Undergraduate Research Supervision

Undergraduate research supervision: a gendered perspective

Hammick Dr., Marilyn

Paper presented at the British Educational Research Association Annual Conference

(September 11-14 1997: University of York)

Abstract

This paper reports the motivation, methodology and findings of an investigation into differences between the research supervision style of women and men. It was motivated by an interest in the potential for gendered ways of working to influence the student-supervisor relationship. Data collection was by unstructured, audio-taped interviews. Iterative content analysis led to a dialogue in which the similarities and differences found within the women and men supervisors' transcripts were contextualised within current literature. The study showed that the women and men supervisors have distinctive styles in some aspects of their practice of supervision.

Key TermsSupervisor, style, gender, undergraduate, research.

INTRODUCTION

The study reported in this paper looked at research supervision[1] in an undergraduate degree course, specifically focusing on the influence of gender on this complex academic task. The relationship between research supervisor and student has many features, including gendered ones, that influence supervisory style as it is delivered and perceived. Fundamental to the style of supervision is a common language.

Language was also the tool of investigation in the study with unstructured interviews used to encourage supervisors to talk freely about their practice of supervision. The study was part of the aims, of my colleagues and myself, to further our understanding of the supervisory relationship and improve satisfaction with local undergraduate supervision. I had also identified a neglect of gender as a focus in the literature on supervision. It was exploratory research, motivated by our recognition of the need for reflection on our supervisory practice.

CONTEXT AND MOTIVATION

Issues within local undergraduate supervision seemed to be focused on whether staff had sufficient experience and expertise for their supervisory role and the differing approaches taken by staff to supervision. As in the study by McMichael (1993) the supervisors had not all written a postgraduate dissertation and the emphasis in their professional careers to date had been on clinical practice and, or, the preparation of students for professional practice.

In the research setting students were allocated to supervisors to ensure an even workload and by linking the student’s investigation with the expertise of a supervisor. Matching student to supervisor on a personal basis of any kind, including gender, was not done.
THE ENQUIRY

Audio-taped data were collected from four women and three men who were annually responsible for the supervision of thirty-five undergraduates. On average, 80% of the cohort were women. Assurances about confidentiality, anonymity and the use of the data for research purposes only were given to the participants.

The language used to describe supervisory style was analysed for connections with gendered-ideologies. Such ideologies are informed (amongst other things) by our life experience and exposure to role models of feminine and masculine behaviours. These influences help to determine our value system, attitudes and beliefs, in this case about gender. Gender as a 'relation' (Cockburn 1991: 221) refers to 'patterned, socially produced distinctions between ... feminine and masculine’ and is a 'daily accomplishment' in our working and other lives (Acker 1989: 250).

The study hypothesised that the way supervisors discussed their style would reflect gendered attitudes and values, especially in relation to power and knowledge. These concepts are represented in Figure 1 as part of the research-supervision-relationship (R-S-R).

STYLE
LANGUAGELANGUAGE
(the illuminator)(the communicator)
Knowledge and / Gender / and Power
Relationship
StudentResearch supervisor

Figure 1

The research supervision relationship (R-S-R) model

They provided the framework in which the empirical data were analysed. In the R-S-R model knowledge and power and gender are subsumed under the concept of style: style of supervision and style of language. Inextricably linked here by the use of one to describe the other.

Power

For students few issues are more high-stakes than the mark for a major piece of academic work. In such high-stakes situations power becomes a significant issue. Power can be defined as the medium 'by which interests .... can be realised' even in situations where there is no overt conflict (Oldersma & Davis 1991: 8-9). Power is an important concept within gender studies where gender is seen 'in terms of a set of power relations or social relations structured in dominance' (Griffin 1996: 181-2). Equally important though is the need to recognise the complexity of power, for example, that 'gendered relations are also lived as class relations' (Cockburn 1991: 221). In the context of undergraduate supervision there is a class-type relationship, i.e. that of a student with a supervisor who is a member of the academic staff, and the assessor of the student's work.

Knowledge

Power has been historically linked with knowledge. As Bacon (1597) said 'for also knowledge itself is power'. The term supervision implies that the supervisor has some knowledge not known by the student at the beginning of their research. An unequal power relationship exists in this situation. The relationship may alter as the supervision progresses with the supervisor changing from the 'unquestioned authority on the subject his student is researching', to when ‘his expertise as an instructor (may be) challenged' (Welsh 1978: 84). The ability of the supervisor to accommodate changes in the balance of power and knowledge in their relationship with a student will affect the way they supervise. It is equally important that the supervisor knows how to supervise and has a level of confidence in their ability to practice supervision. Knowledge is thus an important feature of the supervisory relationship.

THE ANALYTICAL APPROACH

The interview transcripts were examined for the key themes and the themes for the women’s and men’s scripts listed separately (Figures 2 and 3). The meaning of each theme was then clarified and similarities and differences that could be linked with issues of knowledge and power sought.

• Doubts about their ability to supervise
• Asking advice from others
• General problems with supervision
• The personal supervisory relationship
• Skills of the student
• Skills of the supervisor
• Role modelling
• Supervisor as assessor

Figure 2

Themes (8) from interviews with women supervisors

• Confidence in their ability to supervise
• Ways of overcoming any weakness in their supervisory practice
• General problems with supervision
• Skills of the supervisor
• Skills of the student
• Role modelling
• Supervisor as assessor

Figure 3

Themes (7) from interviews with men supervisors

All the women had doubts about their ability to be an effective supervisor. This was frequently linked to how they coped with such doubts and produced the theme of asking advice from others. Initial interpretation of the men’s transcripts led to two similar themes with different natures: confidence in their ability to supervise and ways of overcoming any weakness in their supervisory practice. One analytical focus was, therefore, on the difference in these dual themes. At first sight it seemed that the women started from a rather negative view of their ability to supervise, in contrast to the men who were more positive about their abilities.

A unique theme within the women’s transcripts was that of the personal supervisory relationship. Early analysis of the general problems encountered by supervisors revealed some gendered differences. The second analytical focus was, therefore, on the content of these themes.

The ideologies expressed by the words and phrases used within the remaining themes-in-common were also analysed. None of the comments on the skills of the supervisor could be related to gendered issues; and there were no real differences here in the views of the women and men. Neither did the analysis of the comments related to skills of students reveal any robust distinctions between the women and men. All mentioned provision of support and guidance, the importance of giving time and quick feedback, and explaining the research process. Together with the contents of the themes of role modelling and supervisor as assessor I decided to recognise this content as ungendered. This acknowledges the importance of accepting that the ideologies of women and men may be informed by both similar and different attitudes, values and beliefs.

THE SUPERVISORY RELATIONSHIP: A GENDERED PERSPECTIVE

A successful supervisory relationship is dependent upon a style of supervision in which the supervisor willingly passes on knowledge and encourages the student to share their newly-found knowledge and their problems. This dual sharing needs a safe environment with a variety of relationships possible, as in the typology proposed by Brown & Atkins (1988: 121).

Style of relationship

The theme of a personal supervisory relationship arose uniquely from words and phrases used by the women about the interactions they had had with students. This was not reflected by the men apart from a single mention that 'there is a personal level'[2], explained as 'treating them as adults'. Words such as 'contact' , 'availability', 'help [the student] to overcome problems' from the men indicated their ways of working but there were no comments on the more affective aspects of how the relationship with the students is established and maintained. Rather, they talked of 'referring and directing students to experts if necessary' and 'the supervisor working on the provision of facilities'. This accords to the view attributed to Phillips & Pugh (1987) by Salmon (1992: 21) of 'the [postgraduate] supervisory function in terms of knowledgability rather than relationship' and the pairing from Brown and Atkins (1988: 121) of 'expert and novice'.

Phillips and Pugh (1987: 10) also stress the importance of rapport and good communication in the supervisory relationship. To find evidence of these in this enquiry it was necessary to look at what the women said. They all talked, sometimes at length, about the intimate nature of their relationship with supervision students. This has 'personal' and 'professional' layers that one is more sensitive to in supervision than in other circumstances and is 'more a one to one relationship'. One spoke of her 'personal interaction with students' which may have mixed outcomes; the result may be 'a two way dialogue or some personal animosity between us'. There were other, more implicit, indicators of this in comments such as:-

'able to develop a rapport with a variety of students',

'I appreciated, not only the effort she was putting in, but the way she was thinking and working, that helped me to try and get on her wave length and then I can only imagine the two us then got on so much better - whether it was a social level or an academic level.

QWhat you are saying is that both those levels are important?

ADefinitely

QAnd quite a necessary part of the relationship.

AYes, equally well’.

These, and the report that thank you cards had been received from students, all symbolise the personal and intimate nature of the supervisory relationship for these women. Their relationship would seem to be closer to that of 'friend and friend' in Brown and Atkins' (1988: 121) typology accepting that there are positive and negative moments in any friendship.

The previous discussion shows a clear difference in how the women and men supervisors talked about supervision. Contrasting attitudes towards the students are revealed which indicate underlying gendered ideologies. That is, differences in attitudes that can be linked to cultural notions of femininity, or of masculinity. These attitudes may not only influence the outcome of the student’s research project but also their future career development. Over et al. (1990) highlight the need to investigate aspects of role-performance by students experiencing cross-sex Ph.D. supervision. This observation may well apply to undergraduates particularly in relation to their aptitude for research based work once they are in professional practice.

Power in supervision

Salmon (1992: 21) reminds us that research supervision is potentially 'quite an intimate working together'. Whether cross- or same-gendered, power is an important feature of such intimacy. In contrast to other relationships those that are gendered are often uniquely conceptualised as 'power relations in the first place' (Oldersma & Davis 1991: 1). The description 'friend and friend' attributed above to the women supervisors as a relationship type seems rather naturally to imply more of a balance of power than that of 'expert and novice' attributed to the men supervisors (Brown & Atkins 1988: 121).

Power is most often seen as the cause of asymmetry in a gendered relationship. However, the power can also imply solidarity and may be underpinned by positive values and beliefs (Tannen 1994: 21-32). In other words, the student and supervisor can work together to achieve a positive outcome for both. Such an approach is touched on by the women with phrases such as:-

'I would say that doing a research project is shared',

'we actually worked through it - probably together'.

This indicates harmony within the same-gendered relationships and led me to look for similarities or contrasts within the men’s transcripts. I found comments such as:-

'Now personally I have no problems about going up there and kicking them up the butt and saying why the hell didn't you turn up - but that is me. I feel that one or two of the students probably react better to that, i.e. you have got to do this - get it done otherwise you are going to fall by the wayside',

'I say to them, if you want to just pass this research module you can go away and not see me, I don't mind if you don't see me, and what I try to do is to put the onus entirely on the student, so that any failure is their failure - not my failure'.

These comments indicate a more forceful approach to the interaction with the student and can be related to the cultural definition of men as powerful and women (and, in this case, students) as powerless (Poyton 1989: 85).

According to Acker (1994: 68) men 'have to be (or sound) heroic', a characteristic that, perhaps, explains the strong language in the two preceding quotations. Here are examples of comments that disengage the supervisor from the student's work and seek to ensure that, whatever the outcome of the research, the supervisor is not to blame. In contrast, the women’s transcripts had examples of language that indicate that they are less sure who is to blame if all does not go well with the student’s work.

Problems in supervision

Each interview transcript also revealed that, as well as problems related to confidence in the ability to supervise and limitations on supervision, the supervisors were aware of other problems in their relationship with project students. The women’s and men’s views on problems showed similarities and distinctions.

In common, the supervisors found it difficult to supervise students who have 'fixed ideas' or 'over-ambitious ideas' and 'who do not take the correct direction with their project when it is offered', (comments from the men), and those who can neither 'manage their time well', or cope 'intellectually' with the deep learning required in project work (from two of the women) and 'students who do not know what supervision is' (a comment from both a woman and a man).

These statements are not particularly gendered. They re-enforce the point that all supervisors will have both a common experience and a gendered experience. There are also other types of experience, e.g. racial, left unexplored in this paper.

The women also talked about how to manage the critical appraisal of student’s work so that criticism is received as intended. One woman was concerned about 'capturing how the supervision has been received by the student'. Another concern of the women related to time. One spoke of supervision as 'time consuming and demanding’, especially when the student needs an immediate response. Time as an issue might have related to another comment from a woman that staff commitment to supervision was unequal. That the women had concerns about their part in the supervisory process and an awareness of how much time, often as a response to a crisis, the process takes re-iterates the message of the women’s involvement at a personal level.

Supervision as a management task

Supervision is not only a teaching task but has elements of management, i.e. it involves facilitating the student in their quest for knowledge and assisting them with the (often more) difficult task of managing their work. It is about creating opportunities for the student to develop independence and confidence.

Recent studies of gender within education argue that women and men have different approaches to working as managers. The differences in the ways of supervising described by the women and men in this study parallel the differences identified in these (see for example Marshall, 1984, Shakeshaft, 1987 and Adler et al., 1993). These authors point out the contrast between feminine ways of managing and the androcentric, conventional characteristics of male managers. A stereotypical and very limited list of characteristics of male managers would includes those that may be interpreted as instrumental, e.g. autocratic, competitive and impersonal. These are reflected in some of statements made by the men supervisors, for example:-