Abstract
Supervision of graduate students is a core activity in higher education. Previous research on graduate supervision focuses on individual and relational aspects of the supervisory relationship rather than collective, pedagogical and methodological aspects of the supervision process. In presenting a collective model we have developed for academic supervision of Danish master students, we seek to fill these gaps. The underlying pedagogical rationale for the model is that students’ participation and learning are interconnected. The model provides possibilities for incorporating a progressive and systematic interaction between master students in their individual writing processes. In the article, we investigate the potentials and challenges of the model and draw on analyses of six individual interviews with master students and one focus group interview with five supervisors. Our findings show that students learn core academic competencies in collective academic supervision (CAS), such as the ability to assess theoretical and practical problems in their practice and present them to peers. The analysis reveals that interaction between divergent projects and voices in CAS can be highly productive in academic learning. However, the model also challenges both students and supervisors because both parties are used to a one-to-one supervisory relationship and not prepared for different modes of participation and learning. According to both supervisors and students, the majority of supervisors need better training in the facilitation of collective supervision processes.
Notes
A module is the same as a semester.
The concept of work in progress seminars is inspired by a similar concept developed by the Doctoral School of Organisational Learning (DOCSOL) at DPU, Aarhus University.
References
AU. (2011). Studiemiljøundersøgelsen [Survey of students’ experiences at Aarhus University]. Aarhus.
Bartley, K., Dimenäs, J., & Hallnäs, H. (2010). Student participation in higher education. Nordic Studies in Education, 30, 150–165.
Blass, E., Jasman, A., & Levy, R. (2012). Supervisor reflections on developing doctoralness in practice-based doctoral students. Quality Assurance in Education, 20(1), 31–41.
Boud, D., & Lee, A. (2005). ‘Peer learning’ as pedagogic discourse for research education. Studies in Higher Education, 30(5), 501–516.
Brew, A. (2010). Transforming academic practice through scholarship. International Journal for Academic Development, 15(2), 105–116.
Caffarella, R., & Barnett, B. (2000). Teaching doctoral students to become scholarly writers: The importance of giving and receiving critiques. Studies in Higher Education, 25(1), 39–51.
Carlgren, I. (2009). Commentary: Ca-studies of learning—From an educational perspective. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 53(2), 203–209. doi:10.1080/00313830902757618.
Chris, P. (2005). New variant PhD: The changing nature of the doctorate in the UK. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 27(2), 189–207.
Delamont, S., Atkonson, P., & Parry, O. (2004). Supervising the Doctorate: A guide to success (2nd ed.). NY: Open University Press.
Dreier, O. (1999). Personal trajectories of participation across contexts of social practice. Outlines, 1999(1), 5–32.
Egan, R., Stockley, D., Brouwer, B., Tripp, D., & Stechyson, N. (2009). Relationsships between area of academic concentration, supervisory style, student needs and best practices. Studies in Higher Education, 34(3), 337–345.
Eley, A. R., & Jennings, R. (2005). Effective Postgraduate Supervision: Improving the Student/Supervisor Relationship. NY: Open University Press.
Eley, A., & Murray, R. (2009). How to be an Effective Supervisor: Best practice in research student supervision. NY: Open University Press.
Emilsson, U. M., & Johnsson, E. (2007). Supervision of supervisors: On developing supervision in postgraduate education. Higher Education Research & Development, 26(2), 163–179.
Fisher, K. (2006). Peer support groups. In C. Denholm & T. Evans (Eds.), Doctorates downunder: Keys to successful doctoral study in Australia and New Zealand (pp. 41–49). Camberwell, Victoria: Acer Press.
Grant, B., & Graham, A. (1994). Guidelines for discussion: a tool for managing postgraduate supervision. In: O. Zuber-Skerritt & Y. Ryan (Eds.), Quality in Postgraduate Education. London: Kogan Page.
Heath, T. (2002). A quantitative analysis of PhD students’ views of supervision. Higher Education Research & Development, 21(1), 41–53.
Heritage, J. (1997). Conversation analysis and institutional talk. In D. Silverman (Ed.), Qualitative research: Theory, method and practice (pp. 222–245). London: Sage.
Hermansson, G. (1997). Boundaries and boundary management in counselling: The never-ending story. British Journal of Guidcance and Counselling, 25(2), 133–145.
Kandiko, C. B., & Kinchin, I. M. (2012). What is a doctorate? A concept-mapped analysis of process versus product in the supervision of lab-based PhDs. Educational Research, 54(1), 3–16.
Kvale, S. (1996). Interviews—An introduction to qualitative research interviewing. Thousand Oaks: CA Sage.
Lave, J. (2008). Epilogue: Situated learning and changing practice. In A. Amin & J. Roberts (Eds.), Community, Economic, Creativity, and Organization. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning, legitimate peripheral participation. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Lee, A., & Boud, D. (2003). Writing groups, change and academic identity: Research development as local practice. Studies in Higher Education, 28(2), 187–200.
Lillejord, S., & Dysthe, O. (2008). Productive learning spaces—a theoretical discussion based on two cases. Journal of Education and Work, 21(1), 75–89. doi:10.1080/13639080801957154.
Malfroy, J. (2005). Doctoral supervision, workplace research and the changing pedagogic practices. Higher Education Research and Development, 24(2), 165–178.
Manathunga, C. (2009). Supervision as a contested space: a response. Teaching in Higher EducatioTeaching in Higher Education, 14(3), 341–345.
Manathunga, C., & Goozee, J. (2007). Challenging the dual assumption of the ‘always/already' autonomous student and effective supervisor. Teaching in Higher Education, 12(3), 309–322.
Marsh-Piirainen, A., & Tainio, L. (2009). Collaborative game-play as a site for participation and situated learning of a second language. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 53(2), 167–183. doi:10.1080/00313830902757584.
Martin, C. (2009). Relevance of situational context in studying learning as changing participation. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 53(2), 133–149. doi:10.1080/00313830902757568.
McPhail, J., & Erwee, R. (2000). Developing professional relationships between supervisors and doctoral candidates. Australian Journal of Management and Organisational Behaviour, 3(1), 76–99.
Neumann, R. (2003). The doctoral education experience: Diversity and complexity. Canberra: Australian Department of Education Science and Training.
Nordentoft, H. M., & Kappel, N. (2011). Vulnerable participants in health research. Methodological and ethical challenges. Journal of Social Work Practice, 25(3), 365–376. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02650533.2011.597188.
Parker, R. (2009). A learning community approach to doctoral education in the social sciences. Teaching in Higher Education, 14(1), 43–54.
Pollner, M., & Emerson, R. M. (2001). Ethnomethodology and ethnography. In P. Atkinson, A. Coffey, S. Delamont, J. Lofland, & L. Lofland (Eds.), Handbook of ethnography (pp. 118–135). London: Sage Publications.
Rienecker, L., & Hermansen, M. (2007). Udvikling af vejledning fra tavs viden og privatpraktiserende kultur til italesættelse of institutionalisering. Dansk Universitetspædagogisk Tidsskrift, 3, 1–4.
Sapon-Shevin, M., & Chandler-Olcott, K. (2001). Communities of critique or dysfunctional families? Journal of Teacher Education, 52(5), 350–364.
Simons, P. (2005). An issue of isolation. In A. R. Eley & R. Jennings (Eds.), Effective postgraduate supervision: Improving the student-supervisor relationship (pp. 7–12). Maidenhead United Kingdom: Open University Press.
Stracke, E. (2010). Undertaking the journey together: Peer learning for a successful and enjoyable PhD experience. Journal of University Teaching & Learning Practice, 7(1). Article 8.
Taylor, S., & Beasley, N. (2005). A Handbook for Doctoral Supervisors. London: Routledge.
Thomsen, R. (2012). Career Guidance in Communities. Aarhus: Aarhus University Press. (in press).
Vehvilâinen, S. (2009). Problems in the research problem: Critical feedback and resistance in academic supervision. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 53(2), 185–201. doi:10.1080/00313830902757592.
Walker, M., & Thomson, P. (Eds.) (2010). The Routledge Doctoral Supervisor's Companion: Supporting effective research in Education and the Social Sciences. London: Routledge.
Wright, T., & Cochrane, R. (2000). Factors influencing successful submission of PhD theses. Studies in Higher Education, 25(2), 181–195.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Nordentoft, H.M., Thomsen, R. & Wichmann-Hansen, G. Collective academic supervision: a model for participation and learning in higher education. High Educ 65, 581–593 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-012-9564-x
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-012-9564-x