Strategies to Overcome Challenges in Academic Supervision

By Elizabeth Paradiso Urassa

Scholarly literature describes academic supervision as a relational task involving students and supervisors. Such collaboration in supervision resembles other human relations where partners may encounter diverse and disappointing challenges.

 

This book guides higher education stakeholders on the strategies to apply in supervision. It emphasizes the need to communicate their needs, resources, and expectations to strategize teamwork. In addition, it discusses the challenges most students and supervisors encounter in supervision and how to tackle them professionally.

• Language: English
• Publisher: Information is Power
• Release date: Nov 1, 2022
• ISBN: 9788299867252

Elizabeth Paradiso Urassa

 Elizabeth is a former teacher, school inspector, and job advisor. During her Ph.D. study, she recognized students and their learning agency encounter with supervision. Since then, her primary responsibilities have been supporting people, including students and supervisors in higher education, with information and strategies to overcome diverse challenges, including isolation.

Book preview

Chapter 1

In this chapter, you will read different scholarly perceptions of supervision definitions. You will also come across aspects essential in the theorizing supervision of research students. Scholars theorize supervision as an individual-designed teaching phenomenon employing unique pedagogical methods. Others emphasize supervision as assisting students in attaining the threshold crossings or learning leaps that open their cognitive understanding. Moreover, supervision has been defined as an advanced, complex, distinctive teaching mode for research students.

Scholars agree that supervision is a complex relational pedagogy conducted in unorganized and sometimes private places. It is an inequality relationship between the supervisors and their research students attempting to find a shared meaning of certain phenomena through research.

The scholarly explanation of supervision mentions seven significant aspects that determine the supervision theory. Thus, the intentions, nature of the project, partners' abilities (in the field, research, and cooperation), including their expectations. Likewise, students’ learning needs, learning stage, and resources are vital aspects discussed in this chapter. In addition, I discuss disciplinary-based supervision theory, which displays different definitions. So, the mentioned aspects play a role in diverse situations where one needs to comprehend and define supervision. Therefore, reading this chapter will give you the fundamental knowledge that can support you in understanding the other proceeding chapters.

1.1 Scholarly Definition of Supervision

Some scholars define supervision as cooperation between a student and a supervisor (Grant, (2003, 2005); Manathunga (2017); Bell-Ellison & Dedrick (2008)). The collaboration aims to support students in acquiring the intended knowledge and skills, producing new knowledge, and becoming independent researchers. Even though the cooperation may be complicated, the process cannot succeed without the partners' willingness to work together. The learning strategy aims at developing students’ intellectual capabilities and depends on the partners’ relationships. Therefore, it is a collaboration task involving more knowledgeable and learned individuals leading the less to attain the specific learning goals. So, academic supervision occurs when a supervisor (a professor, academics, or faculty) guides a student(s) to attain a research degree as an expert or mentor.

Lee and Green (2009) defined supervision as a metaphor for the enlightenment in the modern university system that started in the 19th and early 20th centuries, consisting of research and management. The scholars also theorize supervision as a teaching phenomenon expressing individuality pedagogical methods in doctoral research education. In addition, the scholars informed that higher education research students' supervision is personalized relational pedagogy where students and supervisors communicate dyadically. Further, they indicated triangle relationships that dominate academic research students' supervision between the learner, teacher, and knowledge.

Diagram Description automatically generated

Figure 1. Triangular relationship in Supervision

Figure one indicates the basic aspects of supervision that start with the knowledge that needs to be shared between the supervisor and the student. The supervisor is regarded as more knowledgeable than the student, especially at the beginning of the process.

According to the scholars’ explanations, supervision is a relational business with complications in roles and responsibilities.  Lee and Green (2009) demonstrate their definition differently based on the diversity of language applied to students' supervision by saying,

... a veritable orgy of naming! Mentors, masters, slaves, coaches, friends, authors, disciples, apprentices, sisters, fathers, and midwives appear frequently in literature on doctoral supervision, along with more idiosyncratic figures such as cooks, gardeners, and mountaineers. The landscape of supervision is populated with bridges, chasms, mountains, archways, and traversed by a plenitude of journeys, punctuated by juggling and balancing, marked by rites and rituals and filled with darkness and light. p.3.

The information indicates different theories and diverse perceptions of supervisors' duties.

Therefore, the explanation provided by Lee and Green (2009) demonstrates the complexity of theorizing supervision and the general tasks of a supervisor. The description aligns with Halse and Malfroy's (2010) definition of supervisors' multifaceted responsibilities. Although they had the challenge of theorizing supervision and the role of a supervisor, they asserted that ... the supervisor provides oversight and guidance... (p. 80). The guidance is provided to research students by supervisors who are skilled in research and knowledgeable in their field, hence experts. They emphasized the importance of good supervision and connected it with students' success. If the students receive good guidance, they succeed, and vice versa is a downfall. Therefore, the supervisors are crucial personnel, and even European University Association (2008) emphasized, among others, the training and monitoring of research students' supervisors for students' success.

Other scholars provide a similar perspective on the importance of supervisors in a different approach. For example, Wisker, Kiley, and Masika (2016) conceptualize supervision as a process of assisting students in attaining the threshold crossings or learning leaps (p.117) and being able to demonstrate the understanding of vital concepts and gaining the required skills. Connell and Manathunga (2012) contend that academic supervision is an advanced, complex, distinctive teaching mode for research students. The teaching is structured individually, where each student attends the session according to the needs and agreement with supervisors. So, scholars provide diverse theories to describe the supervision of research students.

Apart from the mentioned definitions, others define supervision based on supervisors' tasks regardless of the relational hierarchy. For instance, Manathunga (2005) acknowledged that supervision is a complex relational pedagogy in private places. On the other hand, Wisker (2012), discussing the quality of good supervisors, defined supervision as an epistemology where a supervisor supports the student to contribute new knowledge in the discipline or a field. She also described supervision as the pinnacle of an academic's engagement ... in terms of the unique mix of teaching, learning, and research it offers (p.1). She also indicated that supervision is a rewarding teaching process where qualified supervisors empower students to be independent researchers.

Other scholars, such as Carter & Kumar (2017), suggested that supervision is a mentoring process where both a supervisor and a student work together. They consider supervision a learning and compromise operation; the scholars believe differing perceptions and practices of students from the supervisors as learning even when students ignore the supervisors' instructions. Their definition demonstrated the need for mutual, free-will cooperation to find a ground-level position. The process requires students and supervisors’ interaction and consideration to be effective even when students decide to follow their passion. They also indicated the challenges of hierarch perception in supervision that may negatively affect the process and practices.

Even though some universities have introduced educational development for supervisors, the relationship issue and supervisors' core roles and responsibilities are still ambiguous. Most supervisors' programs focus more on administrative and technical issues than academic, cognitive, and affective aspects dominating human relationships. The problem arises because supervision pedagogy is mainly relational, leading to uncertainty about the degree to which association and services between the partners are appropriate. Besides, the partners have different concepts of how to exercise their power and effectively cooperate. This gap leaves space for personal supervisors' preferences to dominate their students in many ways.

The increased uncertainty in the relationship has sometimes turned supervision into a tumultuous, dominant, and uninterrupted business. The challenge has increased due to what Grant (2008) called students' silenced speech and supervisors' silenced ear (p. 14). In her early research on supervision, Grant (2003) described the hierarchal pedagogical nature of supervision and its effects on students' learning and called for transformation. She defined supervision as inequality between the supervisors and their research students. Unfortunately, inequality in supervision is still seen today in most universities; thus, students are subordinates and followers of their supervisors' project plans and strategies.

1.2 General Supervision Theory

Supervision of research students is complicated because it is mainly a private matter between the partners. It is like other human partnerships where the associates must understand each other and fulfill their expectations. Human relations are the most challenging project on earth, and unfortunately, finding a formula that fits all relations can be a problem. In the case of research students' supervision, it is a practice that usually occurs behind a closed door, leaving partners alone, undisturbed, and untouched. As a result, nobody fully knows the quality of interaction, the information supervisors convey to students, their approach, and the effectiveness of guidance. Most universities measure the quality of the supervision process by observing summative students' academic performance and the supervisors' reports.

Unfortunately, students' voices are not interesting to most university management officers. In most cases, supervisors have all the power and usually dominate the supervision process. Like other relations, where people accept good enough interaction and not necessarily perfection, supervision partners tolerate and cover the shame of failure. The relational part of supervision has caused partners to endure each other's weaknesses even when their cooperation is unproductive. The dysfunction and dissatisfaction may continue for a long time, partly due to fear of exposing the reasons for malfunction and the lack of a neutral organ to resolve the disputes. On the other hand, airing supervision encounters is not straightforward, especially for students with no organ to lean on.

Research students' supervision process is complicated, acquiring different descriptions. Primarily, it is described based on the activities, objectives, and partners' relationship; refer to the previous explanations. Indeed, it helps to know that there are different supervision purposes apart from academics. For instance, improving individuals' health requires medical supervision, and its definition may differ from other non-health-related guidance. Likewise, in the workplace, supervision, where the supervisee aims to build specific skills, may focus on that objective, and the perception and practice may differ from other purposes.

However, seven significant aspects determine the supervision theory; thus, the intentions and nature of the project, partners' abilities, and expectations. Likewise, the student's needs, the stage achieved in the project, and the availability of resources are vital determinants. The contextual role of supervisors and their responsibilities compared to the students play a major role in supervision. So, the mentioned aspects are essential when comprehending and defining research student supervision.

Consequently, supervision theories in this book may also differ from your perceptions as a reader. Depending on your experiences with the definition and practice of the process, you may desire certain aspects of supervision that may be absent in my writing.  Again, you may have a different meaning of supervision from your institutional learning environment and societal expectations. For instance, as a student, you may find that your expectations of supervision may diverge from your supervisors, the institution, and fellow students. The differences may be apparent, and you may evaluate and formulate a particular theory.

On the other hand, the project may require resources away from what is available or what feels normal for others. In some cases, as a student, you may be responsible for the resources required for your learning. Alternatively, the institution may provide all the essential resources you need to succeed. These two systems may lead to different perceptions of supervision and diverging theories. The best way to tackle the dilemma is to discuss the unknown with your supervisors or appropriate persons effectively. Sometimes it may be a predicament rooted in the project you want to undertake, which may be unfamiliar to the supervisors, or the institution may lack experts. In other cases, you may need guidance different from what supervisors typically provide to their students. But, again, speaking out about the issue in mind may lead to resolution, and you may receive the support you need for your project to be successful. However, remember that the information you provide may be a skeleton that can support supervisors in figuring out the appropriate support.

Indeed, we have all gone through the supervision process as supervisors or supervisees. Likewise, one may have received outstanding expert support from family, school actors, and community workers. Indeed, formal education is not a founder of supervision, but educational leadership emanates informally, where people learn outside schooling. Indeed, we might have received guidance in different areas of our lives through supervision. Guardians and parents apply various methods to support their children in learning vital lessons in life through supervision. Contrary, in the formal education system and research learning, the supervision approach may differ from the informal procedure. So, our experiences with the supervision process and outcomes informally and formally may significantly influence our supervision theory.

1.2.1 Supervisory Disciplinary Theory

SUPERVISION OF RESEARCH students depends on the discipline one is enrolled in and the nature of the tasks. So, one can categorize research students' supervision into three significant classifications, thus science, arts, and humanity. The disciplinary classification operates differently in supervision, and these disciplines may have diverging supervision theories and approaches. For instance, the supervision of research students in science departments may differ from the supervision of those in humanity and arts faculties and disciplines. So, these three divisions (science, arts, and humanity) have different supervision theories, and students may inversely experience supervision.

In addition, the intention for supervision in these three departments has different traditions. For example, supervisors' main objective in science may be to cooperate with students in solving problems, testing theories, or experimenting. In contrast, in arts and humanities, supervisors may focus on supporting students to fulfill their learning objectives through their projects. For example, students may intend to bring awareness about specific phenomena, while others may evaluate the significance of a policy or its implementation. Sometimes, most projects focus on increasing awareness of a phenomenon through debating and descriptions without experimenting. The process may need philosophical and critical thinking, and the approach students apply to convey their ideas can be different from supervisors, and working closer may be a challenging business. Usually, research students change their thoughts and write them differently before their final thoughts. The process of transforming ideas needs supervisors' attention for feedback, which may increase the task.

Therefore, supervisors wait for the writing to come to their attention to provide feedback. Again, in such a fashion, they may have limited power in influencing students' work compared to science students, where they closely collaborate. Indeed, solving problems through experiments may require specific procedures that students must adhere to from the beginning hence the need for close supervision. On the other hand, science experimentation procedure adherence tends to make the process more structured and predictable for the students and the supervisors. As a result, the students from these disciplines (arts, science, and humanity) may have diverging theories about supervision.

For instance, students debate and write their ideas individually in humanities and arts faculties to convince their supervisors. In contrast, in science, students should cooperate with supervisors and peers to perform most of their learning tasks. The science students' cooperation with supervisors establishes a supervision model different from the arts and humanities. Sometimes, their differences can be vivid and may bring different ways of defining and practicing supervision.

Without a doubt, collaboration is vital to science students, and on the other, distance and individuality are essential to arts and humanities students. Such differences are indispensable to observe because they affect relationships and supervision theories. For example, the partners in science may focus on the same objectives and easily formulate shared strategies compared to the arts and humanities. So, I want to emphasize that the students from these three departments may define supervision differently. For example, one may conceptualize supervision as a close collaboration between students and supervisors attempting to experiment and find