The making of a professional academic: - A policy analysis of doctoral supervision as a socialization component in doctoral education

Author(s):

Joel Jansson(presenting / submitting)Henrik Román

Conference:

ECER 2016

Network:

22. Research in Higher Education

Format:

Paper

Session Information

22 SES 11 B, Development of Academics: Careers and Professions

Paper Session

Time:

2016-08-25

17:15-18:45

Room:

NM-Theatre O

Chair:

Sofie Kobayashi

Contribution

In this paper, we present a study on doctoral education policy in Sweden from a govern(mentality) perspective (Foucault, 1991). We direct attention to doctoral supervision, specifically the supervisor-doctoral student relationship as a state formal offer of socialization (Durkheim, 1956; Popkewitz 1987) . We analyze national policy texts which have formed the basis for two major doctoral education reforms in Sweden (1960s and late 1990s). The overall objective is to develop knowledge about doctoral supervision as a means for professional socialization (becoming a professional academic). We identify and analyze national policy changes with regards to doctoral supervision as a key socialization component of doctoral education.

Doctoral education is an increasingly important institution for enculturation in all welfare states. Through doctoral education, highly qualified labor force is being educated for activities both within the Academy, public administration and the private sector. In Sweden the governing of doctoral education has been characterized by ideas typical for Nordic welfare states (Esping-Andersen 1990/2013). With a powerful State, elected representatives are strongly engaged in facilities that are considered to be of public interest, including universities and doctoral education. Doctoral supervision is a fundamental aspect of doctoral education, structurally, culturally and processually (Jansson al 2015 a) and has been (re)established as an object for State governing ever since doctoral education in the late 1950s really was made a political matter (Odén 1991). In this study, we are interested in the national framing of doctoral education, mainly through the way doctoral supervision is constructed at the policy level. In the light of the institutional setting (the doctoral education) we map and analyze what is put forward as (good) supervision (the comprehension of supervision), and how this is done, in order to identify and analyze changes in national doctoral education policy, and its formal consequences for doctoral supervision as an aspect of professionalization.

Partly, we draw on a foucauldian governmentality perspective (Foucault, 1991; Dean 2010). We analyze the content of socialization in terms of what is nationally constructed as an ideal doctoral supervision, and how this is done. We will in our concluding section discuss this in terms of the technologies for governing that are put forward to execute this ideal image and the governing techniques used for its staging (Foucault 1978). In this perspective, government statements (its language) are understood as a set of different manners for the intended State interventions.

Previous research on socialization through doctoral education has mainly been studied in Anglo-Saxon contexts and in relation to doctoral students’ experiences (Jones 2013; Jansson et al 2015 (b)).We intend to make a contribution to this research by investigating policy conditions for socialization through doctoral education, in a Nordic context. The empirical data consists of systematically selected national policy texts from the Swedish Parliament process (Committee reports, government bills and terms of references) produced within two major reforms (1963-69 and and 1996-98) Our research questions are:

- What is put forward as (good) doctoral supervision, and how is the institutional framework (doctoral education) described within which such (good) supervision is supposed to operate?

- How is the ideal doctoral supervision constructed? (What technologies are used in order to execute the ideal doctoral supervision?)

- How should the ideal doctoral supervision be materialized, according to national policy? (What techniques are in use for the staging of the ideal doctoral supervision?)

- What can be considered as changes/dislocations and what can be considered as recurrent over time?

Method

Our policy analysis is in part inspired by theorists such as Michel Foucault, Stephen Ball and Carol Bacchi. We relate to Ball’s (2005) way of handling policy issues where the production of discourses is understood as a result of linguistic as well as material practices. This allows us to analyze policy texts on doctoral education and supervision from a materialistic perspective, taking discourses into account. National policy on doctoral education has had very material consequences, in terms of regulations, resource allocation, demands for increased throughputs of PhD students etc. Policy texts, such as government bills, committee reports etc, (usually) provide a discursive foundation for such political measures. In other words, such discourses are setting up boundaries and allow only some ways of acting, making certain behaviors and actions more desirable than others. In this situation, some are "advantaged” and others “disadvantaged”. The education policy practice (re)produces official truths about doctoral education and doctoral supervision, truths which construct both the ideal and the unwanted doctoral education and supervision (cf. Ball 1990/2013; Bacchi 2000). In our analytical procedure we have used the Swedish Parliament search service in order to identify the policy documents that formed the basis for the two reforms. We have performed reiterated critical readings of the selected texts through the eyes of our research questions and theoretical framework. In addition we did a simple word search for "handledning"(supervision) and "forskarhandledning" (doctoral supervision) with inflections in order to collect all that was expressed about doctoral supervision. Our analyses are primarily restricted to sections in the documents which specifically address doctoral supervision or education, but we take other sections into account as context providers. The statements and quotes which are chosen in order to demonstrate our analyses are ones that we find to be central to the meaning and content of the texts. This enables a description of how the doctoral supervision in the light of its institutional setting has been discursively constructed in the two reforms studied.

Expected Outcomes

Recurring are two separate ideals: one is the dominating construction of the ideal doctoral supervision as (time)efficient, and well-organized; the other one is the asymmetric but legitimate construction of a supervision characterized by scientific independence, originality and creativity. These discourses are processed within the framework of a doctoral education which is characterized by its utility for society and the labor market. These ideals are executed as statements (technologies) such as the risks that come with the lack of PhDs in society and the importance of doctoral supervision, as some kinds of supervision are put forward as more efficient and productive than others and the production of such supervision is promoted as the most important tool for increased throughput. In addition, these ideals are staged by a number of tools (techniques) were the supervisor is associated with admission, courses, dissertation work and examination One important shift is that the 1960s-reform treat the two separate ideals as a potentially conflicting set of ideas, while this tension is not at all brought up in the 1990s-reform. Doctoral education as a tool for international competitiveness is stressed in the policy texts behind the 1990s-reform, but ignored in the 1960s reform. In all, this suggests an aim for increased “governability” as the doctoral supervision is connected to a wide range of new tools for governing (techniques) such as individual study plans for doctoral students and education for supervisors. To conclude, the State by repeated and reinforced interventions prescribes doctoral supervision a socialization content adapted to dominating ideals of standardization and efficiency. The bildung ideal of doctoral education (mentoring and individual bildung journeys) becomes a negative reference even though the discourse of scientific independence, originality and creativity still are being constructed as necessary for the utility of doctoral education.

References

Ball, S. J. (2005). Education policy and social class: The selected works of Stephen J. Ball. Routledge. Ball, S. J. (Ed.). (1990/2013). Foucault and education: Disciplines and knowledge. Routledge. Bacchi, C. (2000). Policy as discourse: What does it mean? Where does it get us?. Discourse, 21(1), 45-57. Dean, M. (2010). Governmentality: Power and rule in modern society. Sage publications. Durkheim, E. (1956). Sociology and education. New York: Amerirwah Book Comp. Esping-Andersen, G. (1990/2013). The three worlds of welfare capitalism. John Wiley & Sons. Foucault, M., Burchell, G., Gordon, C., & Miller, P. (1991). The Foucault effect: Studies in governmentality. University of Chicago Press. Jansson, J., Forsberg, E., Pettersson, D., & Román, H. (a) (2015). Targeted (re)-socialization in Universities and Prisons: A policy study concerning tutor and tutee. In Nordic Educational Re-search Association, NERA, Gothenburg. Jansson, J., Forsberg, E., Pettersson, D., & Román, H. (b) (2015). Socialisation in Correctional System and Doctoral Education–analyses of contemporary policy formation in Sweden. In ECER 2015. Odén, B. (1991). Forskarutbildningens förändringar 1890-1975 (Vol. 69). Lund University Press. Popkewitz, T. S. (Ed.). (1987). The formation of school subjects: The struggle for creating an American institution. London: Falmer Press.

Author Information

Joel Jansson (presenting / submitting)

Uppsala University; University of Gavle

Education

Gävle

Henrik Román

Uppsala university, Sweden

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.