supervision at a distance, and one reflected as follows:

Mendenhall and Wiley (1994) wrote about the challenge of cultural novelty (in moving to remote learning), whereas Crane et al. (2016) offer advice about online students. Challenges in supervising at a distance include temporal and spatial challenges (different time zones, students may feel isolated), workload challenges, technological challenges—improper use of ICT, limits on internet bandwidth, feedback challenges, cultural challenges… (Kung, 2017; Mapesela & Wilkinson, 2005; Nasiri & Mafakheri, 2015; Picard et al., 2011). It is also important for supervisors to employ effective distance supervision strategies. Maor et al. (2016) argue such strategies should take account of both technological and pedagogical perspectives. Technology should empower rather than control or direct the process of learning; whatever is

198

J. Golding and H. M. Kapenda

developed must be easily accessible, user friendly, transparent and attractive to students and supervisors; most importantly, the structure of the virtual spaces should enable the creation of a community of learners/practitioners who interact and provide support to each other that is sustainable throughout the doctoral journey. I personally have found this very difficult to achieve (UNAM Academic).

There was of course a significant time lag before academic papers began to reflect the realities of supervisory practice during the pandemic, but that literature is now emerging. Ferreira-Meyers (2022), writing in Eswatini, points to some of the challenges involved, for both student and supervisor, and evidences a desire common in her participants to return to traditional face-to-face supervision; in South Africa, Gumbo (2022) identifies an impressive mastery of the related technological tools among some academics, but a need for significant technical, and technological pedagogical, development for others. While clearly a ‘technology enthusiast’ and advocating remote supervision as a route to addressing unsustainable supervisor workloads, he also identifies a threat associated with online supervision, in that the people, people-needs, and relationships, can become marginalized by the technology, and issues of relationship-building, as well as relationship-maintenance, are also prevalent in much of the other literature emerging. It appears that globally, universities are struggling to establish a ‘new normal’ that makes productive use of new technologies and the possibilities they open up, but preserves what we most value in pre-existing practices. A particular issue in doctoral studies is that of online vivas. Wisker et al. (2022) offer views from the global north of the assessment rigour, the opportunities to evidence ‘doctorateness’, and the other emotional and academic affordances and constraints of such practices. They identify obvious advantages of convenience and comfort, but also threats of distance to emotional security and access to support, especially if the viva does not proceed as the candidate might hope, or if there are technical difficulties. Who, then, should have access to remote vivas, and whose decision should that be? Such considerations are clearly transferable, even if they play out in different detail in different contexts. Finally in this section, we turn our attention to the explosion of digitallyavailable data, and to AI, their potential and limitations. The nature, and volume, of internet-sourced and other digital data is changing rapidly, and with that come a range of shifting ethical issues (Clark et al., 2019). A range of related issues are discussed at Association of Internet Researchers: Ethical decision-making and internet research 2.0; NSMNSS: New Social Media, New Social Science… and New Ethical Issues!; British Educational Research Association: Ethical issues in online research, for example. While it is incumbent on supervisors to take an active interest in such issues, it is unreasonable to expect them to be entirely up-to-date with the most recent opportunities—and threats. We suggest that it is important in this field that

13 Doctoral Supervision in Southern Africa: Challenges, Achievements …

199

the wider responsibilities for doctoral education come into play—in libraries, IT support, university central responsibilities, and beyond. Similar considerations are applicable when reflecting on the affordances and constraints of AI, and for, example, ChatGPT. Here, the academic literature is again almost bound to lag behind the experienced reality for many doctoral students—and other researchers—simply because of the pace of change in the field. Wu et al. (2023) begin to address some of these issues, although as we write, parts of their work are already superceded. As academics and researchers, we can feel threatened and overwhelmed by such developments, or we can try to find the resources to engage with, and understand them, so that we can harness them for constructive use in full cognisance of the risks to academic integrity if we fail to do so. As with so many challenges and opportunities identified in this volume, accessing the related knowledge, and sufficient expertise to be able to use these tools ethically, is often more difficult in poorly-resource contexts, underlining yet again that global inequalities and inequities can undermine the common good that is represented by the more positive potentials of such developments.

13.4

Conclusion

In conclusion, we reflect on the potential of the structures we have worked with, their potential and their limitations, and of the role this volume can play in making a unique and much-needed contribution to the field, achieving our aim of offering ‘a distinctively southern African contribution to what is in many ways a global practice’. We argue that the workshop structures we adopted have, as demonstrated by the contents of this book, underpinned development of high-quality doctoral supervision that has already, as evidenced by our wider research, benefitted supervisors, students, academic and wider communities. The approach in itself affirms and values our supervisory colleagues. Further, and importantly, it is sustainable, affordable, and transferable across cultural and social contexts and other academic disciplines. For the contributing colleagues in southern Africa, access to more immediately transferable literature would be enhanced by the development of an annotated bibliography of sub-Saharan African literature in the field; the benefits of our broad approach to other colleagues in the region would be supported by a similar, but different, African supervisor recognition scheme with requirements particularly fitted to regional values and priorities. But underpinning all this, is the nurture and curation of a supervisory capacity to continue to learn in reflexive, persistently curious, and constructively critical ways, and so to catalyse and maintain that deep satisfaction—and indeed joy—that is to be found in contributing as academics to our fields and to our communities in new and exciting ways, including through the nurture of our doctoral students.

200

J. Golding and H. M. Kapenda

References Chirinda, B., Luneta K., & Uworwabayeho, A. (Eds.) (2022). Mathematics education in Africa: The fourth industrial revolution. Research in mathematics education series. Springer. https:// doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-13927-7. Clark, K., Duckham, M., Guillemin, M., Hunter, A., McVernon, J., O’Keefe, C., Pitkin, C., Prawer, S., Sinnott, R., Warr, D., & Waycott, J. (2019). Advancing the ethical use of digital data in human research: Challenges and strategies to promote ethical practice. Ethics and Information Technology, 21, 59–73. Crane, D. A., Lepicki, T., & Knudsen, K. (2016). Unique and common elements of the role of peer support in the context of traditional mental health services. Psychiatric Rehabilitation Journal, 39(3), 282–288. https://doi.org/10.1037/prj0000186 Ferreira-Meyers, K. (2022). The need for revision of selected aspects of online Master’s and doctoral student supervision. Perspectives in Education, 40(1), 288–305. Gumbo, M. T. (2022). Online or offline supervision? Postgraduate supervisors state their position at University of South Africa South African Journal of Higher Education, 33(1), 92–110 https:// doi.org/10.20853/33-1-2673. Kung, M. (2017). Methods and strategies for working with international students learning online in the US. TechTrends, 61(5), 479–485. Maor, D., Ensor, J. D., & Fraser, B. J. (2016). Doctoral supervision in virtual spaces: A review of research of web-based tools to develop collaborative supervision. Higher Education Research and Development, 35(1), 172–188. Mapesela, M. L. E., & Wilkinson, A. C. (2005). The pains and gains of supervising postgraduate students from a distance: The case of six students from Lesotho. South African Journal of Higher Education, 19(1), 1238–1254. Mendenhall, M. E., & Wiley, C. (1994). Strangers in a strange land: The relationship between expatriate adjustment and impression management. American Behavioral Scientist, 37(5), 605–620. Nasiri, F., & Mafakheri, F. (2015). Postgraduate research supervision at a distance: A review of challenges and strategies. Studies in Higher Education, 40(10), 1962–1969. Picard, M. Y., Wilkinson, K., & Wirthensohn, M. (2011). An online learning space facilitating supervision pedagogies in science. South African Journal of Higher Education, 25(5), 954–971. Wisker, G., Highman, L., Spronken-Smith, R., & Waghorne, J. (2022). Across time and space: Examiner and candidate experiences of online doctoral vivas. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 59(2), 131–141. https://doi.org/10.1080/14703297.2021.2022528 Wu, T., He, S., Liu, J., Sun, S., Liu, K., Han, Q. L., & Tang, Y. (2023). A brief overview of ChatGPT: The history, status quo and potential future development. IEEE/CAA Journal of Automatica Sinica, 10(5), 1122–1136.

Author Index

F Fonseca, Kathleen, 173

Mavuru, Lydia, 173 Mukalula-Kalumbi, Mwansa, 85

G Golding, Jennie, 1, 17, 95, 129, 193

N Nachiyunde, Kabunga, 129 Naicker, Suraiya Rathankoomar, 113 Nalube, Patricia Phiri, 85 Neshila, Kashinauua Faustina, 95

H Haimbodi, Frans N., 59

K Kapenda, Hileni M., 71, 193

L Luneta, Kakoma, 41

M Masaiti, Gift, 129

O Oboirien, Bilainu, 159

R Ramaila, Sam, 173

S Shimwooshili-Shaimemanya, Cornelia Ndahambelela, 17, 145

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 K. Luneta et al. (eds.), Doctoral Supervision in Southern Africa, Springer Texts in Education, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-46899-5

201

Subject Index

B Beginner researchers, 2, 193, 197

C Challenges of doctoral supervision, 196 Collaborations, 7, 9–12, 15, 18, 23, 61, 72, 90, 93, 141, 160–162, 164, 170 Collaborative workshops, 2, 7 College, 7, 10, 14, 22, 46, 138, 196 Co-supervision, 14, 33, 71–77, 79–82, 124, 181, 182

D Doctoral supervision, 1, 2, 5–15, 17, 18, 24–26, 29, 30, 32, 36, 46, 53, 60, 61, 63, 64, 66, 68, 72, 76, 77, 79–80, 85, 88, 113, 114, 116, 125, 134, 146, 174, 179, 180, 188, 193–197, 199 Doctoral supervision ethics and policies, 17–36 Doctoral supervision in Southern Africa, 25, 114 Doctorate, 3, 4, 13, 14, 17–19, 21, 24, 27, 29–31, 35, 45, 49, 51, 60, 96, 99, 115, 120, 125, 155, 196

E Education policy, 17

F Failure rate, 149, 150, 167

H Higher education institution, 2, 21, 30, 114, 134, 135, 139

N Namibia, 2, 7, 13, 20, 21, 28, 46, 51–53, 61, 96, 105, 113, 114, 122, 152, 155, 162, 194

P Pass rate, 13, 14 Pedagogy of doctoral supervision, 26–29, 195 PhD, 3, 13, 14, 18–22, 29, 31, 32, 74, 81, 87, 90, 113, 119, 121, 124, 136, 137, 139, 140, 145, 146, 149, 150–153, 156, 159, 161, 162, 166, 167, 170 Postgraduate supervision, 34, 87, 93, 116, 125, 133, 178, 186

R Recruiting and selecting of doctoral candidates, 47–51

S Scientific-technical postgraduate education, 3 South Africa, 2, 7, 12, 20, 25, 27, 32, 34, 52, 53, 73, 87, 88, 113–115, 122, 137, 152, 162, 169, 180, 194, 195, 197, 198 Southern Africa, 2, 4–7, 11, 12, 17–20, 24, 25, 30, 33, 36, 42, 44, 52, 53, 59, 61, 86, 96, 113, 114, 116, 119, 122, 124, 125, 132, 134, 152, 159, 160, 196, 197, 199

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 K. Luneta et al. (eds.), Doctoral Supervision in Southern Africa, Springer Texts in Education, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-46899-5

203

204 Supervision, 1–15, 17–32, 34–36, 41, 46–48, 51–53, 59–68, 71–74, 76–82, 85–89, 92, 93, 96, 101, 108, 109, 113–125, 130, 132–137, 139–141, 145, 146, 150, 161, 162, 170, 174, 175, 178–182, 184–188, 193–199

U University, 3, 4, 6, 7, 10–14, 17, 20–22, 25, 26, 28, 30, 31, 33, 34, 41–46, 49, 51, 53, 61, 63, 73, 74, 87, 89, 91, 92, 96, 97, 103, 104, 105, 109, 113, 114, 116, 121, 130, 132, 134, 135,

Subject Index 137, 138, 152, 153, 155, 160–164, 169, 170, 175, 176, 178–180, 196, 199 University of Johannesburg, 7, 13, 34, 45, 46, 61, 91, 161, 162, 169 University of Namibia, 13, 21, 28, 46, 61, 96, 105, 152, 155, 162 University of Zambia, 14, 20, 46, 61, 152, 162

Z Zambia, 2, 7, 14, 20, 46, 52, 53, 61, 113, 114, 122, 130, 135, 152, 162, 194