The UKCGE Framework for Good Supervisory Practice

Stan Taylor

∂

Background

​

• Educated Oxford and Warwick universities;
• Lecturer and academic developer at Warwick;
• Director of Quality Enhancement at Newcastle University;
• Director of the Centre for Academic and Researcher Development at Durham University;
• Honorary Professor in the School of Education.

∂

Long standing interest in doctoral education

• Own experiences as a research student;
• ‘Learning on the job’ as a supervisor;
• As an academic developer, worked with supervisors in 41 universities in the UK, and many others elsewhere in Europe and the Far East;
• Author of the UKCGE Framework for Good Supervisory Practice, lead for its supervisor recognition scheme and Chair of its Research Supervisors’ Network;
• Research and publications in doctoral education.

​

∂

4

Recent publications

Taylor, S. (2021) Towards Describing the Global Doctoral Landscape. UK Council for Graduate Education.

Available on-line at http://www.ukcge.ac.uk/article/towards-global-doctoral-landscape-475.aspx

Taylor, S. and Clegg, K. (2021) Towards a Framework for the Recognition of Good Supervisory Practice. In A. Lee and R.

Bongaardt (Eds.) The Future of Doctoral Research: Challenges and Opportunities. London, Routledge: 224-238.

Kumar, S., Kumar, V. and Taylor, S. (2020) A Guide to Online Supervision. UK Council for Graduate Education.

Available on-line at https://supervision.ukcge.ac.uk/resources/ukcge-guide-to-online-supervision/

Taylor, S. (2019) Framework for Good Supervisory Practice. UK Council for Graduate Education.

Available on-line at http://supervision.ukcge.ac.uk/downloads/download-the-good-supervisory-practice-framework/

Taylor, S. (2019) The Research Supervisor’s Bibliography. 4th Ed. UK Council for Graduate Education. Available

on-line at http://www.ukcge.ac.uk/Resources/publications.aspx

Taylor, S. (2018) Supervisory Eligibility: A Study of UK Institutions. UK Council for Graduate Education,

Available on-line at http://www.ukcge.ac.uk/content/publications-search.aspx

Taylor, S. (ed.) (2017) Enhancing Practice in Research Supervision. UK Council for Graduate Education.

Available on-line at https://drive.google.com/file/d/18cUS51SCGqCbbWtI_toSY5zkflD98a2Y/view

Taylor, S, and McCulloch. A. (2017) Mapping the landscape of awards for research supervision: A comparison of Australia and the UK. Innovations in Education and Teaching International. Available on-line at http://www-tandfonline-com.ezphost.dur.ac.uk/doi/full/10.1080/14703297.2017.1371058

Taylor, S. (2016) UK Professional Standards Framework Dimensions of the Framework for Doctoral Supervisors. Higher Education Academy. Available on-line at

https://www.heacademy.ac.uk/system/files/downloads/ukpsf_dof_doctoral_supervisors_150416_final_0.pdf

​

​

∂

∂

Current projects

• (with Vijay Kumar (University of Otago) and Sharon Sharmini (University Putri Malaysia) Doctoral Examination: International Case Studies

​

• (with Margaret Kiley (Australian National University) and Karri A. Holley (University of Alabama) The Pandemic and Doctoral Education: International Case Studies

∂

Aim and objectives

The aim is to outline the UKCGE Framework for Good Supervisory Practice; the objectives are to:

​

• Look at the rationale for the Framework;
• Review its development;
• Outline the Framework itself;
• Consider the ways in which it is being used to enhance supervisory practice.

​

∂

Rationale

∂

Historically…

• Historically, doctoral supervision was an adjunct of the research function of academics – as Rudd (1985:79-80) put the matter “…if one can do research, then one can presumably supervise it.”

​

• It was underpinned in the sciences by the ‘master-apprentice’ model with doctoral supervisors as experts passively transmitting expertise to novices who observed and emulated and in the arts and humanities by the ‘laisser-faire’ model whereby candidates were by and large expected to do it on their own with minimal guidance.

(Manathunga and Goozee 2007: 309)

​

∂

∂

So now…

What once seemed a relatively simply role that could be learned experientially… a role that was played out within a ‘secret garden’ or ‘private space’ has now become a highly complex set of roles which must be learned quickly and then played out within a multi-featured landscape and moulded by a variety of influential stakeholders.

​

Griffith and Warren (2016: 167)

∂

This has been recognised by supervisors themselves who …

…testified to the changes in their work. They described doctoral supervision between the 1970s and the 1990s as an intellectual and social enterprise, where personal boundaries were sometimes blurred but the roles of supervisors and students were clear: the supervisor provided oversight and guidance; the doctoral student was responsible for producing a seminal thesis that would secure his or her place as an authority within the field… all supervisors… conceptualised their current work with doctoral students as significantly different from their former experiences.

​

​

​

∂

(cont.)

They spoke of actively fashioning students’ development to address deficits in expertise; deliberately intervening to ensure timely completion; purposeful provision of tutoring or research assistance to minimise the risk of financial distress and withdrawal; and the deployment of personal networks to facilitate completion and ensure post-graduation employment.

​

​

Halse and Malfoy (2010: 80)

​

∂

But increasing complexity of doctoral supervision not necessarily recognised by institutions…

​

Can be seen as a ‘labour of love’ and not always recognised as a complex and demanding area of academic practice

∂

Lack of support and appreciation can be dispiriting…

​

I'm drowning in doctoral students and their dissertations. I have so many that I have a hard time keeping count, and the university doesn’t count them in my workload... So the not being recognized element really hits home.

​

Private e-mail, 24^th May 2019

∂

Questions?

∂

UKCGE responses

∂

UKCGE responses (cont.)

∂

The Development of the Framework

∂

Development

• In 2019, invited by the UKCGE to develop a framework for good supervisory practice framework as a tool for self- development and potentially to underpin a recognition scheme;
• First step to define ‘good practice’ which, following, Brown and Atkins (1988: 115) was conceptualised as ‘the set of underpinning attributes that make … [supervision] effective’.;
• Numerous definitions of ‘effective’ in the literature – for example James and Baldwin 2009, Eley and Murray 2009, Wisker 2012, Grant et al 2014, Kearns and Finn 2017, Taylor et al 2018);
• Initially combined these into a model based on the tripartite division of practice into activities, knowledge and understanding, and principles used for HEA Fellowship.

​

​

∂

1. Recruitment and selection.
2. Relationships with candidates.
3. Relationships with co-supervisors.
4. Supporting candidates’ research projects.
5. Supporting candidates to write and giving feedback.
6. Supporting candidates’ personal, professional and career development.
7. Supporting progression and monitoring progress.
8. Supporting completion and final examination.
9. Supporting candidates to disseminate their research.
10. Reflecting upon and enhancing practice.

1. Subject material.
2. Disciplinary and programme frameworks.
3. How candidates learn to become researchers.
4. Use and value of technologies.
5. Methods for evaluating research supervision.
6. Implications of quality assurance and enhancement for research supervision.
7. Examining research degrees.

1. Commitment to research supervision as an area of academic practice.
2. Recognition of the personal dimension of research supervision.
3. Recognizing and valuing diversity among the candidate population.
4. Setting high standards for candidates.
5. Serving as a role model.

SUPERVISORY ACTIVITIES

KNOWLEDGE AND UNDERSTANDING

PRINCIPLES

Original programme framework with 22 attributes

∂

Pilot

13 institutions from across England, Scotland & Wales and from each mission group took part in the pilot.

∂

Pilot results

52 supervisors asked to use the Framework to develop a reflective account of their practice;

43 did so and 34 responded to an evaluation questionnaire:

- all agreed that the exercise had been beneficial to their

practice;

- 88% thought it would improve their future practice.

- but many commented in free text feedback that the framework was too complex and needed to be simplified and streamlined.

∂

Sector-wide consultation

• Over 100 responses from academics and academic developers in 60 institutions;

​

• 92% thought that the criteria reflect good supervisory practice very well or well;

​

• Free text feedback revealed widespread concern about the complexity of the framework and pleas for a significant reduction in the number of attributes.

∂

Revised framework

• Framework re-defined in terms of 10 domains based upon the ‘supervisory activities’

​

• ‘Core knowledge’ and ‘professional values’ were folded into each of these domains.

∂

The Framework

∂

1. Recruitment and selection                                                                           
2. Supervisory relationships with students                                                      
3. Supervisory relationships with co- supervisors
4. Supporting the research project
5. Encouraging writing and giving feedback                                                   
6. Keeping the research on track and monitoring progress
7. Personal and professional support for the candidate
8. Completion and examination      
9. Dissemination                                                                  
10. Reflective practice  

GOOD SUPERVISORY PRACTICE DOMAINS

∂

1 Recruitment and selection

• Recruitment activities, including reaching out to diverse candidate populations;
• Selection from supporting the development of applications through to final feedback.

​

Typical Examples

• Publicising the areas of research within which they personally can offer supervision;
• Participating in campaigns to recruit candidates from groups that are under-represented in doctoral education;
• Assessing whether applicants are likely to make the transition to independent researchers;
• Assessing whether applicants’ proposed research projects are realisable and whether they have (or can acquire) the knowledge and skills to complete them;
• Interviewing applicants;
• Making a final decision and giving feedback.

∂

2 Relationships with candidates

• Aware of the increased diversity of the candidate population and the implications for forming effective relationships;
• Discussing and negotiating expectations;
• Aligning supervisory styles and candidate needs;
• Monitoring the effectiveness of the relationship over the course of the candidacy;
• Understanding of issues which can emerge in relationships and strategies and support for dealing with them.

Typical Examples

• Acknowledging the increased diversity of the domestic candidate population and recognizing its implications for supervision;
• Acknowledging the increased diversity of the international candidate population and recognizing its implications for supervision;
• Discussing and agreeing expectations with candidates at the start of their studies;
• Being aware of supervisory styles and their relationship to student needs and being able to align them at the start of doctoral studies;
• Being aware of how student needs change over the course of doctoral studies and being able to maintain calibration of supervisory styles;
• Being aware of institutional policies and procedures in the event of the breakdown of a supervisory relationship and of sources of support for both parties.

∂

3 Relationships with co-supervisors

• Awareness of advantages of team supervision;
• Awareness of issues that can arise in team supervision;
• Knowledge and understanding of strategies to maximise the benefits and minimise the issues.

Typical Examples

• Clarifying roles with co-supervisors and candidates at the start of the candidacy;
• Clarifying expectations of the project with co-supervisors and the candidate;
• Regularly reviewing relations between supervisors and with candidates during the course of the candidacy.

∂

4 Supporting candidates’ research projects

• Inducting candidates into research;
• Advising them about the research project and how to go about undertaking it;
• Advising on the skills needed to successfully complete the project;
• Advising on issues arising in the course of the research.

​

Typical Examples

• Discussing conceptions and misconceptions of research itself with candidates;
• Looking at key ‘threshold’ concepts in research;
• Considering issues of academic integrity, intellectual property rights, and co-publication;
• Advising on a choice of topic;
• Advising on theory, methodology and methods;
• Advising on a research proposal and plan;
• Advising on gaining ethical approval;
• Advising on skills development in relation to the project;
• Advising on issues arising in the course of the research.

∂

5 Encouraging candidates to write and giving appropriate feedback

• Supporting candidates to write throughout their studies;
• Supporting the development of academic writing;
• Giving effective feedback.

Typical Examples

• Encouraging candidates to write from the start of their studies;
• Assisting their development of academic writing skills;
• Giving timely, constructive, and actionable feedback.

∂

6 Supporting candidates’ personal, professional and career development

• Supporting candidates to cope with personal issues;
• Supporting their professional development;
• Supporting their career development.

Typical Examples

• Supporting candidates with personal issues, including those relating to well-being and mental health;
• Being good role models in terms of work-life balance;
• Inducting candidates into disciplinary networks and activities;
• Supporting their development as teachers;
• Informing them about academic careers;
• Supporting them to prepare for non-academic careers.

∂

7 Supporting progress and monitoring progression

• Recognising the need for candidates to complete within 3-4 years;
• Supporting timely completion

Typical Examples

• Supporting and motivating candidates to progress in their studies;
• Using supervisions to monitor progress;
• Participating in formal progression events.

∂

8 Supporting candidates through completion and final examination

• Supporting completion of the thesis;
• Advising on submission;
• Advising on examiners and examination;
• Supporting candidates in examination.

Typical Examples

• Working with candidates to finalise their submissions;
• Advising them on whether the thesis is likely to pass on the basis of your experience as an examiner.;
• Roles in appointing examiners;
• Understanding of relevant policies and procedures and outcomes;
• Supporting candidates to prepare for the viva;
• Supporting candidates after the viva.

​

∂

9 Supporting candidates to disseminate their research

• Outcomes of doctoral research are often left ‘… like John Brown to lie mouldering in their literary graves’ (Walker et al 2008: 79)

​

• Vital that they are made available to the disciplinary and/or professional community.

​

Typical Examples

• Setting expectations at the start of the candidacy;
• Modelling the process of publication;
• Encouraging candidates to publish as they go;
• Co-publishing;
• Establishing a post-doctoral publications plan.

​

∂

10 Reflecting upon and enhancing practice

• Evaluate practice to build on strengths and address weaknesses;
• Undertake appropriate professional development;
• Disseminate good practice.

Typical Examples

• Using an appropriate mix of methods for evaluating supervision
• Undertaking initial and continuing professional development;
• Familiarity with the scholarly literature.
• Where appropriate, contributing to the professional development of other supervisors.

∂

Questions?

∂

The Uses of the Framework

∂

1) Individual self-reflection

“It was very helpful to have the signposting to areas of pedagogy that relate to my practice. This enabled me to do some further reading on the topic and see how my own methods fit with current thinking.”

“I cannot express enough how much I myself have learnt about PhD supervision - all in all, the entire process has been highly beneficial for me.”

​

∂

2) Professional development

Individual planning;

Institutional programmes

- Sheffield Hallam (2021) where it was incorporated into the Research Supervisor

Passport https://blogs.shu.ac.uk/doctoralschool/event/research-supervisor-passport-

scheme-briefing/

• University of York (2020) has developed a ‘Being an Effective Supervisor Tutorial’ (BEST) online tutorial for supervisors. Available online at https://www.york.ac.uk/staff/research/training-forums/research-excellence-training-team/research-staff/ukcge-supervision-and-best/
• University of Manchester (2020) has created an on-line Postgraduate Researcher Supervisor Toolkit. Available online at https://www.staffnet.manchester.ac.uk/rbe/rdrd/postgraduate-researcher-supervisor-toolkit/

​

∂

3) Supporting applications for promotion;�

∂

4) Supporting institutional awards for outstanding research supervision

∂

5) Supporting external recognition

∂

UKCGE recognition scheme

• Based on applicants producing a reflective account of their supervisory practice normally addressing each of the 10 headings and giving at least two examples (maximum of 5000 words);
• For purposes of authentication, applicants need two references, one from a colleague who knows about their practice and one from a former candidate;
• The account and references are submitted electronically to the UKCGE;

​

∂

UKCGE recognition scheme (cont.)

• Reflective accounts and references are read by two reviewers from other institutions who are familiar both with research supervision and with the Framework;
• They determine whether criteria have been met or whether further work is needed and recommend acceptance or referral;
• In cases of disagreement, the application is sent to a third reviewer whose decision is final;
• All applicants receive constructive feedback;

​

∂

UKCGE recognition scheme (cont.)

• If the recommendation is referral, they are invited to re-submit once without further charge;
• If the recommendation is acceptance, they become a UKCGE-Recognised Research Supervisor;
• Currently over 100 Recognised Supervisors in 27 institutions;

∂

∂

UKCGE recognition scheme (cont.)

• Hope is that this will become a hallmark of good practice for research students, institutions, and research sponsors, not just in the UK but overseas as well;

​

• Details can be found at http://www.ukcge.ac.uk/research-supervision-recognition-programme.aspx

​

∂

Questions?

∂

Thank you

∂