How research on ethics in doctoral supervision can inform doctoral education policy

2020 ◽  
pp. 295-306
Author(s):  
Erika Löfström ◽  
Kirsi Pyhältö
Keyword(s):  
Education Policy ◽  
Doctoral Education ◽  
Doctoral Supervision

Quality Enhancement in Doctoral Education: Developing a More Public Process

2001 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
pp. 13-24 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ruth Neumann ◽  
James Guthrie
Keyword(s):  
Doctoral Students ◽  
Doctoral Education ◽  
Quality Enhancement ◽  
Code Of Practice ◽  
Recent Developments ◽  
Ultimate Responsibility ◽  
Key Issues ◽  
Doctoral Supervision

AbstractGovernments play an important role in providing an appropriate national framework and structure for the development of doctoral education. Nevertheless, ultimate responsibility for quality supervision processes lies with institutions, in particular with their departmental units and their policies and processes (DETYA, 1999c). This paper presents a case study of recent developments in the quality enhancement of doctoral supervision in the Macquarie Graduate School of Management (MGSM). In doing so it looks at three areas in particular: (1) the key role of infrastructure support, including the introduction of a code of practice in doctoral supervision; (2) the induction and acculturation processes; and (3) supervision quality, including the selection, development and training of supervisors. The aim of the developments is to make a recognized private process more public and transparent. MGSM currently enrolls a significant number of doctoral students and the enhancement of their doctoral experience is a key priority. The paper concludes by highlighting key issues for future development.

scholarly journals A Theoretical Perspective on How Doctoral Supervisors Develop Supervision Skills

10.28945/4446 ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 14 ◽  
pp. 721-739
Author(s):  
Katherine Fulgence Swai
Keyword(s):  
Doctoral Students ◽  
Doctoral Education ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Research Approach ◽  
Supporting Evidence ◽  
Ongoing Research ◽  
Knowledge And Skills ◽  
Contemporary World ◽  
Supervision Process ◽  
Doctoral Supervision

Aim/Purpose: The paper establishes how doctoral supervisors develop the supervision skills needed to handle the doctoral supervision process in the contemporary world. Background: While the existing literature confirms that PhD holders can supervise doctoral students, there is a need to provide supporting evidence that the skills they possess qualify them to do this. Methodology: Using the qualitative research approach, the study established the knowledge and skills that are needed to supervise doctoral students in the contemporary world. Through thematic analysis of 82 scholarly publications, the study established, in order of preference, five mechanisms through which doctoral supervisors develop supervision skills, i.e. the supervision process, doctoral education, institutional guidelines, institutional training courses and individualized learning. Contribution: The study contributes to the ongoing research on the supervision of doctoral studies in the 21st century. Findings: Findings show that a well-structured doctoral education, including the related processes, imparts the knowledge and skills needed for doctoral supervision. Likewise, a combination of the mechanisms and an individual’s commitment, in terms of time and engagement, develop the skills that are relevant for doctoral supervision. Recommendations for Practitioners: Higher Education Institutions need to make supervisors aware of the potential of these mechanisms for developing the skills necessary for doctoral supervision and encourage them to use them Recommendation for Researchers: Further research on the development of doctoral supervision skills should broadly consider the role of different programmes in developing doctoral supervision skills in different contexts. Impact on Society: The study has implications for doctoral supervisors and universities as regards the need to ensure that both mechanisms are instituted to enable doctoral supervisors to develop doctoral supervision skills. Future Research: Since the study was done theoretically, it might be important to conduct further research using mixed-methods research with a phenomenological design to establish the skills possessed by doctoral supervisors and the mechanism they used to develop the supervision skills in any context.

Quality Enhancement in Doctoral Education: Developing a More Public Process

2001 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
pp. 13-24
Author(s):  
Ruth Neumann ◽  
James Guthrie
Keyword(s):  
Doctoral Students ◽  
Doctoral Education ◽  
Quality Enhancement ◽  
Code Of Practice ◽  
Recent Developments ◽  
Ultimate Responsibility ◽  
Key Issues ◽  
Doctoral Supervision

AbstractGovernments play an important role in providing an appropriate national framework and structure for the development of doctoral education. Nevertheless, ultimate responsibility for quality supervision processes lies with institutions, in particular with their departmental units and their policies and processes (DETYA, 1999c). This paper presents a case study of recent developments in the quality enhancement of doctoral supervision in the Macquarie Graduate School of Management (MGSM). In doing so it looks at three areas in particular: (1) the key role of infrastructure support, including the introduction of a code of practice in doctoral supervision; (2) the induction and acculturation processes; and (3) supervision quality, including the selection, development and training of supervisors. The aim of the developments is to make a recognized private process more public and transparent. MGSM currently enrolls a significant number of doctoral students and the enhancement of their doctoral experience is a key priority. The paper concludes by highlighting key issues for future development.

Listening and feeling doctoral students’ perceptions of their doctoral supervision. The PhD students’ point of view.

2020 ◽  
Vol 6 (12) ◽  
pp. 206-223
Author(s):  
Isabel Ribau Coutinho
Keyword(s):  
Doctoral Students ◽  
Doctoral Education ◽  
Point Of View ◽  
Doctoral Research ◽  
Documentary Analysis ◽  
Open Questions ◽  
Supervision Practices ◽  
Doctoral Supervision ◽  
The Relationship

Doctoral education has been subject to research and analysis by researchers in the last fifty years. Nevertheless, doctoral supervision still a private issue among supervisor and PhD student; if the relationship between them goes wrong, a shadow undermines the doctoral research, hindering student support of others, which may result in attrition and dropout. Breaking this situation, transforming the “private place” in a “public matter”, requires a profound reflection about the doctoral education aim, institutions goals, institution policy, but also a supervisor and PhD students’ perspectives (careers, goals, development, financial support). It is necessary to know, where we want to go, to outline a path to achieve the goals. During the last three years, doctoral supervision has been studied at Universidade Nova de Lisboa (UNL). A qualitative case study method was used. This was the first study (a pilot study) that covered all the nine UNL schools, is intended to identify the supervision practices, but also captures a glimpse of doctoral students’ life in the academy, their difficulties, their thoughts and feelings related to doctoral education. The documentary analysis, concerning the institution rules related to doctoral education, was the study first step (already published). The second was the implementation of a survey with closed and open questions to allowed students to express their opinion regarding doctoral education, especially doctoral supervision. During three months, a survey, centred in doctoral supervision, applied online in all schools. This paper aims to describe what was found and what was unexpected in the context of a young university.

scholarly journals When we look at the supervisor image in the mirror, what do we see? The supervisors' mirror image regarding doctoral supervision

2021 ◽  
Vol 8 (2) ◽  
pp. 398-410
Author(s):  
Isabel Ribau Coutinho
Keyword(s):  
Higher Education ◽  
Doctoral Education ◽  
Education Institution ◽  
Research Area ◽  
Mirror Image ◽  
Higher Education Institution ◽  
Professional Career ◽  
Supervision Process ◽  
Research Profile ◽  
Doctoral Supervision

Studies regarding doctoral education can focus the PhD student, the supervisor, higher education institution (policy, curriculum, professional career support, culture, among others). PhD students, supervisors and higher education institution, constitute three keys for the same door (doctoral education), and without one of them, the door can´t be well open. Choose which of them should be analyzed is the researcher responsibility, as present data and look carefully to it. During the last years' doctoral education and the doctoral supervision process at UNL as been studied, looking to PhD students, supervisors and institution [1-5]. In the present research, the focus is on supervisor perception. It is important to know supervisor opinion, to attempt and captures their perceptions regarding the doctoral supervision process. When the supervisor thinks and responds to surveys regarding supervision, he/she is presenting an image of himself/herself. This study occurred among the PhD supervisor population at a Science engineering school (Faculdade de Ciências Tecnologia) at Universidade Nova de Lisboa, a Portuguese Higher education institution, with a footprint in the research area. It was possible to capture the image that reflected in the mirror when the supervisor looked. The unexpected image reflected is of a researcher and not a supervisor. When they look to their doctorates, they generally see future technicians/ qualified workers and not a future researcher. Nonetheless, they consider that to finish the PhD, doctorates have to acquire the research profile. This mismatch is consistent with the reality, where attrition exists and many students think to live the academy after the enrollment in the PhD.

scholarly journals Doctoral supervision and COVID-19: Autoethnographies from four faculty across three continents

2021 ◽  
Vol 18 (5) ◽  
pp. 90-107
Author(s):  
Dannelle D. Stevens ◽  
◽  
Rajendra Chetty ◽  
Tamara Bertrand Jones ◽  
Addisalem Yallew ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Health Care ◽  
Doctoral Students ◽  
Doctoral Education ◽  
Doctoral Programs ◽  
Social Economic ◽  
Doctoral Student ◽  
Faculty Members ◽  
The Many ◽  
Doctoral Supervision ◽  
Political Health

Doctoral students represent the fresh and creative intellectuals needed to address the many social, economic, political, health care, and education disparities that have been highlighted by the 2020 pandemic. Our work as doctoral student supervisors could not be more central nor vital than it was at the beginning of, during, and following the pandemic. Written during the pandemic of 2020, the purpose of this paper was to describe how four faculty from three continents navigated their relationships with doctoral students in the research and dissertation phase of their doctoral programs. Using a common set of prompts, four faculty members each wrote an autoethnography of our experience as doctoral student supervisors. Even though our basic advising philosophies and contexts were quite different, we learned about the possibility and power of resilience, empathy, and mentoring online. Our findings imply that new online practices could be closely examined and retained after the pandemic to expand the reach, depth and impact of doctoral education.

scholarly journals Doctoral Education: International Experience and Opportunities for Its Implementation in Russia

2020 ◽  
Vol 29 (6) ◽  
pp. 51-64
Author(s):  
S. K. Bekova ◽  
E. A. Terentev
Keyword(s):  
Doctoral Students ◽  
Educational Program ◽  
Doctoral Education ◽  
Doctoral Programs ◽  
Soft Skills ◽  
Academic Achievements ◽  
Comparative Review ◽  
The World ◽  
Doctoral Supervision ◽  
Doctoral Candidates

The article provides a comparative review of principles for the implementation of doctoral programs in education at leading world universities. The analysis is focused on the following aspects of doctoral education: organizational model (1), principles of doctoral candidates’ enrollment (2), educational program and workload (3), principles and mechanisms for tracking doctoral students’ progress (4), principles and procedures for completing educational programs and defending a thesis (5). The key differences of the Russian doctoral education are distinguished. The first difference is related to the rigidity of the recruitment rules and procedures: the universities in Russia pay no or little attention to the previous academic achievements of candidates. The second difference refers to the specifics of educational program, which, as a rule, is not aimed at the development of “soft skills”. Finally, Russian doctoral programs are based on the traditional model of doctoral supervision, when a supervisor is usually the only person who controls the doctoral student progress and helps him or her to work on thesis. Based on the experience of the world leading universities, the authors discuss some opportunities to develop doctoral programs in Russia.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document