Fact and fiction: a case history of doctoral supervision

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Background
There exist a number of textual sources of advice concerning the provision of effective doctoral supervision. This academic material aimed at both supervisors and students makes assumptions both about the conduct of science and the contemporary nature of higher education as a setting for inducting students into the academy.

Purpose
This paper aims to explore and critique received ideas about supervision, and seeks to elucidate their implications for intellectual originality and the nature of research-based knowledge production. This aim is situated in the context of governmental discourses of performativity.

Sample
The sample consists of one doctoral student who is advanced in the progress of her studies. She is based in a Scottish university and is of overseas origin. She is a mature student whose previous education took place outwith the UK.

Design and methods
A case-study design is adopted within which a supervisor has the stance of a participant observer. It is through participant observation that the data are collected. These qualitative data are then subjected to an appropriate analysis which aims to characterize their meaning.

Results
The findings suggest that the conflicting array of ideological discourses exercising authority over the university sector may undermine the concept of scholarly originality and the underpinning academic skills as well as dispositions. It is concluded that supervisory strategies vary, but the received ones premised upon a different historical landscape which championed academic autonomy may bring supervisors into a tense relationship with their institutions and policies of performativity.

Conclusions
The evidence indicates that current models of research degree supervision, as presented in published textual sources, are guilty of neglecting to engage properly with the effects of discourses of performativity and commercialization which now, arguably, exercise a controlling influence over significant parts of higher education.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)267-278
Number of pages12
JournalEducational Research
Volume47
Issue number3
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2005

Fingerprint

supervision
discourse
student
education
university
knowledge production
commercialization
participant observation
disposition
overseas
academy
autonomy
science
evidence

Cite this

@article{a77328bc13894bcf910819a6e0a4dc1b,
title = "Fact and fiction: a case history of doctoral supervision",
abstract = "Background There exist a number of textual sources of advice concerning the provision of effective doctoral supervision. This academic material aimed at both supervisors and students makes assumptions both about the conduct of science and the contemporary nature of higher education as a setting for inducting students into the academy. Purpose This paper aims to explore and critique received ideas about supervision, and seeks to elucidate their implications for intellectual originality and the nature of research-based knowledge production. This aim is situated in the context of governmental discourses of performativity. Sample The sample consists of one doctoral student who is advanced in the progress of her studies. She is based in a Scottish university and is of overseas origin. She is a mature student whose previous education took place outwith the UK. Design and methods A case-study design is adopted within which a supervisor has the stance of a participant observer. It is through participant observation that the data are collected. These qualitative data are then subjected to an appropriate analysis which aims to characterize their meaning. Results The findings suggest that the conflicting array of ideological discourses exercising authority over the university sector may undermine the concept of scholarly originality and the underpinning academic skills as well as dispositions. It is concluded that supervisory strategies vary, but the received ones premised upon a different historical landscape which championed academic autonomy may bring supervisors into a tense relationship with their institutions and policies of performativity. Conclusions The evidence indicates that current models of research degree supervision, as presented in published textual sources, are guilty of neglecting to engage properly with the effects of discourses of performativity and commercialization which now, arguably, exercise a controlling influence over significant parts of higher education.",
author = "Christopher Holligan",
year = "2005",
doi = "10.1080/00131880500287179",
language = "English",
volume = "47",
pages = "267--278",
journal = "Educational Research",
issn = "0013-1881",
publisher = "Taylor & Francis",
number = "3",

}

Fact and fiction : a case history of doctoral supervision. / Holligan, Christopher.

In: Educational Research, Vol. 47, No. 3, 2005, p. 267-278.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - Fact and fiction

T2 - a case history of doctoral supervision

AU - Holligan, Christopher

PY - 2005

Y1 - 2005

N2 - Background There exist a number of textual sources of advice concerning the provision of effective doctoral supervision. This academic material aimed at both supervisors and students makes assumptions both about the conduct of science and the contemporary nature of higher education as a setting for inducting students into the academy. Purpose This paper aims to explore and critique received ideas about supervision, and seeks to elucidate their implications for intellectual originality and the nature of research-based knowledge production. This aim is situated in the context of governmental discourses of performativity. Sample The sample consists of one doctoral student who is advanced in the progress of her studies. She is based in a Scottish university and is of overseas origin. She is a mature student whose previous education took place outwith the UK. Design and methods A case-study design is adopted within which a supervisor has the stance of a participant observer. It is through participant observation that the data are collected. These qualitative data are then subjected to an appropriate analysis which aims to characterize their meaning. Results The findings suggest that the conflicting array of ideological discourses exercising authority over the university sector may undermine the concept of scholarly originality and the underpinning academic skills as well as dispositions. It is concluded that supervisory strategies vary, but the received ones premised upon a different historical landscape which championed academic autonomy may bring supervisors into a tense relationship with their institutions and policies of performativity. Conclusions The evidence indicates that current models of research degree supervision, as presented in published textual sources, are guilty of neglecting to engage properly with the effects of discourses of performativity and commercialization which now, arguably, exercise a controlling influence over significant parts of higher education.

AB - Background There exist a number of textual sources of advice concerning the provision of effective doctoral supervision. This academic material aimed at both supervisors and students makes assumptions both about the conduct of science and the contemporary nature of higher education as a setting for inducting students into the academy. Purpose This paper aims to explore and critique received ideas about supervision, and seeks to elucidate their implications for intellectual originality and the nature of research-based knowledge production. This aim is situated in the context of governmental discourses of performativity. Sample The sample consists of one doctoral student who is advanced in the progress of her studies. She is based in a Scottish university and is of overseas origin. She is a mature student whose previous education took place outwith the UK. Design and methods A case-study design is adopted within which a supervisor has the stance of a participant observer. It is through participant observation that the data are collected. These qualitative data are then subjected to an appropriate analysis which aims to characterize their meaning. Results The findings suggest that the conflicting array of ideological discourses exercising authority over the university sector may undermine the concept of scholarly originality and the underpinning academic skills as well as dispositions. It is concluded that supervisory strategies vary, but the received ones premised upon a different historical landscape which championed academic autonomy may bring supervisors into a tense relationship with their institutions and policies of performativity. Conclusions The evidence indicates that current models of research degree supervision, as presented in published textual sources, are guilty of neglecting to engage properly with the effects of discourses of performativity and commercialization which now, arguably, exercise a controlling influence over significant parts of higher education.

U2 - 10.1080/00131880500287179

DO - 10.1080/00131880500287179

M3 - Article

VL - 47

SP - 267

EP - 278

JO - Educational Research

JF - Educational Research

SN - 0013-1881

IS - 3

ER -