1. Experiencing master’s dissertation supervision: two supervisors’ perspectives Graduate School of Education Seminar, University of Exeter Nigel Harwood, University of Sheffield Bojana Petrić, Birkbeck College

2. Overview of larger research project Study of master’s dissertation supervision within UK university system Students’ and supervisors’ perspectives on supervision A year-long longitudinal study Significance of findings for universities’ supervision policies 2

3. 33 Structure of presentation The study: methodology, methods, data sources Informants: the supervisors Findings Discussion and pedagogical implications

4. 4 Methodology, methods, data sources (1) Multiple case study approach (e.g. Duff 2008) Charted students’ progress with their dissertations from initial proposal to finished product by using data sources associated with students, supervisors, dissertation markers, and students’ departments: Students multiple, regular interviews with students students’ think-aloud protocols as they drafted parts of their dissertation students’ writing logs which provided details of students’ reading and composing draft and final dissertation chapters

5. 5 Methodology, methods, data sources (2) Supervisors supervisor interviews supervisors’ comments and feedback on writing Dissertation markers markers’ reports on the complete dissertation Departments dissertation writing supporting materials (e.g. handbooks, guidelines, assessment criteria) Ten students, four supervisors involved in study…

6. 6 Two supervisors in focus: Billy and Harriet Similarities: Both were new in post Both L1 English speakers Both working at the same research-intensive UK university Supervisees got distinctions for their dissertations, but neither supervision was trouble-free Differences: Billy 17 years’ experience supervising Harriet no experience of supervising Billy and Harriet from different social science disciplines

7. 7 Supervisors and supervisees ‘Billy’ (supervisor) ‘Jay’ (supervisee, Bangladesh) ‘Harriet’ (supervisor) ‘Victoria’ (supervisee, India)

8. Billy’s problems with Jay: (i) Jay’s dissertation topic outside Billy’s area of expertise; (ii) Jay broke off contact with Billy for a month midway through dissertation 8

9. Billy supervising outside his area of expertise: how it happened Soon after Billy appointed Jay’s supervisor (based on fit between Jay’s original topic and Billy’s area of expertise), Jay announced he wanted to ‘radically modify’ his proposal Billy reported this new topic ‘wasn’t in my research domain at all’ But Billy ‘was happy to carry on’ as supervisor. Jay was his strongest supervisee; he felt supervising a strong student like Jay would be more ‘rewarding’. 9

10. Billy’s previous experience of supervising outside his area Billy was ‘relatively happy’ about supervising Jay’s new topic which he knew ‘a little bit’ about. Billy had supervised outside his area before, ‘though [topic] this was a little further out’ than his previous experiences. 10

11. Effect of supervising outside area on Billy’s feedback Billy’s lack of expertise in Jay’s new topic meant he wasn’t ‘overly comfortable’ commenting on Jay’s drafts at the level of content. Nonetheless, Billy says this ‘wasn’t a problem’; he was still able to comment on Jay’s methodology, and the ‘structure, internal consistency, coherence’ and the ‘questions’ Jay was asking. 11

12. Insider/outsider Billy was an outsider when it came to Jay’s topic; but an insider when it came to Jay’s qualitative methodology 12

13. Insider and outsider feedback Literature review chapter [insider]: Billy provided 11 comments on Jay’s draft of approximately 5,500 words (= 1 comment every 500 words) Methodology chapter [outsider]: Billy provided 24 comments on Jay’s draft of 2,477 words (= 1 comment every 103 words) 13

14. Outsider feedback: literature review chapter (1) Billy lacked topic expertise Pointed out to Jay chapter overly descriptive, and lacked focus and criticality 14

15. Outsider feedback: literature review chapter (2) Billy highlighted parts of chapter needing further development 15

16. Outsider feedback: literature review chapter (3) Billy identified flaws in Jay’s argument 16

17. Outsider feedback: literature review chapter (4) Feedback at rather a general rather than specific level of knowledge (e.g., argumentation, organization, need to elaborate) Final 1,100 words of Jay’s draft feature no comments from Billy at all Comments suggest Billy’s lack of topic/literature knowledge 17

18. Insider feedback: methodology chapter Billy asked Jay to more fully develop the rationale behind his choice of methodology 18

19. Jay ‘felt the difference’ At interview, Jay claimed he ‘felt the difference’ between the feedback he received on his literature review and methodology chapters. Billy’s expertise in qualitative methods apparently meant he was able to provide many more, and more content-related, comments on Jay’s methodology than on Jay’s literature review. 19

20. Billy admitted supervising outside area can be problematic Billy’s reflection upon his supervisory experience with Jay was ‘overall positive’: “It was only mitigated to some degree by the fact of my lack of subject area knowledge. I was very lucky in that sense. If he had been all over the place, then I may have had a lot more problems.” So supervision relatively trouble-free despite Billy’s lack of knowledge in the area; Billy recognizes potential difficulties supervisor— supervisee mismatch can bring about. 20

21. Jay ‘disappeared’ for a month midway through supervision Jay failed to make contact with Billy; didn’t respond to Billy’s chaser emails for a month. Made no progress with his dissertation during this period. Jay eventually reappeared, claiming he was suffering from personal problems and stress. However, Billy wasn’t unduly concerned; he felt that whatever the nature of the problem, it wasn’t serious, and remained confident Jay would produce good work. 21

22. Responding to Jay’s ‘disappearance’ Billy tightened the supervisory reins for a period and rearranged the deadlines for when Jay would submit draft chapters. 22

23. Billy’s reaction to Jay’s ‘disappearance’ “…I wasn’t as worried as he was, because I’ve seen students do that, and disappear for three or four weeks, and come back and produce good dissertations. I put some pressure on, in terms of [saying] “This is not acceptable, you’ve got to do this... I’m not going to be able to read as much now as I would have done….” But I wasn’t as concerned. I was concerned enough to keep an eye on him. […] I’ve had students come in and break down in tears; I’ve had students I’ve had real concerns about; I didn’t get that sense with him.” 23

24. Reasons for Billy’s calm response to Jay’s ‘disappearance’ Billy was relatively relaxed because Jay had shown himself to be more competent and organized than many other students, suggesting to Billy that he would produce good work in the end: “…compared to most students, his time management was very good. He produced written work, relatively speaking on time. […] He was pretty good. […] His general approach was consistent, was diligent. Yes, he had his moment of flakiness in the middle and he produced a few things that weren’t very good and I said, ‘This isn’t very good because…’ and he went away and he sorted them out.” 24

25. Billy’s experience, confidence Billy speaks of the ‘arrogance of longevity’ his experience afforded him; he was confident he knew how to supervise effectively—which involved being flexible and varying his approach. Therefore resistant to institutional attempts to impose rigid departmental supervisory practices. 25

26. Harriet’s problems with Victoria: Victoria produced a weak methodology chapter because of a lack of basic knowledge Harriet thought Victoria possessed 26

27. Harriet’s uncertainty about helping Victoria with method chapter Principal weakness with Victoria’s dissertation was her method chapter, which almost led to her missing out on a distinction grade. Victoria hadn’t provided enough detail in the method chapter to allow the reader to replicate her study—because she was unaware she needed to do this, something Harriet had assumed she would know. 27

28. Victoria, Harriet, and the method chapter Harriet felt this was her fault, and discussed it with the second marker, who said she was wrong to blame herself: “You shouldn’t need to tell her that. She’s doing a master’s.” However, Harriet struggles to balance socialising students into the discipline who lack a solid disciplinary background on the one hand, but is ethically acceptable on a personal and institutional level on the other. 28

29. The impact of this incident on Harriet’s future behaviour Harriet in future intends to be explicit about how much detail supervisees need to include in the method chapter, despite not knowing whether or not the department’s regulations really allow her to explain: “I’m not allowed to read the draft [methods chapter], but I could have said, ‘You’re justifying why you’re doing the project in your methods, you want to make sure you’ve got the level of detail that somebody could replicate.’ If I just said that sentence, I think she would have done it and I didn’t. Maybe it’s not part of my job description to say that sentence, so I don’t know if people expect me to or not, but I now realise that would be a helpful thing to say.” 29

30. Negative self-evaluation: uncertainty Harriet remained uncertain about the extent of help she should provide, despite consulting more experienced colleagues: “…I’m really still not sure and I want to speak to other people in the department about this…” “…I do want to double-check and get a second opinion on that. It’s so difficult. I just feel like I’m having to make it up as I go along to be honest.” 30

31. How did the supervisors react to and cope with these difficulties? Billy was sanguine …while Harriet’s narrative featured moments of uncertainty and guilt about her practices Why the differing reactions? supervisors’ experience, knowledge, personalities, seniority departmental supervisory guidance and support (or lack of it) departmental supervisory practices 31

32. Harriet’s inexperience, uncertainty and lack of guidelines Harriet speaks of her surprise, uncertainty, and insecurity during this first experience of supervision, of an unfamiliarity with the way things are done in her department: “…I was just trying to make sure I was doing it correctly…and I had a lot of questions myself that I was asking staff, “Am I doing this correctly? Should I be doing more than this? Should I be doing less than this? So it was a kind of a bit of a learning curve…” Lack of formal written guidelines issued to supervisors by her department doesn’t help 32

33. 33 Discussion

34. Supervisory policies and guidelines How rigid/flexible? (Billy and Harriet) How explicit and detailed? (Harriet) Supervising outside disciplinary competence? (Billy) Reading and commenting on how many drafts? With what kind of feedback? (Harriet) How much autonomy allowed in supervision styles? (Billy and Harriet) 34

35. Tensions and threats to multiple forms of supervision Tensions between supervisors’ inner convictions (e.g., their beliefs about best supervisory practice) and departmental supervisory regulations. These tensions are resolved in deed, but not in thought. Is supervisor autonomy threatened by the modern performative university striving for ‘quality’ and ‘student satisfaction’? 35

36. 36 Generalizability of the study? Can we safely formulate implications from case studies such as this one? Case studies: completeness, depth  generalizablility vs. transferability: “Transferability…assigns the responsibility to readers to determine whether there is a congruence, fit, or connection between one study context, in all its richness, and their own context…” (Duff 2008: 51)

37. Thank you! 37

38. Read all about it… Book out next year, including a chapter on Jay/Billy, another on Victoria/Harriet, and chapters on three other cases: Harwood, N. & Petrić, B. (2016) Experiencing Master’s Supervision: Perspectives of International Students and their Supervisors. Abingdon: Routledge. n.harwood@sheffield.ac.uk 38

39. 39 References Duff, P.A. (2008) Case Study Research in Applied Linguistics. New York: Lawrence Erlbaum. 39