[Stephen Nguthi]

in reply to: Module 5, Session 1: Project Management and Time Planning #5967

What a great way to organize supervision? My experience as an MSc and PhD student was to the contrary. There was never an agreed plan on anything between myself as a student and the supervisors. Our supervision meetings were not preplanned and depended on whether I had something I needed clarified or assisted about by the supervisors. Even though we could agree on items that needed to be addressed in the thesis, we never agreed on the exact turnaround timelines in advance. Mostly, it was the student’s initiative to request for a meeting to agree on an issue that needed addressing. Considering the PhD study as project and using the various project management tools seems is in deed a clear structural method of completing the studies. This method is easy to use and progress can be tracked from time to time.

[Stephen Nguthi]

in reply to: Module 4, Session 4: Food for thought #5870

Even though there is not a uniform, well defined criteria for PhD assessment, there is great resemblance of the process in many universities world over. The differences arise in the composition of the board of examiners particularly on the numbers and where they are drawn from.

Publications should in deed be part of the PhD assessment world over. Its after publication in a refereed journal that the PhD becomes what it should be. A PhD should solve a problem, and this solution should be shared as a form of published information article.

To guarantee reliability in the evaluation of a PhD, I believe the assessment panel should comprise of members of faculty drawn from outside the university who should be experts in the subject matter. Where possible, members of the panel should be the highly experienced researchers in the subject area globally. This will end the duplication of information and research as it has happened all the years where certain thesis are so similar to each other apart from say where the study was conducted.
In deed both the supervisor and the student learn in the process of the PhD project. To ensure validity of the outcome (the PhD thesis), the panel composed as suggested above would really help.

[Stephen Nguthi]

in reply to: Module 4, Session 4: Food for thought #5869

The path to attaining a PhD from the University of Antwerp is clear. The process is also well marked out with action points at each stage. This is indicative of a process that is thorough and rigorous. There is great value in assessing the research and doctoral education separately. This not only adds rigor to the process but also makes the assessment wholesome. The (bi)annual evaluation is very key to ensuring completion of the PhD projects. Many students who fall off along the way are likely to do so because the University and Supervisors do not check on them from time time to time. The composition of the IPC and Jury is very Critical. As it happens in University of Antwerp, its clear the PhD moves from being an individual project to a public project which should be the case world over. A pre-defence works for the student most of the time. It is during the pre-defence that the student gets to be aware of what to expect in the final VIVA. The student therefore gets to gain confidence while learning about items that they and the supervisors might have left out in the writing of the thesis.

In my university, a PhD student is required to write to the graduate school a notice of intent to submit their final thesis. This notice is required to be received at the graduate school at least a month before the submission date.
Before writing to the graduate school the intent to submit the thesis, students are required to have presented their thesis twice at the school level. These are called pre-submission defences. The school postgraduate faculty give comments to the doctoral candidates thesis based on the presentation by the student and the thesis. The student therefore in writing to the graduate school of their intent to submit the final thesis, gives evidence in the form of written minutes of the final pre-submission defence among other requirements. Upon receiving the notice of intent, the graduate school writes to the school where the doctoral candidate is affiliated asking for the formation of a board of examiners. The board of examiners is constituted of 1 external examiner (from outside the university and who is an expert in the thematic area of the thesis), 2 internal examiners (from the department or school where the student is affiliated), 2 school representatives (1from the affiliated school and one from another school within the university), the dean of the school (who is the senior most member of faculty in the school in most cases), the dean of the graduate school (to chair and convene the defence), and the secretariat who mostly is the school administrator (their role is to record the proceedings of the defence). Members of the public are also invited although they rarely attend.

I believe that the process at the University of Antwerp is much better especially in the composition of the Jury . I would recommend this everywhere else.
What needs to be check everywhere is the nature of publications before submission of final thesis. Even though its a requirement to publish before submission, rarely do supervisors and even the graduate school check where the student publishes. This therefore leads to many students publishing in predatory journals that do not consider quality, just the turnaround time and money paid for publication.

[Stephen Nguthi]

in reply to: Module 4, Session 3: Coaching and Mentoring #5708

A supervisor in the long run becomes both a mentor and a coach. Being that students and supervisors are faced with different challenges ( related and not related top the research project) from time to time, the supervisor switches their role from mentor to coach accordingly. Even though supervision in a research project is required to be confined within the boundaries of the research expertise of the supervisor, there will be instances where the student will be faced with other life challenges that may somehow derail the process of completing the research project. An example is where the student might be faced with family, relationship, financial, health, bereavement, and other life related challenges. During such moments, the supervisor becomes a mentor who helps the candidate navigate the times besides being the coach that takes the student through the step-by-step process of research. At such an instance, the supervisor develops a personal relationship with the candidate and helps them navigate the challenge as a way of finding their way back to the research project.

[Stephen Nguthi]

in reply to: Module 4, Session 1: Ethics in Research #5707

Data storage is an area of great ethical concern in my research environment. Rarely do supervisors or research institutions demand for proper storage of data collected in the research program. Often, the student collects data, interprets the data and no concern is given to where the data is stored, how the date is stored or even how the data will be discarded after the research program. As a supervisor, this presentation has come in good time.

Data integrity is also an important area of ethical consideration. After the investigator is given ethical clearance by the research institution, its also important that the supervisor gets to find put if actually the data presented by the investigator if the actual/true representation of the facts in the field. This is an area that calls for ethical practice by both the supervisor and the investigator. Often times, the investigator and the supervisor are only interested in completing the research project within the given timelines and forget to check this critical ethical requirement.

[Stephen Nguthi]

in reply to: Module 3, Session 3: Research approach and design #5677

The need to understand the research approach and research design is well emphasized in the presentations here. Cleary without a proper conceptualization of the research approach and design, it would be impossible to complete any research project. A well knitted mix of the particular world view(s), research approach and research design makes conducting of a research project almost seamless, enjoyable and easy. It however takes lots of reading and reflections to fit the research problem to the research approach and design.

[Stephen Nguthi]

in reply to: Module 3, Session 3: Disciplinary differences #5676

The understanding of different knowledge structures cannot be emphasized more. Great to note that without a clear understanding of the particular knowledge structure within which one’s research background is founded, it would be very difficult or even impossible to engage in multidisciplinary research. Its imperative that scholars understand both the hierarchical and horizontal knowledge structures in general while being experts in either specifically based on their specialty.
A question would be asked however; should those belonging either of the knowledge structures feel superior/inferior to the others?

[Stephen Nguthi]

in reply to: Module 2, Session 4: EPE resources’ assessment #5583

The resources provided are of a great value. In particular, I find writing and scholarship development; examination and assessment (particularly higher degrees and Viva examination); starting postgraduate study; research design; and, dissemination and publication.

[Stephen Nguthi]

in reply to: Module 2, Session 3: Zoom discussion of key readings #5581

No previous experience in using a reading journal for me. The reading journal idea sounds very noble and its a must try tool as I start my supervision journey with a new cohort of students later this year.

[Stephen Nguthi]

in reply to: Module 2, Session 2: Scholarly community of practice #5456

Academic jealousies are rife particularly in our context in developing countries. This is partly due to the fact that majority of those pursuing postgraduate qualifications are doing it as a means of scaling the career ladder which is often tied to some monetary gains. Therefore, new scholars find themselves in the hands of ‘experienced scholars’ who often consider the new scholars as threats to their jobs.

Moreover, academic jealousies are evident where particular individuals consider themselves the custodians of ‘all the requisite knowledge’ about a particular phenomenon. Often times, such individuals will discount and where possible try to shut down any new scholar who seems to challenge the view point of these individuals. The individuals will therefore go to the greatest length of preventing these ‘new’/’advanced’ voices of coming up researchers. Mostly, this is achieved by keeping out these new scholars from the academic groups either within academic departments of within schools or disciplines.

Academic jealousies are also seen when it comes to writing bids that require competitive bidding. In some institutions there are groups of individuals within academic disciplines and even across academic disciplines where only those members get access to, write and win bids and not any other member or group of academicians. These groups therefore act as cartels trying to outdo each other. The competition is basically due to the monetary gains associated with such grants.

[Stephen Nguthi]

in reply to: Module 1, Session 4: National Policies #5374

In Kenya, the commission of University Education (CUE) is the body that generally controls University education at all levels whether Bachelors, Masters or PhD. The commission is mandated to set standards that guarantee quality university education by regulating and accrediting the universities and degree programs offered by the universities in Kenya.
This body works closely with the Kenya National Qualifications Authority which ideally is meant to survey the labor market and recommend the required skills that training institutions, among them universities should focus on. In the ideal, the training institutions should revise the programs to reflect the recommendations of Kenya National Qualifications Authority. The objectives of these institutions are however realistic in the long term since education is an expensive affair. Review of programs to suit market demand is therefore an expensive affair.

[Stephen Nguthi]

in reply to: Module 1, Session 3: Models of supervision #5367

One-on-one supervision sounds like the ideal. I haven’t experienced it though since in the institution where I did both my MSc and PhD, the practice requires that for thesis option you have a minimum of two supervisors. Around there, one can only have a single supervisor where they are taking the ‘project’ option which is not meant for scholars keen to advance their studies or work as lecturers or work in research institutions.
Co-supervision comes with its share of benefits too, For instance where supervisors complement each others knowledge in guiding the student through their studies. Challenges with this approach stem from undue competition from supervisors in at attempt to show their unmatched “expertise” to the student about a particular subject. Such instances not only slow the student down but also confuse the student in discovering who they truly are in the knowledge world.

[Stephen Nguthi]

in reply to: Module 1, Session 2: Supervision with a humanizing pedagogy #5365

This presentation provides deep insights about the understanding that supervisors should have regarding their students as a way of reducing social exclusion. In particular, one factor that struck me most was funding. Funding postgraduate education is not easy particularly in the developing countries and particularly here in Kenya. Interestingly though, there are many funding opportunities available. Awareness of these funding opportunities however remains a huge challenge. The geographical setup, coupled with access to information beyond school leaves some potentially good postgraduate students out of the academy. In the contrary, the wealthy end up at the academy simply because they can pay for the education.

[Stephen Nguthi]

in reply to: Module 1, Session 2: Variables and dynamics in the supervision process #5362

Age played a significant role during my training at MSc and PhD level. During MSc, my supervisors were relatively almost the same age and no much dynamism with regard to pace of getting feedback, choice of supervision meeting venues and times, turnaround time for feedback, the mode of communication etc. When it came to PhD I realized that age is such a huge factor. my relatively young supervisor wanted things done there and then for instance, he gives you a task, you got to do it and give results very fast. He also preferred correspondences through email, while the other one much elderly preferred meeting face to face all the time with a hardcopy document which he would literally mark word for word page after page. His turnaround time for feedback was also relatively longer.

Another factor that may come to play is where (the institution, country) the supervisor trained and even where they work (a university, a research institution). There has been instances where some scholars regard themselves better trained arguing their colleges were better than where their counterparts went to school. Supervisors who are not attached to universities, for instance those who work at research institutions also experience challenges supervising a student alongside their university counterparts mostly because of work schedules and background.

[Stephen Nguthi]

in reply to: Module 1, Session: Discussion #5361

Very critical argument arises here. One wonders whether it is “the degree for the job” or “the degree for knowledge especially at the level of a doctor of philosophy”. The conclusions here may connect to the sentiments where commercializing academia is seen as a compromise to quality yet we all want to create a global knowledge economy in whose setup knowledge should be accessible to all at equal measure.
It is important that academia recognizes and respects the limits.

[Author]

Posts