[Andati]

in reply to: Module 4, Session 3: Coaching and Mentoring #5734

Ideally, a supervisor has some set expectations regarding the student research work, normally time bound. This is usually projected towards completions, defense and student graduation. Its is important for both for both parties to have these parameters well agreed and formulated. Mentor-ship is at the highest relationship. There usually no written expectations, though the mentee is expected to be continuously learning and picking growth lessons. So the student has to be really focused and self driven. Coaching could be more structured with expected levels of improvement. So, it is critical for the supervisor to handle each student depending with unique situations they are in. Supervision will always be the initial approach. Till the point where some good working relationship has been established. Certainly, blending of the three approaches could prove to be more ideal.

[Andati]

in reply to: Module 4, Session 1: Ethics in Research #5693

From my physical science background, ethics and science cannot be separated. From the onset, students are trained to appreciate that the value of scientific research is based on credibility of the work and integrity of the researcher. All form of scientific writing like concept papers, proposals and the theses must reflect these values. Similarity index have to be checked by scanning for plagiarism. Correct referencing has to be done and multiple presentations made for the work at group levels, departmental levels and postgraduate committees. When it comes to interpretation and reporting, again this demands honesty since in most of our writeups, raw data form instrumental analysis is not necessarily included. Sometimes matters of allocation of credit and declaration of funding could prove thorny, particularly if there was bad blood between the supervisors and/or the student. We have seen cases where one member could even patent some findings without the knowledge of others. Or where funds were misappropriated by one party, and now raising queries on accountability. These are pertinent issues which sometimes even end up affecting research completion and graduation of the students. Hence it is encouraged that all disclosures should be done at the onset and vested interests clearly discussed and agreed by involved parties.

[Andati]

in reply to: Module 3, Session 3: Disciplinary differences #5637

Hierarchical approach as a disciplinary knowledge approach tends to be more prevalent in natural and physical sciences. From hypotheses, experimental designs, analysis, data collection to interpretation and discussion, most of these aspects tend to be a build up approach. Most of the researchers would be inclined to positivism. But again, these are ideal scenarios. Most of the times, more consideration is always placed on resource availability and institutional research capacity to define the disciplinary approach to be taken by the researcher.

[Andati]

in reply to: Module 3, Session 3: Research approach and design #5635

From this side of the scope, mostly researches are based on disciplinary approach. Tending to focus majorly within specialization areas offered in respective departments. A times is also determined by faculty specialty within the institutions. Funding and capacity availability like instrumentation and consumable would influence the extend of research within the sciences. Research teams or groups are yet fully embraced due to different reasons. My inclination would be on interdisciplinary research approaches, which certainly when well coordinated and facilitated would give researchers a bigger platform to share knowledge and networks. For this to be optimized, challenges of supervision resource availability have to forethought.

[Andati]

in reply to: Module 2, Session 3: Zoom discussion of key readings #5548

Postgraduate studies and supervision entails interaction with a lot of literature materials. Irrespective of the level, journaling could greatly help on keeping track of thoughts as one analyses the contents for knowledge gaps and possible creativity for new knowledge. Traditionally, my experience would be to read through most part of the article to have a general view on the authors approach. Then a second reading would involve underlining and noting down specific areas of interest. I found this helpful also when it come to referencing, especially after a multiple articles. Though now i know it is more effective to integrate digital approach with relevant software.

[Andati]

in reply to: Module 2, Session 2: Scholarly community of practice #5541

In many instances, the supervisor has an edge advantage which could be drawn from their own experiences, network groups, research collaborators, exposure to conferences, funding, publishers, and such related research factors. Hence, under ideal scenarios, the supervisor could easily introduce his or her students to these different groups or research organizations. This could be through referrals, collaborative projects, bench marking, team working or such avenues.This may not be a defined role of the supervisor, though its naturally expected that supervisors would be very helpful in nurturing the upcoming researchers to expand on their capacity. Though again, these aspects depend on many other dynamics like supervisor-student rapport, capacity and resource availability, willingness and vision of the student, etc.

[Andati]

in reply to: Module 1, Session 4: National Policies #5326

For Kenya, we mainly have Commission for University Education which formulates University Standards and Guidelines.
We also have the Kenya National Qualification Authority that formulates the Kenya National Qualification Framework. These documents contains broad guidelines on University operations and Qualification accreditation.

[Andati]

in reply to: Module 1, Session 2: Supervision with a humanizing pedagogy #5294

Largely I agree with the presentation. In my view, funding plays a major role in the so called social exclusion from the world of knowledge. Lack of or limited access to funding, either at individual level, institutional level, government level or even donor sources deprives many potential doctoral candidates from either registering, progressing or completing their studies and research. Institutional or government polices that do not necessarily promote research and innovation always has in impact on funding for accessing the world of knowledge.
Beside funding, there is also the issue of knowledge and capacity. Either just many individual do not necessarily have the knowhow on doctoral programs and studies. On the other hand, doctoral studies are considered the apex of knowledge and command of specialties which sometimes tends to be controlled in some manner by the existing pioneers.

[Andati]

in reply to: Module 1, Session 2: Variables and dynamics in the supervision process #5286

From Africa setup, each of these factors could potentially be the determinant for a doctoral completion. Initially, most doctoral candidates were usually faculty fellow attached to higher institutions in one way or the other. Mainly with interest for career progression in academia. There was also a number of candidates on different scholarship programmes. These categories of researchers have more of reliable or predictable progress levels in their studies. Of recent, there has been however an Increase in a number of self sponsored doctoral candidates who are not necessarily formally employed. These candidates seemly experience more unstable research progress due to limitation in their resources. Most supervisors normally shy away from being engaged with such scholars for the same reasons. Traditionally, doctoral studies are considered self actualization awards. This poses a challenge to self sponsored candidates who could be needing resource mobilization since the perception is that anybody doing doctoral studies has in a way “made it” to some level in society.

[Author]

Posts