Doctoral supervision is one of the primary factors affecting doctoral degree completion and attrition rates. Basing their work on the concept of cognitive apprenticeship, the authors investigated the role that doctoral supervisors should adopt in supporting their students, in light of feedback from the latter. A total of 533 doctoral students completed an online survey, in which they were asked to describe their experience using a metaphor. Although the issue of support is rarely referred to directly in the resulting metaphors, the latter do seem to suggest that supervisors should adopt a coaching role.
References
1.
AustinA.E.CampaH.PfundC.Gillian-DanielD.L.MathieuR. & StoddartJ. (2009) Preparing STEM Doctoral Students for Future Faculty Careers, New Directions for Teaching & Learning, 117, 83–95. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/tl.346
2.
BairC.R. & HaworthJ.G. (1999) Doctoral Student Attrition and Persistence: A meta-synthesis of research. Paper presented at ASHE Annual Meeting, San Antonio, TX.
3.
BalattiJ. & WhitehouseH. (2001) Novice at Forty: Transformation or re-invention? in BartlettA. & MercerG. (Eds) Postgraduate Research Supervision: Transforming (r)elations. New York: Peter Lang.
4.
BartlettA. & MercerG. (1999) Cooking up a Feast: Finding metaphors for feminist postgraduate supervision, Australian Feminist Studies, 14(30), 367–375. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08164649993182
5.
BoulaireC. (2004) Portraits chinois: Le jeu de la métaphore en tant qu'expérience, Décisions Marketing, 36, 39–47.
6.
BoulaireC. & BalloffetP. (1999) Freins et motivations à l'utilisation d'internet: Une exploration par le biais de metaphors, Recherche et applications en marketing, 14(1), 21–39. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/076737019901400102
7.
CollinsA.BrownJ.S. & NewmanS.E. (1989) Cognitive Apprenticeship: Teaching the crafts of reading, writing, and mathematics, in ResnickL.B. (Ed.) Knowing, Learning, and Instruction: Essays in honor of Robert Glaser. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
8.
CollinsG. (2006) Collins Cage Canadian Paperback Dictionary. Toronto: Thomson Nelson.
9.
D'AbateC.P.EddyE.R. & TannenbaumS.I. (2003) What's in a Name? A Literature-based Approach to Understanding Mentoring, Coaching, and Other Constructs that Describe Developmental Interactions, Human Resource Development Review, 2(4), 360–384. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1534484303255033
10.
DardyC.DucardD. & MaingueneauD. (2002) Un genre universitaire: Le rapport de soutenance de thèse. Villeneuve d'Ascq: Presses Universitaires de Septentrion.
11.
DelamontS.AtkinsonP. & ParryO. (1997) Supervising the PhD: A guide to success. Buckingham: Open University Press.
12.
DennenV.P. (2002) Cognitive Apprenticeship in Educational Practice: Research on scaffolding, modeling, mentoring, and coaching as instructional strategies, in JonassenD.H. (Ed.) Handbook of Research for Educational Communications and Technology. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
13.
DeucharR. (2008) Facilitator, Director or Critical Friend? Contradiction and Congruence in Doctoral Supervision Styles, Teaching in Higher Education, 13(4), 489–500. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13562510802193905
14.
DillmanD.A. (2000) Mail and Internet Surveys: The tailored design method. New York: John Wiley.
15.
GardnerS.K. (2010) Contrasting the Socialization Experiences of Doctoral Students in High- and Low-completing Departments: A qualitative analysis of disciplinary contexts at one institution, Journal of Higher Education, 81(1), 61–81. http://dx.doi.org/10.1353/jhe.0.0081
16.
GemmeB. & GingrasY. (2006) Les facteurs de satisfaction et d'insatisfaction aux cycles supérieurs dans les universités québécoises francophones, Canadian Journal of Higher Education, 36(2), 23–45.
17.
GibsonS.K. (2005) Whose Best Interests are Served? the Distinction Between Mentoring and Support, Advances in Developing Human Resources, 7(4), 470–488. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1523422305279678
GoldeC.M. (2000) Should I Stay or Should I Go? Student Descriptions of the Doctoral Attrition Process, Review of Higher Education, 23(2), 199–227. http://dx.doi.org/10.1353/rhe.2000.0004
20.
GoldeC.M. (2005) The Role of the Department and Discipline in Doctoral Student Attrition: Lessons from four departments, Journal of Higher Education, 76(6), 669–700. http://dx.doi.org/10.1353/jhe.2005.0039
21.
GrantB. (1999) Walking on a Rackety Bridge: Mapping supervision. Paper presented at HERDSA Annual International Conference, Melbourne, Australia.
22.
HakseverA.M. & ManisaliE. (2000) Assessing Supervision Requirements of PhD Students: The case of construction management and engineering in the UK, European Journal of Engineering Education, 25(1), 19–32. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/030437900308616
23.
HeathT. (2002) A Quantitative Analysis of PhD Students' View of Supervision, Higher Education Research & Development, 21(1), 41–53. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/07294360220124648
24.
Jazvac-MartekM. (2009) Oscillating Role Identities: The academic experiences of education doctoral students, Innovations in Education & Teaching International, 46(3), 253–264. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14703290903068862
25.
JutrasF.LouisR. & NtebutseJ.G. (2007) Encadrement des études et compétences à développer au cours de la formation aux 2e et 3e cycles de la Faculté d'éducation de l'Université de Sherbrooke. Université de Sherbrooke, Faculté d'éducation.
26.
ManathungaC. (2005) The Development of Research Supervision: ‘turning the light on a private space’, International Journal for Academic Development, 10(1), 17–30. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13601440500099977
27.
Ministry of Higher Education and Research (2010) The State of Higher Education in France: 35 indicators, no. 4. December 2010. Paris: Ministry of Higher Education and Research, Sub-Directorate for Information Systems and Statistical Studies.
28.
MucchielliR. (1993) Le questionnaire dans l'enquête psycho-sociale. Connaissance du problème, applications, pratiques. Paris: ESF.
PerruchetJ. (2008) Le doctorat: Un investissement rentable?Paris: L'Harmattan.
33.
ReyA. & ChantreauS. (2002) Dictionnaire des expressions et locutions. Paris: Dictionnaires Le Robert.
34.
RobertsA. (2000) Mentoring Revisited: A phenomenological reading of the literature, Mentoring and Tutoring, 8(2), 145–170. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/713685524
35.
RoyerC. (1998) Vers un modèle de direction de recherche doctorale en sciences humaines. Quebec: Presses de l'Université du Québec.
36.
SaxL.-J.GilmartinS-K. & BryantA.-N. (2003) Assessing Response Rates and Nonresponse Bias in Web and Paper Surveys, Research in Higher Education, 44(4), 409–432. http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1024232915870
37.
SinclairM. (2004) The Pedagogy of ‘Good’ PhD Supervision: A national cross-disciplinary investigation of PhD supervision. Canberra: Department of Education, Science and Training.
38.
UndelandI. (2006) Will Structured Supervision Give PhD Students Better Support Compared to More ‘Ad Hoc’ Supervision? In ChristieM. (Ed.) Shifting Perspectives in Engineering Education. Chalmers: Chalmers Strategic Effort on Learning and Teaching.
39.
Zuber-SkerrittO. & RocheV. (2004) A Constructivist Model for Evaluating Postgraduate Supervision: A case study, Quality Assurance in Education, 12(2), 82–93. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09684880410536459
