Identifying the advantages and disadvantages of individual and group approaches in supervising doctoral dissertations and comparing it between the departments of humanities, technology and engineering and basic sciences

Document Type : Research Paper

Authors

1 Department of Educational Sciences . Faculty of Educational Sciences and Psychology, University of Isfahan

2 Member of the faculty of the Department of Educational Sciences, Faculty of Educational Sciences, University of Isfahan

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to identify the advantages and disadvantages of individual and group approaches in guiding the doctoral dissertation and compare it between students of the three departments of humanities, engineering and basic sciences of the University of Isfahan. The research approach is a combination of successive exploratory types. In the qualitative section, using semi-structured interviews with 27 managers, deputies and faculty members, data were collected by sampling method. Findings were used to identify the advantages and disadvantages of experts and to build quantitative tools. In the quantitative part, a researcher-made questionnaire was administered among doctoral students in three groups of humanities, technical and engineering and basic sciences by field random sampling method. Qualitative findings showed that in general, experts believe that both approaches have advantages and disadvantages that are used according to the nature of the field and the desired position of each, but according to the scientific situation in today's world, group approaches are more important. Took. The results in the quantitative section showed that students agreed more with the advantages of the group approach and considered its disadvantages far less than the advantages. The results of post hoc tests indicate the differences between the basic and technical sciences and engineering groups with the humanities regarding some of the disadvantages and advantages of the approaches. In the humanities departments, due to the more individual nature of the research, students had little knowledge of group approaches and did not pay much attention to it

Keywords

References

الف. فارسی
حسن بیگی، ابراهیم. (1389). پژوهش گروهی الگوی موفق توسعه پژوهشی راهبردی در کشور. مجله مطالعات دفاعی استراتژیک، 42. 78-49.
شورای عالی انقلاب فرهنگی. (1387). نقشه جامع علمی کشور. پیش­نویس سوم. تهران: شورای عالی انقلاب فرهنگی.
علی عسگری، عبدالعلی و نعمتی انارکی، داود. (1389). حلقه­های فکری و ضرورت پژوهش­های گروهی. هشتمین کنفرانس بین المللی مدیریت. تهران: گروه پژوهشی آریانا.
کرسول، جان دبلیو. (1391). طرح پژوهش (رویکردهای کمی، کیفی و شیوه ترکیبی). ترجمه: حسن دانائی فرد و علی صالحی. تهران: موسسه کتاب مهربان نشر.
نامداری پژمان، مهدی؛ ذوالقدرنسب، محسن؛ قنبری، سیروس و امانی، احمد. (1390). تأثیر آموزش به شیوه حلقه­های پژوهشی بر بهبود مهارت­های ارتباطی، نگرشی و عملکردی دانشجویان. راهبردهای آموزش در علوم پزشکی (راهبردهای آموزشی)، 3 (4). 13-1.
نوروزی، علیرضا و ولایتی، خالد. (1388). همکاری علمی پژوهشی: جامعه­شناسی همکاری علمی. تهران: چاپار.
همتی، رضا و بیات، اکرم. (1397). مطالعه پدیدارشناختی تجربه­زیسته دانشجویان از فرایند نگارش پایان نامه. راهبرد فرهنگ، 43. 122-89.
ب. انگلیسی
Agné. Hans & Mörkenstam Ulf. (2018). Should first-year doctoral students be supervised collectively or individually? Effects on thesis completion and time to completion, Higher Education Research & Development, 37:4, 669-682.
Cohen, L., Manion, L. & Morrison, K. (2005). Research methods in education 5th edition.
Conrad, L. (2003, July 6–9). Five ways of enhancing the postgraduate community: Student perceptions of effective supervision and support. Paper presented at HERDSA- Learning for an UnknownFuture, Christchurch, New Zealand.
De Kleijn, R. A. M., Meijer, P. C., Brekelmans, M. & Pilot, A. (2015). Adaptive research supervision: Exploring expert thesis supervisors’ practical knowledge. Higher Education Research &Development, 34(1), 117–130.
De Lange, N., Pillay, G. & Chikoko, V. (2011). Doctoral learning: A case for a cohort model of supervision and support. South African Journal of Education, 31, 15–30.
Delamont, S., Atkinson, P. & Parry, O. (2004). Supervising the doctorate: A guide to success.
Dunleavy, P. (2003). Authoring a PhD: How to plan, draft, write and finish a doctoral thesis or dissertation. Macmillan International Higher Education.
Dysthe, O., Samara, A. & Westrheim, K. (2006). Multivoiced supervision of master’s students: A case study of alternative supervision practices in higher education. Studies in Higher Education,31(3) 299–318.
Enyedy, K. C., Arcinue, F., Puri, N. N., Carter, J. W., Goodyear, R. K. & Getzelman, M. A. (2003). Hindering phenomena in group supervision: Implications for practice. Professional Psychology:Research and Practice, 34(3), 312–317.
Fenge, L. A. (2012). Enhancing the doctoral journey: The role of group supervision in supporting collaborative learning and creativity. Studies in Higher Education, 37(4), 401–414.
Guerin, C., Green, I. & Bastalich, W. (2011). Big love: Managing a team of research supervisors. InV. Kumar & A. Lee (Eds.), Doctoral education in international context: Connecting local, regional & global perspectives (pp. 138–153). Kuala Lumpur: UPM.
Guerin, C., Kerr, H. & Green, I. (2015). Supervision pedagogies: Narratives from the field. Teachingin Higher Education, 20(1), 107–118.
Hakkarainen, K. P., Wires, S., Keskinen, J., Paavola, S., Pohjola, P., Lonka, K. & Pyhältö, K. (2014). On personal and collective dimensions of agency in doctoral training: medicine and natural science programs. Studies in Continuing Education, 36(1), 83–100.
Holmstrand, L. & Harnsten, G. (2003). How to bridge the gap betweenthe school world and the world of university research. Stockholm: HLS Forlag.
Hortsmanshof, L. & Conrad, L. (2003, July 6–9). Postgraduate peer support programme: Enhancingcommunity. Paper presented at the HERDSA, Learning for the Unknown Future: Research and Development in Higher Education, University of Otago, Christchurch, New Zealand.
Hottenrott, H. & Menter, M. (2020). The socialization of doctoral students in the emergence of structured doctoral education in Germany. In Socialization in Higher Education and the Early Career (pp. 197-219). Springer, Cham.
Hutchings, M. (2017). Improving doctoral support through group supervision: Analyzing face-toface and technology-mediated strategies for nurturing and sustaining scholarship. Studies inHigher Education, 42(3), 533–550.
Johnson, D. W. & Johnson, F. P. (2003). Joining together. Group theory and group skills (8th ed). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Joyce, B. R., Weil, M. & Calhoun, E. (2003). Models of teaching. 7th ed. Massachusetts: Allyn and Bacon. Maidenhead: Open University Press/SRHE.
Maritz, J. & Prinsloo, P. (2015). A Bourdieusian perspective on becoming and being a postgraduate supervisor: The role of capital. Higher Education Research & Development, 34(5), 972–985.
Nordentoft, H. M., Thomsen, R. & Wichmann-Hansen, G. (2013). Collective academic supervision: A model for participation and learning in higher education. Higher education, 65(5), 581-593.
Pearson, M. & Ford, L. (1997). Open and flexible PhD study and research. Retrieved August 2, 2005, from http://www.dest.gov.au/archive/highered/eippubs/eip97-16/eip97-16.pdf.
Reynolds, M. (2004). Group work in education and training: Ideas inpractice. London: KPL.
Robertson, M. J. (2017). Team modes and power: Supervision of doctoral students. Higher Education Research & Development, 36(2), 358–71.
Samara, A. (2006). Group supervision in graduate education: A process of supervision skill development and text improvement. Higher Education Research & Development, 25(2), 115–129.
Vekkaila, J., Virtanen, V., Kukkola, J., Frick, L. & Pyhältö, K. (2019). How Do Doctoral Students in STEM Fields Engage in Scientific Knowledge Practices? Frontline Learning Research, 7(1), 51-64.
Watts, J. H. (2010). Team supervision of the doctorate: Managing roles, relationships and contradictions. Teaching in Higher Education, 15(3), 335–339.
 

Files

History

  • Receive Date: 28 May 2020
  • Revise Date: 15 August 2020
  • Accept Date: 19 August 2020

Share

How to cite

Statistics