Abstract
The project upon which this paper is based is a qualitative study of the supervision [thesis advising]1 of research students [graduate students] in departments of education and psychology in three British universities. Two models are apparent in the literature of supervision. Thetechnical rationality model gives priority to issues of procedure or technique, while thenegotiated order model conceptualizes supervision as a process open to negotiation and change. We look at supervisory style, reporting findings on the nature of tutorials [meetings] between supervisor and student, the extent of direction given by the supervisor to the project, and the nature of the interpersonal relationship between the parties. We also consider student strategies. Our findings suggest that although the technical rationality model has much to recommend it, a negotiated order model is a better description of what happens in practice.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Acker, S. (1992), ‘New perspectives on an old problem: the position of women academics in British higher education’,Higher Education 24, 47–75.
Acker, S. (1994). ‘Research students and supervision: is gender relevant?’, Paper presented at the International Sociology of Education Conference, Sheffield, January.
Bargar, R., and Ducan, J. (1982). ‘Cultivating creative endeavor in doctoral research’,Journal of Higher Education, 53(1), 1–31.
Becher, T. (1989).Academic Tribes and Territories. Milton Keynes: Open University Press.
Becher, T. (1993). ‘Graduate education in Britain: the view from the ground’, in Clark, B. (ed.)The Research Foundations of Graduate Education. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Becker, H. (1970).Sociological Work. New Brunswick, N.J.: Transaction Books.
Blanton, J. (1983). ‘Midwifing the dissertation’,Teaching of Psychology 10(2), 74–77.
Blume, S. (1986). ‘The development and current dilemmas of postgraduate education’,European Journal of Education 21(3), 217–222.
Bowen, W.G., and Rudenstine, N. (1992).In Pursuit of the PhD. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.
Brown, G., and Atkins, M. (1988).Effective Teaching in Higher Education. London: Methuen.
Burgess, R. (ed.) (1994).Postgraduate Education and Training in the Social Sciences. London: Jessica Kingsley Press.
Burgess, R., Hockey, J., and Pole, C. (1992).Becoming a Postgraduate Student: The Social Organisation of Postgraduate Training, Final Report. Coventry: University of Warwick.
Channell, J. (1990). ‘The student-tutor relationship’, in Kinnell, M. (ed.),The Learning Experiences of Overseas Students. Guildford: SRHE and Milton Keynes: Open University Press.
Clark, B. (ed.) (1993).The Research Foundations of Graduate Education. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Connell, R.W. (1985). ‘How to supervise a PhD’,Vestes 2, 38–41.
Cornbleth, C. (1990).Curriculum in Context. London: Falmer.
Council of Graduate Schools (1990).Research Student and Supervisor: An Approach to Good Supervisory Practice. Washington, D.C.: Council of Graduate Schools.
Cox, R. (1988). ‘Postgraduate research training: reviews of literature and data sources. The characteristics of the training process and those undergoing the research training’, Unpublished paper prepared for the Economic and Social Research Council. London: Centre for Higher Education Studies, Institute of Education, University of London.
Friedman, N. (1987).Mentors and Supervisors. IIE Research Report Number 14. New York: Institute for International Education.
Evans, C. (1988).Language People. Guildford: Society for Research into Higher Education and Milton Keynes: Open University Press.
Gumport, P. (1993). ‘Graduate education and research imperatives: views from American campuses’, in Clark, B. (ed.),The Research Foundations of Graduate Education. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Hockey, J. (1991). ‘The social science PhD: a literature review’,Studies in Higher Education 16, 319–332.
Kiely, M. (1982). ‘Creative sensitivity in doctoral research: the supervisor's contribution.’ Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Psychological Association, Washington, D.C.
Olesen, V., and Whittaker, E. (1968).The Silent Dialogue. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.
Parry, O., Atkinson, P., and Delamont, S. (1992). ‘Free range or battery laid: doing a PhD in the social sciences.’ Paper presented at the conference, Research Training in the Social Sciences, St. John's College, Cambridge, September.
Phillips, E., and Pugh, D. (1994).How to Get a PhD. Buckingham: Open University Press.
Rudd, E. (1985).New Look at Postgraduate Failure, Guildford: SRHE and Slough: NFER-Nelson.
Schön, D. (1988).Educating the Reflective Practitioner. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Science and Engineering Research Council (1982).Research Student and Supervisor: An Approach to Good Supervisory Practice. London: SERC.
Strauss, A., Schatzman, L., Bucher, R., Ehrlich, E., and Sabshin, M. (1984).Psychiatric Ideologies and Institutions. New York: The Free Press of Glencoe.
Wakeford, J. (1985).A Sociological Study of Part-time Postgraduate Students in Sociology and Social Administration. London: Economic and Social Research Council.
Woods, P. (1990).Teacher Skills and Strategies. London: Falmer.
Wright, J. (1991). ‘A study of the styles of PhD supervision’, unpublished paper. Reading: University of Reading.
Wright, J., and Lodwick, R. (1989). ‘The process of the PhD: a study of the first year of doctoral study’,Research Papers in Education 4(1), 22–56.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Acker, S., Hill, T. & Black, E. Thesis supervision in the social sciences: Managed or negotiated?. High Educ 28, 483–498 (1994). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01383939
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01383939