38 - Indira Venkatraman

Title

Supervision as Pedagogy - the receiving end

Author(s)

Indira Venkatraman*, University of Tasmania
Paul Shantapriyan, Tasmanian School of Business and Economics (TSBE)
Graham Gourlay*, Tasmanian School of Business and Economics (TSBE)

Subtheme

Supervision as Pedagogy

Presentation Type

Poster

Room

Foyer

Time

12.30-13.20

Abstract

Studies on research supervision witness a shift in focus from candidate related factors to recognising research teaching as a sophisticated skill (McCallin & Nayar, 2012). Traditional approaches to research education are evaluated against newer pedagogies. Universities are also increasingly becoming accountable to governing bodies regarding the socio-economic output of their research arm. Emphasis is changing from research for research’s sake to research contributing to society. Clearly this causes a state of pressure on faculties and their supervisors. And research candidates walk into this high pressure zone with or without warning, finding themselves on the receiving end.
There is agreement that fostering research supervision as pedagogy impacts supervision effectiveness (McCallin & Nayar, 2012). However, any evaluation on supervisory pedagogy needs to include a research candidate’s view point.  The candidates’ perspective is important to understand how the ‘teaching’ of research (pedagogy) influences their world view (paradigm). This is especially true in an inter-disciplinary supervision setting (Hibbert et al, 2014). This research studies the pedagogical influences of research supervision in general, then focuses on the candidates’ perspectives. The primary research question will be;
How do supervision pedagogies shape candidates’ expectations of their research programme?
This research uses a relationship approach (Smyth & Pryke, 2006) and bottom-up approach (Asif et al, 2013) to study the effects of pedagogy of supervision among candidates. Here the candidates are treated both as the client as well as a bottom tier within a faculty.  Two of the authors reflect, in the traditions of an autoethnography, their journey through the web of knowledge, independence, resilience and emotions that shaped their emerging world view of research. The third author, an experienced supervisor, draws on his journey as a research candidate and how that journey framed his pedagogical approach to supervision.
References
Asifa, M., Searcy, C., Zutshi, A. & O.A.M. Fisscher (2013) An integrated management systems approach to corporate social responsibility Journal of Cleaner Production Volume 56, 1 October pp 7–17.
Hibbert, K., Lingard, L., Vanstone, M., Kinsella, E. A., McKenzie, P., Pitman, A. & T. D. Wilson (2014) The quest for effective interdisciplinary graduate supervision: A critical narrative analysis Canadian Journal of Higher Education Volume 44, No. 2, pp. 85 – 104.
McCallin, A & S. Nayar (2012) Postgraduate research supervision: a critical review of current practice Teaching in Higher Education  Vol. 17, No. 1, February pp. 63-74.
Smyth, H., & S. Pryke (2006) The Management of Complex Projects: A Relationship Approach (Oxford: Blackwell Publishing).

Resource

Download presentation (requires University of Tasmania login) (PDF)