There are some important dos and don’ts to
bear in mind when choosing someone to oversee your doctoral thesis,
advises Tara Brabazon
Source: Katie Edwards
My
father used to tell a joke, over and over again. It was a classic
outback Australian, Slim Dusty joke that – like the best dad jokes – I
can’t remember. But I do recall the punchline. “Who called the cook
a bastard?” To which the answer was, “Who called the bastard a cook?”
This
riposte often comes to mind during discussions about doctoral
supervision and candidature management. Discussions go on (and on and
on) about quality, rigour, ethics and preparedness. Postgraduates are
monitored, measured and ridiculed for their lack of readiness or their
slow progress towards completion. But inconsistencies and problems with
supervisors and supervision are marginalised. In response, I think of my
father’s one-liner: Who called the supervisor a bastard? Who called the
bastard a supervisor?
To my mind, I never received any
satisfactory, effective or useful supervision for my doctorate, research
master’s or two coursework master’s that contained sizeable
dissertation components. I found the supervisors remote and odd. A
couple of them tried to block the submission of the theses to my
institution. Indeed, on three separate occasions in my career, academics
informed me that if I submitted this thesis, it would fail. The results
that followed these warnings were a master of arts passed with
distinction, a master of education with first-class honours and a dean’s
award, and a PhD passed without correction. I was left with the
impression that these supervisors had no idea what they were doing. The
worst supervisors share three unforgivable characteristics:
- They do not read your writing
- They never attend supervisory meetings
- They are selfish, career-obsessed bastards
I
am now an experienced supervisor and examiner, but I still remember my
own disappointments. For the doctoral students who follow, I want to
activate and align these personal events with the candidatures I have
managed since that time. Particularly, I wish to share with the next
generation of academics some lessons that I have learned about
supervisors.
As a prospective PhD student, you are precious.
Institutions want you – they gain funding, credibility and profile
through your presence. Do not let them treat you like an inconvenient,
incompetent fool. Do your research. Ask questions. Use these 10 truths
to assist your decision.
Source: Katie Edwards
1. The key predictor of a supervisor’s ability to guide a postgraduate to completion is a good record of having done so
Ensure
that at least one member of your supervisory team is a very experienced
supervisor. Anyone can be appointed to supervise. Very few have the
ability, persistence, vision, respect and doggedness to move a diversity
of students through the examination process. Ensure that the department
and university you are considering assign supervisors on the basis of
intellectual ability rather than available workload. Supervising
students to completion is incredibly difficult. The final few months
require complete commitment from both supervisor and postgraduate. Make
sure that you are being guided by a supervisor who understands the
nature of effective supervision and has proved it through successful
completions.
2. You choose the supervisor. Do not let the institution overrule your choice
As
a postgraduate who is about to dedicate three or four years to an
institution, you have the right to select a supervisor with whom you
feel comfortable. Yet increasingly, as the postgraduate bureaucracy in
universities increases, administrators and managers “match” a
prospective candidate with a supervisor. Do not let this happen. Do
research on the available staff. Talk directly with individual
academics. Ascertain their willingness to supervise you, and then inform
the graduate centre or faculty graduate administrators of their
commitment.
3. Stars are attractive but may be distant. Pick a well-regarded supervisor who does not spend too much time away
It
may seem a tough, unusual or impossible task to find a supervisor who
has a strong profile but rarely goes away on research leave or
disappears to attend conferences. Postgraduates need to be supervised by
people with an international reputation whose name carries weight when
they write references. But they must not be jet-setting professors,
frequently leaving the campus and missing supervisory meetings to
advance their own career. They must be established and well known, but
available to supervise you rather than continually declining your
requests for meetings because they are travelling to Oslo, Luanda or
Hong Kong.
4. Bureaucratic immunity is vital. Look for a supervisor who will protect you from ‘the system’
There
is an excessive amount of university doctoral administration.
I understand and welcome the value in checking the ethical expenditure
of public money; a programme of study submitted in the first year and an
annual progress report through the candidature will accomplish this
task. But now we have to deliver milestone reports, public confirmations
of candidature sessions, biannual progress reports, annual oral
presentations of research and – in some universities – complete a form
that must be signed off at the conclusion of every supervisory meeting.
Every
moment a student is filling in a form is one less moment they are
reading a book or article, or writing a key page in their doctorate.
Time is finite. Bureaucracy is infinite. A good supervisor will protect
you from the excesses of supervisory administration.
The irony of
many graduate centres is that they initiate incredibly high demands on
students and supervisors yet are incredibly lax during crucial periods
of the candidature when a rapid administrative response is required. One
of my postgraduates had to wait 16 months for a decision on her
doctorate. Two examiners had returned timely reports and passed with
minor corrections. The third academic, however, did not examine the
thesis, did not submit any paperwork and did not respond to any
communications. I sent email after email – made phone call after phone
call – to the graduate centre trying to facilitate a resolution to this
examination. Finally, after a rather intensive period of nagging, a
decision was reached to accept the two reports and no longer wait for
the third. The question remains – why did the graduate centre take
16 months to make this decision? If I had not phoned and emailed
administrators, would they have forgotten about this student? A good
supervisor must be an advocate for the postgraduate through the
increasingly bureaucratised doctoral candidature.
5. Byline bandits abound. Study a potential supervisor’s work
Does
your prospective supervisor write with PhD students? Good. Do they
write almost exclusively with their PhD students? Not so good – in fact,
alarm bells should start ringing. Supervision is a partnership. If your
prospective supervisor appears to be adding his or her name to
students’ publications and writing very little independently, be
concerned. Some supervisors claim co-authorship of every publication
written during the candidature. Do not think that this is right,
assumed, proper or the default setting. The authorship of papers should
be discussed. My rule is clear: if I write it, it is mine. If you write
it, it is yours. If we write it together, we share the authorship. It is
important that every postgraduate finishes the candidature with as many
publications as possible. Ask supervisors how they will enhance and
facilitate your research and publishing career. Remember, you are a PhD
student. Your supervisor should assist you to become an independent
scholar, not make you into their unpaid research assistant.
Source: Katie Edwards
6. Be wary of co-supervisors
Most
institutions insist on at least two supervisors for every student. This
system was introduced not for scholarly reasons but to allay
administrative fears. There is a concern that a supervisor might leave
the institution, stranding the student, or that the supervisor and
student might have a disagreement, again leaving the student without
support.
These arguments are like grounding all aircraft because
there are occasional crashes. Too often I see an academic “added” to the
team to beef up his or her workload. I have been in a university
meeting where research-active professors were “added” to a supervisory
panel not because they were excellent supervisors (far from it) but
rather because they needed to boost their profile for the research
assessment exercise.
Certainly there are many occasions where
a co‑supervisor is incredibly valuable, but this must be determined by
their research contribution to the topic rather than by institutional
convenience. I once supervised a fine thesis about Russian television.
I had the expertise in television studies; a colleague held expertise in
Russian studies and the Russian language. It was a great team. We met
weekly as a group, with specialist meetings held with either of us as
required to complete the doctorate. The candidate submitted in the
minimum time.
At times, an inexperienced co-supervisor is added to
a team to gain “experience”. That is, perhaps, understandable. But
damage can be done to students through bad advice. I know of a
disturbing case in which an inexperienced co-supervisor chose a
relatively junior friend to examine a doctorate. Before the senior
co-supervisor had been informed, this prospective external examiner had
been approached and had agreed, and the paperwork had been submitted.
Two years later, the candidate is still progressing with corrections.
Each time he submits revisions that supposedly verify the concerns
expressed during the oral examination, he is presented with another list
because the inexperienced supervisor agreed to “corrections to the
satisfaction of the examiner”. This problem was caused by an
overconfident but inexperienced co-supervisor being added to the team
and then going on to appoint an overconfident but inexperienced
examiner.
Sometimes – in fact frequently – less is more. A strong
relationship with a well-qualified, experienced and committed supervisor
will ensure that the postgraduate will produce a strong thesis with
minimum delay.
7. A supervisor who is active in the area of your doctorate can help to turbocharge your work
Occasionally
students select a “name” rather than a “name in the field”. The
appropriateness of a supervisor’s field of research is critical because
it can save you considerable time. Supervisors who are reading, thinking
and writing in the field can locate a gap in your scholarly literature
and – at speed – provide you with five names to lift that section. A
generalist will not be able to provide this service. As the length of
candidatures – or more precisely the financial support for candidatures –
shrinks and three years becomes the goal, your supervisor can save you
time through sharing not only their experience but also their expertise.
8. A candidature that involves teaching can help to get a career off the ground
In
Australia, teaching with your supervisor is often the default pattern,
and it is a good one. In the UK, tutoring is less likely to emerge
because of budgetary restraints. But a postgraduate who does not teach
through the candidature is unprepared to assume a full-time teaching
post. Many doctoral candidates are already academics and are returning
to study. Others work in a diversity of professions and have no
intention of taking a job in a university. Therefore, this “truth” is
not relevant. But for those seeking a career in academia who intend to
use the doctorate as a springboard, teaching experience is crucial. A
postgraduate may see themselves as a serious researcher. But it is
teaching that will get them their first post (and probably their second
and third). The ultimate supervisor is also an outstanding teacher who
will train their postgraduates in writing curricula, managing assessment
and creating innovative learning moments in a classroom. None of these
skills is required for or developed by a doctorate. You can be
supervised well without these teaching experiences. However, if you have
a choice, select the supervisor who can “add value” to your
candidature.
One of my proudest moments emerged in a tutors’
meeting for my large first-year course at Murdoch University: creative
industries. I apologised to my tutors for the hard work and low pay that
was a characteristic of sessional university employment. Mike Kent –
who is now Dr Mike Kent and a tenured lecturer in internet studies at
Curtin University – stated that the pay was an extra. He was being
trained to teach. That was the value from the process. I still think
tutors should be paid more, but I valued – and value – Mike’s insight.
9. Weekly supervisory meetings are the best pattern
There
are two realities of candidature management. First, the longer the
candidature, the less likely you are to finish. Second, a postgraduate
who suspends from a candidature is less likely to submit a doctorate.
The
key attribute of students who finish is that they are passionately
connected to their thesis and remain engaged with their research and
their supervisor. I have always deployed weekly meetings as the best
pattern for supervision to nurture this connection.
There are
reasons for this. Some postgraduates lack time-management skills and
would prefer to be partying, facebooking or tweeting, rather than
reading, thinking and writing. If students know that written work is
expected each week, and they have to sit in an office with a supervisor
who is evaluating their work, that stress creates productive writing and
research. So if a meeting is held on a Thursday, then on Tuesday a
student panics and does some work. Yet if meetings are fortnightly, this
stress-based productivity is halved. It is better to provide a tight
accountability structure for students. Weekly meetings accomplish this
task.
10. Invest your trust only in decent and reliable people who will repay it, not betray it
This
truth may seem self-evident. But supervisors – like all academics – are
people first. If the prospective supervisor needs a personality
replacement, lacks the life skills to manage a trip to the supermarket
or requires electronic tagging so that he (or she) does not sleep with
the spouses of colleagues, then make another choice. Supervisors should
be functional humans. They can be – and should be – quirky, imaginative
and original. That non-standard thinking will assist your project. But
if there is a whiff of social or sexual impropriety, or if there are
challenges with personal hygiene, back away in a hurry. At times during
your candidature you will have to rely on this person. You will be
sobbing in their office. You will need to lean on them. You must have
the belief that they can help you through a crisis and not manipulate
you during a moment of vulnerability.
I knew a supervisor whose
idea of supervision was a once-a-semester meeting in a bar where he
would order three bottles of red wine and start drinking. The meeting
ended when the wine finished. Another supervisor selected his
postgraduates on the likelihood that the students would sleep with him.
Yet another was so completely fixated by her version of feminism that
all the doctorates completed under her supervision ended up looking
incredibly similar. Any deviation from a particular political
perspective would result in screaming matches in her office. This
was not only unpleasant but destructive to the students’ careers.
No comments:
Post a Comment