Abstract
We briefly make a case for re-conceptualising research project supervision/advising as the consideration of three inter-related areas: the learning and teaching process; developing the student; and producing the research project/outcome as a social practice. We use this as our theoretical base for an heuristic tool, ‘the research management matrix’ and this is the major focus of this paper. The matrix facilitates the work of supervision. In the matrix we privilege the research questions. The research management matrix can be easily used to focus on key research features and the relationships amongst them. The timing of different parts of research is introduced so that practical goals are identified. This facilitates project and research student learning management and timely completions. For these reasons the research management matrix is a useful tool for supervisors/advisors
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
Generally, ‘advisor’ is the term used in North America whereas it is ‘supervisor’ in those countries with a British higher education tradition. Henceforth we use the terms supervisor/supervising.
There was the general agreement on this issue amongst 29 doctoral educators representing six countries (including the US) in a plenary session of the “Challenging Research Pedagogies” conference in doctoral education held at McGill University, 15–18 April 2007.
This section, and to a lesser extent other sections, mirrors our discussion in Smyth and Maxwell (2008).
More often than not the ‘page’ actually is several physically stuck together.
References
Adkins, B. (2009). PhD pedagogy and the changing knowledge landscapes of universities. Higher Education Research and Development, 28(2), 165–177.
Babbie, E. (2001). The practice of social research (9th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/Thompson Learning.
Biggs, J. (1999). Teaching for quality learning at university: What the student does. Buckingham: Society for Research into Higher Education and Open University Press.
Brien, D. L. (2005). Integrity in planning postgraduate curriculum: Developing research degrees in writing that work. Paper presented at the APEIC, December.
Creswell, J. W., Tashakkori, A., Jensen, K. D., & Shapley, K. D. (2003). Teaching mixed methods research: Practices, dilemmas and challenges. In A. Tashakkori & C. Teddlie (Eds.), Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioural research (pp. 241–272). Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Delamont, S., Atkinson, P., & Parry, O. (2004). Supervising the doctorate: A guide to success (2nd ed.). New York: Society for Research into Higher Education and Oxford University Press.
Gergen, M. M., & Gergen, K. J. (2000). Qualitative inquiry: Tensions and transformations. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed., pp. 1025–1046). Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Gibbons, M., Limoges, C., Nowotny, H., Schwartzman, S., Scott, P., & Trow, M. (1994). The new production of knowledge: The dynamics of science and research in contemporary societies. London: Sage.
Green, P. (2005). Complex contexts, relations and practices: The space for research supervision. In P. Green (Ed.), Supervising postgraduate research: Contexts and processes, theories and practices (pp. 3–10). Melbourne: RMIT University Press.
Green, B., & Lee, A. (1998/1999). Theorising postgraduate pedagogy. In A. Lee & B. Green (Eds.), Postgraduate studies: Postgraduate pedagogy (pp. 129–146). Sydney: University of Technology.
Guba, E. (1990). The alternative paradigm dialogue. In E. Guba (Ed.), The paradigm dialogue (pp. 17–27). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Harman, G. (2002). Producing PhD graduates in Australia for the knowledge economy. Higher Education Research and Development, 21(2), 179–190.
Holbrook, A., & Johnston, S. (Eds.). (1999). Supervision of postgraduate research in education (Vol. 5). Coldstream, Victoria: Australian Association for Research in Education.
Johnson, R. B., & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2004). Mixed methods research: A research paradigm whose time has come. Educational Researcher, 33(7), 14–26.
Kamler, B., & Thompson, P. (2006). Helping doctoral students write: Pedagogies for supervision. Abington: Routledge.
Lovitts, B. E. (2008). The transition to independent research: Who makes it, who doesn’t, and why. Journal of Higher Education, 79(3), 296–325.
Maxwell, T. W., & Smyth, R. (2009). Theorising about higher degree research supervision: A tripartite view. Higher Education Research and Development (submitted).
McWilliam, E., & Singh, P. (2002). Towards a research training curriculum: What, why, how, who? The Australian Educational Researcher, 29(3), 3–18.
McWilliam, E., & Taylor, P. G. (2001). Rigorous, rapid and relevant: Doctoral training in new times. In B. Green, T. Maxwell, & P. Shanahan (Eds.), Doctoral education and professional practice: The next generation? (pp. 229–246). Armidale: Kardoorair.
Mezirow, J., & Associates. (2000). Learning as transformation: Critical perspectives on a theory in progress. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Moses, I. (1985). Supervising postgraduates (Vol. 3). Canberra: Higher Education Research and Development Society of Australia Inc.
Nerad, M. (2004). The PhD in the US: Criticisms, facts and remedies. Higher Education Policy, 17, 183–197.
Nightingale, P. (2005). Advising PhD candidates. Sydney: Higher Education Research and Development Society of Australasia.
Parry, S., & Hayden, M. (1994). Supervising higher degree research students: An investigation of practices across a range of academic departments. Canberra: Australian Govt. Pub. Service.
Punch, K. F. (2000). Developing effective research proposals. London: Sage.
Punch, K. F. (2003). Survey research: The basics. London: Sage.
Ramsden, P. (2003). Learning to teach in higher education (2nd ed.). London: Routledge Falmer.
Sheehan, P. (1994). From thesis writing to research application: Learning the research culture. In O. Zuber-Skerritt & Y. Ryan (Eds.), Quality in postgraduate supervision (p. 14). London: Kogan Page.
Smyth, R. (2004). Exploring the usefulness of a conceptual framework as a research tool: A researcher’s reflections. Issues in Educational Research, 14(2), 167–180.
Smyth, R., & Maxwell, T. W. (2008). The research matrix: An approach to supervising higher degree research. Sydney: Higher Education Research and Development Society of Australasia.
Sternberg, R. J. (1994). Allowing for thinking styles. Educational Leadership, 52(3), 36–40.
Wisker, G. (2005). The good supervisor: Supervising postgraduate and undergraduate research for doctoral theses and dissertations. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Zuber-Skerritt, O. (Ed.). (1992). Starting research: Supervision and training. Brisbane: The Tertiary Education Institute, University of Queensland.
Zuber-Skerritt, O., & Ryan, Y. (Eds.). (1994). Quality in postgraduate supervision. London: Kogan Page.
Acknowledgments
We wish to thank numerous students and colleagues who have provided feedback on the usefulness and adaptability of the RMM during its formative development. Initially as a student and now a supervisor using the multi-dimensional research design framework with her own students, Robyn wishes to acknowledge a debt to her Doctoral supervisor, Dr David Laird, who introduced her to the matrix concept. This paper is derived from work associated with research for a HERDSA Guide: Smyth and Maxwell (2008).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Maxwell, T.W., Smyth, R. Research supervision: the research management matrix. High Educ 59, 407–422 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-009-9256-3
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-009-9256-3