Module 2 – Session 3: Case Studies

[Thando]

#3153

We discussed case C and all agreed that the supervisor should have begun the relationship by spelling out the requirements of a doctoral degree, together with a supervision contract that spells out the roles of the researcher and that of the supervisor to work against this kind of problem from the beginning.

In addressing the situation itself, the supervisor should spell out the kind of depth expected for doctoral research and put the ball back in the student’s court by explaining that no depth might mean in the long run.

[Pauline]

#3215

Post graduate issues seem to be replicated in different contexts…
I have found that although many female students are highly motivated to do their studies, in many cases multiple roles are a main factor in slowing down their work, especially after coursework is over for Masters students. Family challenges, alongside workload demands often come into play, and many times I have had to follow up students who have gone quiet.

[Kelly]

#3251

Group E. “Same old, same old – how can this be a contribution to knowledge?”
Key issues are: No solid purpose of study established beforehand, Supervisor failed to identify Information Landscape of student beforehand, Student lost of passion of study and the Supervisor’s incapacity to employ a supervision model relevant for the student.

The student sense of worth is challenged by spending time conducting research that will not contribute to the body of knowledge. This case study points to the supervisor’s role to identify the Information Landscape (IL) of the student before the student embarked on the study. If the IL was identified on time, the supervisor will have also assisted the student to identify the research gap, also the relevant reading material to achieve the purpose of the study.
Both the supervisor and the student are frustrated and stuck. The supervisor has to consult peers, collaborate with communities of practice (CoPs) in the field (online or personal contact), to
assist. I haven’t had this experience.

[Theodora]

#3258

Case E
I think the supervisor can create space for the student to do a presentation of his work and get other colleagues and students to sit in to provide feedback. Different perspectives from colleagues and other students can help give direction regarding where to pay attention to in order to make a case for the contribution the student makes to the body of knowledge. For all you know the student is just worried for nothing. It could be a matter of discussing the issues in a way he has not thought about. Through the presentation there could be possible suggestions on how to tease out that unique perspective he brings on board regarding the methodology if that is where attention should be given as the main contribution of the study.

Case F
The supervisor would have to call all parties for a meeting to thrash out issues and find a solution where necessary.

[Joram]

#3414

Issues identified included: different expectations between the student and the supervisor. The need of a balance between the many roles and supervisor taking cognizance of the many roles of the supervisee.

[Alando]

#3417

I think an important dimension introduced by Grace (Case C: “I want this thing done as quickly as possible”), is the relevance of doctoral studies to the industry. While doctoral training has mainly focused on training graduates to work within the University system as lecturers and academic researchers, it is also true that there are other students who are interested in the doctorate so that they can make use of the new knowledge away from the academic cycle. In Kenya for instance, there are organisations such as the Kenya Agricultural and Livestock Research Organization (KALRO) which carry out researches that solve practical problems in addition to adding new knowledge. What Grace raises in this case might be something worth paying attention to – both in terms of the supervision process and the design of doctoral studies therefore. In addition, probably the supervisor can also help Grace to develop a better focus by helping her shift her attention from merely obtaining a PhD for the sake of getting a promotion to something deeper and more fulfilling from the process itself – e.g. gaining new knowledge, new perspectives, new methodologies etc.

[Tom]

#3468

“I’m on track, Prof!”
One of the most talented doctoral students my department has seen in recent times happened to be a lecturer in a nearby private university. He had administrative responsibilities there. After a brilliant start – scoring high grades in his course work and fashioning a proposal that excited the faculty – he disappeared. Every time his supervisors would raise him he would assure them that he was “on it.” A few months later he stopped picking the supervisors’ calls. We never saw him in the department again. I would occasionally bump into him at a barber’s shop that we both went to. He did not want to talk about his work. And then I stopped seeing him altogether. And that was that.
The postgraduate programmes in my university fall under what we call the Privately Sponsored Students Programme (PSSP). They students pay for their tuition, and for everything else. There are no scholarships and there are no funding initiatives. So the university has not envisaged the possibility that one who has invested so much personal money and time in their studies can decide to up and leave. We do not have institutional methods of holding on to students – other than that done by individual members of staff encouraging students out of their good heart or some personal conviction. But even if we had that, would it make any difference to a full grown human being who has decided not to continue with their studies?

[Jamin]

#3518

Issues identified included: different expectations between the student and the supervisor are critical. A mechanism should be developed to reconcile the multiple roles and situations of the two major players in the system. The need of a balance between the many roles and supervisor taking cognizance of the many roles of the supervisee.

[Lynette Louw]

#3650

Case E “Same old, same old – how can this be a contribution to knowledge?”

Key issues:
a) Was the research design appropriate to the research question?
b) Kirui (student) has become disinterested in completing his study
c) Kirui needs to have interaction with peers for encouragement and to assist him in peer review, critique and advice
d) Supervision approach at this stage of his study might not be correct
e) Despite Kirui having generated an excellent research proposal, he feels like a failure now.
f) Kirui might not be open to receiving the feedback from his supervisor and resistant to changing his mindset.

How is the student’s sense of self challenged?
Kirui feels frustrated and that the findings are not making a contribution to his study since the results are the same. Possibly he is not being open and honest with his supervisor as he does not want to accept the guidance provided by the supervisor. The supervisor indicated that his methodology is unique and that he should provide an argument that the methodology makes a contribution to knowledge in his thesis, besides the findings that might not be so insightful.

How is the supervisor positioned?
The supervisor is frustrated and the candidate is not open to their advise about the contribution the methodology chapter can make. It is also possible that the supervisor is approaching Kirui incorrectly by using a supervision approach that seems to be somewhat “hands-off’’ at this moment rather than further building the relationship (relationship development) and coaching him (emancipation) into the Discourse of knowledge contribution in his field of study (enculturation)
What would you need to consider in understanding the issues involved?
Be empathic, pay attention of the relationship and emotional intelligence, be encouraging and engage in a conversation about the different ways in which a contribution to knowledge can be made.

How would you engage with the student as a supervisor?
I would spend time with Kirui in which we would have a gentle conversation on the different ways in which a contribution to knowledge can be made. Highlight what his contribution is and encourage him to write a conference paper on his methodology section and present it at a conference. The feedback he will receive would also encourage him to complete the chapter and the thesis. I would also invite Kirui to present his methodology chapter to a group of colleagues from my own department and different disciplines at the university where I am employed. The feedback he will received at such an opportunity will be extremely valuable. Likewise, I will encourage him to present his methodology at a colloquium session to his peer postgraduates.

Have you encountered similar issues as a student or a supervisor? Yes as a supervisor

[Author]

Posts