The experience of disagreement between students and supervisors in PhD education: a qualitative study

BMC Medical Education

Annika Billhult¹  Grethe Jonasson¹  Ronny Gunnarsson² 

[1] Research and development unit of the county Södra Älvsborg, Sven Eriksonsplatsen 4, Borås 503 38, Sweden;Department of public health and community medicine, Institute of Medicine, The Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden

关键词: Higher degree education;    Disagreement;    Research;    Supervisor;    PhD student;    PhD education;   

Others  :  1138661
DOI  :  10.1186/1472-6920-13-134

 received in 2012-11-20, accepted in 2013-09-26,  发布年份 2013

【 摘 要 】

Background

PhD supervision is mostly individual and disagreement between supervisors and PhD students is a seldom-discussed topic at universities. The present study aimed to describe the experience of disagreement between PhD students and supervisors.

Methods

Nine supervisors and seven PhD students from Sweden and England were interviewed using a video recorder. The recorded material was analysed using inductive content analysis.

Results

Disagreements in PhD education can be described with the overarching theme: the nature of the disagreements changes over time. Five categories emerged to describe the variations of the experiences: involvement in important decisions, supervisors not being up-to-date, dubious advice from supervisors, mediating between supervisors, and interpersonal relationships.

Conclusions

There is a gradual shift in competence where PhD students may excel supervisors in subject knowledge. Early disagreements may indicate immaturity of the student while disagreements later may indicate that the student is maturing making their own decisions. Consequently, disagreements may need to be addressed differently depending on when they occur. Addressing them inappropriately might slow the progressions and result in higher attrition rate among PhD students. The five categories may be elements in future PhD supervisor training programs and should be further evaluated for their importance and impact on PhD education.

【 授权许可】

   
2013 Gunnarsson et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Handal G, Lauvås P: Forskarhandledaren [The Research Supervisor]. Lund: Studentlitteratur; 2008.
• [2]Rudolph F: The University: The Autonomy of Academy. New York: McGraw-Hill; 1962.
• [3]Veysey L: The Emergence of the American University. Chicago: University of Chicago Press; 1970.
• [4]Dietz AJ, Jansen J, Wadee A: Effective PhD Supervision and Mentorship. South Africa-Netherlands research Programme on Alternatives in Development (SANPAD). Amsterdam: Rozenberg Publishers, Pretoria: UNISA Press; 2006.
• [5]Bergendahl MN, Klintberg W, Steinwall A: En ny doktorsutbildning – kraftsamling för excellens och tillväxt. SOU 2004:27. Stockholm: Edita Norstedts Tryckeri AB; 2004.
• [6]Jacobsson G, Gillström P, Gröjer A: Doktorandspegeln 2003. Stockholm: Högskoleverket; 2003.
• [7]National Research Council (U.S.): The path to the Ph. D: Measuring graduate attrition in the sciences and humanities. Washington, D.C: National Academy Press; 1996.
• [8]Bergenheim A: Inspirationskälla, föredöme, tränare och kollega: forskarhandledares visioner och verklighet. [översättning]. Umeå: Universitetspedagogiskt centrum, Umeå universitet (UPC); 2001.
• [9]Elo S, Kyngäs H: The qualitative content analysis process. J of Adv Nurs 2008, 62:107-115.
• [10]Krippendorff K: Content Analysis: An Introduction to its Methodology. Newbury Park: Sage Publications; 1980.
• [11]Lauri S, Kyngäs H: Developing Nursing Theories. Dark Oy, Vantaa: Werner Söderström; 2005.
• [12]Gunnarson R: Who wants Einstein? Supervision of PhD students # Part 2 - Disagreements are OK. 2012. [http://www.science-network.tv/?q=einstein-part-2 webcite] Accessed 12th of February, 2012
• [13]Cullen D, Pearson M, Saha L, Spear RH: Establishing effective PhD supervision. Canberra: Australian Government Publishing Service; 1994. [Department of Employment, Education and Training]
• [14]Holburn DM, Bligh TP: Effective models for postgraduate education in engineering, science and technology. 1998. [Proceedings, Southeast Asia Conference on Postgraduate Education, Johor Bahru, Malaysia]
• [15]Patel D, Gröller ME, Bruckner S: PhD education through apprenticeship. The Eurographics Association: Education paper; 2011.
• [16]Gardner SK: Contrasting the socialization experiences of doctoral students in high- and low-completing departments: a qualitative analysis of disciplinary contexts at one institution. J High Educ 2010, 81:61-81.
• [17]Lauvas P, Handal G: Optimal use of feedback in research supervision with master and doctoral students. Nordisk Pedagogik 2005, 25:177-189.
• [18]Brown G, Atkins M: Effective teaching in higher education. London: Methuen & Co. Ltd; 2005.
• [19]Gumport PJ: Graduate Education and Research Imperatives: Views from American Campuses. In The Research Foundations of Graduate Education. Edited by Burton C. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press; 1993:265-266.
• [20]Rugg G, Petre M: The Unwritten Rules of PhD Research. Berkshire, England: Open University Press; 2004.
• [21]Delamont S, Atkinson P, Parry O: Supervising the doctorate. A guide to success. Glasgow, UK: Bell & Bain Ltd; 2005.
• [22]Halse C: ‘Becoming a supervisor’: the impact of doctoral supervision on supervisors' learning. Stud High Edu 2011, 36:557-570.
• [23]Halse C, Malfroy J: Retheorizing doctoral supervision as professional work. Stud High Edu 2010, 35:79-92.
• [24]Mc Alpine L, Paulson J, Gonsalves A, Jazvac-Martek M: ‘Untold’ doctoral stories: can we move beyond cultural narratives? High Edu Res Dev 2012, 31:511-523.
• [25]Halse C, Bansel P: The learning alliance: ethics in doctoral supervision. Oxf Rev Edu 2012, 38:377-392.
• [26]Hinds P, Bailey D: Out of sight, out of sync: Understanding conflict in distributed teams. Org Sci 2003, 14:615-632.
• [27]Hockey J: Establishing Boundaries: problems and solutions in managing the PhD supervisor's role. Camb J Edu 1994, 24:293-305.
• [28]Manathunga C: The development of research supervision: “Turning the light on a private space”. Int J Acad Dev 2005, 10:17-30.
• [29]Dahlberg K, Dahlberg H, Nyström M: Reflective lifeworld research. Lund: Studentlitteratur; 2008.
• [30]Downe-Wamboldt B: Content analysis: method, applications and issues. Health Care for Wom Int 1992, 13:313-321.
• [31]Graneheim UH, Lundman B: Qualitative content analysis in nursing research: concepts, procedures and measures to achieve trustworthiness. Nurse Edu Today 2001, 24:105-112.