Academic Supervision and Student Independence

Abstract

In this chapter we look at one of the most central concepts in higher education: independence. We begin by discussing and giving examples of how student independence is a concept that appears in the governing documents of higher education in many countries and at different levels, and how it becomes particularly relevant in the context of academic writing, and thus in the context of supervision and supervision practice.

We go on to examine how academic supervisors may view the concept of student independence in relation to supervision practice. Based on focus group interviews with academic supervisors, we highlight seven main understandings of student independence that we were able to identify in our material and discuss the pedagogical implications of this in terms of where and how student independence might manifest and how it might be assessed.

Finally, we present a model summarising the discussion, which could serve as a tool for reflecting on the various levels and aspects of student independence in the context of the degree project, both collegially and individually.

One of the most central concepts in higher education is independence. It is a concept that appears in governing documents at various levels of higher education in many countries, and which tends to be particularly relevant in the context of the writing of academic theses and, by extension, within supervision and supervisory practice. At the same time, it is a concept with many connotations that can be understood and used in many different ways. In this chapter, we will first present some examples of how independence is made relevant in higher education policy documents from different countries and then examine and discuss how student independence can be viewed and understood in the context of supervision.

The Concept of Independence in Higher Education

There are a number of key concepts in higher education that are highly relevant to learning outcomes and what students are expected to achieve throughout their education, and consequently to the organisation and planning of teaching and supervision. As Tim Moore has argued, a closer examination of how such concepts are used and understood in the context of higher education is of great importance, as this plays a crucial role in how higher education is shaped or created at its different levels (cf. Moore 2011, 262). Critical thinking, agency and assessment are some of the central concepts within higher education that have been discussed and reflected upon from different angles and perspectives (see e.g. Almulla 2023; Davies 2011; Davies and Barnett 2015; Rico et al. 2023; Wass et al. 2011; Bartholomew and Jones 2022; Dufva and Aro 2015; Duff 2012; Lee 2019). Independence,¹ which is our focus here, is another, which has been discussed, for example, in relation to independent learning (Cukurova et al. 2017; Lau 2017; Meyer et al. 2008; Stoten 2014) and learner autonomy (Brew and Saunders 2020; Aprianti and Winarto 2023), as well as in relation to academic supervision at undergraduate, graduate or postgraduate level (Reitsma 2023; Zackariasson 2019; Magnusson and Zackariasson 2018; Wollast et al. 2023; Wichmann-Hansen and Schmidt Nielsen 2023; Brodin 2020).

That independence is a key concept in higher education in large parts of the world is evident when looking at policy and legislative documents on higher education in different countries. Student independence or autonomy is frequently stated as a requirement for obtaining academic degrees, both at bachelor and at master level, in governing documents such as Higher Education Acts, Higher Education Ordinances or National Qualifications Frameworks in several countries. For example, the Swedish Higher Education Ordinance states that in order to qualify for a bachelor’s degree, students must, among other things,

• demonstrate the ability to identify, formulate and solve problems autonomously and to complete tasks within predetermined time frames

• demonstrate the skills required to work autonomously in the main field of study.

  (Swedish Council for Higher Education 1993, emphasis added)

In Table 3.1, we have listed some further examples of how student independence or autonomy may be referred to in national-level policy documents on higher education in a number of countries in different parts of the world.²

Table 3.1 Examples of independence/autonomy in higher education policy documents (emphasis added)

As can be seen from these examples, there are different aspects of independence that can be expected of students at the bachelor or master level, related to, for example, problem identification or solution, critical thinking, judgement, intellectual work, student research and their own learning process. In some cases, these expectations are linked to the task of completing a degree project, while in other cases this is not specified. Students are generally expected to further develop their independence or ability to work independently as they move from bachelor’s to later levels of their education, as in Spain, where students at master’s level are expected to have “developed sufficient autonomy to participate in research projects and scientific or technological collaborations within their thematic field, in interdisciplinary contexts and, where appropriate, with a high degree of knowledge transfer” (Agencia Estatal Boletín Oficial del Estado 2023, 326, author’s translation, emphasis added). It could also be as in Denmark, where one of the objectives of the master’s programme (candidatus) is to “develop and expand the student’s academic knowledge and skills and strengthen his or her theoretical and methodological qualifications and competences, as well as increasing the student’s independence relative to the bachelor degree level” (Ministry of Higher Education and Science 2013, §4, emphasis added).

Student Independence in Local Governing Documents

How such nationally defined higher education goals of student independence and the ability to work independently are to be operationalised and achieved in practice is then further specified in policy documents and guidelines for academic programmes and courses. Independence may, for instance, be stated as a learning outcome for an academic programme, as in the following example from a syllabus for a teacher education programme in Sweden, where there are objectives related to independence, one of which refers to a work process and the other to the ability to reflect:

Demonstrate an in-depth ability to critically and independently use, systematise and reflect on one’s own and others’ experiences and relevant research findings in order to contribute to the development of professional activities and the development of knowledge in the professional field.

Demonstrate the ability to plan, implement, evaluate and develop teaching and pedagogical activities in general, independently and with others, in order to stimulate the learning and development of each pupil in the best possible way,

Programme syllabus for Primary School Teacher Education with Intercultural Profile for Grades 4–6, Södertörn University, 2022, authors’ translation, emphasis added.

Similarly, the concept of independence is regularly included in the intended learning outcomes formulated in course syllabi, not least in syllabi for courses that include the writing of degree projects.³ Independence appears in different ways in syllabi and may be linked to objects (independent analysis), processes (independent investigation and evaluation) or other comparable concepts (demands for independence, complexity and reflection), and so on. For example, independence can be described as a process in which the student, after completing the course, should be able to independently apply several perspectives or methods, or to evaluate and identify different phenomena, as in the following examples from Swedish universities:

After the course, the student is expected to

• Be able to independently identify, formulate and solve a scientific problem relevant to the subject.

• Demonstrate the ability to make independent judgements regarding relevant scientific, social and ethical aspects.⁴

  Examples from the syllabus Degree project/Bachelor thesis, University College Stockholm, 2022, authors’ translation, emphasis added

To pass this module, the student must be able to

• Independently formulate one or more relevant sociological/social psychological research questions within the subject area of the thesis.

• Independently design and motivate a research design in relation to the formulated research questions

• Independently carry out advanced analysis of collected material according to established methods.

• Independently apply relevant sociological/social psychological theories to the collected material.

  Examples from syllabus Sociology C, Degree project, Umeå University, 2022, authors’ translation, emphasis added

As these examples illustrate, in the syllabi we examined, the concept of independence was often linked to the degree project process or to specific parts of the text to be produced, such as the identification of a research problem, the formulation of aim and research questions, the design of the empirical investigation/study, the selection and use of theories and methods, and so on. The significance of student independence in the writing process can be emphasised by linking the concept to processes such as the formulation of research questions, the application of theories and the conduct of analysis, etc. However, independence may also be linked to other activities within degree project courses, such as the defence of degree projects⁵ or seminar discussions. In summary, the use of the concept of independence in curricula suggests that there is a great deal of variation, with independence being linked to both process and product and to both academic writing and other activities.

The perspectives and formulations concerning student independence that are evident in programme and course syllabi are then developed into more detailed instructions and information given to students, for example, in study guides and course descriptions, as well as in grading criteria. Although these are not necessarily legally binding documents within higher education, as the syllabus may be in many countries, such policy documents are central to how courses are designed and delivered in practice. Indeed, they may be even more important than the actual syllabus for students’ understanding of the course and what is expected of them, as they often provide more detailed information and instructions on what to do and how to do it. In these types of documents, we can see similar patterns as in syllabi, for instance that the formulations around independence can refer to both the text and the process, as in the following example from a Swedish university:

During the course, the student will develop in-depth knowledge of reproductive health and, based on knowledge of scientific methodology, independently carry out a degree project.

The degree project is an independent project, which means that the student should be well prepared during the supervision sessions.

Study Guide, Degree Project, Midwifery Programme, Uppsala University, 2023, authors’ translation, emphasis added

The complexity of the concept of student independence can also be reflected in the grading criteria, for instance, in that it can be described and considered both as a separate dimension to be graded and as an aspect that helps to differentiate between grades, as in this example from another Swedish university:

Pass

that the student, in the thesis and in supervision, shows independence in how the work is structured, in the choices made, and in how different source materials and what emerges in supervision are related to the research problem.

Pass with distinction

that the student consistently demonstrates, in the thesis and in supervision, the ability to take a critical and independent approach to literature, method, material and their own analysis.

Study Guide, Primary School Teacher Education, Södertörn University, 2023, authors’ translation, emphasis added.

Both the above examples indicate that it is not only the finished text that is ultimately assessed in terms of independence, but also how students deal with the supervision situation, with regard to, for instance, preparation and the ability to take on board and develop the supervisor’s comments and advice. Study guides may also include explanatory comments to students on how independence should be understood in the specific context of the degree project. As in the following two examples from study guides at different Swedish universities, where the first one explains what is referred to as a quality dimension, of which the ‘independence dimension’ is a part:

The Independence Dimension: The further you progress in your education, the greater the demands placed on the second overall dimension of quality, the ability to demonstrate an independent approach to literature, method, material and one’s own analysis. It is about the ability to formulate an original scientific problem or research question that will generate new knowledge. It is also about the ability to critically examine literature and sources, to relate different authors, traditions and approaches to each other, and to reflect on one’s own work; choice of material or data, approaches to collection and analysis, empirical and theoretical results. This manifests itself in the ability to distance oneself from one’s own study and to place one’s work within a tradition. In this context, new questions can be discovered and new hypotheses formulated. It is often this dimension, especially at the higher levels of education, that makes the difference between grades of “pass” and “pass with distinction”.

Instructions for degree project writers in Media and Communication Studies, Södertörn University, 2022, authors’ translation

In this explanation, the independence dimension is broken down into a number of activities related to independence: demonstrating approaches, formulating problems, reviewing literature, and reflecting on and distancing oneself from one’s own work.

In the second example, there is first a description of the process of writing a thesis and then an explanation of how independence should be understood in this particular context.

You will work very independently, individually and/or in pairs. In the context of the degree project, you will be confronted with complex problems to which you are expected to find independent solutions. Independence here means, firstly, that you have an independent approach to your problem area and, secondly, that you are responsible for and plan your own work process.

Course guide, Preschool Teacher Education, Degree project in the specialisation subject, Malmö University, 2019.

Here it is the students’ approach to the problem area that is linked to independence, as well as the students’ responsibility for planning the work. It is worth noting that the expected independence of the student is here explicitly extended to include not only students working individually, but also students working in pairs, which can be seen in relation to how the supervision of degree projects often includes aspects of group supervision (cf. Rienecker et al. 2019, 181ff).

All these examples from higher education governing documents at national, university and programme/course level thus illustrate that, while the concept of independence is frequently encountered in relation to degree projects at bachelor’s and master’s level, the way in which it is understood, described and explained encompasses a variety of dimensions and aspects. Another aspect of this is that the way in which a particular concept is related to other concepts can tell us something about how that concept is understood and what function it may have. For example, in the curricula we examined, the ideal of student independence was often linked to ideals of responsibility or critical thinking. Sometimes these concepts were used interchangeably, and sometimes there was a more hierarchical relationship between the concepts. According to Wittgenstein (1958), this is neither unusual nor unexpected. He introduced the idea of family resemblances, arguing that it is not possible or even desirable to find unambiguous definitions of key concepts as language does not work that way. All concepts, he argued, have a variety of meanings and nuances of meaning based on how the concepts are used in different contexts. What he calls family resemblance is connected to how different concepts are related to each other in many different ways in an intricate network. This fits well with the relationships between concepts such as independence, critical thinking and responsibility, where the concepts have clear similarities and overlaps, but where there are also differences.

For example, the concept of independence can be said to include critical thinking as one of several criteria, but at the same time it appears as one of several criteria for critical thinking. Thus, in addition to vagueness and flexibility, the concepts also exhibit a kind of doubleness (see Fig. 3.1).

Fig. 3.1

Possible interconnections between independence and critical thinking

Despite the fact that the concept of independence is frequently used and is of great importance in higher education and, more specifically, within a degree project and supervision setting, it is thus not obvious what independence means in the different contexts in which students, supervisors and, not least, examiners find themselves. Even if this is natural when it comes to how language works, in an educational context where the concept of independence is associated with skills that are to be taught and, not least, assessed on the basis of governing documents and grading criteria, there is still a need to make such differences, complexities and variations visible and explicit and, if possible, to build consensus on how it should be understood in each specific academic context.

Supervisors’ Perceptions of Independence

There are at least two dimensions to how independence can be understood in relation to supervision practice. One dimension starts with the students and the fact that they are expected to act independently in the process of completing a degree project. This dimension may involve processes of thinking and reflection as well as the practical work of the degree project, such as searching for literature, conducting an empirical study, writing, and so forth, with the essential characteristic that it is the student who is expected to be the actor. Another dimension starts with the supervisors, as they are the ones who enable and facilitate independence, for example, by opening up for it in the supervision interaction, through scaffolding work or by providing space for student independence in other ways. Both dimensions were discussed in the focus group interviews that we conducted as part of our research project.

The starting point for the focus group discussions was that supervisors were asked to describe freely how they perceived and defined independence in relation to degree project writing and academic supervision. In the discussions, it became clear that independence is one of the multifaceted key concepts in higher education that can be understood and perceived in a variety of ways. There was significant variation in how supervisors described their perceptions of student independence in the supervision context, for example, in terms of how it was expected to manifest itself in different parts of the degree project process, how it might be encouraged, what was considered a minimum level of independence and what was considered more or less advanced independence, and so on. There were also differences in how supervisors described how they related to and dealt with requirements for independence, which were formulated in course syllabi and other governing documents (Magnusson and Zackariasson 2018).

Although the variability was considerable, at the same time there were many similarities in how the supervisors—both within and between the different academic programmes, universities and the two countries where we conducted focus group interviews—talked about and described student independence and their own role in relation to it. Based on the supervisors’ perceptions or definitions expressed in the focus group interviews, we were able to identify seven basic approaches to student independence in the material:

• 1. Taking initiatives

• 2. Demonstrating originality, creativity and enthusiasm

• 3. Relating to sources and context

• 4. Arguing, motivating and making choices

• 5. Taking responsibility

• 6. Demonstrating critical thinking and reflection

• 7. Ability to generalise and synthesise

These basic understandings of what independence might mean in the degree project context can, in turn, have implications for supervision practice and the interaction between supervisor and student. We will explore in more detail below how supervisors talked about this in the focus group material.

Initiative, Originality and Creativity

One of the ways in which student independence was described in the focus group interviews was that it involved students taking initiatives, meaning that in order to be perceived as independent in their work, students were expected to come up with suggestions and ideas for their work and to be active without always being told what to do by the supervisor. As part of this, supervisors described that it was important for students to be well prepared for supervision meetings, for example by having carefully considered the choice of topics, methods and relevant literature, and for students to contribute to initiating the themes and issues to be discussed in supervision meetings. This can be observed in the following excerpt, where a supervisor at a Swedish university described an example of how a former student had demonstrated independence in this respect:

The student had an idea when coming to the first meeting. An idea that he had come up with himself. What he wanted to do. In other words, he had formulated the research idea independently. He also had suggestions for books that he could use, but which he wanted to check with me. The supervision was characterised by the fact that he always came prepared with a step that he had taken. One step ahead of me, so to speak, and then just wanted to have it confirmed. “Is this OK? What do you think?” and so on. I thought that was a wonderful case of independence in the way he worked.

Focus Group Interview 1⁶

A similar understanding of student independence in the context of the degree project was also expressed in the Russian focus group material, as in this example:

I want a person to start a discussion. I want them to say: “I’m going to do this and that, but is it right? I want to do this and that, and what would you recommend me?” /…/ Then I can say that if you [a student] do things this way, the result will be like this, because, let’s say, you don’t know the limitations, you will come across this or that, so think of something else. Roughly speaking, it is a dialogue when a person says they want it this way and I say, “OK, if you want to do this, fine. But if you want to do it differently, that is fine too”.

Focus Group Interview 10

As these examples illustrate, taking the initiative and being well prepared are aspects of independence that were primarily expected to be demonstrated in the supervision interaction. But it was also at times linked to the students’ education in general or to their future professional role, as in this example from a Swedish university, where taking initiatives is also associated with curiosity:

I think it’s basically about curiosity and wanting to take initiatives on your own. It doesn’t matter whether it’s practical work in journalism or in the research part. It’s about an attitude, but also an ability to first absorb theoretical and methodological knowledge and things like that. But with the help of those, to take initiatives on your own. Not to regurgitate what is written in books, but to use it and, above all, to create something new and to show that you want to do so. That you are looking for new knowledge and not just repeating what someone else has done.

Focus Group Interview 3

If the students demonstrate independence by taking initiatives and being well prepared for each meeting, the supervisors’ practice will largely consist of confirming and giving feedback on the students’ ideas, rather than the supervisors suggesting possible approaches and the students responding to these. When students show independence in this way, it can be a good starting point for scaffolding work where both students and supervisors are active in the process (cf. van de Pol 2012; van de Pol et al. 2010). However, supervisors in our material described student curiosity and initiative as aspects that may be difficult for supervisors to influence or encourage. There is a risk that supervision may actually contribute to stifling student interest and curiosity, if the supervisor has to curb overly exuberant ideas or point out that what the student wants to do is not feasible within the existing framework of the degree project.

Closely related to initiative and curiosity is the notion that independence in a degree project context is about originality, creativity and enthusiasm, as indicated in the previous example. When focus group participants described student independence in terms of originality, they emphasised, among other things, the importance of doing something different from what many others have already done:

And then, I think, simply… the ability to handle the genre in a casual way. The ability to make analyses and relate to which theory you used. How you approach it. What you can do. If you do some kind of study that is a bit original or you do one of these millions of studies of five educators who have an opinion on something. Or if you actually go in and do a completely different study.

Focus Group Interview 4

Although the interviewed supervisors talked about originality, there was no explicit expectation that the students would achieve something completely new that no one had done before. Still, in order to be perceived as independent, students were expected to develop something of their own in one way or another, or to make some contribution to existing knowledge. This, in turn, is connected to the perception that independence is associated with creativity and students having a strong interest in and commitment to their work.

The independence I’m looking for… You said it wasn’t about creativity in a strong sense, but I think it is, sort of, about creativity in a weaker sense. That is, the students should be active and really create what they do in this degree project. They should be active in formulating questions that nobody has done for them and that this is a creative process. It is also connected to the fact that they have to make choices, decisions during the process and this is also what they have to defend during the thesis defence. It also means that if students are independent in that sense, they can be proud of what they have done. Nobody else has done this. Nobody else would have done it in the same way.

Focus Group Interview 2

In many respects, this dimension of independence, that it involves students being creative in one way or another, was considered to be expressed in the supervision interaction, for instance in the articulation of a topic or research questions for the degree project. In this example, from a focus group interview at a Russian university, it was also connected to the academic programme and the future profession of the degree project students:

I think that for students who are very independent, responsible and motivated, it is very important to try to articulate a topic themselves, as D said. Why? Because we are a creative department after all, we have mostly creative people here, and every creative person needs that freedom. Let them articulate it, even if it will be awkwardly done, they will understand it later, after your explanation. But this moment of trust, this chance that is given, is very important for our profession and our field, I think.

Focus Group Interview 5

As perceptions of student independence associated with creativity and originality were linked to specific parts of the degree project process, such as choosing the topic for the degree project or formulating the research questions, these aspects of independence could also become visible in the finished work. As shown in the previous sections, aspects of originality or creativity may also be included in governing documents for degree project courses, and are sometimes mentioned in grading criteria and intended learning outcomes. Thus, originality and creativity may become something that supervisors need to address in a more specific and explicit way in their supervision practice, for example by commenting on students’ thesis ideas or first drafts in terms of whether these are sufficiently original to meet the assessment criteria.

Making Decisions, Relating to Others and Taking Responsibility

Another common way of understanding student independence that emerged from the focus group interviews concerned students’ ability to relate to other sources of scholarship, theoretical concepts or research traditions and to position their own study or parts of their study in relation to these. This is an aspect of independence that, according to the supervisors interviewed, could be demonstrated in the supervision interaction, in the finished text and in the defence of the degree project. The ability to engage more deeply with other scholars’ research or theories was sometimes described as a relatively advanced level of independence which could not be expected of all students, as in this example from a Swedish university:

Preferably if you have a study or a theory or something that you can be independent in relation to. For example: “I think Rosenblatt is wrong about this because…” And sort of really position yourself independently, starting from… that is, having something that they position themselves against. I think that’s very independent at an advanced level. That’s something we can rarely expect in these “Degree Project 1”… “Help, now I’m going to write my first degree project! What should the title page look like?” We can’t really expect that from them. Maybe we should be happy if they’ve just written the text themselves and not copied someone else’s. But when it comes to this greater independence… That you then really position yourself against something and take a stand.

Focus Group Interview 1

In this example, relating one’s study to something is partly described as positioning oneself by being critical of other scholars or previous research. There were, however, many instances in our material where supervisors were rather talking about this aspect of student independence in relation to the ability to see similarities or agreement with other studies. In order to be perceived as independent, students were furthermore expected to be able to relate not only to theories or previous research but also to academic norms and traditions, as well as to supervisors and their advice, in other words to the academic context they found themselves in. The importance of the supervisors in the degree project process was often emphasised, for example, by the interviewed supervisors stressing that independence in the context of a degree project does not mean that the students do the work completely on their own:

/…/ you shouldn’t just do something on your own without connecting to anything. Instead, you have to show that you can connect to traditions and norms and the supervisor’s perspectives and that this is what independence is. Not that you, like, write a text alone.

Focus Group Interview 1

When supervisors talked about the importance of relating or connecting to sources, literature, context and supervisors’ perspectives, it could be about agreeing or disagreeing, but also about identifying similarities and differences across different perspectives and addressing these, or developing the advice given. It was neither necessary nor expected to agree with or follow all of the supervisor’s advice. Rather, it was described as a matter of understanding why one should do one thing or another:

I often /…/ say to the student. It’s really you who are going to write this degree project, not me. So you have to decide for yourself if you think this is the most appropriate way to do it. That’s what I usually say. Because I don’t think that independence is opposed to following rules, but I think the important thing is that… If you are independent, you have to know why you are following these rules. You have to relate to them. So that’s what’s central and I think I work a lot with that in my supervision.

Focus Group Interview 2

This attitude is closely linked to another fundamental and recurring perception of what student independence might entail in the degree project context—the ability of students to make their own choices and to be able to motivate and argue for them. Several supervisors in our material emphasised the importance of students taking responsibility for the choices they make in the course of their degree project work, whether or not these are the result of the supervisor’s advice and recommendations:

I don’t think independence can be about being free from supervisors or genre or anything like that. That is not possible. Rather, it is in a sense that you take an active part in the choices that you make. That you have understood why you are making the choices that you are making, regardless of whether the origin is that it came out of your own head, that it is creative, or that it came out of dialogue with the supervisor or something. That you are actually able to… That you understand why you make the choices that you want to make. And that I’m the one who made the choices, no matter where they came from.

Focus Group Interview 4

According to the supervisors in the focus group interviews, the significance of students understanding and standing by the choices they make in the course of their degree project work is related to their being able to feel more satisfied with their own performance. But it may also be related to the role and practice of the supervisor. If both the supervisors and the students agree that the students must ultimately be able to stand up for the choices they have made along the way, the supervisors have greater freedom to make suggestions and recommendations on which the students can then take a position and develop. It is also linked to how the role of the supervisors is related to that of the examiners. Although independence through the ability to motivate and argue for one’s choices can be expressed both in the supervision interaction and in the finished thesis text, several of the supervisors highlighted the degree project defence as an occasion when this becomes particularly important:

A minimum requirement I have set for my students is that they should be able to justify everything they do. Even if I would have told them ‘Do this’, they will at the final seminar, if they are asked: “Why do you write this way? Why did you choose this theoretical approach?”, they should be able to make a good case. If they can do that, I think they have at least achieved a minimum level of independence.

Focus Group Interview 1

The fact that students are expected to stand up for their choices and be able to justify them is, in turn, intricately linked to another fundamental understanding of what student independence might mean in the context of degree project writing—taking responsibility. In the focus groups, it emerged that the responsibility students were expected to take for their degree project work could refer to practical matters, such as following the guidelines for reference systems, following the templates for degree projects, or meeting deadlines. The desired responsibility also concerned more general aspects, such as the quality and originality of the degree project and being accountable for all choices made along the way. As in this example from a focus group interview at a Russian university:

We should make it clear from the beginning that this is the students’ job, their responsibility and their willingness to work hard. I act as a partner, as a facilitator, as a guiding support. I also think that independence has a lot to do with a sense of responsibility, when a person is accountable for what they do. I think that is the way it should be.

Focus Group Interview 8

Taking responsibility for the degree project work by being accountable for the quality and all the choices made was subsequently a dimension of student independence that the interviewed supervisors associated to a high degree with the defence of the thesis. The desired and expected responsibility could also be associated with the ethical aspects of the degree project work, in the sense that students are expected and required to write their degree projects themselves, without plagiarism or undue help, and that they are responsible for ensuring that this is the case:

I would add another thing. I tell my students, those I supervise, right from the start that the responsibility for the quality of what they write in general, and the originality of the text in terms of copyright compliance in particular, lies entirely with them. /…/ And that’s their responsibility for independent work. The primary responsibility.

Focus Group Interview 6

This understanding of student independence in the degree project context is thus related to how the interviewed supervisors talked about the significance of originality as a dimension of student independence, where they underlined that one aspect of originality is not copying or plagiarising other people’s work. These last quotes suggest that the expectation of responsibility is something that is communicated to students in a relatively direct and explicit way, either from the supervisor’s side or through course handbooks and degree project guides. However, while this may be the ambition of individual supervisors or within a particular programme or degree project course, this does not mean that it is always obvious to students what they are expected to take responsibility for and to what extent, or what advice and recommendations from the supervisor are actually non-negotiable if students are to pass their work.

Critical Thinking, Reflection and Generalisation

In the examples discussed above, supervisors talked about both minimum levels of independence and more advanced forms that they did not expect all students to achieve during the degree project course. We will discuss two other such more advanced aspects of student independence: the ability to think critically and reflect, and the ability to generalise and synthesise on the basis of one’s own study.

In the analysis of course syllabi and governing documents at the beginning of the chapter, we discussed how independence and critical thinking were often perceived to be interrelated in the degree project context. In the focus group interviews, student independence was associated with critical thinking at two different levels: 1) with activities such as argumentation, analysis, expressing one’s own opinion, problem solving and so on, and 2) with the attitude that students display towards these activities, for example being expected to approach such activities with a critical eye. Independence as critical thinking is close to the view of independence as relating to sources, theories and previous research and positioning one’s own study in relation to these. But the notion of independence as critical thinking involves something more than, for instance, comparing different sources or perspectives, as shown in this example from a focus group interview at a Swedish university:

I usually talk about breadth. That if you are independent, you can manage to be both broad and narrow. That is, if you are given the assignment that you should be able to compare different perspectives. You should not just focus on one source, but on several that you should be able to compare, but you should also be able to be critical in relation to this.

Focus Group Interview 3

Independent students were thus expected to be able to read academic texts and to approach sources and theories with a critical eye, but they were also expected to be able to look critically at their own work and reflect on their process, as the following focus group interview examples indicate:

Because I think that this thing with independence, as I have interpreted it, is about them training themselves to think critically about their own choices. Different methods that can be used and materials… Like the problem they are going to investigate. For me it has like… this that they should train themselves in their independence, it’s very much about them learning to reflect critically.

Focus Group Interview 4

At first you tell them one thing and they bring you something of their own and it gets a bit messy. And then comes the growing up and independent realisation that in some points they were wrong, some other points need to be changed, because they happened beforehand, and other things are effects of these causes. And then the student reflects on these things, changes them and walks around proudly because he has done it himself. /…/ I like this manifestation of independence because it’s like watching your own child grow up, watching them start to talk, walk, and so on.

Focus Group Interview 9

This aspect of independence, the ability to think critically and reflect, is a competence that could be expressed during the degree project process, in the finished text and in the defence of the degree project. That this, according to some of the supervisors interviewed, was a level of independence that could not be demanded of all students, also applies to the final aspect of independence that emerged in our focus group material: the ability to generalise and synthesise. These aspects of student independence involved pulling together all the threads of the degree project, drawing conclusions and placing one’s own study in a wider context. Unlike many of the other aspects of independence, this was something that was assumed to be expressed primarily in the finished thesis text, more specifically in the discussion or conclusion sections:

I’m thinking the discussion… when they’re going to tie all these pieces together… Then I think it usually becomes quite obvious how independent they are.

Focus Group Interview 4

Since most of the supervisors involved in our research project came from the humanities and social sciences, generalisation was not primarily a question of statistics and significance, but rather the ability to contextualise and place one’s own study in a larger context, such as education or media policy, media debates about school and education, and so on. If students were able to do this in the concluding parts of the degree projects, they were perceived as having come far in their independence.

Pedagogical Implications of an Elusive Concept

In the focus group interviews, supervisors described how they tried in different ways to communicate to students what was expected of them in terms of responsibility, making their own choices and being able to argue for them, the originality of the degree project, and so on, although they did not always talk about this in terms of independence. This can be seen as an example of the developing of students’ academic literacies, in the sense that it highlights how much more than writing techniques is required of students, as well as in the sense that supervisors seek to illuminate the epistemological understandings that students need to be able to manage in different academic contexts (cf. Lea and Stierer 2000). It also became clear that many of the supervisors found it difficult, sometimes even frustrating, to try to encourage student independence, as the following examples from our focus group material show:

Those students who are not interested in working independently. Who just want to know if this is right or wrong… The supervision resources that I have are not enough to get them to think about or see this in any other way.

Focus Group Interview 2

We have to distinguish between what we expect and what actually happens. Of course, we expect a maximum of independence, starting with the choice of the topic and ending with the attempt to find out the methodology, producing a ton of ideas and so on. What actually happens /…/ is that independence often ends at the stage of deciding on a topic at best.

Focus Group Interview 10

As described by supervisors, the difficulties and frustrations stem in part from the need to strike a balance between allowing students to make their own decisions and follow their own ideas and whims, and the demands placed on the form, quality and timeframe of degree projects. This is also partly related to the fact that independence is an elusive and multifaceted concept, which makes it difficult to know, for example, which aspects are most important to encourage and at which stages of the supervision process this should be done. Not least given that students tend to be at very different levels when they start the degree project process and thus have varying preconditions for achieving the expected goals, something that the interviewed supervisors were also well aware of:

You know, students are different. There are those who are motivated to do research and those who are not. /…/ In terms of independence and the relationship between a supervisor and a student in BA programmes, of course you expect some independence from a student because it is their work. However, sometimes students expect you to tell them what to write, or even better, to offer them something that’s already been done, so that they can make something worthwhile out of it. You know, because it takes hard work to do something on your own.

Focus Group Interview 7

Another aspect of this was that supervisors in the focus groups often defined independence in terms of what it was not. By far the most common was to explicitly state that independence is not about working alone or all by yourself, as the following example illustrates.

Independence doesn’t mean working alone. You can work independently even if you work with someone. For me, independence means thinking for yourself. And as a student, you have the supervisor to relate to, but perhaps also if you are writing together with another student.

Focus Group Interview 3

Since this kind of negation of student independence, i.e. an emphasis on what it is not, was formulated by so many of the supervisors who participated in the focus groups, it can be concluded that there is an implicit or taken for granted norm or notion that student independence means working alone, which the supervisors explicitly positioned themselves against. This can, thus, be seen as an example of taken for granted norms or notions that researchers in the field of academic literacies believe need to be made visible (cf. Lea and Stierer 2000). Such a notion is also at odds with a relatively accepted and widespread ideal of teaching and a view of learning in which learning takes place in interaction (cf. Dysthe 1999).

Cases where students for some reason chose to work entirely on their own, what one supervisor described as total independence, were also explicitly raised as problematic by supervisors. In their eyes, this usually meant students who had gone astray and were too free in their interpretation of what academic work required, or students who did not feel that they needed to learn anything new at all. As can be seen from the examples given earlier in this chapter, grading criteria for degree project courses can include the requirement for students to demonstrate the ability to respond to the advice and recommendations of supervisors, which is not possible if students are working entirely on their own without any supervision. In addition to this being a pedagogical stance in the sense that it is seen as a key skill to be able to work with and develop comments from the supervisor, the inclusion of such aspects in the grading criteria for degree project courses may also be motivated by the rather significant risk that students who appear to be avoiding supervision are in fact not doing the work they are supposed to be doing. In other words, that they are using prohibited aids or methods to produce the degree project, such as specific, non-allowed AI writing tools, plagiarism or getting someone else to write it for them. In this respect, student independence is also tied to the ethical aspects of the research and degree project process.

Highlighting perceptions and interpretations of key concepts within higher education, such as student independence, may also be essential to address any lack of consensus that has implications for the supervision process and the assessment of student performance. For example, a lack of consensus among supervisors about what constitutes student independence may affect how much or what kind of help students receive in working on their degree projects. Furthermore, lack of consensus on key concepts in relation to assessment is obviously problematic for the equal treatment of students. It is also problematic in terms of transparency, for example in that students’ and supervisors’ perceptions of what student independence entails and how it is demonstrated may differ. In a couple of smaller surveys that we have conducted, students at the beginning of a degree project course at a Swedish university were asked how they perceived and understood the requirements for independence. The absolute majority of students responded with different versions of ‘working alone’, which is significantly at odds with how the supervisors we interviewed reasoned about independence, as we have shown. Many of the supervisors who participated in the focus group discussions also said that they rarely or never explicitly discussed independence and the related expectations and norms with the students they supervised.

The focus group material also showed that independence is not usually perceived as something that students do or do not have in an absolute sense. Rather, supervisors discussed independence in terms of degrees and levels. As we have seen in the previous examples, they could speak of little or basic independence and minimum levels of independence, as well as great or maximum independence, or independence at a more advanced level. For example, a minimum or basic level of independence that all students had to achieve might involve choosing a topic for the degree project, while a maximum or advanced level of independence that only some students were expected to achieve might involve critical thinking, positioning, and so on.

Supervisors also distinguished between several types of independence, further illustrating the complexity of the concept. In this example, for example, a distinction is made between independence understood as (critical) thinking and doing.

I think there are two different parts in the degree project. One is the actual doing, like actually going out and searching for literature. /…/ And the other part is the critical thinking. And I feel that students can be very independent in their doing, but not so independent in their critical thinking. Or vice versa. Some students are very independent in their critical thinking, but they don’t get to the actual doing.

Focus Group Interview 4

Several supervisors discussed in different ways a division of the concept of student independence based on this contrast between cognitive thinking and practical doing. Taking initiatives, planning one’s work and making choices could be examples of doing, while critical thinking and creativity were examples of thinking. This kind of differentiation or division makes the concept more tangible and concrete. It becomes a way of structuring a complex concept, which may provide an opportunity for discussion and, in the long run, more consensus on how to understand it.

A Model to Start With

As we have shown and discussed, independence is one of the key concepts associated with the supervision of degree projects, at the same time as it is a concept that is multifaceted and can be understood in many ways. According to the supervisors interviewed, independence can manifest itself at different stages of the degree project process—from the planning of the work, through the literature search and writing, to the submission of the finished text and the defence of the final product. There are also differences in perceptions of where independence is to be found: in the brain, in the text, in speaking or in doing, in the process or in the product. Furthermore, the concept can be described as relative, as supervisors did not talk about independence as something that students have or do not have, but rather that independence can occur to different degrees. From the perspective of equal treatment and students’ rights, it can be problematic if different supervisors, departments or higher education institutions use significantly divergent definitions and criteria of such concepts in the practice of supervision and in the assessment and examination of degree projects.

In other words, there may be a need for a collegial discussion in which supervisors’ different perceptions of independence can be made explicit and visible for discussion and comparison with others. In such a collegial discussion, the matrix we present in Table 3.2 can serve as a tool. In the table, we have grouped along one axis the different perceptions of independence that emerged in our material, and along the other axis the different contexts or stages in which independence was described as emerging: during the supervision process, in the finished text, or during the final discussion or defence of the degree project. We would like to emphasise that process and product (the finished text) do not function as opposites, but as different parts or perspectives of the same competence. According to some supervisors, the process, or parts of it, can also be identified in the final product.

Table 3.2 Independence matrix

The marked crosses indicate how the different contexts were referred to by the supervisors in the focus group interviews, but where they should be put is, of course, open to discussion according to the experiences and perceptions of those involved in the supervision and examination of degree projects in a particular setting. As can be seen from the matrix, several aspects of independence may be identified either during the process, in the finished text or in the defence of the final product. Here, we would like to particularly emphasise that many aspects of independence can be related to the process of the degree project and then indirectly to the supervisors and what they enable, encourage, identify and assess in their supervisory practice.

From an academic literacies perspective, it is emphasised that higher education is characterised by different epistemologies and norm systems, which means that what is perceived as valuable and good varies not only between but also within different local academic contexts such as departments and disciplines (see e.g. Lea and Stierer 2000; Lea and Street 2006; Lillis 2001; Lillis and Scott 2007; Shanahan and Shanahan 2012). The independence matrix we present here should consequently be viewed from the perspective that there are no inherently better or worse criteria for student independence, and that there is no specific criterion that is the ‘right’ one to refer to in supervision. Rather, it is a matter of trying to articulate existing epistemological norms as a supervisor, to be able to verbalise and discuss one’s own perceptions and thinking, and to discuss them with colleagues. For this purpose, a model of this kind could be a starting point.

The fact that there may be different understandings and interpretations of concepts that are central to the degree project process is significant for individual supervisors and students, as well as for supervision practice in a particular context, and for the ideals and expectations of academic writing that are dominant in a local academic context. The view of independence, for example, may be important for the tools that supervisors use in their supervision practice, as well as for perceptions of what the relationship between supervisor and student should be. In the next chapter, we will discuss this relationship in more detail, based on the recorded supervision conversations from our research project.