Student-Supervisor Relationship Forms | Faculty of Arts
Student Life and Learning Enrichment Fund · The Cécile E. . PhD in Performance Studies . Student-Supervisor Relationship Forms · Exam Chair Procedures. This research study looked at the selection process of a dissertation adviser from both . Herzig () stated that the doctoral student relationships with their . year students were given faculty profile sheets for the dissertation chair selection . The student-supervisor relationship is a key factor in determining a successful coordinator (the faculty member responsible to the chair or director for the graduate graduate unit's policy is on funding doctoral (or research master's) students.
Data were collected through a paper-based survey and a follow-up face-to-face interview. The interviews probed for additional information whenever necessary to develop a more complete understanding of a particular advising relationship. During interviews, the information provided by participants was noted and added to the respective filled-in questionnaire of each participant.
Each questionnaire was assigned a code number to maintain confidentiality. Data analysis Data were analyzed using a phenomenological approach, intended to examine the advising experiences and perceptions of international doctoral students from their own perspectives. The data collected were responses to non-directive, broad questions.
Respondents used their own terminology typical of their everyday conversation. After collecting the responses, the data were coded into a set of themes and then analyzed to determine their meaning. The responses of the participants led to a composite description and ultimately provided an understanding of their common experiences.
Importance of advising relationships In engineering doctoral programs, the students generally receive funding from their advisers, whereas in other doctoral programs, students typically work as graduate teaching assistants and receive pay from the department.
In engineering schools, therefore, it is very important for doctoral students to develop and maintain positive relationships with their advisers to ensure both financial and academic support for their doctoral studies. Data analysis revealed two very different kinds of advising relationships. Of twelve participants, six 50 percent were satisfied, four 33 percent were unsatisfied, and two 17 percent were neutral in assessing their advising relationships. The data given by the satisfied, unsatisfied, and neutral participants were placed on three different domains.
The results were structured on a domain-by-domain basis and helped to identify some of the major concerns these international doctoral students had about their advising relationships. Expected advising types Students in all three domains satisfied, unsatisfied, and neutral identified similar expectations for their advisers: Appropriate research guidance, a friendly atmosphere in which to work, and constructive consideration for their weaknesses.
The satisfied students indicated their advisers arranged regular meetings and gave them proper guidance to proceed with their researches; they were helpful and considered any personal issues the students may have had.
On the contrary, the unsatisfied students mentioned that, though their advisers were academically sound, they did not guide them properly. All of us working under his advisement are working like a machine without knowing the reason for doing it. Initial expectations from advising relationship and change in expectations over time The satisfied students described their adviser relationships as friendly and comfortable. Their advisers did not push them to work on a day-to-day basis nor did they continuously demand their scholarly output or expect the students to stay at the laboratory for extended periods of time.
The neutral students related the same feelings. As he has been advising students for many years he knows how to teach and supervise students.
When the relationship with your PhD supervisor turns toxic | Education | The Guardian
They also mentioned their advisers were helpful to the students, had huge research funds, and networked well with industry people. In their opinions, their advisers lacked the managing and interpersonal skills required to advise doctoral students. The Associate Dean is expected to provide leadership and ensure that the responsibilities for graduate studies in the Faculty are properly discharged. In addition, the Associate Dean should work to harmonize the graduate interests within the various departments of the Faculty.
From time to time the Associate Dean may work on other University-wide committees where there are overlapping interests. In addition, the Graduate Officer should keep the Graduate Studies Committee of the department informed of relevant items from the Graduate Studies Committee of the Faculty. The Graduate Officer, on occasion, may have to work on inter-departmental committees of the Faculty to deal with special issues on graduate studies.
The Supervisor Each graduate student is assigned a Faculty supervisor whose minimum responsibility is to ensure the student's awareness of all degree requirements and regulations governing his or her activities and to prepare for him or her a program of study, submitting it for approval as required. The supervisor is further responsible for ensuring that students performing experimental research have been instructed in the safe operation of all apparatus and been advised of any hazards in their departments.
Beyond this, it is impossible to specify what amount of guidance and advice a supervisor should offer to a student because this is a matter of relationship between two individuals. When supervisors are to be absent from the University for any significant period of time, it is their responsibility to arrange that during their absence students receive substitute supervision from faculty members competent in the students' particular area of work.
The length of a supervisor's absence during which substitute supervision must be arranged is a function of the individual student's needs.
Bias among faculty, frustration among doctoral candidates, and scheduling irregularities in terms of course load are just a few that may surface. It is also important to place the importance of the relationship between adviser and advisee is a unique, complex social system that is subject to constant change. As such, this research has identified actor-network theory devised by Michel Callon in as a means to further understand the complexity of the relationship.
In simple terms, the Actor-network theory looks at relations between individuals actors and things dissertation in a complex network. An adviser or committee members who experienced frustration or issues within their own personal dissertation team network may manifest similar actions in other advisee-adviser relationships.
This adviser-advisee relationship can also be subject to change through the number of actors who may serve as committee members and are evaluating student work, the impact of policy and standards as a part of the program, the possible travel limitations for meeting and library time, lack of knowledge of various technological tools and software that may be beneficial, and the competitive interactions between cohort members who are completing at various stages of their dissertation.
- When the relationship with your PhD supervisor turns toxic
- Choosing a Dissertation Adviser: Challenges and Strategies for Doctoral Students
- Responsibilities of graduate studies administrators
In addition, in the fast-track, executive-type doctoral programs, most, if not all students, are working full-time jobs and many have family responsibilities. Thus, work and personal issues can interfere with how relationships can be subject to change in the program. Much of the limited research supports student selection although some programs support administrative selection.
Modern Languages and Cultural Studies
Focus on approaches for adviser selection also varies and, in some cases, seem somewhat ambiguous. This paper examines the selection process through two channels: The various methods of adviser selection from the literature review show a convoluted array of choices that are employed by doctoral students.
In short, the research supports the fact that the relationship between adviser and advisee is important and should be the choice of the student. However, there is little agreement primarily because most of the past research does not draw a distinction between a traditional doctoral program and a fast-track, executive type program.
Therefore, this research study followed a qualitative approach using a preliminary focus group discussion focusing on adviser selection for the first year of the program and follow-up interview discussions with individual cohort members after the second year of the program.
The intent was to ascertain how students selected an adviser and their reflections regarding the selection process. Denzin and Lincoln identify present day and future qualitative methodology use as more connected to the evidence-based social movement in the United States. In this case, doctoral students were queried as what qualities they were seeking in an adviser and later reflecting on whether their choice of advisers met their expectations.
This was a form of narrative voice since it represented the thoughts and feelings of these doctoral participants. The interview protocol consisted of the following questions: What were the major issues you experienced in the dissertation process over the past few years? In working on your dissertation, can you describe the positive experiences? How would you describe your experience in working with your adviser?
Can you reflect back on the process, and tell me how you selected your adviser? Is there anything you would have done differently in terms of the dissertation process?
Participants There were 63 doctoral student participants from three cohorts who participated in this research study. The group was comprised of a diverse group of students that included corporate trainers, teachers, principals, health professionals, and military personnel seeking the leadership terminal degree.
Data were gathered during the monthly Saturday dissertation seminars, which serve as monthly support sessions for the dissertation process and for debriefing students in the program.
All second year students were given faculty profile sheets for the dissertation chair selection process in order to consider the following: Three weeks after distribution of the forms, second year doctoral students and faculty have an opportunity to meet during an evening buffet dinner to discuss dissertation topics, research agendas, and other relevant information.