Postgraduate research supervision at a distance

Studies in Higher Education, 2015 Vol. 40, No. 10, 1962–1969, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2014.914906

Postgraduate research supervision at a distance: a review of challenges and strategies Fuzhan Nasiria* and Fereshteh Mafakherib a

Bartlett School of Graduate Studies, University College London (UCL), London, UK; Department of Systems Management and Strategy, Business School, University of Greenwich, London, UK b

This article reviews the literature on supervisory elements in distance postgraduate research programmes leading to a master’s or doctoral degree. The authors first identify and review the main supervisory challenges from the perspectives of both supervisor and supervisee. This paves the path to investigate and categorise the strategies that have been put into practice in order to address these challenges. This is a first attempt to provide a structured categorisation of the strategies and solutions tailored to address these challenges. Through linking the challenges to strategies, the authors will emphasise the elements of a successful distance postgraduate research supervision experience with a set of guidelines on how to improve the overall learning in this process. The aim of this paper is to conclude by summarising the lessons learned from distance postgraduate research supervision practices and to identify the areas in need of further research. Keywords: distance education; supervision; postgraduate research; information technology

1. Introduction Distance education in modern universities dates back to mid-nineteenth century when the University of London started its international programmes (UOL 2012). The first entirely distance teaching and research university, the Open University, was established in 1969 (OU 2012). Rapid advances in information technologies along with the need of many universities, in these pressing economic times, to find new sources of funding and new ways to operate more cost efficiently have led to a significant rise in distance education in recent years (Andrew 2012).1 A survey by the United States Department of Education has concluded that between 2000 and 2008 the number of students enrolled in at least one distance education course has risen from 8% to 20% and the share of distance degree programmes in universities has grown from 2% to 4% (Radford 2012). In the United Kingdom (UK), the number of students registered at Open University has grown from about 25,000 in 1970 to just over 250,000 in 2010 (OU 2010). Overall, distance-learning students now account for 11% of university enrolments in the UK (HESA 2012). In Australia, over the past decade the number of distancelearning students (including off-campus and multimodal) has grown from about 94,000 (13%) to just over 228,000 (23%) (ABS 2001, 2012). By establishing distance *Corresponding author. Email: [email protected] © 2014 Society for Research into Higher Education

Studies in Higher Education

1963

learning and education programmes, universities are now better positioned to attract part-time students, mainly working professionals, and people with disabilities. These groups of students particularly perceive distance learning as an opportunity to enhance their flexibility as well as to increase their job security by remaining competitive in labour market (Raddon 2007). The issue of flexibility is of a greater importance to working professionals as distance education can provide them with the time and space to take up their studies alongside their demanding jobs and caring responsibilities (Raddon 2006). In this sense, there has been an unprecedented demand in developing countries for courses and degrees by the globally recognised universities, directly or in partnership with local institutions. In addition, this gives the universities an opportunity to reduce the need for educational space and physical infrastructure and thus remain competitive with respect to tuition fees (from the students’ perspective) as well as salaries (from the perspective of the personnel). A variety of technologies have been utilised in the delivery of distance programmes, including asynchronous means of communication such as exchange of materials by post, fax, and email and recorded audio/video files as well as synchronous ways of audio/video conferencing, live chat, live streaming and virtual learning environments (Sussex 2008). Distance programmes are typically comprised of professional courses, online modules, live or recorded courses, or postgraduate research degrees. Universally, the completion of a postgraduate research programme, leading to a master’s or doctoral degree, is regarded as a distinguished achievement, and thus requires substantial supporting and supervisory elements including regular discussions with the research supervisor, meetings and networking with peers, feedback, training, and access to bibliographical resources – to name just a few (Unwin 2007). It is widely assumed that there is basically no difference between the requirements for completion of doctoral and research-based master’s programmes done on campus or at a distance (Evans and Green 1995; Leder 1995; Andrew 2012). In this sense, being at a distance spatially and temporally poses many cultural, intellectual, professional, and personal challenges on research supervisor–supervisee interactions, and on the content, progress and delivery of research activities. Reviewing the literature reveals that until relatively recently, there has been little research on the challenges and complexities of distance postgraduate research degree programmes. The central argument would be whether distance supervision could improve the overall learning experience or is simply a technology-driven choice (Njenga and Fourie 2010). Evans (1995) enlists the opportunities that a distance programme, in the light of new technologies, can provide for good quality postgraduate research supervision. Evans and Green (1995) have considered the case of Deakin University’s distance EdD programme to investigate the constraints and possibilities arising from the distance programmes referred to as ‘absent presence’ or ‘virtual presence’. Fox (2002) examined the supervisors’ understanding of information technologies as part of a university-wide study at the University of Hong Kong. Price and Money (2002) compared the alternative means of delivering a doctoral programme in business administration to identify the impact on performance of students. Butcher and Sieminski (2006, 2009) used a questionnaire to capture the experience of distance postgraduate students at the Open University comprised of various criteria including supervision and the supervisor–supervisee relationship. Unwin (2007) provides a descriptive list of postgraduate supervisory elements and their customisation for distance delivery. Wisker (2007) investigates the role of cultural factors and expectations in the success of distance postgraduate supervision. Crossouard (2008) used a case

1964

F. Nasiri and F. Mafakheri

study to investigate the usefulness of formative assessment and feedback conducted online. Sussex (2008) highlights the issues that affect the quality and quantity of supervisor–supervisee communications through various information technology options. Paran, Hyland, and Bentall (2010) provided an overview of distance master’s programmes at University College London. Willems et al. (2011) have explored the benefits and pitfalls of the use of virtual world technologies such as Second Life for long-distance doctoral research supervision. Andrew (2012) presents a case study on how skills and understandings required for the satisfactory delivery of a distance doctoral programme can be developed. There still exists a gap in the literature on how to develop appropriate and effective strategies to address these challenges. This study builds on the above literature on the topic of supervision in distance postgraduate research programmes in order to first identify and classify the main challenges from the perspectives of both supervisor and supervisee. This is a first attempt to provide a structured categorisation of the strategies and solutions tailored to address these challenges. On that basis, we highlight the elements of a successful distance postgraduate research supervision experience, providing guidelines on how to improve the overall learning in this process. We also aim at summarising the lessons learned from distance postgraduate research supervision practices as well as emphasising the main gaps that exist in distance postgraduate research supervision literature. 2. Distance research supervision in postgraduate education: challenges The challenges in distance postgraduate supervision originate from the spatial and temporal distance and disconnection between the supervisor and supervisee. From a timing perspective, parties involved in a distance supervision experience may live thousands of miles from each other, which may create an issue when finding a mutually convenient and productive time to connect (Wisker 2007; Andrew 2012). As a result of the dislocation effect, it is highly likely that both supervisor and supervisee experience a lack of good personal knowledge about each other. It drives the supervisory conversations towards a formal format and makes it harder to create an informal environment for discussions. This means that the encounters are in danger of being less motivating and less engaging, especially from the perspective of doctoral students that are in need of continuous technical and pastoral support for several years (Sussex 2008). Lack of delicacy and depth in communications is yet another risk for distance supervisory discussions (Unwin 2007). The proper use of information technology in distance research supervision, and the fast pace of technological change creates a distracting environment for the users. As universities are trying to keep up with technological change, the means of communication in distance supervision is fast changing. A significant time in such long-distance discussions might be spent on exploring and talking about a new technology or software instead of a clear focus on research issues. On the other hand, differences in computer (hardware and software) literacy between supervisor and supervisee can limit the exchange of information, and thus, reinforce the dislocation effect and reduce the appetite for interaction (Sussex 2008; Willems et al. 2011). This is especially the case when supervisor and supervisee are in different countries or regions with an imbalance in terms of the availability of information technology (IT) support. In case of master’s programmes, this poses a more serious challenge with part-time students who are working professionals and have very limited time to spend on IT learning.


1965

Supervisors may experience an increased workload due to the expectation that they should be constantly open to requests from students and as they sometimes represent the whole university system for a distance student (Fox 2002). The supervisor should be closely involved in discussions regarding the research programme requirements and ethics, and needs to stay fully updated and prepared for timely guidance on administrative and pastoral issues. In addition, the supervisor has to make sure that there is access to intact and flawless IT-assisted communications, and for that purpose, he/she should be in constant communication with the IT services section at the hosting university. The issue of accessibility in distance research supervision goes beyond the interactions with the supervisor, and includes access to library services, funding opportunities, research seminars, and training (Unwin 2007). Unlike on-campus students, distance students do not have the opportunity to interact with their peers for guidance and feedback. This isolation may create ignorance, lack of focus, and too much reliance on the supervisor, contradicting a key objective of most postgraduate research programmes in promoting independent research and critical thinking (Crossouard 2008). A more complex issue in distance supervision is associated with the cultural implications (Sussex 2008). Distance programmes tend to be more diverse as they go beyond the geographical borders of regions, countries, and continents, and cross the cultural borders that may exist with respect to race, gender, and religion. That requires a proper understanding and awareness of the norms, differences, preconceptions and potential conflicting issues. If not properly addressed it can trigger confusion, misinterpretation, and even clashes between supervisor and supervisee (Wisker 2007). In addition, the distance from the teacher/supervisor might be perceived differently by students from varying cultural backgrounds. Venter (2003) conducted an empirical study to investigate the experience of the distance-learning students coming from different cultures. When it comes to the students’ perception of the distance, the study concludes that there is a distinction between those coming from cultures that define the student– teacher relationship through a collectivist model (teacher-centred) and those that adopt an individualistic model (student-centred). In the first group, the observation was that being at a distance from the teacher/supervisor is perceived as being away from the main source of information and from the one that should impose the structure of studies. The results from the second group, on the other hand, point to concerns about receiving appropriate guidance and care through a distance-learning experience. Moreover, there might be a language barrier between supervisor and supervisee. This could be a linguistic gap caused by either of parties not being fluent in the language of communications or could be a technical gap caused by the fact that supervisor and supervisee have been trained under different systems. The latter could be the case in remote supervision of engineering students as there might be differences, in terms of standards and practices, between the origin and host countries. The literature on postgraduate research supervision has identified ‘feedback’ as a problematic aspect of distance programmes (Unwin 2007; Sussex 2008; Crossouard 2008). Being at different locations, supervisor and supervisee tend to be distracted from each other and forget about the mutual expectations in their relationship. This could translate into a reduction in the frequency and quantity of feedback. This creates a domino effect and makes it even harder to maintain quality feedback, as with fewer interactions, both parties have to deal with more misinterpretations and varied expectations.

1966


The multitude of communication channels also poses a real challenge in distance research supervision. Conventional supervision is mostly comprised of face-to-face meetings during the course of supervision with written communications conducted at the beginning (in form of a research proposal) and at the end (in form of a thesis). Distance supervision, on the other hand, is in need of utilising various means for written/spoken and synchronous/asynchronous communications due to lack of face-to-face contact. It is a delicate task to find an optimal blend of these channels in order to create a rich relationship between supervisor and supervisee, ensuring information delivery, persistency and recoverability (Fox 2002). Collective use of various information channels is also constrained by many technical issues and limitations associated with communication technologies such as limits on Internet bandwidth, computer viruses and spy-ware, access to good quality webcams, hard disk and memory space requirements for audio/video/anti-virus software, and problems with wireless connections, just to name a few. These complexities may not only impact the quality and quantity of supervisor–supervisee interactions but is also considered to be a threat to the confidentiality and privacy of these communications. In the case of distance supervision, there exists a challenge with respect to fairness when it comes to the assessment of students’ submissions. This is partly due to a great deal of variability in the requirements and possible ways of conducting this task, which could also be the case in conventional supervision. In addition, information technology is not always neutral or a mere vehicle in distance research supervision, and influences and transforms the expectations (Fox 2002). For instance, the students’ level of literacy in the use of information technologies while communicating with the supervisor may influence the supervisor’s judgments about them, their research and their progress. Last but not the least is the issue of personal costs for the students and supervisors. Once the supervisor–supervisee IT-assisted interaction is established, it tends to spill into their nonworking hours via email, chat, etc. Besides consuming their personal time, it creates the need for both parties to be equipped with the proper computer systems, hardware and software to be able to manage the interactions from home (Willems et al. 2011). 3. Distance research supervision in postgraduate education: strategies The literature on solutions and strategies to overcome and accommodate the challenges of distance postgraduate research supervision is limited yet varied in terms of the focus and priorities. A virtual office hour has been cited as an approach to address the issue of time-zone difference (Wisker 2007). Mirroring the idea of office-hour in conventional on-campus supervision, the distance supervisor can specify a time during a working week when he/she is live to have open discussions with students via emails, chat, and audio/video conferencing. The timing should be set such that to consider the time-zone differences and supervisor’s workload. The issue of dislocation necessitates a hierarchical system of feedback to compensate for the lack of face-to-face contact (Umwin 2007). To balance the supervisor workload with students’ needs and expectations, a blend of various feedback approaches in terms of speed, length, and depth should be performed. This includes short and quick messages for simple consultative and administrative issues, use of track changes on students’ reports and submissions which require longer feedback, and exchange of digital audio monologues when in-depth and opinionated feedback is needed. There is a


1967

tendency among the students to accept track changes suggested by the supervisor, eliminating any constructive follow-up and debate. To avoid this, the supervisor can incorporate bubble comments along the text to encourage and initiate the dialogue and debate. To balance the supervisor’s workload, the students are assigned deadlines to submit a progress report via email, Moodle or Dropbox with the expectation of receiving the feedback by a given date, arranged according to the length and the number of reports submitted. Due to limited opportunities to gain personal knowledge about distance students, it is recommended that the process of supervision should contain negotiation, experimentation and open debate about the means, depth, and timing of supervisor–supervisee interactions (Andrew 2012). The supervision should be regarded as a dynamic, engaging, reflective, and flexible process which takes into the account the changing capabilities and conditions of both parties. This is the rational behind using “dancing at a distance” as a concept-metaphor to describe distance postgraduate research supervision (Evans and Green 1995). There are several different approaches suggested in the literature on how to address the lack of peer interaction and peer feedback for distance research students (Unwin 2007; Wisker 2007; Sussex 2008; Andrew 2012). Forming an email list creates an opportunity to periodically share useful information, documents, or research articles with a group of distance students, hopefully triggering a thirst in students to exchange their contact information, get connected on Facebook, etc. The supervisor can organise virtual peer meetings with students presenting their works for the others and receiving feedback from them. An annual web-based research conference is another way of bridging the distance between the students. International academic conferences are occasions where face-to-face peer encounters can be arranged. This is also an effective way of creating international academic contacts and collaborations for distance students, reducing their reliance on the supervisor as their sole source of scientific feedback. In the case of long-distance supervision, it may also be helpful to populate the students’ sources of information and support through the identification of research groups in local universities or other institutions where the quality of research is at a proper level (Wisker 2007). To compensate for the lack of in-house training opportunities for distance students, a dedicated page on the university’s website or on Moodle can be constructed to contain recorded seminars and training sessions. As argued in the literature, the most critical training for a distance student is provided at the induction stage (Unwin 2007; Wisker 2007). Some suggest a day of induction, with the students receiving advance invitation via email, providing them with a web-link to livestream seminars covering an introduction to programme requirements, library resources, various software, and IT resources. Formal separate induction sessions could also be organised to discuss cultural issues, diversity, and research methods. Alternatively, students could be advised to take a number of online courses on the above issues as part of mandatory requirements of the programme. The supervisors could also be provided with an induction pack as a guide to cultural awareness and students’ backgrounds. In many distance postgraduate research supervision practices, a course leader or tutor is involved to ease the administrative burden on supervisors and to provide pastoral care and support for the students. Some course leaders play an integral role in the assessment of students’ progress and grading of their coursework and dissertations (Paran et al. 2010).

1968


4. Conclusions This study provided a review of existing issues, paradigms, and strategies in distance postgraduate research supervision, comprised of master’s and doctoral programmes. In summary, the main issues and challenges are associated with spatial and temporal distance between the supervisee and the supervisory/support elements in the host university. Societal and cultural issues, arising from differences in norms and previous local training, also affect the supervisory process. In addition to these issues, which are more specific to distance supervision, there is a backdrop of the common challenges associated with any research supervisory experience, and in particular the lack of skills, background and preparedness by both supervisor and supervisee to identify and explore a central research question. Addressing these challenges increases the supervisor’s workload, and necessitates the implementation of more time-efficient interaction strategies such as virtual office hours, peer live meetings, a stricter schedule for submissions and feedback, and mandatory induction sessions. It should be mentioned that the literature on distance postgraduate supervision is still very limited and more research is required on the actual performance of the suggested strategies. Despite a significant growth in the number of distance-learning programmes, our literature review could only identify a few studies that use real cases in capturing the performance of distance postgraduate research supervision (Evans and Green 1995; Fox 2002; Price and Money 2002; Venter 2003; Butcher and Sieminsky 2006, 2009; Crossouard 2008; Paran et al. 2010). These empirical studies on the challenges and strategies in distance postgraduate programmes are based on data from a single programme or limited to a specific university. There is a clear need for surveys comparing such distance programmes in different universities to provide wider evidence on the performance of these programmes. Acknowledgements The authors are very much thankful to the editor and the reviewer(s) for their insightful comments and suggestions that were very helpful in improving this manuscript.

Note 1.

It should be mentioned that distance-learning options have sometimes been pursued by universities without having a proper estimation and a clear understanding of the extent of the investments (in technologies and skills) required to do it well (Guri-Rosenblit 2005; Njenga and Fourie 2010).

References ABS (Australian Bureau of Statistics). 2001. “Chapter 1– Education and Training.” In Year Book Australia 2001. Year Book No. 83. Canberra: Australian Bureau of Statistics. ABS (Australian Bureau of Statistics). 2012. “Chapter 12 – Education and Training.” In Year Book Australia 2012. Year Book No. 92. Canberra: Australian Bureau of Statistics. Andrew, M. 2012. “Supervising Doctorates at a Distance: Three Trans-Tasman Stories.” Quality Assurance in Education 20 (1): 42–53. Butcher, J., and S. Sieminsky. 2006. “The Challenge of a Distance Learning Professional Doctorate in Education.” Open Learning 21 (1): 59–69. Butcher, J., and S. Sieminsky. 2009. “Enhancing Professional Self-esteem: Learners’ Journeys on a Distance Learning Doctorate in Education (EdD).” Enhancing the Learner Experience in Higher Education 1 (1): 44–54. Crossouard, B. 2008. “Developing Alternative Models of Doctoral Supervision with Online Formative Assessment.” Studies in Continuing Education 30 (1): 51–67.


1969

Evans, T. 1995. “Postgraduate Research Supervision in the Emerging Open Universities.” Australian Universities Review 2 (2): 23–26. Evans, T., and B. Green. 1995. “Dancing at a Distance? Postgraduate Studies, Supervision, and Distance Education.” Paper presented at the 25th annual conference of the Australian Association for Research in Education, Hobart, November 26–30. Fox, R. 2002. “Digital Culture and Educational Practice.” Paper presented at the 2nd international conference on “Knowledge and Discourse: Speculating on Disciplinary Futures”, Hong Kong, June 25–29. Guri-Rosenblit, S. 2005. “Eight Paradoxes in the Implementation Process of Elearning in Higher Education.” Higher Education Policy 18 (1): 5–29. HESA (Higher Education Statistics Agency). 2012. Students in Higher Education Institutions 2011/2012. Cheltenham, UK: Higher Education Statistics Agency. Leder, G. C. 1995. “Higher Degree Research Supervision: A Question of Balance.” Australian Universities Review 2 (2): 5–8. Njenga, J. K., and L. C. H. Fourie. 2010. “The Myths About E-learning in Higher Education.” British Journal of Educational Technology 41 (2): 199–212. OU (Open University). 2010. “About the Open University.” http://www.open.ac.uk/about/ documents/about-facts-figures-0910.pdf. OU (Open University). 2012. “History of the OU.” http://www8.open.ac.uk/about/main/the-ouexplained/history-the-ou. Paran, A., F. Hyland, and C. Bentall. 2010. The Research Element in Masters’ Degrees in Distance Education: Literature Review and Mapping Survey. London: Institute of Education, University of London. Price, D., and A. Money. 2002. “Alternative Models for Doctoral Mentor Organisation and Research Supervision.” Mentoring and Tutoring 10 (2): 127–35. Raddon, A. 2006. “Absence as Opportunity: Learning Outside the Institutional Space and Time.” Journal of Further and Higher Education 30 (2): 157–67. Raddon, A. 2007. “Timescapes of Flexibility and Insecurity: Exploring the Context of Distance Learners.” Time and Society 16 (1): 61–82. Radford, A. W. 2012. Learning at a Distance: Undergraduate Enrollment in Distance Education Courses and Degree Programs. NCES 2012-154. Jessup, MD: National Center for Education Statistics. Sussex, R. 2008. “Technological Options in Supervising Remote Research Students.” Higher Education 55 (1): 121–37. Unwin, T. 2007. “Reflections on Supervising Distance-based PhD Students.” Royal Holloway, University of London. www.gg.rhul.ac.uk/ict4d/distance-based%20PhDs.pdf. UOL (University of London). 2012. “University of London International Programmes – Key Facts.” http://www.londoninternational.ac.uk/about_us/facts.shtml. Venter, K. 2003. “Coping with Isolation: The Role of Culture in Adult Distance Learners’ Use of Surrogates.” Open Learning 18 (3): 271–87. Willems, J., H. Farley, A. Ellis, D. McCormick, and D. Walker. 2011. “Supervising Higher Degree Research (HDR) Candidates at a Distance: What do Emerging Virtual World Technologies Have to Offer?” Paper presented at the Education 2011–2021 Summit, Sydney, February, 15–18. Wisker, G. 2007. “Supervising Postgraduates: Internationally, and at a Distance.” In Connections: Sharing the Learning Space, edited by P. Wilcox, H. Jones, M. Sumner and E. Berrington, 23–28. Brighton, UK: Falmer Press.