Supervisors workshop

884 views

Published on

Published in: Health & Medicine, Education
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
884
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
5
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Supervisors workshop

  1. 1. Professional Doctorate Dr Elaine Ball
  2. 2. DPROF (HEALTH & SOCIAL CARE) Doctoral Research CriticalYear 1 Foundation Methods (30 Leadership (30 credits) credits) (30 credits)Year 2 Professions & Practice Practitioner Researcher (30 credits) (60 Credits) RESEARCHER ELEMENT: KEY MILESTONESYear 3 Interim Assessment: End of Year 3Year 4 Internal Evaluation: End of Year 4Year 5 Submission of Thesis and Viva: End of year 5 (thesis 60,000 words)
  3. 3. Postgraduate Research Student Life Cycle 13. PRAB 12. Viva Voce (oral Enquires Examination) 14. Graduation 1. Admissions / 11. Submission Application of Thesis University of Salford Research Award 2. Formal 10. Notice of Regulations Offer Letter Presentation HEFCE QAA FHEQ Framework 15. Research HEFCE Research Activity Survey/Audit Training 3. Registration Programme9. Internal InductionEvaluation 4. Learning 8. Re-registration Agreement (APRs & SEF Evaluations) 7. Interim 5. APRs & SEF Assessment 6. Re-registration Evaluations
  4. 4. Enquires Admissions / Application Formal Offer Letter Professional Doctorate Research Student Life Cycle Registration Post Graduate Induction 13. PRAB 14. Timely 12. Viva Voce completion & 1st Supervision: (oral Graduation Orientation. 30 credit Examination) module Doctoral Foundations 11. Submission of Thesis 2nd Supervision. University of Salford Research Progress update 30 10. Notice of Award Regulations credit module, Critical Presentation HEFCE QAA Leadership FHEQ Framework HEFCE Research Activity Survey/Audit 3rd Supervision. Research Identifying strengths/ Training Learning needs9. Internal Programme 30 credit module,Evaluation Professions & Practice 4th Supervision. 8. Re- Research proposal registration 60 credits, Practitioner (APRs & SEF Researcher Evaluations) 4. Learning 7. Interim 6. Re- 5. APRs & SEF Agreement: Year Assessment registration Evaluations 3 completed in first 3 months
  5. 5. Capturing This scoping exercise seeks to capture supervision trends 2. Did supervision … ? student supervision in the early years of the professional doctorate. In support of QAA guidelines, the scope is not seeking to outline what might be appropriate in terms of roles and responsibilities, nor codify how a 1. About how 1 2 3 4 5 supervision relationship might operate. However, to create the most effective learning many times did environment for the student it is hoped this you meet with scope will provide greater synergy between your supervisor the taught and supervision elements of the in years 1-5? programme What have you perceived useful for practice? Did you discuss Did you set any transferable skills? outcomes? What practical and transferable skills might have helped? Dr E Ball, audit flow chart for professional19/08/2011 transferable skills
  6. 6. Differences: Ph.D. c.f. Prof Doc PhD  Prof Doc Pre-service  In-service Theoretical research  Applied research Single discipline  Interdisciplinary Abstract knowledge  Knowledge in context ‘knowledge of’  ‘knowledge for’ Development of research  Development of teaching/ career management career Literature / lab based  Work based action research research
  7. 7. The journey1 Starting out on the journey 2Apprenticeship via taught sessions 4Springboard from year 2 3 Refinement of ideas into year 34 New relationship Assessment & 5 6Critical interpretation of Evaluation processes the findings back to practice
  8. 8. One factor that adds complexity to the DProf is partition and time As I see it the  Students are supported by a disadvantages firstly are, peer group where they the inability to keep the encounter many excellent work solid (by freezing interior structures such as the subject in some way) competition, peer assessment, The dominant challenge champions, encouragement is producing research and friendship that sits comfortably in  Inter-disciplinary and inter- the real world of practice professional working that does not use the fall-  Students have the art of back of generalisable ‘throat clearing’ imposed outcomes, but does upon them actually make an explicit contribution to knowledge
  9. 9. Esoteric discourse / Exoteric dialogue Doctoral candidate: “How will I know my writing is doctoral level? Supervisor: “I don’t know…. I know it when I see it”
  10. 10. Supervisory craft At the core is the need to manage the interplay between individual students & the organisation
  11. 11. T TH HE The supervisory role is action oriented EO OR We need to organise thinking about situations so that action to RY bring about change can be taken (Checkland & Poulter 2006) Y The legitimacy of professional knowledge & practiceG are implied within a professional doctorateE TN Ethical issues are far greater, as is confidentiality (Boucher & Smith 2004) EE SR From both student & supervisor there needs to be a recognition that others must be included in the research process TAT I In the final analysis, good communication is the key to good NI supervision GNG SUPERVISION 12
  12. 12. Anecdotal feedback “I have limited experience of Professional Doctorates; I have only been External Examiner for one University & have only supervised one student (student X) At X’s IA one of our examiners was keen the DProf was not treated any differently to a normal PhD project; he rightly did not want it to be seen of any different standard to a traditional PhD project. It is this important point that I have mulled over in my mind all week, because… When I was External Examiner at another University they had a very senior person to chair the viva. The reason was that I was to examine their first Professional Doctorate project. The advice they gave to me prior to the viva was crystal clear … “please note that you are examining a component of a Professional Doctorate”; they went on to remind me that the first two years of that part time award had already been examined and passed. They were very clear in their advice; in that they felt only having a 3 year project (compared with a 5 year project) would produce work of a different kind to that of a traditional PhD. They said I should bear this point in mind during the viva discussion and also when reflecting upon the written work itself. With point ‘3’ above in mind I thought again about point ‘2’ above. I then wondered whether there might be mileage in considering this matter, in light of my experience, and also being fair to both the award and the student. Fundamentally - do Professional Doctorate (PD) examiners (internal / external) need to take a different approach than with a traditional PhD thesis in light of PD students having already completed 2/5th of the award – unlike traditional PhD students where the entire work is on ‘the examination table’ for discussion and scrutiny”?
  13. 13. Recommendations Reflection Strategies Outcomes Experiences Prior knowledge Goals MotivationEvaluation Planning Action 14
  14. 14. RecommendationsAnalysis; fact finding ‘Baring the device’ Etymological route R R R 15
  15. 15. Questions for the supervisor’s workshop 1. What is the role of the supervisor (a) in years 1-2 and (b) in years 3-5? 2. How (if at all) might a professional doctorate thesis differ from one submitted for a PhD? 3. How (if at all) might the methodological approach for professional doctorate research differ from that in PhD research? 4. How much of the student’s existing professional knowledge can legitimately be incorporated into the thesis? 5. Is there any difference between the amount of existing literature that a professional doctorate student might be expected to engage with compared with a PhD student? 6. Should a professional doctorate thesis be written in the third or the first person? Why?
  16. 16. References Edwards N., Webber J., Mill J., Kahwae., Roelofs S (2009). Building capacity for nurse-led research. International Nursing Review. 56, 88–94.

×