Copyright (c) David T Evans, 2021
(The UKCGE Reviewers’ feedback page)
Introduction
In 2019, the United Kingdom Council for Graduate Education launched a programme for research supervision recognition (UKCGE, 2021). After the pilot scheme, the programme opened to the wider community of academic supervisors, permitting a documented route to peer reviewed and recognised professional practice. The work involved production of a personal, reflective, evidenced and assessed portfolio, similar to other forms of professional validation. As author of this case study, I have good experience of similar processes, such as for periodic registration as a nurse / teacher, and portfolios of evidence demonstrating excellence in teaching, for the award of National Teaching Fellow (Evans, 2014) and strategic leadership, for Principal Fellow of the Higher Education Academy (Evans, 2018a). PFHEA is mapped against dimensions of the UK Professional Standards Framework (AdvanceHE, 2020). Reflection and portfolio development, therefore, appear de rigeuer for so many of us in today’s world of academia.
Upon recommendations made by the UKCGE anonymous reviewers, to disseminate learning from this reflective experience (Evans, 2021), this case study demonstrates the process of an individual research supervisor. This current article format is based on the author’s UKCGE portfolio of evidence, upon which Research Supervisor Recognition was conferred in June 2021.
There are ten key elements required in the UKCGE portfolio, taking a holistic approach to the range of attributes and functions required of supervisors and their relations with supervisees, co-supervisors and the process of supervision. Citing Beddoe and Egan (2009), Stephens (2014: p. 539) states that “there is no gold-standard model of supervision which can be applied in all situations, across all disciplines”; therefore, this case study is just one person’s example, nothing more.
Mapping across the ten key elements of the UKCGE’s research supervision
Recruitment and selection
Unlike institutions that have applicants in the driving seat, checking out potential academics they wish to supervise them (Holloway & Walker, 2000) the practice of recruitment and selection in the author’s own Faculty is different. It is an eclectic model, depending on variations due to programmes, whether PhD (in health sciences) or Professional Doctorate in Education (EdD) (different Schools / same Faculty).
Candidates approach the University for several reasons, with different entry criteria per programme. They are interviewed by the respective Programme Leaders and colleagues, not necessarily potential / applicant-preferred supervisors. However, I have a proven track record in recruitment to both programmes, with high levels of awareness from how candidates initially approach me for advice in my subject specialist area. I guide them, enlist them and / or re-direct as appropriate. My recruiting activities are not limited to my own institution. I have signposted a number of my former masters’ students and practitioners in my specialist networks to different types of professional doctorates elsewhere, such as professional doctorates in health / clinical nursing through to Dr in Public Health, usually followed up with an academic reference from me.
The professional doctorate in education (EdD)
At our institution, as candidates complete their two-year taught programme, they transition to the research and thesis phase of the EdD. It is at that point that potential supervisors are approached by the Programme Leader. As with PhD candidates, selection of supervisors may be made for subject matter expertise (SME); supervisory experience (3+ completions); needing to gain experience / make up the team, and / or capacity of Balanced Academic Workload (BAW) (Vitae, 2021).
The first candidate I supervised was a senior colleague in my own department (now, Dr Deborah Watkins, left). I was appointed to be second supervisor to a different colleague, shadowing the Faculty’s most experienced doctoral supervisor. This supervisor – Francia Kingchington, centre – had over 30 successful completions, a plethora of national and international examinations, a former EdD Programme Leader, and no doctorate herself. The candidate we were appointed to wasn’t available when we went to meet him, but another EdD student was sitting close by, sharing the same office. The experienced supervisor asked the student what her research was about and who was supervising her. The student said she had not been appointed to anyone as yet, and that her research was on topics close to the heart of this experienced supervisor, and spirituality (I used to be a Catholic priest!). So, we both ‘volunteered’ to supervise her there and then; she thought it was a truly “serendipitous” opportunity. We supervised her successfully, and she graduated in good time with exceptionally minor amendments. This is a clear example of QAA (2014: p. 12) requirements that “supervisors [have] the necessary skills and knowledge to support research students in working towards the successful completion of their research degrees”.
Matching candidates with supervisors
My University operates a team approach of two or three supervisors, per candidate. This procedure takes into consideration the range of requirements outlined above. Although I completed the initial, compulsory, 3 days’ training for new supervisors, I was inexperienced as a supervisor at the time I took on my first three candidates, all in the same year. I eagerly read two key textbooks, by Peelo (2011) and Wisker (2005), plus a range of articles and watched some Good Viva Company videos on YouTube.
In that first year, when I was second supervisor to the departmental colleague, above, and first supervisor, as SME, to two others, I was guided, mentored and supported by some highly experienced supervisors, allowing me to constantly aim at being an ‘authentic mentor’ myself (Al Makhamreh and Stockley, 2019).
The supervisory relationship with candidates
“A functional supervisor-student relationship is one of the most important determinants of success in the doctoral journey” (Johannsen et al. 2019). I believe the relationship is not one of omniscient guru, with ‘wet behind the ears’ novice, but, as Torralba (2019) states, “when a professor / student relationship begins, there is a need to combine two wills [… It is] a relationship of equals”. Stephens (2014), citing and echoing Vilkinas (2002: p. 539) suggests that “good supervisors have research knowledge, management and interpersonal skills, and are: innovative; problem solvers; resource orientated; work focused; technical experts; decisive; and dependable.”
To be the best supervisor I can be, not only did I undertake the initial required training, predominantly on the processes of research degrees administration, followed by training days with the company, Vitae, but I continue to participate in other institutional shared opportunities. These include updates; formal and informal researcher networks, and cross-faculty events. Despite being an accomplished author in various sectors, in late March 2021, I undertook further training on ‘writing for publications’, focusing more on enabling students to write for higher impact academic publications.
My candidates have been 7 cis-gender females and 2 males. The 2 males and 1 (international) female were external candidates, all others were colleagues within my own School. All but the two males have been older than many traditional candidates across other disciplines (between 35 – 60 years old) with at least 15 years each as (senior) health care / educational professionals. Carter, Blumenstein and Cook (2013) outline various pressures many young – especially female – candidates have in their lives, outside of study. Pressures might include job insecurity or transience e.g. short-term contracts; relationships; family matters; caring responsibilities, cost of studies. The pressures on my own candidates have been equally pressing. Some have had to juggle heavy teaching workloads; managing families; caring for sick or dying parents; workloads and Regulatory Body CPD requirements, as well as supplementary developments such as Senior or Principal Fellowship of the Higher Education Academy. There are newer demands on time, due to the Covid-19 pandemic, which I have addressed across the institution and disseminated to over 1,500 views (Evans, 2020a), all whilst trying to maintain a healthy work-study-life balance. Most of these collegiate supervisees are aspirational mid-career professionals, on an upward trajectory, undertaking doctoral studies to enhance their academic professionalisation and / or achieve promotion.
Although Phillips and Pugh’s (2015) section on joint supervision seems rather demeaning from my own institution’s process of normalising 2 – 3 supervisors per team, Wisker’s (2005) chapter 9, entitled: “A little too close to home: supervising your colleagues and / or other practice / professional-based research”, considers excellent points when a) supervising colleagues; b) they are senior in the organisational structure to the supervisor, and c) when supervisors themselves may be new to the practice! In some ways, it is like the model of “See one! Do one! Teach – or in this case: supervise – One!” (Evans, 2019a).
Two difficulties I have had to learn to manage with supervisees, the first on which I have reflected and written a blog page on (Evans, 2019b), are i) candidates’ expectations e.g. of feedback turn-around times, which I now set out in our initial meeting as a learning contract, and, ii) when, despite all best efforts, two or more candidates complete and want their final drafts commented on at the same time. It’s like waiting for the proverbial bus … then three come along together! These difficulties are over and above what Carter, Kingston-Miller and Courtney (2017: p. 13) talk about in relation to “communication, overall project management and thesis writing”. Fortunately, my combined experiences of supervision and examinations have resulted in all of my supervisees passing their final examinations on first attempt, with only minor amendments.
The supervisory relationship with co-supervisors
Our institution’s team approach to supervision and the dynamics of relationships between colleagues involved in this significant relationship with the candidate, is, in my experience, a mix of mainly the good, sometimes the bad and occasionally the ugly, similar to Al Makhamreh and Stockley’s (2019) ‘authentic / average / below average or toxic’ relationships.
As Mainhard et al. (2009: 360) suggest: “several problems in the supervisor–doctoral candidate relationship may emerge”. These situations possibly occur more when teams are appointed, rather than when individuals consider and volunteer for collaboration. For example, so many authors of ‘good supervisor’s advice’ talk of a clash of egos or other ‘power dynamics’ of personality idiosyncrasies (Johansen, Olsen, Øverby, Garred and Enoksen, 2019). It is important to acknowledge tensions and difficulties, then, applying a good counselling model, either resolve them or work to manage them better. After all, this is for the benefit of the candidate, our paying customer!
Burgess, Sieminski and Arthur (2006), Gunnarsson, Jonasson and Billhult (2013) and Phillips and Pugh (2015) talk about what to do when things go wrong. However, this usually refers to supervisor / supervisee relationship, not so much between team colleagues.
Our team of three might consist of subject matter expert, doctoral procedural expert (3+ successful completions) and a third supervisor, who may also be from one of those former categories or someone totally new to supervising. A supervising ‘newbie’ may be part of the team for mentoring or for experience; sometimes they might feel like a ‘spare part’. In the worst-case scenario, a third supervisor might be present simply for clocking up completions. They may not even feature in formal research administration documentation (which typically asks for signatures of 1st and 2nd supervisors). This situation detracts from the fact that third supervisors may actually do a lot of the work, especially stepping in where / when the other two can’t, or provide moral support, pastoral concern, or advocacy for the candidate’s well-being. In these cases, the 3rd supervisor may not get full recognition even in their BAW (Balanced Academic Workload) allocation.
A problem exists where supervisors may be so divergent in theoretical expertise as well as personalities, they appear unable to manage the incongruence or disconnect. My own, earlier in life experience, of supervisory problems, including being supervised by a supervising PhD student just about to complete herself, resulted in me completing 40,000 words of a 60K words MPhil thesis in the last 5 weeks before the submission deadline, therefore having to submit for viva voce examination without the supervisors seeing the final full draft: not to be recommended (Evans, 2018b)!
Conversely, a positive example to end this section concerns one of my first three supervisory candidates. Although new to supervision myself, I was appointed as first supervisor because of subject matter expertise, to be supported and mentored by an exceptionally experienced professor, as second supervisor. We also had a theoretical expert, an external, retired professor, appointed for collaboration as-and-when-needed by the candidate. This situation worked exceptionally well. The candidate had joint supervision with supervisors 1 and 2 monthly, then visited the third supervisor, as a theoretical sounding-board – or for lunch – on an ad hoc basis.
Sadly, the second supervisor suddenly became ill and died. It was important for me to support the candidate through this loss, as well as to carry on with monthly meetings. With University permission, the 3rd supervisor, although unpaid and uncontracted, stepped up without any hesitation into the role of second supervisor and became a perfect role model to me. The candidate graduated in good time, with minimum amendments, despite feeling overwhelmed (with emotions of relief, I think), straight after the viva voce examination.
Supporting candidates’ research projects
Similar to recruitment (section 1, above), I have numerous departmental colleagues ask my advice on research topics before they formally apply for doctoral studies. These meetings explore researchable ideas and to clarify whether they would be best suited for PhD or EdD candidacy. I use this quote (sadly, I do not remember the source) with educational colleagues: “the big difference between PhD and Professional Doctorates is that a PhD qualifies one to be a professional academic; the Prof Doc qualifies the candidate to be an academic professional”. The decision is totally theirs, but I see great benefits in higher education teachers undertaking a professional doctorate in education (EdD). This is despite the ‘snob value’ expressed in an earlier edition of Phillips and Pugh (1994), who considered anything other than a traditional DPhil / PhD was more akin to a ‘glorified masters’!
Supporting VC Scholars
I have been first supervisor (SME) – on sexualities and Queer theories (Shlasko, 2006) – to one VC Scholar, whom, despite what I have said above, I personally recruited. Since then, I have been requested as second supervisor for a scholarship on thanatology (death and dying) and spirituality, both, of which I have experience of as a nurse and former Catholic priest.
Supporting the VC Scholar included exceptionally tough times, not least because he had a very disruptive start to his programme. This situation was completely outside of his and my control. I was intricately involved in keeping him on board, through totally re-designing his study with him, managing transition of a number of other supervisors who left our HEI over time, and finally the joy of watching him graduate. I also mentored him for FHEA during this period and gave a reference for his current senior lecture’s post at another institution. He reciprocated the references, by being the former doctoral candidate referee for me, on the UKCGE programme. His closing words in the reference stated:
(Photo: Dr Fanner and me, receiving our Queen’s Nurse award, Queen’s Nursing Institute ceremony, November 2022)
“David was […] a true motivation for me to become a (now) Senior Lecturer, and I am soon to become a doctoral supervisor myself – with the voice in my head telling me ‘be like Professor Evans for my future supervisees”.
Dr Michael Fanner, 2021
Other dimensions of support
Gunnarsson, Jonasson and Billhult’s (2013) suggest support for dealing with uncertainty. “The student thinks about nothing else, and you [the supervisor] think about it sometimes for one hour every three or four weeks. So it is quite difficult in a PhD supervision session to get up to date, to get your mind up to speed as quickly as you need, so you occasionally find yourself being outmanoeuvred, and outthought by the student” (2013: p. 3).
Using the metaphor of a car’s clutch and acceleration pedals, gliding past each other in opposite directions, it is important for supervisors to remember that as candidates become the expert in their field of study, our roles change incrementally. We shift to enabling them to grow and move on, facilitating their knowledge and skills in research and their development as (the) new subject experts (Dunlevy 2003). Therefore, I encourage candidates to debate with others, in-house, at (inter-) national conferences, and virtually, via Twitter, to build up networks and widen influence. In these endeavours, I am therefore guiding them, supporting creative thinking, intellectual growth and academic citizenship.
Encouraging candidates to write and giving them appropriate feedback
“I was starting to enjoy this; now, more bloody Foucault!” I have to laugh, but that was a comment from one of my own doctoral supervisors, a wise and kind person, whom I totally trusted and respected. My two professorial EdD supervisors taught me through example how to be a good supervisor: kind and compassionate, and – hopefully – a role model to my own mentees, for when they take over supervising the next generation. As Peelo (2011: p. 23) states, “it is a rare and deft supervisor who can regularly challenge students yet encourage confidence and growth at the same time”.
(Photo: somewhere off the internet: sorry, not attribution)
My mentees know my style of commenting (and humour) and hopefully take remarks in good spirit, as feed-forward for improvement. With one candidate who wrote pages of descriptive material, I commented “This is like watching paint dry!”, followed up pages later by “the paint is still wet!”. I added a smiley emoji, to affirm that the comments were meant utterly without negativity, always to inspire positive actions. Giving copious feedback is something I am renowned for, addressing work at a micro-level of analysis; every typo, grammatical improvement to be made, as well as wider macro-level commentary.
A benefit of team supervision is the fact that we are all different and come to candidates’ work from numerous angles. One supervisor may be focused on macro-level comments, others good at epistemologies (Evans, 2019c) or methods, subject matter expertise, or administrative processes; we all bring our own unique skills. Similar to Johansen et al., (2019) I perceive this system as a most constructive arrangement for the majority, though not all, candidates.
Finally, a motif for writing encouragement I use with candidates is of waves rolling in on a sandy beach. Each time waves come in, they go a bit further up, then roll back again, only to add to a greater depth, out of which the next wave comes in even further. So it is with thesis writing, especially when candidates feel stuck or demotivated. I encourage them to see each piece of work they write as an incremental draft – even building up just 5 minutes at a time (Thomson, 2021a) – pushing forward, growing in depth with each attempt. This is similar to Burgess, Sieminski and Arthur’s (2006: p. 26) comment, for “synthesising layers of intensity and perspectives”. Candidates expect comments from supervisors until their final thesis has been examined and passed. Only at that point does work cease to be a draft.
Keeping the research on track and monitoring progress
Life happens! Life often gets in the way of best laid plans. So it is with doctoral candidates: they aim to finish in a timely fashion, making numerous Gantt chart revisions to support them, but then life happens!
In my experience, some candidates have been ill; some have suffered one or more significant bereavements; some have had job changes – contrary to what Phillips and Pugh (2015) recommend – or promotion or additional work-loads and extra employment responsibilities allocated to them, especially for healthcare professionals in the era of Covid-19. That’s all on top of supervisors leaving (or, sadly, dying). Candidates sometimes take an ‘interruption to studies’; many opt to carry on as best they can, but risk feeling the ticking clock of a completion deadline as an onerous burden.
When candidates are off track, it is important for supervisors to be compassionate with pastoral care. Adapting Peelo (2011: pp. 44-45): “It is about learning how to work gently through the discomfort that accompanies writing blocks [or need to take time out / step back] little by little [giving] human support and understanding, not judgement”. This approach taps into my life-long teaching motto, that “honey goes down easier than vinegar”.
For supporting candidates – and supporting us supervisors to support the candidates – we have a well-run Research Degrees Administration service, with a timely array of forms and processes. The ‘RDA’ forms are at the start of candidacy, enabling students to work out timeframes of what can realistically be achieved, as well the staged MPhil to PhD upgrade processes for PhD candidates. There are annual reports, University Research Ethics Committee approval, and ‘intent to submit for examination’, with allocation of final examiners forms. All these administrative processes may appear tedious, taking candidates away from getting on with the work of their thesis, but they actually contribute well to the process, encouraging them to think of it thoroughly, holistically and multi-dimensionally (Lee, 2008).
I have also been fortunate to spend one whole academic year on the Faculty Research Degrees Committee, giving insights into progress and struggles different candidates experience, along with ethical and compassionate ways to deal with difference.
Wisker (2005) promotes the establishing and maintaining of good supervision practices, especially on boundaries and roles, with knock-on impacts on expectations from both the candidate and supervisor(s), points on which I have addressed variously across this reflection. For added good supervision practices, encouraging candidates to keep on track, I also send spontaneous e-mails (or Direct Messages on Twitter) of encouragement, especially if I haven’t heard from a candidate for a while, or if I know they have had some tough personal issues. Another opportunity for keeping candidates on track is when they ask for a reference, such as for a new job. It is an activity that is outside of the routine supervisory relationship, yet gives one the privilege of advocating for the candidate and supporting them in other ways.
Supporting candidates’ personal, professional and career development
In line with BERA (2018: p. 35) our university has clear strategies for promoting personal, professional and career developments through the ‘Graduate Attributes’ initiative, enhancing students’ academic citizenship and developing well-being for them as people and learners-for-life. We focus on ‘Scholarship and Autonomy’, ‘Creativity and Enterprise’, and ‘Cross-Cultural and International Awareness’ (UoG, n.d.). The need for empowering and facilitating student creativity is important as, according to Brodin (2018), this is variable across institutions and disciplines, and doesn’t always happen.
Each element of the ‘Graduate Attributes’ initiative interrelated particularly well with one of my candidates, who was an over-seas student. The student and I had regular supervisions via Skype / Zoom. Reflecting on the dynamics of the supervision was particularly important due to cultural differences as much as cultural similarities (Carter, Kensington-Miller and Courtney, 2017; Koshy et al., 2017). She graduated a few years ago, and we are still working together on publications.
As part of her own professional development, being one of the lead sexual health promotion experts in her country, she had to organise a national conference. The conference was evaluated as a great success and had widespread media attention. She did TV, radio and newspaper interviews, with ground-breaking discussions in very conservative and Catholic Malta. The conference was opened by the Secretaries of State for Education and for Health, and included me as the keynote presenter (Evans, 2015). The theme was around the topic of her doctoral studies (Farrugia, 2017; 2018). This whole process confirmed to me that I was doing right, not least regarding this candidate, but also to my wider approach with the ‘internationalising of the academy’ (Carter, Kensington-Miller and Courtney, 2017; Kumar, Kumar and Taylor, 2020).
We also have a motto “you said / we did”, so that if students, as individuals or through various bodies or feedback mechanisms, highlight developments that could or should be made, we, as teachers and supervisors promise to do our best to achieve these.
There are several examples I can use to demonstrate this practice, especially having helped develop my supervisees – personally, professionally and academically – over and above their research studies alone. For example, I am a mentor and assessor for various levels of Fellowship of the Higher Education Academy. Our PhD candidates undertake short in-house training to be effective presenters to others, e.g. via teaching sessions and conferences. As part of their teaching experience, they can map learning across for Associate Fellowship (AFHEA). I have mentored 2 AFHEAs outside of my own supervisory cohort. I have also mentored another for full Fellowship (FHEA), which confers HE Qualified Teacher Status, and mentored him, further, post-doctoral graduation, through his first teaching post and given him a reference for senior lectureship elsewhere. These examples are emblematic of my love of teaching: a life-style not a job (Evans, 2018c).
I also mentored my first doctoral supervisee for SFHEA and am currently advocate to one of my other supervisees (EdD) and a co-supervisor, both for PFHEA. These are lots of balls to be juggling in the air, but it shows the ways in which the candidates’ doctoral studies are also intricately linked to their wider personal, professional and ‘multi-potentialite’ development (Wapnick, 2015).
For HEAcademy Fellowship mentoring, I undertake annual updating and participate as a regular member of assessment panels. This process (of now, having mentored 10 SFHEAs, 6 currents, and advocate to 4 PFHEAs) affords me learning on how to be a good mentor and advocate, developing the skills I share within the process of doctoral supervision.
Supporting candidates through completion and final examination
QAA (2014) Indicator 9 states that “Higher education providers appoint supervisors with the appropriate skills and subject knowledge to support and encourage research students, and to monitor their progress effectively”. Many publications provided by the UK Council for Graduate Education demonstrate doctoral supervision varying, not just across continents or educational systems, but within countries and disciplines, too. Gunnarsson, Jonasson and Billhult (2013: p. 6) explain the need for a “learning alliance” between candidate, supervisor(s) and university, for all these dynamisms (powers) of academic endeavour to come together in a successful manner for a productive outcome.
Two points for sure: i) it is in everyone’s best interest that candidates proceed successfully through to completion and examination; and that, ii) supervisors have a key role to play in the whole production of initial ideas, through the research process and writing-up, to those final hurdles of examination and beyond (Mainhard et al. 2009). As Smith (2015: pp. 119-120) declares: “The supervisor […] has a role in helping encourage the student to see how their work links to a wider body of knowledge and supports them in the writing-up of their thesis.”
Prof Jill Jameson, with my husband, John, and me, at my EdD graduation, 2011
Prof Liz Meerabeau, and me, at our School graduations, 2011
Following examples of my own two great supervisors, Profs Jameson and Meerabeau (Evans, 2018d), I help prepare candidates both by indicating on their final full draft areas I think they might be examined on, challenging them to think laterally in potential responses, and then by conducting real-to-life-experiences mock viva voce examinations.
Completing the doctorate is just the next step into a new life; it is the end of one stage of apprenticeship but opening-up of new opportunities and life-chances. To this end, I have made it a practice that whenever I accompany my supervisees to viva voce examination, no matter what the outcome could be, I always present them with a congratulatory card – for getting that far – and a bottle of Champagne.
One of the earliest external examinations I undertook had to be referred on first attempt. I went through those ‘pangs of conscience’ as to whether I was being overly rigorous in examination, but both the internal examiner and the experienced other external (to mentor me) were all in agreement. Then, one of my own candidates, who handled the examination process so expertly and so knowledgably, came out and just sobbed and sobbed, partly with relief, partly with frustration. Another candidate received comments from both the very experienced internal and external examiners that this was the best viva they had ever conducted, and the one with greatest high-level philosophical debate.
All these experiences, from my own examinations (especially the EdD, which I truly loved and would have liked an audience at!) through to those I have witnessed silently as supervisor, as Chair, and as external examiner, all mean that I can synthesise a collective learning for each candidate I have the honour of preparing for their own final examination.
Supporting candidates to disseminate their research
Richards (2021) emphasises the importance of researchers telling their story, by exploring what is to be told, and the how, when and why of dissemination. It is important, ab initio, i.e. from the get-go, and not just to wait for an end-point magnum opus to sit on a shelf collecting dust. In my head, I know this! However, it is not always easy to get candidates to write for publication; easier to support them disseminating in other ways, such as at conference presentations. This is an area of supervision I need to work on more, hence my participation in a ‘writing for academic publications’ study day, late in March 2021.
Fortunately, I have had good personal successes writing for publication with a number of Masters’ graduates. I also share with candidates, early on, the Vancouver Protocols, explaining to them the conventions of co-authorship (ICMJE, 2021), and encouraging them to sign up to ResearchGate.net and Google Scholar, for generating their ResearchGate score, and their h- and i-indices.
As part of the candidate’s wider academic citizenship development, dissemination to professional, academic (and service-user) audiences is important – and good ethical practice (BERA, 2018). I emphasise the importance of candidates getting their ideas, their learning and their writings “out there”. To this end, I have designed a 20 credit Level 7 module, “The dynamics of dissemination: publishing, promoting and performing your studies”, elements of which I share with Level 8 candidates.
The candidates I supervise are almost exclusively health and social care professionals; therefore, many are familiar with attending conferences (although maybe not presenting). Conferences are an important part of wider CPD and networking opportunities. In their role as doctoral candidates, I encourage them to present, be this with posters (Evans, 2019d), workshops or presentations.
Building skills of dissemination can enhance the candidate’s networking potential, meeting other academics, being seen and becoming known to others. This is true, also, with writing for publication. Again, to boost the candidate’s dissemination credentials, I also share resources I teach on, using social media for academic dissemination (Mollett, Moran and Dunleavy (2011), especially via real-time capability of TweetDeck, e.g. whilst listening to, learning from, then sharing learning and networking with others.
It is my experience that most candidates put so much intellectual energy into doctoral studies – plus professional work / the ‘day job’ – that writing for high impact journals is an onerous task they often put on the ‘back-burner’, until they have capacity of time and energy, typically after examination. That said, I am currently working on publications with 1 current EdD candidate and some former doctoral supervisees who graduated 1 – 4 years ago.
Some candidates draw benefit from practicing different writing styles, too, so that the ‘tough’ work of writing at Level 8, or for academic journals, can be enhanced by writing for different audiences, telling their stories (of research) in different ways. I encourage candidates to write blogs for their own or other people’s web pages, especially of other academics or various professional fora.
To support candidates’ learning in this endeavour, I have produced a Wakelet page (Evans, 2019e). Dunlevy (2003: p. 241), an inspirational researcher who once taught me, says “The first barrier new authors face is a psychological one”. From experience, I would say that some of these psychological barriers include tiredness (especially for part-time candidates, having to juggle paid employment on top of their studies and life); imposter syndrome (Cannon-Brookes, 2017); having to learn new styles of authoring and being prepared for rejection (which is often confusing for novice writers, especially if their materials have been approved in doctoral works, by supervisors / examiners).
Finally, I run writing workshops (Evans, 2020b), on my Masters’ programmes (Evans, 2020c) and one-to-one or small groups with doctoral candidates. In our Faculty, we have set up peer review workshops to encourage authorship. Additionally, the EdD candidates do specific training and ‘EdD weekend conferences’, and are required to complete four disseminations in the taught element of the programme before transition to the research phase.
Reflecting upon and enhancing practice
“Since leadership is about change, academic leaders [I would postulate, supervisors, too] must themselves constantly be changing” (Ramsden, 2000: p. 231).
Regular reflective practice is part of the DNA of registered nurses – especially with periodic registration obligations – as well as for teachers (Bulman, Lathlean and Gobbi, 2012). This practice falls within the domain of what I refer to as CPPD, not just CPD: Continuing Professional Development, where the additional ‘P’ is for Personal. I do not see how I can grow as a professional without developing as a whole person, or vice-versa. This belief is encapsulated in my approach to pastoral concern for candidates, especially as numbers of them have experienced a range of health, relational and well-being challenges during their doctoral journey.
Reflection, to enhance practice, has featured high in my successful applications for National Teaching Fellowship (2014) (the UK’s highest achievement of excellence in HE teaching), Principal Fellowship of the Higher Education Academy (certification for strategic leadership of learning and education) (2018) as well as in the application for a direct jump from a doctoral supervising senior lecturer through to full professor. Reflection goes hand in hand with enhancing practice and striving for excellence, including the humility to recognise when things go wrong, and to apologise. To that end, I have already started writing some of these reflections as blog pages (Evans, 2018e).
Reflection, in and on my supervisory practice, with 9 doctoral candidates and soon-to-be 8 external examinations, takes many different formats (Koshy et al. 2017). It may be reflection on the supervisor-supervisee relationship, or on the dynamics – even tensions – within supervisory teams (Lee, 2010). Reflection can also be on notions of ‘imposter syndrome’ (Cannon-Brookes, 2017), such as when a supervisee looks upon a supervisor as the one who is meant or expected to be all-knowing, and yet the relationship is rapidly shifting from that position to one of co-travellers, on a journey of discovery together. Imposter syndrome is also important to manage when a supervisor feels outside their sphere of competence, such as when co-opted on to teams without field-specific knowledge.
To enhance my practice and provision of supervision, it is important for me to reflect on what is going well, what feels wrong, what could be better, and then to avail myself of all opportunities to attend to any gap and / or redress the balance. The effective techniques I have used for reflection – including for the UKCGE application – are enhanced by personal study, through numerous in-house CPD initiatives, and by participating in informal supervisors’ networks.
I believe that reflection is also important for pastoral concerns within the supervisory relationship, not least helping candidates, colleagues and me to effectively manage the competing demands of work-study-life-(im-)balance. Finally, formal exploratory reflection has also aided me in dealing with difficult situations, and learning how to grow through them, as Coulter-Thomson (2016: p. 81) says, moving from victim through survivor to thriver.
References
AdvanceHE (2020) UK Professional Standards Framework (PSF)¸ AdvanceHE, [formerly the Higher Education Academy], cited at https://www.advance-he.ac.uk/guidance/teaching-and-learning/ukpsf cited on: 01/08/2021
Al Makhamreh, M., Stockley, D. (2019) Mentorship and well-being: Examining doctoral students’ lived experiences in doctoral supervision context, International Journal of Mentoring and Coaching in Education, Vol. 9 Issue 1 (on line) cited at: https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/IJMCE-02-2019-0013/full/html?skipTracking=true cited on 01/03/2021
Beddoe L., Egan R. (2009) ‘Social Work Supervision’, in Connolly M., Harms L. (eds) Social Work: Contexts and Practice, pp. 410–22, 2nd edn. Melbourne: Oxford University Press.
BERA (2018) BERA Ethical Guidelines for Ethical Research, Fourth Edition, British Educational Research Association, cited at: https://www.bera.ac.uk/publication/ethical-guidelines-for-educational-research-2018 cited on 01/03/2021
Brodin, E.M. (2018) The stifling silence around scholarly creativity in doctoral education: experiences of students and supervisors in four disciplines, Higher Education, 75:655–673 https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10734-017-0168-3
Bulman, C., Lathlean, J. and Gobbi, M. (2012) The concept of reflection in nursing: Qualitative findings on student and teacher perspectives, Nurse Education Today, Vol. 32 (5)July 2012: e8-e13 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22071273/
Burgess, H., Seiminski, S. and Arthur, L. (2006) Achieving Your Doctorate in Education, London, Sage Publications
Cannon-Brookes, M. (2017) How you can use Imposter syndrome to your benefit, TedX-Sydney, Cited at: https://www.ted.com/talks/mike_cannon_brookes_how_you_can_use_impostor_syndrome_to_your_benefit?utm_campaign=tedspread&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=tedcomshare Cited on: 24/02/2021
Carlton, D. L., Rodriguez, N.M. (Ed.s) (2019) Michel Foucault and Sexualities and Genders in Education: Friendship and Ascesis, Switzerland, Palgrave MacMillan
Carter, S., Blumenstein, M. and Cook, C. (2013) Different for women? The challenges of doctoral studies, Teaching in Higher Education, 18:4, pp. 339-351, cited at: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/13562517.2012.719159 cited on 02/02/2021
Carter, S., Kensington-Miller, B. and Courtney, M. (2017) Doctoral Supervision Practice: What’s the Problem and How Can We Help Academics? Journal of Perspectives in Applied Academic Practice, Vol. 5 (10): pp. 13-22 cited at: https://jpaap.napier.ac.uk/index.php/JPAAP/article/view/235/pdf cited on 24/02/2021
Cohen, L., Manion, L. and Morrison K. (2018) Research Methods in Education, 8th Edition, Oxford, London and New York, Routledge
Coulter-Thompson, E. (2016) Queering healthy sexuality, Patterson, J. (ed)(2016) Queering Sexual Violence, Radical voices from within the anti-violence movement, Riverdale Avenue Books, New York, pp. 75-82
Dunleavy, P. (2003) Authoring a PhD: how to plan, draft, write and finish a doctoral thesis or dissertation, Basingstoke, Hampshire and New York, Palgrave Study Guides
Evans, D.T. (2014) Dr David Evans – National Teaching Fellow, cited at: https://drdavidtevansntfhea.wordpress.com/ cited on 01/03/2021
Evans, D.T. (2015) Sharing Learning Outside the Classroom: Being Ex-PLISSIT with SRE in Malta, #EXPLISSITMALTA, 3 October 2015, at the Mediterranean Conference Centre, Valetta; cited at: https://drdavidtevanstel.wordpress.com/explissit-malta/ cited on 01/03/2021
Evans, D.T. (2018a) Principal Fellowship of the Higher Education Academy – journey of an NTF, cited at: https://drdavidevanspfhea.wordpress.com/ cited on 01/03/2021
Evans, D.T. (2018b) Vivat academia! Vivant professores! “I’m in a big black hole, and there’s no light …!”cited at:https://vivatacademiavivantprofessores.wordpress.com/im-in-a-big-dark-hole-and-theres-no-light/ cited on 01/03/2021
Evans, D.T. (2018c) Vivat academia! Vivant professores! “Being a professor is a life-style, not a job”, cited at: https://vivatacademiavivantprofessores.wordpress.com/being-a-professor-is-a-life-style-not-a-job/ cited on 01/03/2021
Evans, D.T. (2018d) Vivat academia! Vivant professores! Chalk and Cheese – my 2 supervisors, cited at: https://vivatacademiavivantprofessores.wordpress.com/chalk-and-cheese-my-2-supervisors/ cited on 01/03/2021
Evans, D.T. (2018e) Vivat academia! Vivant professores! The journey begins, cited at: https://vivatacademiavivantprofessores.wordpress.com/ cite don 01/03/2021
Evans, D.T. (2019a) AdvanceHE Blogs,‘See one! Do one! Teach one!’ cited at: https://www.advance-he.ac.uk/news-and-views/senior-fellows-see-one-do-one-teach-one cited on 01/03/2021
Evans, D.T. (2019b) Vivat academia! Vivant professores! “I want my life back!” cited at: https://vivatacademiavivantprofessores.wordpress.com/i-want-my-life-back/ cited on: 01/03/2021
Evans, D.T. (2019c) The Nature of Knowledge, cited at: https://express.adobe.com/page/Uc1aCwqwaxn4E/ cited on 01/03/2021
Evans, D.T. (2019d) Inspiring Learning Excellence: the art of poster presentations, cited at: https://express.adobe.com/page/r9NtXeOpsZB8n/ cited on 01/03/2021
Evans, D.T. (2019e) Dynamics of Dissemination: virtual ways of sharing your learning and research, cited at https://wke.lt/w/s/WNS50P cited on 01/03/2021
Evans, D.T. (2020) Don’t just think outside the box … exploring e-learning ~ologies in light of Covid-19, cited at https://express.adobe.com/page/HJXwxytPOXUYH/ cited at 01/03/2021
Evans, D.T. (2020b) Writing for publications, cited at: https://express.adobe.com/page/AFHKJbYTcZwLz/ cite don 01/03/2021
Evans, D.T. (2020c) Understanding level 7ness: how to achieve well in your academic studies, cited at:https://express.adobe.com/page/HF6SmCA3vUk5q/ cited on 01/03/2021
Evans, D.T. (2021) UKCGE Supervisor’s recognition: ten years and counting, cited at: https://vivatacademiavivantprofessores.wordpress.com/supervisors-recognition-2021/ cited on: 01/03/2021
Farrugia, J. (2017) Maltese parents’ role as sexuality and relationships educators, University of Greenwich, PhD (unpublished) thesis.
Farrugia, J, (2018) Talking with Dr Farrugia, of the Prime Minister’s Office in Malta (video), cited at: https://davidtevans.wordpress.com/2019/03/31/alison-hadley-obe-honduniv/ cited on: 15/03/2021
FindAPhD.com (2020) What to expect from a PhD supervisor, cited at: https://www.findaphd.com/advice/doing/phd-supervisor-expectations.aspx cited on: 07/03/2021
Gunnarsson, R., Jonasson, G., Billhult, A. (2013), The experience of disagreement between students and supervisors in PhD education: a qualitative study, BMC Medical Education, 13: p. 134 cited at: http://www.biomedcentral.com/1472-6920/13/134 cited on 01/03/2021
Holloway, I. and Walker, J. (2000) Getting a PhD in Health and Social Care, Blackwell Science, Oxford and London
ICMJE (2021) Defining the roles of authors and contributors, International Committee of Medical Journal Editors, cited at: http://www.icmje.org/recommendations/browse/roles-and-responsibilities/defining-the-role-of-authors-and-contributors.html cited on 15/03/2021
Johansen, B.T., Olsen, R.M., Øverby, N.C., Garred, R. and Enoksen, E. (2019) Team supervision of doctoral students: a qualitative inquiry, International Journal of Doctoral Studies, Vol. 14: pp. 69-84, cited at: https://nordopen.nord.no/nord-xmlui/bitstream/handle/11250/2660396/Johansen.pdf?sequence=4 cited on 10/03/2021
Koshy, K., Limb, C., Gundogan, B., Whitehurst, K. and Jafree, D.J. (2017) Reflective practice in health care and how to reflect effectively, International Journal of Surgery: Oncology, (2017) 2(6):e20, cited at: DOI: http://doi.org/10.1097/IJ9.0000000000000020 cited on: 28/02/2021
Kumar, S., Kumar, V. and Taylor, S. (2020) A Guide to Online Supervision, UK Council for Graduate Education, Litchfield, Staffs. Retrieved from: https://supervision.ukcge.ac.uk/cms/wp–‐content/uploads/A–‐Guide–‐to–‐Online–‐Supervision–‐Kumar–‐Kumar–‐Taylor–‐UK–‐Council–‐for–‐Graduate–‐Education.pdf
Lee, A. (2008) How are doctoral students supervised? Concepts of doctoral research supervision, Studies in Higher Education, Vol 33 (3), June 2008: pp. 267-281 cited at: https://epubs.surrey.ac.uk/484/1/fulltext.pdf cited on: 27/02/2021
Lee, A. (2010) New approaches to doctoral supervision: implications for educational development, Educational Developments, 11(2): pp. 18-23, cited at https://epubs.surrey.ac.uk/2019/1/SEDA_Approaches_to_Supervision_July_2010.pdf cited on 27/02/2021
Mainhard, T., van der Rijst, R., van Tartwijk, J., Wubbels, T. (2009) A model for the supervisor–doctoral student relationship, Higher Education, 58:359–373 https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10734-009-9199-8
Mollett, A., Moran, D. and Dunleavy, P. (2011) Using Twitter in university research, teaching and impact activities A guide for academics and researchers, LSE Public Policy Group, cited at: https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/files/2011/11/Published-Twitter_Guide_Sept_2011.pdf cited on 15/03/2021
Peelo, M. (2011) Understanding Supervision and the PhD, London and New York, Continuum
Phillips, E. and Pugh, D.S. (2015) How to Get a PhD: a handbook for students and their supervisors, Buckingham, Open University Press
QAA (2014) UK Quality Code for Higher Education: Part B: Ensuring and enhancing academic quality. Chapter B11: Research degrees, Gloucester, Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education, cited at: https://www.qaa.ac.uk/docs/qaa/quality-code/chapter-b11_-research-degrees.pdf cited on 01/03/2021
Ramsden, P. (2000) Learning to Lead in Higher Education, London and New York, RoutledgeFalmer
Richards, L. (2021) Handling Qualitative Data: a practical guide, London, Sage
Shlasko, G.D. (2006) Queer (v.) Pedagogy, Equity & Excellence in Education, 38: 123–134 cited at: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10665680590935098 cited on 02/02/2021
Smith, S. (2015) PhD by Published Work: a practical guide for success, London and New York, Palgrave / Palgrave Macmillan
Stephens, S. (2014) The supervised as the supervisor, Education + Training, Volume: 56 Issue 6: 537-550; https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/ET-10-2012-0095/full/html
Taylor, S. (2018) Eligibility to Supervise: A Study of UK Institutions, Lichfield, Staffs. UK Council for Graduate Education
Thomson, P. (2021a) A first draft in 5 minutes a day?, Patter: research education, academic writing, public engagement, funding, other eccentricities. Cited at: https://patthomson.net/2021/02/08/a-first-draft-in-five-minutes-a-day/ cited on: 08/02/2021
Thomson, P. (2021b) Finding time to write, Patter: research education, academic writing, public engagement, funding, other eccentricities. Cited at: https://patthomson.net/2021/03/15/finding-time-to-write/ cited on: 15/03/2021
Torralba, J.M. (2019) 10 ingredients for a successful supervisor / PhD student relationship, Elsevier Connect, cited at: https://www.elsevier.com/connect/10-ingredients-for-a-successful-supervisor-phd-student-relationship cited on 01/03/2021
UKCGE (2012) About the Research Recognition Programme, United Kingdom Council for Graduate Education, cited at: https://supervision.ukcge.ac.uk/about-rsrp/ cited on 01/08/2021
UoG (n.d.) Greenwich Graduate – the Greenwich Graduate initiative, University of Greenwich (various documents)cited at: https://www.gre.ac.uk/learning-teaching/greenwich-graduate#:~:text=It%20comprises%20three%20elements%20that,Cross%2DCultural%20and%20International%20Awareness cited on 14/03/2021
Vilkinas, T. (2002), “The PhD process: the supervisor as manager”, Education + Training, Vol. 44 No. 3, pp. 129-137. https://doi.org/10.1108/00400910210424337
Vitae (2021) Supervision and Key Relationships, cited at: https://www.vitae.ac.uk/doing-research/doing-a-doctorate/starting-a-doctorate/supervision-and-key-relationships cited on: 01/03/2021
Wapnick, E. (2015) Why some of us don’t have one true calling, TedTalks, cited at: https://www.ted.com/talks/emilie_wapnick_why_some_of_us_don_t_have_one_true_calling?utm_campaign=tedspread&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=tedcomshare cited on: 26/02/2021
Wisker, G. (2005) The Good Supervisor: supervising postgraduate and undergraduate research for doctoral theses and dissertations, New York, Palgrave Study Guides / Palgrave Macmillan.
Copyright (c) David T Evans, 2021
Vivat Academia! Vivant Professores! 