|
Contributed by Andrew Chesterman,
04.04.2005
Each
member of this panel spoke briefly on one aspect of supervision, before the
general discussion. Our contributions are summarized below.
Andrew
Chesterman: The psychological aspect of
supervision
Christina
Schäffner: Formalising supervision – A step
towards better quality?
Jenny
Williams: Results
of surveys of research students
Sebnem Susam-Sarajeva: First encounters
Karen
Bennett: Standardization of supervision procedures: the cross-cultural
perspective
We also
add three other documents.
• Appendix 1 is the Code of practice for the
assurance of academic quality and standards in higher education produced by the UK Quality
Assurance Agency for Higher Education. It is discussed in detail by Christina Schäffner.
• Appendix 2 is the Joint
statement on skills training requirements by the UK research councils, also mentioned by
Christina.
• Appendix 3 is a version of
the PhD contract developed by the Department of Scandinavian
Languages and Literature at the University
of Helsinki,
mentioned by Andrew Chesterman in the discussion
that followed the panel presentations.
We are aware
of the structural and organizational differences between PhD requirements
and procedures in different countries. Some of these are mentioned by Karen
Bennett, and
they also came up in the general discussion. It is clear that we are some distance from
a common degree structure in this respect, even within Europe.
***
Panel
contributions
Andrew
Chesterman
University of Helsinki
The
psychological aspect of supervision
I
discussed some of the psychological aspects of supervision,
based on a Finnish book I had read when I started supervising, and which I
found very helpful. The book is
Juha T. Hakala
1996. Opinnäyte ja
sen ohjaaminen
('The thesis and its supervision'). Helsinki:
Gaudeamus.
Hakala
places his analysis of the supervision relationship in the context of three
historical cases.
(a) Socrates, who relied on
conversation, forced his “students” to justify their claims and
positions, offered no ready answers, and aimed to stimulate thought.
(b) Verrocchio and Leonardo da
Vinci: master and apprentice. Verrocchio
maintained a strict discipline (> time managament,
targets), taught by example, and encouraged teamwork and cooperation
between master and apprentice.
(c) Freud and
Jung: not a model relationship!
Freud’s authoritarian attitude led to conflict and eventually
to Jung’s rebellion.
Hakala’s own analysis of the supervision relation is based on three role
models, which somehow need to be combined. These models are partly the
result of his own empirical work and questionnaire
studies, and partly adapted from other research in organization psychology.
Counsellor. This role
requires sensitivity to the emotional dimension, to the student's life
situation, encouragement; trust; a counsellor is a good listener. He/she
creates a positive atmosphere and positive attitudes. But a counsellor is
not a therapist.
Instructor. An instructor
gives practical advice, help with formal
requirements, style, problem-solving, evident weaknesses. He/she aims at a
balance between convergent (> explanatory) and divergent (creative,
fresh) thinking, which may be needed at different stages in the research
process.. A key notion is critical thinking.
Evaluator. This role may
clash with the others, but the supervisor has to give both positive and
negative feedback. This role may arouse fear, because the supervisor
obviously uses power in this role. A good evaluator underlines the
objectives of the thesis.
Supervision
can be difficult in situations where these roles seem to clash.
Hakala’s own research indicated that supervisors themselves thought that
their main weaknesses concerned their ability to advise
on methodology issues (the instructor role). Students, on the other hand,
complained mainly about their supervisors’ lack of psychological and
communication skills (the counsellor role).
***
Christina Schäffner
Aston University,
Birmingham
Formalising supervision – A step
towards better quality?
The quality of postgraduate research in Translation
Studies is of major concern to all higher education institutions, and also
to EST. At the EST
Congress 1998, we had a panel on thesis supervision, at which results of a questionnaire on PhD and
Master's supervision in translation studies were presented. The results
then were mainly of a quantitative nature, reflecting differences in the
structure, expectations, and procedures of postgraduate research.
With regard to the quality of programme provision, universities in England undergo institutional
audits and subject reviews at regular intervals. For conducting these
reviews, the Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education (QAA) has
produced a variety of guidelines, benchmark statements, and codes of
practice. One such Code, which came into force in September 2004, is the Code
of practice for the assurance of academic quality and standards in higher
education (see http://www.qaa.ac.uk/academicinfrastructure/codeOfPractice/section1/default.asp).
This Code was produced by a working group including
representatives from Higher Education institutions, research councils,
funding councils and other organisations, and the
final version is the result of a lengthy consultation process. This code
sets out what a PhD student can expect from a university and vice versa.
Although the Code is presented as “a statement of good
practice”, universities must comply with it in order to secure
funding from the Higher Education Funding Council of England (HEFCE). The
code will also be the basis for future audit and review processes. As
stated in the forward: “[The Code] provides an authoritative
reference point for institutions as they consciously, actively and systematically
assure the academic quality and standards of their programmes,
awards and qualifications.” Universities are required to have
policies and procedures in place that are robust and effective in securing
and enhancing the quality and standards of the provision of research degree
programmes.
The matters relating to the management of
academic quality and standards in higher education which are covered by the
Code are presented in the form of system-wide principles (precepts). These
precepts express “key matters of principle that the higher education
community has identified as important for the assurance of quality and
academic standards.”
Since the Code is to give Higher Education
Institutions guidance on fundings
councils’, research councils’ and QAA expectations in respect
of quality and standards of research programmes,
the precepts are accompanied by explanations. There are 27 precepts in
total, covering the following issues:
·
Institutional arrangements
·
The research environment
·
Selection, admission and induction of students
·
Supervision
·
Progress and review arrangements
·
Development of research and other skills
·
Feedback mechanisms
·
Assessment
·
Student representations
·
Complaints
·
Appeals
In the following part, I will only focus on
the Supervision section. The complete list of precepts is given in Appendix
1, followed by a Joint statement by the research councils/AHRB on Skills
training requirements for research students (Appendix 2). It is
expected that doctoral research students develop these skills during their
research training, and institutions are to ensure that this is the case. It
is interesting to see that in addition to research skills and techniques,
this list of skills also includes communication skills, networking and teamworking skills, and career management skills. With
their PhD thesis, research students are expected to make a substantial,
original contribution to the knowledge in their area, but at the same time,
they are expected to prepare for a professional career in the academic
environment. I mention these skills here because they explain the national
and institutional context in which the Code and the precepts have to be
understood. That is, although the Code says that the precepts “are
intended to cover the many different types of students undertaking research
programmes in the UK, including full and
part-time, students of all ages and with different needs, UK and
international, and from all backgrounds”, both the list of skills and
the comments in the Code seem to reflect that the typical research student
is a young person at the beginning of their career, coming to PhD research
after having completed a Master’s programme.
This can also be seen in the Code’s section on Development of
research and other skills (precept 18), which speaks of skills students
require “to become effective researchers, to enhance their
employability and assist their career progress after completion of their
degree.”
All precepts in the Code are interrelated, and although
they apply to the UK
context, some of the requirements are of general relevance in respect of
quality of research and quality of supervision. For example, research
students should work in an academic envrionment
in which high quality research is being done and which provides sufficient
support for research; institutions will only admit appropriately qualified
and prepared students to research programmes;
responsibilities of research students and supervisors are defined and
communicated clearly. The Code thus clearly argues for formalised
and regulated arrangements which allow for monitoring and control.
Supervision is seen as an institutional matter. In other words, the
traditional practice of a more personal arrangement between supervisor and
supervisee is no longer seen as being conducive to high quality research.
The aspect of Supervision is covered in
precepts 11 till 14. These precepts deal with the institutional
responsibility to provide regular and appropriate supervisory support,
opportunities for interacting with other researchers, advice from
independent sources, and arrangements that protect the student in the event
of the loss of a supervisor. I will present the precepts, give extracts of
the accompanying explanations, and add my own comments.
Precept 11: Institutions will appoint
supervisors who have the appropriate skills and subject knowledge to
support, encourage and monitor research students effectively.
All supervisors need appropriate expertise
for their role. They will wish, and institutions will require them, to
engage in development of various kinds to equip them to supervise students.
New supervisors will participate in
specified development activities, arranged through their institutions, to
assure their competence in the role.
Institutions will expect existing
supervisors to demonstrate their continuing professional development
through participation in a range of activities designed to support their
work as supervisors. Supervisors should take the initiative in updating
their knowledge and skills, supported by institutional arrangements that
define and enable sharing of good practice and provide advice on effective
support for different types of student. Mentoring relationships are one
example of how support can be provided for supervisors.
[…]
Comment: The qualifications of supervisors are a
crucial aspect. In the UK,
academics who have a PhD can be supervisors of research students. This
means that somebody who has just completed a PhD themselves may be
appointed as supervisor shortly afterwards. That is, appointment as a
supervisor is independent of the academic position and of experience. It is
also possible to be appointed as a supervisor without a PhD if the person
concerned has relevant experience in the discipline and/or has published
widely. In other countries, only professors are appointed as supervisors,
or an academic needs to have a higher doctorate
(e.g. a Habilitation in Germany)
in order to act as a supervisor. These specific
conditions of supervisor appointment in the UK explains the
requirement for training expressed in precept 11.
But when does a supervisor have
‘appropriate expertise’? The supervisory role includes
expertise in the subject domain and also interpersonal skills. Anybody who
has completed a PhD themselves should have proved their expertise in a
relevant topic and subject, which will enable them to give guidance to the
supervisee. The interpersonal level is crucial for the success of
supervision. Supervising a young full-time research student who is a novice
to research requires different skills from supervising a colleague who is
working part-time for a PhD and who may already have published and/or given
papers at conferences. Age and gender may be important factors in the
relationship as well. The country of origin of the research student is also
crucial, since expectations about the role of the supervisor are different
(e.g., supervisor as a fountain of knowledge, as a facilitator, as a
friend). Institutional training for supervisors can be helpful in this
respect if it is organised as exchange of
experience and raising awareness of potential problems. Developing
expertise in supervising is a gradual process, and training as such can be
useful in speeding up this process. However, there is also the danger that
institutions may overact in their quest to comply with the Code (structured
programmes that lead to a postgraduate
certificate in supervision, awarded after completion of sessions and
examinations have already been developed in some institutions).
Precept 12: Each research student will have
a minimum of one main supervisor. He or she will normally be part of a
supervisory team. There must always be one clearly identified point of
contact for the student.
[…] Involvement with a supervisory
team can provide valuable staff development and grounding in the skills
required to become an effective research supervisor. A supervisory team can
give the student access to a multi-faceted support network, which may include:
other research staff and students in the subject; a departmental adviser to
postgraduate students; a faculty postgraduate tutor; or other individuals
in similar roles.
Between them, the main supervisor and,
where relevant, other members of the supervisory team, will ensure that
research students receive sufficient support and guidance to facilitate
their success.
At least one member of the supervisory team
will be currently engaged in research in the relevant discipline(s), so as
to ensure that the direction and monitoring of the student's progress is
informed by up-to-date subject knowledge and research developments.
[…] In all cases, a student should
have an identified single point of contact, normally the main supervisor.
[…]
As and when a main supervisor is not able
to continue supervising the student, an appropriate supervisor will be
appointed to assume the role.
[…] It is important that, if a
student/supervisor relationship is not working well, alternative
independent sources of advice are available to the student. […]
Students will have sufficient opportunities
for contacting and receiving advice and guidance from their supervisor(s)
throughout their programme, irrespective of their
geographical location. […]
Comment: These explanations again highlight the
fact that supervision is perceived as an institutional responsibility. On the one hand, this can be interpreted
in a positive way: research students are integrated into the research
environment and they are encouraged to see themselves as members of a
research community, and not just as ‘a student of Professor X’.
On the other hand, having a supervisory team is also a kind of insurance
policy for universities against potential failure, complaints and appeals. In the UK, research students have to pay
a fee, unless they receive a scholarship or a bursary and/or the fee is
paid by sponsors, employers, or research councils (universities also
receive some money from the funding councils, depending on the number of
research students, and only for a specified time; recently, plans have been
announced to fund only research students at universities that got the
highest scores of 4 or 5 in
the Research Assessment Exercise). This means, if students fail to to complete their PhD after having spent a lot of
money, the chances that they may complain about inadequate supervision are
higher. Also in order to safeguard against lengthy processes of complaints and appeals, universities
are expected to have procedures in place with which to monitor progress (e.g.,
annual reports on each student’s progress, to be completed jointly by
the supervisor and the supervisee;
questionnaires on supervision
arrangements to be completed anonymously by the student once a year; annual
monitoring reports on research degree programmes
are submitted to the university’s Quality and Standards Committee,
including information on student numbers, completion rates, withdrawals).
The focus on supervisory teams is another one of these measures to monitor
quality of provision (NB: the label ‘provision’ itself is
evidence of the marketing discourse of higher education, where the
institutions are seen as programme providers, and
the students as customers who want to buy quality products, and if they
don’t get quality, they complain to the manager). It is thus also in
the institution’s interest to do everything to help research students
complete their PhD in time and to a high level of quality, and this explains the
responsibility for a student in any case (e.g. finding another supervisor if
the original supervisor leaves the university). This again shows that for
research students too, the institutional affiliation should at least be
equally important than ‘attachment’ to a particular supervisor.
Precept 13: Institutions will ensure that
the responsibilities of all research student supervisors are clearly
communicated to supervisors and students through written guidance.
It is important that supervisor(s) and
student are fully aware of the extent of one another's responsibilities, to
enable both to understand the supervisor's contribution to supporting the
student and where the supervisor's responsibilities end.
Depending on institutional and research
council guidance, supervisory responsibilities may include:
• providing
satisfactory guidance and advice;
• being
responsible for monitoring the progress of the student's research programme;
• establishing
and maintaining regular contact with the student (where appropriate, guided
by institutional expectations), and ensuring his/her accessibility to the
student when s/he needs advice, by whatever means is most suitable given
the student's location and mode of study;
• having
input into the assessment of a student's development needs;
• providing
timely, constructive and effective feedback on the student's work,
including his/her overall progress within the programme;
• ensuring
that the student is aware of the need to exercise probity and conduct
his/her research according to ethical principles, and of the implications
of research misconduct;
• ensuring
that the student is aware of institutional-level sources of advice,
including careers guidance, health and safety legislation and equal
opportunities policy;
• providing
effective pastoral support and/or referring the student to other sources of
such support, including student advisers (or equivalent), graduate school
staff and others within the student's academic community;
• helping
the student to interact with others working in the field of research, for
example, encouraging the student to attend relevant conferences, supporting
him/her in seeking funding for such events; and where appropriate to submit
conference papers and articles to refereed journals;
• maintaining
the necessary supervisory expertise, including the appropriate skills, to
perform all of the roles satisfactorily, supported by relevant continuing
professional development opportunities.
Supervisors will be sensitive to the
diverse needs of individual students, including international students, and
the associated support that may be required in different circumstances.
[…]
Institutions may find it helpful to include
in their code(s) of practice […], guidance on the minimum frequency
of contact advisable between students and supervisors. […]
Comment: This list of responsibilities reflects the
different roles of the supervisor (subject expert, advisor, mentor,
assessor, ‘agony aunt’, …). It
also highlights the supervisor’s responsibility both towards the
research student (in the narrow sense of producing a PhD and in the wider
sense of becoming a member of the research community) and towards the
institution (reporting on progress, informing of problems). It could be
argued that the whole list of tasks referring to the responsibility towards
the research student is common sense. Each academic should be interested in
enhancing knowledge in their respective discipline, and subsequently, each
supervisor should be interested in seeing new scholars emerge and helping
them getting established – and a successful PhD thesis of high
quality is a major step in this process. In the environment of UK
universities, as explained above, this list of responsibilities can also
serve as performance indicators against which the quality of supervision is
monitored. Supervisors and supervisees are encouraged (or even expected) to
sign a kind of ‘contract’ at their first meeting in which all
these responsibilities, rights and duties of both partners are spelled out.
With their signature, both sides confirm that they are aware of their
roles. This will also guarantee that (culture-specific) different
expectations a student may have had are clarified right at the beginning.
It is also expected that records are kept of each meeting with brief
statements about the content of the discussions and the next steps agreed. These
records too, are signed by both supervisor and supervisee, and they can be
referred to in case of complaints, or to bring a new supervisor, if needed, up to date.
Precept 14: Institutions will ensure that
the quality of supervision is not put at risk as a result of an excessive
volume and range of responsibilities assigned to individual supervisors.
In appointing supervisors, institutions
need to be aware of and guided by the overall workload of the individual,
including teaching, research, administration and other responsibilities,
[…]
Supervisors need time to provide adequate
contact with each research student and to fulfil
the responsibilities listed under Precept 13 above. Supervisors and students
should agree between themselves the level of interaction required and what
constitutes sufficient time, in terms of quality as well as quantity, to
devote to the supervisory role. […]
Comment: This point again highlights the
institutional responsibility. Even if in reality, potential research
students very often contact an individual academic whom they would wish to
have as a supervisor, in the end it is the institution that appoints the
supervisors. In other words, academics are not selecting their supervisees
themselves. Institutions are expected to specify a maximum number of
research students one supervisor may have at the same time (at Aston University, the maximum number has
been set as six students). As to the frequency and length of meetings, it
has been recognised in the final version of the
Code that these depend on the discipline, the nature of the research, and
the status of the student, and that minimum thresholds cannot be
prescribed. It is expected, however, that the ‘contract’ between
supervisor and supervisee includes a statement about the frequency of
meetings, and the questionnaires which research students are to complete
once a year include questions to this effect.
Concluding
comments:
As
should have become clear in the extracts of the Code, research degrees in
the UK
are not seen as exclusively individual aspiration and personal fulfilment. Research degree programmes
(note the word ‘programme’) are part
of the higher education system, a system which is increasingly subject to
monitoring, auditing, and control. Although, as mentioned above, the Code
repeatedly refers to the variety of research students (e.g. full-time and
part-time, different age and background), the requirements expressed in the
precepts can more easily be assured if we are dealing with young full-time
research students.
The
Code needs to be seen in the context of the UK, where universities are
expected to function like companies (a business and management culture),
where most universities are short of money, where research students have to
pay a fee, where research output is measured effectively in financial terms
(the score in the Research Assessment Exercise, the number of PhD students,
the completion rate, and similar factors decide on the amount of money universities
can get from the government). In such an environment, it is understandable
that universities develop policies and procedures with which to assure
themselves and the government of the quality of research degree programmes. The QAA Code of practice sets out minimum
standards for such programmes against which
universities can judge their own practice. In view of all the required
openness and transparency of research degrees, it is surprising to see that
the final assessment of the PhD is still to be done ‘behind closed
doors’, so to speak. In contrast to other countries where the final
assessment is conducted in the form of a public defence
or dispute, the practice in the UK is a viva, conducted by two
examiners. The supervisor is allowed to be present, but must not be
involved in the assessment; and very often it is not even known that a viva
is taking place. The Code proposes the introduction of an independent,
non-examining chair (Precept 23), a proposal which has been hotly disputed
and resisted at my own university. It seems that academics, faced with
increasing red tape and monitoring procedures (and the accompanying
paperwork) want to hang on at least to one of their traditions and thus
preserve some form of autonomy.
Based on my own experience as a
PhD supervisor in the UK, and also familiar with the system in Germany, I
would say that supervisors in the UK do indeed work within specific
constraints, but that these constraints can also be seen as facilitating
factors. Regular monitoring helps all parties to become aware of potential
problems which otherwise might not have come to light (e.g. because the
supervisee was too shy to mention problems). I would not want to be
required to get a formal qualification as a supervisor, e.g. being made to
attend a training programme where I have to sit exams and get a
certificate. But I would have appreciated some form of training, had it
been available, when I got my first PhD student. I would have found it
useful had I been given some advise about what to expect from research
students from particular countries, about how to (re)act when faced with
particular problems at the interpersonal level. Without such advice at the
beginning of the ‘career’ as a supervisor, we probably all try
to do as our own supervisor did but not repeating things we were not happy
with. New supervisors might be reluctant to ask more experienced colleagues
for help when faced with a particular challenge, because they may not want
others to know that not everything is working smoothly in the supervisory
arrangements. Training at an institutional level, which allows for
exchanging experience and sharing good practice, can thus be very useful
for new supervisors.
In short, although the Code has been
produced for the context of the UK, it contains proposals which
should be useful for the arrangement of research supervision in other
countries as well. The formalising of supervision
should result in more efficient institutional arrangements of skills
training for research students and thsu to an
improvement of the completion rates. Whether such a formalisation
also results in a higher quality of the research and the PhD thesis remains
to be seen.
***
Jenny
Williams
Dublin City
University
Results
of surveys of research students
There have
been two surveys of research students undertaken in the School of Applied
Language and Intercultural Studies at DCU
over the last 4 years from which 2 major issues emerge.
1. Position of research students in
the School and in the University
1.1.
Induction both at the level
of the department and the university:
At the
level of the department: Who’s
who in the department? How does the department function? Where do they fit
in?
At the
level of the University:
The roles
of the Finance Office, Admissions Office, Examinations Office etc.
Procedures
in respect of registration, progression, submission, vivas
1.2. Entitlements of research
students:
Are
research students entitled to:
• space?
• equipment?
• funding? (What are the sources of
funding in the University? How do students apply?)
• training?
Where does that training take place – at departmental level or at
University level?)
1.3. Responsibilities of research
students:
Are
they expected to teach – and, if so, for nothing? Or at what rate? Is
there a regulation about maximum hours per week a student may teach?
1.4. Social life
Where
can research students meet research students from other Departments? Is
there a Postgraduate Society?
These
may all seem like technical issues, but our experience is that they can
pose major difficulties. So much so, that they now form part of our
Research Training Programme.
On the
issue of research training, it is not only students who may require
training; supervisors may need training, too. Last year we ran a Research
Training programme which was aimed at both students and supervisors: the
take-up on the part of the supervisors was poor, partly because some
supervisors did not recognise the importance of training – and partly
because some supervisors regarded their research students as their personal
property.
Which
brings me to the second issue to emerge from the surveys:
2. Relationship with the supervisor
The traditional
1:1 supervisor-student relationship is a residue of the medieval
master/apprentice tradition: when it’s good, it’s very good,
but when it’s bad, it can be dreadful.
There
are two main problems in the traditional 1:1 supervision arrangment:
i.
it is relationship of unequals in which
the student can be very vulnerable;
ii.
the expectations (on both sides), which are mostly unspoken, can
differ enormously
A key
issue here is the establishment of mechanisms for dealing with breakdown
during supervision.
Another
aspect which has been largely ignored has been arrangements for supervision
after a viva when the student has been asked to make major changes to the
dissertation. In this situation the relationship between the supervisor and
student may have broken down – what supports are there for the
student?
In both
surveys students expressed a preference for having more than 1 supervisor.
My own
view of team supervision has changed recently as a result of a team
supervision I currently am involved in: 3 colleagues at DCU along with the
Translation Manager of an IT company are supervising a research student
funded by the IT company who is working in the field of Controlled
Language/ MT. This student, it seems to me, has a lot of advantages over
someone being supervised by a single individual.
Some
students surveyed also proposed a more formal arrangement – such as a
contract outlining roles, rights and responsibilities:
-
frequency and nature of consultations (eg. Once a month/ over coffee or in the office?)
-
submission and return of work
In
informal discussions with TS colleagues over the years I’ve been
struck by the similarity of the problems facing us in the area of research
supervision. While institutional frameworks and national traditions may
vary, it seems to me that there are a number of issues which are universal.
EST is an appropriate forum in which to identify these and –
hopefully – agree on a set of principles and procedures of good
practice.
***
Sebnem Susam-Sarajeva
University of Edinburgh
First
encounters
Based
on my belief that a good start will ease one’s journey on the road,
my contribution to the discussion on research supervision within
translation studies focuses on the first encounter(s) between the
supervisor/institution and the PhD candidate, and on the first year of PhD
study. It is divided into three parts:
1. Enquiry / application stage
In my
first encounters with prospective PhD candidates, either via e-mail or in
face-to-face interviews, I try to find out about their determination to
study for a PhD degree. I emphasise the commitment (time, energy and
money-wise) it entails, and enquire whether their reasons to apply for a
PhD are compelling enough for them. If they are still keen on the process
and if they are physically present in Edinburgh, I invite them to the
monthly PhD seminars in translation studies, so that they will attend the
presentations given by current PhD candidates, will gain more understanding
about the process and get acquainted with the research community they will
eventually be introduced into if they apply. Taking out the current PhD
students and the would-be applicants to lunch together proved to be another
effective tool in encouraging or discouraging members of the latter group.
Also,
while answering the queries about PhD degrees, sending the applicants
guidelines about writing up a research proposal is extremely useful.
Certain future disappointments can then be avoided at this stage.
2. First month
In our
first meeting with a student now registered for the PhD, we try to identify
the research experience and training he/she already has and to find out
ways of enhancing this experience. Areas of relative
‘ignorance’ within translation studies are also pinpointed, and
the student is then encouraged to take the initiative to learn more about
those areas. Other problems which might interfere with their work, such as
accommodation, financial issues and family, often need to be addressed.
3. First year
During
the first year, the role of a supervisor seems to be that of encouraging
and orienting. Students need encouragement to attend national and
international conferences, to start thinking about possible future
publications (especially if they are carrying over from a Master’s
degree at the same institution), to prepare for the first year mini-viva,
and to start building up an academic network in general. Orienting the
student to the other resources available both within the university and
within the country is also crucial if one would like to avoid a strictly
1:1 relationship with the candidate and to fight the isolation associated
with a PhD. Such resources
might include:
- library induction days,
introducing the collections and most importantly the databases to the
students;
- relevant Master’s courses
which the PhD candidates might attend, e.g. courses on research
methodology in translation studies;
- guest lectures or seminars
in translation studies, organised within the university or within
neighbouring universities;
- monthly PhD seminars, which
are invaluable opportunities to practice one’s oral research
presentation skills, to receive feedback from one’s peers and to
exchange tips about upcoming events and research resources;
- summer schools in
translation studies, offering training not only in generic research
skills but also in discipline-specific research methodologies;
- university careers services
which will guide the students in preparing for an academic career;
- workshops on organisation, time
management, effective communication, thesis writing, computer
programmes, databases, personal skills (e.g. motivation, flexibility),
etc.;
- nation-wide web-based networks
dedicated to postgraduate students, especially if they are
specifically related to translation studies.
In
short, I believe that the PhD candidates should not be left alone on their
own, or alone with their supervisors for that matter, especially in their
first crucial year. The institutional infrastructure should be fully
utilised. In cases where such structures do not exist or are not
sufficient, the supervisors might advocate further development in these
areas.
***
Karen Bennett
Universidade Católica
Portuguesa, Viseu
Standardization
of supervision procedures: the cross-cultural perspective
What follows is a subjective response to the proposals
recently raised for standardizing supervision procedures in the area of
Translation Studies. It should be noted that these comments are entirely
based upon my own experiences as a student and teacher in both England and Portugal, and I do not claim to
be speaking on behalf of any authority, or indeed for any other
individuals.
The Cross-Cultural Perspective
What is most immediately obvious about the AHRB
Guidelines on supervision procedures is the extent to which they reflect
the values and organisation of the British University system. While many of the
suggestions are clearly useful, and indeed valid for different cultures,
there are other aspects that would be difficult to implement elsewhere due
to deep-rooted differences in the whole approach to postgraduate
study.
Aspects that may be transferrable:
§ Structuring
of the supervisor’s role: certainly students everywhere will gain a
sense of security from the knowledge that their supervisor is in some way
answerable to an institution or network, and that they are not at the mercy
of the whims of some individual. Indeed, the existence of a supervisory
team or panel would go a long way towards ensuring that the proper checks
and balances are in place. (However, the precise nature of that structuring
may need to be established on a national or even faculty level – see
below).
§ Training
of supervisors: clearly students
will benefit greatly from the implementation of a training scheme for supervisors,
particularly as regards the all-important counselling
skills, which are at present somewhat left to chance in most institutions.
Once again, however, the exact nature of that training should perhaps be
established locally, in the light of the other complementary services
provided by the institution.
Possible areas of difficulty:
Rigid structuring of the kind envisaged in the
guidelines could not, I feel, be easily implemented outside the UK
without a complete standardization of the whole doctoral system. This is
largely due to the fact that the various systems in existence in Europe have developed out of very different
traditions, and therefore have their own logic that may not necessarily be
amenable to the importation of foreign procedures.
Some of the
differences to be taken into account are:
1) |