Community Acuity (13): experiences in structuring & recording doctoral supervision meetings.

This is a guest post from Dr Peter Gossman, Principal Lecturer in Education at the University of Worcester.

Over ten years ago I worked in New Zealand and attended the Improving University Teaching Conference in Dunedin were Tom Angelo (of Angelo and Cross – Classroom Assessment Techniquesfame) was presenting. The theme of the conference was ‘assessing and grading as if learning matters most’. Perhaps not the snappiest of conference focus statements but it allowed him to present some key ideas in relation to feedback. 

I have a page from the day that contains i) why give feedback, ii) how students might use feedback and iii) a suggested order for feedback. It is this last element that I have adapted from my own supervision practice. Universities, at least in my limited experience (two English, one Welsh and one Kiwi) have some format for recording supervision meetings. This form tends to have a space on it for the recording the substance of the meeting. It is to this and with a certain approach I have applied Angelo’s feedback ideas.

Angelo suggests that feedback is provided in the following sequence:

  • First – good news (what was done well)
  • Second – bad news (what still needs improvement)
  • Third – options (what can be done to improve it)
  • Fourth – plans (what the learner intends to do)
  • Fifth – commitments (what both parties agree to do, to what standard and by when)

It is a seemly simple list. My take is that it is provided to the doctoral student as the structure against which they write up the meeting notes and identified actions. This in turn is submitted for sign off and agreement and then formalised as the supervision meeting record. The key adaptation here is that the student identifies the good and bad news, the options and the plan for themselves, they are learning to self-evaluate and problem solve.

  • First – good news (what has gone well for you since our last meeting?)

“I have read the articles we discussed since our last meeting. I have made notes on them and I have found a range of other literature.”

  • Second – bad news (what has not gone so well, or that you are still working on?)

“The cat was ill for a week and kept me up at night setting back my progress on constructing my questionnaire.”

  • Third – options (what can be done to address the issues in ‘bad news’?)

“I aim to catch up with the questionnaire construction by focusing on it for the next two weeks.”

  • Fourth – plans (what the learner intends to do between now and the next meeting – this can if the student wishes be a timeline or simple Gantt chart)
  • Fifth – commitments (what both parties agree to do, to what standard and by when)

“Read the first draft of chapter X. This will be submitted on dd/mm/yy and supervisor feedback will be provided by dd/mm/yy.”

The nature of what is contained in each section and the degree of detail will depend on the stage that the student is at and a wide range other factors like the discipline being studied,  the required frequency of meetings and so on.

I have applied this technique on form submission I can add to or amend it as required. The biggest issue is acculturating students into including enough specific detail. However, once a common understanding of the requirement to submit a detailed form is established the process starts to take care of itself.

Community Acuity (12): aligning expectations for the thesis in a cross-cultural professional doctorate

Dr Janet Strivens NTF, is based in the Centre for Higher Education Studies at The University of Liverpool, and supervises on the Professional Doctorate in Higher Education.

The Professional Doctorate in Higher Education at the University of Liverpool is a fully online programme developed, like most other Liverpool online programmes, in partnership with Laureate Inc., a global private higher education supplier. Four of us from Liverpool were involved in the design and have remained heavily committed to ‘our baby’ as supervisors. Every student gets two supervisors, one from Liverpool and one from Laureate. 

Inevitably, the Laureate supervisors are recruited from around the world so many don’t have University of Liverpool doctorates. The significance of this dawned on me gradually when my fellow supervisor, of Russian extraction but with a US doctorate and currently teaching there (I’ll call her Natasha), apologised for holding back a draft introductory chapter from our Middle Eastern student because he had not included a summary of his methodology. I received this in Madrid as I was idly wondering whether to join a very sun-baked queue to visit the Prado (such are the joys of any-time, anywhere supervision). I quickly forgot the sightseeing as I pondered Natasha’s message. I replied that I wouldn’t really have expected to see this in the introductory chapter anyway. She was surprised and our discussion of expectations evolved into a question of how many chapters I expected (as many as it takes?) and the discovery that, in her institution, the number and purpose of each chapter was laid down in the regulations. 

Later, with another US co-supervisor, another difference of perspective emerged: the tense in which the Methodology chapter should be written (past tense, as in, the research has been completed, or future/conditional, as in, this is the decision-making process I went through?)

Back home, I discussed Natasha’s queries with my Liverpool colleagues. I thought her perspective had provided an explanation, for me at least, for what I had regarded as some oddities in the writing of previous students. I had also told Natasha that I didn’t necessarily expect a final version of the Research Questions in the introductory chapter, which was in many ways more significant than the presence or absence of a summary of methodology. I explained that this was because I expected the Research Questions to evolve, and to be refined after the literature review had been completed. In summary, I began to realise that I thought of the thesis as ‘telling the story’ of the research more or less as it happened, rather than writing a report on it afterwards. At least two of my colleagues at University of Liverpool strongly agreed with this.

Subsequently, in recognition of the need to align all our expectations, we decided to include a session on ‘Structuring Your Thesis’ in our annual Student Residency (only a minority of students will attend thi, but the session can be made available as a video recording to all). The session is deliberately non-directive, presented as dialogue and discussion: my colleague and I present our preferences, with reasons, and invite students, and importantly fellow-supervisors from Laureate, to share their own perspectives and experiences. We are very conscious that this is a cross-cultural programme: nevertheless, most of our external examiners (and all our internal examiners) are familiar with the British doctoral system – and ultimately, they’re the people we have to please.

The challenge of ‘supervising’ students who are doing a PhD by Published Work

This is a guest post by Professor Susan Smith, Associate Director of the Centre for Learning and Teaching, Leeds Beckett University. It is a call for more academic staff training and development for colleagues supervising students doing the PhD by Published Work route.

The growing diversity of doctoral programmes in Higher Education contributes to knowledge and enhances innovation (Halse & Malfoy, 2010; Lee, 2010 & 2011; Blessinger & Stockley, 2016). Indeed, one of these routes – the PhD by Published Work (PhD by PW) – is becoming more popular and, as a result, more supervisors are needed for new students. But these supervisors of PhD by PW routes should not be ‘any old supervisor’. The art of supervising students doing this PW route is different from supervising students doing the more traditional PhD awards.  

Students of the PW route are almost always longstanding, accomplished researchers with a coherent body of peer reviewed scholarly work (be they papers, monographs or artefacts) rubber-stamped and accessible in the public domain for all to read. 

I have observed that while many colleagues who are supervisors are clear about the requirements and the role for supervising a student via a traditional PhD route, they admit they are working in the dark with their students on the PW route and have a poor understanding of the process and the different supervisory skills required. Contributing to this confusion is the lack of consistent training available in universities to support building the skills and knowledge for the supervisors of this PW route. As a result, potential candidates are put off, existing candidates are confused and procedural muddle occurs.

In fact, I argue that ‘supervising’ is the wrong word (maybe ‘facilitator’ or ‘mentor’ or even ‘PhD life/ research coach’ would work better!). After all, unlike the traditional, typical PhD supervisor the PW supervisor is not ‘keeping an eye on’ their students to check they are safe and competent researchers before they are let loose on the wider community – many PW students are already established, well published researchers in their own right and have all been safely ‘on the loose’ for years. PhD by PW supervisors do not, unlike the traditional PhD route supervisor, need to ensure their students are producing quality research or ensure their methodology is sound – this has already been done and dusted by the peer reviewers for the journals where the work is submitted. It should also be ironed out early at the Confirmation of Registration stage (and very often this is not the case).

From my experience, the supervisory skills required by someone who has a PW candidate should focus on something slightly different:

  • Making sure that the students have a body of work focused on what Professor Sally Brown would call the ‘golden thread’ (Brown, 2018) – a clear subject or theme which has been explored at a deep and critical level. 
  • Making sure that student removes outputs which don’t fit their submission. It is so tempting to include lots of peer reviewed work they are rightly proud of, but if it doesn’t align with the golden thread the submission strength is much diluted.
  • Making sure that the candidate is prepared to discuss work with the examiners at the viva voce and making sure other examiners are fully equipped and experienced in making sure they are notmarking the papers and exploring basic methodology but exploring instead ideas relating to the works’ originality, coherence and contribution to the body of knowledge. I call these three key areas ‘the triple whammy’ in my book (Smith, 2015).
  • Making sure that the student can write the synthesis in the time available (usually a year) and the structure and content of that synthesis is robust, thematic and clear. I would say of all the skills this is the only one shared with traditional PhD route supervisors.
  • Using supervisory meetings at the pre-synthesis writing stage to explore the submitted work with a deep critical approach can be very useful indeed. Encouraging the student to discuss their works’ impact, reach, context, meaning, journey and future are not always the trains of thought that traditional route PhD supervisors think of.  

I’d argue the sector really needs much better guidance for our colleagues supervising students doing PhD by PW routes. This guidance should focus specifically on clarifying the suitability, number and range of outputs (these are currently inconsistent in different universities). We also need much better institution-specific staff development and training to clarify practice, process and regulations for new supervisors of PhD by PW routes. Perhaps with more role clarity colleagues would actually be keener to sign up as PhD by PW supervisors? 

A PhD by PWis a route worth encouraging – it is inclusive, great for atypical candidates, fabulous for encouraging joined-up thinking and a sense of connection and longevity in research practice. It is worth supporting with well informed ‘supervision’.

  • Brown, S. (2018). PhD by Published Works, April 2018. https://www.bera.ac.uk/blog/phds-by-published-works.
  • Halse, C., & Malfoy, J. (2010). Retheorizing doctoral supervision as professionalwork. Studies in Higher Education35(1), 79–92.http://doi.org/10.1080/03075070902906798
  • Lee, A. (2010). When the article is the dissertation- Pedagogies for a PhD by publication. In C. Aitchison, K. B, & A. Lee (Eds.), Publishing Pedagogies for the Doctorate and Beyond (pp. 12–29). Hoboken, New Jersey: Routledge.
  • Lee, A. (2011). Professional Practice and Doctoral Education: Becoming a Researcher. In L. Scanlon (Ed.), “Becoming” a Professional: An Interdisciplinary Analysis of Professional Learning (pp. 153–169). Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands.
  • Smith, S. (2015). PhD by published work: a practical guide for success. Palgrave Macmillan.
  • Smith, S. (2017). Supervising on a PhD by Published Work route: an exploration of the supervisory role, ZFHE(Journal for Higher Education Development), Vol. 12, Issue 2, pp. 19-43.

Social support and burnout in the doctoral study process

This is a guest post by Solveig Cornér, who is a doctoral researcher at the University of Helsinki. Her research focus involves social support for early career researchers’ in Higher Education Institutions, on wellbeing, and on youth identities. Together with her supervisors, Professor Kirsi Pyhältö and Professor Erika Löfström, she recently published an article on ‘The Relationship Between Doctoral Students perceptions of Supervision and Burnout’.

When PhD challenges become overbearing
MATCHINGIN PROGRESS.pngAchieving a PhD can be a long and tough journey and the doctoral study process is often described as an ‘intensive’ and an ‘intellectually and emotionally challenging’ period of time. Doctoral students’ usually face many kinds of pressures that might pull them away and prevent them from maintaining their focus on achieving the doctorate. For instance, their work with their Dissertation (Thesis) becomes too stressful and overwhelming, or, their funding is ending and hence the researcher faces financial hardship.

Another factor that can affect the study process is that the doctoral student doesn’t receive adequate support from others, for their academic development, or even the support to respond to the inevitable PhD challenges.

The combined result when students experience challenges and their community of practice fails to provide adequate and constructive support for those challenges, can lead to increased ‘ill-being’, and even withdrawal from their doctoral program.

In our recent study, we investigated the interrelation between social support structures and experiences of burnout*. Burnout in the doctoral study process is a symptom of ill-being that is not often talked about in this group. We looked closely into doctoral students’ perceptions of supervision, including the frequency of supervision and overall satisfaction with supervision, and we connected this with their perceptions of burnout.

We used an internationally validated instrument, namely the Doctoral Experience Survey (Pyhältö et al., 2017) to collect data in three universities in Finland. The sample consisted of 248 doctoral students representing Humanities and Theology, Natural Sciences and Engineering, Social Sciences and Law, Behavioral Sciences, Economics and Medicine.

Support comes from a range of players

Firstly, the students’ in our study benefited from having several and varying sources of doctoral supervision beyond their main supervisor. These other sources included peers and individuals from the researcher community, both nationally and internationally.

Secondly, the students’ reported on the frequency of their supervisions, varying from daily meetings to less than once every sixth months. Most typically, students received supervision either once every second month (30%) or every month (26%).

Thirdly, the doctoral students who participated also had varying experiences of the quality of supervisory support. On average, students reported that they received overall constructive supervision e.g. receiving encouragement and positive attention. They also reported that they received support from the researcher community, entailing acceptance, appreciation and collegial support.

What’s more, the students we researched commented on whether or not they were treated as equals in the research community, including: observing justice and fair play among fellow doctoral students.

  • Overall, doctoral students who reported high levels of support from the researcher community, who perceived that they received constructive supervision, and who felt that they were equally treated were more satisfied with supervision than their peers.
  • On the other hand, several factors were associated with experiences of burnout. Lack of satisfaction with their supervision, a low frequency of supervision and poor experiences of equality within the researcher community were related to experiences of burnout.
  • Finally, and importantly, our results showed that experiences of burnout, were connected with the student’s intention to leave their PhD course. It’s worth noting that students who received supervision from several supervisors reported less intention to leave their PhD. Hence, a collective model of supervision is related with reduced risks of students experiencing burnout.
In conclusion, we suggest that by enhancing various sources of social support we can offer a substantial base for future development of enabling practices in researcher education. We call for greater emphasis on group supervision and other collective forms of supervision. If our doctoral students are not provided with sufficient social support to overcome the challenges faced in the study process, it is likely to reduce experiences of wellbeing, and, in the long run, increase the risk of doctoral students abandoning their studies.

* “Burnout is defined as prolonged work-related stress together with symptoms of exhaustion and cynicism and when these symptoms are combined it may lead to burnout. Exhaustion is described by feelings of strain, chronic fatigue and lack of emotional energy. Cynicism, on the other hand, is characterized as depersonalization and an excessively detached response to colleagues and other aspects of the job. Often, both exhaustion and cynicism, has shown to emerge from overload at work, heavy job demands, and, also social conflict.” (Maslach, 2003Maslach & Jackson, 1981).

the power of peer support

This is a guest post by Sherrie Lee, an international PhD candidate based in New Zealand. She is a past president of, and current mentor to, the Postgraduate Students’ Association at her university. Her doctoral research examines informal academic learning among international tertiary students in New Zealand. Sherrie has an ongoing interest in the intersecting areas of language, culture, and identity, and has a personal blog about such topics at thediasporicacademic.wordpress.com

I write from the perspective of a former postgraduate student leader (peer-mentoring others) and an international doctoral student. Based on my personal doctoral experiences, and interactions with fellow doctoral students, I share how peer support addresses supervision-related issues that are not easily met by administrative processes or supervisors themselves.

In the New Zealand context, the early period of one’s PhD candidature is ‘conditional’ and the candidate has to prepare a research proposal (or report), and a research ethics application if applicable, to be approved by the end of 6 months (extendable to 9 months). Thus, the most important milestone of a first-year PhD student was reaching ‘confirmed enrolment’. The stress of not seeming to make progress in meeting that milestone is compounded for international students who face family, societal, and/or financial pressure to succeed.

The stress of possible failure, as I have experienced for myself, comes about from supervision practices that do not provide encouragement to the developing researcher, and/or clear guidance for the documentation required for confirmation. Students who are new to the country and the institutional culture may be trying to make sense of their supervisors’ communication style and unspoken expectations. One may be trying very hard to read between the lines, while respecting the supervisors’ authority, and at the same time, wondering how far, and how best to assert one’s autonomy and epistemological perspective. Such negotiations may even continue past the confirmed enrolment stage and into the unfolding doctoral journey.

Across self-help guides and well-meaning (or maybe just mean) advice, such worries are often dismissed as ‘normal’ or somewhat needing to be better managed by the student. Rare is the response that asks supervisors to take greater responsibility in engaging with their students, especially those who are negotiating with intersecting demands of cultural ‘adaptation’, scholarly independence, and personal pressures of dealing with failure (however defined by the individual).

In my role as a postgraduate student representative at the university, I regularly engaged with international doctoral students. After I stepped down from the leadership position, I continued to mentor peers as and when the need arose. Having gone through a fairly rough first year, but coming out stronger at the end of it, provided me the insight to assist my peers in making sense of their experiences. I had also personally been on the receiving end of constructive advice from a more experienced peer. Had it not been for her regular following up on my situation, I might not have taken action to address my own well-being as a doctoral student.

In my conversations with fellow doctoral students, the issues they raised was more often than not related to the supervision relationship or supervision/communication practices. I usually respond by pointing out the various institutional structures that provide support for doctoral students. While many students had some idea of the hierarchy and reporting lines, few were prepared to use official routes of seeking redress. The suspicion of the efficacy of bureaucratic intervention was one reason; not wishing to expend additional emotional and mental energy was another; avoiding the embarrassment and shame of being exposed was also a likely reason if admitted. We would then discuss communication strategies, talk through possible outcomes, and debate on what a best case scenario would look like. Sometimes they concluded that institutional intervention was necessary. At other times, they chose to ‘wait and see’. It was also useful for us to rehearse what they wished to say to supervisors or other authority figures. Our conversations, done in private, did not promise to make things perfect. If anything, it reinforced the reality of imperfect but negotiable supervision experiences.

The doctoral journey is notorious for being isolating and emotionally draining. Institutions, especially at the faculty level, need to make concerted efforts to encourage peer interactions and peer mentorship so PhD students have opportunities to consult, debate and consider possibilities regarding supervision issues in a safe and supportive environment. As an international doctoral student, I have experienced and observed the benefits of peer support, especially when institutional structures and authority figures are not able to satisfactorily meet emotional and cultural needs.

‘naming and acclaiming’ the SuperVisionaries, and insight into who nominated whom…

You may have seen that I’ve been running a #SuperVisionaries ‘name and acclaim’ project where PGRs can recognise their great supervisors, and the impact of good supervision. Read more about the idea and the process for nominating and recognising supervisors here.

#SuperVisionaries is not competitive, there are no shortlists, and no awards — I have just simply named and thanked all those who do a great job for their PGRs.

It’s been brilliant to do this positive exercise and we got 199 nominations, which represents about 8% of our PGRs. They recognised 83 women* and 116 men as excellent supervisors. The gender split in the nominations, which is 42% women and 58% men, is proportionally, just about (if you squint) in line with the relative proportions of academic staff who work at Sheffield (33% women and 67% men). The staff proportions can be error-prone in various ways (academics who don’t supervise, supervisors who are registered in more than one dept…) so please just understand this as reflective speculation rather than absolute truth.

Interestingly though the split of PGRs at the University of Sheffield is 46% women and 54% men. In the nomination process, women took the time to write 145 of the 199 nominations (73%), compared to men who made 54 (27%), and only 10 men nominated women for recognition. [For completion in the dataset 72 women nominated men.]

Given the even-ish split of M/F PGRs we have, and the fact that men consistently report having a ‘better’ doctoral experience than women do (through tools like the Postgraduate Research Experience Survey), my aim for #SuperVisionaries 2019 then is then to get more men to recognise and thank their supervisors, especially their female supervisors.

Interestingly for me who is familiar with many of our supervisory staff, there are names that do not appear on the list who I totally expected to see. People I know to be phenomenal supervisors, tremendous mentors, and who I know have made a difference to their students. I am disappointed and sorry that their students didn’t thank them formally, but I guess maybe they are in the habit of thanking them personally rather then through an anonymous process? Or they didn’t realise what it would mean to a supervisor to be recognised (see below). Or perhaps, sadly, they missed the email ‘call for nominations’ and the reminder email? A second development for #SuperVisionaries 2019 then, could be to invite each of the the Departmental PGR Tutors to make sure that those supervisors that they see going above and beyond in their work are recognised too. This kind of recognition could potentially have impact on career progression for staff, and so it’s important to get a more rich and inclusive perspective of ‘excellent’. I think with time, the importance and the profile of this kind of recognition will grow, and no doubt those supervisors who are absolute diamonds will be named and acclaimed many times to come! And hey, if you know someone who wasn’t nominated and you feel should have been — please let them know how great you think they are!

Caution 1: While this initiative is intended to provide reflection and to start conversations around supervision, it can’t provide evidential support for career progression e.g. probation/promotion and shouldn’t be used for student recruitment purposes. Being recognised as a SuperVisionary is not based on any past or present framework of professional standards or values. There has been no stringent process of assessment of the nominated individuals. The ‘stories’ gathered are the reactive opinions of individuals, who are not qualified to critique or assess supervision in a way that should influence either of the above.

Caution 2: We should not compare across departments, even though it’s tempting, departments are not in competition with each other and I advise against using the numbers of nominations to conclude about dept cultures/practices. A department could receive a high number of nominations because, for example, SuperVisionaries was heavily promoted internally by e.g. PGR Tutor, because individual supervisors put pressure on student to nominate them, because the dept contains a high proportion of PGRs from more deferential cultures, because the dept contains a high number of students who know me well and read my emails. The numbers of students per supervisor, the degree stage of the individual student (meaning their relative time commitments), gender, location, etc will also influence a student’s inclination to nominate.

But back to the celebration, just a couple of examples that I LOVED are below…

 

The first comments back from the supervisors who were Acclaimed were:

 “I’m chuffed to bits to have been nominated in 2 categories. Given the pressure of the current metrics-driven climate, it’s good to know that the Department appears to be getting the balance right!”

“Oh MY GOD, whaaaaaaaaaaat?! Amazing!”

“This is really, really lovely and it’s made my day.”

“Thanks for doing this. The recognition really means a lot to me!”

“This has made my day, thank you. And thanks as well for continuing to keep the discussion about supervision active in people’s minds. Also, as you say, it’s just really nice to get positive feedback like this – it’s so rare that anyone says ‘hey, you’re doing a good job!’.”

I am happy to chat to anyone at any institution who would like to know more, and I’d be delighted if any of you want to copy/adapt the model. Spreading more positivity is important.

*both our student and staff systems only record two genders so I am only able to report men and women as recorded in our databases, nothing more inclusive. I know.

what does supporting international doctoral learners mean?

This is a guest post by a team from the School of Education at the University of Glasgow: Dr Dely Elliot, Dr Muir Houston, Dr Kara Makara, Dr Kate Reid, Dr Catherine Lido. They reflect here on their recent national event with the UK Council for Graduate Education.

We cannot fail to notice the strong presence of international doctoral learners in British Higher Education Institutions. After all, they comprise almost half of the entire doctoral community. Although they may be under the umbrella of ‘international learners’, they are far from being a homogeneous group as they often hail from different continents. Interestingly, their shared experience of being away from home to pursue what often becomes an isolated doctoral journey can also easily lead to comparable experiences of the rewards and concerns that international doctoral education entails. Continue reading “what does supporting international doctoral learners mean?”

recognising the valuable contribution that postdocs make to the supervision of PhD Students.

This is a guest post from Laura Lane, Head of Strategy and Operations at the Graduate School, Imperial College London and currently Chair of the UK Council for Graduate Education’s Graduate School Managers’ Network. Grad School twitter  |  facebook  |  Instagram

This blog post is designed to provide a practical example of how Imperial College London has chosen to formally recognise the valuable contribution that postdocs make to the supervision of PhD students.  It briefly summarises how and why the framework was established and provides links to all relevant documentation which forms part of the process.  I am very happy for colleagues to contact me with further questions about any aspect of this provision.

Background

During 2014-15, the Graduate School established an institution-wide project called, the world class research supervision project.  As part of this project, over 1,400 doctoral students and 400 academic staff shared their thoughts and experiences of research degree supervision at the College.  As a result, the College agreed 40 recommendations, covering many aspects of the research student experience, which were taken forward by seven task and finish groups.

Between 2016 and 2018, the Task and Finish Group for the Student Supervisor Partnership worked to address the recommendations which related specifically to supporting students and supervisors to have effective working relationships.  However, one other important aspect of this group’s work was to review the role and valuable contribution postdocs make to PhD supervision and to implement means of recognition.  This came through really strongly in the feedback received from staff and students as part of the original consultation.

Working Party for Recognising Postdocs

In order to take this forward, the Task and Finish Group for the Student Supervisor Partnership itself established a Working Party to look specifically at this recommendation.  The Working Party for Recognising Postdocs comprised academic staff from each of the College’s Faculties, Postdoc Reps, the Head of the Postdoc and Fellows Development Centre (Dr Liz Elvidge), representation from Human Resources and myself.  This Working Party met twice to consider the roles and responsibilities that postdocs carry out with respect to PhD supervision, the training and support needed in order for postdocs to carry out these roles effectively and finally to develop a process which formally recognises postdocs as Assistant Supervisors to PhD students.  At the first meeting, draft documentation was prepared and the Postdoc Reps were asked to consult with the Postdoc Rep Network on the draft paperwork and proposed process in time for the next meeting.

Recognising Postdocs

The following documents were developed by the Working Party for Postdocs, agreed by the Task and Finish Group for the Student Supervisor Partnership and approved by the College’s Postgraduate Research Quality Committee.  All have now been implemented.

  1. A roles and responsibilities document for the role of Assistant Supervisor
  2. Continuing Professional Development Framework for Assistant Supervisors which includes mandatory training and other recommended workshops and support.
  3. Assistant Supervisors also have access to the online Supervisors’ Guidebook which contains further resources and information to support them in their role.

The formal process for recognising postdocs as Assistant Supervisors was agreed with Human Resources (HR) and enables academic Departments to make requests for HR to issue formal notification of appointment to Assistant Supervisor, subject to completion of the mandatory online training course “introduction to supervision at Imperial College London” and with agreement from the postdoc’s line manager.  On a termly basis, the Graduate School confirms to Departments which postdocs have completed the mandatory training.

Concluding remarks

It is hoped that postdocs who are formally appointed to Assistant Supervisors will find this helpful in terms of their career development and can refer to this appointment on their CVs.  As a final note, the College also agreed to include reference to Assistant Supervisors in the Early Stage Assessment Form (9 month milestone) and Late Stage Review Form (18-24 month milestone).

Although driven by the Imperial College Graduate School there have been many contributors to this important project and I would like to extend thanks to all those who have shared their expertise and given up their time to contribute.

Community Acuity (7) trust your gut: a cautionary tale for the eager new supervisor

‘Community Acuity’ blog posts are from supervisors, to supervisors. They share the thoughts, experiences and reflection of the highs and the challenges of supervising doctoral students. 

This guest post is anonymously shared in the spirit of helping others to learn.

In Business Schools, we get a lot of applications from overseas students with full scholarships from their governments, often with mediocre proposals (think “dull but worthy”) and qualifications that it’s hard to map onto our own more familiar entry requirements. The best of these are invited to take up 4-year programmes where they study a taught Masters in Research and providing they do well, are offered a place on the PhD programme. Continue reading “Community Acuity (7) trust your gut: a cautionary tale for the eager new supervisor”

creating a shared way forward with new research students

This is a guest post by Dr Duncan Cross (PFHEA), Senior Lecturer (Education), University of Bolton.

There are a range of complexities involved in effectively supervising PhD candidates that are recognised in the literature. Delany’s (2008) literature review highlights some of those complexities as significant predictors of candidate completionwhich includes demographic data around age, funding and area of subject, and also, importantly, ‘the intellectual environment of the department …’.

Continue reading “creating a shared way forward with new research students”