Teaching and Learning > DISCOURSE
The Finished Product: Four Skills to Help You Graduate Your PhD Student on Time
Author: Judith R. Wester
Journal Title: Discourse
ISSN:
ISSN-L: 1741-4164
Volume: 3
Number: 2
Start page: 161
End page: 172
Return to vol. 3 no. 2 index page
Introduction
Having recently completed my PhD studies and received my award within the target period set by my funding body and my university, I was asked to give feedback on what I thought were traits a good supervisor should have by the Associate Dean of Postgraduate Studies at my university. I was not asked for feedback because I had an easy well-formed research project or trouble-free supervisory relationship. On the contrary, not only was my initial supervision strained and frustrating, I also chose an extremely complex, ambitious and at times unyielding research project fraught with ethical issues. So how did ‘we’ end up with the finished product on time? I say ‘we’ because at the end of the day I could not have finished on schedule without the aid of a most patient and gracious supervisor.
Since I had two supervisors over the course of my research, one I perceived as having ‘good’ skills and one I perceived as having ‘bad’ skills, I will contrast and compare a ‘good’ supervisory experience with a ‘bad’ one. This is not to say that one supervisor is a ‘good’ person and the other is a ‘bad’ person. There may have been a variety of reasons for these perceptions to develop. In fact, the supervisor I perceived as being ‘bad’ was perceived by another supervisee as being ‘good’. So how could this happen? How could the same supervisor be perceived as having both ‘good’ and ‘bad’ supervisory skills? In order to untangle this conundrum I will begin by explaining four skills or qualities of good supervision and give examples of ‘good’ and ‘bad’ supervisory feedback. These skills are:
- The ability to educe rather than dictate knowledge
- The ability to give positive and specific feedback that is useful
- Having a positive vision of the future and pacing the student to that end
- Knowing when to admit that you are the wrong supervisor for a particular student and helping the student to make the transition to a new supervisor in a positive way
1. First is the basic ability to elicit or educe rather than dictate knowledge.
This is part of an ancient technique utilised by Socrates known as the ‘Socratic Method’. It was essentially a way of ‘educing’ knowledge that the individual student already possessed without knowing that s/he did so. Socrates attempted to demonstrate that the most important ideas (such as truth, beauty, justice) are already in our minds. The task of education, on this view, is to educe—to draw out our intrinsic knowledge so we can apply it more adequately to our lives and our research. His method also includes a probing and incisive cross-examination style. Additionally, an important corollary for Socrates was the injunction, ‘Know Thyself’. There is nothing more essential for a person to know than his or her own mind or soul. For these and other reasons, Socrates has remained an inspiration for those who would include the human mind as the primary challenge to be conquered by intellectual activity, which is often reflected in one’s choice of research and research methods.
When I first began my PhD research I was overwhelmed with the vast amount of material I had to wade through in order to make any sense of my research question. In fact, I was not totally clear on the very question or topic I was attempting to explore. Nevertheless, I found this to be very typical for many researchers in their first year of study. Although attempting to be helpful, my ‘bad’ supervisor began to dictate what I should be doing in my research, how I should be doing it, and when I should be doing it in order to stay on ‘target’. She even began to give me references that she believed would be helpful to me, even though I was not ready to engage with them. Nevertheless, we both found our supervisions frustrating and unproductive. She complained that she did not feel that I was listening to her, while I felt that she was not at all interested in my project. On the other hand, my ‘good’ supervisor (whom I met in my second year) asked me questions designed to draw out my reasons for choosing my research project; and would often cross-examine my modes of inquiry. What was my interest in this project? Why did I want to look at it in a particular way? Did I feel that by doing things in a particular way that I was achieving what I wanted? Did I feel that I was being productive with my time? What type of problems was I having that I believed she could help me with? What did I want to gain from my supervision time with her? I felt that she put me in the driver’s seat of my own research and then held me accountable for my work. As a result, I always felt my time in supervision was highly worthwhile. I often came away with useful references and a feeling of empowerment that I could overcome whatever obstacles I was encountering.
2. The second trait of a good supervisor is the ability to give positive and specific feedback that is useful
This type of feedback is particularly important with regard to written material. Academic writing is a skill that must be developed over time. The more one writes, edits, and reviews, the better one can get. Nevertheless, the first stages of writing a PhD thesis can be very painful, especially to those for whom English is a second language. Almost every postgraduate starts off feeling insecure about their ability to write sufficiently at this level. I once came across a student sitting at his desk in a complete slump. When I enquired as to his solemnity he pulled a book from his shelf and handed it to me. ‘I can’t write like this’, he moaned, ‘I’ll never get a PhD’. I examined the book carefully and handed it back to him. The man who had written the book was a Professor Emeritus in his early 60s who had already published over 25 books and numerous articles. He was well-known in his field, yet the student felt he had to produce writing and research that was of the same quality. I suggested to the student that if he had the opportunity to do so he may want to take a look at the Professor’s PhD thesis in its original form before he passed so strong a judgement on his own postgraduate level writing.
We all seek models, guides, teachers, who will show us the ‘correct’ way to do things. Going back to the Socratic Method, however, Socrates would argue that we are our own worst critics and best teachers. My written work in my first year was admittedly tenuous and even haphazard. I often dreaded turning it in and worse, feared the feedback. My ‘bad’ supervisor once wrote on my written work “this is so unscholarly it is hard to take seriously”. I was crushed—it was worse than I thought. However, my initial reaction was one of self-defence. I wanted to know, specifically, what was so ‘unscholarly’ about it? Was she saying I was a rubbish researcher? I took the words very personally and it was two months before I let her see anything else I had written.
On the other hand my ‘good’ supervisor never wrote a single negative thing on anything of mine she read. Nor did she write anything positive either. Instead she would guide me through the written work with ticks placed by specific paragraphs. The tick meant we were to discuss the paragraph, nothing more. She would then ask me questions about anything she did not understand. Why had I discussed this concept in this particular way? What did I mean by that? Which scholar’s work was I referring to? If I gave a verbal explanation that she thought sounded better than what I had written she would suggest I rewrite the paragraph using my new description. If I had written something well, she might say: ‘This paragraph is a perfect example of summarisation, it is very well written and you may want to use it as a model for your other concluding paragraphs’. In this way, I was able to use my own work for self-correction, improvement, and as a ‘perfect’ model for future writing. Additionally, she would give me questions to ask myself as I wrote, which I posted on my computer to help me improve my academic writing. I always left her office feeling good about my writing and my ability to self-improve. One day she handed me back my written work with the words, ‘Well done, this chapter is perfect as it is’. It was the last chapter of my thesis.
3. The third trait of a good supervisor is to have a positive vision of the future and pace the student to that end
It was Goethe who said ‘Treat people as if they are what they ought to be and help them to become what they are capable of being’. A good supervisor knows that his/her real work lays in helping to establish a positive future for their students, which in turn leads to a better educational institution, community, nation, and world. At the PhD level, the dissemination of knowledge produced within an institution has the potential to be vast and the influence great. Politicians, policy-makers and world leaders often rely on knowledge produced by their nation’s academics. Individual research may affect only one other individual or it could affect many. To this end, the supervisor should have a vision of what is to come and prepare the student for what s/he is becoming. What is to come by a particular deadline is the production of a completed thesis and a viva voce exam, both of which require a student to be diligent and prepared. What the student is becoming is a valued academic with important skills and knowledge to contribute to his/her society. Therefore, this individual should be treated with respect for the accomplishments s/he has achieved at each level of research and study.
Going back to the first two instances of good supervision, I gave the example of educing knowledge from the student about their basic intentions or reasons for doing their proposed research. Through negotiation and good communication the supervisor and student can determine if the goal of the research is achievable within the timeframe that is set. Nevertheless the supervisor, as well as the student, may be required to take a ‘leap of faith’ with research carried out in ‘uncharted waters’. The vision I had of my own research was somewhat innovative. The ‘bad’ supervisor determined it was ‘over-ambitious’ and ‘too risky’, but she had failed to grasp my underlying intentions for doing the research. In other words, she did not know what motivated me. By using her own basic supervisory standards, she simply determined that what I wanted to do could not be done in the required amount of time. Furthermore, half-way into my third year our supervisory relationship had become so negative and haphazard we agreed that my second supervisor would replace her as my principal and she would no longer supervise my project. On the other hand, the ‘good’ supervisor had questioned my research intentions at our first meeting and kept doing so throughout the project. She noted that my passion for the project grew rather than dwindled with each new piece of data I analysed. Her faith in my ability to complete never faltered, no matter how ambitious the project seemed to be on the surface, and as a result I finished five months ahead of the deadline set by my funding institution.
So what was the primary difference between the two supervisors and my relationship with each? To put it simply, trust. The ‘bad’ supervisor did not attempt to discover my underlying intentions and motivations for doing the research I chose to undertake—reasons I may not have been aware of myself at the time. Nor did she develop any sense of ‘faith’ in my capabilities for completing the project. She constantly tried to direct my work in order to ‘keep me on track’, but failed to give me the respect I deserved for attempting such an ambitious endeavour. I felt as though she was trying to ‘sabotage’ my efforts and ‘hold me back’. The ‘good’ supervisor set out to educe my intentions for doing the research from our first meeting, and periodically checked to see if and when my intentions shifted. I felt respected, empowered, and part of the community she was preparing me to enter. She often treated me as a colleague rather than an insufficient student. Taken together the actions of the ‘good’ supervisor helped to form a bond of trust.
On the surface, the direction and feedback given by the ‘bad’ supervisor might seem to most as being appropriate. For example, our goals were the same—to produce a quality thesis which is finished on time. Furthermore, her intentions toward me and my project were positive. Nevertheless, her approach and the form her supervisory guidance took were counterproductive to my supervisory needs. They were not, however, counterproductive to all of her students’ needs. For example, another postgraduate student responded well to being told what to do, how to do it, and when to do it. This student also finished ‘on time’ and produced an appropriately presented PhD thesis. She felt this supervisor’s techniques were ‘good’, whereas I felt the same techniques used by the same supervisor were ‘bad’.
4. This brings us to the last of the four qualities of good supervision: knowing when to admit that you are not the right supervisor for a particular student
More specifically, it is about matching the ‘right’ student with the ‘right’ supervisor without blaming yourself or the student. In most departments students are matched with his/her supervisor(s) according to their subject or research topic, however, this could prove disastrous if the methodological approaches and style of the student and supervisor clash. For example, if the student uses a historical/philosophical approach to the study of death while the supervisor tries to push for a more empirically-based sociological approach, too much time could be spent on theoretical arguments which detract from the production of research data and cause frustrations to arise between the supervisor and supervisee. This is especially true regarding written expectations. Some researchers formulate their ideas via a traditional strategy of writing beginning in the first semester of their research, while others researchers may choose a non-traditional method. For example, some highly visual researchers with large projects find writing in their first year to be very cumbersome and actually produce better work by formulating their arguments through non-traditional mind-mapping techniques that may not produce comprehensible academic writing until the second or third years. Most supervisors, however, might find the mind-mapping strategy maddening. Nevertheless, mind-mapping techniques have also proven successful in the completion of PhD research. Therefore, should a supervisor try to force a non-traditional student to think and work in a traditional fashion, when the non-traditional way might provide faster results for that particular student? One would hope not, yet if a supervisor feels unable to support a non-traditional strategy it is often more difficult to admit his/her style of supervision isn’t working. Therein lays the most difficult challenge of the supervisor—relinquishing the notion of ‘blame’. ‘Blame’, ‘failure’, ‘guilt’ are notions best left outside the halls of academia, yet too many supervisors (and students) feel they must ‘blame’ someone for ‘failure’ to finish a project on time, when perhaps all that was needed was a change of supervisor/supervisee partnership. Although most academic institutions have formal protocols put in place for changing supervisors, stigmatisation for doing so may exist at the informal level or within departments that prevent such a change from taking place. However, a ‘good’ supervisor can address these issues by helping the student to make the transition to a new supervisor in a positive way, thus turning around what was once a ‘negative’ supervisory experience into a positive one. In other words by positively relinquishing the supervisory role, the ‘bad’ supervisor becomes a ‘good’ supervisor.
Conclusion
In summary, a good supervisor will treat each postgraduate as a unique individual with distinctive intentions and motivations regarding the student’s research. The supervisor will work to educe these intentions and knowledge from the student, which often empowers the student and gives him/her a sense of control and responsibility/accountability for the research. The good supervisor will give positive feedback which is useful based on the student’s own abilities, and pace the student for his/her future role as a successful academic. Additionally, when a supervisor believes s/he is an inappropriate ‘match’ for the student’s style/approach to research, s/he will work to find an appropriate supervisor and assure a positive transition. The establishment of a sense of trust is also important if the supervisory relationship is to succeed in the educational process. If the trust breaks down, then changing supervisors should be made an easier option, with no stigma or blame attached.
Return to vol. 3 no. 2 index page
This page was originally on the website of The Subject Centre for Philosophical and Religious Studies. It was transfered here following the closure of the Subject Centre at the end of 2011.
