International Doctorate in Translation Studies: Principles of effective interpersonal relations and monitoring

Christina Schaeffner28 August 2014EST Workshop on ID-TS, Leuven

Doctoral research

Doctoral study has become more regulated (time, length of thesis, monitoring, supervisory teams, …) due to changed environment of Higher Education (benchmarking, reviews and audits, league tables, universities as businesses, …) Most universities have General regulations and Codes of Practice in place which stipulate the rights and obligations of supervisor(s) and students organized training for doctoral students exists at many universitiesorganized training for supervisors is still rare, some basic induction is sometimes offered, and can be linked to criteria for selection/appointment of supervisors

Examples of Regulations and Codes

University of Antwerp:http://www.ua.ac.be/main.aspx?c=.ADSE&n=100693#r&p2

Heriot-Watt University, Edinburgh, UKhttp://www1.hw.ac.uk/registry/resources/cop-pgr.pdf

University of Auckland, New Zealandhttps://www.auckland.ac.nz/en/for/current-students/cs-current-pg/cs-current-pg-policies/cs-pg-doctoral-policies-guidelines/cs-pg-doc-phd-statute.htmlhttps://www.auckland.ac.nz/en/for/current-students/cs-current-pg/cs-current-pg-policies/cs-pg-supervision-tools.html

Aston University, Birmingham, UKhttp://www.aston.ac.uk/quality/a-z/general-regulations/http://www.aston.ac.uk/registry/for-staff/a-to-z-of-registry-services/researchregulationsandprocedures/

Supervisor: general requirements

should have the appropriate skills and subject knowledge to support, encourage and monitor research students effectively

Act as mentor and is the primary source of tuition, guidance, advice, all help, and support to the research student

Help students realize their scholarly potential, encourage and develop independent (critical) thinking and ways of working (no spoon-feeding, no micro-management, no decision-making for student, don’t be a control freak)

Responsibilities of supervisors

Provide satisfactory and accurate guidance and advice (input in admission?), including introduction to environment/staffBe responsible for monitoring the student’s progress Maintain regular contact, including structured interactions (frequency?) to discuss and agree progress (and to report it formally – Q2: meeting record = useful research guide and a recourse if there are any problems/disagreements)Be accessible and provide timely, constructive and effective feedback on the student’s work and progressHave input into the assessment of student’s development needs and advise students on their personal development planningProvide effective pastoral supportEncourage and help the student to interact with others (conferences, publications, funding, …)….

The Vitae Researcher Development Framework

Individual supervisor’s understanding of the process?

Supervisor – supervisee relationships

A working relationship which needs to conform to basic principles of academic integrity and professionalism

Be open to new approaches to the subject and new views of methods. “There is nothing worse than the supervisor who wants acolytes rather than free-thinking and creative students.” (Gill 2008) – independent being, not clones!

Healthy and successful relationship should be based on: (1) dignity, respect and courtesy, (2) no harassment, (3) accessibility, (4) privacy and (5) honesty.

Styles of supervision

Relationship behaviour: businesslike or personalTask behaviour: commitment (more/less) and product or process

orientation

A. Wadee, M. Keane, T. Dietz, D. Hay: Effective PhD Supervision; Chapter 5: The Relationship between PhD candidate and

supervisorBased on research in South Africa and the Netherlands

http://rozenbergquarterly.com/effective-phd-supervision-chapter-5-the-relationship-between-phd-candidate-and-supervisor/

Businesslike behaviour

a type of relationship where first and foremost supervisor and PhD candidate focus on their work: the research to be done, the research design, the progress of analysis, writing and publication strategies. Personal elements are less important, and in extreme cases, regarded as completely irrelevant or taboo for discussion.

Personal behaviour

the focus is on personal matters, and in extreme cases work is hardly ever mentioned. The supervisor knows, or tries to know everything about the personal circumstances and characteristics of the PhD candidate, and in meetings personal affairs and emotions get a lot of attention. Often there is or develops a relationship of personal or family friendship, sometimes progressing further than that.

Task behaviour

can be of two kinds: a product orientation or a process orientation.

In extreme cases of a product orientation, all meetings are always about the results, with a tendency to focus on concept publications or chapters. Supervisors generally have schedules of meetings about the discussion of written chapters, and they tend to stick to deadlines.

In extreme cases of a process orientation, meetings are never about results, but always about the process to get to results. Supervisors see their role mainly as process managers, stimulating candidates to grow.

Typology of relationships

RELATIONSHIP ORIENTATION

TASK ORIENTATION

Businesslike No / little

Delegation

Yes / process

Expert guideDirectorInnovatorCoordinatorMonitorbroker

Yes / product

Quality controller

Personal Friend Coach Editor

Delegation: ‘leave me alone’

Low intensity and businesslike

These supervisors are often deans or leaders of large-scale research programmes. They successfully acquire PhD projects and often are approached to do so because of their prestige in funding circles. However, they do not really have time to be fully engaged in the actual task of supervision and often this is ‘part of the deal’ ; ‘delegators’ often tend to ‘manage a research empire’ in which the real work of supervising PhD candidates is left to others to whom the ‘real supervision’ is entrusted.

Friend: ‘be my buddy’

Low intensity but personal

These supervisors never talk about the contents of the research work or it is very rare that they do. Often they know the PhD candidate as a former student with whom a friendly relationship developed or as a family friend or colleague. Meetings are often at home or in pleasant places outside work. Beyond an occasional question, ‘How are things going,’ there is little contact about progress or products. But there may be very regular contact about all types of other items.

Expert guide: ‘tell me what to do’

higher intensity, businesslike and process-orientedkeep a distance from candidate as far as personal elements are concerned. They see their major role as stimulating a process of research and guide their candidates to grow as scientists. Sub-roles:

a) the director: puts a lot of emphasis on directing the candidate in certain theoretical and methodological directions, will very much stimulate candidates to consult relevant journals and engage in discussions with experts in the field; b) the innovator: stimulates pioneering thinking, has a vision of social and scientific change, along with an ability to stimulate creative ideas;c) the coordinator always puts an emphasis on work schedules, on adhering to deadlines and on process planning; d) the monitor always measures progress against work schedules;e) the broker will ensure that other parties deliver funds and assistance to the candidate and the research project;.

Coach: ‘steer my ambition’; ‘groom me into academics’

higher intensity, more personal and process-oriented

These supervisors are also very much involved in the growth of a candidate, but not so much as related to their PhD job as such, but to the growth of their personality. They will put a lot of emphasis on styles of performance in public, scientific fora. They try to understand the personality of the candidate and are aware of their personal circumstances. Whenever there are problems at home or with the (psychological) health of the candidate, the coach will try to be part of finding solutions. The coach is also interested in stimulating the scientific career of candidates beyond their PhD

Quality controller: ‘keep me sharp’

higher intensity, businesslike and product-oriented

These supervisors put a lot of emphasis on the written products of their candidates and continuously judge those products on aspects of scientific quality. They only want to meet and discuss after agreed submission of a concept chapter or publication. Their comments are often of a judgemental kind, without detailed and supportive suggestions for improvements. They are often extremely cross if candidates do not work according to the agreed schedule.

Editor: ‘help me write’

higher intensity, more personal, product-oriented

This is the type of supervisor who is very product-oriented as well, but who will put substantial amounts of time and energy into correcting mistakes. There is much emphasis on language, both on concepts and on ways of expression, on spelling and on communication in general (‘how to reach your audience’). Candidates always get their work back covered in red marks or full of track changes. Some supervisors would, often after two or three failed attempts to improve the style of reasoning or writing, take over and suggest sentences, paragraphs or even major parts of the thesis.

Which type are you?

1 position your own relationship with your former supervisor

2 position your own relationship with your prior or current PhD students

Types of doctoral students

Also depending on cultural (and language) background, age, position, previous experience

Independent studentStudent preferring a personal relationshipBusinesslike studentPersonal-interest, interactive student

Chemistry between student and supervisor: incompatibility may happen, things can go wrong (change of supervisor)Relationship can also be influenced by departmental culture (institutionalised mentoring and/or coaching systems involving various people)

Dynamics in styles of supervision

Codes

1 = initiation of a new project2 = research design3 = research proposal4 = fieldwork5 = data analysis6 = write up7 = final fieldwork8 = editing9 = acceptance10 = defence11 = follow-up12 = separation

Expectation and role management

Supervisor and student have particular expectations of each other, often different expectations, needs, and ways of thinking and working.

Expectations concerning:Frequency and duration of meetingsPreparations for meetingsTasks (what to do when)Feedback from supervisor (detailed revision?)

Initial meeting to discuss expectations and roles - Sign a learning or supervision agreement (which can be amended in course of regular monitoring of progress)

Example of learning agreement templates

Heriot-Watt Universityhttp://www1.hw.ac.uk/registry/resources/cop-pgr.pdf

Aston University, Accessible fromhttp://search.aston.ac.uk/search?q=Graduate+school+learning+agreement&btnG=Search&entqr=0&output=xml_no_dtd&sort=date%3AD%3AL%3Ad1&ud=1&client=default_frontend&oe=UTF-8&ie=UTF-8&proxystylesheet=default_frontendDocuments includes also templates for training needs analysis and meeting record

University of Antwerp – template for meeting recordhttp://www.ua.ac.be/main.aspx?c=.ADSE&n=100705

How do you know supervision is effective?

Supervision is a complex process. Sometimes we (= supervisor and student equally) can feel overwhelmed, out of our depth, irritated, beset by problems, angry, or frustrated by the student/supervisor we are working with.

Is their (satisfactory) progress in production of thesis?How does student react to your (written/oral) comments? Do you notice any change in student’s behaviour/physical appearance?Do you notice any change in student’s attitude towards you?Have associate supervisor, colleagues (postgraduate director), other students, made any comments about the student to you?

Conflict / Complaints / Problems

• Main supervisor and associate supervisor (different areas of expertise, confusion as a result of different opinions or contradictory advice – is it clash of personality or academic disagreement which causes friction?)

• (Associate) Supervisor is from outside the university – different environments and expectations?

• Power relationship (e.g. associate supervisor has a higher status than main supervisor – does this affect the student’s attitude to advice received? Does it affect cooperation between the two supervisors?)

Cont.

• Supervisor and university/departmental ‘bureaucracy’ (does supervisor know all requirements and procedures to give student accurate information?)

• Supervisor and supervisee: student may experience lack of motivation, lack of self-confidence, poor time management, lack of focus, fear of failure – encouragement and support

• Supervisor’s lack of time: Tell student when you will get back to them and how (email, phone, meeting…)

• Detail of feedback and correction??? - Find right balance (also depending on stage of process; do we need to differentiate between home students and international students?)

Help: self-help or get advice from others

Self-reflection: Give yourself some quiet time and space to think about what is happening and write it down

Talk the situation over (confidentially!) with spouse, friend, departmental advisor, dean, university counsellor, university chaplain etc (see university policy documents)

(useful documents at University of Auckland, accessible fromhttps://www.auckland.ac.nz/en/for/current-students/cs-current-pg/cs-

current-pg-policies/cs-pg-supervision-tools.html)

Self-reflection: write down

• what is happening? • How am I interpreting this?• What am I feeling?• Who else is involved? What might he/she be feeling or thinking

about the situation? • Is anything else going on that might be contributing?• On a scale of 1-10, how much impact is this having on me and

my ability to function normally?• Are there any patterns here (has this happened before)?

• Aim: exploration of the situation, clarify things for yourself

Deciding on a strategy

• Once you have a clear idea of how you perceive the problem, the next step is to consider what you might want to do about it. Possible:

1. Decide to do nothing at the moment, but to monitor yourself in terms of how you are feeling. The problem may resolve itself – or increase in intensity.

2. Decide to raise the matter with the other person involved and to have a discussion with them.

3. Decide to seek help about what you would like to do next.

Acting on your decision (option 2)

• Prepare for a discussion, rather than a confrontation. Recognise your preferred outcome before planning how you might best achieve it. Consider what you primarily want to change or know. For example:

• Do you want to inform the other person of your experience of the situation and ask them to do, or stop doing, something?

• Do you want to ask questions of them and/or check something out?

• Do you want to ‘step up’ to another level and state what the consequences might be if things don’t change?

Address problems in a meeting

• Begin by asking the other person if this is a good time to have a discussion. Indicate amount of time you think the conversation might take and its importance to you.

• If the other person can’t give the time when you ask for it, ask for an alternative time to meet with them.

• Once the other person is engaging with you in the discussion, put a context around what you want to say and give a clear statement about why you want to have the discussion. For example: “I have been feeling uncomfortable about an issue recently and since it involves you, and I would like us to work together better (= showing a positive intent for the outcome), I’d like to talk about it with you.”

Cont.

• Accurately describe the problem that you are experiencing, e.g. “In the last two months I have tried to see you four times to talk about x and on each occasion you cancelled the meetings at very short notice. I’m feeling really anxious about x and frustrated by the cancellations. I’d appreciate it if we could have regular meetings which were a real priority so that I would be more confident about meeting the deadlines we agreed.”

Cont.

• Ask the other person to comment, e.g. “I’m wondering if there is a problem for you about the meetings.”

• Listen to what they have to say in return. Try not to interrupt or act defensively.

• If the other person seems willing to engage in the discussion but is unsure of why this may be important, it can be helpful to restate the outcome and your emotional response.

• It can then be helpful to state what benefits there might be for the other person, e.g. “this would mean that you would be able to …”

Cont.

• If the other person has raised issues about a problem from their perspective that has contributed to your problem, then try restating the problem from their perspective and asking them what they might like you to do differently. Be student-centred, ask e.g.: “What am I doing as a supervisor that is especially helpful to you? What do you think I could do to be of further assistance?”

• If you agree to do things differently and the outcome of the discussion is successful, follow this up with an email, thanking them for their time and recording your understanding of what was agreed and how things will be different in the future.

• Evaluate the change at some future time and arrange another meeting to check that things are now okay.

Changing dynamics

• The relationship will evolve over time

• Year 1: supervisor knows more about the project and its context than the student and should guide student in first steps;

• Year 2: supervisor and supervisee will be on par, exchanging ideas and debating results;

• Year 3: student will be the expert, knowing more about his/her own research than the supervisor.

Harmony and success

• Just you, me and the PhD• Times Higher Education, 12 January 2007• Student-supervisor relationships are intense and don't always

run smoothly, say Sarah Li and Clive Seale• http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/features/just-you-me-and-the-phd/

207460.article

Harmony and success in ten steps IMPROVING SUPERVISOR-STUDENT RELATIONSHIPS

For the supervisor

• 1. Temper criticism with praise and criticise the work, not the person

• 2. Give advice and suggest solutions to problems, but expect students to sometimes dismiss these and find their own way forward

• 3. Be available when your student needs help (and attend the viva if your university allows this).

For the student

• 4. Try not to take criticisms personally. Instead, use it as an opportunity to improve

• 5. Take responsibility for making supervisions work well. Supervisors have failings and sometimes need help

• 6. Take responsibility for the PhD. Your supervisor is only one source of advice and information.

For both

• 7. Try to get a shared agreement about the nature of the problems and solutions related to the PhD (easier said than done)

• 8. Keep in touch, even when times are difficult. If it is too hard to talk about the work itself, find something else to discuss (for example, some interesting reading you have done recently)

• 9. Show politeness, mutual respect and sensitivity so that you can detect sources of embarrassment and misunderstanding (these may be evident in hesitations, silences or pauses in supervisions)

• 10. Keep a record of what happens and what is agreed.

Some References

• Vitae: Concordat to Support the Career Development of Researchers • https://www.vitae.ac.uk/policy/concordat-to-support-the-career-development-of-researchers

• Supervising and managing researchers• https://www.vitae.ac.uk/spotlight/supervising-and-managing-researchers-1/supervising-and-

managing-researchers

• https://www.vitae.ac.uk/researchers-professional-development/about-the-vitae-researcher-development-framework/developing-the-vitae-researcher-development-framework

• Supervision and key relationships• https://www.vitae.ac.uk/doing-research/doing-a-doctorate/starting-a-doctorate/supervision-and-

key-relationships

• Phillips, E. M. and Pugh, D. S. (2005): The student–supervisor relationship• http://www.epigeum.com/downloads/uct_accessible/uk/05_supervising/html/course_files/

2_20.html

• A. Wadee, M. Keane, T. Dietz, D. Hay: Effective PhD Supervision; Chapter 5: http://rozenbergquarterly.com/effective-phd-supervision-chapter-5-the-relationship-between-phd-

candidate-and-supervisor/