Evening SPS team,

My first reading for the week is;

Winberg, C; Ntloko, N; and Ncubukezi, T. (2015) ‘Don’t Leave Before You Understand’: Supporting Masters Candidates in Business
Studies. Critical Studies in Teaching and Learning. Vol. 3 (1) Pages 1-2.

I decided to approach reading and writing this feedback using the pomodoro technique. The reading went well within the 25 minute
period, however the writing went horribly over this time. Goes to show Jenny, practice make perfect. In retrospect, in between the pressure
from the tic-toc of the pomodoro, this was quite daunting, as I have not used this technique in a while.

This article intrigued me for a number of reasons:

- In the abstract, the authors introduce a 'wicked' issue common in my community of practice. The challenges research and graduate
students in general, face due to their technical-rational background. As a research student myself, transitioning my thesis discourse from a
practical approach to solving problems, to a philosophical or in the case of the article, a sociological approach, is not second nature.
- Secondly, the idea of "how candidates acquire the necessary academic and social practices for theorizing their research, for conducting
research activities and writing up their research findings" (Winberg, Ntloko, and Ncubukezi, 2015:1).
- Some research terms and the theoretical framework that stood out. The use of Socialization theory, as opposed to phenomenography. The
associated narrative inquiry research design method and plot questioning tool was a lovely read. I appreciated the powerful nature
Socialization theory can bring in understanding how social influences can impact how we learn and 'practice'.
- How interrelated this content is to some of the feedback provided by my colleagues in the discussion forum.

In reading this article, I was reminded of several related topics Prof. Vaughn and Jenny discussed during our phase 1 sessions. The
'wickedity' of social inclusion and exclusion in higher education, and how they present themselves, including the practice and culture of
supervision, and student feedback. As was concluded, we so often ignore how supervisors and institutional support systems, influence a
students research life cycle, impacting postgraduate throughput. The solutions to these problems do not present themselves quite so easily.
Winberg etal (2015:14) proposes some positive practices that can mitigate the challenges above.

The article discusses the above and more in trying to understand why throughput was/is so low when it comes to masters students in
business studies.

Winberg etal (2015) describe several reasons why this may be so. This is an oversimplification of the authors discourse but in no way
demeans the full meaning that describes the problems. The overburdened and untrained / deficient supervisor and the unprepared /
socially challenged research student. These are common discussion points in most of my academic meetings and in my practice when it
comes to teaching and learning, and research supervision. Often dismissed as someone else's problem, or the problem matter originating
from an external source and not the responsibility of the department. Winberg etal (2015) describes it as a 'shape up or ship out' attitude by
the university systems and academics. I am encouraged by the authors' discussion around this matter, showing how this is not a localized
phenomenon, but common to all if not most academic disciplines and communities of practice.

During my research supervision with students, my experiences are confirmed by the authors' discourse about the challenges students and
supervisors face when interacting with research content, institutional systems and supervisors. Often I observe the difficulty my students
face in understanding the difference between business projects and academic research studies, writing styles and practices, and use of
academic resources to enrich and enhance their research. An interesting observation is the amount of time I spend deconstructing the
student's practical approach to problem solving to a more philosophical discourse, before embarking on the actual research study.
My institution offers a rich, supportive writing and research center accessible for all research and undergraduate students. But so often my
students fail to appreciate the importance of this resource and the library towards their research process. However, this has proved useful
in a number of occasions with my students writing and research quality.

In closing, the article concludes by providing useful advice on the importance of not only constructive feedback, the 'know how' to 'show
how' approach, but constructive student to supervisor relationship and vice versa. The importance of developing a mentoring role for your
students supported by a resourceful peer network.

I trust those that read this will find it a useful resource. My second article will hopefully compliment this one. I had an insightful time
reading this.

Have a safe weekend everyone.

PS: Writing this short brief took way longer than it should, I need more practice.