Minding the Gap in Doctoral Supervision for a Contemporary World: A Case from Italy
Saved in:
| Title: | Minding the Gap in Doctoral Supervision for a Contemporary World: A Case from Italy |
|---|---|
| Language: | English |
| Authors: | Maguire, Kate, Prodi, Elena, Gibbs, Paul |
| Source: | Studies in Higher Education. 2018 43(5):867-877. |
| Availability: | Routledge. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 530 Walnut Street Suite 850, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Tel: 215-625-8900; Fax: 215-207-0050; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals |
| Peer Reviewed: | Y |
| Page Count: | 11 |
| Publication Date: | 2018 |
| Document Type: | Journal Articles Reports - Research |
| Education Level: | Higher Education |
| Descriptors: | Graduate Students, Doctoral Programs, Supervision, Communities of Practice, Foreign Countries, Mentors, Coaching (Performance), Research Projects, Praxis, Professional Education, Supervisors, Semi Structured Interviews |
| Geographic Terms: | Italy |
| DOI: | 10.1080/03075079.2018.1438114 |
| ISSN: | 0307-5079 |
| Abstract: | Doctoral supervision has attracted significant attention from higher education bodies over the last 15 years, stimulated by shifts in educational and socio-political contexts including what supports the knowledge economy and the stakeholdership of students. This paper conceptualises work worlds through Heideggerian discourse and presents exploratory findings from interviews with workplace supervisors analysed within the framework of the SuperProfDoc research project. It then draws on these findings and the mentoring and coaching literature to contribute to integrating supervision practices between the academy and the workplace. |
| Abstractor: | As Provided |
| Number of References: | 30 |
| Entry Date: | 2018 |
| Accession Number: | EJ1176193 |
| Database: | ERIC |
|
Full text is not displayed to guests.
Login for full access.
|
|
| FullText | Links: – Type: pdflink Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwG9K4aiFppurygt0qsMmserAAAA4jCB3wYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHRMIHOAgEAMIHIBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDPFMXAPUdhrn_TgS3AIBEICBmhyv3xIMgEkG0dNjLys0R3n8pSYR8GDJcY4PqJJacoyfPRa84cpAietZU_hCfdJ0TxjTahHpwwiYq2Js_ogpO96bDtSgfNIKz1PsAWK4QOOgBmgvMJ4smfYKCukEl8V-YFQkE8ocQuyAmIkPRs56lv457xUPQLEq0ORL4MM_tII6gnQpFdubXaOa69DB3UKXh92lRr_Qj_ax7xM= Text: Availability: 1 Value: <anid>AN0129059331;she01may.18;2018Apr16.09:11;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0129059331-1">Minding the gap in doctoral supervision for a contemporary world: a case from Italy </title> <p>Doctoral supervision has attracted significant attention from higher education bodies over the last 15 years, stimulated by shifts in educational and socio-political contexts including what supports the knowledge economy and the stakeholdership of students. This paper conceptualises work worlds through Heideggerian discourse and presents exploratory findings from interviews with workplace supervisors analysed within the framework of the SuperProfDoc research project. It then draws on these findings and the mentoring and coaching literature to contribute to integrating supervision practices between the academy and the workplace.</p> <p>Doctoral supervision; workplace; praxis; collaboration; work world; community of practice</p> <hd id="AN0129059331-2">Introduction</hd> <p>Doctoral research which pays attention to practitioner knowledge to bring[<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref1">1</reflink>] about innovation in thinking and practice in organisations and sectors has fuelled demand for professional doctorates and industrial and practice-based PhDs[<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref2">2</reflink>]. During the Erasmus+ SuperProfDoc[<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref3">3</reflink>] project, lack of formal processes between the academic supervisor of the research and the workplace supervisor, where students are employed or doing internships, was identified as a significant gap in doctoral supervision literature but also an opportunity to enhance the praxis of the knowledge and practice creation and exchange dynamic within the lacuna of the academy and work worlds. Generally, in the case of doctoral students who are also in work training (for example in teaching, nursing, engineering), during the time frame of their studies, they are supervised by a work supervisor who is responsible for providing the necessary skills to perform given tasks and easing the integration between internal and external training. These doctoral students are also assigned an academic supervisor who is usually a member of the teaching faculty who helps them with their research project and educational activities and development.</p> <p>The aim of this paper is to begin to contribute to a praxis which addresses the opportunities this growing proximity between the work worlds of business and the academy can provide through bringing the separate supervisory practices into a more collaborative and symbiotic framework. The research is informed by a bricolage approach, and it presents exploratory findings from workplace supervisors’ experiences and reveals a range of indicative issues that can be examined through a praxis lens to enhance researcher support and development.</p> <hd id="AN0129059331-3">Context</hd> <p>This focus on workplace supervision of doctoral students was not a formal part of the commission of the Erasmus project. However, the participation of ADAPT (the Association for International and Comparative Studies in Labour and Industrial Relations) introduced the important role of workplace supervisors into the supervisory frame (Tiraboschi [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref4">27</reflink>] ). The International Doctoral School in Human Capital Formation and Labour Relations at the University of Bergamo (Italy), co-promoted by ADAPT and by CQIA (Teaching and Learning Quality Centre of the University of Bergamo), provides agreements with employers and other actors of the world of work (such as trade unions or employers associations) to fund industrial PhD programmes based on apprenticeships and doctoral research programmes more generally (Casano [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref5">9</reflink>] ). The aim of ADAPT is the training of young researchers to enable them to operate in national and international firms through professional expertise in legal and pedagogical issues, and, as such, employers are considered to play a determinant role in the learning process of doctoral students. The training programmes offered by the School envisage that the praxis of research and work activities are achieved through the alternation (Massagli [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref6">19</reflink>] ) between work and training, assuming the alignment of research aims, objectives, processes and agendas of the two contexts in which the ‘shared’ doctoral student is involved. For this reason, doctoral students have both academic supervision and workplace supervision. The latter is not solely related to the student’s development as an effective practitioner, but an essential part of the provision of doctoral supervision to help ensure coherence between the assignment within the company and the research and training activities offered at the School.</p> <p>It became apparent from the Italian case that, in the context of doctoral research carried out in the locus of the workplace, the shared supervisory relationship could be explored as an example of collaborative praxis. The involvement of workplace supervisors in the assessment of the work of the ‘shared’ doctoral student seemed to be a more informal one, without recourse to formal channels of communication or collaboration. This was in part due to the Ministerial Decree of 8 February 2013 which established that the teaching ‘faculty should be composed of tenured university professors for the accreditation of PhD courses and schools’ (Tiraboschi [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref7">27</reflink>] , 11). Hence employers and representatives of the workplace had not been included in faculty roles such as assessment. The involvement of ADAPT in the Erasmus project presented an opportunity to explore what actually happens in the absence of formal processes and the perspectives of workplace supervisors on the existing arrangements. Moreover, this informality illustrates a divide in the world of academic endeavour and professional practice which is more generalisable, that is beyond the situated case offered here. This separation can be conceptualised as work worlds where phenomena are revealed within context and the blurring or ‘parking’ of these realities is difficult to transcend in the current state of relations between those facilitating research in the work world, for the work world, but through academic paradigms and protocols held in place by academic and political conventions. Furthermore, supervisors have not been impervious to encounters with this new profile of students (Barnard [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref8">1</reflink>] ; Burnard et al. [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref9">8</reflink>] ) and have been refreshing their own perspectives on the purpose of doctoral research and global realities, and challenging the traditions of their own profession as doctoral supervisors.</p> <p>… the research facilitator within higher education today … requires a constantly deepening awareness of the purpose and methods of our own professional practice and how it might challenge the cultural ecology in which we function to undergo its own adaptive processes to meet the imperatives of the wider and more powerful systems in which it operates. (Maguire [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref10">18</reflink>] , 174)</p> <p></p> <p>Indeed while literature is plentiful, and growing, on academic supervision of doctorates specifically focused on change and innovation in the world of work, either through the development of young employees or through continuing professional development of senior professionals which goes beyond conventional PhD supervision (Boud and Costley [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref11">3</reflink>] ), there is a scarcity of literature on the supervision of doctoral research which is carried out in the workplace by practitioner experts who are external to the higher education institute (HEI) to which the doctoral student belongs. This bridging of worlds may require a transformation of the notion of supervision rather than a mere translation between the two traditional realities of learning by offering an emergent form of student/worker support.</p> <p>A recognition of the value which professional practice knowledge can bring to the knowledge landscape of human endeavour and capital has seen a considerable rise in the number of professional doctorates speaking to the concerns of industry, business and public services which in turn generate a range of ontological and epistemological discourses on reality and ways of exploring what is perceived as reality. However, innovations in academic researcher development and supervisory practices have had an extended hysteresis due to the entrenchment of traditional views of knowledge and how things should be done.</p> <p>New educational initiatives and partnerships, such as the UK’s degree apprenticeship scheme introduced in 2016/17 on a national scale, is already working closely with employers and workplace supervisors to develop a third way of approaching collaboration for supporting students and sharing objectives which go beyond the binary of academic and workplace (Bravenboer [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref12">5</reflink>] , 396). In the case of the apprenticeship model, employers drive the standards and the assessment targets.</p> <p>This three-way alignment of employers, HEIs and professional bodies presents the powerful prospect of bridging the perceived divide between the professional competence required by employers and academic qualification (Bravenboer and Lester [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref13">6</reflink>] ). It is also an opportunity to move beyond the traditional separation of work and learning and develop the ‘trust’ relationships that are required to overcome the barriers to effective employer-university collaboration (Bruneel et al., [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref14">7</reflink>] ). The opportunity to have a coherent higher education and skills policy still suffers from not only a lack of understanding of the situatedness of practice but also of the role of the university as ‘part of’ and not ‘apart from’ the world of work. To explore this, we turn to Heidegger and his discussion of the notion of being-in-the-world and consider it within the idea of worlds of work and academia to seek a conceptual understanding for how to interpret the results of our preliminary study.</p> <hd id="AN0129059331-4">Work worlds</hd> <p>Heidegger’s most comprehensive summary of the nature of the workplace appears in the History of the Concept of Time ([<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref15">13</reflink>] ). Chapter 23 provides a section entitled, ‘The work-world: more detailed phenomenological interpretation of the environing world of concern’. In this passage, Heidegger describes the work world as defined in the work. However, in accord with the kind of being it has, the work is itself in the character of ‘conducive to’ ([<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref16">13</reflink>] , 192). For instance, the shoe is for wearing; that is the what-for of the entity and forms part of it in its present state. Moreover, the product references the public world in which the product is to be used and, even more primarily, the natural world from whence the natural products emerged and upon which it is dependent.</p> <p>Heidegger calls the kind of understanding by which we can make sense of our world and its entities, ‘circumspection’. Through circumspection, we see our circumstances - our situatedness - not in a theoretical way but in the sense of praxis; an environment that enables us to act. This engagement within a world of equipment, as opposed to theoretical behaviour which is ‘just looking, without circumspection’ ([<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref17">12</reflink>] , 99), is how we encounter our everyday world. This ‘familiarity’ and circumspection operate in the work world, where circumspection is the ‘skilled possibility of concerned discovering, of concerned seeing’ ([<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref18">13</reflink>] , 274). That is, ‘circumspection is the way in which we look around when using equipment and understand the use of a particular piece of equipment from how it relates to the totality of equipment’ (Nielsen [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref19">20</reflink>] , 459). Our skill in this aspect is based on our familiarity of being in that world. That is, certain environments have ready-at-hand what is needed to achieve that which is sought and others do not. It is not just a matter of what others might consider appropriate or what had previously been available.</p> <p>The learning of situated practices is vital to understanding the way in which workers relate to their work world (Pigrum [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref20">22</reflink>] ). Through an understanding of how the phenomena of the work world appear to workers and are disclosed by them, it is possible to grasp the everyday meaning of the workplace. It is possible to understand how workers reveal their identities through the development of practices grounded in equipmental references and functionality. These are manifested in their disclosure in the workplace. This learning of practices and the mastery of acquired experience is the essence of workplace learning.</p> <p>The condition of differing worlds of action is phenomenological, and although both work worlds as described above (the academic and the world of work) have a commonality of the search and research of meaning, they are often taken as distinctive and incommensurate. We suggest this is not only because of an artificial separation of knowledge but because of a separation in the poiesis of knowledge which each work world adopts.</p> <p>Heidegger suggests that work is the universal condition of humans, as producers, and is a way in which we experience life, through varied engagements with beings. This idea is perhaps best encapsulated by the Greek origin of the word poiesis, meaning ‘bringing forth’. Poiesis relates to all the ways in which humans produce things but, unlike Plato’s totalising utopia of poiesis, Heidegger tends to favour Aristotle’s distinction between poiesis and praxis. Praxis retains its sense of action without a defined end, as distinct from poiesis’ blueprinted intention (Taminiaux [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref21">26</reflink>] ). In this sense, praxis works as a notion which transcends work worlds and the people within them. It recognises difference but seeks to find ways to integrate the worlds to create a new and effective space consisting of features from, in this case, both worlds interwoven to create a third research world for the researchers and their support within which a praxis of research and practice can reveal the world in ways that differ from both the existing world views.</p> <p>In order to achieve this, the different nature of supervision within the two worlds needs to be conceived of as different but equivalent, and the perceived gap transcended by a common collaboration. Using Heidegger’s notion of equipment, the two work worlds differ in equipment and where what matters, and ought to matter, to the student, needs to be carefully directed during the course of certain practices. It is this aspect of the workplace supervisor that cares for the student which needs specific attention.</p> <p>The research which follows first investigates the experience of workplace supervisors and then considers how these findings might be interpreted in ways that the student might be supported, ‘cared for’, in the workplace which cannot, because of the differing nature of the worlds, be undertaken or understood easily from the assumed reality of one world into other.</p> <hd id="AN0129059331-5">Research approach</hd> <p>A research design was developed using a semi-structured interview intended for workplace supervisors which was informed by the literature and augmented by both the existing practices of ADAPT and by knowledge of such practices from team members, all of whom were experienced supervisors on knowledge areas associated with world of work. These included nursing, education and multidisciplinary professional development. The data would be subjected to thematic analysis in line with the method used for the main project. The aim of this ‘impromptu’ research was to begin finding out more about the formal and informal processes that currently exist in ADAPT and the perspectives of the workplace supervisors working with ADAPT doctoral students to stimulate further research in what is an orphan area of the doctoral supervisory landscape.</p> <p>The interviews with the five workplace supervisors of students were in Italian. Experience of these respondents in their occupation ranged from 1 to 3 years, they had been appointed for a number of diverse reasons and held a variety of managerial positions. The level of preparedness for their supervision role varied from none to collaboration in selecting research and learning objectives. Their contact with students was regular and even daily, and the involvement of the student within the organisation appeared to be gradual, ranging from participation before starting the internship to introductions to external activities, such as conferences or meetings, in order to help the student to get familiar with what was required by the organisation of its internee, or new employee or future employee. This induction, and later immersion, would also involve colleagues from other departments to help on specific issues with which the workplace supervisor might not be so familiar. Contacts with the academic supervisor of the student were surprisingly limited, given the collaborative intent of the research process.</p> <p>The transcripts were translated into English for thematic analysis. The findings were further contextualised in the general findings from the SuperProfDoc, literature around mentoring and coaching in the workplace and current workplace supervision collaboration in professional doctorates in the UK and the USA.</p> <hd id="AN0129059331-6">The findings</hd> <p>The workplace supervisor experience of the collaborative nature of the relationship with the academic supervisor varied significantly given the limited contact expressed by the workplace supervisor. For most, ‘the system adopted for joint supervision as well as participation are satisfying’, but there was an acceptance that more could be done. This is evident in that there was a strong feeling that the work supervisor was involved in the design and application of the research being undertaken, in shaping both the equipment used to define a role and its function to define the space. This was not universal with one participant suggesting that an ‘increase in the collaboration between the three actors (company supervisor, academic supervisor and doctoral student) could be better’.</p> <p>The student is also seen to be the main conduit of communication in ensuring the collaboration is kept on track which seems consistent with the Heideggerian position of the worlds being defined by those who occupy them. For instance, a common theme from the supervisors was that academic and workplace commitments are hard to reconcile but ‘thanks to the balance between study and work, responsibility and dedication of doctoral students, such difficulties are easy to overcome’.</p> <p>The presence of the student clearly has advantages for the organisation and is positively commented upon as ‘adding value’, ‘stimulating’, ‘beneficial for the supervisor’, ‘most enjoyable aspect of supervision is participating in doctoral students’ growth’ and bridging the common interest between academic study and practical engagement (the praxis we mentioned earlier). Such terms illustrate the presencing of the student in the alternative world of work where their status and contribution are nurtured and the emerging realities reconstitute the work world which is being changed by their presence.</p> <p>Regarding the actual perceived relationship between the supervisor and the student, some felt that a major difference between them and the academic was with regards to their working attitude, practical experience, technical skills and full knowledge of the field. They believed their role was an engagement with students to ensure ‘the balance between research aspects and on the job experience’, ‘to ensure an equal standing relationship with the student’ and to act as a ‘guide’ to the realities, that is, the complexities of the world of work. When issues did emerge, for the most part they were the priorities of the organisation's business which, given the commercial context, might seem appropriate. However, in these cases both supervisors committed to not overriding the student needs and to finding a solution for balancing the workload. Critically, the key characteristics of good workplace supervisors were identified as being able to:</p> <p>plan together, from the beginning, a joint path that can meet the company’s, the university’s and doctoral student’s needs but in such a way that recognises the different realities and notions of being that both require;</p> <p>follow doctoral students’ activities and to make them feel totally integrated into the workplace so that they can feel on an equal footing with other colleagues and can deal with both their rights and obligations (for example, compliance with assigned deadlines). In other words, to embrace the work world as a different reality, albeit shaped by the presencing of the student, a work world not in stasis but in flux as the emergent equipment that shape being in the academic world helps reconfigure the emergent world of the doctoral practitioner. Growing awareness of, but not immersion into, the politics of work worlds (Le Maistre and Paré [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref22">17</reflink>] ) could be achieved at this stage as students tend to focus on the emerging new ways of being in the locus of the research;</p> <p>supervise the working relationship, have a willingness to listen, to communicate, participate, co-plan the research with the all the key players and promote coordination among all the supervisors and tutors, that is, to increase awareness of the emergent and new ways of being in the emergent world that the activities co-create.</p> <p>Summarising the feedback from the interviews on the experience of the workplace supervisors, doctoral students’ research projects provide positive results for the company activities, especially for office-based tasks in which they were involved. In particular, the topic of the doctoral student’s research merges with the projects and the activities of the department in which they carried out their internship. Consequences are so positive that supervisors hope that, in the future, there will be all the necessary organisational and financial conditions to keep the doctoral student with the company and benefit from their know-how. The supervisory process added value to all three stakeholders: student, supervisor and business; yet, there were some reservations as to the integration of work and study. The gap indeed was one of praxis, the failure to integrate fully a form of knowledge and practice which could bring the benefits of the two work worlds into a third which transcends both. This lack of integration is not uncommon in other work worlds where interdisciplinary work faces similar problems. Accordingly, the modern world is calling for interdisciplinary modes of working and knowledge formation, both across and between disciplines and between academic institutions and the wider world. Yet, the literature shows that interdisciplinary engagement is difficult to achieve and this research highlights the degree or incommensurability in the mutuality of support for the student (Research Councils UK [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref23">23</reflink>] ).</p> <p>Notwithstanding this and focusing on the actual role of the workplace supervisor, it is evident from the findings that they play a significant role in the mentoring of the students in terms of caring for them and directing and interpreting policy, practice and processes of the workplace. It is to this aspect we now turn.</p> <hd id="AN0129059331-7">Work world perspectives of employee development</hd> <p>As the academic world holds a research mirror to the world and to itself, it will find, according to Heidegger, a dissonance. The academy has held onto the sacred tradition of master and apprentice for longer than the world of work; one that has functioned on the premise that the master passes on an often unopposed view of what constitutes knowledge and the prescribed approaches to how knowledge can be developed within these boundaried paradigms. In the world of work, the last 30 years have seen competition to own this ‘development’ territory firstly through discourses on mentoring and leadership and most recently coaching, as organisations focus on increasing their human capital. This difference of worlds, although desirous of integration as the research shows, still stands.</p> <p>The role and practice of the workplace supervisor and that of the academic supervisor thus differ under different influences of context, tradition, policies, language, disciplines and regulations. Yet at their core, the academic supervisor and the workplace supervisor both ‘care for’ and understand the student in ways that enrich their praxis in the workplace. However, this is not an academic supervision role as traditionally understood. Its purpose has not been to enhance the student’s familiarity with the equipment of the work world, to aid their understanding of what is present and what is possible for them to be in that context. Workplace supervision has a stronger tradition in approaches for these purposes, from apprenticeship models to mentoring models and most recently to coaching models.</p> <hd id="AN0129059331-8">Supervisor as mentor and coach in the emergent world view of the doctoral student</hd> <p>Passmore et al. state in their introduction to The Psychology of Coaching and Mentoring that</p> <p>The issue of a definition in coaching is one which has been actively explored in the literature, some focusing on reviewing previous definitions, others offering new definitions. This activity reflects the immature nature of the domain and the desire to delineate boundaries and mark out territory for coaching being a different and distinctive intervention to other organizational interventions such as mentoring, careers counselling, appraisals and feedback. ([<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref24">21</reflink>] , 1)</p> <p></p> <p>For the purposes of this paper and at this stage, the mentoring literature has proved to be more helpful in exploring how academic supervision and work supervision can be clarified as to purpose and become more aligned and reciprocal through building on the practice cultures of development in organisations which are more finely attuned to navigating complexity than is the academy. The definition of mentoring which seems to have garnered the strongest consensus in the literature is that of Eby, Rhodes, and Allen ([<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref25">10</reflink>] , 16).</p> <p>Workplace mentoring involves a relationship between a less experienced individual (protégé) and a more experienced person (the mentor), where the purpose is the personal and professional growth of the protégé … and where the mentor may be a peer at work, a supervisor … within the organisation but outside the protégé’s chain of command.</p> <p></p> <p>Tong and Kram ([<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref26">28</reflink>] , 218) in their review of the efficacy of mentoring refer to the mentoring of the protégé which comes close to what the workplace supervisors were doing with regards to their doctoral students in the ADAPT case. They relate this kind of mentoring to extrinsic and intrinsic career success.</p> <p>Extrinsic achievements indicative of career success are accomplishments that are objectively verifiable against some external criteria of success or failure (Gattiker and Larwood [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref27">11</reflink>] ; Jaskolka, Beyer, and Trice [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref28">14</reflink>] ). Research has been conducted demonstrating that mentoring is related to various criterions of extrinsic career success of ‘protégées’ (Bozionelos [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref29">4</reflink>] ) … Explanations for the enhanced performance against extrinsic criteria has been likened to an accelerated learning curve. (Torrance [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref30">29</reflink>] )</p> <p></p> <p>The criteria include enhanced career advancement, more promotions achieved and faster progression for protégées than for non-mentored individuals. Intrinsic career success is presented as</p> <p>Where subjective, internal evaluations are made by individuals regarding their accomplishments these are termed intrinsic achievements. (Tong and Kram [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref31">28</reflink>] , 218)</p> <p></p> <p>Criteria of evaluation include career satisfaction, self-report and decreased work alienation.</p> <p>Klasen and Clutterbuck ([<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref32">15</reflink>] , 148) emphasise the need for both the mentor and mentee to bring skills and qualities to the relationship for it to be successful. Many academic institutions do not prepare either the supervisor or the supervisee for supervision and what is to be expected of both in the relationship. Commentating on mentoring they say</p> <p>Successful mentoring relationships require both the mentor and the mentee to possess a certain set of skills, qualities and attributes. For example, good mentees are characterized by their commitment to learning and their efforts to develop their own solutions. Furthermore they must stick to agreed goals and show appreciation for the value of their mentor’s time … to be a good developmental mentor certain prerequisites must be fulfilled. Key competencies … include well developed communication skills, self awareness and a genuine belief in the mentee’s potential.</p> <p></p> <p>Academic supervision has or should have many of these characteristics. The purpose of each type of supervision and the accompanying traditions and regulations are contextually bound but also act as an obstacle to stronger collaboration in the field of doctoral research. What the mentoring literature does not cover in any detail is mentoring as an approach to supervising doctoral-level research outside of the academy. This is being taken up by the relatively new field of coaching with Vitae[<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref33">4</reflink>] citing it as a key characteristic of a good supervisor.</p> <hd id="AN0129059331-9">Current practices in academic supervision of practice doctorates</hd> <p>Current practices in supervision of modern doctorates have variations on how practice and theory are integrated or separated depending on the purpose of the supervisory role. Education, nursing/health and engineering doctorates in the USA and the UK do not have formal processes for integrating supervisions which are for different purposes. A clear distinction is made on the basis of purpose. Academic supervision is responsible for the student meeting research criteria, including theory and practice. Workplace supervision can be solely for the purpose of producing effective practitioners in their field of practice regardless of the academic level of the student or employee. However, the division in terms of shared knowledge and experience is not as binary as it might appear. In doctorates in education, nursing and engineering, for example, academic staff frequently come from practice backgrounds in those sectors. However, they often have little to do directly with whether their students are being effective practitioners in the contexts of their schools, hospitals or companies, and would find that, while having come from the field of practice, as they no longer practise, they are not up to date with the shifting socio/political environments of the world of work, the relational and power dynamic nuances at play and the expectations of efficacy as practitioners. This would be the domain of the workplace mentor or supervisor. In some cases, particularly nursing, an individual can be appointed to the university as an honorary member who is still in practice and has a doctoral qualification in order to act as a critical reader or indeed a third supervisor. In the transdisciplinary professional doctorates at Middlesex University, the second supervisor does not need to hold a doctoral award but does have to be an evidenced proficient practitioner in the student’s sector and able to support the student’s critical engagement with the practice area.</p> <p>What distinguishes the roles of a mentor and a supervisor is purpose: the purpose of creating effective practitioners (mentoring) who meet the career and development requirements of the organisation/sector, and the purpose of supporting the student/practitioner’s development as a critical thinking researcher who can or has the potential to bring about effective direction and innovation for the benefit of the sector/hosting organisation (supervising). There are indications that a number of workplace mentors could be supported by HEIs to develop the latter role through building on their praxis of mentoring and that the academic could benefit from this closer alignment with contemporary practices in coaching and mentoring.</p> <p>In the European University Association (EUA) report on Collaborative Doctoral Education, University-Industry Partnerships for Enhancing Knowledge Exchange, DOC-CAREERS PROJECT (Borrell-Damian [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref34">2</reflink>] , 105-6), emphasis is given in the conclusion to a number of factors which support collaborative doctoral programmes. The following are highly pertinent to collaborative supervision although this was not the context within which they are mentioned. They offer a basis for thinking about the potential for success if we look at what is shared rather than what separates.</p> <p>… success also depends upon the quality of the personal component, the ability to team up to solve problems, achieve excellent performance, and establish good levels of mutual trust between the stakeholders (doctoral candidate, industry and university researchers and managers). Cooperation processes are holistic, that is the soft part of the relationship is very important and regular face-to-face experience is necessary in order to build durable partnerships. It is important at institutional level to permit appropriate combinations of approaches and the flexibility to modify these approaches in order to achieve specific characteristics of a collaborative doctoral project.</p> <p></p> <p>The report goes on to add pre-conditions for successful collaboration.</p> <p>The pre-conditions include a sharing of the intended value of the research, mutual trust and a long term approach. The operating conditions include suitable provisions for funding, joint supervision of the doctoral candidate, efficient project management and an expectation of good performance in research.</p> <p></p> <hd id="AN0129059331-10">Impact of this exploration on ADAPT practices</hd> <p>Returning to the ADAPT case, the organisation has widely recognised that, also in the lack of a regulatory framework, a proactive engagement is a precondition to allow a more fruitful cooperation between the School itself and the economic actors. As Casano ([<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref35">9</reflink>] ) suggests, in order to provide opportunities for young people and employers, some conditions need to be met. Among these conditions is a constructive spirit to foster cooperation between promoting institutions and economic actors in order to promote ad hoc training plans. Over the past few years, this attitude has resulted in major efforts targeted, on the one hand, to capitalise on existing practices by supporting the value of the doctoral student in cross-pollinating the academy and industry through being a conduit; on the other hand, to address the communication gaps existing between workplace and academic supervisors through promoting communities of practice within and between both. For this purpose, over the academic year 2016/2017, the International Doctoral School in Human Capital Formation and Labour Relations experienced a new practice: the community of tutors/supervisors, which met for the first time on 20 January 2017 (SuperProfDoc Project [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref36">25</reflink>] ).</p> <p>… a community grouping both academic supervisor as well as the organizational tutor has been set up … The aim of the meeting was to strengthen relationships among academic supervisors and workplace tutors and workplace supervisor themselves. … Prior to this, workplace supervisors did not know each other as, over the previous academic years, they had got used to maintaining formal relationships only with their PhD student, with the academic supervisor and with the administrative office of the Doctoral School.</p> <p></p> <p>The meeting not only worked towards the integration of workplace and academic staff but also the creation of a community of workplace tutors across participating organisations and companies in the placement and development of doctoral students. A significant outcome was the welcome given to such an initiative and the enthusiasm by workplace supervisors for the research ideas proposed by ADAPT for future development to which the workplace supervisors were able to contribute. Even if in its early stages, the ‘community of tutors/supervisors’, echoing the work of Lave and Wenger on ‘communities of practice’ (Lave and Wenger [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref37">16</reflink>] ; Wenger [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref38">30</reflink>] ), seems to be a promising practice worthy to be further replicated to create the conditions for fostering dialogue between academic and workplace tutors, which the literature on the topic (Salimi, Bekkers, and Frenken [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref39">24</reflink>] ) has shown to be a strategic factor for the successful completion of modern PhDs.</p> <hd id="AN0129059331-11">Conclusion</hd> <p>Although this was an exploratory piece of research, it helps to shed light on major issues concerning the intensity, quality and difference in the relationships linking workplace and academic supervisors. It discusses the areas for consideration including the mentoring and coaching practices of workplace supervisors and their benefit not only to the student but the contributions this literature can make to developing academic supervisors and for academic supervisors to involve workplace supervisors and students more directly in research areas and objectives. It also highlights the potential for increased dialogue between university and employers requiring a proactive effort to overcome cultural barriers and bureaucratic hurdles to create a third work world of the practical doctorates through a lens of praxis.</p> <p>In this perspective, the set-up of a community of supervisors is a first step towards the consolidation of a climate of mutual trust and commitment around the same goals for the benefits of all the stakeholders involved in the process of supervision, doctoral students included. The professional experience that ADAPT acquired over the past 15 years suggests that these conditions appear to be fundamental to spur communication, confidence and collaborative engagement between the two contexts. It needs to be stressed that the absence of a regulatory framework on Industrial PhDs within primary legal sources seems to hinder the emergence of structured and effective relationships between university and employers. The latter would in fact need to be favoured, starting, for example, from allowing employers and representatives from the world of work to be part of the teaching faculty of PhD courses and Schools.</p> <p>Regardless of the specific case of Italy, current existing and often informal processes can be enriched by the development of communities of shared supervision and development opportunities for supervisors from the academy and from the workplace to be exposed to and contribute to agendas for future research. Supervisors from the academy may benefit from updating their practice knowledge by such exposure, and workplace supervisors would benefit from expanding their mentoring skills into wider discourses that enhance thinking and practice. It is also hoped that this exploratory research will stimulate more research that will underpin new approaches to collaboration and cogeneration of knowledge through the development of these shared researchers and enlighten attitudes to knowledge sharing, generation and application for the future.</p> <p>Heidegger’s notion of circumspection, seeing our situatedness, not in a theoretical way, but in the sense of praxis, helps us to conceptually underpin that what we are moving towards is the negotiation of different realities through understanding a piece of something in the context of the wider totality (Nielsen [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref40">20</reflink>] , 459). The question posed by both the ADAPT experience and the growing realisation of both work and academic supervisors is what that third way, that transformed supervision, needs to be and how it can be brought into being. We suggest that the key components include supporting the doctoral student practitioner to be the conduit of innovation and change through the skill of circumspection and of being in both realities enhancing practice and knowledge in both. This requires putting the student at the centre of the exchange; supported by communities of supervisors and tutors committed to developing their own skills of circumspection and exerting influence on policy-makers that an exchange between these two realities, rather than a takeover, opens up greater possibilities to act in a generative rather than a replicative way and for new language and concepts to emerge. The core skill in a transformed supervision approach then is being open to the possibility of ‘concerned discovering’ and ‘concerned seeing’ (Heidegger [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref41">13</reflink>] , 274) and going beyond what already is at hand so that learning from the workplace and the academy merges into a praxis. Something being available or at hand does not make it relevant. Praxis through a collaborative model of supervision that exchanges skill sets reveals the possibilities of new identities for the researcher and ways of comfortably being in, and acting in and on, more than one set of realities.</p> <ref id="AN0129059331-12"> <title>Notes</title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref1" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext>The term ‘work world’ is used as in the Heideggerian notion of any place of work including the academy. The terms ‘world of work’ and ‘workplace’ are used to mean organisations/business entities outside of the academy. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref2" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext>Academy is used as a collective term for HEIs. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref3" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext>SuperProfDoc is a research project co-funded by Erasmus+- KA2-Cooperation and Innovation for Good Practices (<ulink href="http://superprofdoc.eu/?page%5fid=37">http://superprofdoc.eu/?page%5fid=37</ulink>). It is coordinated by Middlesex University in collaboration with Trinity College Dublin (IR), Fondazione ADAPT (IT), Maastricht School of Management (NL), Eurodoc (BE) and the University of Southern Florida (US). </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref29" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext>Vitae is a major UK, not for profit, organisation dedicated to professional development of researchers https://<ulink href="http://www.vitae.ac.uk/">www.vitae.ac.uk/</ulink>. </bibtext> </blist> </ref> <hd id="AN0129059331-13">Disclosure statement</hd> <p>No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.</p> <ref id="AN0129059331-14"> <title>References</title> <blist> <bibtext>Barnard, A. 2017. Developing Professional Practice in Health and Social Care. London : Routledge. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext>Borrell-Damian, L. 2009. Collaborative Doctoral Education: University-Industry Partnerships for Enhancing Knowledge Exchange. European University Association. <ulink href="http://www.eua.be/Libraries/research/doc-careers.pdf?sfvrsn=0">http://www.eua.be/Libraries/research/doc-careers.pdf?sfvrsn=0</ulink>. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext>Boud, D., and C. Costley. 2007. “ From Project Supervision to Advising: New Conceptions of the Practice.” Innovations in Education and Teaching International 44 ( 2 ): 119 - 30. doi: 10.1080/14703290701241034 </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext>Bozionelos, N. 2006. “ Mentoring and Expressive Network Resources: Their Relationship with Career Success and Emotional Exhaustion Among Hellenes Employees Involved in Emotion Work.” International Journal of Human Resource Management 17 ( 2 ): 362 - 78. doi: 10.1080/09585190500405009 </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref12" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext>Bravenboer, D. 2016. “ Why Co-Design and Delivery Is ‘a No Brainer’ for Higher and Degree Apprenticeship Policy.” Higher Education, Skills and Work-Based Learning 6 ( 4 ): 384 - 400. doi: 10.1108/HESWBL-06-2016-0038. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref13" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext>Bravenboer, D., and S. Lester. 2016. “ Towards an Integrated Approach to the Recognition of Professional Competence and Academic Learning.” Education+Training 58 ( 4 ): 409 - 21. doi: 10.1108/ET-10-2015-0091. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref14" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext>Bruneel, J., D’Este, P. and Salter, A. 2010. “ Investigating the Factors that Diminish the Barriers to University Industry Collaboration.” Research Policy 39 ( 7 ): 858 - 868. doi: 10.1016/j.respol.2010.03.006. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref9" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext>Burnard, P., T. Dragovic, J. Flutter, and J. Alderton, eds. 2016. Transformative Doctoral Research Practices for Professionals. Rotterdam : Sense Publishers. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref5" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext>Casano, L. 2015. “ When Research Moves up Regulation: A Trailblazing Experience of Industrial PhD in Italy.” International Journal Technology and Globalisation 8 ( 1 ): 85 - 96. doi: 10.1504/IJTG.2015.077885 </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib10" idref="ref25" type="bt">10</bibl> <bibtext>Eby, L. T., J. Rhodes, and T. D. Allen. 2007. “ Definition and Evolution of Mentoring.” In Blackwell Handbook on Mentoring: A Multiple Perspectives Approach, edited by T. D. Allen, and L. T. Eby, 7 - 20. Oxford : Blackwell. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib11" idref="ref27" type="bt">11</bibl> <bibtext>Gattiker, U. E., and L. Larwood. 1988. “ Predictors for Managers’ Career Mobility, Success and Satisfaction.” Human Relations 41 : 569 - 91. doi: 10.1177/001872678804100801 </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib12" idref="ref17" type="bt">12</bibl> <bibtext>Heidegger, M. 1962. Being and Time. Translated and edited by J. Macquarrie and E. Robinson. Oxford : Blackwell. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib13" idref="ref15" type="bt">13</bibl> <bibtext>Heidegger, M. 1992. History of the Concept of Time. Bloomington, IN : Indiana University Press. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib14" idref="ref28" type="bt">14</bibl> <bibtext>Jaskolka, G., J. M. Beyer, and H. M. Trice. 1985. “ Measuring and Predicting Managerial Success.” Journal of Vocational Behaviour 26 : 189 - 205. doi: 10.1016/0001-8791(85)90018-1 </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib15" idref="ref32" type="bt">15</bibl> <bibtext>Klasen, N., and D. Clutterbuck. 2002. Implementing Mentoring Schemes: A Practical Guide to Successful Programs. Oxford : Butterworth-Heinemann. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib16" idref="ref37" type="bt">16</bibl> <bibtext>Lave, J., and E. Wenger. 1991. Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation. Cambridge : Cambridge University Press. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib17" idref="ref22" type="bt">17</bibl> <bibtext>Le Maistre, C., and A. Paré. 2004. “ Learning in Two Communities: the Challenge for Universities and Workplaces.” Journal of Workplace Learning 16 ( 1/2 ): 44 - 52. doi: 10.1108/13665620410521503. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib18" idref="ref10" type="bt">18</bibl> <bibtext>Maguire, K. 2017. “ Transdisciplinarity as a Global Anthropology of Learning.” In Transdisciplinary Higher Education, edited by Paul Gibbs, 163 - 78. Cham : Springer. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib19" idref="ref6" type="bt">19</bibl> <bibtext>Massagli, E. 2016. Alternanza formativa e apprendistato in Italia e in Europa. Roma : Ed. Studium. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib20" idref="ref19" type="bt">20</bibl> <bibtext>Nielsen, K. 2007. “ Aspects of a Practical Understanding: Heidegger at the Workplace.” Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research 51 ( 5 ): 455 - 70. doi: 10.1080/00313830701576557 </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib21" idref="ref24" type="bt">21</bibl> <bibtext>Passmore, J., D. B. Peterson, and T. Freire, eds. 2013. The Wiley-Blackwell Handbook of the Psychology of Coaching and Mentoring. Oxford : Wiley-Blackwell. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib22" idref="ref20" type="bt">22</bibl> <bibtext>Pigrum, D. 2007. “ The ‘ontopology’ of the Artist’s Studio as Workplace: Researching the Artist’s Studio and the Art/Design Classroom.” Research in Post-Compulsory Education 12 ( 3 ): 291 - 307. doi: 10.1080/13596740701559720 </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib23" idref="ref23" type="bt">23</bibl> <bibtext>Research Councils UK. 2017. Interdisciplinary Research Hubs to Address Intractable Challenges Faced by developing Countries <ulink href="http://www.rcuk.ac.uk/funding/gcrf/interdisciplinary-research-hubs-to-address-intractable-challenges/">http://www.rcuk.ac.uk/funding/gcrf/interdisciplinary-research-hubs-to-address-intractable-challenges/</ulink>. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib24" idref="ref39" type="bt">24</bibl> <bibtext>Salimi, N., R. Bekkers, and K. Frenken. 2016. “ Success Factors in University - Industry PhD Projects.” Science and Public Policy 43 ( 6 ): 812 - 30. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib25" idref="ref36" type="bt">25</bibl> <bibtext>SuperProfDoc Project. 2017. “Insights from Practice - A Handbook for Supervisors of Modern Doctorates Candidates.” Erasmus+programme RA2. Project number: 2014-1-UK01-KA203-001629. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib26" idref="ref21" type="bt">26</bibl> <bibtext>Taminiaux, J. 1987. “ Poiesis and Praxis in Fundamental Ontology.” Research in Phenomenology 17 ( 1 ): 137 - 69. doi: 10.1163/156916487X00076 </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib27" idref="ref4" type="bt">27</bibl> <bibtext>Tiraboschi, M. 2014. “ Industrial PhDs, Research Apprenticeships, and On-the-Job Training: The Case of Italy from a Comparative and International Perspective.” Working Paper ADAPT 159 : 4 - 22. Also in Work Based Learning e-Journal International 4 (1): 28-54. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib28" idref="ref26" type="bt">28</bibl> <bibtext>Tong, C., and K. E. Kram. 2013. “ The Efficacy of Mentoring - The Benefits for Mentees, Mentors and Organizations.” In The Wiley-Blackwell Handbook of the Psychology of Coaching and Mentoring, edited by J. Passmore, D. B. Peterson, and T. Freire, 217 - 42. Oxford : Wiley-Blackwell. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib29" idref="ref30" type="bt">29</bibl> <bibtext>Torrance, E. P. 1984. Mentor Relationships. New York : Bearly. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib30" idref="ref38" type="bt">30</bibl> <bibtext>Wenger, E. 1998. Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning, and Identity. Cambridge : Cambridge University Press. </bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Kate Maguire; Elena Prodi and Paul Gibbs</p> </aug> |
|---|---|
| Header | DbId: eric DbLabel: ERIC An: EJ1176193 AccessLevel: 3 PubType: Academic Journal PubTypeId: academicJournal PreciseRelevancyScore: 0 |
| IllustrationInfo | |
| Items | – Name: Title Label: Title Group: Ti Data: Minding the Gap in Doctoral Supervision for a Contemporary World: A Case from Italy – Name: Language Label: Language Group: Lang Data: English – Name: Author Label: Authors Group: Au Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Maguire%2C+Kate%22">Maguire, Kate</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Prodi%2C+Elena%22">Prodi, Elena</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Gibbs%2C+Paul%22">Gibbs, Paul</searchLink> – Name: TitleSource Label: Source Group: Src Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Studies+in+Higher+Education%22"><i>Studies in Higher Education</i></searchLink>. 2018 43(5):867-877. – Name: Avail Label: Availability Group: Avail Data: Routledge. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 530 Walnut Street Suite 850, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Tel: 215-625-8900; Fax: 215-207-0050; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals – Name: PeerReviewed Label: Peer Reviewed Group: SrcInfo Data: Y – Name: Pages Label: Page Count Group: Src Data: 11 – Name: DatePubCY Label: Publication Date Group: Date Data: 2018 – Name: TypeDocument Label: Document Type Group: TypDoc Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research – Name: Audience Label: Education Level Group: Audnce Data: <searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Higher+Education%22">Higher Education</searchLink> – Name: Subject Label: Descriptors Group: Su Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Graduate+Students%22">Graduate Students</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Doctoral+Programs%22">Doctoral Programs</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Supervision%22">Supervision</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Communities+of+Practice%22">Communities of Practice</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Foreign+Countries%22">Foreign Countries</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Mentors%22">Mentors</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Coaching+%28Performance%29%22">Coaching (Performance)</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Research+Projects%22">Research Projects</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Praxis%22">Praxis</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Professional+Education%22">Professional Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Supervisors%22">Supervisors</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Semi+Structured+Interviews%22">Semi Structured Interviews</searchLink> – Name: Subject Label: Geographic Terms Group: Su Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Italy%22">Italy</searchLink> – Name: DOI Label: DOI Group: ID Data: 10.1080/03075079.2018.1438114 – Name: ISSN Label: ISSN Group: ISSN Data: 0307-5079 – Name: Abstract Label: Abstract Group: Ab Data: Doctoral supervision has attracted significant attention from higher education bodies over the last 15 years, stimulated by shifts in educational and socio-political contexts including what supports the knowledge economy and the stakeholdership of students. This paper conceptualises work worlds through Heideggerian discourse and presents exploratory findings from interviews with workplace supervisors analysed within the framework of the SuperProfDoc research project. It then draws on these findings and the mentoring and coaching literature to contribute to integrating supervision practices between the academy and the workplace. – Name: AbstractInfo Label: Abstractor Group: Ab Data: As Provided – Name: Ref Label: Number of References Group: RefInfo Data: 30 – Name: DateEntry Label: Entry Date Group: Date Data: 2018 – Name: AN Label: Accession Number Group: ID Data: EJ1176193 |
| PLink | https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1176193 |
| RecordInfo | BibRecord: BibEntity: Identifiers: – Type: doi Value: 10.1080/03075079.2018.1438114 Languages: – Text: English PhysicalDescription: Pagination: PageCount: 11 StartPage: 867 Subjects: – SubjectFull: Graduate Students Type: general – SubjectFull: Doctoral Programs Type: general – SubjectFull: Supervision Type: general – SubjectFull: Communities of Practice Type: general – SubjectFull: Foreign Countries Type: general – SubjectFull: Mentors Type: general – SubjectFull: Coaching (Performance) Type: general – SubjectFull: Research Projects Type: general – SubjectFull: Praxis Type: general – SubjectFull: Professional Education Type: general – SubjectFull: Supervisors Type: general – SubjectFull: Semi Structured Interviews Type: general – SubjectFull: Italy Type: general Titles: – TitleFull: Minding the Gap in Doctoral Supervision for a Contemporary World: A Case from Italy Type: main BibRelationships: HasContributorRelationships: – PersonEntity: Name: NameFull: Maguire, Kate – PersonEntity: Name: NameFull: Prodi, Elena – PersonEntity: Name: NameFull: Gibbs, Paul IsPartOfRelationships: – BibEntity: Dates: – D: 01 M: 01 Type: published Y: 2018 Identifiers: – Type: issn-print Value: 0307-5079 Numbering: – Type: volume Value: 43 – Type: issue Value: 5 Titles: – TitleFull: Studies in Higher Education Type: main |
| ResultId | 1 |
