Building supervisory teams
Introduction:
While supervisory teams have potential to provide considerable benefits to supervisors and supervised students, much of the literature on supervision of research students still relates to a solo supervisor. Failure to address the complexities of supervisory teams can prevent realisation of the benefits expected to be delivered by team supervision.
This tool can be customised and used as the basis for individual or group study, review and reflection by supervisors or as the basis for face-to-face workshops or webinars for HDR supervisors at:
- campus-wide or institution-wide level
- withina particular faculty, school or department.
Use of this tool may trigger amendments to policy documents on supervision.
Content:
This tool canvassesa range of issues related to co-supervision and supervisory teams, including:
- team composition
- benefits of a team
- allocation of roles within the supervisory team
- changes in roles at different stages in the research project
- mentoring
- maintaining a cohesive supervisory team.
Materials and resources:
This tool has 2 parts:
- Part 1,copies of customisable slides from aPowerPoint presentation used at ECU in two successful workshops on co-supervision in 2012
- Part 2, a reading list.
Part 1. Slides from a PowerPoint presentation used at two successful workshops on co-supervision
List and discuss potential advantages and disadvantages of team supervision.
Part 2. Reading list on supervisory teams
Birch, L. J. (2011).Telling stories : A thematic narrative analysis of eight women’s PhD experiences. PhD thesis. Victoria University.
Borders, L. D. (2012). Dyadic, triadic, and group models of peer supervision/consultation: What are their components, and is there evidence of their effectiveness? Clinical Psychologist, 16(2), 59-71. doi:10.1111/j.1742-9552.2012.00046.x
Bruce, A., Stajduhar, K., Molzahn, A., Macdonald, M., Starzomski, R., & Brown, M. (2008). Nursing graduate supervision of theses and projects at a distance : Issues and challenges. International Journal of Nursing, 5(1), Article 43.
Burnes, T. R., Wood, J. A., Inman, J. L., & Welikson, G. a. (2012).An investigation of process variables in feminist group clinical supervision.The Counseling Psychologist, XX(X), 1-24. doi:10.1177/0011000012442653
Colbran, S. (2004).Collaborative supervision of legal doctoral theses through e-learning.UNELJ, 2, 1-30.
Davis, K., Brownie, S., Doran, F., Evans, S., Hutchinson, M., Mozolic-Staunton, B., Provost, S., et al. (2012). Action learning enhances professional development of research supervisors: an Australian health science exemplar. Nursing & health sciences, 14(1), 102-8. doi:10.1111/j.1442-2018.2011.00660.x
Douglas, D. (2003). Reflections on research supervision: a grounded theory case of reflective practice. Research in Post-Compulsory Education, 8(2), 213-230. doi:10.1080/13596740300200150
Hunt, J., Swallow, V., & Twycross, A. (2011). A peer-driven community-based supervisory model: development from an evaluation of an ethics workshop for doctoral students undertaking research with children. Retrieved from eprints.bournemouth.ac.uk/.../supervisory_models_ethics_workshop...
Kiley, M. (2011). Developments in research supervisor training: causes and responses. Studies in Higher Education, 36(5), 585-599. doi:10.1080/03075079.2011.594595
Laurs, D. (2010). Collaborating with postgraduate supervisors. In V. van der Ham, L. Sevillano, & L. George (Eds.), Shifting sands, firm foundations: Proceedings of the 2009 Annual International Conference of the Association of Tertiary Learning Advisors of Aotearoa/New Zealand (ATLAANZ) (pp. 18-30).
Lee, A. (2006). Some implications of European initiatives for doctoral supervision (pp. 1-22). Retrieved from
Lee, A. (2008). Identifying different approaches to research supervision. ECER Annual Conference for the European Educational Research Association.
Lee, A. (2012). Successful research supervision: Advising students doing research. Abingdon, England: Routledge.
Macauley, P., & Cavanagh, A. K. (2001). Doctoral dissertations at a distance: A novel approach from Downunder. Journal of Library Administration, 32(1-2), 331-346. doi:10.1300/J111v32n01
McAlpine, L., & Paulson, J. (2010). Untold doctoral stories: Cultural narratives of neglect. Society for Research into Higher Education conference. Retrieved from
Moriarty, B., Danaher, P. A., & Danaher, G. (2008). Freire and dialogical pedagogy: a means for interrogating opportunities and challenges in Australian postgraduate supervision. International Journal of Lifelong Education, 27(4), 431-442. Retrieved from eprints.usq.edu.au/6945/
Spooner-Lane, R., Henderson, D., Price, R., & Hill, G. (2007). Practice to theory:
Co-supervision stories. The International Journal of Research Supervision, 1(1), 39-51. Retrieved from
Stracke, E. (2010). Undertaking the journey together: Peer learning for a successful and enjoyable PhD experience. Journal of University Teaching & Learning Practice, 7(1), Article 8.
Taplin, R. (2003). Defining the environmental doctorate: Education for sustainable development. Defining the doctorate: AARE mini conference (pp. 1-15).
Turner, G. (2010). “I didn’t really appreciate how hard work it would be!” – New supervisors’ experiences of doctoral supervision. Society for Research into Higher Education Conference. Retrieved from
Turner, G. (2011). Lost sleep and triumphant moments: emotion in learning to supervise.Society for Research into Higher Education conference. Retrieved from
Zeelen, J. (2003). Improving the research culture at historically black universities: the situation at the University of the North : conversations. Perspectives in Education, 21(2), 1-2.
Tool Creator and Feedback Details:
Craig Standing
Phone: 08 6304 5545
Email: