Postgraduate research: Learning from one another across academic disciplines and cultures
Pat Cryer
Higher Education Research and Development Unit
University College London, UK
The studies that gave rise to the book for research students The Research Student's Guide to Success [1] involved interviews with supervisors as well as research students across a wide range of disciplines and in several countries including Australia. The interviews with supervisors confirmed that research supervision is often a lonely business. Although support can be obtained from talking to other supervisors, this support is limited where it is confined to the same academic discipline and culture. However, when supervisors talk to other supervisors more widely, ie in different academic disciplines and cultures, they tend to talk past one another because each discipline and culture has its own implicit understandings about what a doctoral degree ought to be and do - and supervisors seldom realise that these implicit understandings can be very different or how and why they are different. On the basis of the above mentioned studies, this paper will attempt to identify these implicit understandings, make them explicit and give the rationale for them. Accordingly it will provide the basis for supervisors to learn more effectively from one another. The paper will consider discipline differences first and then the differences due to the country, institution or department in which research students find themselves.
Introduction
With the burgeoning increase in numbers of research students worldwide, academics who are experienced in supervising are having to manage progressively increasing cohorts of students and, in addition, academics who are new to supervising are having to undertake the work. Both require all the support they can get. One source of support is talking issues over; another is courses of various types. My experience is that both take place most profitably across disciplines and even across institutions, rather than within single disciplines, as no-one is then constrained by accepted discipline or departmental norms; no-one is reluctant to show ignorance in the presence of close colleagues, in particular senior ones; and matters of research design do not cloud those of the processes of supervision. My experience shows that such learning can, however, be limited, because those involved often talk past one another, as each discipline and culture has its own implicit understandings about what a doctoral degree ought to be and do - and supervisors and course providers alike seldom realise that these implicit understandings can be very different, or how and why. Consequently in my courses for supervisors, I like to start with a session on disciplinary and cultural differences - which, incidentally, has always evaluated well.
My appreciation of disciplinary and cultural differences in research and research supervision have grown out of my studies, which were primarily directed elsewhere (see below). This paper presents it, taking the perspective of a basis for concise guidance to enable (i) supervisors across disciplines to discuss more productively with one another and (ii) members of interdepartmental policies and budgets research committees to make decisions more effectively. The content of the paper is not new, in so far as members of any one discipline and culture will almost certainly recognise their own positions. However, they will probably not fully appreciate those of other disciplines and cultures - which is the purpose of the paper.
The paper will start with an overview of the studies which fed into it. Then it will consider disciplinary differences in postgraduate research, followed by national and institutional differences. Suggestions for improvement from conference delegates will be greatly appreciated.
The studies on which the paper is based
The studies consisted of three linked formal projects supported and informed by less formal enquiries and surveys of literature. The aim was to identify problem areas common among research students, plus possible solutions, and to present these in self-study booklets customised for the students in the institution or faculty concerned (Cryer 1996a). A general outcome was a book for research students (Cryer 1996b).
The first formal project was institution-wide in an 'old'[2] university institution, Birkbeck College, University of London, between January and October 1994; the second was in a single faculty, the Faculty of the Built Environment, of another 'old' university institution, University College London, between June and October 1994; and the third, between September 1994 and October 1995, was in a single faculty, the Faculty of Education, of a college of higher education, Roehampton Institute London, which, but for a change of Government policy, would probably by now be one of the 'new' universities.
The formal projects were augmented, developed and refined in the UK, Australia, Thailand, Singapore and Sweden through seminars for supervisors; training workshops for research students; and informal discussions. Particularly useful were the deliberations of the Advisory Panel on Good Supervisory Practice, of which I was a member, set up between January and June 1995 by the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council[3] (Cryer and Cumming 1995). The literature surveyed during the studies was not inconsiderable (see the References and Select Bibliography in Cryer 1996b) and included a number of Australian works. Particularly relevant in the context of this paper is Parry and Hayden (1994).
Disciplinary differences in postgraduate research
In general, disciplines handle research in their own unique ways, although there are notable exceptions within disciplines and there are disciplines in which several ways operate. This section illustrates by considering discipline-related aspects of certain features of doctoral research degrees.
1. Identifying the research topic
Where a research programme is to be funded under a contract, the research topic will, of necessity, be given to the research student by his or her supervisor at the outset. Even without contract funding, this can happen in any discipline, but occurs most frequently in natural science subjects because the research so often has to be linked to the availability of expensive equipment.
Where contract funding is not available, which is usually the case outside the natural sciences, the research student normally works alone, prior to enrolment, to identify his or her own topic as one which is both unresearched and researchable. A prospective supervisor may help, but the identification of the topic is essentially the student's own work. Isolation starts early in these subjects, in contrast with the equally early 'protection' under which the student in the natural sciences works.
2. Identifying the research problem
It is usual for research to address a research problem, which may or may not be implicit in the research topic. In some subjects - notably the science-based ones - it is normal practice for a research problem to be identified fairly early on. Then the rest of the research programme addresses it, and the research is thus regarded as the process of finding research solutions to research problems.
In some subjects, it is usual for the research problem not to be implicit in the research topic. The research is regarded as on-going exploration, with each phase growing out of findings from a previous phase. As the research programme nears its end, the work is reviewed with hindsight to identify a focus, which is essentially the research problem, even though the term may not be used. Such an approach is particularly common in arts and humanities.
In the social sciences, both approaches are common.
3. Planning the research programme
In all subject areas, there are certain milestones in a research degree programme that are imposed or at least recommended by the department or institution, and these must be planned for. Examples may include approximate dates for progress reports, seminar presentations etc. Other milestones which need to be planned for depend on access to people or events which have a fixed window of opportunity, such as meeting a briefly visiting expert or attending a conference. Finally there are milestones which depend on the nature of the research, and hence largely on the discipline:
For the research student who can, early on, identify the ultimate goal of the research - more often than not a natural scientist - long-term planning is possible. The student must of course be prepared to revise the plan because it is the nature of research that there are unforeseen delays and difficulties. However, the main milestones can be expected to remain significantly unaltered.
Where research proceeds by exploration, planning is less straightforward. As the research can only proceed a stage at a time, the planning too can only proceed a stage at a time. Thus plans have to be short-term, to take account of how the exploration is developing and the new directions which are opening up.
4. Independence and isolation of research students
Where the supervisor holds the contract under which the student is working, as can happen in any discipline, the supervisor is closely involved in the work and may even take an active part in the data collection and analysis. Although it is by no means impossible for boundaries to be drawn round the contributions of student and supervisor, so making the students' contribution independent, this is not always done as scrupulously as it might be. In consequence, though, the student is less isolated.
With major contracts, as are most usual in science subjects, the research student may be part of a team. The support of others is always there and it may be difficult and even undesirable to disentangle the boundaries of individual contributions. So independence may become an issue, although it tends to be veiled - and student isolation is unlikely to be a problem.
5. Budget and resource considerations
The student funded by contract has access to a budget on which he or she can call to some extent. For the self-funded student - most common in the arts, humanities or social sciences - the costs are borne by him or herself, unless the department is unusually generous. The difficulties for the research students in such disciplines can be considerable.
6. The originality of the research
All universities require doctoral work to be 'original'. This is an ambiguous concept: one view is that 'there is nothing new under the sun'; another is that everything that anyone ever does must be different in a few small ways from what someone else does. What is regarded as acceptable 'originality' for a doctorate tends to lie in discipline norms.
Where the research is directed towards something that is inherently new, the outcome is, by default, original. This is common in the natural sciences, where the goal may be the development of new equipment or the use of new equipment to investigate something that could not be investigated without it. It is not uncommon in the arts and humanities, if previously unstudied material is researched.
Another configuration of originality is a new way of thinking about something, ie a new model or perspective. This seems particularly common in the humanities.
Other configurations of originality are re-interpretations of existing theories and lists of generalisable findings or conclusions. Both occur in all disciplines.
In all subjects it is possible for the research data to lead to a jump in creativity to something momentous. However, with current pressures towards short completion times, more conformist configurations of originality tend to be encouraged nowadays.
7. The objectivity and reliability of the research
Findings which are objective and reliable (repeatable) are clearly more impressive than those which are not. This poses difficulties in those disciplines where the research concerns small numbers of people, because how individuals behave depends on a variety of factors which are difficult to identify and impossible to measure quantitatively. There are techniques to minimise the effects of subjectivity, but the issue is a fundamental problem in such research, and the researcher has to learn to respond to criticisms that the work 'isn't real research'. The problem does not exist where the data is quantitative and where the variables are relatively few and can be identified, manipulated and measured - as is invariably the case in research in the natural sciences. Neither does the problem exist in the social sciences in those cases where the data concerns large numbers of people, so that individual differences can be assumed to cancel out.
8. The significance of the research
All universities require doctoral work to be 'significant'. However, what passes as 'significant' depends on the norms of the discipline. It can be argued that knowledge is 'significant' for its own sake, irrespective of how useless it may appear to those in other disciplines. In the social sciences and some natural sciences 'significance' is widely regarded as being of help to society in some way.
9. The nature of the doctoral qualification
The above discussion leads to the question of the nature of the doctoral degree, and there can be little doubt that it is substantially different from one discipline to another. According to the Advisory Board for the Research Councils (1993) there are two polarised perceptions of the PhD. One is that the PhD is fundamentally a training in research which takes the form of an apprenticeship and which results in small steps forward in the understanding of the subject. The other is that the PhD is a period of scholastic and research endeavour which culminates in a major contribution to the understanding of the discipline. The former perception is common in the natural sciences and the latter in the arts and humanities. Clearly individual supervisors' perceptions will lie at different positions between these extremes.
National and institutional differences in postgraduate research
Institutions and individual departments within institutions are adopting a range of innovations to attract the burgeoning numbers of research students. Whereas there may once have been national norms, there are now no longer even institutional ones. This section considers those aspects of postgraduate research which may be offered or dictated by individual institutions or departments and which may therefore affect the process of supervision.
1. Structures of doctoral degrees
It has been normal in many countries for different institutions and different departments to offer a range of structures or routes through to a doctoral degree. The UK, somewhat belatedly, is now following this lead. Until recently almost all its doctoral degrees were entirely by research. Certain levels of attendance may have been expected on taught courses, but performance on these was not assessed. Consideration is now being given to practices which are common elsewhere of there being a range of assessed components including taught courses, publication records and work experience. 'New' universities are more innovative in this respect than 'old' universities.
2. Probationary hurdles
In some countries, eg Singapore, probationary hurdles do not seem to exist to any significant extent, whereas elsewhere they may be highly formalised. In the UK, the common, but not nationwide, practice is that unless research students already have a masters degree, they register for an MPhil and only if their work is deemed good enough is their registration upgraded and backdated for a PhD.
3. Forms of assessment
There are variations in terms of how the research component of a PhD is assessed. All institutions require a thesis, but there are major differences in the form and even the existence of a supporting oral examination. In the UK the oral examination is usually attended by the candidate, an external examiner and an internal one. Institutions differ in terms of whether or not supervisors may attend and, if so, how they are allowed to contribute, but otherwise the oral invariably takes place behind closed doors.
In Sweden, for example, the oral examination is generally a public affair where staff, students and lay persons alike may and often do attend and ask questions of the candidate.
In countries where institutions can be large distances from other similar institutions, the oral examination may be dispensed with, as seems usually to be the case in Australia. In Canada, oral examination via video link is being considered.
4. Supervisory practices
Until recently it was usual in the UK for each research student to have his or her own supervisor, and what went on between them was essentially a private matter. In the USA, it is usual for each student to be supervised by a panel, known as a 'committee'. Following the Reynolds Report (Committee of Vice-chancellors and Principals 1986) this practice is becoming increasingly common in the UK, especially where the research is expected to extend beyond the expertise of individual supervisors, and where there are joint funding interests. Whether the panel in fact meets much or at all as a panel - as is implied from the 'committee' nomenclature - is unclear.
Mention ought to be made of the pattern of supervisory practice where the day-to-day supervisor is new to the work. (This is widespread in 'new' universities in the UK and in other countries where universities have recently emerged from the 'polytechnic' tradition.) In most institutions in the UK, the interactions between the day-to-day supervisor and the research student then have to be overseen in some way. This varies from not at all in a few institutions and departments to, more commonly, following clearly laid down procedures which include detailed record-keeping.
5. Quality assurance mechanisms
Quality assurance is an area where, in the UK at least, 'new' universities had a head start over 'old' universities, because they had to meet formalised requirements from the Council for National Academic Awards (CNAA) for having their degrees validated. This meant that stringent procedures already existed when the 'new' universities were borne, and these were essentially common across departments. Procedures have now evolved from this sound base, following institutional autonomy. In contrast, in the 'old' universities, there has always been the tradition of autonomy. So the more formalised quality assurance mechanisms of the last decade, aimed at meeting Government imposed quality audit and quality assessment, have had to be developed out of a medley of existing personal and departments schemes, which varied markedly from one another in terms of sophistication and utility.
Concluding remarks
This paper has attempted to make explicit my current understandings of widespread implicit assumptions about what a doctoral degree ought to be and do, and why. However, the paper needs the benefit of input from others at the conference. Given this, it should provide a basis for supervisors from different discipline backgrounds to discuss together more productively, so enhancing the supervisory process, and it should help members of interdepartmental research committees to make more informed decisions.
References
Advisory Board for the Research Councils (ABRC) (1993). The Nature of the PhD: A Discussion Document. London: Office of Science and Technology.
Cryer, P. (1996a). Training research students and supporting supervisors through self-study materials customised for the research students. The Journal of Graduate Education, 2(2), 44-52.
Cryer, P. (1996b). The Research Student's Guide to Success. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.
Cryer, P. and Cumming, C. (1995). Postgraduate Research: A Guide to Good Practice in Engineering and Physical Sciences - Consultative Document. UK: Swindon: Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council.
Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals (1986). Academic Standards in Universities. London: Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals. (The Reynolds Report)
Parry, S. and Hayden, M. (1994). Supervising Higher Degree Research Students: An Investigation of Practices across a Range of Academic Departments. Canberra: Australian Government Publishing Service.
Endnotes
- Cryer, P. 1996. The Research Student's Guide to Success. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.
- Around 1990 a number of institutions in the UK were allowed to become universities. Those that did so are referred to as 'new' or 'post-1990' universities. Universities in existence before this time are referred to as 'old' universities.
- Research Councils are bodies which distribute funds from Government for research in UK universities.
Author: Pat Cryer, Higher Education Research and Development Unit, University College London
Email: p.cryer@ucl.ac.uk Fax: +44 1483 747181
Please cite as: Cryer, P. (1996). Postgraduate research: Learning from one another across academic disciplines and cultures. Different Approaches: Theory and Practice in Higher Education. Proceedings HERDSA Conference 1996. Perth, Western Australia, 8-12 July.
http://www.herdsa.org.au/confs/1996/cryer.html |
[ HERDSA ]
[ Proceedings Contents ]
This URL: http://www.herdsa.org.au/confs/1996/cryer.html
Created 27 June 2001. Last revision: 23 May 2002.
© Higher Education Research and Development Society of Australasia Inc
