9789144137865

DOCTORAL SUPERVISION IN THEORY AND PRACTICE

The connection between theory and practice runs throughout the entire book. Using authentic cases and examples from different educational ­environments, it is demonstrated how supervision is dependent on both individual and cultural factors. In addition, the book offers its readers numerous reflection exercises that can help move thinking forward, both individually and collegially.

The book is aimed primarily at supervisors in doctoral education, regardless of the discipline within which they are active or their previous experience. It can also be useful for doctoral students who are interested in understanding their own learning process and who would like to know what can be expected of them in their education, as well as by educational leaders who wish to improve the quality of doctoral education.

Art.nr 40895

studentlitteratur.se

| DOCTORAL SUPERVISION

This is a long-awaited book that contributes to the professional develop­ ment of doctoral supervisors and provides an in-depth perspective on doctoral students’ learning. Well anchored in current research, the authors discuss the organisation of Swedish doctoral education, the supervisor’s professional p ­ ractice, doctoral students’ learning, and the quality system of this education in Sweden.

BRODIN LINDÉN SONESSON LINDBERG-SAND

The authors of this book all work at Lund University. Eva Brodin is Associate Professor of Educational Sciences, and she conducts research on doctoral students’ learning.

Jitka Lindén is Professor Emerita of Psychology and a licenced psychologist. She is a pioneer in the research field of doctoral supervision. Anders Sonesson is Doctor of Plant Physiology and head of the Division for Higher Education Development at Lund ­University. Åsa Lindberg-Sand is Associate Professor of Educational Sciences and senior researcher within the field of higher education. They all have extensive experience in training doctoral supervisors and in supporting their professional development.

DOCTORAL SUPERVISION IN THEORY AND PRACTICE

E VA BRO DIN JITK A LINDÉN ANDERS SONESSON ÅSA LINDBERG -SAND

Original title: Forskarhandledning i teori och praktik © The authors and Studentlitteratur, Lund, 2016

Copying prohibited This book is protected by the Swedish Copyright Act. Apart from the restricted rights for teachers and students to copy material for educational purposes, as regulated by the Bonus Copyright Access agreement, any copying is prohibited. For information about this agreement, please contact your course coordinator or Bonus Copyright Access.

Should this book be published as an e-book, the e-book is protected against copying.

Anyone who violates the Copyright Act may be prosecuted by a public prosecutor and sentenced either to a fine or to imprisonment for up to 2 years and may be liable to pay compensation to the author or to the rightsholder.

Studentlitteratur publishes digitally as well as in print formats.

Studentlitteratur’s printed matter is sustainably produced, both as regards paper and the printing process.

Art.No. 40895 ISBN 978-91-44-13786-5 First edition 1:1 © The authors and Studentlitteratur 2020 www.studentlitteratur.se Studentlitteratur AB, Lund Cover design: Francisco Ortega Cover illustration: Shutterstock Printed by Dimograf, Poland 2020

CONTENTS

Introducing the authors 9 Introduction 11

J i t k a L i n dé n Various ways of approaching doctoral supervision 13 The apprenticeship model 14 Supervision typologies 14 Supervision as reflective practice 16 Supervision as professional work 16 Definition of supervision 17 Arrangement of the book 18 Part I The context of doctoral education and supervision 19 Part II Supervision relationships 19 Part III Learning 20 Part IV Quality assurance 22

Part I The context of doctoral education and supervision

1 Doctoral education and the doctoral degree in Sweden 25 A n de r s S on e s s on & Å sa L i n dbe rg -Sa n d The Swedish doctoral degree in comparison to doctoral degrees of other countries 26 Swedish doctoral education in numbers 30 Entrants, doctoral students, and graduates 30 Gender distribution 33 International students 34 The complex landscape of expansion 35 © T h e au t h o r s and S t u dentlitte r at u r

3

Contents

2 The regulation of doctoral education 39 A n de r s S on e s s on & Å sa L i n dbe rg -Sa n d The emerging regulation of doctoral education 39 The various regulations of doctoral education 42 Actors and responsibilities 43 Study funding and programme length 44 General study syllabi and individual study plans for doctoral education 46 Right to supervision and other resources 49 Summative assessment 50 3 Doctoral education and the task of supervision 53 A n de r s S on e s s on & Å sa L i n dbe rg -Sa n d Research as a prerequisite for doctoral education 55 The significance of supervision to research careers 56 A shared responsibility for doctoral education and supervision 59 Responsibility for dealing with one’s own supervisory role 61 Practicum I: Tasks for reflection and discussion 62

Part II Supervision relationships

4 Professional approach 67 J i t k a L i n dé n Supervision within the scope of a profession 67 Skilled supervision 69 Components of the supervision relationship 71 Working alliance 71 Expectations and agreements 72 Group relationships and organisation 74 Power relationships 76 Role power and personal power 77 Visible and invisible power 79 Ethical values and principles 81

4

© T h e au t h o r s and S t u dentlitte r at u r

Contents

5 Supervision problems 85 J i t k a L i n dé n Perceived problems among supervisors and doctoral students 86 Narrated experience 86 Phase-specific problems in the development of a doctoral student 93 Problems relating to the work environment 98 Organisational stress 98 Social and personal dimensions of stress 101 Specific supervisor skills 102 Active listening 103 Positions as an expert and a coach 104 Ethical practice 106 Practicum 2: Tasks for reflection and discussion 110 Chapter 4 Professional approach 110 Chapter 5 Supervision problems 112

Part III Learning

6 Doctoral student socialisation and academic identity development 119 Eva Brodi n & J i t k a L i n dé n Socialisation as a process and a result 119 Interactive stages of the socialisation process 120 Academic identity as a multifaceted goal 124 Conditions for socialisation 128 Ethnicity, socio-economic background, and gender 130 Disciplinary core values in the practice of doctoral education 135 The complexity of interdisciplinary doctoral education 140 The global and academic development of professional doctoral students 143 Promoting doctoral students’ socialisation 157 The importance of networks 158 Mentoring as additional support 159

© T h e au t h o r s and S t u dentlitte r at u r

5

Contents

7 Development of critical, creative, and independent thinking 165 Eva Brodi n On the road to transformative learning 165 Critical thinking and creativity 168 Theoretical perspectives on critical thinking 169 Theoretical perspectives on creativity 174 Doctoral students’ perspectives on critical and creative thinking 185 Development of independence 191 Promoting critical, creative, and independent thinking 194 Creating a balance between control and freedom 194 Integrating doctoral student courses into the supervision 196 The seminar as a learning session 198 Reinforcing the individual voices of doctoral students 201 8 Doctoral students’ writing 205 Eva Brodi n Writing as a cognitive learning process 207 Writing as identity formation 209 The disciplinary language style 211 The disciplinary structure of the argument 212 Support in developing an authoritative voice 214 Critical and creative writing 216 Microscopic textual awareness 218 Self-oriented textual awareness 218 Contextual textual awareness 219 Parallel and integrated development processes 220 Social spaces for writing 221 Co-authorship 222 Writing groups 225 Promoting doctoral students’ writing 227 Specific support activities as part of supervision 227 Dealing with a resistance to writing 230

6

© T h e au t h o r s and S t u dentlitte r at u r

Contents

9 Constructive feedback 233 J i t k a L i n dé n Reducing the gap between existing and desirable knowledge 234 The significance of context for feedback 236 Feedback in the professional supervision relationship 239 Feedback and the socialisation process 242 Practicum 3: Tasks for reflection and discussion 246 Chapter 6 Doctoral student socialisation and academic identity development 246 Chapter 7 Development of critical, creative, and independent thinking 247 Chapter 8 Doctoral students’ writing 249 Chapter 9 Constructive feedback 250

Part IV Quality assurance

10 The concept of quality and its various meanings 255 Å sa L i n dbe rg -Sa n d & A n de r s S on e s s on Increasing the number of stakeholders leads to more varied perceptions of quality 256 Quality in doctoral education in accordance with the Swedish Qualifications Ordinance 258 Much assessment but not of a summative kind 264 Consequences of assessment in the past and now 267 11 Different forms of quality assurance 271 Å sa L i n dbe rg -Sa n d & A n de r s S on e s s on Internal quality assurance of doctoral education 271 External quality assurance of higher education 276 Quality assurance of Swedish higher education 278 External quality assurance of Swedish doctoral education 280 Practicum 4: Tasks for reflection and discussion 282 Bibliography 285

© T h e au t h o r s and S t u dentlitte r at u r

7

INTRODUCING THE AUTHORS

EVA BRODIN is Associate Professor of Educational Sciences at Lund ­University, where she teaches in the faculty-wide doctoral supervision course at the Division for Higher Education Development (AHU). She is also a senior research fellow at the Centre for Higher and Adult Education (CHAE) at Stellenbosch University in South Africa. Eva has conducted research on learning in doctoral education for many years, particularly in relation to doctoral students’ critical and creative thinking. She is currently involved in a number of international research projects related to postgraduate students’ development in countries such as Kenya, Rwanda, South Africa, and Uganda.

JITKA LINDÉN is Professor Emerita of Psychology at Lund University, and also a certified psychologist. Her research focuses on psychosocial aspects of knowledge and skills development, particularly in creative professions.

Dialogical methods and methods involving participants – such as diaries, group discussions, and narratives – are used to both elucidate and promote interaction between theoretical and practical knowledge. She is among the pioneers regarding the systematic exploration of doctoral supervision, and she describes the conditions and processes of doctoral supervision in a number of books and articles. She has been engaged as a consultant on skills development programmes for doctoral supervisors at some twenty higher education institutions in Sweden and the rest of Scandinavia since the late 1980s. In addition to doctoral supervision, she is also interested in professional education and training and supervision in work placement.

ANDERS SONESSON is Doctor of Plant Physiology and a senior lecturer and present head of the Division for Higher Education Development (AHU) at Lund University. He has been working with educational development and © T h e au t h o r s and S t u dentlitte r at u r

9

Introducing the authors

continuing professional development for teachers and doctoral supervisors at higher education institutions since the early 2000s. Together with Eva Brodin and Åsa Lindberg-Sand, he is responsible for Lund University’s course for doctoral supervisors. Recently, his research has focused on how changes in research and education policy affect doctoral education. He is also editor-in-chief of the journal Högre utbildning, which regularly publishes articles on doctoral education and supervision. ÅSA LINDBERG-SAND is Associate Professor of Educational Sciences at Lund University. She has carried out research into students’ learning and assessment in higher education. For the past decade, she has worked with courses for doctoral supervisors and on various projects linked to doctoral education and supervision. She was one of the editors of an anthology on doctoral supervision, where supervisors in fine, applied, and performing arts describe their experiences. Together with Anders Sonesson and researchers from Uppsala University, she has also written about quality in doctoral education.

10

© T h e au t h o r s and S t u dentlitte r at u r

CHAPTER 3

Doctoral education and the task of supervision A n de r s S on e s s on & Å sa L i n dbe rg -Sa n d

Higher education is a major social sector in Sweden. Thousands of teachers and researchers work at universities and university colleges. More than a quarter of a million students acquire knowledge through courses and programmes, while numerous research projects take place, and many teachers and students collaborate locally, regionally, and internationally. It is worth noting that doctoral education is a necessary prerequisite if all these activities are to continue in the future. Yet doctoral education is remarkably invisible. Perhaps this is because it is so deeply integrated into all the practices of the academy. As such, doctoral education is hardly “one single thing” but is rather a generic term referring to many very specialised programmes, as many as there are general study syllabi, or perhaps even as many as there are doctoral students – more than 18,000 of them. Doctoral education is, after all, one of the most individualised study routes available. It is similar to other highly individualised study programmes such as those in the fine, applied, and performing arts; also in the sense that doctoral students, as a part of their education, engage in the practice they are being trained for – the production of new knowledge. Doctoral education contributes to a significant proportion of the research published by the nation’s higher education institutions.

So, what is doctoral education, viewed from this perspective? In purely formal terms, doctoral education constitutes the highest level of education, which means that anyone admitted to such a programme has an opportunity to obtain a doctorate and hence gain access to the top positions in education and research. Doctoral education can be described as the gatekeeper of the academy (Elmgren et al., 2014). It is always amusing to hear how Michel Fou© T h e au t h o r s and S t u dentlitte r at u r

53

Anders Sonesson & Åsa Lindberg-Sand

cault’s doctoral thesis in sociology was not accepted at Uppsala University, simply because this tale triggers terror within the academic community of bureaucratisation shutting the gate for intellectual advancement. Having the opportunity to take on a supervisory role can then be viewed as a social confirmation that one is able to both contribute to and support the highest level of knowledge creation in one’s own subject area.

If research is regarded as a craft that is not primarily transferred from one generation to another through theoretical studies, but through participation in practice, doctoral education can be viewed as the rejuvenation locus that every subject area or discipline must have to be able to continue to develop.

When supervising, senior researchers meet people who are entering the research communities and who will take over in turn. From this perspective, the supervisor can also be regarded as taking responsibility for the subject field or the discipline. Certainly, day-to-day activity involves supporting doctoral students’ learning, but the supervisor also functions as a representative of good practice within his or her discipline or subject field.

Doctoral education is not dependent solely on supervisors, but also on the organisation of the research, its actors and quality processes, and it is difficult to imagine doctoral study without research environments, seminars, laboratories, journals, edited books, peer review, or conferences. Hence, the conditions for research will largely become the conditions for doctoral education. Previous chapters have focused extensively on doctoral programmes as a form of education. However, it is just as important to focus on doctoral education as research, and on what the many changes in conditions and circumstances for research mean for doctoral students’ learning and the role of the supervisor.

Participants in courses and workshops on doctoral supervision often state that they hope to be able to finally find out what the responsibilities of a supervisor actually are, and get information about the roles and responsibilities of both the principal supervisor and the associate supervisor. The answer is that very little is formalised or defined in guidelines. Instead, these issues have to be discussed locally within the research and educational environment in question, and in relation to the needs of individual doctoral students and the particular circumstances, not least for research. Moreover, the roles and responsibilities are sure to require continuous reformulation. With respect to the distribution of responsibility between the principal supervisor 54

© T h e au t h o r s and S t u dentlitte r at u r

3 Doctoral education and the task of supervision

and the assistant supervisor, there are – for example – very different ways of doing this. The high degree of responsibility and the lack of detailed manuals, combined with the fact that supervision often involves standing on shaky ground at the border of what is known in a field or discipline, means that supervision is akin to other professional domains in the modern knowledge society, as described by Thomas Brante (2014).

Research as a prerequisite for doctoral education More than fifty per cent of Swedish research and doctoral education is currently funded externally (Öquist and Benner, 2012). However, the dependency of research and doctoral education on external funding is greater than this figure implies, since basic government funding, at both university level and in faculties where there are many opportunities to obtain external research funding, is often used to support strong research environments or provide research infrastructure (such as expensive equipment) in order to attract excellent researchers and more external research funding. Financially favoured research areas have resources for a good many doctoral students, with subsequent opportunities for younger researchers to engage in supervision. Knowledge development in such areas can expand rapidly, while there is a risk of stagnation in areas were funding is low. The role of doctoral education for innovation and the growth of the knowledge economy is emphasised in both national and international policy. The role of doctoral education for the regeneration and development of the academy and for the academy’s very broad mission (research, education, and outreach/societal engagement), is, however, rarely discussed. From this perspective, the purpose of doctoral education is framed almost entirely in terms of the development of research.

With a growing dependence on external funds, the reality of the research project (usually relatively concise with clearly defined deliverables and a short reporting time) has increasingly come to form the basis for both research and doctoral education, even in research areas where other ideals have previously prevailed. Also, when journal articles in English are becoming the norm in ever more research fields, a transition to compilation theses also becomes more desirable within doctoral education. When certain publication forms are perceived as more prestigious than others, for example, both supervisors and doctoral students will orient themselves in that direction. © T h e au t h o r s and S t u dentlitte r at u r

55

Anders Sonesson & Åsa Lindberg-Sand

Elmgren et al. (2014) describe how power and resources, as well as the formal responsibility for doctoral education used to rest with the academic oligarchy, while now there are instead two poles determining how influence is exerted over Swedish doctoral education (see Figure 3.1). Faculty boards (or the equivalent), in interaction with departments and supervisor collegia1, constitute the first pole. For doctoral education, the increased influence of this pole corresponds to more stringent requirements for institutional and departmental responsibility and structure. Successful individual researchers/supervisors, or research groups, in interaction with various research funding bodies, make up the second pole. The influence of this pole has increased as the dependence on external research funding has grown as a consequence of Swedish research policy. The relative influence exercised by the two poles varies and, according to the authors, is related to the proportion of faculty-controlled funding compared to external funding for doctoral education in different subject areas (Elmgren et al., 2014, p. 43).

There is a great degree of variation in the ways in which the tensions between these two poles are expressed within the different environments for doctoral education, and it is not possible to categorically relate any particular negative or positive consequences to the relative influence of either pole. That funding and other conditions related to research also influence doctoral education and supervision is, however, evident and thus something worth reflecting on for both supervisors and doctoral students.

The significance of supervision to research careers Regardless of one’s subject area, having supervised is traditionally viewed as an important aspect of scholarly qualifications and is frequently a requirement for promotion to associate professor or professor. Younger academics are expected to supervise, and to supervise well. At the same time, it has become more difficult in many fields to find an opportunity to supervise since there are simply not enough doctoral students to go around. Opportunities for supervision have declined in subject areas where there is little external research funding due to the fact that full funding is required – the 1 Supervisor collegia can be found in many Swedish higher education departments where they function as advisory bodies for research and doctoral education.

56

© T h e au t h o r s and S t u dentlitte r at u r

3 Doctoral education and the task of supervision

What shapes Swedish doctoral education?

Funding agencies Faculty funding

Main source of funding

Faculty board

University institutes doctoral positions mainly through

Department/Supervisor collegium The doctoral student Faculty board Department/Supervisor collegium

Research orientation/ subject is decided by

Public and private organisations Supervisors Research groups

Supervisors Funding agencies/ organisations

In competition Faculty board Department/Supervisor collegium

Enrolment

Hand-picking Supervisors

Defined by applicant

Defined by the supervisor

Quality assessed by faculty board or department/ supervisor collegium

Quality formally assessed by the faculty but in reality by the funding agencies

Project

Appointed by faculty board or department, on the basis of project demands and student requests

Supervisors

“Self-appointed” by virtue of funding and project ownership

Supervisor

Role of supervisor

Project leader

Authorship

Co-authored with supervisor, other students, and researchers

Extent of coursework and other elements outside the research/thesis

Small: Supporting the thesis

Single author Monograph Large: Supporting the thesis and broadening the curriculum

Figure 3.1 What shapes Swedish doctoral education? From Elmgren et al. (2016, p. 60).

© T h e au t h o r s and S t u dentlitte r at u r

57

Anders Sonesson & Åsa Lindberg-Sand

funds are not sufficient for as many doctoral students as in the past. In such areas, it is probably necessary to reconsider the promotion requirements of having supervised doctoral students (all the way to the public defence), so as not to block the career paths of younger academics. Allowing for several assistant supervisors for each doctoral student could be an alternative to changing promotion requirements, but such an arrangement would of course need to take into account the potential impact it could have on a student’s education and research.

Tenured academic positions are few and far between. Many researchers are obliged to take temporary postdoc positions or carry out their research in administrative employment within research groups with good finances. The few senior lectureships available are sometimes not fully funded: instead, they have to be “topped up” with external research funding. The major uncertainty, dependence on others, and constant search for funding that was the reality for many doctoral students in the 1990s and earlier has now been postponed to the next step in an academic career. If today’s doctoral students can confidently count on at least four years’ worth of secure employment, many of their supervisors are unable to count on more than one year at a time. At the same time, there is an increasing need to supervise, and to supervise early on in one’s career.

In subject areas where external research funding is common, the education and salary of doctoral students are frequently paid for by their supervisors’ research grants. In most cases, these grants are linked to a supervisor’s own research projects, and, as a consequence, the student’s research becomes important also for his or her supervisor’s research output. When co-­authoring with a doctoral student who is funded by the supervisor’s research grants, the supervisor is every bit as dependent on the doctoral student as the doctoral student is on the supervisor. Both are dependent on the collaboration, and on the other party doing his or her bit: the supervisor for qualifications, research production, and future research grants; the doctoral student for training, the thesis, and a continuing career. The joint project is at the heart of this cooperation. For the supervisor, these circumstances raise the challenge of balancing supervision with project management. For the doctoral student, the challenge is balancing being a student with being a project worker.

There may also be different dependencies between supervisors. For exam58

© T h e au t h o r s and S t u dentlitte r at u r

3 Doctoral education and the task of supervision

ple, the principal supervisor may also be the head of department, which means two quite different professional relationships with the assistant supervisor. The principal supervisor may also be the main applicant for the research grant and have the formal qualifications to be principal supervisor (associate professor or professor). The assistant supervisor may be dependent on the principal supervisor, not just for an offer to supervise, but perhaps also in order to receive part of the funding for the joint research project. The principal supervisor may also be in great need of the supervision qualifications and the resulting joint research for his or her own career. In other words, for both supervisors there could be more to the relationship than the shared responsibility of supervising a student, and there may be power asymmetries due to circumstances residing outside the formal regulations of supervision.

When a supervisory team is to be created for a doctoral student, it is a good idea to raise at the outset the issue of how the shared responsibility for supporting the doctoral student’s learning should be managed. However, the supervisors do not alone bear the full responsibility for supervision and doctoral education.

A shared responsibility for doctoral education and supervision The overall responsibility for doctoral education usually rests with the faculty boards.2 Before the 2011 autonomy reform, this was regulated in the Higher Education Ordinance. Since 2011, responsibility is regulated locally at each institution, and variations exist. Under the faculty boards, at the departmental level, is the head of department. As leaders of departments, the heads of departments are also responsible for doctoral education, and hence also for doctoral students and supervisors. This responsibility also includes employer responsibility, since both supervisors and doctoral students usually are employed. It is not unusual for departments to also appoint a specific director of studies or associate head of department with responsibility for doctoral education.

At the departmental level, we sometimes also find what are known as 2 Or the equivalent. The organisation and terminology vary depending on the higher education institution.

© T h e au t h o r s and S t u dentlitte r at u r

59

Anders Sonesson & Åsa Lindberg-Sand

supervisor collegia, primarily within the humanities, theology, the social sciences, economics, and art, but more rarely within medicine, the natural sciences, technology, or mathematics. These collegia often play an advisory or preparatory role, for example for the content of doctoral programmes or for admission.

Before the individual study plan was introduced in national legislation, there was often a subject “examiner” for the entire doctoral programme, usually the professor who held the subject chair. These examiners often took responsibility for defining the theoretical and methodological expertise that needed to be achieved by doctoral students within the subject. This could be done by approving which courses the student was able to study or be given credit for. The tradition of using such examiners continues in a number of subject areas.3 This is a local function that is not mentioned in the Higher Education Ordinance. In some cases, examiners may still have an important part to play in admission, revision of study plans, and the final assessment of doctoral students. Today, this older method of controlling doctoral education via a principal professor has usually been replaced with a more collective responsibility via general study syllabi and individual study plans and directors of doctoral studies.

Neither the Higher Education Ordinance nor local regulations define supervisors’ responsibilities or what supervision should entail, other than possibly in very general terms. Over the past few decades, local policies for time allocation for supervisors, expressed in hours or as a percentage of working time, have emerged. However, by no means all faculties or departments have such policies. Nor are roles and responsibilities for principal and assistant supervisors usually defined (local definitions may exist, but in our experience these are quite rare).

In addition to these formal actors, whose roles and responsibilities are regulated in policies at institutional, faculty, and departmental levels (albeit in very general terms), there are also many other actors involved who frequently have no formal role but still are important for doctoral education and the local research environment. Teachers/researchers, postdocs, research 3 These must not be confused with the examiners referred to in the Higher Education Ordinance, who are required for grading in connection with first-cycle and second-cycle courses and for tests or courses at the doctoral level.

60

© T h e au t h o r s and S t u dentlitte r at u r

3 Doctoral education and the task of supervision

group leaders, and doctoral students in their capacities as junior researchers, are examples of this.

Finally, doctoral students also bear their own responsibilities. These responsibilities are linked to their role as students, and sometimes also to their positions as employees. Moreover, doctoral students have a statutory right to representation within the various decision-making bodies of higher education institutions.

Today’s formalised doctoral education, with its regulations, roles, and defined responsibilities, does not correspond to the doctoral education of yesterday, or to traditional ways of viewing responsibilities and roles in the academy. At many higher education institutions and departments doctoral education is undergoing changes as new procedures are introduced and old ones are phased out. This may make manoeuvring for both supervisors and doctoral students relatively difficult and uncertain. The image of the doctorate as a form of education is superimposed over the image of the doctorate as research, and the result is not always harmonious. Because doctoral education is dependent on research, these tensions must be handled with care.

Responsibility for dealing with one’s own supervisory role It is difficult to identify the supervisor’s role and responsibility from the formal guidelines. These are highly variable depending on the context, and they are strongly dependent on how doctoral education is organised at a particular department or in the discipline or field in question. Moreover, the responsibility goes beyond a doctoral student and his or her education.

Just as there is collective responsibility within the research and educational environment for the doctoral students and their education, the supervisor also bears responsibility for doctoral education at a collective level. The supervisor has a responsibility towards his or her subject area for the doctoral student’s research and entry into that area. As an employee with the task of supervising, the supervisor also bears responsibility towards the head of department and the study director for doctoral education, and ultimately towards the faculty and the institution.

A student admitted to a doctoral programme begins a journey that takes several years. The supervision needed in the initial phase is not the same as the supervision that will be needed towards the end of the process. Super© T h e au t h o r s and S t u dentlitte r at u r

61

Anders Sonesson & Åsa Lindberg-Sand

vision will constantly need to change focus and content. As we mentioned in the initial chapters, doctoral education is both education and research.

The research environment is complex. Both doctoral student and supervisor are involved in this duality, which also needs to be used in a constructive manner. The supervisor bears greater responsibility for this than the doctoral student, and is presented with a task that goes beyond the roles of teacher and researcher, since these two roles have to be combined and result in both a doctoral student’s learning and his or her research. And as this is a task where it is not possible to know what will be at stake at the outset – other than it will be of great significance for all parties involved – we would like to highlight three important elements of supervision that are also recurring themes in this book: • ensuring a good working alliance with the doctoral student and other

supervisors,

• supervisor ethics and the ability to recognise and handle roles and

concerns in addition to those of a supervisor,

• responsibility for developing one’s own competence as a supervisor.

Practicum I: Tasks for reflection and discussion Basic level – Individual 1. How were your own doctoral programme and supervision structured? What is more or less the same today, within your current context, and what has changed?

2. Find the general study syllabus for your subject area, and read through it. Compare it to what must be included in the individual study plan, according to the regulations at your institution. Can you see any links between these two documents? What is invisible?

Basic level – Collegial 3. Interview a colleague with extensive experience of supervision, and ask him or her to describe what was expected from the supervisor and the doctoral student in the old days in comparison to now.

62

© T h e au t h o r s and S t u dentlitte r at u r

3 Doctoral education and the task of supervision

Discuss similarities and differences, and try to view them in relation to both the formalisation of doctoral education and any altered conditions for research that has happened within your subject area. What are examples of positive and negative similarities and differences?

4. In relation to the doctoral student that you are supervising/about to supervise: Other than the two of you, who else has a formal part to play? Who has an informal part to play? What have you agreed upon regarding shared responsibilities and communication? What do you plan to do if any problems or conflicts arise? How will you deal with conflicting concerns or roles?

Advanced level – Individual 5. Find the general study syllabus for your subject area. Is there any description of the character and content of the subject or its boundaries with other subjects? If so: How does the description match your own perception of the subject? Is it clear how the doctoral student’s programme should be structured? If there is no such description, or if the description is very incomplete: What could this deficiency mean for the admission of doctoral students? How do you know how the programme should be structured, and in what competence it should result?

Advanced level – Collegial 6. Using Figure 3.1 as a basis, discuss how doctoral education is shaped in your context. How is influence exerted at the crossroads described in the table? On what grounds are decisions made, by whom, and for what purposes? Are there any decisions or concerns (or a lack thereof) that could impact the quality of the doctoral student’s education and research? This task can be performed both with supervisors within your own research context and discipline/field, and with supervisors from different contexts and subjects.

7. The way in which research results are presented and published has an impact on doctoral education and doctoral students’ research © T h e au t h o r s and S t u dentlitte r at u r

63

Anders Sonesson & Åsa Lindberg-Sand

and learning. Discuss what characterises the publication processes within your subject area and how these may influence both students’ learning and the process leading up to a thesis and its defence. Make a comparison of the subject areas represented in the discussion.

64

© T h e au t h o r s and S t u dentlitte r at u r

DOCTORAL SUPERVISION IN THEORY AND PRACTICE

The connection between theory and practice runs throughout the entire book. Using authentic cases and examples from different educational ­environments, it is demonstrated how supervision is dependent on both individual and cultural factors. In addition, the book offers its readers numerous reflection exercises that can help move thinking forward, both individually and collegially.

The book is aimed primarily at supervisors in doctoral education, regardless of the discipline within which they are active or their previous experience. It can also be useful for doctoral students who are interested in understanding their own learning process and who would like to know what can be expected of them in their education, as well as by educational leaders who wish to improve the quality of doctoral education.

Art.nr 40895

studentlitteratur.se

| DOCTORAL SUPERVISION

This is a long-awaited book that contributes to the professional develop­ ment of doctoral supervisors and provides an in-depth perspective on doctoral students’ learning. Well anchored in current research, the authors discuss the organisation of Swedish doctoral education, the supervisor’s professional p ­ ractice, doctoral students’ learning, and the quality system of this education in Sweden.

BRODIN LINDÉN SONESSON LINDBERG-SAND

The authors of this book all work at Lund University. Eva Brodin is Associate Professor of Educational Sciences, and she conducts research on doctoral students’ learning.

Jitka Lindén is Professor Emerita of Psychology and a licenced psychologist. She is a pioneer in the research field of doctoral supervision. Anders Sonesson is Doctor of Plant Physiology and head of the Division for Higher Education Development at Lund ­University. Åsa Lindberg-Sand is Associate Professor of Educational Sciences and senior researcher within the field of higher education. They all have extensive experience in training doctoral supervisors and in supporting their professional development.

DOCTORAL SUPERVISION IN THEORY AND PRACTICE

E VA BRO DIN JITK A LINDÉN ANDERS SONESSON ÅSA LINDBERG -SAND