|
| [ HERDSA ]
[ Proceedings Contents ] |
This paper is about a qualitative study of the research supervision of non-English speaking background (NESB) students at Curtin University.I began this work in 1995 as a member of a team researching the 'quality' of research supervision across the whole postgraduate population at Curtin. My brief was to investigate the supervision needs and experiences of international students, employing an ethnographic interviewing approach; but I also interviewed some NESB students and was able to make some interesting comparisons between the two.
In this paper I attempt to plumb the depths of what might be glossed as the NESB students' vulnerability in the supervision relationship. This may be of interest for academic staff concerned with "teaching and learning across cultures" in the tertiary sector.
It is this question which framed both the substantive and methodological interests of the study this paper draws on. Substantively, I had set out to explore the "vulnerability" perceived by language minority postgraduates (overseas and Australian Non-English Speaking Background [NESB]) in their supervisory relationship at Curtin University. Methodologically, I had hoped to provide the students with an opportunity to re-present themselves narratively in voices that were not muted!
However, this paper is more about substance than methodology, though it begins with the latter. Then follows the main news: sample data of the 'voices' of six non-English speaking background (NESB) postgraduates speaking about their research supervision at Curtin University, interspersed with my rather speculative voice on the implications of the students' stories.
The interviewing of these six postgraduates was done in conjunction with a study of the research supervision of 17 international postgraduates in 1995 (Barker et al, 1995), but the data generated from these interviews were not included in that report. I regard these interviews as a pilot study, since it has served as a launching pad for a more extensive investigation of NESB postgraduates' supervision experiences at Curtin just under way. Perhaps the "news" in this paper will be similarly resourceful to others concerned with the research supervision of their NESB postgraduates.
Notwithstanding this deviation, I did manage to incorporate in my study the following devices which might loosely be regarded as qualitative:
Ben is a full time PhD student in science. He gained first class honours at another institution, but has stayed with the same supervisor who has since transferred to Curtin. Ben's first language is Vietnamese. His English was "just average" in high school and that, he said, is the reason why he went into science/engineering in the first place. Ben wanted it known that his English writing is now "as good as a person born in Australia" though he admitted that his supervisor gave him "a lot of guidelines" for his writing.
Sabine is a part time PhD student in business. She has a bachelors degree in applied science and a masters in business from Curtin, staying with the same supervisor she had for her masters. Sabine speaks several Chinese languages and dialects. She describes her English as "not strong", but feels she has developed her writing skills during her work on the masters.
Anais is doing a Masters degree in health science, having attained a bachelors degree at Curtin. Anais' first language is French. Although she has improved her English writing through her work as a teacher, "I have been gearing up for my research writing", Anais emphasised that English is her second language "It still takes me time to switch from thinking in my first language."
Simon is a full time student in a Master of engineering program. He came to Curtin with a bachelor of engineering from Europe. Simon speaks an Arabic language and his English, especially the writing, "needs to improve, but I have never found the time to take courses of instruction". (Simon's first degree had not allowed him to become a licensed engineer in Australia and he hoped his postgraduate studies would rectify this situation "because I have a family to support".)
Tony is a full time PhD student in environmental biology. Tony went to university as a mature age student, got first class honours in science at Curtin and has retained the same supervisor for his PhD. Tony considers himself fully bilingual in Italian and English and regards his English writing as strong.
Carol is pursuing a PhD in mathematics after obtaining a Bachelor of computer technology with second class honours from Curtin and has kept the same supervisor. Carol's first language is Mandarin and she also speaks Bahasa Malaysian fluently. Carol commenced learning English while in high school and took further instruction at Curtin, "but it is still a problem for me".
Discussion
Whilst there is a burgeoning interest in the English literacy needs of international students in Australian universities (Hacket and Yuen, 1995; Hall and Bell, 1995), it would seem that the literacy needs of NESB students have been largely overlooked. Although everyone except Tony in this sample admits to difficulties with the English language, Carol is the only one to have sought and received formal assistance (which in itself has not solved Carol's problems). It is interesting to note that all four of the PhD postgraduates have stayed with the same supervisor they had in their previous research program. Presumably, this is a mark of the students' satisfaction with their supervisors, but it may also be a case of staying with the 'devil you know' and to some extent a matter of the students' dependency! Perhaps the picture will become clearer when I explore what counts as a 'good' supervisor for the respondents, and whether their supervisors meet the stipulated criteria.
Ben identified three attributes of a good supervisor: i) to have expertise in the area of research; ii) to know how to direct and guide the postgraduate; and iii) to know the student's ability and cater to it. As an example of the latter, Ben cited that his supervisor ascertained that Ben was theoretically inclined and steered him in that direction. Ben described the relationship he had with his supervisor as "pretty good", but from other statements it was obvious that he was well satisfied with his supervisor.
Sabine regarded a good supervisor as someone who is concerned for the student's welfare and who criticises in a positive way. "I know he will pick me up if I fall in a hole. He will let me fall in but he will pick me up before I drown." Sabine believes she has a good relationship with her supervisor because she can present controversial views to him, he will listen and critique her ideas "but not try to dominate. He doesn't want me to be his clone". Overall she is "very satisfied" with her supervisor.
Anais defines a good supervisor as someone who provides expertise when necessary, "but doesn't control the postgraduate and cuts the crap (meaning does not lord it over the student)". Anais also thought it desirable for the supervisor to be an expert in the student's methodology and "accountable" (ie open to critique from the student in a collegial way) "I have been led up the garden path and have had to seek consultation from others -- this shouldn't have been necessary." Elsewhere in the interview Anais had criticised much of the feedback she had received from her supervisors (owing to staff changes she had had more than one supervisor) "I got to the point where I put off looking at my work because I don't like being attacked." As these comments indicate, there had been a good deal of tension in Anais' supervision and she was not well satisfied with it. However, she concedes that she has contributed to the unsatisfactory state of supervision "by not having the skills to direct the discussion "
Simon sees a good supervisor as someone who understands the difficulties the student is facing and can facilitate resources for the student. In Simon's estimation his supervisor failed to display these qualities. The supervisor was "too timid" to ask for the materials Simon needed; he has not been understanding of Simon's needs; and he has sometimes been discourteous to him (I was not able to clarify the nature of the alleged discourtesy, but gather it was a matter of not respecting cultural differences). In addition to this there was some conjecture over whether Simon's supervisor had given due recognition to some of his (Simon's) research findings when a jointly authored paper was presented overseas by the supervisor. Simon was not satisfied with his supervisor.
Tony thought a good supervisor was someone whom you could see any time; someone who was kind and willing to spend time with her postgraduates; and someone with expertise in the field of research. Elsewhere in the interview Tony spoke of his meetings with his supervisor as "businesslike; we have maintained the teacher-student relationship." When asked specifically about the relationship with his supervisor, Tony described it as "very good; I can see her any time." Yes, he was highly satisfied with his supervisor.
Carol also emphasised the importance of having enough time with her supervisor, and she saw value in having a supervisor who can guide the student when she needs it and has the expertise to provide good advice. Carol described both the relationship with her supervisor and the level of satisfaction with her supervision as "alright"; she qualified this by saying that at first it was good but in recent times there was too little time for consultation, and perhaps to add weight to her criticism she noted that increasingly the scheduled meetings with her supervisor had been cancelled
Discussion:
At the risk of being branded a reductionist, I 'read' the criteria listed above as falling into two broad categories: a) for the supervisor to have expertise, and to provide good guidance and management; and b) for the supervisor to be a concerned, compassionate person who makes her/himself accessible to students. Ben, Sabine and Tony are remarkably satisfied with their supervisors on both counts but it is the latter, the personal qualities, which are emphasised in their praise; and Carol, who like the Ben, Sabine and Tony had stuck with her previous supervisor, is now somewhat disenchanted because he no longer has the time to devote to her --thus it is accessibility rather than expertise which is being emphasised. As for Anais and Simon, who are profoundly unhappy with their supervisors, it is well and truly the human/personal qualities which are identified as most lacking. I move now to consider what, if anything, can be gleaned from the sample of data.
In the first instance consideration should be given to the opportunities and resources needed for them to acquire proficiency as soon as possible. One wonders, with respect to the students in this study: what help is currently available to them; how well they and their supervisors are informed about the help available; and the extent to which they rely on their supervisors for assistance or are left to their own resources.
However, in our anxiety to plug apparent deficits in NESB students' literacy we must avoid exacerbating the problem. As I have argued elsewhere (Hall and Chandraratna, 1995; Hall, 1996) an enlightened approach to the education of language minority students would be to recognise and incorporate where possible their linguistic strengths. For example, six of the interviewees are bilingual or multilingual, with English being their second, third, or fourth language. We Western academics, who are typically monolingual ourselves, are often very sharp in our criticism of overseas students whose English is below the standard expected for their academic tasks. It would surely serve us well to enquire about and to acknowledge the linguistic skills the overseas students have as we advise them about the English competency they will need for success in our program. As indicated above, it is this kind of respect which the postgraduates in this study seem to value in their supervisors
Others may view these apparent phenomena differently, but for me they suggest the need for supervisors to anticipate that their NESB postgraduates may be feeling vulnerable -- especially if their English is not strong -- and be prepared to negotiate with them the ways and means needed for their empowerment. Supervisors may well need assistance (and appropriate forms of empowerment themselves) before they are able to provide this more collegial model of supervision.
Cummins, J. (1988). From multicultural to anti-racist education: An analysis of programmes and policies in Ontario. In Skutnabb-Kangus, T. & Cummins, J. (Eds), Minority education: From shame to struggle. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters Ltd.
Hacket, J. & Yuen T.F. (1995). Intercultural communication and quality service. Paper presented at ISANA Conference, Fremantle, 6-8 December.
Hall, J. (1986). Improving cross-cultural research supervision in an Australian university. Paper presented at Quality in Postgraduate Research - Is it Happening? Conference, Adelaide, 18-19 April.
Hall, J. & Bell, J. (1995). Case studies on the English language requirements of overseas postgraduates at an Australian university. Paper presented at HERDSA Annual Conference, Rockhampton, July 4-6, 1995.
Hall, J. & Chandraratna, D. (1995). Cultural identity of international students: Countering assimilationist practices. Paper presented at ISANA Conference, Fremantle, 6-8 December.
| Author: John Hall, Faculty of Education, Curtin University of technology. Email: HallJ@educ.curtin.edu.au
Please cite as: Hall, J. (1996). Muted voices: A pilot study of NESB students' research supervision. 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/halljohn.html |