Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Collective academic supervision: a model for participation and learning in higher education

Higher Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. A module is the same as a semester.

  2. 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boud, D., & Lee, A. (2005). ‘Peer learning’ as pedagogic discourse for research education. Studies in Higher Education, 30(5), 501–516.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brew, A. (2010). Transforming academic practice through scholarship. International Journal for Academic Development, 15(2), 105–116.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heritage, J. (1997). Conversation analysis and institutional talk. In D. Silverman (Ed.), Qualitative research: Theory, method and practice (pp. 222–245). London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hermansson, G. (1997). Boundaries and boundary management in counselling: The never-ending story. British Journal of Guidcance and Counselling, 25(2), 133–145.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kvale, S. (1996). Interviews—An introduction to qualitative research interviewing. Thousand Oaks: CA Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, A., & Boud, D. (2003). Writing groups, change and academic identity: Research development as local practice. Studies in Higher Education, 28(2), 187–200.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Malfroy, J. (2005). Doctoral supervision, workplace research and the changing pedagogic practices. Higher Education Research and Development, 24(2), 165–178.

    Google Scholar 

  • Manathunga, C. (2009). Supervision as a contested space: a response. Teaching in Higher EducatioTeaching in Higher Education, 14(3), 341–345.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • McPhail, J., & Erwee, R. (2000). Developing professional relationships between supervisors and doctoral candidates. Australian Journal of Management and Organisational Behaviour, 3(1), 76–99.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Parker, R. (2009). A learning community approach to doctoral education in the social sciences. Teaching in Higher Education, 14(1), 43–54.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Rienecker, L., & Hermansen, M. (2007). Udvikling af vejledning fra tavs viden og privatpraktiserende kultur til italesættelse of institutionalisering. Dansk Universitetspædagogisk Tidsskrift, 3, 1–4.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sapon-Shevin, M., & Chandler-Olcott, K. (2001). Communities of critique or dysfunctional families? Journal of Teacher Education, 52(5), 350–364.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Helle Merete Nordentoft.

Rights and permissions

Reprints 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

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-012-9564-x

Keywords

Navigation