Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Supervising cohorts of higher degree research students: design catalysts for industry and innovation

  • Published:
Higher Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Higher degree research students and their contributions to society and the economy are well known. However, the recognition of the increasing numbers of such students and the decreasing availability of supervisors implies that traditional individual modes of research supervision are no longer sufficient, while models of cohort supervision have led to successful outcomes. This paper uses the notion of threshold crossing to reflect upon a case study of higher degree research (HDR) supervision in an action research program, where students are immersed in industry projects to investigate company issues, innovate and transform the organisation. The action research model balances structure and flexibility, with set tasks and embedded reflexivity; the responsiveness of the model ensures timely project completion and the development of critical thinking skills. Balancing the proximity and distance between the supervisors, student, cohort and industry partner ensures that students are socialised into both academic and industry settings, developing self-efficacy to succeed in both worlds. Analysis of interviews with students and firm partners reveals that the cohort model valorises the higher research degree, developing research students. Three trends in HDR supervision are reconciled in the pedagogical approach outlined: bridging industry and academia, enculturation and emancipation and communities of learning and practice.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Adkins, B., and Summerville, J., Susan Danby, and Matthews, J (2012). Pedagogies of industry partnership. In Reshaping doctoral education: international approaches and pedagogies. Edited by N Lee, A & Danby, Susan (Eds.) Routledge (Taylor & Francis Group), United Kingdom, pp. 156-169.

  • Åkerlind, G., & McAlpine, L. (2017). Supervising doctoral students: variation in purpose and pedagogy. Studies in Higher Education, 42(9), 1686–1698.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bandura, A. (1982). Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency. American Psychologist, 37, 122–147.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bao, Y., Kehm, B. M., & Ma, Y. (2018). From product to process. The reform of doctoral education in Europe and China. Studies in Higher Education, 43(3), 524–541.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barnett, B. G., & Muth, R. (2008). Using action-research strategies and cohort structures to ensure research competence for practitioner-scholar leaders. Journal of Research on Leadership Education, 3(1), 1–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bravo, R., Catalán, S., & Pina, J. M. (2018). Analysing teamwork in higher education: an empirical study on the antecedents and consequences of team cohesiveness (pp. 1–13). January: Studies in Higher Education. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2017.1420049.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Bucolo, S. and Matthews, J. (2011). Design-led innovation: exploring the synthesis of needs, technologies and business models. In Proceedings of Participatory Interaction Conference 2011, 13–15 January, Sønderborg.

  • Caretta, M. A., Drozdzewski, D., Jokinen, J. C., & Falconer, E. (2018). “Who can play this game?” the lived experiences of doctoral candidates and early career women in the Neoliberal University. Journal of Geography in Higher Education, 42(2), 261–275.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carter, J., Smith, E., & Gelves-Gomez, F. (2018). Doctoring knowledge or acknowledging doctors? Geographical Research, 56(4), 484–488.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Choy, S., Delahaye, B. L., & Saggers, B. (2015). Developing learning cohorts for postgraduate research degrees. The Australian Educational Researcher, 42(1), 19–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Costley, C., & Nottingham, P. (2018). Revisiting search and review for work-based projects. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 55(5), 511–520.

    Google Scholar 

  • Denicolo, P. M., & Park, C. (2013). Doctorateness – an elusive concept? In M. Kompf & P. M. Denicolo (Eds.), Critical issues in higher education (pp. 191–197). Rotterdam: SensePublishers.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Dowling, R., Gorman-Murray, A., Power, E., and Luzia, K. (2012). Critical reflections on doctoral research and supervision in human geography: the ‘PhD by publication.’ Journal of Geography in Higher Education 36 (2): 293–305.

  • Dufty-Jones, R. (2018). The career aspirations and expectations of geography doctoral students: establishing academic subjectivities within a shifting landscape. Geographical Research, 56(2), 126–138.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fleischmann, K. (2012). Industry-driven design education: how much should industry dictate pedagogy? In agIdeas Research: design for business, edited by Gjoko Muratovski, 76–95. Melbourne, agIdeas Press. Griggs, Vivienne, Richard Holden, Aileen Lawless, and Jan Rae. 2018. From reflective learning to reflective practice: assessing transfer. Studies in Higher Education 43 (7): 1172–1183.

  • Griggs, V., Holden, R., Lawless, A., & Rae, J. (2018). From reflective learning to reflective practice: assessing transfer. Studies in Higher Education, 43(7), 1172–1183.

  • Hancock, S., & Walsh, E. (2016). Beyond knowledge and skills: rethinking the development of professional identity during the STEM doctorate. Studies in Higher Education, 41(1), 37–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jackson, D., & Michelson, G. (2015). Factors influencing the employment of Australian PhD graduates. Studies in Higher Education, 40(9), 1660–1678.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jones, M. (2018). Contemporary trends in professional doctorates. Studies in Higher Education, 43(5), 814–825.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kearney, M.-L., & Lincoln, D. (2018). The modern doctorate: Purposes, form and pedagogy. Studies in Higher Education, 43(5), 807–808.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kiley, M. (2009). Identifying threshold concepts and proposing strategies to support doctoral candidates. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 46(3), 293–304.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kiley, M., & Wisker, G. (2009). Threshold concepts in research education and evidence of threshold crossing. Higher Education Research & Development, 28(4), 431–441.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • de Kleijn, de Renske, A. M., Bronkhorst, L. H., Meijer, P. C., Pilot, A., & Brekelmans, M. (2016). Understanding the up, back, and forward-component in master’s thesis supervision with adaptivity. Studies in Higher Education, 41(8), 1463–1479.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, A. (2012). Successful research supervision: advising students doing research. London: Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, A. (2018). How can we develop supervisors for the modern doctorate? Studies in Higher Education, 43(5), 878–890.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, A., & Murray, R. (2015). Supervising writing: helping postgraduate students develop as researchers. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 52(5), 558–570.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lester, S., & Costley, C. (2010). Work-based learning at higher education level: value, practice and critique. Studies in Higher Education, 35(5), 561–575.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maguire, K., Prodi, E., & Gibbs, P. (2018). Minding the gap in doctoral supervision for a contemporary world: a case from Italy. Studies in Higher Education, 43(5), 867–877.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Manathunga, C. (2012). Supervisors watching supervisors: The deconstructive possibilities and tensions of team supervision. Australian Universities' Review, The, 54(1), 29.

  • Marchand, T. (2017). Action learning in postgraduate research training. Action Learning: Research and Practice, 14(1), 83–95.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martin, R. L. (2011). The innovation catalysts. Harvard Business Review, 89, 82–87.

    Google Scholar 

  • McAlpine, L., Amundsen, C., & Turner, G. (2013). Constructing post-PhD careers: negotiating opportunities and personal goals. International Journal for Researcher Development, 4(1), 39–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McCallin, A., & Nayar, S. (2012). Postgraduate research supervision: a critical review of current practice. Teaching in Higher Education, 17(1), 63–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McKenna, S. (2017). Crossing conceptual thresholds in doctoral communities. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 54(5), 458–466.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meyer, J., & Land, R. (2006). Overcoming barriers to student understanding: threshold concepts and troublesome knowledge. London: Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Morris, S., Pitt, R., & Manathunga, C. (2012). Students’ experiences of supervision in academic and industry settings: results of an Australian study. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 37(5), 619–636.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nerad, M. (2014). Developing ‘fit for purpose’ research doctoral graduates. In Globalization and its impacts on the quality of PhD education: forces and forms in doctoral education worldwide, edited by Maresi Nerad and Barbara Evans, 111–127. Rotterdam: SensePublishers.

  • Price, R., Wrigley, C., & Matthews, J. (2018). Action researcher to design innovation catalyst: Building design capability from within. Action Research, 1476750318781221.

  • Schonell, S., & Macklin, R. (2018). Work integrated learning initiatives: live case studies as a mainstream WIL assessment (pp. 1–12). January: Studies in Higher Education. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2018.1425986.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Silva, P., Lopes, B., Costa, M., Melo, A. I., Dias, G. P., Brito, E., & Seabra, D. (2018). The million-dollar question: can internships boost employment? Studies in Higher Education, 43(1), 2–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sternberg, Jason. (2012). ‘It’s the end of the university as we know it (and I feel fine)’: the generation Y student in higher education discourse. Higher Education Research & Development 31 (4): 571–83.

  • Vehviläinen, S., & Löfström, E. (2016). ‘I wish I had a crystal ball’: discourses and potentials for developing academic supervising. Studies in Higher Education, 41(3), 508–524.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wallgren, L., & Dahlgren, L. O. (2007). Industrial doctoral students as brokers between industry and academia: factors affecting their trajectories, learning at the boundaries and identity development. Industry and Higher Education, 21(3), 195–210.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wisker, G. (2015). Developing doctoral authors: engaging with theoretical perspectives through the literature review. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 52(1), 64–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wisker, G., Robinson, G., & Shacham, M. (2007). Postgraduate research success: communities of practice involving cohorts, guardian supervisors and online communities. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 44(3), 301–320. https://doi.org/10.1080/14703290701486720.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wond, T., & Rambukwella, S. (2018). Measuring the value of placements to employers: a cost–benefit approach. Industry and Higher Education, 32(2), 93–107.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wrigley, C. (2016). Design innovation catalysts: education and impact. She Ji: The Journal of Design, Economics, and Innovation, 2(2), 148–165.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wrigley, C. (2017). Principles and practices of a design-led approach to innovation. International Journal of Design Creativity and Innovation, 5(3–4), 235–255.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yun, H., & Park, S. (2018). Building a structural model of motivational regulation and learning engagement for undergraduate and graduate students in higher education (pp. 1–15). August: Studies in Higher Education. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2018.1510910.

    Book  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia

    Cara Wrigley & Peta Wolifson

  2. Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Australia

    Judy Matthews

Authors
  1. Cara Wrigley
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Peta Wolifson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Judy Matthews
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Cara Wrigley.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Appendix

Appendix

Table 2 DLI program scaffold
Full size table

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Wrigley, C., Wolifson, P. & Matthews, J. Supervising cohorts of higher degree research students: design catalysts for industry and innovation. High Educ 81, 1177–1196 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-020-00605-3

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-020-00605-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation