The UK Experience - UK Council for Graduate Education by pengxiang


									                    ICPD-3 Workshop
               Florence, 2nd April 2012
      Design and Delivery of Research
            Supervisor Training
        for Professional Doctorates

        Gill Clarke, Oxford University, UK

 Professor Tony Fell, University of Bradford, UK

Dr Annette Fillery-Travis, Middlesex University, UK
           Research Supervisor Training
            for Professional Doctorates
• Context
    Ø Significant growth of Professional Doctorates in UK
    Ø Drivers for training/development of Research Supervisors
•   Principles of research supervisor development
•   Professional Doctorate programme structures
•   Doctoral research phases, supervisory styles & coaching
•   The Learning Contract & managing expectations
•   Key areas of supervision
    Ø Resources – Professional & research skills – Writing skills –
      Meetings – Completion
• Examination issues
• Revising research degrees chapter in UK Quality Code
• Discussion – Reflection on experience
                    Context – 1
• In the world of work outside academia there is a clear
  need for research up to Doctoral level
• PhD not always perceived to offer requisite
  professional & transferable skills for employment
  outside academia
• Professional Doctorate – significant growth in UK:
   Ø Facilitates development of research skills in
     the world of work
   Ø Opportunity for development of practitioners
   Ø Confers status as a researcher
   Ø Consistent with Life-long Learning agendas
   Ø Fulfils legitimate career aspirations
      vinc. Education, Business, Healthcare, Law, Engineering …
                        Context – 2
The Professional Doctorate aims to:
• Fulfil the essential requirements of any doctorate:
      Ø Original contribution to scholarship
      Ø Publishable research
      Ø Work of the candidate is their own independent research
      Ø Candidate defends and supports the Thesis in a Viva
• Produce research and professional competences that are
  broadly equivalent to a regular PhD
      Ø Principal differences:
          v Orientation towards the world of work
          v Emphasis on the reflective practitioner
• Facilitate development as an independent researcher and
  as a reflective practitioner in the professional arena
                      Context – 3
• Practice-based Doctorate also fulfils comparable needs
  in Arts – Design – Architecture – Theatre – Music –
  Dance …
   Ø Emphasis on the creative context – Exhibition, Performance …

• Broad range of Prof Docs in Australia, UK, USA
  since 1980’s
   Ø EdD, DBA, DEng, DProf, DClinPsy, DHealthSci & related areas…

• Drivers for Research Supervisor development
   Ø Need to ensure consistency of student experience of doctoral
   Ø Expectations of employers of work-based candidates
   Ø Applies to both Internal and External Supervisors
   Ø Recommended in National Codes of Practice (QAA)
   Ø National QAA Audit …
              Principles of Research
             Supervisor Development
• Generic programme facilitates inter-disciplinary
• Programme structured to cover doctoral training in
  sequence from recruitment to the Viva voce
• Create maximum opportunity for Supervisors to share
• Key materials selected to ensure minimum of short PPt
• Case Studies focus discussion in small groups*
• Encourage Supervisors to develop their OWN model of
  research supervision from the materials discussed

*Group membership should be balanced to represent all sectors
             *Typical Case Studies – 1
• Mismatch of expectations
   Ø Conflicting advice: Jack & Jill / Ali (Y1)
   Ø Arrogance & the 7-day week syndrome:
     Hamish & Anita (Y1)

• Neglect – “Visiting Professor syndrome”
   Ø Stella & Amy (Y1)

• Neglect – ineffective supervision by Work-based
   Ø Percival & Danny (Y2/3)

• Conflict of Interest
   Ø Huw & Jane (Y3)
             *Typical Case Studies – 2

• Financial pressures
   Ø Jack & Jon / Freddie (Y3)

• Plagiarism
   Ø Inadvertent: Pietro & Li (Y3)
   Ø Non-inadvertent: Mary & Bernardo (Y4)
   Ø Non-inadvertent: Nic & Jenny (Post-Doc)

• Problematic PhD Exam
   Ø Prof Charles & Dr Eva / Steve (Y3)

* Developed at University of Bradford over the past 12 years
          Programme Structures – 1

The structure of Professional Doctorates &
  Practice-based Doctorates varies with the UK HEI:
• Nature of structured training & experiential training
• Balance of time between
   Ø research training versus research activity
• Nature and quantum of research output
   Ø Thesis / Dissertation – length
   Ø Artefact (& Thesis) – originality
   Ø Performance (& Thesis) – aesthetic features
• Mode of Assessment
                Programme Structures – 2
Professional Doctorates typically involve 3 parts:
• [A] Directed study – predefined structured training
   Ø Typically modular & credit rated (ECTS) – validated / audited
   Ø Substantial Portfolio of original data give evidence of competences
   Ø Portfolio assessed to evaluate candidate’s performance

• [B] Research programme
   Ø   Substantial research programme focused on professional practice
   Ø   Research may comprise one theme – or multiple linked themes
   Ø   In the UK research is not subject to credit-rating
   Ø   Thesis is often shorter than the PhD thesis – because PD is
       balanced by extensive Portfolio compiled during [A]

• [C] Assessment of Thesis and Examination by Viva voce
    Programme Structures – 3

Model 1                        Model 2
       [A]                [A]                    [B]
 Directed Study     Directed Study         Research and
      and                and
  Assessment         Assessment           Writing of Thesis

       [B]                                      [C]
 Research and                              Assessment of
Writing of Thesis                          Thesis & Viva

      [C]                        Examination
 Assessment of
                               Board Decision
 Thesis & Viva
       Phases of Doctoral Research &
            Supervisory Styles
• Structured training & experiential professional skills
• Research activities fall into 3 Phases:
     Ø Research Phase 1: Getting started
     Ø Research Phase 2: Moving forward
         – The “Productive Phase”
      Ø Research Phase 3: Completion
         – Completing the programme; Writing up the Thesis;
         – Examination by Viva voce
• Supervisor develops adaptive, interactive style for
  each phase
• Phases map onto the Blanchard-Hersey model
                       3                               2
                           - Coaching        -Mentoring
                           - Phase 2         -Phases 1&2


                       4                                   1

                            - Delegating     - Directing
                            - Phases 2&3     - Phase 1

            Low                                                High
                               DIRECTIVE BEHAVIOUR
Supervisory Styles – Directive / Supportive behaviour
      during a typical Professional Doctorate
         [A.F. Fell & A. Fillery-Travis, 2011;
      adapted from Blanchard & Hersey,1986]
                Supervisory Styles
• Every supervisor has their own preferred style
• An effective supervisor adapts their style interactively
  for each individual candidate –
   Ø Depending on:
      vthe candidate’s situation & needs
      vtheir innate ability
      vtheir stage of academic development
   Ø with care to maintain equity among other research candidates
• The Blanchard model clarifies the changing relationship
  between research candidate and supervisor over time
   Ø For talented researchers the supervisory style
     quickly moves to quadrants 3 & 4 Þ coaching-delegating
   Ø Whereas … for some candidates the supervisory style remains
     in quadrants 1 & 2 Þ strongly directive
   • Bottom line: No supervisory style is always right –
                “One size doesn’t fit all ”
          Supervisor as Coach

‘ To support project work now is to find ways
of assisting students to develop the expertise
needed in any given situation… There is little
appropriate didactic role in transmitting
                      Boud and Costley (2007)
              Typical PD candidate
• Mature (typically 35-50)
• Well established at work,
  advanced practitioner
• May have few traditional
  qualifications to access
  HE – or could have many!
• Often has considerable
  pre-understanding (formal
  and informal learning)
• How do you approach
  your interaction with
          The Learning Contract – 1
• A ‘Psychological Contract’ already operates – so
  better to make it explicit
• Initial meeting with supervisory team is key
• Clarify practicalities such as how you meet, when,
  how often, local arrangements
• Assess candidate aspirations/motivation for research
• Identify the expectations you have of the candidate –
  and they of you
• Explore their needs as learners
   Ø eg for overseas candidates – English as a Foreign Language
• Clarify formal review processes & requirements
          The Learning Contract – 2

• Clarify Prof Doc training / modular requirements
• Outline the intended research programme
   Ø Big picture – locate project in wider programme
   Ø Develop initial plans jointly (eg literature
   Ø Later during directed study (Part 1) identify
     milestones and research objectives –
     short/medium term
• Support engagement and ownership of research
  programme by candidate
• Revisit the learning contract periodically – and ask
  for feedback for yourself
         Key Areas of Supervision – 1
               Resources etc
• Identify Resources
   Ø Facilities – research space
   Ø Library / internal & external resources
   Ø IT / access to PC, software eg SPSS, N-Viva
   Ø Other resources – equipment, specialists (eg Stats)
• Other issues
   Ø Induction into research – HEI level, Group level
   Ø Induction into Ethics for research area
   Ø Clarify IPR issues
   Ø Protocols for publication
   Ø Identify role of Independent Advisor (if appointed)
         Key Areas of Supervision – 2
             Skills Development
• Professional skills:
   Ø Review experiential training in the Prof Doc arena
       veg relevant research methodologies/skills
• Structured training in generic & transferable skills
   Ø Training Needs Analysis (TNA)
   Ø Explore / assess / recognise specific skills
   Ø Jointly agree on skills required for research
   Ø Review usefulness of training – cyclical process each year –
     repeat TNA
   Ø Identify additional skills development requirements
• Keep records of training received
• Many directed study programmes (Part 1) deliver
  appropriate skills for research
       Key Areas of Supervision – 3
            Meetings / Review
• Supervisor/s and candidate meet on an agreed basis
     ØJoint responsibility to define minimum contact
     ØRegular / ad hoc or both?
     ØFrequency varies throughout programme
• Records of meetings essential
     ØCandidate keeps record of all planned
        vEmpowerment of student – owns the records
        vAssessment of understanding of agreed goals
     ØPrompt, constructive feedback to student
• Annual research progress review – Progress Report
        Key Areas of Supervision – 4
        Writing & Presentation Skills
• Continual development of the student’s writing style
   Ø Regular reports
   Ø Write sections of Thesis as research progresses
   Ø Departmental / Group seminar presentations
   Ø Short publications
      veg WBL e-journal
      vAbstracts for Conferences
   Ø Conference paper/s – Oral or Poster presentations
   Ø If appropriate plan a Journal publication
       v real or aspirational
• Avoid the Year 2/3 stall – psychological or
          Key Areas of Supervision – 5
• Confirm Thesis is “owned” by the candidate
• Clear any sensitive issues with industrial/external partner
• Give supportive advice on completion / timely submission
• Encourage candidate to read cognate theses
• Annual Progress Reports often the starting point
• Best practice – encourage student to:
   Ø Write up sections as research progresses
      ØIntegrate sections to compile draft Thesis
      ØDraft / publish short paper/s as work continues
         vGives independent peer review support
         vExternal validation for research programme
• Develop the “generic thesis planner” – planning device
Generic Thesis Planner – 1
Generic Thesis Planner – 2
              Examination issues – 1
• Selection of Examiners – Internal and External – can
  present difficulties due to requirements for additional
  professional expertise
• Requirements:
   Ø Independent of student work – No conflicts of interest
   Ø Balanced for examination experience and expertise
   Ø Should be available, fair & reasonable.
   Ø Chair of Board ensures fair play – represents HEI
   Ø Student usually invited to comment on proposed
     Examiners before final proposals are made
• Examination process
   Ø Examiners file independent pre-Viva Reports
   Ø Supervisor/s may attend Viva voce – but only if student
              Examination issues – 2
• Best practice – preparation of the candidate:
   Ø Encourage candidate to memorise & practise a short
     synopsis of the whole research
   Ø Alternatively – PowerPoint presentation often required
   Ø Candidate has a ‘Practice run’ or ‘Mock Viva’ with
     Supervisor / colleague
   Ø Candidate compiles correction list tabled at the start
• Best practice – conduct of Viva voce:
   Ø Supportive atmosphere
   Ø Many examiners start by asking for a short summary
      vBuilds up candidate’s confidence very effectively
   Ø Exploration of relevant background to research
   Ø Rigorous, fair discussion of contribution to knowledge
   Ø Supportive role of Internal Examiner, as appropriate
                Examination issues – 3
Viva outcomes:
• Examiners nearly always file joint Reports
      Ø on Thesis and also on Viva
• Minor Corrections are recommended most often (> 80%)
      Ø With a list of recommended amendments
• Major Corrections/Resubmission recommended less often
      Ø With a list of recommended amendments + possible Viva
• MPhil or Masters in Professional Practice
      Ø An option if Thesis and Viva are not of doctoral standard
• Disagreement of Examiners
   Ø Separate Reports clarifying nature of disagreement
   Ø Additional (adjudicating) External Examiner may be appointed
           Research Supervisor Training
            for Professional Doctorates
• Context
    Ø Significant growth of Professional Doctorates in UK
    Ø Drivers for training/development of Research Supervisors
•   Principles of research supervisor development
•   Professional Doctorate programme structures
•   Doctoral research phases, supervisory styles & coaching
•   The Learning Contract & managing expectations
•   Key areas of supervision
    Ø Resources – Professional & research skills – Writing skills –
      Meetings – Completion
• Examination issues
• Revising research degrees chapter in UK Quality Code
• Discussion – Reflection on experience
  3rd International Conference on
  Professional Doctorates (ICPD)
       1-3 April 2012, Florence

  Revising the research
degrees chapter of the UK
      Quality Code
‘Re-inventing the wheel’?

       A definition of re-inventing the wheel:
          ‘To recast something familiar or
      old into a different form’ (unattributed)   Gill Clarke
                               QAA Code of Practice 1999
                               Section 1: Research Degree Programmes
                               (Version 1)

                   1999 to 2004: PERIOD OF RAPID DEVELOPMENT

QAA Code of Practice
2004 - Section 1:
Research Degree
(Version 2)

                       2004 TO 2012: PERIOD OF SLOWER CHANGE

     QAA UK Quality Code 2012 -
     Research Degrees
     (Version 3)
        Summary of main changes to
         Research Degrees chapter
• Change of title
• Introduction
• The research environment
  (indicator 4)
• Selection, admission and
  induction of students (indicators
• Supervision (indicators 9-12)
• Development of research and
  other skills (indicators 14-15)
 The research environment (indicator 4)

• Added sentence to take account of
  independent providers
• Added reference to work settings
  and work-based supervision
• Updated knowledge exchange
• Replaced Joint Skills Statement with
  Researcher Development Statement
• Added a section about collaborative
        Supervision (indicators 9-12)

• More emphasis on continuing
  professional development for
• Change to indicator 10 re
  supervisory teams and
  highlighted roles in support
• Indicator 11: suggested format of
  written guidance and
  strengthened explanatory text
  How do HE providers facilitate good
• Appoint the right people as supervisors and support
  their development (I.9)
• Encourage good communications between
  supervisors and students and multiple sources of
  support for both (I.10)
• Spell out supervisors’ and students’ roles and
  responsibilities (I.11)
• Ensure supervisors have enough ‘space’ to be
  effective (I.12)
     What students appreciate from their

• Genuine interest in their research
• An intuitive approach that adapts to changing student
  needs over time
• Engagement with and constructively critical and
  timely feedback on their work
• Relationships that are friendly but not too informal
• Clarity about procedures – being well-informed
Updates and questions from consultation
• Is the supervision of professional doctorates
  adequately covered?
• Does the (main) supervisor have to be doing current
• Indicator 10: is it stronger/clearer?
• Importance of not over-burdening supervisors,
  especially by using teams
• More guidance on work-based supervisors and
• Why don’t we use numbers to regulate e.g. number
  of students per supervisor?
                    Current Issues

• Prof Docs currently showing substantial growth in UK
• Supervisor training for Prof Docs relatively new in UK
• New UK Quality Code supports training internal &
  external supervisors
• Most candidates register part-time
   – Problems with funding – unhelpful Research Council policies
   – Employers / Research partners may give support for staff
   – Difficulties with long-term / long-distance supervision
• Proliferation of Prof Doc titles
• Debate on comparability of standards of Prof Doc           vis
  -à-vis traditional PhD
         Reflection on Experience

• Comments on generic model for PD
  supervisor training?
• National / international experience of training
  and response of PD Supervisors?
• Developing PD Case Studies for training
  scenarios – need for a data bank?
• Training needs for Supervisors of Practice-
  based Doctorates?
• …

To top