Advertisement

Supervising at a Distance: The Transformation of Assistance during a Doctoral Journey across Different Continents

  • Bernadita Justiniano
  • Teresa Mauri
  • Marc Clarà
Chapter
Part of the Palgrave Studies in Education Research Methods book series (PSERM)

Abstract

This chapter explores doctoral supervision from the point of view of the adjustment of the supervisor’s assistance. The study explored this issue by observing the evolution of dynamics and relations among the necessities and assistance as felt by the different subjectivities in the doctoral process. To do this, an analytic autoethnographic approach was adopted in a case study involving a doctoral student completing most of her doctorate while living in Santiago de Chile and two researchers who supervised her while living and working in Barcelona. The analysis revealed five epiphanies in this process: building the relationship; theoretical work; analysing data; supervised autonomy; and controlling timing. Findings suggested that assistance is largely multidimensional, and that adjustment of assistance does not require a coincidence between the supervisor’s and student’s perceptions of the student’s necessities.

References

  1. Anderson, L. (2006). Analytic autoethnography. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 35(4), 373–395.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Andrew, M. (2012). Supervising doctorates at a distance: Three trans-Tasman stories. Quality Assurance in Education, 20(1), 42–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Can, G., & Walker, A. (2011). A model for doctoral students’ perceptions and attitudes toward written feedback for academic writing. Research in Higher Education, 52(508), 536.Google Scholar
  4. Cerrato Lara, M., Castelló Badia, M., & Lonka, K. (2019). A picture of the research field of doctoral education from the students’ perspectives: Studies using questionnaires and scales. In Traversing the doctorate: Reflections and strategies from students, supervisors and administrators (p. 75–89). Cham: Palgrave Macmillan (this volume).Google Scholar
  5. Coll, C., Onrubia, J., & Mauri, T. (2008). Ayudar a aprender en contextos educativos: El ejercicio de la influencia educativa y el análisis de la enseñanza. Revista de Educación, 346, 33–70.Google Scholar
  6. Daniels, H. (2001). Vygotsky and pedagogy. London: RoutledgeFalmer.Google Scholar
  7. Davies, C. A. (1999). Reflexive ethnography: A guide to researching selves and others. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  8. Ellis, C., Adams, T. E., & Bochner, A. P. (2011). Autoethnography: An overview. Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 12(1). Retrieved from http://www.qualitative-research.net/index.php/fqs/article/view/1589/3095.
  9. Ellis, C., & Bochner, A. P. (2006). Analyzing analytic autoethnography: An autopsy. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 35(4), 429–449.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. González-Ocampo, G., & Castelló, M. (2019). Research on doctoral supervision: What we have learnt in the last 10 years. In Traversing the doctorate: Reflections and strategies from students, supervisors and administrators (p. 117–141). Cham: Palgrave Macmillan (this volume).Google Scholar
  11. Kobayashi, S., Grout, B., & Rump, C. (2013). Interaction and learning in PhD supervision: A qualitative study of supervision with multiple supervisors. Dansk Universitetspædagogisk Tidsskrift, 8(14), 13–25.Google Scholar
  12. McCallina, A., & Nayar, S. (2012). Postgraduate research supervision: A critical review of current practice. Teaching in Higher Education, 17(1), 63–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Smit, J., Van Eerde, H. A. A., & Bakker, A. (2013). A conceptualisation of whole-class scaffolding. British Educational Research Journal, 39(5), 817–834.  https://doi.org/10.1002/berj.3007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  15. Van de Pol, J., Volman, M., & Beishuizen, J. (2010). Scaffolding in teacher-student interaction: A decade of research. Educational Psychology Review, 22, 271–296.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-010-9127-6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Vygotsky, L. S. (1987). Thinking and speech (N. Minick, Trans.). In R. W. Rieber & A. S. Carton (Ed.), The collected works of L.S. Vygotsky. Volume 1: Problems of general psychology (pp. 39–285). New York: Plenum Press.Google Scholar
  17. Wertsch, J. V. (1985). Vygotsky and the social formation of mind. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Wood, D., Bruner, J. S., & Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem-solving. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry and Allied Disciplines, 17, 89–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Yu, S., & Lee, I. (2013). Understanding supervisors’ commentary practices in doctoral research proposal writing: A Hong Kong study. The Asia-Pacific Educational Researcher, 22(4), 473–483.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Zeegers, M., & Barron, D. (2012). Pedagogical concerns in doctoral supervision: A challenge for pedagogy. Quality Assurance in Education, 20(1), 20–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Bernadita Justiniano
    • 1
  • Teresa Mauri
    • 2
  • Marc Clarà
    • 3
  1. 1.Casa Grande UniversityGuayaquilEcuador
  2. 2.University of BarcelonaBarcelonaSpain
  3. 3.Department of PsychologyUniversity of LleidaLleidaSpain

Personalised recommendations