22 SES 11 B, Academic Work and Professional Development
This article outlines a theory of graduate studies supervision to discern the mechanisms and variables that shape the relationship of supervision in increasingly complex and competitive educational contexts. Supervision is understood to be an essential element in academic work. Various phenomenon shape the theme and make it more complex: the "globalization" or "transnationalization" of Education (Stoer; Cortesão; Correia, 2001), particularly of graduate studies (Nerad; Heggelund, 2008); the expansion of higher education and competitiveness between countries, especially in the post-Bologna period (Adelman, 2008; Robertson, 2009); the emergence of the "Society of Knowledge” (Bindé, 2007), with the challenges that have been raised by distance education and during an individual's entire life. These phenomenon have consequences in other spaces of graduate studies, including the use of evaluation with a focus on classification and organization of rankings; the decreased time allowed for concluding graduate courses (Araújo, 2006); and the growing pressure to increase the number of publications (Waters, 2004; Germano, 2008; Burrows, 2012). These are factors that stimulate and justify new research questions in the field of higher education. The supervision of dissertations and theses is one of these questions. Recent decades have been characterized by a growing expansion of academic capitalism (Slaughter; Rhoades, 2004). This trend places pressure on universities to reduce the time that master's and doctoral students remain at an institution. For this reason, traditional forms of working have changed, as have the opportunities for entering an academic career, which in the context of work are increasingly rare. Nevertheless, despite this change that involves, for example the increased autonomy of students, it was found that between professors and supervises, many of the traditional characteristics remain, and in some cases, become more vigorous, although they operate in different manners. For much time, the main characteristics of the supervisor-supervisee relationship was its limitation to the realm of a private relationship between one who has considerable knowledge and who guides and one who knows little and is guided. Nevertheless, considering that the result of the supervision process determines not only the success or failure of the supervisee, but affects the evaluation of the supervisor and his or her program, institution and country–the private aspect of the relationship is broken and the relationship of supervision becomes public, collective. It is about this space that research is needed. Therefore, the question of research undertaken with experienced supervisors, who work in graduate studies, involves the discussion of the passage from the situation of supervisee to the condition of supervisor. It was found that in publications about the issue, the competence and education of the supervisor is presumed. Haguete (1994) developed “commandments” for a good supervisor, without questioning who this is or how she is constituted or legitimated as a "guide" for the supervisee. Sternberg (1981) published a type of survival manual for supervisees; Delamont et al (1998) discuss the dilemma of autonomy versus heteronomy of the student in the supervision process; and Leite Filho and Martins (2006) studied the influence of the supervisor-supervisee relationship in the preparation of theses and dissertations. Other recommendations have been made, such as those of Murray (2009). Meanwhile, Walker and Thomson (2010) and Peelo (2011) provoked a true paradigmatic break in the discussion of the role of the supervisor. These works highlight the concern with pedagogy, didactics, the learning about "being a supervisor." Bourdieu (1984) serves as a reference for this discussion about the academic field, cultural capital and the powers that enter into confrontation or convergence in the relationship of the supervisor and supervisee.
Adelman, C. (2008). The Bologna Club: What U.S. Higher Education Can Learn from a Decade of European Reconstruction. Institute for Higher Education Policy, May. Araújo, E. R. (2006). O doutoramento. A odisseia d euma fase de vida. Lisboa: Colibri. Bardin, L. (1977). Análise de conteúdo. Lisboa: Edições 70 Bindé, J. (Coord.). (2007). Rumo às sociedades do conhecimento. Relatório Mundial da UNESCO. Lisboa: Instituto Piaget. Bourdieu, P. (1984). Homo Academicus. Paris: Minuit. Burrows, R. (2012), Living with the h-index? Metric assemblages in the contemporary academy. The Sociological Review, 60: 355–372. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-954X.2012.02077.x Delamont, S.; Parry, O.; Atknson, P. (1998). Creating a Delicate Balance: the doctoral supervisor´s dilemmas. Teaching in Higher Education, Vol. W, n. 2, p. 157-172 Germano, W. (2005). From dissertation to Book. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Haguete, T. M. F. (1994). Universidade: nos bastidores da produção do conhecimento. Revista Brasileira de Estudos Pedagógicos. Brasília, INEP/MEC, v. 75, n. 179/180/181, p. 157-169, jan./dez. Leite filho, G. A.; Martins, G. de A. (2006). Relação orientador-orientando e suas influências na elaboração de teses e dissertações. RAE. São Paulo, FAE/USP, v. 46, Edição Especial, p. 99-109. Murray, R. (2009). How to Survive your Viva. 2 ed. New York: McGraw-Hill. Nerad, M.; Heggelund, M. (Editors). (2008). Toward a Global PhD? Forces & Forms in Doctoral Education Worldwide. Seattle and London: University of Washington Press. Peelo, M. (2011). Understanding supervision and the PhD. London/New York: Continuum. Robertson, S. L. (2009). O processo de Bolonha da Europa torna-se global: modelo, mercado, mobilidade, força intelectual ou estratégia para construção do Estado? Revista Brasileira de Educação, Rio de Janeiro, ANPEd, v. 14, n. 42, p.. 407-422, set./dez. Slaughter, S.; Rhoades, G. (2004). Academic Capitalism and the New Economy: Markets, State and Higher Education. Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press. Stoer, S. et al (Orgs.). (2001). Transnacionalização da educação. Da crise da educação à “educação” da crise. Porto: Afrontamento. Walker, M; Thomson, P. (2010). The Routledge Doctoral Supervisor´s Companion. Supporting effective research in education and the Social Sciences. London/New York, Routledge. Waters, L. (2004). Enemies of Promise: Publishing, Perishing, and the Eclipse of Scholarship. Chicago: Prickly Paradigm.
Search the ECER Programme
- Search for keywords and phrases in "Text Search"
- Restrict in which part of the abstracts to search in "Where to search"
- Search for authors and in the respective field.
- For planning your conference attendance you may want to use the conference app, which will be issued some weeks before the conference
- If you are a session chair, best look up your chairing duties in the conference system (Conftool) or the app.