Critique: supervisor registration

This is a reblog of a post on Medium by Dr Merilyn Childs, Senior Mentor – HDR Supervision Fellowship Program, Macquarie University

“To my knowledge there exists no published research that explores, interrogates or supports the thesis that the registration of doctoral supervisors assures or is related to the quality of doctoral supervision.”

This is well worth a read, and very relevant to UK Universities. It covers the problems with ‘eligibility’ to supervise, which groups are left out of being eligible, the fact we don’t remove supervision privileges for those who perform badly, and what kind of supervisor development activities are and aren’t proven to be appropriate.

The section below in particular, resonates with my understanding of the issues that challenge the concept of ‘just do some supervisor training’. I also spend my days saying something similar to this: 

“Some aspects of the problems of doctoral supervision cannot be solved through ‘training’ or CPD, no matter how well designed. It is important to understand that improving the quality of doctoral supervision is a whole-of-institution challenge. If a University protects a predatory doctoral supervisor through poor institutional governance and cultural practices, no amount of CPD will fix the situation.”

See the original post here: Thoughts on the Registration of Doctoral Supervisors in Australian Universities 

Author: Dr Kay Guccione

I design researcher mentoring and coaching programmes, partnering researchers at all career stages with academic and non-academic mentors. I use research data to ensure programmes are aligned to the researcher voice, are situated in academic development, and fit with the current researcher career landscape.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *