Approaches, Perspectives and Progression – Thursday morning
Intended Learning Outcomes
- Be aware of your own common styles and how they can be adapted with the use of
techniques and tools, based on your understanding of learning in research education
- Be able to use meta-communication as a means to consciously change perspectives, talk
about supervision and adapt supervisory style
- Be aware of the different themes included in the supervisory process
1. How do power relations influence supervision? (Styles.ppt + Exercise on
power relations.doc (20 min))
2. What roles are in play in supervision? (Styles.ppt + Exercise Roles.doc)
3. Break!
4. Different models to capture style and approaches in supervision
(Styles.ppt + Exercise Gurr Toolkit.doc)
5. Using meta-communication and different perspectives (Styles.ppt)
6. Lunch
7. Progression and themes, (Themes.ppt + handout: Key elements in
supervision + Exercise Key elements (45 min)
Time not including breaks
30 min
30 min
60 min
15 min
55 min
180 min
Approaches to supervision Styles.ppt
How do power relations influence supervision?
Exercise: On a sheet with this figure participants pencil in the verbs individually. While they do
that, you make post-its with the verbs. You ask individual participants to put a verb (post-it) on the
screen. When all words are on the screen you discuss positions of the words, how they understand
the power involved with each word, and if someone wants to move a specific verb under discussion.
The aim is to discuss power, and because we understand the words differently, this gives an
opportunity to discuss.
What roles are in play in supervision? (ppt to illustrate exercise)
Ask participants to select exemplary words for their relationship with supervisee. Use green
pot-its for the PhD students role (as they perceive it) and yellow post-it for the supervisor’s role.
The post-its are organized on the wall with the higher power distance above and more equal
relations below (see ppt). Compare with PhD student’s perceptions from KU course (ppt). Discuss
when different roles are relevant.
Different models: Gatfield’s model (Gatfield, 2005) (p. 64 in the book) explained (ppt, slides 710). Discuss matches of PhD students and supervisors (slide 8). If both supervisor and PhD student
have a laisser faire practice it will probably not work out. With other combinations they might
supplement each other well. Discuss problems with Gatfield’s model: 1) Preferred style is too static
way to think of practice, and 2) Structure is not the only factor relevant for product concern – what
about product quality? Good supervisors in Gatfield’s study mainly find themselves in the
contractual corner (Slide 9).
Gatfield sees the different styles as related to phases in the project (slide 10). Situational supervision
model takes a different view: In each situation there is need for a specific approach dependent on
how competent the learner / student is to do that task. (slide 11)
Alternative model: Situational supervision, adapted from Situational Leadership model (Hersey,
1985). This model is less about phases in the PhD study, and more about need in the actual
situation, so more dynamic.
Gurr’s model (Gurr, 2001): Slide 12-16 to explain the exercise. Gurr_toolkit.doc to be distributed
via usb to take home. Exercise in small groups (3-4) (20 minutes), afterwards discuss in plenum
how this might work with PhD students, and encourage trying out between courses.
Meta-communication and Perspectives
Styles.ppt continued (slides 17-19)
Transparency: Karl Tomm’s ethical positions (slide 17) (sorry, explanation in Danish)
Når vi er åbne/tydelige om vores antagelser og intentioner øges tilliden (som regel)
Når vi udvider råderummet inviterer vi den andens ansvarlighed og ejerskab på banen ift. på
beslutninger/valg der træffes.
Strategisk position – en anden bliver ”en der skal” (for)føres (skjult dagsorden, manipulation)
Hjælpende position – Den anden bliver en, det er synd for (offer)
Instruerende position – Den anden bliver en, der skal guides, vejledes
Bemyndigende position – Den anden bliver en, der kan træffe beslutninger selv
Transparency helps in building trust. Opening decision space gives more ownership to the student.
To be transparent here means to share your intensions, the process level in the control centre (slide
18). An example is using hats when giving feedback: Take a different perspective. To help the PhD
student anticipate the kind of comments reviewers may have, take on the bloody-minded reviewer’s
hat when you give the feedback. (slide 19)
LUNCH!
Progression and themes in supervision
Themes.ppt
Slide 3: Get participants to suggest skills from each circle relevant in their field – plenum. (Pearson
& Brew, 2002).
Handout: Key elements of Supervision (A3) (Pearson & Kayrooz, 2004)
Exercise: described separately
Early Warning Signs, pp. 113-117 in Taylor & Beasley.
Booklet on themes (website reference)
Reading for the day: Chapters 5, 7, 9 and 10
References:
Gatfield, T. (2005). An Investigation into PhD Supervisory Management Styles: Development of a
dynamic conceptual model and its managerial implications. Journal of Higher Education
Policy and Management, 27(3), 311-325. doi: 10.1080/13600800500283585
Gurr, G. M. (2001). Negotiating the 'rackety brdige' - a dynamic model for aligning supervisory
style with research student development. Higher Education Research and Development,
20(1).
Hersey, P. (1985). The situational leader. New York, NY: Warner Books.
Pearson, M., & Brew, A. (2002). Research Training and Supervision Development. Studies in
Higher Education, 27(2), 135-150. doi: 10.1080/03075070220119986c
Pearson, M., & Kayrooz, C. (2004). Enabling critical reflection on research supervisory practice.
International Journal for Academic Development, 9(1), 99-116. doi:
10.1080/1360144042000296107