[Kristen Cheney]

in reply to: Module 4, Session 3: Coaching and Mentoring #3382

I think supervision involves primarily mentoring the student, as you are not only guiding them through the process of writing a thesis but are also helping them develop professionally, as a scholar. At certain punctuated moments, however, the role becomes more one of coaching, in which you have to attend to certain performance-related steps in the process, e.g. design seminars, qualifying exams, and of course, submitting the thesis for defence.

[Kristen Cheney]

in reply to: Module 4, Session 1: Ethics in Research #3380

This PPT is at best a very cursory introduction to research ethics. In fact, it conflates epistemology, research integrity, andd ethics, when these are all related but distinct concerns. When we talk of ethics, we need to engage much more deeply with our responsibilities as researchers to the people/creatures/environments with which we engage. Inherent in that process is realising our relative privilege and power. In my field, development studies, we are often ‘studying down’, i.e. studying people far less privileged than ourselves. And yet we benefit from collection of their knowledge, by getting degrees, publishing, etc. While indeed, we have to be sure we first ‘do no harm’ (which is more challenging than it sounds when you get down to it), it is important that we also think carefully about what risks we expose participants to and what benefits we bring to them. It may be worth it from your perspective, but is it worth it from theirs?? How will you avoid being exploitative and extractivist? What will your research offer that will improve their lives, directly or indirectly? How will you ensure those benefits are shared with your participants?
Moreover, ethical practice is not a matter of ticking off items on a checklist; it is an ongoing process of reflection and engagement over time. We must clearly communicate this to our students again and again, always pushing them to consider the ethical implications of their day-to-day research praxis. At present, the ethical clearance at our institution is rather nascent, but I and others are trying to strengthen it. Again, it needs to be communicated that ethical clearance is not just a bureaucratic hurdle to overcome; it is merely a baseline for ethical practice. And that practice should be dynamic, with us always striving to improve it.

[Kristen Cheney]

in reply to: Module 3: Writing Development and the Provision of Feedback #3130

I tend to emphasise skill in writing–perhaps much more than my other colleagues–so I give students quite detailed feedback on writing, including on grammar, syntax, and diction. Working at an international institution where English is rarely our students’ first language, I find that many of my colleagues use that fact to overlook the writing. I find this baffling. Writing is the mode through which students communicate their ideas, and what we actually assess is in fact a piece of writing. So how is it possible to ‘overlook’ the very mode of communicating ideas?? One cannot effectively overlook the trees for the forest in this instance.
I agree with the approach of using writing as a tool, not just for communicating your ideas but for learning and working through one’s thinking on a topic. If students don’t actually think in English, then they needn’t do initial drafts in English–but once they’ve gotten some thoughts down and translated them, then working on honing English skills can only help them to refine their ideas–across languages as well as the thought processes attached to them.
It is for these reasons that attention to writing can’t remain an afterthought but is actually integral to the student’s learning process throughout the degree course. In fact, I actually start by emphasising skills in reading, because I realised that our students rarely come to graduate school having learned how to critically approach a text. So I first give students instruction in analytical reading skills, showing how later, these skills transfer over into writing skills: the more one reads for structure and argument, the more one learns how to model these strategies in their own writing.
Of course, these ideas about what is adequate or appropriate structure and argumentation also vary across different academic environments. I am reading a PhD thesis right now, and I am struck again by how formulaic theses tend to be across Dutch universities. They tend to be almost prefabricated in structure, all following the same template–one which in my opinion doesn’t really allow for adequate development of an argument. In fact, many (like the one I’m reading now) lack a clear thesis statement. This blows my mind. A thesis must have a POINT. Moreover, a clear argument structures the writing. How can we train young scholars NOT to make a clear point?? Some do synthesise the information and make a point in the end, but that’s terribly boring for the reader. It’s what in the US we’d call an upside down paper. One faculty member at my grad school would say, “Your dissertation is not a mystery novel.” I find myself repeating this all the time–but I don’t think many of my Dutch colleagues agree with me, as they think if fine to leave the main point for the conclusion. For them, it’s much more about guiding the student to jump through the hoops rather than develop their own rhetorical skills and strong ownership of their own work. These expectations can make it hard to push students to focus more on creative analytical articulation of their ideas, let alone the mechanics and technical aspects of writing. By cultivating writing, we give them the tools to develop their own intellectual voice.

[Kristen Cheney]

in reply to: Module 2, Session 4: EPE resources’ assessment #2470

I found the idea of a reading journal really helpful. I already emphasise reading skills and ask MA students in my class to produce a literature review, but I like how the reading journal helps students to enter into better conversation with the authors they’re reading and find their own ‘voice’ as scholars. It could be a good tool for helping get them acclimated to the practice.

Some of the lessons on structuring the thesis and refining thesis statements also look like helpful resources.

[Kristen Cheney]

in reply to: Module 2, Session 2: Scholarly community of practice #2469

What does it mean to be active in an academic community?
How can you introduce your students into this community? Is this part of the role of the supervisor?

I think being active in academic communities means to participate in–and initiate opportunities for–dialogue about ideas. One can’t just sit in one’s ivory tower reading and writing, but needs to engage actively in discussion about ideas, whether that is in your own institution or across an academic field.
Likewise, I find it important to encourage students to be active in the academic community: to attend research group meetings, lectures, and conferences; present their research to others in such forums; share new literature in the field with them, understand what collegiality means, and so on. To me, this is in fact a vital part of being a supervisor.

[Kristen Cheney]

in reply to: Module 2, Session 1: Library resources and support #2145

Our library offers most of the resources listed and provides extensive training and consultation opportunities, particularly training all students on RefWorks and basic literature searches. There has also been a push toward open-access publishing in The Netherlands.
However, I think the issue is that students can arrive from such information-deficient environments that they really don’t know where to begin or recognise what questions they need to be asking in order to find what they need.
We also have the problem that a previous library director was not in fact a librarian but a data cruncher who seemed to be working to eliminate the library completely, assuming that online content was sufficient, and that eventually everything would be digital. So, despite faculty objections, he started throwing out stacks and stacks of accumulated books and journals, even before establishing whether they were available digitally. A lot of information was lost to the library as a result. He also overhauled the library’s acquisition system so that, rather than categorising books according to topic, books are stacked on library shelves in the approximate order that they were received and added to the collection. This has eliminated all possibility of the kinds of discovery by proximity that usually happen in a library with, e.g. the Dewey decimal system. This has made it harder for students to ‘discover’ content on their topics by browsing the stacks.
The lesson is that while there are advantages with digital content, in terms of costs and remote accessibility, there are also disadvantages, and we shouldn’t assume that just because everything is digital these days, students will even know where to find it, automatically have access–or, more importantly, how to vet its quality. Moreover, harking back to the discussions of Module 1, the push toward digital content can be exclusionary–not only for people located in some parts of the world where access is limited but also for people with different abilities and learning styles, for whom learning from digital content is more challenging. For example, there have been studies that show that people retain less of what they read from digital content than from print, because quite different things go on in the brain when reading from a screen than from the page. Similarly, people who take notes on paper absorb more content than those who take notes on a laptop/tablet. These are also things we need to take into account in our pedagogy.

[Kristen Cheney]

in reply to: Module 1, Session 3: Models of supervision #2126

It is interesting to ponder the different roles a supervisor can play. Of course, these change over time as a student develops but can also be situational depending on what the student needs. At times, my supervisor would crack the whip and lay out clear paths for me; at others, she was a close reader and critic; at others a friend with a sympathetic ear. It’s important to remain observant to what the student needs at any particular time.

[Kristen Cheney]

in reply to: Module 1, Session 4: Key national and institutional documents #2125

The institute’s student charter and academic calendar are quite important for governing our program.

[Kristen Cheney]

in reply to: Module 1, Session 2: Supervision with a humanizing pedagogy #2122

I completely agree that post-graduate education is about ‘inducting students into a new way of thinking’–but we should also consider the possibility of that being an actual co-production of knowledge, not a one-way street from supervisor to student. In fact, students come with their own set of knowledge and ways of knowing; we should also be open to the transformative possibilities for us a supervisors who can also learn a lot from our students as we also impart knowledge.

[Kristen Cheney]

in reply to: Module 1, Session 2: Variables and dynamics in the supervision process #2121

Given that we are an international institute in The Netherlands, many of these issues come into play. The Dutch often assume a kind of ‘color-blindness’ and yet there is much blatant racism. A recent example was when a professor emeritus was quoted in an article on predatory journals as saying, ‘I work with PhD students from third-world countries, and not all of them are brilliant. We can’t all compete in the Champions’ League’.
Obviously, the PhD community was very upset by this and called for various actions, from apology to censure. But the administration were slow to respond, in some ways hiding behind the excuse of ‘Dutch frankness’.

[Author]

Posts