WORKSHOP SESSION F4
Evaluating Supervision: Can We Do It Better?

PRE-FORUM ONLINE WORKSHOP

Start: 9 am AEST, 16 June
Finish: 3 pm AEST, 30 June

FACE-TO-FACE WORKSHOP

When: Friday 9 July, 11.15 am – 12.30 pm
Where: Grevillea 1, Hyatt Regency, Adelaide

Note: these sessions are interactive workshops, not paper presentations.

WORKSHOP OUTLINE

Quality assurance principles would suggest that we evaluate postgraduate research supervision against clearly defined performance indicators (PIs). Failure to engage in the development of an appropriate form of evaluation leaves us with a few, very crude PIs - completion rate and completion time - both of which may be independent of the quality of the supervision provided to the student. It is in the interests of all stakeholders in research education (supervisors; students; universities; the Australian Universities Quality Agency; the Department of Education, Science and Training) to have in place processes for the evaluation of supervision that are practical and acceptable within the university, and rigorous and convincing to all interested parties within and outside the university. Attempts to do so, however, raise a number of questions:

ONLINE WORKSHOP THOUGHT STARTERS

1. Why evaluate supervision?

If a range of stakeholders are involved in evaluating supervision, each of whom specify different PIs, the result will be a very long list of PIs! Is it possible to design evaluation processes that serve all these purposes and stakeholders?

2. Are we talking about the evaluation of supervision or supervisors?

Should the focus of evaluation be on the individual supervisor or is this a collegial responsibility? If the quality of the postgraduate experience is more of a collegial rather than an individual responsibility, how does this affect what is evaluated and the processes of evaluation?

3. Who is best placed to evaluate supervision—students, colleagues or managers?

Some institutions have processes in place for the student evaluation of their supervisors. Is this the most appropriate approach to the evaluation of supervision? Who else should be involved?

4. What counts as evidence of good supervision?

We know that ‘good’ supervisors do certain things. Surely the problem is to evaluate supervision according to these criteria? But would such criteria satisfy all stakeholders? Should we also be talking about what does not count as evidence of good supervision?

5. Accommodating discipline differences

Is a university-wide process possible in the light of disciplinary differences, or should the evaluation of supervision be left to discipline groupings to do in their own way? Are there at least some criteria for good supervision that are applicable across the university?

6. Timing of evaluation

When is the appropriate time to evaluate supervision?

• During candidature so that there is an opportunity to address problems?
  
• On graduation, ie the Postgraduate Research Experience Questionnaire?
  
• Some years after graduation when the benefits of their research education is apparent to graduates?

FACILITATOR GERRY MULLINS

Associate Professor Gerry Mullins is involved in the provision of a program of professional development for postgraduate supervisors and research students at the University of Adelaide. He is also involved in the quality assurance processes of the university. His research interests include the assessment of research theses and student and supervisor conceptions of ‘research’.

Contact Details

Associate Professor Gerry Mullins
Adelaide Graduate Centre
University of Adelaide
Adelaide
Phone (08) 8303 4739
Fax (08) 8303 5725
Email gerald.mullins@adelaide.edu.au