Alternative Approaches to Postgraduate Supervision

1. Historical Context and Problems for supervision:

1.1 Knowledge production is valued in the knowledge economy therefore there is a greater
number of postgraduate students. This is because they are seeking certification as
capable of producing knowledge.

1.2 This places greater strains on the supervisor (on average having to supervise more
students).

1.3 General massification of tertiary education has contributed to this (implicit point-
massification is alluded to in the article but this point is not expressly articulated).

1.4 Furthermore, post-graduate students tend to be more diverse in various senses than
previously.

1.5 Also, there is increasing sub-specialisation, interdisciplinary and multi-disciplinary

research which means that supervisors may not be experts in the specific topics
researched by students under their supervision.

1.6 The apprenticeship, one-on-one model of supervision or dyadic approach, presents

particular challenges in this specific context-individual supervisor may not have
adequate expertise to assist their students, (implicit point) they also may not have
enough time to provide their students with the type of attention which they require.

1.7 Students may have greater expectations of what a supervisor can do, given the above,
than is actually possible.

2. Certain general pedagogical problems with the apprenticeship approach:

2.1 It tends to perpetuate dependence on the supervisor and to discourage the

development of the student as an autonomous researcher in an academic community;

2.2 The paternalistic approach is dependent on individual styles and attitudes of supervisors
with minimal accountability which may “cause problems in the context of increasing
numbers, distance and diversity”. Furthermore, this dynamic is conducive to abuses of
power on the part of the supervisor;

2.3 This approach is conducive to the emergence of differing expectations between

supervisor and student since it could lead to an understanding on the part of the researcher
that the supervisor is ultimately responsible for the research project.
 2.4 A possible reason why many academics cling to this approach despite its problems is that
they were supervised and are used to supervising their students it is often uncritically
adopted as the only or most appropriate way of supervising students.

2.5 There are potential advantages to a dyadic supervisory relationship, a supervisor can
embody the conventions of the broader academic community and may induct their student
into these norms. The dyadic dynamic may facilitate a cooperative relationship between
supervisor and student.

3. Group Approaches (Mixed Supervisor and peer groups or peer groups alone)

3.1 Being part of a cohort of individuals accountable to each other, with similar levels of
experience, communicating with each other at different stages of the research process is
valued by students who also generally develop a positive sense of community and
encourages some group independence weaning researchers from an over-reliance upon
their supervisors.

3.2 This type of engagement with peers encourages collaboration, the formation of
professional academic networks and reflection upon the rationale as to why researchers
are doing what they are doing also tends to reduce anxiety and tension pertaining to the
research project.

3.3 As a supplement to individual supervision, peer research groups can reduce the
workload of supervisors by offloading certain responsibilities onto the group.

3.4 This approach does have dangers such as fear of participation, particularly during the
early stages of research, and strong personalities dominating discussions and “an
ignorant group could be a way of pooling ignorance”.

3.5 The role of the supervisor in addressing these problems could be to provide guidance in
a referee role in group discussions. What could the implications of this be for your plan
to have a peer only discussion group amongst the PHD candidates which you are
supervising?

3.6 The crucial role of inducting a candidate into the norms of academia and providing
guidance in the research process would be lost if this approach were applied exclusively.
Group processes should therefore operate ‘alongside’ more individualized supervision.

4. Team Approaches:

4.1 The needs of students conducting research can often not be met by one supervisor all
the time.
 4.2 This is particularly the case in that more and more research is sub-discipline specific,
interdisciplinary or has a multi-disciplinary focus. Supervisors may not have adequate
expertise to address issues which lie beyond their field of expertise.

4.3 Some institutions have supervisory teams which balance out the ‘strengths and
weaknesses’ of different supervisors. This allows more experienced academics to
mentor less experienced academics in supervision and also allows some sharing of
responsibility.

4.4 Further advantages to this approach include access to a range of supervisors, more
holistic problem solving, potentially fewer interpersonal issues (sometimes more equal
dynamics between everyone involved) and generally better quality research output.

5. These approaches or models can complement each other to facilitate the optimal learning
process and to support the progress of each student.

6. Supervision should not simply be focused upon a final product (the dissertation) but upon
the learning process as an end in itself. Academic development should simply be one aspect
of the overall learning process; supervision should also operate as a form of socialization
whereby students become independent, wise and engaged scholars. This requires planning
or else the haphazard application of various supervisory approaches could undermine the
potential benefits of any of them. Integrated planning, could allow for a hybrid approach
whereby the different approaches outlined above would complement each other in the
overall socialization of an independent scholar.

7. Structured planning and coordination should be decided by the role players in each context,
should be applied at each stage of the postgraduate process and should allow for all role
players to hold each other accountable.

8. A framework for the plan could allow all role players to plan for effective supervision.

9. The article then has a model framework which kind of looks like an enlarged lesson plan
which could be used as a ‘heuristic tool’ to aid reflection and planning for supervision. This
document identifies the various role players as the individual (I), the group (G), the team or
expert (E) and the administrator (A). The framework is meant to allow mapping of who
would be best suited to contribute to different tasks in the postgraduate supervision
process.