SUPERVISING NON-BRITISH DOCTORAL CANDIDATES: MUTUAL EXPERIENCES AND LEARNING OPPORTUNITIES

Professor Emeritus Vernon Trafford, Ph.D.Anglia Ruskin University, Chelmsford, Essex CM1 1SQ

Research Associate, Stellenbosch Universityvntrafford@gmail.com // www.vernontrafford.com

SOCIETY FOR RESEARCH IN HIGHER EDUCATION

Boundary crossings in international doctoral supervision:

contexts, cultures, confluences

London, 16th September, 2015

Professor Vernon Trafford

Learning is at once the most natural and complex of processes.

We who bear the task of shepherding this process often find ourselves

amazed and energized as we watch the process unfold before us even as

we respect, and are sometimes overwhelmed by, its complexity and

nuance.

Herein lies the promise and power of making students’ thinking visible: it

offers us a window into the learning process itself.

Source: Ritchard, Church and Morrison, 2011: 272

AN OBSERVATION

Professor Vernon Trafford

Just tell me what you would like me to write ~ PLEASE!

I do not know how the education system operates in your country. Could you explain it so that I understand how you progressed academically to where you are now.

I am happy to read all your draft text ~ but only after you have checked it for accuracy, grammar, referencing, etc. Doing that will help you and it will make my job easier too.

I still do not understand what you mean by the term ‘conceptual frameworks’. It wasn’t needed in my Masters degree. And I got a distinction!

Due to my business commitments, please could you arrange for my viva to be held in October, next year?

Is it OK if we agree a schedule of meetings for this year, and note those weeks when I am not going to be available to see you?

Thank you!

Always asking me ‘WHY?’ makes me think and then to understand issues.

Could we adapt this material for a conference presentation or a journal article?

THE THESIS

DOCTORAL THESES ARE EXPECTED TO CONTAIN EVIDENCE OF . . . .

Demonstratingdoctorateness

Episteme ~ thinking like a researcher

Explicitscholarship

Use of conceptualisation

Confident use oflanguage and the

appropriate lexicon

Criticalthinking

Originality andcontribution to

knowledge

Professor Vernon Trafford

Understanding research as an

integrated process

Professor Vernon Trafford

SOME DOCTORAL NUMBERS: 1987 - 2015

Doctoral supervisions Completed

56 First time passes 32 Failures Nil Overseas candidates 33 First time passes 12 Failures Nil

Examinerships UK 43 Overseas

9 In: Australia, Finland, Sweden, South Africa

Candidates’ country of origin

Brunei Darussalam 1 China 1 Germany 2 Guyana 1 India 2 Ireland 2 Israel 19 Kenya 1 South Africa 2 USA 2

International doctoral activities

Conferences 14 countriesWorkshops 17 countriesConsultancies 5 countries

Professor Vernon Trafford

Influences on, and determinants of, the relationships

OBSERVING RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN CANDIDATES AND SUPERVISORS

Talking/writing:comprehension/

style

Openness to cultural mores of others

Appreciation of others’

orms and values

Familiarity with British doctoral

processesCompliance with

educational tradition(s)

Expectations of self and of ‘the

other’

Approach to learning and own

development

Presumed status and role of self and

‘other’

Professor Vernon Trafford

Expectations that are known and are met will reinforce the positive relationships that exist between individuals in various ways.

Mutually agreed expectations are likely to reinforce behaviourand be self-supportingbetween individuals.

Jointly agreed intentions and actions are likely to be constantly met.

EXPECTATIONSby A of B

and by B of A

If expectations are unknown then ‘the other’ cannot be certain how their actions will be received or interpreted.

Unmet expectations will result in distrust, conflict,reduced collaboration and increased suspicion of ‘the other’.

Improving such types of relationships involve high interpersonal sensitivity and is time consuming.

THE PSYCHOLOGICAL CONTRACT

A B

Sources: Argyris, 1960; Blau, 1964; Schein, 1980

Professor Vernon Trafford

SUPERVISOR NEGOTIATED CANDIDATE

• Age • Values• Gender• Institutional regulations

VARIABLES

Reciprocal accountability

Shared expectations

Mutual reciprocity

Direct exchange

Socialexchange

Moralprecepts

Economicexchange

Individualexpectations

MUTUALITY OF EXPECTATIONS ~ in psychological contracts

Relational Transactional

FOUND WITHIN SUPERVISOR – CANDIDATE TRANSACTIONS

Friendly weakness I’m not OK ~ you’re OK

Hostile weakness I’m not OK ~ you’re not OK

Friendly strength I’m OK ~ you’re OK

Hostile strength I’m OK ~ you’re not OK

These four combinations of possible attitudes show how an individual may feel about themselves and about others. They illustrate ‘feeling good’, ‘not feeling good’, ‘recognizing implied superiority or inferiority’ and ‘implying an intended relationship between self and other(s)’.

These positions in supervisor – candidate relationships may reflect cultural values in action that support or hinder constructive and mutualcollaboration.

Source: Berne, 1964

Interpersonal relationships exhibit combinations of thoughts, feelings and behaviours that exhibit conscious or unconscious ‘states’. They are expressed in verbal or non-verbal ways between individuals and within groups and may be changed by individuals or within groups.

Culture and personal values will determine how these ‘states’ are used, or become acceptable forms of interpersonal relationships, between supervisors and candidates.

Parent

Adult

Child

Parent

Adult

Child

These two forms of Transactional Analysis offer ways to interpret how the relationships between supervisors and candidates commence and develop or become frustrating and hinder joint progress.

Professor Vernon Trafford

SOME PROPOSITIONS

Supervisor – candidate relationships represent opportunities for extended deep learning when both parties are open to understanding the traditions, values, strengths and experiences of ‘the other’.

When individuals from different cultural traditions work together, it is an opportunity for mutual learning and joint development rather than continuing ignorance of ‘the other’, misunderstandings or conflict.

Creating an academic relationship that is based on openness, honesty and trust may be a gradual process to achieve, but one that will cumulatively benefit both parties.

Recognizing and acknowledging the obligations that each has towards the ‘respective success’ of the other, is the first step to establishing a harmonious doctoral relationship.

The cultural values and traditions of both parties may differ but each has importance thus they should be understood and respected so that they help rather than hinder the evolving interpersonal relationship.

Supervisors and candidates need to clarify ~ and agree ~ who owns the thesis, what role each has in the structuring, drafting and revising of text, plus who is responsible for proof reading and auditing the thesis to ensure that it is ready to be submitted to the university for examination.

Professor Vernon Trafford

A FINAL THOUGHT

There is nothing so practical as a good

theory.Source: Lewin, K. 1952: 169

SOURCES

Argyris, C. 1960. Understanding organizational behaviour. Homewood, IL: Dorsey Press. Barnard, C.I. 1938. The functions of the executive. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Berne, E. 1964. Games people play – the basic handbook of transactional analysis. New York: Ballentine BooksBlau, P. 1964. Exchange and power in social life. Wiley: New York Coyle-Shapiro, J. A-M. and Parzefall, M. 2008. Psychological contracts. In: Cooper, C.L. and Barling, J. (eds.) The SAGE handbook of organizational behaviour. London: SageHetrick, S. and Trafford, V.N. 1996. The mutuality of expectations of dissertation supervisors and candidates in a postgraduate department of a new university. Journal of Graduate Education, 2.2.35-43Lewin, K. 1952. Field theory in social science: selected theoretical papers. (D.Cartwright [ed]) London: TavistockRitchart, R., Church, M. and Morrison, K. 2011. Making thinking visible. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-BassRousseau, D. M. 1989. Psychological and implied contracts in organizations. Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 2.121-139 Rousseau, D.M. 1995. Psychological contracts in organizations: understanding written and unwritten agreements. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Schein, E. H. 1980. Organizational psychology. 3rd edition. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice HallTrafford, V.N. and Leshem, S. 2008. Stepping stones to achieving your doctorate. Maidenhead: Open University PressWisker, G. 2012. The good supervisor. Basingstoke: Palgrave. 2nd Ed.