Practicing Dialogic Pedagogy to Support Alignment of Student-Supervisor Expectations

Irina Baydarova

Submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of

Doctor of Philosophy

Swinburne University of Technology

June 2021

Abstract

Postgraduate research supervision is a widely discussed topic among scholars and government practitioners. Current research indicates postgraduate research supervision presents many challenges in both national and international contexts. In particular, a misalignment of student-supervisor expectations has been cited as a major contributor to low completion on time rates and high attrition rates. These studies have been undertaken in developed countries such as Australia, England, and the United States of America, leaving developing countries' experiences unexplored. This study explores student-supervisor expectations regarding their respective roles and responsibilities in postgraduate research supervision in Malaysia.

Using an interpretivist approach to research design, fifteen HDR students and twelve supervisors from various universities around Malaysia were recruited using snowball sampling for the first phase of data collection. During semi-structured interviews, participants were asked to discuss their understandings of their roles and responsibilities, and the roles and responsibilities of their counterparts in the student-supervisor relationship. Personal and professional relationships were explored, including sources of student-supervisor conflicts.

Results of a thematic analysis have identified areas where HDR students and supervisors have similarities and differences in their views. They had particularly diverse views on those expectations that are not regulated by institutional policies, and which were reliant on implicit, rather than explicit expectations of roles and responsibilities. Using the patterns that emerged in the results, a hierarchical model has been proposed to group and differentiate the topics about which there is agreement or disagreement between students and their supervisors.

Following the first round of data analysis, the same data was further analysed through the lens of Dialogic Pedagogy to identify the potential reasons for misaligned expectations. While there were no pre-determined questions, three influencing aspects were identified through this lens: power and hierarchy influence, student-supervisor dialogue, and institutional support. Both sides have suggested a strong impact of identified patterns on their ability to align and negotiate mutual expectations.

1

Observation of the difficulties participants faced in presenting some of the more personal aspects of their supervision experiences highlighted a gap in the data collected. To fill this gap, I explored my supervisory relationships, focusing on less discussed areas of expectations. I present this second phase of data collection as a co-constructed narrative of a research student and two supervisors. This narrative makes visible the emotional aspects that researchers have gone through during the student’s candidature, difficulties in aligning mutual expectations, and overcoming them.

Combining both phases of data analysis is used to extend understandings of HDR student- supervisor expectations. The interpretations participants presented highlight emerging misalignments, some of which have been identified in existing literature, but some new misalignments have been identified.

The research results demonstrated a need to develop a practice that could help both sides explicitly negotiate and align their mutual expectations. Therefore, a third phase of the research was initiated. I proposed a ‘Dialogic practice to negotiate student-supervisor expectations’ based on findings from phase one and phase two and a theoretical base of dialogic pedagogy as proposed by Paulo Freire. Using action research method, this practice was given to student-supervisor dyads to try in their supervisory relationships. Their experiences were presented as a narrative, suggesting opportunities and challenges of applying dialogic practice within Malaysia's postgraduate research supervision.

The results presented in this research can be used to enhance university policies and guidelines in postgraduate research supervision, particularly in less regulated areas of expectations. It suggests that dialogic practice is a practical approach which allows participants explicitly state, align and negotiate expectation within student-supervisor dyad.

2

Acknowledgements

The submission of this thesis represents the conclusion of a great deal of effort and support by many people.

I want to start by showing my appreciation for the central role of Heidi Collins. While being my Co-supervisor, Heidi was the person who offered me a chance to become a researcher and walked together with me throughout these years to completion. Heidi has become not only a valued mentor to me but also my friend. I want to thank her for the continuous guidance, personal support, and motivation that she has offered me. Heidi’s effort to help me to grow professionally and personally is greatly appreciated.

I am also grateful for the advice and encouragement provided by Deirdre Barron, my Co- supervisor, who is based in Swinburne University of Technology’s Melbourne campus. While she has become a part of the team only during my last year of PhD, she has brought significant input in developing this thesis and my formation as an independent researcher. Thank you, Deirdre!

I am thankful to Professor Lee Miin Huui, who kindly accepted the role of Main Supervisor at a late stage in the process and quickly stepped in to provide full support and personal motivation during the completion stage.

I would also like to mention the School of Research at Swinburne Sarawak to offer a full fee waiver to complete my PhD, all the required facilities, and a comfortable environment to perform research smoothly. Thanks to Jane Teo and Dayang Salwa for their administrative guidance.

My appreciation also goes to my peers from different faculties for their motivation, support, and pleasant teamwork during our Postgraduate Research Society involvement at Swinburne Sarawak.

I am also thankful to all participants who have become a part of this research to give up their time and share their experiences with me. Their passion, courage, and willingness to contribute their personal stories with me is what developed this thesis.

3

Lastly, I would like to thank my family. My father, Sergey, and my mom, Larisa, who have not only given me a chance to come to study in Malaysia but have provided continuous encouragement and support throughout these years. My spouse, Marwan, has been by my side, encouraging and motivating me not to give up and walk towards my dream of completing PhD and becoming an academic.

Irina Baydarova Kuching, Sarawak MALAYSIA

4

Student Declaration

I hereby declare that this thesis contains no material which has been accepted for the award of any other degree or diploma at any university or equivalent institution. I also declare that to the best of my knowledge and belief, this thesis contains no material previously published or written by another person, except where due reference is made in the text.

Irina Baydarova

Kuching, Sarawak

MALAYSIA

5

Table of Contents

ABSTRACT ...... 1

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS...... 3

STUDENT DECLARATION ...... 5

TABLE OF CONTENTS ...... 6

LIST OF FIGURES ...... 12

LIST OF TABLES ...... 12

CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION ...... 13

1.1 THE IMPORTANCE OF STUDYING STUDENT-SUPERVISOR EXPECTATIONS ...... 13

1.2 NEOLIBERAL IDEOLOGY IN HIGHER EDUCATION ...... 15

1.3 EMERGING CHANGES IN MALAYSIAN HIGHER EDUCATION ...... 17

1.4 SUPERVISORY RELATIONSHIPS: AGREEMENT OF EXPECTATIONS ...... 18

1.5 THESIS OVERVIEW ...... 19

CHAPTER 2. LITERATURE REVIEW ...... 24

2.1 INTRODUCTION ...... 24

2.2 DEFINITION OF SUPERVISION ...... 25

2.3 CHANGES IN SUPERVISION PRACTICES ...... 27 2.3.1 Dramatic Shift to Consumer-Provider Education Model ...... 29 2.3.2 Major Shift in Supervision Practice or Added Complexities? ...... 31

2.4 POSTGRADUATE RESEARCH: EMERGING CHALLENGES FOR STUDENTS AND SUPERVISORS ...... 32 2.4.1 Cross-Cultural Adjustment ...... 33 2.4.2 English Proficiency Issues...... 34 2.4.3 Mental Health Issues ...... 35 2.4.4 Financial Strains ...... 36

2.5 THE STUDENT-SUPERVISOR RELATIONSHIP: THE IMPORTANCE OF EXPECTATIONS...... 37 2.5.1 What Do Supervisors and Students Expect from Each Other? ...... 38 2.5.1.1 International Literature ...... 39 2.5.1.2 Malaysian Literature ...... 47 2.6 LIMITED INSTITUTIONAL REGULATIONS OF STUDENT-SUPERVISOR EXPECTATIONS ...... 52

2.7 SUPPORTING PEDAGOGIES IN POSTGRADUATE RESEARCH SUPERVISION ...... 54 2.7.1 Boud and Lee’s (2005) Peer-Learning Pedagogy ...... 54 2.7.2 Lave (1991) and Wenger’s (1998) Communities of Practice Pedagogy ...... 57

2.8 DIALOGIC PEDAGOGY AS AN ALTERNATIVE IN POSTGRADUATE RESEARCH SUPERVISION ...... 60 6

2.8.1 Using Dialogic Pedagogy to Clarify Student-supervisor Expectations ...... 64

CHAPTER 3. METHODOLOGY ...... 67

3.1 INTRODUCTION ...... 67

3.2 RESEARCH METHOD ...... 68 3.2.1 Qualitative study ...... 69

3.3 PHASE 1. HERMENEUTIC PHENOMENOLOGY ...... 70 3.3.1 Philosophical Foundations ...... 70 3.3.2 Husserl’s Phenomenology versus Heidegger’s Phenomenology ...... 72 3.3.3 van Manen’s Hermeneutic Phenomenology...... 74 3.3.4 Semi-Structured Interviews ...... 75 3.3.4.1 Participant Recruitment: Research Universities ...... 76 3.3.4.2 Participant Recruitment and Selection Criteria ...... 77 3.3.4.3 Data Production and Recording ...... 80 3.3.4.4 Supporting Materials ...... 81 3.3.5 Analyzing Data...... 82 3.3.5.1 Transcription of Interview Recordings ...... 82 3.3.5.2 Coding of Data ...... 83 3.3.5.3 Reaching Theoretical Saturation ...... 87 3.3.5.4 Conducting Analysis: Voice and Representation ...... 88 3.4 PHASE 2. AUTOETHNOGRAPHY: ADDING THE VALUE THROUGH PERSONAL EXPERIENCE ...... 88 3.4.1 Autoethnography Development ...... 88 3.4.2 Data Production and Supporting Materials ...... 91 3.4.2.1 Choosing Among Forms of Autoethnographic Representation: Co-Constructed Narrative ...... 91 3.4.2.2 Supporting Materials: Emails, Diaries, and Meeting Notes ...... 92 3.4.3 Analysing Data ...... 92

3.5 PHASE 3. ACTION RESEARCH ...... 93 3.5.1 Advantages of Action Research ...... 95 3.5.2 Criticisms of Action Research ...... 95 3.5.3 Participants Recruitment and Selection ...... 96 3.5.3.1 Participant Recruitment: Choice of Location ...... 96 3.5.3.2 Participant Selection Criteria and Method ...... 96 3.5.4 Implementing Action Research ...... 97 3.5.5 Data Production and Recording ...... 99 3.5.5.1 Dyadic Interviewing ...... 99 3.5.5.2 Audio-Recording and Notes Taking ...... 99 3.5.6 Analysing Data ...... 99 3.5.6.1 Transcription of Interview Recordings ...... 99

7

3.5.6.2 Coding of Data (NVivo 12 Plus) ...... 100 3.6 QUALITY CONSIDERATIONS ...... 100 3.6.1 Counting Techniques ...... 101 3.6.2 Verbatim Quotations from Interviews ...... 102 3.6.3 Making Constant Comparisons...... 102 3.6.4 Transferability of Results ...... 102 3.6.5 Reflexivity...... 102

3.7 ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS ...... 104 3.7.1 Phase 1. Ethical Risks & Mitigation Strategies ...... 104 3.7.1.1 Impact on Relationships...... 104 3.7.1.2 Confidentiality and Anonymity ...... 104 3.7.1.3 Risk of Discomfort ...... 105 3.7.2 Phase 2. Ethical Risks & Mitigation Strategies ...... 105 3.7.2.1 Impact on Relationships...... 105 3.7.2.2 Confidentiality and Anonymity ...... 106 3.7.3 Phase 3. Ethical Risks & Mitigation Strategies ...... 106 3.7.3.1 Impact on Relationships...... 106 3.7.3.2 Confidentiality and Anonymity Risk ...... 107 3.7.3.3 Risk of Discomfort ...... 107 3.7 CONCLUSION ...... 107

CHAPTER 4. PHASE 1 THEMATIC ANALYSIS ...... 109

4.1 CHAPTER INTRODUCTION ...... 109

4.2 ROUND 1. EMERGED STUDENT-SUPERVISOR EXPECTATIONS AND EXISTING GAPS ...... 109 4.2.1 Themes Development and Importance ...... 109 4.2.2 Theme 1. Academic Practice ...... 110 Overview ...... 110 Findings ...... 113 4.2.3 Theme 2. Academic Outcomes ...... 129 Overview ...... 129 Findings ...... 132 4.2.4 Theme 3. Skills and Personal Attributes ...... 141 Overview ...... 141 Findings ...... 144 4.2.5 Theme 4. Personal Relationships ...... 156 Overview ...... 156 Findings ...... 159 4.2.6 Theme 5. Clarifying Expectations ...... 174

8

Overview ...... 174 Findings ...... 176 4.3 THEMES SUMMARY. HIERARCHICAL MODEL OF STUDENT-SUPERVISOR EXPECTATIONS ...... 183

4.4 ANALYSIS ROUND 2. STUDENT-SUPERVISOR EXPECTATIONS THROUGH DIALOGIC PEDAGOGY ...... 187 4.4.1 Themes Development and Importance ...... 187 4.4.2 Theme 1. Power and Hierarchy Influence ...... 187 4.4.3 Theme 2. Student-supervisor Dialogue...... 194 4.4.4 Theme 3. Institutional Support ...... 199

4.5 CONCLUSION ...... 204

CHAPTER 5. PHASE 2 AUTOETHNOGRAPHY ...... 206

5.1 CHAPTER INTRODUCTION ...... 206

5.2 STUDENT-SUPERVISOR EXPECTATIONS: VIEW FROM INSIDE...... 206 First Year. The Beginnings of a Relationship ...... 206 Our First Conference Together ...... 208 The First Year: Uncertain Expectations ...... 210 Growing Need to Discuss Expectations: Arising Misalignments...... 215 Second Year. Taking Responsibilities, Developing Dialogue, and Sharing Power...... 217 Opening Dialogue...... 222 Sharing Power: An Unexpected Conversion to PhD...... 224 Getting to Know My Supervisor Deirdre ...... 229 Third year. Within one month, both of my supervisors have resigned… and Deirdre has joined. How did it affect our expectations? ...... 231 Deirdre Isn’t a Usual Australia-Based Supervisor ...... 233 Aligning Expectations and Developing Relationships with Deirdre ...... 236 The Outcome of Supervisors’ Resignation and Team Changes ...... 237 The End: PhD Journey...... 239 5.3 CONCLUSION ...... 240

CHAPTER 6. DISCUSSION PHASE 1 AND PHASE 2 ...... 241

6.1 INTRODUCTION ...... 241

6.2 ALIGNED AND MISALIGNED STUDENT-SUPERVISOR EXPECTATIONS ...... 242 6.2.1 Academic Practice...... 242 6.2.1.1 Academic Guidance ...... 242 6.2.1.2 Feedback ...... 244 6.2.1.3 Supervisory Access ...... 245 6.2.1.4 Updating on Research Progress ...... 245 6.2.2 Academic Outcomes ...... 246 6.2.3 Skills and Personal Attributes ...... 247

9

6.2.3.1 Critical Thinking...... 247 6.2.3.2 Motivation...... 248 6.2.4 Personal Relationships ...... 250 6.2.4.1 Personal Support...... 250 6.2.4.2 Conflicts and Misunderstandings...... 251 6.3 REASONS FOR MISALIGNED STUDENT-SUPERVISOR EXPECTATIONS ...... 252 6.3.1 The Impact of Hierarchical Culture ...... 253 6.3.2 Student-supervisor Dialogue Formation Challenges ...... 254 6.3.3 The ‘Toolkit’ Perspective Issue ...... 256

6.4 CONCLUSION ...... 257

CHAPTER 7. PHASE 3 ACTION RESEARCH ...... 258

7.1 CHAPTER INTRODUCTION ...... 259

7.2 STAGE 1. CURRENT ISSUES IN STUDENT-SUPERVISOR EXPECTATIONS TOOLKITS ...... 259

7.3 STAGE 2. DIALOGIC PEDAGOGY PRACTICE TO NEGOTIATE STUDENT-SUPERVISOR EXPECTATIONS ...... 260 Step 1. Preparation for Explicit Discussion ...... 261 Step 2. Student-supervisor Dialogue to Negotiate Mutually Agreed Expectations...... 264 Step 3. Revision: Reflection and Action ...... 264

7.4 STAGE 3. NARRATIVE OF TWO STUDENT-SUPERVISOR DYADS ...... 265 Narrative one: Ahmed, Calvin and John ...... 265 Narrative two: Faizal and Mohammed ...... 273

7.5 STAGE 4 REFLECTION ON DIALOGIC PRACTICE IMPLEMENTATION AND SUGGESTIONS FOR IMPROVING PRACTICE ...... 277

CHAPTER 8. CONTRIBUTION, LIMITATIONS AND FURTHER RESEARCH SUGGESTIONS ...... 280

8.1 CHAPTER INTRODUCTION ...... 280

8.2 CONTRIBUTION TO KNOWLEDGE ...... 280 8.2.1 Key Contributions to Understanding and Supporting the Alignment of Student-supervisor Expectations...... 280

8.3 LIMITATIONS OF THE RESEARCH ...... 284 8.3.1 Size of Study ...... 284 8.3.2 Student Participants’ Selection Criteria ...... 284 8.3.3 Use of Audio Recorder ...... 285 8.3.3 Researcher Positionality ...... 285

8.4 SUGGESTIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH ...... 285

8.5 CONCLUSION ...... 288

FINAL REFLECTION ...... 290

REFERENCES ...... 292 10

APPENDICES ...... 328

APPENDIX A. FULL LIST OF UNIVERSITIES AND UNIVERSITY COLLEGES IN MALAYSIA ...... 329

APPENDIX B. CONSENT INFORMATION STATEMENT (PHASE 1)...... 332

APPENDIX C. INFORMED CONSENT FORM (PHASE 1) ...... 335

APPENDIX D. TEXT FOR EMAIL FOR HDR STUDENTS AND SUPERVISORS TO PARTICIPATE IN INTERVIEW SESSION (PHASE 1) ...... 336

APPENDIX E. COUNSELLING SERVICES FOR STUDENT AND SUPERVISOR PARTICIPANTS (PHASE 1) ...... 338

APPENDIX F. APPROVAL FOR RESEARCH WITH HUMAN SUBJECTS (PHASE 1) ...... 341

APPENDIX G. QUESTIONS GUIDE FOR STUDENT AND SUPERVISOR PARTICIPANTS PHASE 1 ...... 342

APPENDIX H. CONSENT INFORMATION STATEMENT (PHASE 3) ...... 348

APPENDIX I. INFORMED CONSENT FORM (PHASE 3) ...... 352

APPENDIX J. RECRUITMENT EMAIL TEMPLATE (PHASE 3) ...... 353

APPENDIX K. COUNSELLING SERVICE HANDOUT FOR PARTICIPANTS (PHASE 3) ...... 355

APPENDIX L. APPROVAL FOR RESEARCH WITH HUMAN SUBJECTS (PHASE 3) ...... 357

APPENDIX M. INSTRUCTIONS FOR PARTICIPANTS OF USING DIALOGIC PRACTICE TO NEGOTIATE MUTUAL EXPECTATIONS (PHASE 3) ...... 358

APPENDIX N. INTERVIEW GUIDE SCHEDULE FOR STUDENT-SUPERVISOR DYADS (PHASE 3) ...... 359

LIST OF PUBLICATIONS ...... 361

11

List of Figures

Figure 1 Hofstede cultural comparison of Malaysia and Australia ...... 51

Figure 2 The propensity for students and supervisors to clarify their expectations during postgraduate research ...... 184

List of Tables

Table 1: Student-supervisor expectations during thesis preparation (International literature) ...... 41

Table 2: Expectations of students and supervisors during thesis preparation (Malaysian literature) ...... 49

Table 3 HDR student participants of Phase 1 ...... 79

Table 4 HDR supervisors participants of Phase 1...... 79

Table 5 Themes and codes development ...... 85

Table 6 Final themes and codes...... 87

Table 7 HDR students and supervisors expectations regarding research process ...... 111

Table 8 Essential academic outcomes ...... 130

Table 9: Commonly expected skills and attributes in postgraduate research process ...... 142

Table 10: Personal relationships expectations ...... 157

Table 11: How HDR students and supervisors convey their expectations to each other ...... 175

Table 12 Proposed questions for discussion of student-supervisor expectations ...... 262

12

Chapter 1. Introduction

1.1 The Importance of Studying Student-supervisor Expectations

Growing a country’s talent is considered an essential activity in a complex and rapidly developing world. A country’s success requires people with the skills and knowledge to drive innovation, embrace worldwide issues and address challenges that can negatively affect people’s wellbeing (Andres et al., 2015; Boud & Tennant, 2006; The Group of Eight, 2013). Governments, aware of the importance of a skilled workforce, place emphasis on education as one of the leading forces for national growth. Even in times of economic crisis, they maintain their financial investments in education. Specifically, they recognise the importance of doctoral degrees because of the growing need to support national social, economic, and environmental well-being and address major global challenges (The Group of Eight, 2013).

Within higher education, quality postgraduate research supervision is key not only for the successful completion of research degrees but also a significant factor influencing students’ satisfaction with their overall research experience (Davis, 2019; Pearson & Kayrooz, 2004; Roach, Christensen, & Rieger, 2019, Singh, 2018). In the past 30 years, postgraduate supervision has gone under intense changes and become a challenging and complex practice (Taylor et al., 2018).

Under the pressure of a neoliberal agenda, postgraduate research education develops an increasingly authoritarian discourse (Campbell, 2009), negatively influencing postgraduate research teaching. During one of the Malaysian Ministry of Education’s Graduate on Time (GoT) workshops, approximately 80 per cent of students reported poor supervision practices and problems with their supervisors as a major factor affecting their progress and timely completion (Suhaimi, 2013). A report by the Ministry of Education Malaysia (MoE, 2015) confirmed such findings and called for appropriate actions.

While postgraduate supervision in general has been discussed extensively in the literature, student-supervisor expectations have received less attention especially in Malaysia and the Asian region. Both government officials and scholars have acknowledged the incongruence of expectations between research students and their supervisors to be among negative factors 13

affecting doctoral student’s timely completion and overall satisfaction (Abiddin & Ismail, 2011; Masek, 2017; Singh, 2018). Therefore, this research explores student-supervisor expectations in postgraduate research supervision in Malaysia to identify potential misalignments in those expectations and factors contributing to arising misalignments. It also aims to propose a practical solution for the negotiation and alignment of student-supervisor expectations to enhance postgraduate research supervision quality and reduce low on time completion, high attrition rates, and boost student’s satisfaction.

To my knowledge, while many respected authors have discussed aspects of student- supervisor expectations internationally (Gunnarsson, Jonasson, & Billhult, 2013; Mcginty, Koo, & Saeidi, 2010; Woolderink et al., 2015; Woolhouse, 2002), to date we are not aware of any in-depth direct comparison of student-supervisor expectations having been conducted.

Within the Malaysian context, the limited number of studies attempting to explore expectations of postgraduate supervision investigated either research students’ views only (Abiddin, 2018; Krauss & Ismail, 2010; Masek, 2017; Naim & Dhanapal, 2015; Sidhu, Kaur, Fook, & Yunus, 2014) or supervisors’ views only (Masek, 2017), providing something of a one-sided view of the issues. While those scholars have highlighted various aspects of student-supervisor expectations similar to those found in Australian and UK contexts (Cardilini et al., 2021; Helfer & Drew, 2019; Severinsson, 2015; Sidhu et al., 2014; Stracke & Kumar, 2020), there have been some differences in perceptions noted. The studies suggested Malaysian students be more dependent on their supervisors, expecting them to provide more guidance and take major research-related decisions (Pang et al., 2015; Sidhu et al., 2014).

While previous literature serves as a guide for my study, the one-sided nature of those studies is not aligned with the spirit of the negotiated order model (Acker, Hill, & Black, 1994), which necessitates the involvement of both students and supervisors in the negotiation of mutual expectations. Given that many students in Malaysia are not satisfied with postgraduate research supervision, there is a pressing need to discuss further and explore such issues and their impact on students’ performance. In response to these gaps in understanding and lack of direct comparison of mutual expectations and the growing percentage of dissatisfied HDR students, this study is the first to explicitly compare and contrast student-

14

supervisor expectations regarding their respective roles and responsibilities in Malaysia. To do so, this research addresses the following questions:

1. What is student-supervisor expectations regarding their roles and responsibilities in postgraduate research supervision in Malaysia? 2. Are there any expectations misalignments between HDR students and supervisors in Malaysian postgraduate research supervision? 3. What are the potential reasons for any misalignment in student-supervisor expectations in postgraduate research supervision in Malaysia?

Understanding the complexities presented by the neoliberal education model, which does not allow students and supervisors to explicitly align and negotiate their mutual expectations by limiting such practice to the expectations checklist exercise, this research poses an additional question. Previous research suggests various pedagogical approaches to support the development of quality researchers and supervisory relationships (Boud & Lee, 2005; Wenger, 2018). Less attention has been given, however, to developing a practical approach to alignment and negotiation of student-supervisor expectations. This research, therefore, addresses this gap by proposing an approach for alignment of student-supervisor expectations in postgraduate research supervision in Malaysia.

4. How can HDR students and supervisors negotiate and align their mutual expectations towards each other to reduce those misalignments?

1.2 Neoliberal Ideology in Higher Education

Understanding student-supervisor relationships and supervisory practices do not exist in a vacuum, but in the broader scope of government policy, it is essential to look at the current ideological trends influencing higher education development. To achieve national goals, governments worldwide have reconstructed education systems under neoliberal ideology (Da Wan, Sirat, & Abdul Razak, 2018; Gray, O’Regan, & Wallace, 2018; Mahony & Weiner, 2019; Radice, 2013; Rea, 2016). Neoliberalism has been defined as “a theory of political economic practice that proposes human well-being can best be advanced by liberating individual entrepreneurial freedoms and skills within an institutional framework characterised by strong private property rights, free markets, and free trade” (Harvey, 2005). It has been 15

commonly suggested the common use of neoliberalism started with Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan; yet, Harvey (2005) indicated the roots of it appeared earlier in 1947, with the political philosopher Friedrich von Hayek’s attack on welfareism and state power as constituting threats to the capitalist social order (Mahony & Weiner, 2019).

The spread of neoliberal trends has seen a transformation of higher education in most countries, with countries such as the UK, Canada, and Australia leading these transformations (B. Grant, 2005). These transformations have been criticised as being too outcome-centered (Gray et al., 2018; Mahony & Weiner, 2019; Radice, 2013; Rea, 2016), where universities have taken up words and activities such as quality control, impact, knowledge transfer, human capital, deregulation, entrepreneur, choice, customer, and stakeholder (Gray et al., 2018).

Under the increased pressure of quality control measures in education, supervisors have been forced to supervise a greater number of research students with shorter completion times (Halse & Malfroy, 2010). To achieve such demands, the notion of knowledge transformation in research education has arguably been substituted by supervisors fitting information in their research students brains’ to reduce the time per student supervision (Marouli et al., 2018; Roji, 2018). Thus, instead of preparing socially conscious researchers, who think critically and participate in democratic public life, postgraduate research education has become too focussed on raising national capital and driving innovation (Freire, 1972; Giroux, 2014; hooks, 1994; Manathunga, 2019; Shor et al., 2017).

Placing achievement of measurable outcomes in the spotlight has turned attention away from the importance of developing strong student-supervisor relationships. While it is suggested student-supervisor relationships can often be hugely rewarding for both parties, leading to ground-breaking research and life-long collaboration (Grove, 2016; Lessing, 2011), current literature presents various issues surrounding the formation of successful supervisory relationships. Among them, alignment of mutual student-supervisor expectations has been suggested to play an essential role (Walford 1981; Sullivan & Ogloff 1998; Phillips & Pugh 2005; Phang et al. 2014). While student-supervisor expectations may look similar in general, it is highly unlikely that these expectations will be the same for all students and supervisors (Walford 1981; Orellana 2016). It is these differences in expectations for each individual and

16

for each project that is likely to be the most important in determining whether or not the supervisor is seen as satisfactory by the student and, for that matter, whether or not the student's performance is seen as acceptable by the supervisor (Kiley, 1999; Walford, 1981). Even for a neoliberal perspective, the outcomes can be damaging—misalignments in mutual expectations can be one of the factors contributing to the conflict between supervisors and postgraduate students, leading to slow completion and high attrition rates (Adrian-Taylor et al., 2007). To avoid or minimise such conflicts, the causes of such misalignments need to be understood.

1.3 Emerging Changes in Malaysian Higher Education

For many developing countries, Higher Degree Research (HDR) programs form an important part of their national development agenda (The Group of Eight, 2013). The Asian region has not gone so far, desperately trying to catch up economically with western countries. As Gray et al. (2018) have argued, countries such as South Korea, Singapore, Hong Kong and Japan have been highly committed to neoliberal economic models since the 1980s.

Malaysia is among those countries which strive to achieve national goals by adopting neoliberal ideals into its higher education system. It invests significant funds in developing its higher education system to become a regional hub in South East Asia (Mohd Zain et al., 2018). To do so, the MyBrain15 program has been introduced to provide funding for studies at the Master and Doctoral Degree levels to research the target of 60,000 Malaysian PhD holders by 2023 (The Economic Planning Unit, 2010). So far, over 54,000 Malaysian students have received full sponsorship through the MyBrain15 program (The Sun Daily, 2016) to conduct research. This has seen an increase in the number of HDR students entering research programs in different Malaysian universities.

To manage the increased number of students in research programs in Malaysian Higher Learning Institutions (HLIs), universities have adopted the principles of neoliberalism and New Public Management (NPM). This approach has been criticised for its focus on measurable outcomes such as timely completion and quality of publications (Da Wan et al., 2018; Thachil, 2009). Scholars suggest such practices fail to capture the importance of education in the intangibles and unmeasurable elements of researcher development and create

17

an equitable, socially just, and knowledgeable Malaysian society (Campbell, 2009; Da Wan et al., 2018).

1.4 Supervisory Relationships: Agreement of Expectations

Quality supervision is not key not only to the successful graduation of postgraduate students (Bitzer, 2010) but also impacts student satisfaction with their postgraduate experience (Davis, 2019; Pearson & Kayrooz, 2004; Roach et al., 2019). Historically graduate supervision has been one of the most challenging and least understood practices in higher education (Grant et al., 2014; Kumar & Lee, 2011; Lee, 2012; Manathunga & Goozée, 2007). It has arguably become increasingly complex with the neoliberal ideology demanding research education be linked to national goals. With demands for shorter completion times, an increasing quantity of publications and grants, along with the growing number of research student enrolments (Manathunga, 2005b), the process of supervision has changed dramatically (McCallin & Nayar, 2012). Various challenges have been reported in postgraduate research supervision; the issues around the student-supervisor relationship appear to be the most complicated for both parties (Gunnarsson et al., 2013; Katz, 2018; Orellana et al., 2016; L. R. Roberts et al., 2019).

It has been suggested that agreement of mutual expectations between the supervisor and student throughout the research period is an essential activity (Parker-Jenkins, 2016; Phang et al., 2014; Phillips & Pugh, 2005; Sambrook, 2016; Stracke & Kumar, 2020; Sullivan & Ogloff, 1998; Walford, 1981). Such an activity promotes an understanding of the various demands that arise from the ever-increasing quantity of research students and develops strong student-supervisor relationships. Both students and supervisors start a period of postgraduate research study together, having numerous and diverse expectations (Kiley, 1999; Sambrook, 2016). It is anticipated that the alignment of mutual expectations helps both sides to work in the same direction (Phang et al., 2014) and minimises misunderstandings and conflicts (Adrian-Taylor et al., 2007) throughout the research journey.

While extensive literature urges about the importance of alignment student-supervisor expectations, practically both HDR students and supervisors rarely make their expectations explicit to each other (Barry et al., 2018; Davis, 2019; Helfer & Drew, 2019; Mantai, 2019; Sambrook, 2016). Within the currently dominating neoliberal education system, while 18

supervisors have neither time nor willingness to discuss mutual expectations with their students, students are left powerless to initiate such discussion themselves. Within emerging authoritarian discourse, students have little opportunity to question or argue with their supervisors' supervisory practices. It is suggested that while student-supervisor checklists exist within institutional policies (Bruce & Stoodley, 2013; Edwards et al., 1995; Moses, 1985), they have been rarely used by HDR students and supervisors. Given such checklists prescribe topics of discussion yet many students and supervisors do not use them in practice or are even unaware of them, their use in supporting explicit dialogue formation is limited (Cuenca, 2018).

1.5 Thesis Overview

This research project initially started as part of a Master by Research programme, in which I (as a Master student) sought to explore various student-supervisor expectations and the potential misalignments in those expectations by conducting semi-structured interviews with 15 HDR students and 12 supervisors. At that stage, I was not required to build the thesis using any theoretical framework; it was exploratory in nature. As I started to analyse participants’ stories, more questions arose beyond the scope of a Masters. This resulted in my conversion to a PhD. The study was expanded by adding an overarching theory which, in turn, led to the emergence of new phases of data collection and analysis.

The theoretical basis used is that of dialogic pedagogy as proposed by Paulo Freire. This required a reanalysis of the data already collected to identify potential reasons affecting expectations misalignments. While doing so, I have noticed the gaps in the data I collected. Given that the students and supervisors interviewed for this study are the current members of research involved in the thesis production process, they faced difficulties presenting their opinion over several essential areas of expectations. At the same time, the need to discuss my own expectations with my supervisors was growing as I was progressing. Therefore, the decision to conduct an autoethnographic study, where my supervisors and I could discuss the process of formation and negotiation of our mutual expectations towards each other adding the emotional side of it has evolved in phase two.

The analysis of the participants’ stories in conjunction with our own supervision experience within the framework of dialogic pedagogy gave a more complete picture of misalignments 19

in expectations. In turn, the thesis was further expanded by posing the notion of developing an approach that could help research students and supervisors negotiate and align their expectations.

Phase three examined the proposed practice by giving it to student-supervisor dyads to implement when discussing their mutual expectations. The findings of all data collection phases and analysis on student-supervisor expectations formation, negotiation, and alignment process would contribute to scholarly discussion and have practical implications for higher degree research supervision policy and programmes.

Chapter 2. Given that I started working on this thesis as Master by Research student, my initial exploration of the literature was limited to the general area of postgraduate supervisory practices with a particular focus on student-supervisor expectations. The literature revealed a plethora of research pertaining to supervisory practices but some areas of postgraduate research supervision remained unresolved. It was in these unresolved areas that a number of research questions are arose. Addressing the initially proposed research questions but having in mind new questions, I have passed a conversion to PhD process. The literature was expanded by adding a discussion of the choice of the main theoretical framework, which further extended my understanding of current supervision practices and existing gaps in those practices, in which one of them was lack of supportive approach for alignment of student- supervisor expectations.

Chapter 3 describes and discusses the methods employed for the research. Writing the method in one chapter tends to mask the way this research was developed. Given my research journey emerged as new questions arose from the data being generated, the thesis consists of multiple phases of data collection and analysis. Each phase of the research required its own approach to collect relevant data. Therefore each approach is described separately within this chapter, indicating the purpose of using the method, data collection process and analyses, and the steps taken to ensure research quality and ethics compliances. The way data was collected and analysed raises the issue of reporting on each phase. Chapters 4, 5, and 7 are used to convey the way in which the research developed using semi-structured interviews, autoethnography, and action research methods.

20

Chapter 4 describes the first of the research approaches and presents the thematic analysis of the first phase of the research. This consisted of conversations with 15 HDR students and 12 supervisors and was analysed in two rounds. During the first round, a description of the development of the themes presented under which the range of student-supervisor expectations that have emerged in to five categories: academic practice, academic outcomes, skills and personal attributes, personal relationships, and clarifying expectations. They were discussed and compared accordingly to identify similarities and differences in perceptions. It was also identified some areas of expectations were presenting more misalignments than others. The parallels in expectations could be observed between the level of institutional regulation and the explicitness with which students and supervisors communicated their expectations, which is further illustrated in the Hierarchical Model of Student-supervisor Expectations (see Figure 2).

During the second round of data analysis, the same conversations were analysed through the lenses of the dialogic pedagogy to identify potential reasons for existing misalignments. While there were no questions posed in the interview specifically informed by dialogic pedagogy, conversations with both HDR students and supervisors provided much relevant data to analyse. Three main reasons for misalignments were identified as following: power and hierarchy influence, student-supervisor dialogue, and institutional support.

Chapter 5 presents a co-constructed narrative of the experiences of myself and my supervisors as we worked together throughout over the past three years. While the analysis of other HDR students and their supervisors’ experiences enabled a degree of understanding of arising expectations, I noticed a degree of discomfort among participants when discussing personal support and clarifying expectations aspects. Thus, we understood that personal experiences of being a research student and research supervisors offered an opportunity to add a layer of depth to understanding student-supervisor dynamics. I anticipated that using my own experience and those of my supervisors would enable a deeper understanding and analysis of the experiences shared by participants during the first round of data collection. During the development of our narrative, the emotional side of constructing, negotiating, and aligning mutual expectations with each other was shown, highlighting extra complexities which previously could not be identified from the data generated in the earlier phase of research.

21

Chapter 6 builds on phase one and two results by discussing the initial results of the thematic analysis and co-constructed narrative inquiries. While some of the results demonstrate similarities with extant literature, this chapter highlights findings that have not been identified previously. It is these new findings that extend our scholarly understanding of HDR student-supervisor expectations. In particular hierarchical model of student-supervisor expectations contributes to knowledge by classifying student-supervisor expectations and the arising differences in student-supervisor perceptions.

While the main aim of this research was to address research questions of phase one and two, from the results that emerged, an additional practice-focused research question arose, “How do HDR students and supervisors negotiate and align their mutual expectations towards each other to reduce those misalignments?” This entailed the addition of a third phase of data collection and analysis.

Chapter 7 presents phase three, the action research inquiry. Looking at the initial findings of previous data analysis phases and initial discussion of those findings, I noted that the expectations vary significantly between research students and supervisors. Current supervision toolkits were not sufficient as they lacked the individual’s view in their approaches to aligning student-supervisor expectations. To address this, I developed a practice to help both students and supervisors discuss and align their mutual expectations. The practice I have proposed contributes to supervision practices as it was developed to allow both research students and supervisors to have an explicit discussion of their mutual expectations and build a unique set of expectations. Using action research inquiry, the proposed practice was given to two student-supervisor dyads to apply within their supervisory relationship. While the first student-supervisor dyad suggested they did not gain directly from this practice, given they had already established trusting supervisory relationships, they highlighted positive aspects of using dialogic practice. The second student-supervisor dyad, however, was unable to implement dialogic practice in their supervisory relationship. Their experiences and further suggestions for improvement are discussed in this chapter.

Chapter 8 is the final chapter and summarises the results and discussion presented in the thesis. It does this by drawing on relevant conclusions, suggesting research implications, and

22

providing further research recommendations to continue this study and improving higher degree research supervision practices. It is recommended, for the successful alignment of HDR student-supervisor expectations, it is essential to initiate an explicit discussion of mutual expectations early on candidature. The inability to align mutual expectations can lead to harmful outcomes such as students’ attrition, late completion, and a high degree of dissatisfaction.

The proposed dialogic practice can help both parties to align their mutual expectations. While HDR students and supervisors are not restricted to a fixed set of questions within the practice, it is suggested without the continuous dialogue between the student and supervisor it may bring little positive impact.

Given the study was conducted based in the Malaysian context, it is suggested further research applying the proposed dialogic practice in other countries is needed to learn the experiences of other HDR student-supervisor dyads. It is expected the practice could be applicable to various contexts, given it does not aim to prescribe best practice or to define roles and responsibilities played by HDR students and supervisors in a specific cultural context.

23

Chapter 2. Literature Review

2.1 Introduction

As I embarked on the literature search, I knew I would explore student-supervisor relationships, but I did not initially define the potential research question/s that would allow me to explore the lesser-understood aspects of the postgraduate research supervision in Malaysia. As such, I started my initial search of the relevant literature by identifying a broad set of keywords. The keywords searched:

Doctoral education, academic development, research students, MyBrain15, doctoral supervision, postgraduate supervision, student-supervisor relationship, higher education, higher education in Malaysia, roles and responsibilities of students and supervisors, postgraduate students’ experiences, supervision issues, completion and attrition rates.

The 13 journals containing the most relevant articles around postgraduate research supervision were identified:

1. Studies in Higher Education 2. Teaching in Higher Education 3. International Journal of Doctoral Studies 4. Higher Education Research and Development 5. Innovation in Education and Teaching International 6. International Education Studies 7. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 8. Journal of Studies in International Education 9. The Journal of Higher Education 10. Arts and Humanities in Higher Education 11. Reflective Practice 12. International Journal for Academic Development 13. Innovative Higher Education

24

As the initial aim to understand student-supervisor expectations has broadened to developing an understanding around supervision pedagogies and dialogic pedagogy specifically as an overarching theory for this theses, more literature was required to identify current supervision practices and gain an in-depth understanding of critical pedagogy perspective. Therefore, the journals containing the most relevant articles along with the main book that was used are presented below:

1. Pedagogy of the Oppressed by Paulo Freire 2. International Journal of Critical Pedagogy 3. International Journal for Dialogical Science 4. Dialogic Pedagogy: An International Online Journal 5. Journal of Education 6. Studies in Higher Education

I begin this chapter by defining supervision and conceptualising postgraduate research supervision practice. Following that, I describe the emerging changes in postgraduate supervision practice and the outcomes of occurring changes. Moving on, I discuss various issues faced by research students and supervisors within emerged postgraduate research supervision model, turning a spotlight specifically towards less explored complexities in student-supervisor relationships, that is, alignment of student-supervisor expectations. I then discuss current toolkits that aim to align student-supervisor expectations. The result of this was to highlight another area which requires in-depth investigation. Finally, I discuss dialogic pedagogy as an overarching theoretical framework for this theses, suggesting the third research question that I aim to address. The chapter concludes by stating the specific research questions that will be addressed throughout the rest of this thesis.

2.2 Definition of Supervision

The word supervision has derived from two Latin words: 'super' and 'video'. Super means 'over' or perform, while video means 'to see'. When connecting both words together, super- video simply means 'to see from significant functions of supervision including providing above' or to 'oversee' (Marecho, 2012). The term ‘supervision’ has initially derived from a

25

professional working context, such as a company or fieldwork project, where it was described as a process of monitoring and continuously reviewing the progress of an employee at work.

In higher education, the definition of ‘supervision’ is not identical to managerial contexts, as supervision requires a more complex approach and has a developmental focus. There is a notion of developing a set of qualities in a student, rather than just monitoring whether the work is performed accurately. Until the 1990s, Alfonso and Firth (1990) suggested lack of a clear definition of supervision, resulting in failure to identify who supervisors are. To date, within higher education, there is no centrally agreed definition of research ‘supervision’ (Igumbor et al., 2020), and many authors have come up with definitions based on personal experience and understanding.

In early works around postgraduate supervision, the term supervision has been described as a formal process based on the professional relationship between supervisor and supervisee (James & Baldwin, 1999; Pearson & Brew, 2002). In those relationships, the supervisor’s role was to help supervisees acquire appropriate professional behaviour and guide them to become independent professional researchers in their field, capable of adapting to various research and industry arenas (Loganbill & Hardy, 1983; Pearson & Brew, 2002). The supervisor, by mentoring and advising, developed a professional interpersonal relationship with the research student that was conducive to scholarly activities, intellectual enhancement and promoted the student’s professional career (James & Baldwin, 1999). It was seen as a bilateral process with a complex interaction between the supervisor and the student (Kam, 1997), mainly conducted behind closed doors (McWilliam, 2002; Taylor, 2012).

More contemporary commentators, while presenting diverse definitions of supervision, commonly state that it should be viewed more holistically than historically perceived (Abiddin & Ismail, 2011; Bertone & Green, 2016; Ismail et al., 2011; Sidhu et al., 2014). Authors supporting neoliberal ideology suggest contemporary supervision should emphasise achievement, effectiveness, and productivity of the process (Zhao, 2003). These can be measured by the outcomes of research students. Barbara Grant, in her study, critiques contemporary supervision which supports views of neolibaralists which do not emphasise the importance of student-supervisor relationships for its role in producing scholars, but rather it is perceived as useful only when the credential is gained (B. Grant, 2005).

26

At the same time, there are those who argue supervision is more complicated than outcomes. It is a process that involves two parties (student and supervisor) with both similar and diverging interests and, therefore, it is essential to balance those needs by continuously engaging each other within the spirit of professionalism, respect, collegiality and open- mindedness (Abiddin & Ismail, 2011). Postgraduate research supervision has been defined as a negotiated and facilitative relationship between a supervisor and a supervisee in a complex process, where the supervisor needs to guide, coach and mentor the students towards the successful completion of a research project or thesis (Sidhu et al., 2016). It was suggested, for the successful supervision of graduate research projects, personal aspects of both parties should not be neglected and negotiated continuously until effective adjustment (Abiddin & Ismail, 2011). In such a construction, the heart of successful supervision remains in the quality of the relationship between student and supervisor (Acker et al., 1994), where supervision is aimed at fostering a student’s creativity (Bargar & Duncan, 1982), and not merely emphasising technical and rational lines (Acker et al., 1994).

Supervision in higher education is perceived as 'the most variable of all variables' (Bowen & Rudenstine, 1992, p.260). While literature suggests diverse definitions of postgraduate supervision, it is still viewed as one of the most advanced and complicated forms of teaching in higher education (Connell, 1985; James & Baldwin, 1999; Manathunga, 2005a; Manathunga & Goozée, 2007) that requires greater understanding not only in terms of meaning but also of how it should be practiced. With the neoliberal transformation of universities across the globe, the question of whether this diversity is acceptable in a neoliberal university arises. Therefore, the next section looks at changes occurring in the postgraduate research supervision practice as an indication of what can be expected as neoliberal agents take the lead.

2.3 Changes in Supervision Practices

As the role of supervision has become more complex and diversified in meanings associated practices have changed (Holligan, 2005). As suggested by Pearson (2005), the nature and scope of the practices of contemporary doctoral supervision differ significantly from those which were represented thirty to forty years earlier. The PhD has traditionally been pursued under an apprenticeship model of training, where a student registers to study on an

27

independent piece of original research under the supervision and guidance of an experienced academic researcher, who advises on the conduct and publication of the research (Delany, n.d.). The aim of this PhD was to produce researchers of knowledge production, mainly specialists who would conduct the research for the sake of knowledge creation, aligned with the traditional academic values of truth, objectivity, and universality (Taylor & Beasley, 2005). The main rationale was to develop new researchers to reproduce the academic population. This process was not bounded by specific completion times; the process of creating knowledge could take as long as necessary. In such a system, it was assumed that only a small number of the brightest people could attain a research degree (Taylor, 2012).

In the current neoliberal approach, making research education to be linked to national goals, some positive outcomes have emerged; research degrees became available not only to a small privileged group of people (Halse & Mowbray, 2011; Taylor, 2012), but to a wider community, and commonly dominating white middle-aged male group has diversified. At the same time, education has become increasingly international (Cadman, 2000), where students became able to do at least part of their studies abroad - not only in neighbouring countries, but also far away at universities in other continents (Marambe, Vermunt, & Boshuizen, 2012; Zhao, 2003).

These trends, of growing student mobility and increasing pool of HDR entrants (including Masters by Research and Doctoral degrees) (Engebretson et al., 2008) along with increasingly blurred boundaries across the countries (Bertone & Green, 2016), have been described by Altbach, Reisberg, and Rumbley (2009) as a “massification” of graduate research education experienced by Australia and other countries (Andres et al., 2015; Higher Education Statistics Agency [HESA], 2017; McFarland et al., 2017), raising questions regarding the effectiveness of master-apprentice model of supervision.

Student satisfaction was also an issue. Walford (1981) in reviewing studies of student satisfaction under the apprenticeship model identified large numbers of students reporting dissatisfaction with the supervision they received. It was then suggested research programs needed to become more structured and regulated (Holligan, 2005), supporting the completion of greater number of students within shorter period of time. With increasing number of entrants into postgraduate research programs and orientation towards national goals

28

achievement (Pedersen, 2014), higher education systems around the world have since the 1990s then undergone a period of intense administrative changes (Taylor et al., 2018).

Higher learning institutions and policymakers worldwide were forced to change supervision practices to support the demands of multiple stakeholders of accountability, risk management, and quality assurance (Olson & Clark, 2009; Park, 2007). Consequently, the previously dominating master-apprentice model of supervision (Taylor, 2012; University of Michigan, 2007) was understood to be outdated, and the pressure was applied to change.

Malaysia, like other countries striving to acquire national goals, has concentrated on facilitating a socio-economic transformation through the National Strategic Plan for Higher Education (Anisah & Shukran, 2011). This plan aimed at producing a critical mass of high- quality human capital through holistic education (Sidhu et al., 2013). To perform the MyBrain15 program, the Ministry of Higher Education in Malaysia has tasked higher learning institutions to improve the quality of postgraduate research education. Singh (2014) suggested while MoHE has called for improving the quality to achieve the stated goals (MyBrain 15), there were no clear guidelines on "how quality will be ensured, maintained or even upgraded". Thus, Singh questions whether the proposed target for PhD completions is achievable or it is better to revise the numbers but ensure the quality of PhD graduates?

2.3.1 Dramatic Shift to Consumer-Provider Education Model

The master-apprentice model of education has been widely critiqued for its practice of being behind closed doors, relatively private and unknown (McWilliam, 2002; Taylor, 2012). At the same time systematic inquiry into effective supervision practices was almost non-existent until the 1990s (Alfonso & Firth, 1990). It was suggested within such settings supervisors learnt about supervision through their experiences of being supervised and received very little educational development in this form of pedagogy until the early 1990s (Manathunga, 2005b). Students, at the same time, were expected either to be prepared and possess various research skills or to observe their supervisors and repeat the way they do (Manathunga & Goozée, 2007). Therefore, it was advised supervision practices shift away from the traditional master-apprentice model, which had little or no institutional backing towards a system of procedures and structures to embed doctoral education towards more formal framework

29

which is provider-consumer approach (Mcculloch & Picard, 2015; Taylor, 2012), which aims to ensure the quality of research as well as the efficiency and relevance of programmes (Boud & Tennant, 2006).

The main vehicle for this development has been the establishment of doctoral schools as strategic management units. Such units were developed to enable universities to identify problems and meet them in a systematic manner at the institutional level (Mcculloch & Picard, 2015). It was argued in the same way as undergraduate and taught postgraduate education had been fashioned by neoliberal government policies into a provider-consumer framework, so should the postgraduate research education (Holligan, 2005; Taylor, 2012). Despite the attempts to develop new supervisory practices within neoliberal education, which would include collaborative knowledge-sharing activities, along with supervisory panels, group supervision and peer groups (Halse & Malfroy, 2010) to support successful achievement of doctoral degree, it became widely critiqued. In particular, Holligan (2005) urged, “the utilization of a largely quantitative discourse of centralized success criteria, imposed by these highly politicized bureaucracies, may pose unavoidable ethical dilemmas for doctoral supervisors, some of whom may feel compelled to ‘over-direct’ student research development to ensure successful completion” (p. 268). Friere (1972) described the neoliberal influence on education as resulting in a banking concept of education that places HDR students under oppression (Freire, 1972).

The banking concept of education has been described as a process in which students (the oppressed) are allowed to collect, memorise and store knowledge given them by their teacher (the oppressor) (Freire, 1972). “In the banking concept of education, knowledge becomes a gift bestowed by those who consider themselves knowledgeable upon those whom they consider knowing nothing” (Freire, 1972, p.72). This concept has two stages of knowledge transformation from the oppressor to the oppressed. During the first stage, the educator prepares lessons, while during the second stage he/she expounds to his students about that object. The students, within this model, are not called to practice any act of cognition since the object towards which that act should be directed is the property of the teacher, but not created knowledge deriving from the critical reflection between teacher and students. Hence in the name of the "preservation of culture and knowledge," we have a system which achieves

30

neither true knowledge nor true culture (Freire, 1972); yet makes research supervision processes stay accountable and measurable.

2.3.2 Major Shift in Supervision Practice or Added Complexities?

The banking concept of education has been suggested to substitute the old-fashioned apprenticeship model of education. Certainly, while many research settings and arrangements for higher education have become more complex (Pearson, Evans, & Macauley, 2012) as the banking concept has been applied, the perception towards students being ‘empty boxes’ who are required to be filled with knowledge, and expert teachers are those who deposit knowledge in student’s brain remained the same, raising the question of whether the proposed new model actually differs from the apprenticeship model that was long prevailing within postgraduate research supervision (Taylor et al., 2018).

It was suggested, similar to an apprenticeship model of education, in the banking concept of education, the supervisor position remained as a privileged master who possesses expert knowledge that he/she can further pass to students (Taylor, 2012). Thus, supervisors are viewed as people with superior power and authority (oppressors), to whom students (the oppressed) are required to listen and obey (B. Moriarty, Danaher, & Danaher, 2008). In both pedagogical discourses, the supervisor talks and the student listens; the supervisor chooses and dictates, and the student complies; the supervisor acts, and the HDR student has an illusion of acting (Freire, 1972). Monologue dominates in both systems, granting oppressors with power to talk and oppressed to listen and memorise. Therefore, instead of initiating critical discussion and transformation of knowledge between student and supervisor, the process remains one-sided.

In addition to unresolved complexities of the apprenticeship model of education, within the banking concept of education, the essential aspect of critical thinking for knowledge production has been substituted with the lines of accountability and responsibility, where the knowledge passed from expect to apprentice needs to have measurable outcomes in terms of public utility to ensure smooth progression between one generation of researchers and the next (B. Moriarty et al., 2008).

31

Consequently, while what is called the banking concept of education is suggested to be a contemporary model of postgraduate research education, it instead represents a modified apprenticeship model of education (B. Moriarty et al., 2008). Indeed, supervision practices have become more complex in terms of regulations, documentations, responsibilities and performance indicators placed on multiple parties; yet, the overall concept of postgraduate research supervision still remains untouched and practiced as an apprenticeship model of education. While authors suggest research students require emotional support and assistance with broader career development (Pearson & Brew, 2002; Wisker et al., 2003), such educational and ethical issues in the era of internationalization and commercialization of postgraduate education are rarely considered, even in policies (Andres et al., 2015; Cadman, 2000). Governments are solely focusing on the administrative roles and responsibilities of supervisors in such practice, attempting to provide technical “fixes” that deny the genuine difficulties and complexities involved in supervision relationships (Manathunga, 2005b), making common issues faced by HDR students and supervisors during postgraduate research supervision process remain largely unsolved. Therefore, the next section of this chapter looks at current issues faced by HDR students and supervisors in postgraduate research supervision as a whole and specifically in Malaysia.

2.4 Postgraduate Research: Emerging Challenges for Students and Supervisors

With the growth of doctoral education, especially since the 1980s, and governmental recognition of the importance of research and research capability for socio-economic outcomes, there has come increased scrutiny of doctoral education (Pearson & Brew, 2002; Wisker et al., 2003) and the quality of the doctoral experience (Pearson et al., 2012). While the ‘change’ of supervision practice aimed to resolve various administrative issues around postgraduate research supervision to enhance effectiveness, control and regulations measures for doctoral students (Johansson et al., 2014), students and supervisors are still faced many issues to resolve, and these have not been acknowledged by neoliberalist practitioners. Apart from dealing with ever increasing technical and administrative load in academia, they have to continuously resolve unexpected dilemmas that occur in their daily lives. There are a number of common challenges students face at the starting and throughout the postgraduate research process which may have a negative impact on their research progress (Barry et al., 2018). 32

The following sub-sections 2.4.1-2.4.4 describe some of the commonly occurring issues. While all of these issues can be applied to HDR students, some may also be applied either directly or indirectly to their research supervisors too.

2.4.1 Cross-Cultural Adjustment

Increasing student mobility and competition among universities for students resolving issues with cross-cultural adjustment has become important. While the process of living in a different culture can be an exciting and stimulating experience, it is also a challenge when people realize their “normal” way of perceiving and behaving may not be appropriate in the new cultural setting (Smith, n.d.). For international HDR students and supervisors entering research programs in Malaysia, the problem of adjusting to a new cultural environment can be very common, given Malaysia is a multinational and multicultural country with a very diverse population.

When students are moving into postgraduate research studies, the period of adaptation to the new academic, cultural practices and expectations becomes critical. The writing of the postgraduate thesis generates concerns for the students about negotiating membership within the dominant academic culture (Mcginty et al., 2010; Sam et al., 2013). Postgraduate research students face multiple cross-cultural adjustment problems. They might suffer from homesickness, face issues in establishing their lives in a new country, understanding the local culture and finding friends (Jones, 2013; Umar et al., 2014). A study conducted by Yeoh (2012) investigated the challenges international postgraduate students face in their studies and daily life at the University of Tasmania. It was identified that demographic factors like cultural background, educational background and length in research were influential factors, setting the number of challenges to international research students such as interpersonal relationships with supervisors and academic performance.

Supervisors who come from different cultural backgrounds may also have issues adjusting to the new cultural setting. For example, in an interview with one Indonesian supervisor working in Malaysia, it was indicated understanding the behaviour of Malaysian postgraduate students can be a problematic practice (Trahar, 2014). In addition, supervisors also face difficulties dealing with students from diverse cultural backgrounds and with various educational needs (Gappa et al., 2007). It is easier to supervise when the supervisor and the 33

student share similar cultural backgrounds and social practices (Chiappetta-Swanson & Watt, 2011); yet in those institutions with a growing number of international students, supervisors have to continuously challenge themselves by educating, communicating and supporting a large and diverse number of students (Doyle, 2011). Consequently, the ineffectiveness of the one-size-fits-all approach proposed by neoliberalists becomes evident when aiming to manage diverse research students (Skarakis-Doyle & McIntyre, 2008). Recognising and reacting to student variability is one aspect of effective supervision; yet given graduate student supervision is a two-way relationship, faculty should also be aware of their supervisory style and how well it matches that of each student. Unfortunately, not all supervisors have the knowledge, ability and flexibility to understand and accept other cultures, which further complicating student-supervisor relationships (Doyle, Manathunga, Prinsen, Cornforth, et al., 2017).

2.4.2 English Proficiency Issues

Similar to cultural adjustment issues, issues around English language proficiency arise. Universities enrol many new research students without sufficient information about their academic writing skills. This undermines the postgraduate research process for HDR students. Despite achieving minimum required TOEFL or IELTS scores students still report difficulties in using academic English, particularly from non-English speaking countries still face difficulties (Sam et al., 2013). Most international HDR students have reported a poor command of academic English as a major cause for not completing on time (Sam et al., 2013). For example, one student said that he wasted time understanding academic papers and textbooks because of his limited understanding of English terminologies, grammar, and structure. He often spent two or three days on each page of thesis writing due to the weakness of his English academic writing skills such as paraphrasing, synthesising, and critically reviewing related literature. The findings are consistent with other studies which identified English language skills are one of the significant skills impacting international students’ academic success (Doyle, Manathunga, Prinsen, Cornforth, & Tallon., 2017; Phillips & Pugh, 2005; Winchester-Seeto et al., 2014).

This constraint, however, also has indirect effects on postgraduate research supervisors. While HDR students struggle to learn academic English, supervisors often find themselves

34

obliged to provide extensive language support to their students (Doyle, 2017). While supervisors are not required to help students and be their editors, in some cases, supervisors from Doyle’s research discussed the need of helping their postgraduate students, for whom English was a third or fourth language, develop their writing skills.

In Malaysia, where English is a second language not only for HDR students (Sam et al., 2013) but for their supervisors too (Trahar, 2014), it might be difficult for them to help their supervisees develop a greater level of English skills. Sometimes, Malaysian supervisors are themselves not proficient enough, especially in academic writing. This creates a further barrier to completing on time and producing quality research. Malaysian universities take some responsibility by providing academic writing training and workshops (Sam et al., 2013); yet academic English proficiency remains one of the major issues in postgraduate research supervision in Malaysia.

2.4.3 Mental Health Issues

Another consequence of the banking concept of education and attendant pressure to achieve key performance outcomes (timely completions and number of publications) has been the rise in mental health issues. HDR students and supervisors are equally exposed to this issue. Research has shown that doctoral students experience high levels of stress both when compared to undergraduates (Toews et al., 1997) and also the population norm (Hyun et al., 2006). HDR students face stress, anxiety, and depression due to various problems occurring in the postgraduate research process. The most prevalent reported problems were: the feeling of being under constant pressure, unhappiness and depression, sleeping problems due to worries, inability to overcome difficulties, and not being able to enjoy day-to-day activities (Levecque et al., 2017). Work-family conflict, followed by job demands, job control, and inspirational leadership style also has been identified to be the most influential aspect of both psychological distress and a risk of a common psychiatric disorder in PhD students. While increasing number of HDR students intend to face mental health problems, they often do not receive any counselling support they require (Eisenberg, Golberstein, & Gollust, 2007). A growing body of evidence demonstrates that psychological distress and emotional exhaustion influence educational outcomes and degree completion (Hunter & Devine, 2016), indicating

35

that better understanding the causes and impacts of stress on doctoral students could contribute to improving the quality of student experience and outcomes in doctoral programs.

Similar to HDR students, some supervisors reported increases in anxiety and stress. This is due to a large number of students, institutional load, and personal life issues. For example, all supervisors in study reported that the intensification of institutional pressures on academics to perform at increasingly high levels in both teaching and research had prompted supervisors to be more disciplined and structured about how they managed their time and interaction with students (Halse & Malfroy, 2010). Some supervisors reported anxiety, stress, be regularly overwhelmed and unable to meet students’, institutional and family demands (Halse & Malfroy, 2010). These were related to emotional, professional, and intellectual issues, which affected their sense of identity and well-being (Halse & Malfroy, 2010; Johansson et al., 2014; Sam et al., 2013; Taylor, 2012; Vekkaila et al., 2013; Wisker & Robinson, 2016).

2.4.4 Financial Strains

Financial instability and challenges are also faced by HDR students during the postgraduate research process. Studies have indicated that financial challenges are the most serious challenge for HDR students, which cause a lot of stress and uncertainty (Khawaja & Stallman, 2011; Khodabandelou, Karimi, & Ehsani, 2015), especially for self-sponsored HDR students (Umar, Azlan, Noon & Abdullahi, 2014). Moreover, difficulties in obtaining part-time or casual jobs to self-support also contribute to this emotional turmoil (Khawaja & Stallman, 2011). This issue is particularly relevant in the Malaysian context, where students expected that when they were coming to Malaysia to pursue a research degree, there would be a lot of employment opportunities similar to those in European and American higher institutions, like teaching assistant or research assistant (Khodabandelou et al., 2015); these are not common practice in Malaysia. This has made such students’ financial situation very challenging, especially for those from low-income countries or low-income family backgrounds (Mcalpine, 2013; Phillips & Pugh, 2005).

Although this is mainly an HDR students’ issue, it has indirect consequences for supervisors who have to deal with all its negative implications. For example, those HDR students, who have no choice but to take a part-time job, may not be fully involved in the research process, taking breaks to perform work, not concentrating on the research process and feeling stressed. 36

Such drawbacks may negatively impact the quality of research and even lead to attrition of HDR students (Phillips & Pugh, 2005).

2.5 The Student-supervisor Relationship: The Importance of Expectations

While both student and supervisor are likely to face different challenges during the research process, the issues around the student-supervisor relationships appear to be the most complicated for both parties and deserve greater discussion (Gunnarsson et al., 2013; Howells et al., 2017; Mantai, 2019; Vereijken et al., 2018). Student-supervisor relationships have been suggested to be one of the major factors influencing successful and timely thesis completion (McCallin & Nayar, 2012; Moxham, Dwyer, & Reid-Searl, 2013; Roach et al., 2019). While the student-supervisor relationships vital component of successful completion (Moxham et al., 2013), leading to ground-breaking research, years of academic collaboration and lifelong friendships (Grove, 2016), misunderstandings in research processes, co- authorship issues, and different perceptions of performed roles and responsibilities are among factors that could boost or ruin the student-supervisor relationship and motivation to continue the research. It is crucial, therefore, to explore the significance of the student-supervisor relationship during the postgraduate research journey and what institutions do to minimise issues arising in student-supervisor relationships. The following section of the literature review aims to clarify patterns of successful student-supervisor relationships and ways to navigate them.

Acknowledging the complexities of such relationships, practitioners in countries with large numbers of graduates and long histories of research education such as the United States, United Kingdom, and Australia have long been discussing issues around student-supervisor relationships and possible solutions (Winchester-Seeto et al. 2014; Pyhältö, Vekkaila & Keskinen 2012; Lee 2008). The emerging players in the international education landscape, such as Thailand, South Korea, and Malaysia, however, only recently have begun discussing this topic (Abiddin & Ismail, 2011; Krauss & Ismail, 2010; Masek, 2017; Sidhu et al., 2013), after identifying issues with supervisors were cited as a major contributing factor (Suhaimi, 2013) affecting timely completion rates, quality of research papers, and the further development of research graduates (Amzat, Yusuf, & Kayode, 2010; Halse, 2011; Ives & Rowley, 2005). 37

Given postgraduate supervision has evolved over time and become more demanding and more complex, possessing the required academic and research skills is necessary but not sufficient to make a good supervisor (Halse & Malfroy, 2010). While being knowledgeable and efficient as a supervisor is essential, a good relationship is also required between supervisors and postgraduate students. It was suggested for student-supervisor relationships to flourish, supervisors should be: friendly, supportive, knowledgeable, available at any time, and research-committed (Azure, 2016; Chireshe, 2012; James & Baldwin, 1999; Mcginty et al., 2010; Phillips & Pugh, 2005; I. M. Tahir et al., 2012)

When students and supervisors enter postgraduate research study, they develop a set of expectations towards each other and expect the roles and responsibilities of both sides will be performed accordingly (Sambrook, 2016). To establish a good student-supervisor relationship within the context of these various demands, an agreement of arising expectations between the student and supervisor has become paramount to both sides (Helfer & Drew, 2019; Holbrook et al., 2014; Orellana et al., 2016; Sambrook, 2016; Stracke & Kumar, 2020), understanding mutual expectations have become crucial for successful supervision process (Kam, 1997; Phillips & Pugh, 2005). Evidence from 180 participants in Masek's (2017) research developed in Malaysia suggested, given HDR supervisor’s power and authority over students, they should take the first step to discuss mutual expectations with a positive perception to the new student. It is the role of the supervisor to create a good environment in delivering expectations; then leave the students to further communicate their own expectations. In Sambrook's (2016) focus group study, HDR students were shown to have diverse expectations that often remain undiscussed. In addition, for many student participants discussing the doctoral supervisory relationship was a new practice. Therefore, evidence derived from several empirical studies highlighted an urgent need to explicitly discuss the emerging student-supervisor expectations.

2.5.1 What Do Supervisors and Students Expect from Each Other?

The two following sub-sections present the discussion of the literature identified through a comprehensive literature search around student-supervisor expectations in postgraduate research supervision. The majority of articles around this area have been conducted in countries with long supervision history and the greatest number of research graduates yearly,

38

such as UK with around 29,000 research graduates (Higher Education Statistics Agency [HESA], 2019), Australia with about 11,000 of research graduates in 2017 (Terry & Jackson, 2019), and the US with around 150,000 research graduates (Bustamante, 2019). Therefore, the majority of articles addressing student-supervisor expectations have emerged from those countries; although literature derived from other countries contexts’ are included in this review as well. Overall, articles in this domain highlight similar areas of student-supervisor expectations, along with similarities and differences in perceptions of HDR students and supervisors.

Following a broad search of international literature, given this research is conducted in Malaysia, Malaysian literature around student-supervisor expectations is then explored and discussed. Given Malaysia has recently raised concerns over the quality of postgraduate research supervision and the importance of student-supervisor expectations alignment, a smaller number of research papers has been identified.

2.5.1.1 International Literature

Expectations vary significantly across people, whereas some students may expect too much from their supervisors, while others do not even know what to expect. Those differences create difficulties in understanding of following questions: How much information should supervisor provide to a student? Or should they look for it themselves? Should a student be in the library managing things? And how much re-writing is required? How can students develop research skills? (Delamont et al., 1998; Manathunga & Goozée, 2007; Vereijken et al., 2018). As identified in the previous section, for student-supervisor relationships to flourish, alignment of those mutual expectations becomes an essential activity (Delamont et al., 1998; Martinsuo & Turkulainen, 2011; Pyhältö et al., 2015). Brown and Krager (1985) highlighted ethical, technical and methodological problems could be minimised or prevented if all the participants in the relationship will try to develop a clear set of expectations towards their respective roles and responsibilities and the rules of their counterparts. On an institutional and personal basis, the supervisor should take the lead to work explicitly with students on establishing expectations towards their respective roles and responsibilities (Phillips & Pugh, 2005). An example is a contemporary study of Doyle et al. (2017), whereby expectations of international students were shaped by prior supervision experiences and

39

constructions of roles between students and supervisors. It was found, some of the students faced adjustment difficulties due to differences in relationship with supervisors they had previously experienced in their home countries, requiring an explicit discussion to align their expectations with those of their supervisors.

While the past 30 years the growing literature on student-supervisor relationships highlights the importance of clarifying student-supervisor expectations on the early stage of candidature (Cadman, 2000; Phillips & Pugh, 2005; Spear, 2000; Sullivan & Ogloff, 1998; Walford, 1981), expectations around the roles and responsibilities of each party in research remain mainly implicit (Barry et al., 2018; Davis, 2019; Helfer & Drew, 2019; Sambrook, 2016). Students and supervisors are recommended to clarify their expectations about several aspects such as the extent and nature of direction from the supervisor; procedures for meetings; the submission of written work; the nature and timing of response from the supervisor (feedback); the supervisor’s attitude to the editing of written work and to confront any ideological differences between supervisor and student (James & Baldwin, 1999). Adding to it, more contemporary works recommend aligning and performing not only technical and administrative aspects but taking steps further in performing personal aspects such as supporting the psychosocial needs of students (Franke & Arvidsson, 2011; Moxham et al., 2013; Roach et al., 2019) or boosting student’s motivation (Azure, 2016; Mcalpine & Mckinnon, 2013; Woolderink et al., 2015). While the list of what students and supervisors expect from each other can be very long as it covers a wide range of supervision aspects, a thorough review of literature has led to the identification of major areas of expectations, which are grouped (see Error! Reference source not found.) under six main categories: access, project planning, academic support, personal support, core competencies, and decision-making.

40

Table 1: Student-supervisor expectations during thesis preparation (International literature)

Areas of Students’ Perspective Supervisors’ Perspective Sources Concerns Access (meetings) Supervisors to meet with students regularly Students should have regular meetings with their (Corner & Pio, 2014; Davis, 2019; and be available when needed. supervisors; they should not expect supervisors to be Gunnarsson et al., 2013; Orellana et al., 2016; available always and at any time. Parker-Jenkins, 2016; Phillips & Pugh, 2005;

Roach et al., 2019; Woolderink et al., 2015) Project Planning Supervisors should help identify a research Develop their own research topic (except those who (K. Grant et al., 2014; Lessing, 2011; Mcginty & Development topic, select methodological framework, and work on the proposed topic); produce written work and et al., 2010; Moxham et al., 2013; Orellana et address ethical issues. al., 2016; Woolderink et al., 2015) Academic Supervisors to provide relevant sources of Students should be proactive and independent, seek and (Doyle, Manathunga, Prinsen, Tallon, et al., Support information to support the progress of accept feedback from the supervisor, follow the advice 2017; Ives & Rowley, 2005; Lindsay, 2015; research; provide frequent and constructive and instructions given, regularly update their Mcclure, 2005; Mcginty et al., 2010; Stracke feedback and well thought out advice; set supervisors on their research progress. & Kumar, 2020; Woolhouse, 2002) deadlines, read their work and monitor their progress. Personal Support Supervisors to be aware of students’ personal Supervisors should not get involved in students’ (Costea, 2006; Doyle & Manathunga, 2017; lives and the challenges they go through; personal matters. Franke & Arvidsson, 2011; Kam, 1997; Anne understand that different students have Lee, 2008; Mcalpine & Mckinnon, 2013; Supervisors have many students, so they cannot meet different personalities, and adjust to their Roach et al., 2019; Spear, 2000; Vereijken et the demands of all. needs and demands. al., 2018; Woolderink et al., 2015)

Core- Supervisors to be friendly, open and Expect student to have critical thinking and time- (Ali et al., 2016; Azure, 2016; Chireshe, 2012; Competencies supportive; encourage arguments and debates; management skills, high self-regulation, and Lindsay, 2015; Moxham et al., 2013; Pyhältö possess knowledge in research field. engagement in the research process. et al., 2012) Research-related As students mature and progress well in their Students need to have a discussion with their (Gunnarsson et al., 2013; Orellana et al., Decisions research, they should be given more autonomy supervisors before making any significant decisions. 2016; Schulze, 2012) to make research-related decisions.

41

a) Access

While both HDR students and supervisors recognise the importance of holding regular meetings, the frequency and content of such meetings remain an area of disagreement between the two parties. The nature and the regularity of meetings depend heavily on the personal characteristics of the supervisor as well as the discipline (Barnes & Austin, 2009). For example, one of the HDR students spoke about their arrangement of meetings with her supervisor, highlighting having regular meetings held every two weeks at a specific time. She further added that such an agreed schedule helped both her and the supervisor to concentrate on essential aspects of research as well as achieving timely completion of the project (Reidy & Green, 2005). Similar findings revealed from Heath's (2002) research, whereas 85% of respondents who had met their supervisors twice a month on a regular basis were delighted with that frequency, availability of supervisors and overall with supervision.

With regard to the frequency of meetings and access to supervisors, the literature suggests not all postgraduate research students and supervisors have that explicit agreement regarding timing and access to supervisors. In Yarwood-Ross and Haigh's (2014) study, the majority of the students complained about difficulties meeting their supervisors because of their tight schedules. One of the students was concerned about his supervisor having over 40 research students and not sufficient time, while other students described the supervisor to be inadequate and unhelpful, having only seen the student for a total of two hours in the last year. It was concluded, research students who met their supervisors once a month or less on an irregular basis were less satisfied with the supervision practices than those who had regular meetings (Heath, 2002). Therefore, it is essential that supervisor and student should clarify their mutual expectations at the outset of the course. Particular attention should be given to the frequency and nature of student-supervisor meetings as it may affect doctoral students’ emotional exhaustion and intentions to leave academia (Hunter & Devine, 2016). Consequently, it would be advantageous for postgraduate research students and supervisors to discuss the regularity and content of the meetings as soon as the candidature begins (Heath, 2002; Reidy & Green, 2005).

42

b) Project Planning and Development

HDR students and supervisors typically agree on the need for good planning, a clearly defined research subject, as well as methodological know-how (Pyhältö et al., 2012). However, the two parties disagree significantly as to who should do what. While students expect their supervisors to be experts in the field and keep track of their research progress (Pang et al., 2015); supervisors expect HDR students to be fully responsible for doing their work and act as independent researchers (Doyle, Manathunga, Prinsen, Tallon, et al., 2017).

Supporting students’ view, it is essential for research supervisor to know the right way to manage research activities (Engebretson et al., 2008). Initially, postgraduate research students might have insufficient understanding of the institution system for progression through a doctoral degree, and therefore supervisors need to inform and assist students with university rules in terms of thesis preparation and submission, reporting and review requirements, availability of resources for conference attendance or software purchase. Speaking about the most important tasks of supervisor, one of supervisors have supported students’ perspective suggesting supervisors should provide a general overview in the field, know what has been investigated, what kinds of problems are interesting and methods that doctoral students should familiarise themselves with (Pyhältö et al., 2015).

Some supervisors, however, disagree with this perspective, speaking about students’ responsibility to choose research topic, methodological framework, looking for suitable conferences and also updating supervisors about their research progress. For instance, supervisors spoke about the inability of students to understand supervisors have many other projects, while students have only their thesis, and it is difficult for supervisors in a PhD supervision session to get up to date and up to speed as quickly as the student would like (Gunnarsson et al., 2013).

c) Academic Support

Guidance has been identified as another area of major disagreement between students and supervisors (Wisker et al., 2007). Students think that they should receive detailed instructions and guidance on how the research project should be managed. Supervisors, on the other hand,

43

demand students to take responsibility for their research and look for necessary research materials by themselves (Mcclure, 2005).

Adding to complications of getting detailed guidance, students also described difficulties in obtaining feedback on written work. Stracke & Kumar (2010) noted that the concept of feedback is deeply embedded in the student-supervisor relationship and that learning is improved if the feedback is provided in a face-to-face manner, avoiding traditional master- student power relationships. One of the students talked about approaching the supervisors for several months before finally receiving some feedback. It was evident from the many comments similar to the one cited above that some supervisors withhold feedback for various purposes (Yarwood-Ross & Haigh, 2014). In addition, students expect supervisors to provide constructive feedback.

At the same time, supervisors are willing to share their thoughts regarding research progress with students and adjust the direction of research if needed. However, giving and receiving feedback can be a difficult activity, as some students might not accept or simply ignore critical feedback (Carter & Kumar, 2017). At the same time, some supervisors might be harsh or even rude while providing feedback. In such a case, it was suggested to offer HDR students formative feedback that will include praise for what is effective as a way of showing more clearly a contrast to what works less well (Stracke & Kumar, 2020). This calls for sensitivity and diplomacy attributes that not all supervisors have.

d) Personal Support

Apart from expecting the supervisor to provide sufficient academic support, students also expect personal support from their supervisors; that is the provision of advice, sympathy and encouragement outside the strict academic boundaries of the research work (Spear 2000).

The supervisor’s perspective, however, is often characterised by a desire for a professional relationship, where meetings with the supervisor are spent discussing only professional matters (Bøgelund, 2015). Some claim that relationships between postgraduate students and supervisors will only work if they are purely professional, claiming that providing personal support should not be provided given supervisors are not professionally trained counsellors,

44

have their own personal and professional problems, and may cause more harm than good while trying to play the role of counsellors (Al-Naggar et al., 2012; Spear, 2000).

Students meanwhile are often not satisfied with supervisors’ perception of not being involved in their personal matters. Such a view is supported by several authors, who believe quality and successful supervision require good relationships and interactions between supervisors and postgraduate students (Johansson et al., 2014; Lessing, 2011; Naim & Dhanapal, 2015). An excellent example of how personal support from supervisor can strengthen the student- supervisor relationships revealed from Johansson et al. (2014) research, where one of the students highlighted after discussing personal matters with her supervisor to gain trust and confidence. From this perspective, effective supervision requires supervisors to provide not only professional but also personal support for their research students (Franke & Arvidsson, 2011; Kam, 1997; Mcalpine & Mckinnon, 2013; Woolderink et al., 2015).

e) Core-Competencies

HDR students and supervisors place high importance on different kinds of skills required to successfully perform research activates. Students, in addition to academic skills, expect their supervisors to possess soft skills, which enable them to interact effectively and harmoniously with them. This includes attributes such as: being friendly, supportive, active listener, positive, open, and easy to talk to (Erichsen et al., 2014; Shariff et al., 2015; Woolhouse, 2002). Students also suggested the above supervisor characteristics to smooth the research process and make HDR students feel more comfortable, as it is essential to have positive relationship between students and supervisors because the quality of the interaction and personal quality of the supervisor are important predictors of timely PhD completion (Shariff et al., 2015).

Supervisors also expect their students to have a number of soft skills, but of a different kind. This includes, but is not limited to, critical thinking, time-management skills, high self- regulation and self-efficacy, and sufficient English (Benmore, 2016; Parker-Jenkins, 2016). While it is difficult to identify students who are lacking some of these skills at the time of admission into a programme (Kam, 1997), supervisors have insisted that students themselves should look for opportunities to develop their lacking skills (Cadman, 2000). They should ask

45

questions during seminars and other trainings, as it forces them to listen, synthesise, identify areas they do not understand and then formulate questions in English.

f) Research-Related Decisions

While both HDR students and supervisors expect to be involved in the decision-making process, Delamont et al. (1998) argue that it is often difficult for supervisors to create a delicate balance between dominating the student's research and neglecting it. Supervisors believe too much control can threaten the originality of the research and the researcher's autonomy, while too little can delay completion and even lead to total failure. Some students in Yarwood-Ross and Haigh’s (2014) research described their supervisors to be over- controlling, using words as controlling freak and extremely controlling. Vilkinas (2008) found that 20% of Australian supervisors acknowledged that they try to exercise too much control over their doctoral students' work. Thus, it is challenging for supervisors to ensure that the student has ownership of the project and makes decisions (Doyle, Manathunga, Prinsen, Tallon, et al., 2017).

In contrast, students possess the perception that as they mature in their studies/research progress, supervisors should give them more autonomy to make decisions. While students may need more support in the early stage of their research, they would like to play an active role and influence major decisions as they progress and feel more confident (Bell-Ellison & Dedrick, 2008; Gunnarsson et al., 2013; Mcclure, 2005). In research of Bell-Ellison and Dedrick (2008), some of the students insisted that they want to be treated as adults who have a right to be involved in decisions that affect not only their research but the future career as well. Similar findings were represented in Mcclure’s (2005) study, where some students expressed positive feelings of being treated as independent researchers who have the right to choose and develop a project the way they like. In this case, Delamont et al. (1998) suggested that both parties should not neglect to involve the other one in the decision-making process to avoid conflict.

46

2.5.1.2 Malaysian Literature

In Malaysia recently, student-supervisor expectations have been placed under the spotlight. Malaysian scholars are aware of the importance of establishing a ‘good’ student-supervisor relationship, suggesting clarifying mutual expectations and responsibilities being significant for such relationships. Both government officials and scholars have acknowledged student- supervisor expectations to be among the factors affecting student’s timely completion and overall satisfaction (Abiddin & Ismail, 2011; Masek, 2017). To date, however, only a limited number of studies attempted to explore expectations of HDR students and supervisors in postgraduate supervision in Malaysia. While most of the studies investigated HDR student’s views (Abiddin, 2018; Krauss & Ismail, 2010; Memon et al., 2014; Naim & Dhanapal, 2015; Sam et al., 2013; Sidhu et al., 2014; I. M. Tahir et al., 2012; Yee & Mokhtar, 2013) regarding roles and responsibilities of their supervisors, one study has been conducted highlighting supervisor’s perceptions towards roles and responsibilities of their students (Masek, 2017).

In regard to expectations, various authors highlight the importance of supervisors establishing mutual expectations, responsibilities, and benefits for working together with students, both on a departmental and individual basis (Masek, 2017; Pang et al., 2015). Similar to the international context, various layers of expectations have been presented. It was suggested supervisors should treat their students as independent researchers, provide adequate academic support for them to grow and establish their scholarly identity (Abiddin & Ismail, 2011; Sidhu et al., 2014), as well as provide personal and psychological support and motivation (Al-Naggar et al., 2012; Yee & Mokhtar, 2013).

While the importance of clarifying mutual expectations has been presented by several authors, the method of how to clarify student-supervisor expectations remains unclear, given limited supportive guidelines in HDR handbooks and institutional policies in regard to this aspect. This is evident in the research of Krauss & Ismail (2010), which explored PhD students’ experiences of thesis supervision in Malaysia, including managing personal relations, time and accessibility constraints, academic compatibility, and expectations. During interview sessions, they explored different views regarding students’ expectations towards supervision. One of the interviewees could not articulate mutual expectations and seemingly did not know what to expect from the supervisor. In that case, the student’s strategy was to be

47

fully responsible and act as the main mover. Another interviewee in the same study argued to ensure timely completion and good quality of research paper, it was essential to keep a good relationship with their supervisor. A local teacher and part-time PhD student in the same study spoke about not only accepting the fact that students cannot always have what they want in a supervisor but must also be flexible and adjust to their situation. She further added that because students want supervisors to have expert knowledge, be always available, they should understand that supervisors also possess the expectations students must adjust to. Thus, following this study conducted in one university in Malaysia, it was concluded there was no agreement in terms of the expected behaviour of students and supervisors. This creates questions as to whether there might be misunderstandings or miscommunications between both parties in Malaysia in terms of expectations of mutual roles and responsibilities.

Again, to identify a list of what students and supervisors expect of each other, a thorough review of literature on Malaysia has been conducted. Interestingly the six concerns identified in the international context were also found to be the same major concerns in Malaysia (see Table 2).

48

Table 2: Expectations of students and supervisors during thesis preparation (Malaysian literature)

Areas of Concerns Students’ Perspective Supervisors’ Perspective Sources Supervisory Access Supervisors should schedule regular meetings and Students should be proactive in understanding the supervisor’s (Abiddin & Ismail, 2011; be accessible whenever needed. background and schedule. Krauss & Ismail, 2010) Project Planning and Supervisors should help students with choosing a Students should decide on the research area and topic on their (Al-Naggar et al., 2012; I. Development research topic and methodological framework, set own, be independent and ensure that supervisors know what stage M. Tahir et al., 2012) deadlines for the submissions. students currently are in their projects. Academic Support Supervisors should provide clear guidance and No clear expectation of the kind of guidance supervisors should (Masek, 2017; Naim & constructive feedback to support student’s progress provide to students. Dhanapal, 2015; Sidhu et al.,

in research. (For example, providing them with 2016; I. M. Tahir et al., Students should present the drafts and accept the feedback relevant literature) 2012) supervisors provide.

Personal Support Supervisors should be people-oriented, establish Students should be more research-oriented, professional and not (Al-Naggar et al., 2012) good and professional relationships with students, expect supervisors to be involved in their personal life outside of occasionally serve as mentor and coach, and know study. Students should be strategic in managing relationships. the circumstances/ things they go through. Core-Competencies Supervisors should possess communication skills, Students should possess high self-regulation, self-efficacy, and a (Abiddin & Ismail, 2011; being attentive and active listeners, have supportive sense of control, be more resourceful and possess critical thinking Krauss & Ismail, 2010; skills, general skills, and be friendly and caring. skills. Sidhu et al., 2014; Yee & Mokhtar, 2013) Research-Related Supervisors should provide some degree of freedom Students should be involved in the decision-making process but (Masek, 2017; Pang et al., Decisions and flexibility while conducting research yet help have discussions with their supervisors prior to taking decisions 2015) students to take research-related decisions. about their research.

49

Using literature, a comparison of expected behaviour beyween the Malaysian and Western shows that Malaysian experiences differ from those of Western in two areas: academic support and research-related decisions. Malaysian HDR students require more guidance and support from their supervisors than their international counterparts (Sidhu et al., 2014). In addition, Malaysian HDR students tend to be more dependent on their supervisors, preferring them to be taking major research decisions (Pang et al., 2015). In a comparative study of expectations of students towards their supervisors in Malaysia and the UK, it has been identified students in Malaysia tend to be more dependent on their supervisors and expect their supervisors to apply a people-oriented approach, while HDR students in the UK expect supervisors to be experts in their research field (Sidhu et al., 2014).

Naim and Dhanapal's (2015) study explored PhD students’ expectations of their supervisors. Their results also suggested HDR students in Malaysia have high expectations towards their supervisors, suggesting supervisors are responsible for timely completion of thesis, for setting regular meetings with students, for tracking their progress. The authors further suggested more research is required to understand why HDR students disagree that student-supervisor relationships should have purely professional nature. Opposite to the investigation of student’s view towards supervisor’s roles and responsibilities, Masek (2017) has conducted research identifying how supervisors communicate their expectations with HDR students. The finding revealed HDR supervisors believe in having a high level of interactions with students, good discussions, and clear communication of research expectations during supervisions.

The differences in particular areas may occur due to significant cultural differences. Looking at Hofstede’s framework of cultural dimensions, Malaysia scores the maximum in Power Distance (unequal distribution of power among people within the particular culture) and scores low on the Individualism aspect (the degree of interdependence among members of the culture) (Error! Reference source not found.). This notion makes researchers question whether the tactics and guidelines proposed for HDR students and supervisors in Australian, New Zealand and United Kingdom literature can be applicable to the Malaysian context, given highlighted differences in expectations of both HDR students and supervisors from different cultural contexts (Mcginty et al., 2010; Sidhu et al., 2014; Trahar, 2014).

50

Figure 1 Hofstede cultural comparison of Malaysia and Australia

Strong power differentials and the effect of hierarchical culture may add complexity to the process of discussion of mutual expectations. In high power distance cultures, deference to authority prevents students from openly disagreeing with the professor and makes it almost impossible for them to say ‘no’ to any requests from the supervisor even if the request is unrealistic such as overtime work, deadlines they will not be able to meet (Abdullah & Pedersen, 2003). While in countries like UK and Australia HDR students are required to demonstrate that they appreciate that other findings are not to be simply accepted and reproduced and to show that they understand how knowledge in a specific discipline is constructed, in Malaysia students will seldom criticise teachers, raise questions that could embarrass the teacher, or even to correct them if they make a mistake. It is, however, not surprising that they find it hard to put forward their ideas. Therefore, a further investigation of student-supervisor expectations is required to identify and compare arising student- supervisor expectations within the Malaysian context.

51

2.6 Limited Institutional Regulations of Student-supervisor Expectations

As suggested by Martinsuo and Turkulainen (2011), to minimise the problem of high drop- out rates and unsuccessful outcomes of postgraduate research studies, university departments need to develop practical solutions to match the students’ expectations with those of the faculty and to support students in their studies. Looking at different university policies, aiming to provide help in negotiating student-supervisor expectations, the question of how practical and useful current approaches are or whether the development of a new practice is required arises.

A number of commonly used toolkits are currently being used in Australian and UK universities. Those toolkits and guidelines were adapted from research of various authors who suggested roles and responsibilities both parties should perform in postgraduate supervision (Cadman, 2000; Gurr, 2002; Manathunga & Goozée, 2007; Moses, 1985; Phillips & Pugh, 2005; Spear, 2000). The toolkits were further modified, suggesting students and supervisors can discuss the proposed roles and responsibilities accordingly and decide on the degree of involvement for both parties in every process, such as topic selection, feedback giving, an arrangement of meetings, and other aspects. While active practitioners of these toolkits suggest using such tools enables supervisors and students to engage in an explicit dialogue about students’ current learning needs (Manathunga & Goozée, 2007), such toolkits offer little discussion on student-supervisor relationships, implying there should be no personal relationships and nothing regarding skills and attributes that require to be developed by the researcher and how the need for specific skills and attributes could be identified.

Within the Malaysian context, all universities providing postgraduate research programs are required to comply with the Malaysian Qualification Framework (Malaysian Qualification Agency, 2017) and have policies and guidelines for the administration of research degrees. While administrative rules and regulations are clearly stated in those policies, supervision practices are rarely made explicit and included in those statements. As per Universiti Sains Malaysia and Universiti Teknologi Malaysia (two out of five RUs in Malaysia) postgraduate research handbooks, students and supervisors are required to follow technical and institutional regulations of research (School of Graduate Studies UTM, 2018; Universiti Sains Malaysia, 2012). These include how to manage confidentiality, make reports related to the

52

progress and outcomes of research activities, comply with the requirements and regulations of the university and any other third party sponsoring the funds or research grants, mentor and provide support and others. There is little explanation given of what students and supervisors should perform and expect from each other in graduate research or how those expectations can be successfully aligned and negotiated among parties. Similarly, Swinburne Sarawak’s HDR Statement of Practice provides some broad statements of expected roles and responsibilities of students and their supervisors. And while students and staff are pointed to various external resources on this topic, historically, there has been little formal guidance provided on ways of managing student-supervisor expectations (Swinburne University of Technology, 2019).

Toolkits and guideline initiatives have been included across universities (Byrne & Tooley, n.d.; Edwards et al., 1995; School of Graduate Studies UTM, 2018; Stracke & Kumar, 2020; Swinburne University of Technology, 2013; Universiti Sains Malaysia, 2012). While those student-supervisor checklists were made to support the alignment of student-supervisor expectations, in many cases, they seem not to achieve the expected outcome, given student- supervisor expectations commonly neither explicitly discussed nor aligned (Barry et al., 2018; Helfer & Drew, 2019; Sambrook, 2016). This might be particularly the case where the toolkit becomes an exercise in ‘filling and ticking boxes’ for student-supervisor dyads. Ticking boxes or reading long pages of the guideline has nothing to do with students and supervisors entering dialogue and having an explicit conversation about their concerns, expectations, or hopes. While it was suggested such supervisory toolkits help to initiate the dialogue, reduce tensions and encourage transparency between HDR students and supervisors throughout the candidature (Stracke & Kumar, 2020), it may also have the effect of obscuring the need for ongoing discussion and clarification of mutual expectations, suggesting once the toolkit is filled, the expectations between them automatically become aligned. This can create silence in supervisory spaces, intimate and sustain the authority that limits the possibilities for dialogue between supervisor and student-teacher (Cuenca, 2018), and confusion about various expectations surrounding supervision practices. Nonetheless, discussions regarding supervision practice are necessary for ensuring quality in postgraduate students’ work (Al- Naggar et al., 2012). It is suggested there is the need to support research development programme to help develop research skills, supporting students and supervisors who

53

increasingly face larger numbers of postgraduates involved in an increasingly diverse range of topic areas and research methods (Wisker et al., 2007).

Turning specifically to work on postgraduate supervision and development of mutual expectations, Manathunga, Guilherme, and Dietz (2017) argued that within currently dominating the neoliberal discourse, the development of supervisory practices excludes the unpredictable, creative outcomes and ignores the operations of power between supervisors and students. This, among all effects development of student-supervisor expectations. Thus, they emphasise the adoption of transcultural approaches to supervision that situate time, place and cultural knowledge at the centre of doctoral pedagogies to develop more empowering intercultural communication and pedagogy. A similar recommendation was proposed by other authors, who urged effective supervisory practices and strategies should be established early on in the student’s candidacy, as this helps both supervisor and student negotiate a successful balance within this powerful relationship (Moxham et al., 2013). To develop such support mechanisms, however, there is a need to find an alternative supervision practice, which will not only support the achievement of national goals and outcomes such as timely completion and attrition but also will support dialogue development between HDR students and supervisors to successfully understand and negotiate their expectations.

2.7 Supporting Pedagogies in Postgraduate Research Supervision

Aiming to help research students throughout their research journey, two key pedagogies have been proposed to support knowledge transformation and skills development during the postgraduate research process; peer learning and communities of practice.

2.7.1 Boud and Lee’s (2005) Peer-Learning Pedagogy

In recent years, pressure on academics has increased, in the sense that academic work has come to embrace diverse forms of activity (Lee & Boud, 2003). As the emphasis has shifted towards performance-based funding, research degree completions, and preparing research students for employment, the importance of finding new ways of supporting the research dimension of academic work has emerged (Boud et al., 1999).

54

Acknowledging the complexities of the research environment, Boud and Lee (2005) proposed a peer-learning approach as a pedagogical practice that aims to support the development of important skills in students by working together with each other. Peer-based pedagogy has commonly been utilised in undergraduate and postgraduate coursework programs to encourage collaborative learning and skills development within traditional classroom settings (Batty & Sinclair, 2014). Within higher research education, being a formerly autonomous mode of education (Lee & Boud, 2003), peer-learning has long been perceived as unnecessary or not practical, making it rarely theorised or documented in research policies (Batty & Sinclair, 2014; Lee & Boud, 2003). While the traditional apprentice model still remains largely dominant within higher research education, scholars worldwide suggest peer- learning pedagogy fits within higher research degree space, given that many candidates aspire to undertake academic or research roles and will further be working in professional communities that are critically influenced and shaped by collaborations with peers (Batty & Sinclair, 2014).

After the interviews with two doctoral students, Boud and Lee concluded learning from peers to be a beneficial practice. Both interviewees suggested, having relationships with other students can help to mediate institutional, procedural, and social protocols and know-how, as well as sharing intellectual resources or just having an informal conversation (Boud & Lee, 2005). Similar findings arose in other studies, where authors described peer-learning as one of the most valuable enablers of students’ progress, which provides support and a safe space to test ideas and thinking, encourages each other to keep going, and develops a diverse range of skills (Devenish et al., 2009). For supervisors, peer-learning pedagogy works as an enabler to enhance their supervision practices and learn from other participants (Batty & Sinclair, 2014). It also aims to disrupt the effects of an excessive attachment to notions of academic autonomy by developing a group of researchers who are working on a particular project or attending a workshop, share their knowledge and experience (Boud & Lee, 2005).

Along with extensive benefits, however, the limitations of peer-learning pedagogy have been identified. Although some authors highlighted peer-learning can be a useful tool to form horizontal relationships, where supervisors become “peers” and learn from their students, and research students gain a sense of their authority and confidence as writers and researchers (Batty & Sinclair, 2014; Boud & Lee, 2005; Stracke, 2010), it is not always the case. One of

55

the participants in Boud and Lee’s (2005) research, who described the benefits of the peer- learning pedagogical model, however, raised concerns about perceiving a supervisor as a peer, suggesting within a peer-learning group, she never viewed her supervisor as a peer, given power inequalities. The other student from this study talked of the inability to construct dialogue within such discourse, suggesting peers with superior power will take the lead on the conversation, making dialogue impossible (Boud & Lee, 2005). Fenge (2012) has further supported views presented in Boud and Lee's (2005) study, suggesting peer-learning could be threatening to some people as they may feel to be compared to others, and therefore not respond positively to group learning contexts.

Such students’ perceptions of being compared with more successful and powerful students or could not perceive their supervisors as peers were suggested to be affected by authority formation, which commonly exists within higher learning institutions, given predominating apprenticeship model of education. In such model, more experienced individuals (experienced students or supervisors) are perceived to hold greater power (B. Moriarty et al., 2008).

It has been argued, to reduce power inequalities and create a safe space to form horizontal relationships, it is essential to develop the notion of mutuality within peer-learning groups. The main principle of such a notion is the achievement of a richer peer relationship based on recognition of a common positionality ( Lee & Boud, 2003) of the academics holding different levels of power (such as students and supervisors). It does not emphasise flattening- out of differences, but rather differences are accommodated within a larger commitment to a group project. That means, while power differentials still present given differences in experience or expertise, that power is to be used positively to achieve common goal and allow educational engagement.

While peer-learning approaches promote knowledge sharing and skills development through discussions and learning groups among researchers (Marouli et al., 2018; Millis, 2012), within higher degree research supervision, it serves as a complementary practice to be applied along with the supervisor’s input (McCallin & Nayar, 2012). A peer-learning pedagogical approach seeks to develop a supportive environment for knowledge creation and sharing, skills development, in-depth discussion, timely completion, and enhanced publication process

56

for both research students and supervisors (Batty & Sinclair, 2014; Devenish et al., 2009). While it helps both HDR students and supervisors learn of established norms within the peer- learning group (Alison Lee & Boud, 2003), it provides little guidance for developing strong student-supervisor bonds or for negotiating student-supervisor expectations, which are essential aspects for research student’ success or failure in postgraduate research program (Kam, 1997; Masek, 2017; Pyhältö et al., 2015). The result is that while peer-learning can impact some aspects of the supervision relationship, it provides little guidance on how HDR students and supervisors might go about defining, negotiating, and aligning their mutual expectations.

2.7.2 Lave (1991) and Wenger’s (1998) Communities of Practice Pedagogy

Aiming to identify deeper patterns within the apprenticeship model of education, Jean Lave and Etienne Wenger suggested that while people tend to think of apprenticeship as a relationship between a student and a master, apprenticeship model of education constitutes a more complex nature, where social relationships are formed through learning which takes place mostly with journeymen [sic] and more advanced apprentices (Lave, 1991; Wenger, 1998). Thus, the more advanced ‘communities of practice’ model have evolved into practice. Wenger, McDermott, and Snyder (2002) argue that organisations, such as universities, need to become more proactive and systematic about developing communities of practice.

Communities of practice (CoP) is based on Lev Vygotsky's Zone of Proximal Development social theory of learning (Lloyd & Fernyhough, 1999; A. Tahir & Asmuni, 2016), in which groups of people share a concern or a passion for something they do and learn how to do it better as they regularly interact (Wenger, 1998). The assumption behind CoPs is that engagement in social practice is the fundamental process by which participants learn to become who they are (A. Tahir & Asmuni, 2016). The primary unit of analysis in such practice is neither the individual nor social institutions; it is instead the informal communities of practice that they develop as they engage in over time and set their boundaries (Wenger, 2018).

CoP is often confused with peer-learning groups (Laurel, 2019), given the common purpose of sharing knowledge and helping to acquire various skills. In comparison with peer-learning groups, however, for communities of practice to exist, they have to possess defined 57

characteristics. It is organised and maintained by people holding the same area of interests. Members engaged in joint activities and discussions; yet not limited to a specific topic as in peer-learning, helping each other and sharing information. Members of CoP have shared a repertoire of resources such as experiences, stories, tools, ways of addressing recurring problems (Lave, 1991; A. Tahir & Asmuni, 2016; Wenger, 1998, 2000).

While peer-learning groups tend to mostly exist within one institution, communities of practice are not bounded by location, size, and mode of communication, as it can be global or local, online or face-to-face, existing in different types of organisations, not only educational organisations (Wenger, 1998). In the contemporary world, however, such difference has been erased with strong implication of online learning, which allows both CoP and peer-learning to be practised across universities and time zones.

Communities of practice recognise learning as a social phenomenon that occurs in a specific context through legitimate peripheral participation in ongoing social practice (Lave, 1991). Within CoP, the relationships between participants are constructed not based on traditional dyadic model of student and teacher but have more complex triadic relationships between masters (old-timers), young masters (journeymen), and apprentices (newcomers) (Lave, 1991). In such relationships, the newcomers must learn from old-timers but, unlike students, must also contribute to the work of the group by doing the simple tasks. Newcomers, therefore, get directly involved in the practice, and this immediate contribution makes them legitimate members of the community. As they master more and more of these peripheral practices their legitimacy increases within the group (Fox, 2000). Thus, by participating in communities of practice, people gain the ability to learn and absorb knowledge and skills and develop social position by communicating and learning with and from their more experienced peers (Lave, 1991; Wenger, 1998).

Within the current neoliberalist ideology, where learning and knowledge transformation have been neglected, within a community of practice, both research students and supervisors can create culture of learning and knowledge transformation, helping novice researchers acquire the necessary knowledge, skills and behaviours to do research and to become a community member. It has been suggested that the concept of CoP is relevant to the research environment since doctoral students are grouped into one social learning system, which

58

involves creating and sharing knowledge through research work within various scholar communities (A. Tahir & Asmuni, 2016). HDR students, hence, are benefiting from participating in CoPs as they can discover new knowledge, generate problem-solving skills and creativity, and acquire greater understanding of practices within particular settings. Thus, applying apprenticeship mode of learning, novice researchers gain knowledge and skills of practices within their institution and further become expects, making the CoP not static entities (J. Roberts, 2006).

Communities of practice, similar to peer-learning pedagogical discourse, have some limitations to their application. One of the limitations is unequal power relationships existing within communities of practice (Fox, 2000). Given communities of practice include diverse members in terms of experience, expertise, age, personality, and authority, power may be evident in terms of the degree of participation during discussions or in the decision-making process. Those members who have full participation will have a greater role and are likely to wield more power in the negotiation of meaning (J. Roberts, 2006; Wenger, 1998). Therefore, as happens with peer learning, CoPs do not strive to address power differentials within the community. Rather, power inequalities between newcomers (novice research students) and old timers (experienced researchers and supervisors) are accepted.

Another barrier to CoPs working to their full potentiation is the challenge of developing trust within the community. Without trust members of a community of practice may be reluctant to share their knowledge. The presence of a relationship of trust between individuals indicates an ability to share a high degree of mutual understanding, built upon a common appreciation of a shared social and cultural context (J. Roberts, 2006). Adversarial relations between HDR students and supervisors with commonly low level of trust and strong hierarchical control may fail to support effective communities of practice.

Lastly, CoP may have limited flexibility in its practices and can be highly resistant to changes (Fox, 2000; J. Roberts, 2006). It is suggested, CoP forms an established set of knowledge and practices which is passed from old timers to newcomers (Wenger, 2000). In the rapidly changing world, however, such practices may become outdated at any moment, requiring constant revision and update. Within higher research education that undergoes a period of intense changes, flexibility is paramount. For novice HDR students entering CoP which

59

resists changes may bring more challenges than actual benefits, creating cognitive dissonance (Fox, 2000).

In conclusion, both peer-learning and CoP pedagogical discourses help to address several issues presented in contemporary research supervision. They encourage both HDR students and supervisors to work in collaboration, share their ideas and receive valuable feedback and understand the culture and norms of particular learning institutions through becoming community members. The practices further help to foster knowledge creation and transformation between groups of people from different levels of competence (such as students and supervisors).

Peer-learning and CoP vary significantly in the mode of learning, where peer-learning supports collaborative learning of individuals having different experience and social status, and CoP emphasises learning from more experienced peers, but not together with them. Both practices, however, tend to accept power inequalities, suggesting positive outcomes of such collaboration.

In relation to student-supervisor relationships and their mutual expectation formation and negotiation, neither pedagogical discourses present much support. While HDR students and supervisors have an opportunity to gain a lot by practicing those pedagogies within single institution or a community, it cannot eliminate the importance of strong student-supervisor relationships throughout the research journey. HDR students participating in CoP may face difficulties developing strong trustable relationships with more experienced practitioners such as supervisors. To develop such relationships, the discussion of mutual expectations remain paramount and, thus requires the pedagogy that could help not only creating safe environment for research students and supervisors to collaborate and share their research-related ideas (Fenge, 2012) but allows to develop discussion on less formal relational practices and mutual expectations.

2.8 Dialogic Pedagogy as an Alternative in Postgraduate Research Supervision

Calling for more humanizing/democratic pedagogical approach to education, Paulo Freire proposed the concept of dialogic pedagogy (Freire, 1972). First proposed by Paulo Freire, and 60

further developed by Ira Shor, Henri Giroux, bell hooks, Donaldo Macedo and many more, dialogic pedagogy can simply be described as a practice whereas humans develop consciousness by constant action and reflection (Dale & Hyslop-Margison, 2010; Freire, 2000, 2005; Giroux, 2014; hooks, 1994; Shor et al., 2017). The action and reflection, then, becomes continuous practice within human relationships. Apart from action and reflection, dialogic pedagogy as a praxis has an element of improvisation (Freire, 1972) that cannot be reduced to prescribed policy or a guideline to follow. Thus, education can not be intimidated by manipulation, sloganising, and prescriptions (Freire, 1972), leading to the loss of egalitarian and democratic values, ideals, and responsibilities (Giroux, 2014).

While Freire’s pioneering work was commonly criticised by neoliberal opposition for his so- called ‘utopian’ ideas and practices (Dale & Hyslop-Margison, 2010), he remained critical towards the oppressive system of education, which praised authority and power and as he viewed disregarded critical thinking and transformation through learning. In describing education as having been reduced to a ‘banking’ system, emphasised that dialogue cannot be reduced to the act of one person’s “depositing” ideas in another, nor can it become a simple exchange of ideas to be “consumed” by the discussants (Freire, 1972; Skidmore & Murakami, 2016). Dialogue is the encounter between men [sic], mediated by the world, in order to name the world (Freire, 1972, p. 88). While the banking concept of education resists dialogue and knowledge co-construction, Freirean problem-posing education (dialogic pedagogy) regards dialogue as indispensable to the act of cognition which unveils reality. While the banking concept treats students as objects of assistance, problem-posing education makes them critical thinkers (Freire, 1972, p. 83).

In critical pedagogy, the dialogue is an existential necessity (Freire, 1972) that builds the relationships between humans, the humans who know, and who try to know (Shor & Freire, 1987). Such practice, however, can only be developed if students will be valued as equal participants, who share equal power and involved in decision-making process. Deliberation is a process in which citizens dialogue together to share knowledge, express opinions, and understand others through reasoned argument and disagreement becomes a crucial part of critical pedagogy practices (Cuenca, 2018).

61

Paulo Freire’s position towards dominating neoliberalism ideology in education has been supported by many authors worldwide (Dale & Hyslop-Margison, 2010; Giroux, 2014; hooks, 1994; Shor et al., 2017; Skidmore & Murakami, 2016). Skidmore and Murakami (2016) wrote, “…the dialogic teacher authority has a democratic character and requires them to demonstrate in practice their competence in directing the learning process to students”. Giroux (2014) further states, “students must be involved pedagogically in critically discussing, administrating, and shaping the material relations of power and ideological forces that structure their everyday lives” (p.39).

The concept of dialogic pedagogy appears relatively simple and uncomplicated in theory; however, as Moriarty et al. (2008) and Dale and Hyslop-Margison (2010) suggest, it can be easily misapplied and misunderstood. While many authors look at dialogic pedagogy to identify best practice approach, most of those studies inspired by Freire’s ideas, however, were done to explain the benefits of the implication of dialogic pedagogy within classroom settings (Dale & Hyslop-Margison, 2010; Diaz, 2018; Giroux, 2014; Shor et al., 2017; Wijers, 2013).

In an interview on Friere’s writings, Ira Shor has highlighted not only the benefits of implementing dialogic pedagogy within classroom, but also spoke of difficulties (Shor et al., 2017). He suggested, while teachers place great effect on student’s development and thinking, they all face resistance to and cooperation with their interventions. He emphasised, while critical pedagogy takes its place against standard “banking” pedagogies which accommodate students to their places in the unequal status quo (Shor et al., 2017), not all his students were happy to implement critical pedagogy praxis in their classroom activities and even requested for more traditional approach. Shor indicated various reasons behind students’ position of distancing themselves from participating in dialogue but suggested the inability to impose democratic relations if majority in class presents resistance.

While a great number of studies have been done around dialogic pedagogy within a classroom, only few attempts were identified which locates dialogic pedagogy within postgraduate research supervision. Khene (2014), while attempting to apply dialogic pedagogy with her students admitted thinking it ‘weird’ when Freire suggested students need to be treated as human being, arguing such practice shall not come as a requirement but rather

62

persist naturally within education system. Following her study, however, Khene agreed supervisors often see their HDR students as objects that will help them to gain promotions or get more publications, and further added, supervision should be regarded as an interactive process where both the HDR student and supervisor learn and grow throughout the research (Khene, 2014).

Another study conducted by Stewart and McClure (2013) evaluated current supervision practices of both authors through the lens of dialogic pedagogy. It emphasised both student and supervisor should enter into teaching and learning without predetermined outcomes; while there are goals and objectives that guide them, supervisors shall remain open to learn both with and from students. Freire has discussed such notion, proposing to use dialogue as an opportunity that is available to people to open up to the thinking of others and thereby not remain in isolation (Freire, 1972). Stewart and McClure (2013) in their study have referred to a statement made by Hurbert Hermans, who suggested “an individual’s social position in institution creates situations where some people have greater chances to take the role of power holder than do others” (Hermans, 2001, p.265). They further argued, attending to issues of power in the classroom and exploring the ways in which such issues impact dialogue in the classroom is essential in the process of reflection on roles played in the teaching and learning process (Stewart & McClure, 2013). Therefore, they have embraced this concept and engaged in self-study to examine their own teaching experiences to understand the ways in which dialogue between students, teachers, and their mentors can make teaching and learning more collaborative (Meijers, 2013).

In attempt to conceptualise dialogic pedagogy for the supervision of student-teachers, Cuenca (2018) suggested the importance of bringing four elements when practicing dialogic pedagogy. The art of listening, where supervisors, instead of trying to catch student’s mistakes and impose their perspectives, should give student teachers space to talk through this experience and explore the contradictions and tensions of learning to teach. The art of questioning, where within dialogic supervisory spaces, participants must be willing to openly question themselves and be questioned by the other. The art of negotiation in dialogic supervision requires awareness that meaning, understanding, and the knowledge that underpins “truth” is mutually constructed and negotiated. As Bakhtin (1984) suggests, “truth is not born nor is it to be found inside the head of an individual person, it is born between

63

people collectively searching for the truth, in the process of their dialogic interaction” (p. 110). Lastly, the art of self-critique was where critical and constant self-reflection is a crucial component in creating spaces where dialogue is welcome.

The following section reviews ways dialogic pedagogy has been used to clarify student- supervisor expectations in postgraduate research education.

2.8.1 Using Dialogic Pedagogy to Clarify Student-supervisor Expectations

It has been commonly suggested the discussion between HDR students and supervisors prior to the formation of student-supervisor team can eliminate many problems (Ali et al., 2016; Delamont et al., 1998; K. Grant et al., 2014; B. Moriarty et al., 2008). As suggested by Paulo Freire, “the education must start with resolving contradictions among students and teachers” (Freire, 1972). The banking model of education presents several challenges for HDR students and supervisors that do not allow them to open dialogue. Within this model, supervisors view limited skills and attributes required for their HDR students to be developed to perform up to set standards. HDR students, on the other side, are unable to openly question and critically discuss supervisors’ perspectives on their own research or expectations towards research, themselves and their supervisors. Under the oppressive authority of a monologic system, HDR students are assumed to have no expectations, not talking about ability to discuss and negotiate their preferences. Such a system, however, aligns with neoliberal postgraduate research supervision which emphasises managerialist measures such as timely completion and number of publications per researcher. The inability to draw supervisory practices around more student-oriented pedagogies, however, leads to production of graduates unable to critically think and reflect outside of prescribed realities.

While several attempts have been made to highlight the importance and value of applying dialogic pedagogy in postgraduate research supervision, to date only one study explicitly discusses benefits of a dialogic pedagogy in developing student-supervisor relationships and expectations (Moriarty et al., 2008). To conduct that study, during the first stage, authors employed Freirean perspective on dialogical pedagogy as a framework to identify and interrogate opportunities and challenges in postgraduate supervision. During the second stage, they looked beyond the expected substantive and methodological outcomes associated

64

with the successful completion of a thesis to the more enduring gains made by supervisors and students who embrace a dialogic approach to the supervisory process.

The results highlighted both opportunities and challenges in applying dialogic pedagogy to the supervisor-postgraduate student relationship and the lifelong education dimension of that relationship. Three main opportunities were highlighted: students' mobility across dependence, interdependence and independence; collaborative approaches to co-supervision; and students' and supervisors' mutual interests and post-supervision relations. Concerning students’ mobility, the authors suggested HDR students, rather than following fixed and linear progression from dependence to interdependence to independence concerning their supervisors, can have mobility across and within these different stages while writing a thesis, depending on various factors. Another opportunity discussed by the authors was that dialogic pedagogy could help move from one-to-one relationships between HDR student and supervisor towards team supervision. Several supervisors work together on the thesis, sharing and comparing their diverse perspectives to provide the strongest possible support for the student. Finally, dialogic pedagogy can serve as an effective tool to construct post- supervision relationships between HDR students and supervisors, who can further work as co-authors or co-supervisors of new students.

Along with opportunities, Moriarty et al. (2008) have acknowledged challenges that can hinder the implication of dialogic pedagogy. The aspects of concern are overemphasis on the apprenticeship model of supervision, the managerial approach to the research, and the cultural specificity of dialogic pedagogy. While the first two challenges were discussed above as the threats of the current system of higher education, it is essential to look at whether cultural context can affect the implementation of dialogic pedagogy. Moriarty et al. (2008) have highlighted some students accustomed to the Confucian traditions with its basis in structures of authority and deference might find dialogical pedagogy so unsettling as to be ultimately destructive.

Indeed, Moriarty et al. (2008) suggested the influence of Confucian culture may hinder applying the dialogic pedagogy approach into the postgraduate supervision practices in Malaysia. However, their study was theory-based and no emperical data has been presented. It did not suggest how dialogic practices can be practically used to support students and

65

supervisors align their mutual expectations. At the same time, Dale and Hyslop-Margison (2010) suggested the ideas of dialogic pedagogy will require adjustment, depending on the context of their application. Paulo Freire advised education is contextual, whereas each context has corresponding needs and outcomes, thus no single method of instruction or “best practice” exists (Freire, 1972). This indicates another gap in the literature and another research question for this study to answer: How do HDR students and supervisors negotiate and align their mutual expectations towards each other to reduce those misalignments? Therefore, to answer the research questions stated above, the following chapter will discuss the methodological frame applied to conduct this research.

66

Chapter 3. Methodology

3.1 Introduction

The purpose of this research is to explore student-supervisor relationships in Malaysia, with a special focus on students and supervisors’ expectations regarding their respective roles and responsibilities in postgraduate research supervision. In this chapter, I outline the scope and methods used in obtaining and analyzing data to explore student-supervisor expectations and provide answers to the central questions of this thesis, namely:

1. What are student-supervisor expectations regarding their roles and responsibilities in postgraduate research supervision in Malaysia? 2. Are there any misalignments in expectations between HDR students and supervisors? 3. What are the possible reasons for any misalignments in student-supervisor expectations in postgraduate research supervision in Malaysia? 4. How do HDR students and supervisors negotiate and align their mutual expectations towards each other to reduce those misalignments?

To address the proposed research questions, three phases to approach data collection and analysis were presented. Phase 1 of the research aimed to identify and compare the student and supervisor expectations, the arising mismatches in those expectations and hindering reasons for occurred misalignments. Phenomenology was used as a methodological approach for this phase as it allows to explore the lived experiences of 15 HDR students and 12 supervisors. The data was collected through semi-structured face-to-face interviews, and inductive thematic analysis was conducted.

During Phase 2, I used evocative autoethnography to share personal experiences of being a research student and supervisors. This phase of research was conducted to add an emotional layer of depth to Phase 1 of the study and discuss the expectations concerning more personal aspects of supervision relationships that are less commonly voiced. The data for this phase

67

was collected through revision of personal diaries and email conversations between my supervisors and myself. It was then organised into a co-constructed narrative and left unanalysed in accordance with evocative autoethnography principles.

Phase 3 of this study, an action research-inspired approach, was used to implement the proposed Dialogic Practice to Negotiate Student-supervisor Expectations. The proposed Dialogic Practice to Negotiate Student-supervisor Expectations was developed from the combination of Phase 1 and Phase 2 findings and dialogic pedagogy ideas proposed by Paulo Freire. The data was collected through face-to-face dyadic interviews. Two student- supervisor pairs were asked to implement the practice in their supervisory relationships and share the experiences of using it. The data were presented in two narratives, while the reflection summarised and concluded the findings. Each phase of the research was treated as a separate study that aimed to address specific research questions and was discussed separately in this chapter (see Sections 3.4-3.6).

The next section of this chapter will describe different paradigmatic assumptions and emphasise the reasons for choosing the interpretivism paradigm. Following that, the methods employed in each phase are described in detail.

3.2 Research Method

In the context of academic research, the term ‘paradigm’ can be described as a set of ideas, or alternatively, a world view, taken by researchers to generate knowledge (Fossey et al., 2002). Similarly, Bryman (2012) and Guba & Lincoln (1994, p.105) describe ‘paradigm’ as a set of beliefs which dictates researchers in a particular discipline, what should be studied, how research should be done, and how results should be interpreted. Guba & Lincoln (1994, p.109) highlight four main paradigms, namely positivism, post-positivism, critical theory, and constructivism, which differ in their view to ontology, epistemology, and methodology.

While positivist and post-positivist paradigms have been widely used among practitioners in different disciplines (Bryman, 2012; Fossey et al., 2002), the main goal for these paradigms is finding the truth and generalizing findings. However, as the current research aims to observe the experiences of postgraduate research students and supervisors, it will be difficult to 68

quantify and generalise findings due to its high subjectivity and understanding of the truth by each participant. Instead, to explore the experiences of participants, the constructivist paradigm should be applied, with its epistemological approach of interpretivism which aims to explore the individual experiences of each participant (Norman K. Denzin & Lincoln, 1994).

By applying a constructivist paradigm in this research, I started from the assumption that there can be different opinions constructed by people towards a particular situation or issue. This approach allowed me to listen to participant’s voices as well as individuals’ subjective meanings to be constructed through the research process (Angen, 2000). For this research, I kept in mind to be flexible and take into consideration other approaches that can possibly address my research questions. Therefore, to offer meaningful findings and bring significant contributions from the research to society, the choice of methodological framework is crucial. Aligned with a constructivist approach, I decided to collect and interpret qualitative data.

3.2.1 Qualitative study

During the past twenty years, the qualitative approach to data collection has become independent and a meaningful mode of inquiry actively used by social sciences (Marshall et al., 2006) such as education, social work, and management. According to Merriam (1998) qualitative research can be described as a concept that includes several forms of inquiry that help researchers build an understanding of social phenomena. Qualitative research studies things in their natural settings, trying to make sense of or interpret phenomena in terms of the meaning people bring to them (Norman K. Denzin & Lincoln, 1994). To simplify, where research questions are not based on assumptions about the existence of a single reality but aim to uncover a ‘plurality of truths’ (Fraser, 2004), then qualitative methods may be more appropriate in offering an explanation of causal relationships. By tracing the processes that have contributed to differing participants’ experiences and by collecting participants’ own explanations of what has happened to them, it is possible to understand why people behave as they do in particular situations or in response to certain stimuli or interventions (J. Moriarty, 2011).

One of the main aims of qualitative research method is to explore the views people have towards a particular issue or situation. By doing so, researchers employing qualitative 69

approach emphasise words rather than numbers, during the collection and analysis of data (Bryman, 2012; Johnson & Christensen, 2014). Qualitative researchers often view human’s behaviour as being fluid and dynamic, that changes shapes based on time and place (Johnson & Christensen, 2014). Therefore, understanding the meaning which is constructed by an individual’s interaction with their social world at a particular point of time and context becomes crucial for them (Merriam, 2002). Central to good qualitative research is whether the research participants’ subjective meanings, actions, and social contexts, as understood by them, are illuminated (Fossey et al., 2002).

Researchers employing qualitative methods try to understand the people they are observing from the participants’ viewpoints. They try to understand multiple dimensions and layers of reality, such as the types of people in a group, how they think, how they interact, what kinds of agreements or norms are present, and how these dimensions come together holistically to describe the group (Johnson & Christensen, 2014). This is the concept of “empathetic understanding.” The sociologist Max Weber, writing in the early 20th century, called this idea of understanding something from the other person’s viewpoint (Weber, 1968). This is expressed in an American idiom as “putting yourself into someone else’s shoes.” It is important to remember that qualitative research is focused on understanding the “insider’s perspective” of people and their cultures, and this requires direct personal and often participatory contact.

This study was designed to discover the experiences of HDR students and their supervisors towards their respective roles and responsibilities. A qualitative study will allow to “gain an in-depth understanding” of what I was studying (Merriam, 1998, p.19), as it helps understanding the meaning people construct about their world and their experience (Merriam, 2002).

3.3 Phase 1. Hermeneutic Phenomenology

3.3.1 Philosophical Foundations

As discussed earlier in the chapter, a variety of research methods to data collection have gained its strong voice and attractiveness among researchers. Apart from the commonly used qualitative approach to data collection, methods like phenomenology, ethnography, 70

grounded theory, and hermeneutic phenomenology became popular means of doing research (Norman K. Denzin & Lincoln, 1994). The concerns, however, around these methodologies have been raised over insufficient understanding of the rigour necessary to ethically utilize them (Laverty, 2003). Among all, phenomenology and hermeneutic phenomenology differs from other disciplines as “it does not aim to explicate meanings specific to particular cultures (ethnography), to certain social groups (sociology), to historical periods (history), to mental types (psychology), or to an individual’s personal life history (biography). Instead, phenomenology attempts to explicate the meanings as we live them in our everyday existence, our lifeworld” (van Manen, 1990, p.11). Phenomenology, in comparison with other methodologies, place emphasis on the world as lived by a person, rather than perceiving reality being separated from the person. This methodological approach aims to discover and interpret “What is it like to have certain experience?” as it attempts to unfold meanings as they are lived in an everyday person’s existence.

Phenomenology is fundamentally the study of lived experience or the lifeworld (van Manen, 1990). As several authors suggest, phenomenological research originates with a practice which provides guidance to researchers in their endeavours (Gadamer, 1976; van Manen, 1990). Research informed by phenomenology seeks to illuminate essential meanings in our lived experiences that may be taken for granted (Giles, 2008).

The concept of phenomenology has been first introduced by Edmund Husserl’s (1859-1938), a so-called ‘father’ of twentieth-century phenomenological philosophy (Macann, 1993). In 1900, a former mathematician received an invitation to join the philosophy faculty at Göttingen, where he then became a professor in philosophy and introduced transcendental phenomenology. Husserl’s concept of pure or transcendental phenomenology differed from previously objective, empirical, and positivist concepts in psychology, emphasising “not as a science of matters of fact, but as a science of essences” (Husserl, 1982; Sloan & Bowe, 2014). In Husserl’s writings, he proposed the notion of “essence” was often referred as the whatness of things, rather than to their thatness (existence) (van Manen, 1990). In simple words, the term “essence” refers to the essential meanings of a phenomenon, making a thing what it is. Husserl defined phenomenology as a discipline that attempts to describe how the world is constituted and experienced through conscious acts. He suggested phenomenology must describe what is given to us in immediate experience without being obstructed by pre-

71

conceptions and theoretical notions (Husserl, 1982). In simple words, instead of looking at human experiences through lenses of different theories and approaches, Husserl insisted on going “back to things themselves” (van Manen, 1990).

Edmund Husserl, while he was the first to propose phenomenological methodology, was not the only one in his views. Soon after his approach was developed, his research assistant Martin Heidegger developed his own strand of the philosophy called existential or hermeneutic phenomenology. While Heidegger has appreciated the approach proposed by Husserl, he did not completely agree with him and allowed him to develop his own phenomenological method. Thus, two predominant approaches to phenomenology have emerged: descriptive and interpretive. Descriptive/pure/transcendental phenomenology which was developed by Edmund Husserl, and interpretive/ hermeneutic by Martin Heidegger (Connelly, 2010). Therefore, the next section in this chapter will look into the main similarities and differences between these two schools.

3.3.2 Husserl’s Phenomenology versus Heidegger’s Phenomenology

When highlighting similarities, it is essential to state both schools are concerned with the lifeworld or human experience as it is lived (Laverty, 2003). Both school philosophies were developed from German philosophy, and their originators worked with and influenced one another (Sloan & Bowe, 2014). Husserl and Heidegger were convinced that the world is simply one lifeworld among many worlds, so both called for a review of the truth of our world and ourselves as conscious beings (Laverty, 2003). Both philosophies aim to recruit participants who have lived experience that is the focus of the study, who are willing to talk about their experience, and who are diverse enough from one another to enhance possibilities of rich and unique stories of the particular experience.

While both Husserl and Heidegger shared beginnings and common interest in lived experience, as suggested by Laverty (2003), their philosophies present differences emerged within ontological, epistemological, and methodological realms. Heidegger’s school reject the idea of “bracketing” (eliminating personal opinions of researchers) and the turn for the interpretive narration to the description (Kafle, 2011). This method of suspending researcher’s judgement in order to see more clearly was perceived by Heidegger as unattainable (Laverty, 2003) and later by Gadamer as futile (Gadamer, 1976). “Heidegger 72

went as far as to claim that nothing can be encountered without reference to a person’s background understanding” (Laverty, 2003, p. 8). To conclude, Heidegger and other authors who support hermeneutic phenomenology suggested the observer could not remove him or herself from the process of essence-identification, that he or she existed with the phenomena and the essences (Gadamer, 1976; Heidegger, 1962; van Manen, 1990). He or she would be required to bear that in mind during the phenomenological process, hence the alternative description of ‘existential’ phenomenology (Smith et al., 2009). Heidegger suggested that a philosopher cannot investigate ‘things in their appearing’ to identify their essences while remaining neutral or detached from the things – that it is not possible to “bracket off” the way one identifies the essence of a phenomenon (Langdridge, 2007). Also, the use of language and the interpretation of a person’s ‘meaning-making’, their attribution of meaning to phenomena, is central to Heideggerian phenomenology (Smith et al., 2009).

The methodological differences between two philosophies arise around phenomenology being foundationalism, as it seeks a correct answer or valid interpretation of texts not dependent on the biographical, social, or historical position of the interpreter; while hermeneutic phenomenology, in contrast, is described as non-foundationalism, as it focuses on meaning that arises from the interpretive interaction between historically produced texts and the reader. Therefore, after Husserl and Heidegger had established their two classic versions of phenomenology, other philosophers and methodologists became involved – mainly during the second half of the twentieth century. They added to or refined the ideas and approaches put forward by Husserl and Heidegger. Among them Maurice Merleau-Ponty, Jean-Paul Sartre, Ademeo Giorgi, Hans-Georg Gadamer and Max van Manen.

This research follows the path of hermeneutic phenomenology as developed by Heidegger and Gadamer, further refined by Max van Manen. While this research could follow any path, researcher’s personal involvement in the process of postgraduate supervision and particularly in student-supervisor expectations does not allow to maintain the distance from the researched topic and remain neutral as suggested in Husserl’s philosophy. Thus, this research follows more evocative and personalised way of exploring phenomenon by accessing hermeneutic phenomenology as proposed by van Manen.

73

3.3.3 van Manen’s Hermeneutic Phenomenology

Max van Manen is one of the recent developers of hermeneutic approach of phenomenology. He suggests, hermeneutic phenomenology tries to respond to both terms of methodology: descriptive (phenomenological) when aiming to understand how things appear; and interpretive (hermeneutic), as it claims there are no such things as uninterpreted phenomena (van Manen, 1990). The inconsistencies around this view may be resolved if one recognises that the (phenomenological) “facts” of lived experience are always already meaningfully experienced. He further adds, “lived experience is the starting point and the endpoint of any phenomenological research” (van Manen, 1990, p. 36). It is suggested, hermeneutic phenomenology, as per van Manen, can be applied to understand and clarify phenomena in pedagogy and psychology (Sloan & Bowe, 2014). van Manen (1990) advises “a real understanding of phenomenology can only be accomplished by actively doing it” (p. 8) because phenomenological research calls for a way of being-in the research that is alert, alive, and aware. The researcher’s way-of- being in the research must have a sense of continuity and purpose that influences and is influenced by, the research experience itself. While van Manen suggests there is no right or prescribed method of doing hermeneutic phenomenology, he further expands suggesting, the “broad field of phenomenological scholarship can be considered as a set of guides and recommendations for a principled form of inquiry that neither simply rejects or ignores tradition, nor slavishly follows or kneels in front of it” (van Manen, 1990, p.30). van Manen describes six elements/activities that may be considered. In this study, I discuss four of them, suggesting how each element is addressed.

i. The phenomenon that makes the researcher truly interested and committed to the issue. This is an essential element of phenomenology, as prior to conducting any phenomenological study, the researcher needs to clarify research interests and pose a question that will be addressed through phenomenological research. Applying this element to current research, I have formulated the researched phenomenon through Chapter 1 and Chapter 2. ii. Investigation of experience as we live it, rather than conceptualising/ theorizing it. It is suggested researcher conducting the phenomenological study should access

74

participants’ lived experiences as it is. Thus, through semi-structured interviews, I intend to learn of participants’ lived experiences, encouraging them to discuss aspects of their supervisory relationships in their own words iii. Reflection on emerged themes which describe the phenomenon. This activity is done to identify essential meaning of a researched phenomenon. Applying this element to this study, I will conduct thematic analysis to describe the lived experiences of participants in this phase of research and seek meaning. iv. Balancing research by considering parts. While it is essential to learn lived experiences of participants as it is, careful consideration of participants’ well-being is essential. A researcher should to pan a research project by outlining research design, method of data collection and ensuring ethical risks are acknowledged and mitigated (van Manen, 1990). For example, the coding process should be presented, suggesting the formation of existing themes. Therefore, van Manen suggests research to be conducted in an open way, whereas procedures, techniques and sources are presented rigorously. The following sections of Phase 1 explain in-depth planning of this project, while section 3.7 Ethical Considerations describes potential ethical risks and strategies for mitigation.

Keeping in mind the elements presented above, the next section in this chapter will describe the application of hermeneutic phenomenology in terms of participant selection, data production and analysis.

3.3.4 Semi-Structured Interviews

Semi-structured interviews were chosen as the method to collect relevant information about postgraduate research students and supervisors. A semi-structured interview is a qualitative method of inquiry that combines a pre-determined set of open questions (questions that prompt discussion) with the opportunity for the interviewer to explore particular themes or responses further; yet be flexible and conversational (Evaluation Toolbox, 2010). Generally, semi-structured interviews are used to facilitate more focused exploration of a specific topic such as participants’ views of their lives to gain access to their experiences, feelings, and social worlds (Fossey et al., 2002).

75

As this research aims to investigate students and supervisors’ expectations towards their respective roles and responsibilities, the use of this research method brings a number of advantages (Cohen & Crabtree, 2006; Teijlingen, 2014).

Unlike structured interviews, semi-structured interviews do not limit respondents to a set of predetermined answers (Bryman, 2012).

a) It allows us to interpret people’s behaviours, opinions and make interactions in their normal context (social environment). b) It helps to make the link between what people say they do and what they (really) do. c) Unlike structured interviews, semi-structured interviews have a set of predetermined questions, but the order can be modified based upon the interviewer's perception of what seems most appropriate. Question wording can be changed, inappropriate questions for a particular interviewee can be omitted, or additional ones included. d) The interviewer usually has some latitude to ask further questions in response to what is seen as significant replies. e) Questions that are not included in the guide may be asked as the interviewer picks up on things said by interviewees. However, by and large, all the questions will be asked, and a similar wording will be used for all interviewees.

The flexibility offered by semi-structured interviews made it an appropriate approach to collect data about the expectations of HDR students and their supervisors regarding their respective roles and responsibilities, given that qualitative approach recognises the uniqueness of each individual and the meanings these individuals have constructed about their world and their experiences (Merriam, 2002). This means it can provide a rich dataset that reflects the experiences of various people at different times and contexts.

3.3.4.1 Participant Recruitment: Research Universities

Since the research is carried out within Malaysia, it was essential to decide which Higher Learning Institutions (HLIs) to include in this research project. The higher education system in Malaysia consists of Universities, University Colleges, Colleges, and Polytechnics (a complete list can be seen in Appendix A), offering various programs at both undergraduate and postgraduate levels (StudyMalaysia, 2020). Among these HLIs, however, Universities 76

(public and private) and University Colleges (all private) are the most popular institutions known for offering Higher Degrees by Research (HDR) programs; namely Master by Research and Doctor of Philosophy.

In principle, participants could be recruited from any of the HLIs offering HDR programs. However, from the HLIs operating in Malaysia, the focus has been placed on five special universities. These universities have been selected by the Ministry of Higher Education to become “Research Universities” (RUs).

An RU is a university that focuses extensively on postgraduate research and the production of high-quality research output. This special status has been awarded to five public universities, namely: Universiti Malaya (UM), Universiti Putra Malaysia (UPM), Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia (UKM), Universiti Sains Malaysia (USM) and Universiti Teknologi Malaysia (UTM). The main aim of those universities is to produce high-impact research, as well as to enhance collaboration with industry players to achieve the objectives of the Malaysian Education Development Plan 2015-2025 (Ministry of Education Malaysia, 2015).

Research Universities are the most prestigious and renowned HLIs in Malaysia. Based on the Times Higher Education statistics, they are ranked within 600-801 top universities, thus competing with world-class universities (Times Higher Education, 2020). Due to their special status, RUs have the highest enrolment of postgraduate research students, reaching up to five thousand research students in each university. Given the extensive number of potential participants, these universities became the primary source of HDR students' and supervisors' recruitment locations.

3.3.4.2 Participant Recruitment and Selection Criteria

A total of 27 participants were recruited, 15 HDR students and 12 supervisors. A formal email request to recruit participants was sent to all RUs. Only one has provided support by sharing the list of students and supervisors contact details. One more university did not share the list of contacts but approved the participation of their students and supervisors in this study. The remaining three universities did not respond to the request.

77

While the number of participants was recruited with university support, the researcher contacted participants through personal connections. Among the population of RUs’ HDR students and supervisors, participants were recruited using a snowball approach. The snowball method is where the researcher initially recruited a small group of people relevant to the research questions using personal contacts. These participants then decided to participate and (or) propose other participants who have had the experience or characteristics relevant to the research. Within higher education institutions, the snowball approach was most feasible for the recruitment of participants, given that it is hard to reach individuals. The participants who already took part in this research were then happy to recommend other researchers who could potentially participate in the project.

Selection Criteria

The invitation to participate included certain ethical guidelines (see ethical approval in Appendix F), making it clear what the study involves, but also more practical information, such as the types of participants that were required (see Consent Information Statement in Appendix B). This research has some specific criteria to be applied to HDR students and supervisors.

The selection criteria for postgraduate research students are:

1. They should have passed the confirmation of candidature (or equivalent) or been enrolled for at least nine months so that they have adequate experience to reflect on. 2. They should be enrolled as a full-time research student. 3. They can be enrolled in both Master by Research and PhD degrees. 4. They should represent various fields of study.

The selection criteria for postgraduate research supervisors will be:

1. Any university staff who have had at least three years’ experience as an active main supervisor (Principle Coordinating Supervisor or equivalent). 2. Both local Malaysian and International supervisors will be considered for this research. 3. They should represent various fields of study.

78

During the second step, potential participants who contacted the researcher were screened to fulfil selection criteria, and 15 HDR students (see table 3 below) and 12 supervisors (see table 4 below) were chosen to participate. While the initial selection criteria for students to be either Master by Research or PhD, all student participants were enrolled at PhD degree.

Table 3 HDR student participants of Phase 1

Participant Gender Discipline Years of Enrolment Country of Origin

Student Participant 1 Male Education 6 years (just Malaysia completed) Student Participant 2 Male Business 5 years (waiting for Malaysia Viva) Student Participant 3 Female Business 2 years India

Student Participant 4 Male Business 10 months Malaysia

Student Participant 5 Male Business 8 months Iraq

Student Participant 6 Female Education 1 year 8 months Philippines

Student Participant 7 Male Engineering 3 years Nigeria

Student Participant 8 Male Computer 3 years 6 months Saudi-Arabia Science Student Participant 9 Male Engineering 2 years 6 months Saudi-Arabia

Student Participant 10 Female Architecture 3rd year Malaysia

Student Participant 11 Male Business 4 years (just Nigeria completed) Student Participant 12 Male Business 8 years (just Malaysia completed) Student Participant 13 Female Business 7 years (just Malaysia completed) Student Participant 14 Male Engineering 1st year Malaysia

Student Participant 15 Male Information 1st year Bangladesh Technology

Table 4 HDR supervisors participants of Phase 1

Supervisor Gender Discipline Years of Students Completed Country of Participant experience PhD/Master by Research Origin

79

Supervisor Male Business 4 years 2 PhD, 1 Master by Malaysia Participant 1 Research

Supervisor Male Engineering 4 years 1 Master by Research India Participant 2 Supervisor Male Engineering 20 years 11 PhD, >20 Master by Malaysia Participant 3 Research

Supervisor Male Computer 25 years 20 PhD, 7 Master by Malaysia Participant 4 Science Research

Supervisor Male Engineering 18 years >30 PhD, 20 Master by Malaysia Participant 5 Research

Supervisor Male Engineering 20 years 30 PhD, 6 Master by Malaysia Participant 6 Research

Supervisor Male Architecture 12 years 26 PhD, 14 Master by Malaysia Participant 7 Research

Supervisor Female Information 19 years 11 PhD, 12 Master by Malaysia Participant 8 Technology Research

Supervisor Female Engineering 10 years 2 PhD, 5 Master by Malaysia Participant 9 Research

Supervisor Female Engineering 10 years 1 PhD, 10 Master by Malaysia Participant 10 Research

Supervisor Female Business 6 years Not Stated Malaysia Participant 11

Supervisor Female Business 7 years Not Stated Malaysia Participant 12

3.3.4.3 Data Production and Recording

Conducting Interviews

Qualitative interviewing was used to explore “qualitative knowledge in normal language” (Kvale, 2007), that is, to learn about human experiences and not focus on quantification. Using qualitative interviewing, I encouraged interviewees to describe and explain their experiences, views, and feelings towards particular situations and scenarios. Questions in qualitative interviews were semi-structured open-ended and tended to have an exploratory role (Merriam, 1998). In this study, I took the decision to ask open-ended questions in order to get as much information as possible.

80

To guide the interview, two sets of interview questions were prepared: one for students and one for supervisors. While the questions have been uniquely prepared for this research, they have been done with reference to the existing literature on student-supervisor experiences in postgraduate research (see Appendix G).

Each participant was interviewed only once, and each interview lasted approximately 30 to 50 minutes. In some cases, prompts were required to clarify my understanding of what participants were trying to tell me, “Do you mean?” and “Can you explain/provide some more details?” In addition, some other supporting phrases such as “Can you please tell me more?” “How did it happen?” “How did you feel?” or “What did it mean to you?” were used during the interviews to help the participants tell more about themselves.

3.3.4.4 Supporting Materials

Audio-Recording

Since qualitative researchers are frequently interested not just in what people say but also in the way that they say it, an audio-recording device is an essential tool for interview sessions (Bryman, 2012). Not being distracted by having to concentrate writing down notes could help during the interview session and allow the details of the conversation to be captured accurately for analysis.

According to Good (1987), the procedure of recording and further transcribing interviews has the following advantages:

• It helps to correct the natural limitations of our memories and of the intuitive glosses that we might place on what people say in interviews. • It allows more thorough examination of what people say. • It permits repeated examinations of the interviewees’ answers. • It helps to counter accusations that analysis might have been influenced by a researcher’s values or biases. • It allows the data to be reused in other ways from those intended by the original researcher—for example, in the light of new theoretical ideas or analytic strategies.

81

In this study, all interviews were audio-recorded for transcription. To respect participants’ privacy, the option not to be recorded was offered, and if any of the participants declined to be recorded, the researcher then could take notes during the conversation.

Scratch Notes

Because of the frailties of human memory, Bryman (2012) recommends researchers take field notes based on their observations, regardless of whether the interview is recorded or not. These notes should be fairly detailed summaries of events and behaviour and the researcher’s initial reflections on them. The notes need to specify critical dimensions of whatever is observed or heard. As I was using a digital recorder during each interview session, full field notes were not required. Instead, I was writing what Bryman (2012) refers to as ‘scratch notes’. These are very brief notes written down at the end of an interview to jog my memory, consisting of little phrases, quotes, keywords, and the like. During transcribing, these notes helped me to recall my impressions of the participants and the experiences they shared with me. Writing the field notes also supported me to avoid missing information, particularly about how participants responded to questions, the emotions they demonstrated towards questions and questions they preferred to keep unanswered.

Informal Conversations

A further element that interviewers often experience is that as soon as they switch off their recording equipment, the interviewee continues to ruminate on the topic and may share more interesting thoughts/feelings/ideas than during the interview (Bryman 2012). It is usually not feasible to switch the machine back on again. Therefore, if needed, I tried to take some notes while the person is talking or as soon as possible after the interview, particularly for some topics that could be perceived as sensitive by both HDR students and supervisors.

3.3.5 Analyzing Data

3.3.5.1 Transcription of Interview Recordings

As suggested by Bryman (2012), when transcribing an interview, the written text must reproduce exactly what the interviewee said, word for word. Bearing in mind that

82

transcribing interviews is very time-consuming, I anticipated spending around five-six hours for transcription for every speech hour. Therefore, I started to transcribe the interview sessions as soon as possible without collecting all interview recordings.

As I started, I transcribed the interviews listening to each audio file three times. The InqScribe professional transcription software was used. During the first listening, I was typing the text focusing on capturing the spoken words accurately. During the second round, I was particularly focused on the non-verbal aspects of the interview, including emotions participants represented, such as laughter and overlaps of speech. In a final proof-reading step, I was then listening to the recording as I read the transcript in an effort to capture any errors. Adding to it, I was using my scratch field notes (where applicable) to describe feelings and emotions participants had during uncovering particular topics of discussion.

3.3.5.2 Coding of Data

NVivo 12 Plus

One of the most notable developments in qualitative research in recent years has been the arrival of computer software that facilitates the analysis of qualitative data (Bryman, 2012). Most of the best-known programs are variations on the code-and-retrieve theme. This means that they allow the researcher to code text while working at the computer and to retrieve the coded text. Thus, if a large number of interviews were coded, researchers can retrieve all those text sequences to which a code (or combination of codes) was attached.

NVivo 12 Plus is the coding software that I was using for this research. NVivo is a software that purpose-built for qualitative and mixed-methods research (QSR International Pty Ltd, 2018). NVivo provides many benefits for researchers and educators, including efficiency in time, transparency and multiplicity, capturing mixed data both quantitative and qualitative data and accommodating a rich and large amount of the data (Dollah et al., 2017). Also, it saves time and rigorously backs up findings with evidence. It allows importing data from virtually any source – text, audio, video, emails, images, spreadsheets, and others.

At the same time, the number of limitations is associated with using NVivo software. The participants in study conducted by Dollah et al. (2017) suggested requires a lot of time to

83

understand and to learn. This limitation has been addressed because I have completed NVivo training in early 2018, which made me familiar with using it. Another drawback of NVivo 12 Plus is the high cost of the software. Given that my university provides this software for students, this limitation was also addressed. Lastly, NVivo does not interpret the data. For the thematic analysis that I will further discuss in the next chapter, NVivo 12 Plus enabled me to identify key themes and topics using text search and word frequency queries, which was sufficient when organising the thematic representation of the data.

Coding Process

Bernard (2006) suggests analysis “is the search for patterns in data and for ideas that help explain why those patterns are there in the first place” (p. 452). Coding is thus a method that enables you to organize and group similarly coded data into categories or “families” because they share some characteristic – the beginning of a pattern. Before using formal coding, as I only started data collection process, while conducting and transcribing each interview, I was thinking of emerging patterns and participants’ experiences in relation to the research questions. That is suggested to be useful tactic as it allows keeping in mind research concerns or main research questions of the study to maintain focus (Auerbach & Silverstein, 2003). As soon as most of the interviews were conducted and transcribed, I began formal coding using NVivo 11 Plus software.

Coding was suggested by Johnny Saldaña to be “a word or short phrase that symbolically assigns a collective, salient, essence-capturing, and/or evocative attribute for a portion of language-based or virtual data” (Saldaña, 2016, p.3). To codify is to arrange things in a systematic order, to make something part of a system or classification, to categorize. When codes are applied and reapplied to qualitative data, you are codifying – a process that permits data to be “segregated, grouped, regrouped and relinked to consolidate meaning and explanation” (Grbich, 2007, p. 21).

Keeping in mind some highlights I have made during initial reading of interview transcripts, I first decided to look at each interview to reply to broad questions such as What are students’ expectations towards supervisors? What are students’ expectations towards themselves? What are supervisors’ expectations towards students? What are the supervisors’ expectations towards themselves? 84

As these four main categories were developed, I started to look at each interview in-depth, generating codes as they emerged from the data (Charmaz, 2014). I assigned codes to passages of different sizes including phrases, sentences, or paragraphs (Miles & Huberman, 1994). I used an open coding strategy where themes emerged during coding as I was trying to understand the emerging patterns from lived experiences of participants (van Manen, 1990). I was going through each interview and coding each expectation or responsibility I would identify. The passage describing particular expectation was then coded using descriptive code (Saldaña, 2016), such as guidance, publications, conflicts. While some codes were predicted based on my review of the literature from the field, Creswell et al. (2007) note that a code can emerge from data that is not only expected but even surprising, unusual, or conceptually engaging.

The codes that emerged during this round of data analysis were used as prompts to reflect on the deeper and more complex issues that arose (Saldaña, 2016). Thus, the table below represents the initial development of categories and codes with which I was able to identify emerging themes. (Note, this is not the final version of codes or categories of codes).

Table 5 Themes and codes development

Categories Themes Codes No. of participants/ No. of mentions Students’ Expectations Access Ways of Communication 9/14 Towards Supervisors Frequency of Meetings 14/35 Academic Support Training and Conferences 11/14 Research-Related Decisions 11/20 Feedback 15/33 Academic Guidance 15/49 Core Competencies Punctual 2/2 Personal Support 15/41 Motivation 7/14 Diversity Awareness 4/4 Commitment 2/4 Institutional Support Aware 6/7 Not Aware 11/20 Conflicts/ Never Had Conflicts 11/18 Misunderstandings Had Conflicts 8/10 Students’ Expectations Academic Outcomes Updating on Research Progress 13/15 Towards Themselves Publications 9/12

85

Graduate on Time 6/7 (Gott) Core Competencies Self-Learning 9/11 Respect 3/3 Motivation 7/10 Hard Working 6/10 Clarifying Expectations Implicit 3/3 Explicit 10/23 Never Discussed 7/9 Supervisors’ Academic Outcomes Updating on Research 4/4 Expectations Towards Progress Students Publications 9/15 Graduate on Time 7/12 (goth) Core Competencies Hard-Working 2/2 Motivation 2/2 Critical Thinking 3/3 Respect 3/3 Technical Skills 2/5 Institutional Support Aware/Not Aware 8/14 Conflicts/ Never Had Conflicts 4/7 Misunderstandings Had Conflicts 6/9 Supervisors’ Access Ways of Communication 2/2 Expectations Towards Frequency of Meetings 9/20 Themselves Academic Support Trainings and 3/3 Conferences Research-Related 4/4 Decisions Feedback 3/4 Guidance 7/18 Core Competencies Punctual 2/3 Personal Support 9/20 Motivation 3/3 Diversity Awareness 8/13 Commitment 2/6 Clarifying Expectations Implicit 0/0 Explicit 7/9 Never Discussed 0/0

As codes and codebook developed, my understanding of the phenomenon was also changed. That is because, as suggested by Weston et al. (2001), I began my analysis by looking at big

86

picture, an overall conception of the phenomenon, moving my focus towards details through coding, and coming back to see how these details might have changed the way we interpret the larger picture.

Therefore, emerged themes were further refined and grouped into five main themes with sub- themes. The demonstration of final themes and codes distribution is presented in table 6 below.

Table 6 Final themes and codes

Theme Constituent Codes Academic Guidance Frequency of Meetings Academic Practice Feedback Updates on Research Progress Publications Academic Outcomes Graduate on Time (GoT) Trainings/ Conferences Motivation Skills and Personal Attributes Knowledge Diversity Awareness Personal Support Conflicts and Personal Relationships Misunderstandings Respect Implicit Clarifying Expectations Explicit Never Discussed

3.3.5.3 Reaching Theoretical Saturation

To achieve theoretical saturation, it is suggested new information should present little or no change to the codebook (Guest et al., 2006). While I would have to continue interviewing participants, by the time I was interviewing last four students and two supervisors, I could already observe the repetition of the same categories of codes and broader themes. Any new codes that were generated by them presented details which helped me to tell the story from the individual perspective of each participant. All details, however, could be related to

87

broader themes and sub-themes that were developed already. I had reached theoretical saturation (Charmaz, 2014; Guest et al., 2006) and was satisfied with my decision to conduct interviews with 15 HDR students and 12 supervisor participants had been suitable.

3.3.5.4 Conducting Analysis: Voice and Representation

During the process of production, recording, analysing, and presenting the experiences of student and supervisor participants, I was aware of the importance of representing their voices. Conducting thematic analysis, I sought to present both the emerged collective opinions of my participants as well as their personal experiences (van Manen, 1990). To present a collective voice, I was looking at similar patterns emerging in data produced, although filtered through my own interpretations of results. To support collective voice formation, I then presented individual experiences of participants regarding each expectation that arose throughout the coding process. To do so, I have used coded passages from participants’ interviews. This has allowed presenting unique stories and opinions of participants, which would otherwise get lost in the aggregation of research results (McCormack, 2004).

Being aware of my responsibility to conduct research in a way that will honour the voices of my participants (Chase, 1996; Jovchelovitch & Bauer, 2000; McCormack, 2004; Tillmann- Healy, 2003) raises the question of how I can be confident of having achieved this.

3.4 Phase 2. Autoethnography: Adding the Value Through Personal Experience

3.4.1 Autoethnography Development

Driven by the “crisis of confidence” inspired by postmodernism, autoethnography has been introduced as a research approach first by Karl Heider in 1975, followed by David Hayano in 1979 (Ellis, 2004). Among all, Carolyn Ellis has been a seminal scholar in autoethnography since the 1990s and she has contributed strongly to the institutionalization and international recognition of autoethnography within the social sciences and the humanities. She has put lived emotion at the centre of her research and writing throughout her entire career (Gariglio, 2018). Thus, in the 1990s, “autoethnography” became a method of choice for using personal

88

experience and reflexivity to examine cultural experiences, especially within communication (Adams et al., 2017).

Autoethnography is a complex and nuanced qualitative research method, which seeks to build specific knowledge about the lives and experiences of a particular identical group (Adams et al., 2015). Like qualitative research, it focuses on emotions, interpersonal connections, and actions rather than on generalizations and demographic information. This approach to research and writing aims to describe and continuously analyse (graphy) personal experience (auto) to interpret cultural experience (ethno) (Ellis & Bochner, 2000). It is commonly written using first-person voice and comes in many forms such as short stories, dialogues, novels and many more (Ellis, 2004).

Comparing with the other research approaches, the autoethnographic approach challenges standard way of research and representing others (Spry, 2001) and develop it as political, socially-just and socially-conscious act (Adams & Jones, 2008). A researcher, using autoethnographic research approach, combines both features of autobiography and ethnography to do and write autoethnography. Thus, as a method, autoethnography becomes both process and product (Ellis et al., 2011). According to Adams et al. (2015), there are several reasons for doing an autoethnography, as following:

a) To make a contribution or extend the current research, b) To fill in the gaps derived in current research, c) To promote and extend personal interpretations of cultural identities, relationships, and experiences, d) To understand the aspects of the self affecting the perceptions of the world, and specifically the topic that is studied, e) To break taboos and silence, and f) To make research available to various audiences.

Although the autoethnographic research approach has been extensively used for nearly 30 years, it is still controversial among research practitioners. Adams et al. (2015), Ellis (2006), Ellis et al. (2011) describe autoethnography being ‘evocative’ and ‘personal’ way of writing, suggesting in evocative autoethnography, “the mode of storytelling is akin to the novel or biography and thus fractures the boundaries that normally separate social science from 89

literature.” This view of autoethnography being ‘evocative’ has been favoured by several authors such as Emerson, Fretz, & Shaw (2011), Humphreys (2005), and Richardson (2000).

In contrast, Anderson (2006) argues that ‘evocative autoethnography’ is solely built on emotions and cannot provide theoretical understanding of broader social phenomena. Instead, he advocates the use of ‘analytic autoethnography’ and describes five main features it should possess; complete member researcher (CMR) status, analytic reflexivity, narrative visibility of the researcher’s self, dialogue with informants beyond the self, and commitment to theoretical analysis (Anderson, 2006). He argues autoethnography requires the researcher to be visible, active and reflexively engaged in the text. Other advocates of an analytic style of autoethnography include Murphy (1987), Schwalbe (1996), and Davies (1999).

Given there is no absolute right and wrong approach, I had to choose which autoethnographic approach I saw as legitimate for myself and for this research project. Having the intent to disclose a wide range of emotions experienced throughout my research journey, an ‘evocative autoethnography’ seemed to best suit my needs. That is because researchers believe student- supervisor relationships are driven by personal feelings and emotions, and the choice of ‘analytic autoethnography’ as an approach can limit that discussion. In addition, given that the first round of data had been analysed tied closely with theory, the autoethnographic component was proposed to share personal experiences in a critical manner but not tighten to theoretical borders. This was also viewed as a complementary approach in light of the difficulties I experienced in the first phase of the research in getting students and supervisors share their personal feelings regarding unexpected dilemmas faced in their student-supervisor relationships. In most cases, HDR students were not ready to disclose difficult situations or at least did not seem comfortable discussing it in detail. Therefore, by applying an autoethnographic approach, my intentions were to disclose the situations that we have experienced throughout my student candidature, highlighting the emotions we lived and ways we overcame them to connect our different perspectives on HDR student and supervisor relationships.

90

3.4.2 Data Production and Supporting Materials

3.4.2.1 Choosing Among Forms of Autoethnographic Representation: Co-Constructed Narrative

Autoethnographic approach has various ways of representation, which are collected under four main categories: realism, impressionism, expressionism, and conceptualism (Adams et al., 2015; Ellis, 2004). While realism uses formal and highly stylised settings to create a reality, impressionism gives more focus on details of everyday life of people from that cultural identity (Adams et al., 2015). Another form of representation is expressionism, which mainly addresses the researcher’s inner feelings and experiences. Such experiences are subjective and aim to develop an impression rather than the truth. Conceptualism, as the last way of autoethnographic representation, is an innovative form of writing, often futuristic and highly reflexive, and aims to engage the reader to think critically (Adams et al., 2015).

Following an evocative autoethnography approach, the forms of representation which fall under realism sub-category cannot be applied to this research. This is because, although realism often inspires the researcher to create a vivid portrait, the following mood is rather an analysis than storytelling. Researchers are following realism representation using forms like research reports, analytic autoethnography, ethnodramas, and others (Adams et al., 2015). In contrast, researchers using impressionism perspective often writing in first-voice to evoke ways of seeing and experiencing self and culture. While realists separate the story and analysis, impressionists engage readers in an experience to understand it. Impressionism has the following forms: narratives of space and place, interactive interviews, and co-constructed narratives, and collaborative autoethnographies.

Developed by Carolyn Ellis and Arthur Bochner (Bochner & Ellis, 1992; Ellis & Berger, 2001), co-constructed narratives show the meanings of relational experiences, particularly how people live them in everyday life. Ellis and Bochner first came to unmediated co- constructed narratives when they needed a way to understand what was happening in their own relationship after their abortion. The main idea of creating a co-constructive narrative as a form of representation was to show how relationships are practised (Ellis, 2004). Co- constructed narratives view relationships as co-authored, incomplete, and historically situated affairs. Often told about or around an epiphany, each person first writes her or his experience 91

and then shares and reacts to the story the other wrote at the same time (Bochner & Ellis, 1995).

Given this research reveals views from both HDR students and supervisors, constructing an autoethnographic study using only student-researcher own perspective as the HDR student would be unfair and would not represent the feelings and emotions lived by both sides. Co- constructive narrative offers an opportunity to view common experience, lived experience from multiple perspectives, that is from both sides, Irina Baydarova (research student) and Dr. Heidi Collins and Associate Professor Deirdre Barron (research supervisors). Understanding that as many of my research participants, my supervisors and I never discussed our expectations, never openly revealed our feelings and emotions to each other, this could be great chance to draw on how situations we passed through were viewed from both sides and how the decisions done by one party has affected the other.

3.4.2.2 Supporting Materials: Emails, Diaries, and Meeting Notes

To allow process of reflection start, it is essential for participants to write their experiences down. In the current research, as participant-researchers, we started by revealing our lived experiences on the paper. To support the process, multiple sources were accessed, such as email conversations, student-researcher diaries and meeting notes to provide a bigger picture. While writing itself can be a difficult activity, reading through emails and diaries gave an idea of where to start. While email conversations presented in our co-constructed narrative helped us to consider the changes in communication as well as misunderstandings that occurred, student-researcher personal diaries surfaced thoughts around critical incidents and personal perceptions of our expectations.

3.4.3 Analysing Data

In comparison with other phases of this study, autoethnography is written in the first person and is left unanalysed in accordance with evocative autoethnography principles. The resulting co-constructed narrative is left largely to the interpretation of the reader. While this is done to allow readers to reach their own conclusions, some reflections on this writing are presented in Chapter 6 Discussion.

92

3.5 Phase 3. Action Research

Similar to autoethnography, action research (AR) is a qualitative approach to research. It remains distinct, however, from other qualitative methodologies, particularly concerning the roles played by the researcher and the participants (Gibbon, 2002). In comparison with other qualitative methods, action research tends to involve its participants not only to share their experiences and perceptions but also participate in the data analysis process and suggest further improvements to researchers.

Action research has been variously defined by researchers. While Reason and Bradbury (2001) define action research as a method used in designing research seeking both to inform and influence certain practice, Elliot (1991) highlights the importance of action research (AR) as a model of inquiry that improves capacity and following practices of the researcher rather than creating theoretical knowledge. Others suggest action research (AR) includes both conducting social research that simultaneously satisfies rigorous scientific requirements and promoting democratic social change at the same time (Greenwood & Levin, 2007). Summarising all definitions above, (Waterman, Tillen, Dickson, & De Koning, 2001, p.4) comprehensively defines:

“Action research is a period of inquiry, which describes, interprets and explains social situations while executing a change of intervention aimed at improvement and involvement. It is problem-focused, context specific and future-orientated. Action research is a group activity with an explicit value basis and is founded on a partnership between action researchers and participants, all of whom are involved in the change process. The participatory process is educative and empowering, involving a dynamic approach in which problem-identification, planning, action and evaluation are interlinked. Knowledge may be advanced through reflection and research, and qualitative and quantitative research methods may be employed to collect data.”

The roots of action research lie in the first half of the twentieth century. Kurt Lewin (1890– 1947), a social psychologist, is often credited with creating the term ‘action research’ (Greenwood & Levin, 2007). Lewin was interested in social science that could help solve

93

social conflict, and he made a significant contribution to the concept of action research through his belief that, to solve practical problems, people are more likely to act upon decisions made democratically in a group than they are to act on decisions made without their involvement (Adelman, 1993). Kurt Lewin, while being first, was not the only psychologist who made important contributions to the debates on action research. Authors such as John Elliot, Peter Reason, Davydd Greenwood, and others also played crucial role in framing and refining this method (Elliot, 1991; Greenwood & Levin, 2007; Reason & Bradbury, 2001).

The aims of action research are to include participants from the researched context, given the richness of experience and reflective potential they hold, living in complex situations (Greenwood & Levin, 2007), and to produce practical knowledge that is useful to people in the everyday conduct of their lives (Reason & Bradbury, 2001). Action research seeks to develop practical outcomes by creating new forms of understanding through reflection. Freire (1972) suggests, “within the word we find two dimensions, reflection and action, in such radical interaction that if one is sacrificed- even in part- the other immediately suffers (p.87).” And since there can be no action without reflection and understanding, just as theory without action is meaningless, as the participatory nature of action research makes it only possible with, for and by persons and communities, ideally involving all sides of the story both in the questioning and sense making that informs the research, and in the action which is its focus (Reason & Bradbury, 2001).

A researcher shall consider doing action research if one has a feeling that some practices require adjustments or changes to allow positive social situation. The researcher, in this case, offers a way to gain awareness and transform values through the process. When starting the projects, ends are not defined prior to specific goals or objectives (Bell et al., 2020). In such type of research, the investigator may be an individual or a group of researchers leading participants. The differences arise during the implementation of action research.

In comparison with other forms of action research, such as participatory action research and participative research, in action research, the researcher leads the process of identifying the problem, drawing facts and opinions from the people situated within researched context, identified gaps and proposes strategies for implementation (Bell et al., 2020; Sankaran, 2017). There is a unified conception, but there is not a rigid division of specialized tasks or

94

roles. While the researcher and participants work together to portray satisfying results for change, it is rather the researcher leads participants by identifying a set of actions that need to be taken. In action research, although it is mainly led by researcher, the reflection is essential practice to encompass the experiences and perceptions of the participants to make modifications (Elliot, 1991).

3.5.1 Advantages of Action Research

Researchers supporting action research philosophy suggest a number of advantages it possesses. One is its flexibility towards data collection and analysis processes. A researcher applying AR is able to choose whether the data will be collected through interviews, observations, focus groups or a combination of few methods (Dyckoff et al., 2013). Similarly, a researcher can analyse data produced in various ways, using for example, narrative inquiry, thematic analysis, or case studies. The collaboration of individuals with diverse knowledge, skills, and expertise is also a strength of AR, as it fosters the sharing of knowledge and provides opportunities for learning (Macdonald, 2012). The last strength highlighted is AR’s ability to increase willingness to participate and to change (Waterman et al., 2001).

3.5.2 Criticisms of Action Research

Along with the advantages of action research, there is a number of criticisms around this approach to research. First and foremost, action research, as other qualitative approaches, have been criticised for its subjective nature. It has been argued that action research is anecdotal and subjective and that it is fundamentally biased due to a lack of researcher independence or separation from the research process itself (Greenwood & Levin, 2007). Another aspect raised against action research is a validity issue. From a positivist stance, action research is invalid. It is argued, however, that action research needs to be judged according to other criteria such as whether the work is participatory; whether it is intended to change; and whether it includes movement between reflection, action and evaluation (Waterman et al., 2001). While the above arguments do not have practical effect on researcher when deciding to use action research, it is suggested given method of data collection can be time-consuming for a researcher, as a chance process requires time and close involvement (Reason & Bradbury, 2001). Another practical disadvantage of using

95

action research is risk of harming participants, mainly if it includes people who have power relationships. Therefore, the researcher who is aiming at using action research method shall acknowledge possible risks and criticisms beforehand.

Given action research inquiry is used along with the other two research methods in this study, one cycle will be done to plan, act, observe and improve a set of proposed practices to facilitate the negotiation of HDR student-supervisor expectations. While during the first two phases of data collection, the researcher was able to identify misalignments in student- supervisor expectations and possible ways to reduce those misalignments using a student- supervisor expectations ‘toolkit’, it is hard to predict the practical effectiveness of a proposed guide. Action research, however, becomes practical approach to perform an action (implement a new tool for student-supervisor dyads) and reflect (seek feedback from students and supervisors) for further improvements. The next section will describe participants' recruitment and selection process.

3.5.3 Participants Recruitment and Selection

3.5.3.1 Participant Recruitment: Choice of Location

Given the specific nature of action research that requires continuous involvement of the researcher and the ability to observe the progress being in close contact with participants, previous locations that were used for the first round of data collection (Research Universities) were not feasible. Therefore, participants were recruited from within Sarawak, Malaysia, the researcher's place of residence. Having participants located within the same context and settings as a researcher allowed greater collaboration among participants, more communication, and easier access for the researcher to monitor the progress of the project.

3.5.3.2 Participant Selection Criteria and Method

Two student-supervisor dyads were recruited. While it is commonly recommended to include between 15 to 30 participants (Guest et al., 2006), this phase was exploratory, and it was not intended to seek any level of theoretical saturation. Rather it was intended to apply the dialogic practice to participants’ supervision experiences to identify whether any changes have occurred or whether it allowed them to align their expectations more closely in just a 96

few cases. All participants were recruited using the non-probability purposive sampling method. The choice of sampling method was not random as the goal was to choose participants in a strategic way so that those participants are relevant to the research questions that are being posed (Bryman, 2012).

Similar to the Phase 1, the invitation to participate in the following study needed to follow ethical guidelines (see Appendix L), making it clear what the study involves, but also more practical information, such as the types of participants that are required. The only criteria for participation in this research were the potential participants should be dyad (HDR student and supervisor), who were working together either on PhD or Masters project (see Appendix H) at the time this research was conducted.

3.5.4 Implementing Action Research

Various authors propose different models of action research; yet, they are all consistent with the steps within those models (Elliot, 1991; Kemmis & McTaggart, 2000; Koshy et al., 2011). All of them present a cyclical process, whereas continuous improvements are implemented to an existing process to achieve the best outcome. As Kurt Lewin suggested, action research is a cycle of action and reflection, broken into phases of planning, acting, observing, and reflecting (Waterman et al., 2001). While it was necessary to understand different action research models, one should not rely on them completely but instead observe how research is going and be flexible (Koshy et al., 2011). Therefore, the basic principle underlying action research identifies a problematic issue, imagining a possible solution, trying it out, evaluating whether it worked or not, and improving practice accordingly (Dick, 2001). While it is suggested action research to hold cyclical nature, this phase of research, however, had tentative exploration nature, given constraints of time. Therefore, the project ended without conducting another cycle with the improved dialogic practice guide.

1. Identifying Problem and Preparing Strategic Plan

During stage one of this phase, the focus was on identifying a problem (Alber, 2011) and developing a strategic plan. The previous two rounds of data collection have helped identify an issue, suggesting various misalignments in HDR student-supervisor expectations and lack of guidelines to support expectations negotiation and alignment. Thus, the research question 97

was posed, “How do HDR students and supervisors negotiate and align their mutual expectations towards each other to reduce misalignments?”

Having the findings from semi-structured interviews, personal (lived) experiences, and literature on dialogic pedagogy, an HDR student-supervisor practice was developed to help both sides discuss and align their mutual expectations.

2. Implementing Practice

During this stage, participants’ involvement took place. A dialogic practice guide was given to HDR student-supervisor dyads and instructions for using it were provided (see Appendix M). Participants were asked to implement dialogic practice when discussing their mutual expectations towards each other.

3. Getting Participants to Share Experiences

In stage three of this phase, researchers collected and analysed data from participants involved in the implemented practice. In this study, dyadic semi-structured interviews became the technique for data collection. Two student-supervisor dyads were invited to reflect on their experiences, share their suggestions over improvements of practice, and describe what worked or did not work with them through semi-structured interviews. Participants were asked a variety of questions on experiences of developing expectations towards each other, how well they could negotiate and align their expectations, and experiences after using Dialogic Practice within their student-supervisor dyad. The full interview guide schedule for student-supervisor dyads can be found in Appendix N.

4. Reflecting and Improving Practice

During the final stage, the researcher considered the experiences described by participants, presenting relevant conclusions and suggestions for improving practice. As mentioned earlier in this section, ideally this phase of research should run through another cycle to identify the outcomes and the experiences of participants using the improved practice. Therefore, as proposed in Chapter 8 Further Research Suggestions, more research needs to be conducted with student-supervisor dyads in Malaysia and other cultural contexts using dialogic practice guide.

98

3.5.5 Data Production and Recording

3.5.5.1 Dyadic Interviewing

Using qualitative interviewing, student-supervisor dyads were encouraged to describe and explain their experiences, views, and feelings towards using Dialogic Practice when formulating, voicing, and negotiating their student-supervisor expectations. Questions in qualitative interviews were semi-structured open-ended and tended to have an exploratory role (Merriam, 1998).

To guide the interview, a set of interview questions was prepared (see Appendix P) to seek participants’ reflections regarding the use of the dialogic practice to negotiate their student- supervisor expectations. Questions were developed to discuss whether some of the expectations were more difficult to discuss or more difficult to agree on than others and whether dialogic practice served as a useful guide to approaching the explicit discussion of expectations.

Each dyad was interviewed only once and interviews lasted approximately an hour. Prompts were used to clarify the interviewer's understanding of what participants were trying to say, similar to Phase 1.

3.5.5.2 Audio-Recording and Notes Taking

Similar to Phase 1, in this part of study, interviews were audio-recorded for transcription by the research student. To respect participants’ privacy, the option not to be recorded was offered. Additional notes were taken during interview, these included observations of facial expressions and the emotions demonstrated by participants towards the questions and topics discussed.

3.5.6 Analysing Data

3.5.6.1 Transcription of Interview Recordings

The same transcription method and software were used as in Phase 1. I used InqScribe software and listen each recording three times. In addition, I was using my scratch field notes 99

(where applicable) to describe the feelings and emotions participants had during uncovering particular topics of discussion.

3.5.6.2 Coding of Data (NVivo 12 Plus)

While NVivo 12 Plus was essential tool for coding data during my first round of data collection, during this phase of research I did not use this software for analyzing data. That is because in the first phase of research NVivo 12 Plus allowed me to organize data derived from semi-structured interviews, identify similar patterns in participants’ experiences and emerging key themes and topics using text search and word frequency queries. During this round of data collection and analysis, having only two recorded interviews a manual line by line analysis was conducted. Direct quotes identified in my search were used then in constructing narratives.

3.6 Quality Considerations

To ensure high quality research, it is essential to consider various quality criteria throughout the project, from research design, to data production and recording to analysis (Angen, 2000; Kvale, 1996). Within a positivist research paradigm, a researcher looks at three criteria: reliability (the ability to present replicability of the results), validity (the truthfulness of the conclusions that are produced from the research), and generalizability (the ability to apply results universally) (Angen, 2000; Bryman, 2012). Knowledge, within this paradigm, must be achieved through an objective distance from the world. If this distance is not maintained, the risk of tainting reality with the researcher’s subjective beliefs and biases exists (Heshusius, 1994).

In contrast, researchers who work from a constructivist paradigm explicitly reject applying such criteria to their research, suggesting human behaviour cannot be a simple product of theoretical variables (Duncan, 2004; Ellis, 2004; Ellis & Bochner, 2000; Freeman et al., 2007; Hammersley, 1995; Holt, 2003; Richardson, 2000; Sparkes, 2000). Alternatively, proposals for using a new vocabulary including trustworthiness, credibility, rigour, transferability, dependability, confirmability, authenticity, plausibility, and relevance arise from various authors (Guba & Lincoln, 1994; Miles & Huberman, 1994). It has been

100

suggested when looking at research from subtle realist assumptions (Angen, 2000; Hammersley, 1995), validity should be replaced in terms of trustworthiness (Flick, 2002) or the ability to present honesty of the research conducted.

While there are many ways to ensure the quality of research, in this project, I used various steps to ensure quality of the data production and analysis (Creswell, 2007; Creswell & Miller, 2000; Flick, 2002; Guba & Lincoln, 1994). Those include:

1. Using counting technique (Bryman, 2012; Silverman, 2010). 2. Using verbatim quotations from interviews to maintain authenticity and transparency (Bryman, 2012; Ellis, 2007; McCormack, 2004; Riessman, 2005). 3. Making constant comparisons to ensure rigour and relevance of analysis (Charmaz, 2014; Flick, 2002; Miles & Huberman, 1994). 4. Enabling transferability of research results by presenting thick descriptions and drawing comparisons with previously published research (Anderson, 2006; Creswell, 2007). 5. Enabling reflexivity through insider and outsider experience (Angen, 2000; Ellis & Bochner, 2000; Greene, 2014; Hellawell, 2006; Humphreys, 2005; Watt, 2007).

To describe how each of the criteria was achieved, the detailed explanation is provided below in sub-sections 3.6.1-3.6.5.

3.6.1 Counting Techniques

As I began data analysis, I started referring to code frequencies to check whether the data supported my impressions of the overall patterns that were emerging. The counting of the frequencies with which certain words occurred was undertaken for this analysis. It is suggested, frequently used words can often present significance because they can reveal the predilection for sensationalising certain events (Bryman, 2012). In some cases, however, the topics/words which were used only once or not mentioned at all by neither of the parties may still contain an important part of the story and essential to be considered. It was also vital to look at emerging codes frequency to identify whether the codes that emerged from data contributed to my questioning on the topic or continuously raised by the participants. Table

101

of themes development and code frequencies for student and supervisor participants is presented in section 3.3.5.2 Coding of Data.

3.6.2 Verbatim Quotations from Interviews

To maintain the authenticity and transparency of this research, I have used verbatim quotations to reinforce the conclusions I was making throughout the analysis. To do so, I have included the quotes extracted from their data about the themes I was discussing. This also has been done to give voice to participants, to provide evidence, and to allow readers gain a deeper understanding of the phenomenon I was analyzing. The presented quotations included my interactions with participants through questions posing, so the reader can then judge the relevance of participants’ responses.

3.6.3 Making Constant Comparisons

To develop rigour and relevance of analysis, it was essential to making comparisons between different groups of participants (students and supervisors) and also between participants within one group. By making those comparisons and also comparing the data within emerged themes and sub-themes, I then could avoid making early conclusions and present a one-sided view based on limited data. Therefore, the rigour of analysis has been achieved by multiple iterations of codes within themes and conclusions.

3.6.4 Transferability of Results

To allow transferability of results to other research contexts, I have linked the results of the study, where applicable, to previously published literature in the postgraduate research supervision field. While providing the links between emerging trends from this research and results emerging elsewhere, I also used similar vocabulary that allows the results to be compared with those of other studies. Where emerging results of the study presented new, previously not discussed concepts, I have offered more explanation and verbatim quotations to allow the reader to make results applicable to other contexts.

3.6.5 Reflexivity

When highlighting the importance of reflexivity, the researcher focus on the social location of the researchers and possibilities in which the researcher’s emotions influence the participants 102

and the analysis itself (Greene, 2014). It is therefore, situating myself socially and emotionally to my participants is an essential part of reflexivity. Developing and keeping a suitable degree of emotional and social distance is essential and requires researcher to identify what that appropriate level of distancing is, which might be a hard task to do.

To do so, it is suggested instead of thinking of whether researcher is too much an insider or outsider, to rather achieve both (Hellawell, 2006). This is because being both outsider and insider of researched phenomenon presents benefits, providing different views and allowing for multiple conclusions to be made.

Working on the understanding of student-supervisor expectations and potential mismatches in those expectations, and being a research student myself at the time of this study was conducted, I had a lot in common with my student participants. In fact, I was a member of the same social group. Thus, I could call myself an insider of the social group of research students in Swinburne Sarawak. Having many connections both personal and professional, I could potentially invite both students and supervisors to participate in this research. It was, however, two reasons to avoid interviewing HDR students and supervisors from the same university I was studying. First, one of my supervisors was a Research Director at the time my first round of data collection happened, presenting pressure to potential participants. Secondly, as suggested researchers whose pre-existing friendships (close, distant, casual or otherwise) evolve into informant relationships may likely shape the researcher’s work (Angen, 2000). While still being an insider of a big social group of research students in Malaysia, to develop appropriate distance and maintain objectivity for the Phase 1 of research, which would be hard when interviewing friends, I have interviewed both students and supervisors from other universities. This has allowed me to present participants’ experiences and act as an outsider rather than being too highly involved; yet using qualitative method, the interpretation and presentation of data was, to some extent, influenced by my thoughts and beliefs.

To present the insider experience, however, my supervisors and I have developed Phase 2 of the research. During this phase, we were able to present a co-constructed narrative, in which we had an opportunity to reflect on our personal experiences of being research student and supervisors.

103

3.7 Ethical Considerations

Ethical issues of varying scale may arise in any research which includes human participants. Most of these dilemmas cannot be predicted, given what participants can unexpectedly bring to interviews or what the researcher observed in the field (Saldaña, 2016). Therefore, using qualitative research paradigm for this study, some ethical issues must be observed and practised (Kafle, 2011). In this section, I sought to discuss the potential risks of participants’ involvement in this research and ways to mitigate the presented risks. Given three different research approaches were applied in this study, developing three research phases, every phase required to discuss and address its own ethical issues and potential strategies for mitigating risks.

3.7.1 Phase 1. Ethical Risks & Mitigation Strategies

3.7.1.1 Impact on Relationships

In this phase of the study, to avoid the potential risk posed to relationships between currently enrolled doctoral students and supervisors, the use of matched student-supervisor pairs was purposely avoided. This has been done to avoid discussion of sensitive topics. To further protect relationships between currently enrolled students and supervisors, the identity of participants who chose to share their experiences was made unidentifiable. A more detailed explanation is presented in the sub-section below Confidentiality and Anonymity.

3.7.1.2 Confidentiality and Anonymity

To protect the privacy and confidentiality of participants during the reporting of research results, interviewees were not named, and any identifying features were omitted during interview transcription. Care not to reveal any identities was taken when describing the roles or comments made during the interviews (Creswell, 2007). Any contextualizing features such as name of university or research topic, which could lead to the individual’s identification were removed. All interviews were conducted in a private office or other location comfortable to participants such as a quiet cafe, away from the view of other participants/colleagues. All materials such as interview recordings and transcripts are stored

104

on a password-protected computer of the Student Investigator, while copies of the signed consent forms are kept separately in the office of the Chief Investigator.

3.7.1.3 Risk of Discomfort

While this research anticipated no serious negative consequences for the participants, it was acknowledged that the discussion could lead towards some potentially sensitive experiences of participants’ postgraduate research experiences. Such discussions could cause a degree of discomfort for some participants. To avoid it, the researcher maintained a general line of questioning. Participants were invited to provide their own narrative accounts of their experiences, which allowed the participants themselves to chose the topics of discussion which they considered significant in their lives. This has been done to decrease the chances of discussions focusing heavily on topics uncomfortable for participants.

It was also important to remind participants that they could choose to withdraw from the study or choose not to answer any questions if they did not feel comfortable with such discussions. While this information was presented in the informed consent statements and forms, all participants were verbally reminded about it before each interview (Creswell, 2007). It was also suggested, if any participant appeared unduly upset, the researcher could cease the interview and recommend the participant to seek professional assistance. The list of counselling services for this phase of the study was provided in Appendix E.

3.7.2 Phase 2. Ethical Risks & Mitigation Strategies

3.7.2.1 Impact on Relationships

For researcher-participants involved, it could happen that traditional power differentials were challenged and shifts in power took place. This could potentially lead to conflicts between researcher-participants, especially when critical incidents were discussed. However, given the reflections were made by team who has been involved in this research over two years and who have already engaged in reflective discussions of their own practice through the course of this project, it was suggested the possibility of occurring conflict resulting was low. Researcher-participants understood revealing their lived experience could help them negotiate and align their own expectations for their personal benefit, as well as could help

105

them develop guides that could offer potential benefits to their broader research community. Therefore, the benefits of analysing researcher-participants own experience as a part of the broader study outweighed the potential risks it was presenting.

3.7.2.2 Confidentiality and Anonymity

Given Phase 2 research explicitly included written reflections of the investigation team, the identities as participant-researchers were exposed to readers. This required careful consideration taken in publishing the experiences, especially if any critique was presented on researcher-participants or their practices which could damage researcher-participants professional reputation. Such risk was mitigated by including any details and analysis in the thesis and/or arising publications after member-checking with every researcher-participant. Any material that was requested to be omitted or rephrased by any of the parties was amended.

3.7.3 Phase 3. Ethical Risks & Mitigation Strategies

3.7.3.1 Impact on Relationships

Critically reflective and emancipatory in nature, the action research phase was intended to be beneficial to the participants by providing them a chance to develop an understanding of their expectations towards themselves and towards their counterparts and to explicitly discuss and align mutual expectations. It could be perceived, however, as a challenging activity given often unequal power relationships between students and their supervisors. To address this issue from the starting of the project, the principles of dialogic pedagogy were explained, and both students and supervisors were encouraged to be mindful of approaching their research practice in an open manner.

While for students such experience could cause discomfort as they were asked to speak in a direct manner to their supervisors, some supervisors could feel discomfort at hearing feedback on their supervision from their students. To mitigate this risk and avoid potential of conflict arising, the participants were recruited among colleagues who were known to be reflective and open practitioners and presented a mutual interest in higher education pedagogies.

106

3.7.3.2 Confidentiality and Anonymity Risk

Given the relatively small pool of potential participants, there was a risk of readers within the Swinburne community could identify the participants. To reduce this risk, the identities of student-supervisor dyads who agreed to participate in this study were not named, and any identifying features were omitted during interview transcription. To avoid revealing any identities when describing the roles or comments made during the interviews, all contextualizing features, which led to the individual’s identification were removed. Member- checking with each of the participants was conducted before including any case details in the thesis and/or arising publications. Any material requested to be omitted by any of the parties was removed.

3.7.3.3 Risk of Discomfort

Participants who became a part of the research could experience feeling of anxiety and frustration as they reflected and revealed their lived experiences of supervision together with matched or mismatched student-supervisor expectations. Each participant was advised in case they felt any emotional discomfort from participating in this study; they could withdraw from study at any point. During semi-structured interviews, if any sign of distress was presented, the researcher was required to take action by stopping the interview session and providing counselling services information to participants— a list of professional counsellors provided to all participants shown in Appendix K.

3.7 Conclusion

In this chapter, I have presented in detail the methods that I used to conduct the research and address each of the research questions I have posed. It provides a detailed overview to how it has shaped this thesis. Driven by the constructivist paradigm, the design of this research was developed based on assumptions of the existence of multiple realities within the social world, where the researcher and the researched phenomenon are interconnected. This perspective has further guided my choice of methods throughout the data production and collection, the forms of analysis I have used for this study, and the conclusions I have made. Focusing on the importance of developing reflexivity, I then became both an outsider and insider of this research through different phases of data production, collection and analysis. 107

Using the approach I have applied to this research, I did not aim to propose universally applicable explanations and solutions; yet, I tended to present concepts which may be relevant for people involved in postgraduate research supervision in different context. Exploring the experiences of my participants, my supervisors and myself from different points of view can potentially help both HDR students and supervisors understand emerging challenges when aligning and negotiating mutual expectations and ways to reduce the arising mismatches in those expectations.

108

Chapter 4. Phase 1 Thematic Analysis

4.1 Chapter Introduction

This chapter presents two rounds of the thematic analysis of data collected through semi- structured interviews with 15 HDR students and 12 supervisors. It begins with highlighting the aspects that emerged during initial interviews stressing their development process. The first round of thematic analysis investigates similarities and differences in student-supervisor expectations of their roles and responsibilities in postgraduate research supervision in Malaysia. All aspects of the first round of thematic analysis were grouped into five main themes, as following: academic practice, academic outcomes, skills and personal attributes, personal relationships and clarifying expectations. Each theme includes multiple expectations and discussed in details. In addition, each theme is presenting with a table detailing key words, the number of codes and extracts of interviews that characterise the theme. During the second round of thematic analysis, the data emerged from semi-structured interviews was reviewed second time through the lenses of dialogic pedagogy theory to identify potential reasons of occurring misalignments. Three themes emerged as follows: power and hierarchy influence, student-supervisor dialogue, and institutional support.

4.2 Round 1. Emerged Student-supervisor Expectations and Existing Gaps

4.2.1 Themes Development and Importance

The expectations that emerged after discussions with HDR students and supervisors were derived from both answers to predetermined questions (based on a review of extant literature) and personal perceptions that both sides felt important to share. For example, while questions on guidance or student-supervisor conflicts were included in the interview schedule, surprisingly both students and supervisors have suggested some expectations which were further included in the research such as motivation, respect, and publications.

Having organised data into codes and references (the coding process was presented in-depth in Chapter 3, Methodology), the relationships between categories of codes have emerged.

109

These relationships are addressed in the sections below, divided into five main themes. The themes are:

Academic Practice Academic Outcomes Skills and Personal Attributes Personal Relationships Clarifying Expectations (Note: Italics in all passages quoted below indicates the interviewer’s speech).

4.2.2 Theme 1. Academic Practice

Overview

Academic Practice has become one of the most discussed and studied topics in postgraduate research supervision. There are a number of studies at the national and international level focussing on aspects such as academic guidance, feedback, frequency of meetings and other essential matters. These aspects have been incorporated into institutional policies around the world, including RUs in Malaysia. While the aspects such as frequency of meetings, ways of communication and feedback seem to be agreed upon, the academic guidance aspect presents several difficulties in postgraduate supervision due to a mismatch of perceptions among HDR students and supervisors. While students emphasise the importance of receiving guidance during an early stage of research, such as setting research questions and stating the aims, HDR supervisors prefer to let students explore the field, make multiple attempts to perform the required task, and then correct their work and adjust research direction if required. Such disagreement in perceptions of students and supervisors might emerge due to lack of interpretation of what academic guidance or other expectations around academic practice shall include, making HDR students and supervisors question what is expected from them and how to correctly perform the expected processes. The table below (Table 7) provides a summary of HDR students and supervisors' expectations toward each other regarding mutual expectations in the research processes.

110

Table 7 HDR students and supervisors expectations regarding research process

No. of No. of Students participants/ Supervisors participants Process Summary (Key words) No. of (Key words) / No. of mentions mentions a. Academic Pointing the research 15/77 Giving direction, 12/25 • Academic guidance has been suggested to be essential in Guidance direction, prompt checking the quality and postgraduate research supervision. questions, no spoon- depth of ideas, pop-up • Both sides share the same view of supervisors being feeding, monitor closely, with some ideas, share responsible to provide research direction and ensure the share and give ideas, articles, targeting, students are on the right track. suggest articles, making sure they are on • HDR students and supervisors view the notion of contributes, students track, being assistant to academic guidance in a different manner. must learn by them, correct them, • Supervisors spoke of guidance in terms of correcting themselves, recommend contribution, checking work, ensuring student is on the right track and checking how to start, plan the creditability, ensure the their work creditability, which implies when students project, help to set work is correct, learning have already made an attempt to explore and do some deadlines, give process, guide to make work. instructions, aims, give sure that student delivers, • Students expect their supervisors to help them to set me vision to reach new advise students, student research aims, plan the project, set deadlines, destination, learning responsible for decisions, recommend where to start from, which appear in a very process, constantly better to discuss with early stage of their candidature, rather than during an upgrade myself, search supervisor, supervisor ongoing process of their research. for future research knows better, science is • HDR students highlighted self-learning as their possibilities, self-work, open for discussion, have responsibility. get advice from to make sure why the • In terms of research-related decisions, HDR students and supervisors, student want to do it. supervisor agree it is student’s responsibility to take responsible for decisions, decisions but having discussion prior making any both parties should play decision is crucial. a role, negotiation, middle point, options, exposure.

111

b. Access Average 2 a month. 15/34 Average 2 a month. 9/18 • Both HDR students and supervisors prefer to have (Frequency and Frequently, often, Regularly, scheduled, regular meetings. Communication regularly, not scheduled, 10/15 mandatory requirement, 2/2 • Supervisors talk more about scheduled meetings, while Ways) always available, personal requirement, students did not highlight scheduled meetings routine or depends, task-based, always available, come at least its importance. depends on work. any time. • Students place more importance on e-communication as WhatsApp, Email, WhatsApp, Email, compare to their supervisors. Facebook. Facebook group.

c. Feedback Average time is two 15/33 No average time 3/4 • Feedback aspect remains consistent among HDR weeks; yet depends on specified. Depends on students and supervisors. work. work. • HDR students identified two weeks as the average time Read my work line by Play active role, read to receive feedback; yet varying depending on the length line, constructive page by page, go through of work and supervisor’s availability. feedback, very fast, with student, we discuss • HDR students who do not receive feedback within 1-1, 5 written feedback, verbal and edit together, as fast months less satisfied and feeling the time being wasted. feedback, practical, very as possible, help them to • Supervisors tend to play active role and provide useful, correcting on my submit faster, send few feedback as fast as possible. They commonly provide presence, when we days prior actual feedback using discuss and edit together approach. together it is better for us meeting. to discuss. d. Updating My habit to keep my 13/15 Yes, I expect, but the 4/4 • Almost all HDR students spoke of being responsible for on supervisor updated, level of engagement is updating their supervisors on their research progress, Research initiative, responsibility, different, depending on supporting this argument as being one of the ways to Progress update to get feedback, the stage of their seek supervisor’s feedback, having habit on updating update personally or research, not strict about their supervisors, or being afraid on working away from through Facebook group, the dates, progress their supervisors for too long. present regularly, I presentation. • Supervisors did not emphasise on updating them always do, slightest regularly as a requirement for students. It was perceived changes, update as I meet by supervisors as something very naturally occurring in my supervisor, research process, and therefore, does not require to be dangerous to stay away discussed. from your supervisor.

112

Findings

a) Academic Guidance & Research-Related Decisions

Academic Guidance

Academic guidance has been suggested by both HDR students and supervisors to be essential in postgraduate research supervision. Both sides share the same view of supervisors being responsible for providing research direction and ensuring the students are on the right track. Some supervisors tend to give even more than required, including journal articles or books.

[Supervisor Participant 9]

Those who requiring more guidance, more ideas, I tend to set more time for meeting with them and the way I approach them is also will be in stages, like introducing them to what are journals papers, where we can get those journal papers from. It can be to that extent because of the lack of exposure.

However, most of the HDR students spoke about such behaviour of supervisors as being over concerned or so-called ‘spoon-feeding’ students and were not agree with this position.

[Student Participant 7]

There is a popular saying: "You can always take the donkey to the river, but you cannot force him to drink the water". Now, if you keep spoon- feeding the child, you aren't teaching the child too well. So, if the supervisors keep on spoon-feeding the student, they are exposing that person professional career, because at that very last day when student supposed to defend the project, the student is not going to defend it and it is going to look very very awful two ways, either someone helped student to do it from outside or the supervisors did it. So, it is very dangerous to spoon-feed students, because students can put you into troubles. So, I don't encourage spoon-feeding at all.

113

[Student Participant 1]

But do you expect your supervisor to provide you with journal articles or some other research papers that you never came across to?

No. Never. (Laughing) Should never provide. […] Must be able to point some directions or maybe prompt some questions, prompt the student to think further, not giving the answer but, you know, have you think about this or that?

Yet, the issue of spoon-feeding cannot be generalised and applied to all supervisors, as the ways of providing information, discussing progress and checking quality of thesis and its contribution differs among supervisors.

Speaking with HDR students and supervisors about what academic guidance should include as a research process, there were some inconsistencies in the views of students and supervisors. When asked, supervisors viewed the purpose of academic guidance in correcting work, ensuring the student is on the right track and checking their work creditability and quality.

[Supervisor Participant 3]

Guide...well for PhD, I normally let them to explore the methodology, so I guide them in terms of the standards. Checking the creditability and ensuring that the work is correct, yes.

[Supervisor Participant 4]

Because some supervisors have different style, isn't it? Some supervisors they give everything, but my style, I’m building, because it is a learning process. Later you going to be a supervisor, so sometimes you have to go through right process. The way of handling students is very important, to guide what is next and make sure that the student delivers. Sometimes, we have to remind them to submit progress report, and some of them forget, so we have to remind them. 114

Students, at the same time, viewed the purpose of academic guidance differently. They expect their supervisors to help them to set research aims, plan the project, set deadlines, and recommend where to start.

[Student Participant 5]

After I started my PhD, and started with my supervisor and he recommended me how to start, how to make some work, start with introduction and everything, I learnt from my supervisor. And he advises me and he support me to reach to this point of my situation now.

[Student Participant 13]

Basically, what I expect from my supervisors was to assist me in a ....guide me actually, for example, if I have problems to come up with my research proposal, they will provide me with an idea how to go out […].

[Student Participant 14]

For me, because I’m the person, who needs a push, a need to be pushed a lot, I need to be told what to do, when to do what, so I expect my supervisor to kind of tell me, I want you to do this by now, by this date and then come back to me. […] Yes, I expect a lot of guidance, because sometimes I don't have an idea about topic that he gave to me, so I also expect to be guided like in the degree life, when you have lecturers and they teach us.

While it appears supervisors are willing to guide and help students after, when students have already made an attempt to explore and do some work, HDR students expect the guidance to appear in a very early stage of their candidature, rather than during an ongoing process of their research. Differences in views have been highlighted by one of the students who said:

115

[Student Participant 8]

I expect that my supervisor will be with me and say in problem background I have to do this, like give me the instructions for each tittle and subtitle in the research. But in Malaysia, all supervisors are not like this, it is not only my supervisor, also my friend supervisor don't do like this.

While the researcher did not specifically ask questions about self-learning HDR students who were quite concerned about the quality of guidance they receive spoke about self-learning as one of their responsibilities in research. They understand they have to continually upgrade themselves, attend workshops and make sure they are up to date on the field of study. One of the students suggested:

[Student Participant 3]

If the student is not curious about that area, student is not accommodating, so it must be a problem there.

Supervisors, in contrast, did not speak much about self-learning as a key expectation. Among all, only one supervisor described his supervision style as being learning-oriented, where he tries not to provide much information to students but allows them to learn and explore by themselves. Yet, the aspect of self-learning is closely related to the academic guidance aspect, where supervisors suggest students should take the first step to explore and do some work, then supervisors are willing to guide them.

Research-Related Decisions

Speaking about research-related decisions, findings were similar for both parties in terms of caring responsibilities for decisions. HDR students and supervisors agree that it is students’ responsibility to make research-related decisions. In addition, both parties highlighted the importance of having a discussion prior to making any decision. As per students’ views:

116

[Student Participant 10]

Actually, doing research, usually my supervisor will tell me that this is my research, and I’m doing it. That is why decision sometimes can come from the student, but sometimes you need advice from your supervisor. I think both parties should play the role.

[Student Participant 11]

There are always superior arguments with facts and figures. Arguments with justifications. So, and it is always clear, whoever puts the facts, we go with it. So, in some cases, my opinions, in some cases, theirs.

As per supervisors’ views:

[Supervisor Participant 3]

Yes, of course we have to make sure why they want to do that, because some students will choose the approach because their friends doing the same, but after getting the results it seems not to answer their objectives and it doesn't add on much to their thesis.

[Supervisor Participant 1]

Normally, yes. They ask my advice.

[Supervisor Participant 2]

At least discuss, because science is open for discussion, because sometimes supervisor is right, but sometimes supervisor is wrong. So, discussion is better.

Among all interviewed participants, only one spoke of taking research-related decisions independently. Participant 13 suggested,

117

Oh, it was my decision totally. Most of the professors in our university was telling me to use quantitative, because it is just PhD, make it easier, but I insisted, I wanted to do qualitative. I know that it is something new, but I just wanted to find out whether I can be good in doing qualitative method. So, the decision was all mine! My supervisors had to follow my decisions!

b) Access

Frequency of Meetings

It appears both parties prefer to have regular meetings. When the researcher asked what is perceived by the word ‘regular’, most of the participants suggested twice a month as being the average time for meeting their supervisors. In fact, one of the students indicated that constant unavailability of his supervisor was one of the main reasons for him to change a supervisor. During the discussion he said:

[Student Participant 11]

Always not available. I will always initiate the meetings and in most cases, I get sorry.

When students and supervisors discuss meeting arrangements, supervisors talked of more scheduled meetings as compared to students, especially during the early stage of the candidature.

[Supervisor Participant 3]

It depends on the student. If they came from undergraduate, of course I will call them almost every week, in the beginning especially, to make sure they understand my ideas. But for more mature students, in the beginning, I used to have with my students like weekly meeting, and during this weekly meeting I will ask them to present to see whether they understand what they have to do.

118

[Supervisor Participant 6]

I have presentation every week, so I had at that time more than 20 students, so every week, they will be scheduled to present, at like 4 students every week, so most of them learnt from there.

[Supervisor Participant 7]

Every Sunday, I’m getting about 70-80% of my students, who are in the campus, one or two in Kuala-Lumpur, frequently they come here. But those who are in campus, they come every Sunday to my office, show their work, and then we discuss the progress. Progress is not a lot. Sometimes five minutes, the most is 20 minutes per person. We start usually with those who are in advanced stage, so that the one who are juniors will learn.

Most of the students, however, did not suggest having scheduled meetings routine as well as its importance. For example, a common phrase for most of the students was “Depends on workload.”

[Student Participant 3]

No, actually it depends on the work. Whenever the work demands, we tell each other that I need to meet with you, and just give me some time. It doesn't mean that you have to meet within this stipulated time, not like that.

[Student Participant 7]

Well, it depends. It varies. Sometimes every week, sometimes two weeks, sometimes three months. Depends.

Among them, only one student talked about following schedule, given his supervisor is holding multiple roles and extremely busy person, he suggested:

119

[Student Participant 15]

Like, some supervisors as I saw are quite free, for example if you have a problem and you cannot make it to come to a meeting, you just message supervisor, saying sorry I cannot come now, can I come in 30 min or later? Some professors would not mind, they would say no problem, just WhatsApp me or call me. But some supervisors or professors might not like it. So, this is a part of communication I would say.

Another finding contradicts the views of some authors, whereas students and supervisors tend to have more meetings at the starting and the end while having less meeting during data collection. According to this research, it is not necessarily one size fits all approach applies to all HDR students and supervisors. For example, some supervisors, regardless of the student’s progress or stage of research, preferred to carry out scheduled meetings throughout candidature.

[Supervisor Participant 1]

I make a mandatory requirement. This is my personal requirement that my students will be meeting me every two weeks.

From the student’s perspective, regardless of the research stage, when students face issues with their work, they tend to meet their supervisors.

[Student Participant 12]

We don't have a fixed schedule, whereby this week on this day we have to meet with supervisor. Only when we face some issues or problems, or we cannot proceed with our writing or our theses to move forward. Only when we face such problems, that is when we see our supervisors.

Ways of Communication

While supervisors tended not to highlight e-communication as one of the key components for setting the meetings or discussing research updates, HDR students viewed e-communication

120

being a powerful tool in getting access to their supervisors, especially for those students taking research on a part-time basis or whose supervisors challenging to reach due to administrative responsibilities or relocation.

[Student Participant 3]

And nowadays, actually, because of the communication, that means our phones, social networking like WhatsApp or Facebook, so whenever we needed, we just contact using those media sources.

[Student Participant 8]

For me, if I don't meet him, I can WhatsApp him, because now he is in this position and he is very busy, but we consult any problem but WhatsApp or Skype. We can use social media.

Talking about e-communication from the supervisor’s perspective, only two supervisors suggested using social media to discuss work progress and answer research-related questions. They commented:

[Supervisor Participant 11]

There is also frequent communication through social media.

[Supervisor Participant 12]

So, if they do have problems they will come and see us, but normally within a month, it is around two times. But, it is also with the help of technology, like WhatsApp, email and so on, apart of face to face meeting.

Therefore, although there are some differences appear in the views of HDR students and supervisors regarding access aspect, it is rarely creating any problems between both parties unless two main elements are followed and agreed upon: frequent meetings and constant communication.

121

c) Feedback

Findings regarding the feedback aspect were consistent among HDR students and supervisors. Students describe the feedback they receive using words constructive, practical, useful, while supervisors use words as fast as possible, edit, discuss, page-by-page.

Time Receiving Feedback

Talking about acceptable period of time to receive the feedback, students identified two weeks as the average time; yet varying depending on the length of work and supervisor’s availability during particular time.

[Student Participant 7]

I submit on a Chapter basis. Chapter one is not that much, so it shouldn't take long. As a matter of fact, I can stay in her office and she will read Chapter one, then correct Chapter one in my presence. Chapter three as well. Those ones they can take days, or possibly a day in the office. But for literature review and the discussion, the results itself, it depends on the time you submit to your supervisors. I submitted my literature to my supervisor when she was free, and it took her two to three weeks, but at the time when I did corrections and I sent back to her, it lasted more than two-three weeks, because at that time she had so much responsibilities.

[Student Participant 6]

And what do you understand by timely feedback? How long after you send your draft your supervisor takes to respond with feedback?

Very very soon. As soon as she has time. The earliest she can give me feedback is like a couple of days to a week. Two weeks at most. She is really really diligent. This is why I progress with my proposal very very fast.

122

However, it was clear that students who do not receive feedback within 1-1, 5 months less satisfied and feeling of time being wasted. The same happens with those students who receive not constructive, low quality feedback. As per the words of the participants:

[Student Participant 8]

Now, in this stage, my supervisor returned my thesis back about four times. Each time different comments. For me, why don't you put all your comments in the first time, so we can save this time, six months or seven months we can submit and wait for Viva now.

What about turn-round time, when you give your work, how long it takes to receive it with comments?

The first time three months, the second around two months, the last version just three hours.

But are you satisfied with his feedback?

No.

[Student Participant 2]

I think I would like my supervisor to give timelier respond on my writing.

[…]Hmm…I will say it all depends on the research issue that we are discussing because sometimes your supervisor might not know your specific research area very well. So, sometimes the feedback might not be so constructive, but I will say very general, then I find this a bit hard to be constructive because your research area and supervisor research area are not the same.

[Student Participant 14]

Do you receive feedback from your supervisor?

123

I do, but I don't think it is constructive feedback for me. Once I submit my work to him, there are must be commented, like you should improve this, you should improve that, but so far what I get is him saying OK, Good, Proceed. If it is once or twice it is fine, but it is happening all the time. It creates a doubt to me if I’m really on the right track? I started to doubt myself, I started to doubt my work if my work is heading to the right direction or no. Because it is kind of the same all the time, so it kind of questions for me, is the understanding what I wrote or not? Because every time I receive, Good, Proceed, and things like that.

But how often do you receive that feedback?

It is usually one month and maybe more, ahahaha. One month is the fastest I received from him.

Are you satisfied with this time or you wish it will be a little bit faster?

Right now, since I know his style already, so I’m kind of prepared mentally to accept the feedback in one month and I even plan my work like that. […]At the first time, when I started, it was not OK for me, but I’m kind of used to the system.

[Student Participant 15]

Here is the thing. When I’m going by myself and I’m asking, of course I'm getting some good feedback actually. When I’m asking the questions.[…] I'm still trying to understand because when I’m going and looking for it, or let's say I’m asking my respective supervisor, he is guiding me and he is helping me, but sometimes, without me asking can give me greater advantage, so instead of going to a problem and understanding that there is a problem, then coming back and asking him, I could save that trial and error period.

124

Based on discussion with HDR supervisors, they tend to play an active role and read page-by- page student’s work and always try to provide feedback as fast as possible, especially for those students who plan to submit soon. For example, one of the supervisor participants said:

[Supervisor Participant 2]

Sometimes, feedback means in experiments, the student writes an explanation to the experiment and if we see that some of the things are not very good, so definitely yes, we explain. So, what we do, if the student is sitting here, so we discuss and edit, discuss and edit, like this. They will do the draft first. After they will come, I see, and then edit it, so like this the student is also learning what mistake they do.

Forms of Receiving Feedback

Aside from discussing the average time to receive the feedback, students were asked how they usually receive feedback on their work. Based on discussion with HDR students, they tend to expect different forms of feedback such as verbal and written.

[Student Participant 11]

I have feedbacks in two forms. One in reading form and another one in a way of discussions. In a way of discussions is immediate, I talk to them, I present to them, and they give me feedback immediately. And one interesting thing is even if they have given me something, a feedback, and it happens that after the meeting, they thought of it again and they saw that there is still something, they will call me on phone. And for the reading one, whenever I give them written documents, it will take them maximum of four to five days to get the document back with all the documents.

[Student Participant 9]

Every two weeks I submit half of the chapter, so I meet him and go line by line together. We stay one hour, two hours, three hours, it depends on the 125

paper or the chapter. So, through doing this, this means the same day we finish half of the chapter, which is better than I give him and I wait for one or two or three weeks to get his comments and then ask him for the meeting to clarify his point. When we together, it is better for us to discuss.

However, talking about forms of feedback, one of the supervisors was quite critical towards verbal feedback suggesting that at times it might be misleading, and his preference was given towards written feedback.

[Supervisor Participant 1]

I prefer to have something written so that you can show your progress to me and then I can comment something based on something you have written rather than having verbal conversation. I think verbal conversation can be misleading, what they understand and what they are writing. So, I normally ask them to provide some written materials, but if they can't then they tell me what they have in mind by sketching some diagrams, sometimes they can come up with power point presentation in point forms, what they intend to do for the next chapter for example.

Therefore, both HDR students and supervisors highlight the importance of providing feedback and have meetings while they can discuss and edit the work together to allow both sides a better understanding of ideas and mistakes.

d) Updating on Research Progress

In regard to updating the supervisor on research progress, supervisors did not emphasise the need for updating them regularly. Among 12 supervisors, only four spoke of students updating supervisors on their research as being the student’s responsibility. At the same time they highlighted that time to update can vary, depending on the stage of research the students were at.

126

[Supervisor Participant 1]

Do you expect them to update you on their research progress?

I do, but then I don't really being so strict about meeting the dates, because I told you, we meet every two weeks, if they have any progress that they want to share with me, they can send to me one or two days prior and then I will read that. But then, if they don't have any progress, for example, they are stack or whatever, so they can just come and tell me what their idea by sketching some graphs or whatever is. So, at least I can advise them, ok maybe you want to look at this.

In addition, one of the supervisors spoke indirectly of students updating him on their research progress:

[Supervisor Participant 2]

If the progress is not satisfying, I have every one month, one day I will take it under progress presentation. Even if student don't do anything.

Looking at students’ perceptions in this aspect, they do not see such aspect as being an important responsibility. However, when asked directly, almost all participants spoke of being responsible for updating their supervisors on their research progress, supporting this argument as being one of the ways to seek supervisor’s feedback, having habit of updating their supervisors or being afraid on working away from their supervisors for too long. One way or another, every student thought of the importance of updating supervisors on their progress, and some of them appeared to have a routine, for example every two weeks, or if any slightest change has been done.

[Student Participant 1]

I do not know, but all the time I keep her updated, maybe it is my habit, I am not too sure. I always keep her updated. I have done this from time to time, certain chapters, certain paragraph, or some research questions I

127

have done. Partly, I inform her, because I want her to give me some feedback.

[Student Participant 6]

Yes, I do. I update her with any slightest details changes on my paper. I update her and she will give me feedback.

[Student Participant 7]

Of course. It's a must. You have to. How can I know I’m correct, if I don't update them? It is dangerous to stay away from the supervisors, very dangerous.

[Student Participant 13]

Oh yes yes, of course. The main supervisor will definitely tell me to update him on how I’m progressing. So, I do that. I will message them that I would like to see them look through what I have done so far. Yes, we do that. We do that quite frequently.

HDR students and supervisors do not have any disagreement in this particular aspect. Students tend to be proactive and update their supervisors as often as possible to enable constant feedback to be provided to them. Supervisors, however, seem to take for granted this aspect, having a belief that this would occur naturally as the project progresses. Hence, they were not very explicit in their expectations of the regularity or importance of this process.

128

4.2.3 Theme 2. Academic Outcomes

Overview

Similar to the supervision processes, aspects of academic outcomes are explicitly discussed in universities’ handbooks. However, within the academic process the expectations are open to interpretation, allowing HDR students and supervisors to adjust them accordingly. For instance, when universities expect HDR students and supervisors to meet frequently, that frequency is not specified, giving both parties to decide the meaning of the word ‘frequent’ as perceived by themselves. Publication outcomes have clear structure and standards in Malaysian RUs. Publications policies tend to have clear guidelines with numbers and figures, for example, one journal paper is required for Master by Research and two for PhD students. The same goes for timely completion, or as it is known in Malaysia, Graduate on Time (GoT). Particularly in Malaysia and Australia, the expected time to complete a PhD is 3 years, while Master by Research is 1.5-2 years. Supervisors as well as students try to adjust to given requirements, although navigating between timely completion and publication requirements can be hard. In addition, some of the supervisors tend to set their own expectations on top of basic university requirements, demanding more papers to be published. These all create problems in expectations between students and supervisors and therefore deserved to be placed into separate theme for discussion. The following table (Table 8) presents the essential academic outcomes with reference to views of HDR students and supervisors.

129

Table 8 Essential academic outcomes

No. of No. of Students participants/ Supervisors participants Outcome Summary (Key words) No. of (Key words) / No. of mentions mentions a. Publications Suppose yes, at least one 9/11 Publish some good quality 9/15 • HDR students and supervisors view publications paper; was not a part of papers, write articles, I aspect differently. their expectations, indirectly benefit from • All HDR supervisors view publications as being student’s publications, published 10 papers, not primary activity for HDR students and expect them don’t pressure them, to publish during Master or PhD program. easy to find suitable publish more than basic • The number of papers expected to be published journal, supervisors requirement, engage varies among supervisors. expects me to publish, it is people to work in a team, • Supervisors support output-oriented vision. not my choice where to first six months at least • For HDR students, producing papers during Master publish, university conference paper, more or PhD program is not primary activity and appears requirement. than 10 papers during the to be less important as compare to their supervisors. PhD. • Almost all HDR students spoke of being responsible to publish because of university requirement or supervisor’s expectation placed on them. b. Graduate on Putting myself under 5/6 Finish on time, make sure 6/10 • Graduate on Time (GoT) aspect was equally Time pressure to complete on they deliver, finish important for both HDR students and supervisors. time, complete in one and smoothly, a little bit • HDR students and supervisors did not view GoT as a half year, impossible, slower or faster, don’t give a responsibility but rather as a requirement imposed worked hard, all up, targeting, by three by university policy or scholarship timeframe. supervisors want GoT, my years pass their • Student suggests that his timely completion can be supervisor spoke about examination, scholarship, undermined by supervisor’s and university’s completing on time. not my concern, lead them requirement to publish. to get it done in three years. c. Trainings & A lot of emails for 11/14 Encourage my students to 3/3 • HDR students and supervisors do not have any Conferences trainings, gives me a lot of attend course, attend disagreements in regard to trainings and suggestions, encourage me conferences to get more conferences aspect. to attend workshops, helps knowledge, use research • HDR students view searching for suitable

130

financially to attend grant to attend paid conference or workshop as being mainly their own workshops, criticise my workshops if it is responsibility. paper for conference, build important, advise them • HDR supervisors, although not required, are always networking, you cannot what to attend, take them proactive towards providing students with wait for supervisor to do with me abroad, learn how information on upcoming workshops and everything, self-learning. to manage colloquium. conferences and even providing financial support from their grant and personal money to allow students gain more experience.

131

Findings

a) Publications

Talking about the publications aspect, HDR students and supervisors seem to have different views. While the researcher directly asked only few supervisors about their views on the importance of HDR students being publishing, findings suggest those who were not asked naturally discussed the importance of their students to publish during Master by Research or PhD programs. Some supervisors, however, did not push on students and expected only what is required by university regulations (one or two papers according to their program), while others place publications being students’ primary activity, demanding as many as four, five, or even ten papers to be produced during the PhD. For example, two supervisors suggested:

[Supervisor Participant 4]

Sometimes, I expect more than basic requirements placed by university. For example, they have to produce two index journal based on requirement, but I expect four journals, but most of them deliver.

[Supervisor Participant 2]

I expect them to publish good quality papers.

When supervisors spoke about the number of publications produced by their students, they felt proud of those HDR students who could make more than ten papers during or right after their PhD. For example, Supervisor Participant 7 described:

My first three students when they came to me, they came from the same faculty, none of them produced any papers, but after they completed their PhD, each one produced 12 papers. Amazing, yes?

Adding to it, one of the supervisors described his disappointment in the quality of his current students, saying:

132

[Supervisor Participant 6]

Currently, the quality of students is not that good enough; they are only writing four to five journal articles. To me, four-five not good, because I had students producing more than that last time, even 20.

It is apparent all supervisors see the importance of their students to publish as much as possible, supporting university vision of being output-oriented.

As per HDR students, only after being asked by the researcher, almost all spoke of being responsible for publishing but did not view publications as their primary activity during postgraduate research. They have presented a number of different reasons why they feel responsible for publishing. One of the students suggested having at least one paper published during the PhD, as it will benefit in the future career. The other two students said that the aspect of publishing is rather supervisors’ expectations than their personal requirement. As students commented:

[Student Participant 8]

Talking about my supervisor, before I graduate I have to publish to ISI in Q1, three Scopus in Q1. It means, if I have four objectives, each objective should be in Q1.

[Student Participant 12]

My supervisor only keeps quiet. Only at the end of the day, when he wanted to be promoted, so he needs me in terms of his supervisee to complete the PhD on time as well as article to be published and any awards to be won in order to support his promotion. You got what I mean?

Other participants reason was a university requirement placed on them.

[Student Participant 9]

Also, the number of papers we already have a requirement, we have to publish at least two, this is the university requirement. 133

[Student Participant 15]

So, in our university, after the defence actually, there are certain milestones that we have to achieve before completing research degree. Within that period, we have to go for publications.

Both HDR students and supervisors are aware of publication requirements imposed by universities. However, while for students it is more or less just a university requirement, supervisors tend to take it more seriously and become competitive, and so impose their personal requirements on a number of publications per student.

b) Graduate on Time

The graduate on Time (GoT) aspect it appeared to be equally essential for both parties. Supervisors suggest GoT is an important aspect of students’ candidature and are consistent in their opinion that students are advised to complete their thesis within a specified period of time. One of the reasons for that is the universities require to complete within 1, 5 years for Master by Research and three years for PhD. Therefore, one of the supervisor participants suggested:

[Supervisor Participant 1]

University is quite strict nowadays with GOT and also quality publications (ISI and Scopus) journals. So, I think, they make it clear to the students that these are the expectations from the university. So, my role is basically to make sure that they deliver.

Adding to university requirements, a number of supervisors spoke of the importance of students to GoT due to financial issues they might face if they do not complete in a specific timeframe, particularly those holding scholarships.

[Supervisor Participant 7]

So, see. When student begins here, they have year one, year two, year three and at the end they have an exam. So, the reason that I put three is

134

because most of the students, Nigerian, Malaysian, the scholarship is only three years. Of course they want to complete PhD within three years, because after that they have problems with money. So, I ask them to complete before they have problems with money.

[Supervisor Participant 9]

It depends on the situation, but there are those who are very enthusiastic, because they have scholarship, for example, and they need to get things done before the scholarship is done. So, of course I will give full support, and they will be pretty much very demanding because they need to get things done very quickly and they will be meeting us very often. Definitely I will give full support to them. I give it to the students actually, they should know their time limitations, and if they want to go beyond because of some other things, I’m very open to it.

HDR students are aware of such expectation. Few students spoke of their supervisors is having conversations with them on the aspect of timely completion.

[Student Participant 9]

Yes, actually my supervisor spoke about completing on time and at best, yes, we can do it, but it depends, if I want better quality I will need to increase the time a little bit to see if it is appropriate to submit or not.

[Student Participant 4]

Yes, all supervisors want students to GOT. Mostly yes, mostly.

Others, however, suggested GoT never appeared during discussions with their supervisors.

[Student Participant 11]

That wasn't a part of their expectations. What they expect is to work and finish within the reasonable time. This was agreed upon.

135

In addition, a number of students spoke of being the main driver to complete their thesis on time because of the scholarship time limit. They commented:

[Student Participant 6]

But I told that Doctor, I'm here for three years only and I have to finish everything in three years. Therefore, I need you to help me to finish within three years. And she knows about this.

[Student Participant 7]

Yes, of course. Just recently I discussed with them my expectations, everything, I gave them month, in that month I told them, I’m expecting to wrap up my PhD, whatever it takes.

However, there was one student who suggested his timely can be affected by supervisor’s requirement to publish a number of journal articles, saying:

[Student Participant 8]

[…] But my experience says, if I’m working on those four ISI paper, I think I need eight years to finish my PhD, because once I work with the papers, I have to stop my thesis, I cannot do it together, this one and this one.

His view was supported by one of the supervisors, who spoke of having a dilemma between GoT and publications. She suggested time is the biggest constraint to achieve both aspects successfully.

[Supervisor Participant 12]

The threat is actually between the GoT and publications. Based on this particular student that I had, she graduated on time, but it was very difficult to push her for the publications. So, within two years, she only managed to present in conference and she submitted to a journal, but it is still under review. So, that is the threat that we have. Because we want to 136

target for GoT, somehow, the quality is affected, if you want the student to go for GoT. But current students that I have, I do not really go for GoT, but this particular student I have, who is waiting for Viva, I think, her output in terms of publications is more, compared to earlier students who have achieved GoT. So, the threat is between GoT or publications because of the time constraint. And then, about our university, the privilege we have, the moment the student submits the thesis for Viva, the initiative which the university will give for the subsequent semester, if the student register, they only pay 50 MYR. So, that is only the boost. So, the threat is between time, money, publications.

Both students and supervisors are aware and concerned about Graduate on Time pressures. However, for the supervisors, the discussion of GoT has come naturally without the researcher asking about it. On the other hand, HDR students were questioned on this matter specifically to understand how they perceived the importance of timely completion.

c) Trainings and Conferences

In regard to expectations about trainings and conferences, HDR students and supervisors never had any issues or disagreements in this aspect. While HDR students talk of their supervisors suggesting conferences, workshops, and even offering financial support to attend those workshops, they did not perceive this as the responsibility of their supervisors. Students spoke more of the supervisors’ personal willingness to advise them on this matter.

[Student Participant 9]

Most of the times, the important conferences or trainings my supervisor suggests for me, but the most is actually coming through my friends. And this is actually more like a self-learning, more than the requirement. I can say here, during two and a half years, I attended more than 20 conferences, and almost 20 workshops in different countries. And actually most of it is helpful and open new window for me.

137

[Student Participant 10]

Sometimes we choose the conference which we want and then after that he will sit down with us and see whether this conference is suitable or just normal without index paper or high impact paper, so he will decide because he got a lot of experience on that.

Among all participants, only two spoke of supervisors being responsible for finding and suggesting conferences and workshops to her. She commented:

[Student Participant 3]

But what about choosing the conference or looking for suitable training? Is it your responsibility?

No, in this regard, it is not my responsibility. For my experience, I can say that first meeting my supervisor already guided me, you need to do this and this. You have to do, you have to go for this training, and you have to go to these conferences. So, it is a continuous process and the supervisor is still guiding me.

[Student Participant 14]

That one is actually my supervisor's. If he hears about any conference or training, he will be bringing such news to me, so I can focus on my work and he will just bring on news for that. Any news about scholarship or conference, he will bring in those news.

Others, however, perceived this expectation as being their own responsibility; yet they were happy to seek advice and get suggestions from their supervisors.

[Student Participant 4]

Yes, my supervisor also gives me a lot of suggestions, and she always encourages me to attend more workshops, which will improve my data

138

analysis skills, and also attend publication workshops and conferences…It depends, yea. Of course you cannot wait for supervisor to do everything. So, you also have your own responsibility to maybe looking for any conference, so which you think is good for your area or good place to build networking. So, student also needs to take responsibility to look for any potential conference.

[Student Participant 15]

And do you think, is it your responsibility to look for a suitable conference or training?

In my scenario yes, kind of yes. I would say 50/50, because my supervisor also guides me sometimes about different talks and so on, along with conferences. But I think this is also my responsibility if I want to. It depends on how everyone is looking at it. Sometimes people are self- pursuing and they are taking their supervisors as guidance. I would say coming to research at master’s level is an interesting experience because from what I see from a research point of view, it is more about maturity. You will be doing your things by yourself, only when you face a problem, then you ask your supervisor.

Supervisors, as per their views, were always proactive towards providing students with the information of upcoming workshops and conferences and, at times, providing financial support from their grants and personal money to allow students gain more experience.

[Supervisor Participant 1]

So I encourage my students if they haven't gone to any of the courses and if it is related to their level of the PhD study, so I say that OK, maybe you are writing your literature review, why don't you go to this workshop, and they will tell you how to do the literature search. So, yes, I encourage them to go. And at the same time, if there are some opportunities that we have paid workshops outside of campus, sometimes I allow them to go by 139

using my research grant, because I received research grant from Japan, so I use that just to ask them to attend, especially it is very important and not available.

[Supervisor Participant 5]

There are two ways. Normally I tell them to attend this course or conference, because they can get more knowledge. Sometimes they want to go for something, but I will advise them.

Both HDR students and supervisors understand the importance of attending workshops and conferences. They are aware the main responsibility is with students, however, most of the supervisors are likely to guide and support student’s development in such cases, and even in the case where the student did not view it as her responsibility, it did not bring any issues in her relationships with supervisors.

140

4.2.4 Theme 3. Skills and Personal Attributes

Overview

Skills and personal attributes are widely discussed at the national level. In the Malaysian Qualifications Framework, there are a number of essential skills and attributes mentioned as required to be developed by students throughout the candidature. Those are, for example, critical thinking, diversity awareness, and independence. The universities’ policies, however, include mention of the Malaysian Qualification Framework in their statements of practice but do not explicitly describe skills and attributes students or supervisors should possess or how they could be developed throughout the research journey. In addition, the importance of clarifying those attributes and skills between HDR students and supervisors is barely visible at the start of the research; yet becomes crucial as student-supervisor relationships progress. As a result, it becomes subject to individual interpretation by students and supervisors. The analysis was undertaken to identify whether similarities or differences might emerge in these interpretations. The table below (Table 9) provides commonly expected skills and attributes in the postgraduate research process which appeared during the discussion with HDR students and supervisors.

141

Table 9: Commonly expected skills and attributes in postgraduate research process

No. of No. of Students participants/ Supervisors participants/ Skill/Attribute Summary (Key words) No. of (Key words) No. of mentions mentions a. Diversity Differences in 4/4 Active, weak, slow, 8/12 • HDR supervisors are aware and concerned about dealing Awareness terms of culture, fast, hard-working, with diverse students. background, relaxed, background, • Students were less concern about diversity issues. understand time to understand • Only few HDR students talk about diversity highlighting ourselves, small their culture, issues of importance of identifying cultural differences. adjustments, communication, high • Supervisors diversify students based on many other aspects, different way of ego, foolish, such as being weak or strong, slow and fast, etc. handling us, no accepting critique. • The idea of having ‘personalised supervision style’ revealed racism. from few supervisors, who were harder or softer with different students, according to their race, culture and research capabilities. • HDR students prefer having ‘personalised supervision style’. b. Motivation Coach who 6/13 Inspire, encourage, 3/3 • HDR students and supervisors look at aspect of motivation motivates, main limitations, indirect differently. thing I received 6/9 motivation, self- • HDR students believe motivation should come from from her, gives driven, mature. themselves as well as from their supervisors (external and encouragement to internal). move on, not give • HDR supervisors believe providing motivation is not their up, example, responsibility and students need to be proactive in continuous developing their own sources of motivation. motivation, dedicated. c. Critical ------0/0 Major aspect, be 3/3 • MQF (Students have to critically analyse, evaluate and Thinking more critical. synthesize new, complex and abstract ideas and current critical issues in their discipline). • Although critical thinking is one of the key skills that students need to develop during PhD and Master by Research, the aspect was not highlighted by HDR students

142

and only slightly touched by supervisors. d. Knowledgeable Admire the way he 8/14 My obligation to 3/4 • HDR students and supervisors have different views in shares ideas with share knowledge, • For HDR students it was essential to have a supervisor who us, very win-win situation, possess strong knowledge in the area of expertise to allow knowledgeable, supervisors cannot greater level of guidance and to be able to answer research should answer know everything. fundamental questions. fundamental • HDR students who worked closely only with one supervisor questions, were less satisfied suggesting supervisor is either not understands my knowledgeable in the area or in methodology. work, be from the • Supervisors have not spoken about importance of having same field. (developing) knowledge in the same area with students. • Supervisors suggested they cannot know everything and sometimes by doing something with student can gain knowledge too. e. Hardworking Very hardworking, 4/7 You PhD, you need 1/1 • All HDR supervisors expect students to be hard-working. make sure I work, to work hard. • HDR students agree with supervisors on being responsible meet all your to work hard on their projects. deadlines, lazy student cannot manage everything, a lot of reading and writing. f. Punctuality Appointment, be on 2/2 Be ready anytime 2/3 • Appeared naturally during discussion with some students time, punctual, requested, skip and supervisors. respect of time. meetings, comes • The punctuality issue was important only for those HDR during another students and supervisors who have faced related problems, student’s meeting. while for others it was not essential. g. Commitment Focuses on his 2/4 Passionate to 1/5 • The importance of commitment has been raised only by two students, puts his supervise, build student and one supervisor (pair). energy, and gives people’s minds, • They believed it is one of the most important aspect in an example, straight. supervision of research students, which in fact contributes to mentor, and coach, student’s motivation and timely completion. be there for me.

143

Findings

a) Diversity Awareness

When asked about their expectations around awareness of diversity of candidates, supervisors appeared to be very concerned about it. The idea of having a ‘personalised supervision style’ was described by a few supervisors, who adjusted their style with different students, taking into account their race, culture, personal or research capabilities. They particularly highlighted differences in supervision and communication with Middle Eastern compare to Malaysian students, although not necessarily in an empathetic way. As described by the supervisor:

[Supervisor Participant 7]

This one happens to be with Arabs, the Middle Eastern. They are stubborn and only the person that they couldn't say no is their parents. To me, sometimes, they just ignore. Therefore, to do that when they get like this, I show how is the good student's work and then ask them if they understand this and if they can follow the same way, so therefore it didn't put shame on them in front of others, but I like to him to follow with a good example. But not necessary they change. Arabs are stubborn. Sometimes foolish. So, sometimes, I have to hit high.

Another supervisor was less strict with their students, suggesting being friends is a key to understand other cultures.

[Supervisor Participant 1]

But sometimes depends on the background culture of the students, for Malaysian maybe no, but foreigners sometimes take me time to understand their culture and so on, because they also don't understand our culture, so there is an issue in communication. Sometimes, you must be with them as friends, you get easy to discuss and so on, and also

144

another thing you have to make the students more matured to think deeper on certain things and have the will to explore.

Speaking about differences in students apart from cultural, the researcher noticed that supervisors also differentiated students by being weak and strong, or slow and fast, which is more related to their performance such as the number of publications and overall academic output. One of the supervisors has raised his concerns over the quality of contemporary students as compare to students before, comparing the number of publications per student. If previously his students could produce 10-20 papers during their candidature, currently they only produce five.

[Supervisor Participant 6]

But currently, the quality of students is not that good enough, they are only writing four to five journal articles. To me, four-five not good, because I had students producing more than that last time, even 20. I train them so they can get grant or award. One of my students won the Best Student Award and received 5000 MYR from our university, and two students won Chancellor Award worth 2500 MYR each.

HDR supervisors encounter a range of dimensions of diversity in the students they supervise. For example, apart from cultural differences, they need to pay attention to gender, personality, age, level of preparation.

This appeared to be less of an issue for students who usually have the same two supervisors throughout their PhD. The question regarding diversity was only raised by three students who saw the importance of supervisors being aware of cultural and personal differences among students. They suggested:

[Student Participant 11]

You see, being an African in Asia, having an Asian supervisor, I mean we have got some differences in terms of culture, in terms of food, background and all of that. So, our discussion was mainly about that and trying to

145

understand ourselves, I mean each other, especially the culture differences.

[Student Participant 7]

Yes, yes actually it was part of it because the first time we met, it is the first time two different people from two different cultures are actually meeting, so we needed to understand each other’s culture, we had a long- time discussion, I think for like two-three hours, where we got to understand each other very well. I'm coming from the culture, where it is totally different from Malaysian culture, so she tried to explain the basics to me, and he gave me his business card in case I’m having problems. I should call him first, before calling any other person, he tried to encourage me to make Malaysia home. I think it was one very good advice he gave me. He said, this is your home for the next three-four years now, my advice for you is to make this place your home, accept this place, eat the food, mix with the people, travel and he gave me his experience while he was in the United Kingdom.

In fact, the student who felt his supervisor has been treating all students in the same manner did not perceive it as a positive attitude in comparison with students who were aware of being having a ‘personalised supervision style’. As per the student’s words,

[Student Participant 2]

I will say she will do it the same way. I think she does some small adjustments, but basically, she doesn’t. There is a style of supervision.

The diversity awareness issue was only important for those students who have extremely good or extremely bad experiences with their supervisors. Others, however, did not explicitly identify the importance of diversity awareness.

146

b) Motivation

While no specific questions were asked related to motivation, all HDR students spoke about motivation as an essential researcher attribute. As perceived by HDR students, motivation can evolve from both internal (personal) and external (provided by supervisors) ways. A number of students believe the primary source of motivation should lay in their supervisors who are responsible for providing continuous motivation and encouragement to keep going.

[Student Participant 6]

Her diligence pushes me because she is very motivating. Her positive attitude made me a good student, in my perspective. If there is positive feedback, it just makes you do better.

[Student Participant 2]

I think if your supervisor more supportive they constantly updated on you, you will create motivation for your research. […] I think supervisor’s support is very important for continuous motivation.

Others, however, spoke of developing motivation within, being self-driven and the main driver of their research and view the primary source of motivation is inside themselves. Therefore, few student participants commented:

[Student Participant 5]

When I start, I find tittle or my objectives, I try to love my work. And then when I start to read more and get the information from those articles, this is becoming, giving me advice on reading more on this topic, because really I love it, my topic. And I start to get an idea until now, what gave me advice is my country situation, and it is very bad. For that I try to do some things for my country, in the future, what should be done to reduce the problems.

147

[Student Participant 7]

Research as we all know it, it takes a lot of time, a lot of energy, well you have to be dedicated.

One HDR participant spoke of the importance of having internal and external motivation at the same time suggesting:

[Student Participant 1]

She is always coach who actually motivates. I think motivation is one of the main things that I received from her that I now can actually motivate others as well! I think that’s the main impact in a relationship with supervisor. Supervisor needs to actually maintain…or help the student to really sustain the motivation because looking back at six years was like, you have ups and downs, and then ups, but I think more downs than ups at times, yea. So, I think the support she gave me or encouragement is actually quite useful. That’s the impact, quite significant impact.

[Student Participant 1]

So, I think motivating myself is quite important thing, I suppose.

In contrast, unless asked, supervisors did not raise motivation in conversation. It became apparent that supervisors were generally not willing to provide continuous motivation to their students. They suggested providing motivation was not their responsibility, and students need to be proactive in developing their own sources of motivation.

[Supervisor Participant 1]

If there are on track, they progress well, I ask them how you and they are saying that they are fine. I don't see it as motivation, but I encourage them. Indirect motivation yes, but to give them motivation every time, I don't do that often.

148

[Supervisor Participant 2]

But if you see that the student acts like a free rider and not willing to do anything, would you stop supervising him?

Cannot stop, but yes, if the student does not want to do anything, nothing to do, you cannot do the work for him. You have to think about ethical issues also.

In addition, those supervisors who tend to classify their students not only based on their culture but using many other classification attributes believe that not all students can be motivated.

[Supervisor Participant 5]

But the slow workers, yes and no, sometimes we can motivate them, but for few it is very difficult because they got some limitations.

c) Critical Thinking

Neither HDR students nor supervisors spoke about the need to develop critical thinking skills. In the first revision of findings, it has been perceived by the researcher as a lack of questions on this matter. However, after going through again, it appeared to be strange that both students and supervisors do not talk about critical thinking, given that it has been widely discussed both locally and internationally as a key skill that needs to be developed in students during postgraduate research.

In the Malaysian Qualification Framework (MQF) particularly, it has been stated that students at the PhD and Master level should demonstrate a critical understanding of the most advanced knowledge in a field of study or professional practice. Moreover, it suggests students are required to critically analyse, evaluate and synthesize new, complex, and abstract ideas and current critical issues in their discipline/practice and refining existing concepts and practices.

149

In the only three comments relating to critical thinking made by HDR supervisors, they suggested students are required to develop critical thinking skills, yet were not explicit on how they should do it or how they (supervisors) should help them or guide them to develop that skills. As per their comments:

[Supervisor Participant 10]

[…] So, therefore, I expect that I will produce quality students in terms of critical thinking, thinkers, and also their performance should be quality so that when they go to work, this is reflection of me!

[Supervisor Participant 7]

[…] So, when they reach the end, I always tell them that this is process of creating a scholar. So, when they pass this, there is a component of scholar. So, meaning that in term of thinking, most of them will have major thinking skills, one is analytical and critical.

d) Knowledgeable

While interviewing HDR students, half of them spoke of expecting their supervisors to be knowledgeable in the research field. For these HDR students, it was essential to have a supervisor who possesses strong knowledge in the area of expertise to allow a greater level of guidance and to be able to answer fundamental research questions.

[Student Participant 9]

If my supervisor is not in the same field, so I have to do double effort to show him and convince him that this is the theory and this is the literature, but if the supervisor already knows that will help and maybe he will advise what papers to read. So, this is the thing I expect, supervisor should have knowledge in the same area.

150

[Student Participant 3]

Basically, from my supervisor, a student can expect that he or she will get the basic thought from them. And the knowledge in that area of interest and the supervisor must give a lot of time to student, so that student can understand the whole situation and student can understand the whole research process because it is a tough journey. And if the supervisor is not well enough or not educated on that area of interest, then the students can face a lot of problems.

[Student Participant 13]

So, I think it is important that when we choose our supervisors, they should also be knowledgeable in terms of the methodology. Otherwise, the student will be on their own to really know what she is doing. I really needed to know my own methodology. Because I know for a fact that my supervisor couldn't advise me on that. Yes.

In addition, students who worked very closely only with one supervisor spoke negatively of having supervisor who is not competent in a particular methodology or area of research.

[Student Participant 6]

I expect her to be more knowledgeable about the statistics, yes. But, this part of me, I understand that nobody is perfect in all aspects. Maybe she is good at integrating technology and education because that is her field. Maybe in that aspect she is really really good. Maybe in the statistics part she is not good as an expect her to be.

[Student Participant 7]

As a matter of fact, I have three supervisors, but closely working only with two of them. So, on that day she decided to call all the team to come. And after I presented, the other man didn't really understand the scope of my

151

work, and I was trying to explain to him that what he is talking about is beyond my scope, my scope is this, and he said no. So in one point of argument, what I expected from my supervisor, but I never said actually, but I experienced, she stood up and defended me. I was so surprised because she knew the job, she said no, what he says is right, this is not our scope, so other supervisor accepted.

Other participants who were involved in team supervision and worked closely with two or three supervisors did not raise any concerns of having a lack of practical or methodological knowledge in their supervisors. In fact, they did not directly speak of the advantages of team supervision, but it could be noticeable in the conversation.

[Student Participant 11]

I'm the main driver actually. So, whenever I go to them, they ask me to make presentations. I will make presentation to them and where they are not so comfortable, they will ask questions, which I will have to provide answers. At some point, if they are not satisfied, they will give me options. I mean some other alternatives to take, rather than what I’m proposing.

This highlights the importance of team supervision, whereby supervisors are not only identified on papers as required based on university policy but actively participate in student’s supervision, regardless of their status in the supervisory team.

As for supervisors, they have not spoken about the importance of having (or developing) knowledge in the same area with students. Yet, one of the supervisors suggested having a supervisory team to allow students to be well-guided and supervised.

For another supervisor sharing his knowledge even with those students who are not under his supervision was the main priority:

[Supervisor Participant 7]

If the students come to me to get some knowledge, it is my obligation to share with them what I know. 152

However, it was indirectly said by one of the supervisors that they could not know everything and at the same time they (supervisors) share knowledge with students, so do the students:

[Supervisor Participant 5]

Actually, it is a win-win situation, you learn from students, they also learn from you. A lot of things I leant from my students. I think, nowadays, a lot of new knowledge supervisors get from their students. They provide new information for my studies also so that actually giving me new knowledge.

e) Hardworking

Both HDR students and supervisors agreed that students are required to be hard-working throughout the whole research process. While data suggest only two HDR supervisors spoke directly about expecting students to be hardworking, it was still noticeable during interview sessions that all supervisors expect that from their students. As per two supervisor participants:

[Supervisor Participant 8]

I have students who have no IT background at all, she came in and she was able to cope, and then I give them to explore one system, and she was the only one who was able to explore and show me the features and use the features. So, this is the attitude that I would like them to have.

[Supervisor Participant 5]

It is not my PhD, it is your PhD, you need to work hard.

Talking about students, most of the HDR students agree with their supervisors on this aspect and talked about being responsible for working hard on their projects. For instance, few student participants concluded:

153

[Student Participant 3]

As a researcher, my first responsibility is to work hard. If you are really hard-working student, you can meet your all deadlines.

[Student Participant 11]

Whenever I go to discuss problems with them, I make sure that I have some idea or possible solution and then I will ask for their opinions.

f) Punctuality

While the questions on punctuality matters were not presented in the researcher questions guide, two HDR students and three HDR supervisors highlighted the importance of having punctuality as a personal attribute. Discussing punctuality, Student Participant 4 suggested that students need to be punctual for the meeting with the supervisor, viewing punctuality as an essential attribute that needs to be developed by students. In contrast, another student complained of supervisors being not punctual for meetings or simply not show up, creating difficulties to access them (supervisors) when needed.

[Student Participant 8]

The second thing is the respect of time because actually my supervisor most of the times is on time, but I mean other students I feel their supervisors give them appointment and after that they don't come.

During interviews with supervisors, the students’ opinion has been indirectly confirmed by one of them who spoke of rescheduling dates and times on his meetings with students on very short notice, suggesting that his students should be ready anytime requested.

For another supervisor, however, the issue of punctuality appeared during supervising one of the students who were constantly late or unprepared for the meeting and sometimes even coming in during another student meeting. She suggested student’s inability to cope with her schedule and understand the importance of set meetings were one of the reasons for relationships breakdown.

154

[Supervisor Participant 9]

She is from Iraq and it was really not a good one. She often missed the appointments and I had to wait […] And while I was already in the office supervising another student, she came in and I said to her that she is not supposed to come in just like that, just wait outside, and after I’m done, I will call you in.

As perceived by Supervisor Participant 8, being punctual for the student is showing a positive attitude. She suggested:

Attitude wise is the most crucial one. I want them to have positive attitude, meaning they respect time, so they are punctual. If they couldn't make it, they inform me.

Thus, the issue of punctuality was equally important for both HDR students and supervisors. However, given the small number of participants who spoke about essentiality of being punctual, we can assume only HDR students and supervisors who have faced related problems spoke about it, while for others it did not appear as important.

155

4.2.5 Theme 4. Personal Relationships

Overview

Personal relationships are, perhaps, the least explicitly discussed but a very sensitive part of expectations. Given differences in cultures and personalities and little or no support or guidance from institutions in regard to this aspect, it creates difficulties to navigate and manage those relationships. Particularly in Malaysia, where the power distance and respect to the elderly plays an essential role (Abdullah & Pedersen, 2003), both HDR students and supervisors place questions on what is appropriate and allowed in those relationships, and there are the boundaries lay. Adding to it, conflicts and misunderstandings in postgraduate research were suggested by participants to happen commonly, mostly behind closed doors between research student and supervisor. Only situations that go out of control become known to the people by the university management (i.e. staff in graduate schools), and most of the time this involves reporting by supervisors on HDR students who are perceived as being disrespectful. When having problems with supervisors, however, HDR students tend to prefer to change supervisors or withdraw quietly, being afraid to raise the issue formally. Table 10 discusses HDR students and supervisors’ expectations towards each other in regard to personal support, respect and conflicts.

156

Table 10: Personal relationships expectations

No. of No. of Aspects of Students participants/ Supervisors participants/ Personal Summary (Key words) No. of (Key words) No. of Relationships mentions mentions a. Personal Supportive and 15/39 Treat them like my 9/19 • Both students and supervisors see the importance of Support responsive, passed friends, be open, take providing personal support to HDR students. similar journey, empathy, them for coffee or lunch, • Students, who have experienced personal support from their understanding, if it break some barriers, supervisors spoke of their supervisors as being helpful, effects my studies, being financial support, diligent and kind people. professional, our daddy, understanding students • Students felt hesitant to admit that they can share personal very close, inviting me are still young, stress, problems with their supervisors. for lunch or coffee, share their problems, • Supervisors feel uncertain about personal discussions being gender differences, kind, being professional, suitable in student-supervisor relationship. helpful, supported gender differences, very • Gender differences was presented as a barrier for both HDR financially, diligent, rare, only when it effects students and supervisors to discuss personal issues. needs to be near to studies. • Malaysian hierarchical culture has visible effect on personal students and their relationships. problems, flexible. b. Conflicts & Breach of agreement, I 15/27 Very harsh with certain 9/16 • Conflict and misunderstandings are common in Misunderstan changed my supervisor, culture, make harsh postgraduate research supervision. dings sometimes, only statements to them, • HDR supervisors look at these conflicts as being personal research-related disrespect, made me rather than professional (ex: disrespect). argument, clash at some angry, not according to • Cultural differences (Middle East & Iran) perceived to be a point, positive argument, what I need, stubborn, major reason for disrespect. differences in the views. distrusted me in being • HDR students think conflicts/misunderstandings are mainly Mutual understanding, good supervisor, doesn’t professional in nature. personal conflict no, accept critique, too • Supervisors who have less experience in postgraduate respect him, he much pride and ego, supervision did not indicate having conflicts or understands me, never, often miss appointments, misunderstandings with their students. very professional, keep my name was tarnished, • Mutual understanding was perceived as one of the ways to myself far from I felt unhappy and down, avoid conflicts. misunderstanding, I sent harsh email to my • Supervisor demonstrate some denial as a coping strategy listen, I was patient, meet colleagues, Malaysian with emerging conflicts. her expectations, very culture, respect elderly, 157

kind person, be careful, did not respect my appreciate what I do, weekend, student was relaxed, not stubborn. not performing. I don’t have problems with my students, maybe still new, try my best to not allow this to happen, so far so good, not really a misunderstanding. c. Respect Must respect, respect 4/4 If you want to be 4/5 • Only supervisors who had problematic relationships with supervisors, mutual respected you must their students spoke about disrespect issues. thing, no trust, no respect others, looks • HDR students, however, described the respect as a driver confidence, no positive down at Nigerians, very for positive outcome and supporting element to build trust. outcome. ego, did not respect my • Both parties agree that it is essential for students to respect weekend, made my their supervisors and vice versa. name tarnished.

158

Findings

a) Personal Support

Personal support has become commonly discussed topic in postgraduate research supervision. It is becoming apparent that supervisors are now required not only to manage student’s research activities but also closely monitor student’s well-being when performing research. Findings reveal most HDR students and supervisors understand the importance of providing personal support to HDR students. For example, as described by supervisors, some of their students can even call during nighttime to share their personal issues, stress, or family problems.

[Supervisor Participant 5]

I should handle my students, I should treat them like my friends, ok. I don't see them as my.... I mean because some supervisors tend to take advantage...I don't take advantage of my students. I know their situation and I tell them that they can always get help from me anytime, you WhatsApp me at 12:00 am, I will answer you, so it is not a barrier. So, they shouldn't take me as a barrier, they should take me as a person who can support.

[Supervisor Participant 7]

There was one case, one student got miscarriage, once she called me so was crying so hard, so I told her to put down the phone and I went to her in the hospital, calm her down, brought her back home. Yes, that is how things. And that's how I’m passionate to supervise students, it is not about how much I get, no, it is about being a teacher.

In exceptional cases, supervisors would not only try to support mentally, but they are willing to also help financially to those students who seek such support:

159

[Supervisor Participant 1]

Normally they tell me that they are running out of money, asking me if I can hire them to work as a research assistant using my own grant. If I have active grant, then I give some to them, but if there is no any active grant, then personal charity. Just give them if they need, but that is something they also don't ask regularly, if really, they no option apart from that.

Those HDR students who have experienced personal support from their supervisors spoke of been more motivated to work and spoke of their supervisors as being helpful, diligent, and kind people. In addition, there was one student who provided an example of receiving financial support from their supervisors to cover his house rent.

[Student Participant 7]

Like there was a time, where my country was in troubles, I think it was during 2016-2017, and I wasn't getting money, because mostly my funds come from my country, it comes from my country and has to convert, so the fund was not coming, because of problems in country, and the whole banks of the country were blocked, all international transactions. So, I went back to them and they gave me money, the just gave me money to pay my house rent that month and they asked me a question, how much do you need after I told them all my problems. I was so shocked, I just thought that they would listen to me, try to encourage me, but the next question was how much you need.

[Student Participant 13]

[…]Personally, we do share the challenges that I face and sometimes she also shares hers. But of course, in private. Yes.

160

Comparing students and supervisors’ attitudes during replying to this question, the researcher discovered HDR students felt less comfortable talking about the possibility of sharing personal problems with their supervisors.

[Student Participant 6]

And do you usually discuss your personal problems, personal issues with your supervisor?

Not usually. Although I talk about my family, because she is asking how many kids you have, but this is just general information sharing and not really problems. I don't want to bother my supervisor with my problems, but maybe there will come a time, I think she will be OK to share my problems. But in the last three semesters that we have been working together, I didn't see the need to share my problems with her, I think there was no opportunity for me to share my personal problems.

[Student Participant 3]

But can you say, is it strictly professional or it's more like, not personal, but you can discuss your life matters and difficulties, maybe share some stressful situations? Or is it mostly research-related?

It is mostly research-related discussion, but as a human being, sometimes we share like not so much personal things, like our day to day activities, sometimes suppose I’m engaging in some work, which is related to my school, not related fully related to my research, so we talk. Not everything.

[Student Participant 15]

I would say it is good professional relationships […]. At this moment I would not say so totally, very briefly. He knows, but slightly, not totally. So, but not that much he is involved in personal matters.

161

In fact, some of the students felt uncomfortable at first when their supervisors try to be open and discuss personal things. One of the students suggested:

[Student Participant 11]

Yes, I was always trying not to do that, but they kept bringing it in. Yea, they kept bringing personal issues into our discussions. But for me, at first, I felt let's just be professional, keep it academic, no personal discussions. But somehow they kept bringing it, inviting me for dinner in their houses, visiting me, talking about my own, and asking about my problems, challenges and all of that. Yes, we do discuss personal.

Supervisors, in contrast, did not feel shy to let the researcher know that their students can share personal problems with them. However, at times they felt uncertain about such discussions being suitable in student-supervisor relationships. Thus, one of the supervisors said:

[Supervisor Participant 8]

Sometimes, I even go towards being a mother or a sister, and then I realise that it might not be appropriate professionally, so I will come back to the point of professionalism. I think entertaining someone's emotions can also be a part of professionalism.

However, both supervisors and students suggested that during research-related discussions, they prefer to keep it in a professional way to allow greater concentration on work and do not get relaxed too much.

[Supervisor Participant 2]

It is professional. When it comes to supervision, they are my students and I’m their supervisor. So, I noticed that sometimes you know, someone who comes from very close relations, it means some friend recommend you or someone who comes from my home country, ok, so when it comes to supervising I think they are all my students and I’m their supervisor. 162

[Student Participant 4]

And how would you describe the relationship you have with your supervisor?

Most of the time, we prefer to have professional relationships because research study should be a priority. So, we need to keep both sides in a professional way. Of course, you also can discuss other situations, maybe you are not happy or you have bad emotions you want to share with your supervisor, and then maybe your supervisor can give you a consultation, which is good, but so far, I didn't discuss experiences, only research- related discussions.

[Student Participant 12]

Oh, I never discuss family issues, I never my personal problems with my supervisor. I always talk about theses only. I never confess with my supervisors, saying I’m very stressful now, I don't know what to do with my research, can you please advise me. I never do that! I always keep that to myself, I always overcome this.

Talking about gender differences, four supervisors and two students have indicated difficulties in sharing personal problems due to gender differences.

[Student Participant 1]

Ok. And could you tell me, how can you describe the relationship you have with the supervisor?

I would say a little bit more formal. I think, perhaps, it is due to gender differences, because I hear from other students they get quite close to their supervisors, they go out for coffee together or sometimes they have meals together, perhaps, I think gender differences might actually hinder all

163

these closer activities together because she might be scared of some gossips.

[Supervisor Participant 11]

So, if I’m to share whether I would provide emotional support to students, I would say, perhaps, it depends on the situation. Also, perhaps, gender plays very important role. If it is of different gender, I would say, we should be mindful of the tripe, we might fall in, because I think it is something very real through my own observation, where something happened, because of supervisor and the student were of different genders and they worked too closely. And as a result, there was disciplinary action that was taken, which i think will ruin the whole purpose of doing PhD. That is my concern.

To resolve this issue, Supervisor Participant 4 suggested:

Most of my PhD students are male, code encode. But I have my co- supervisor, which is my ex PhD student, and she is lady, so if I have lady students, maybe these students will go to my co-supervisor to share the issues that they are facing for young students. Woman to woman talk, so then my co-supervisor will bring it to me, then we will discuss how to solve things out.

Gender differences issue was also viewed essentially when one of the students spoke of not having lunch or coffee break with his supervisor, where they could discuss not only research- related topics but also other aspects in their field. Therefore, he spoke of hoping to build better rapport with his supervisor.

Supervisors try to be open and treat students more like their friends or child to reduce these hierarchical barriers. However, when asked about it, one of the supervisors replied:

164

[Supervisor Participant 10]

We have good relationships. For me, with the students, I always look at them as another colleague, but thankfully, the student does not think this way, so that there is respect. So, if my perception, my perspective comes this way, it will enable me to be more open to them, more accessible to them, so you do not create that hierarchy, but of course, the students, they already have that kind of hierarchy relationships with you, even since they were your Degree students. So, when they come for Postgraduate studies, they still maintain that way. So, that kind of relationships is very good, although they might be a little bit more open to you, rather than they were your Degree students. So, the student will not feel hesitated to come and visit you and ask for information.

In addition, two supervisors have specifically highlighted hierarchical relationships and the power of supervisors over students. One of them gave an example of South Korea, suggesting the importance of students obeying their supervisor.

[Supervisor Participant 7]

Supervisor cares about the student, but the student must listen. In fact, in Korea, they cannot say no to their supervisor, there is no “NO”, but what the student needs at that time, supervisor search for it, especially funds.

[Supervisor Participant 10]

And how would you describe the relationships you have with your students?

We have good relationships. For me, with the students, I always look at them as another colleague, but thankfully, the students do not think this way, so that there is respect. So, if my perception, my perspective comes this way, it will enable me to be more open to them, more accessible to them, so it will not create that hierarchy, but of course, the students

165

already have that kind of hierarchy relationships with you, even since they were your Degree students. So, when they come for Postgraduate studies, they still maintain that way. So, that kind of relationships is very good, although they might be a little bit more open to you, rather than they were your Degree students. So, the student will not feel hesitated to come and visit you and ask for information.

Therefore, students still can feel that barrier and when speaking about their supervisors and describing the hierarchical relationships, they have using words like our daddy, mentor, coach, rather than a friend. While both students and supervisors take a step closer to each other in sharing their personal life, Malaysian hierarchical culture still appears to be present in their relationships.

b) Conflicts and Misunderstandings

Conflicts and misunderstandings in postgraduate research supervision seem to be common practice. To understand whether HDR students and supervisors have conflicts or misunderstandings throughout the student’s candidature and identify the nature of these conflicts as perceived by both HDR students and supervisors, both parties were questioned on this matter.

Among eight student participants who suggested having at least one conflict with their supervisors, five viewed the nature of conflict as being not personal, highlighting differences in views towards research or simple misunderstandings over tasks performed.

[Student Participant 10]

The conflict I think is only because, sometimes when you present your research, let's say once a month, he might not understand, and you argue in a proper way, in a positive way. That is very common, very healthy.

[Student Participant 9]

Conflict no. But misunderstandings yes, sometimes happen, but it is not a personal thing, it is about the research. I mean like, sometimes I will not

166

clearly understand something and submit in different way like he requests something but I submit something else but I feel this is common in any field and in any relationships, so it is.

[Student Participant 12]

Oh, there was one time, I did have conflict in terms of the area of the research. I really insisted that I wanted to do my area, then we argue argue and at the end of the day, I knew there was implied meaning from what they said, from what they told me and started to agree to what they said. So, to disagree with what they suggested you to do is quite difficult in this position. So, I had to force myself to agree to my disagreement, to something I never wanted.

Did you feel this power relationships or hierarchy while doing research?

Oh, yes yes.

Among all, only one student participant has described a situation where the breach of the agreement between him and his supervisor led to conflict and breakdown of relationship:

[Student Participant 11]

Yea, in the first place we had some agreement and along the line, there was a breach of the agreement and so I felt no, I’m not here to stay forever. I'm here for the purpose and the way I was going through, I mean I thought it was going to take me forever, so I decided to change.

However, the student highlighted after changing his supervisor, the relationships with new supervisors were perfect throughout his candidature.

Talking with the HDR students who never had any conflicts or misunderstandings, the researcher noticed students being using words like mutual understanding, kind, respect, own understanding, and appreciating. These words were used in the conversation to describe either their own behaviour or the behaviour of their supervisors, which, as they believed,

167

supported to avoid any issues. For instance, one of the students suggested that HDR students need to be patient with their supervisors and try to understand them:

[Student Participant 6]

Maybe because I was patient. I have a lot of friends who have conflicts with their supervisors, I have other friends who experience "Christmas" every day with their supervisors. By "Christmas", I mean that their supervisors do everything for them, pay tuition fees, give them money, and take them out. Yes, I have friends like that. But apart from such people, I have some students who face so many issues with their supervisors, some of them stay more than they expected. So, I did my research personally and I realised that one of the major issues students have with their supervisors is lack of patience from the student side. You need to put yourself in a shoes of supervisor, try to understand what the supervisors are going through.

Student Participant 1 and 12 suggested mutual understanding among them and their supervisors as well as being flexible helped to overcome the presence of the conflicts in their relationships:

[Student Participant 1]

I think...ummm...mutual understanding, we have that understanding. And also I think why no conflict, I’m not too sure why no conflict, maybe because a lot of similarities in the topic that want to study and things are that… the experience that she has. Thank God, it was quite consistent. So, we don’t have conflicts, seriously, I can’t think of any situation where my blood pressure increased and staff like that. No way. She was quite blessing.

168

[Student Participant 14]

I think he is very flexible, and he is very helpful as well. If I tell him, I need this, immediately he will bring this for me. He provides with me whatever I want. So, I would say knowledge wise, yes, he is knowledgeable. But like I said since style here is 100 to 0, so he expects me to learn by myself everything. So far, I don't have problems to learn by myself.

While HDR students viewed the nature of the conflicts or misunderstandings as being research-related only, HDR supervisors perceived problems arising from personal conflicts with their students. Among all supervisors, five suggested that they had conflicts which, at most, led to a breakdown of the relationship. For example, one of the supervisor participants said:

[Supervisor Participant 8]

[…]and another time, he sent me email 7:30 Saturday morning, in that time I usually do grocery shopping and I didn't see the email, but at 11:00 he sent very harsh email to my colleagues saying that he is very mad at my secretary and me. So, that lecturer forwarded those messages to me and I felt very bad, and I said that I’m not happy with this student, he didn't respect my weekend unless it is really urgent. So, my colleagues told him that he is very rude, you are not supposed to do this, because you are student, and this is your supervisor because you know our Malay culture, our Muslim culture, we should respect elderly.

According to this supervisor, the notion of disrespect from the student’s side made a breakdown in their relationships. Another supervisor highlighted having problems with a student who continuously disrespect his (student’s) peers.

169

[Supervisor Participant 7]

That is why I always tell them that they will not walk alone. I always say that to my students, but there is one student currently I’m facing problems with him. He doesn't want to participate in group discussions and having too much pride and ego. Middle Eastern, I produced three students, but this one is very ego, the present one. Not cooperative. He looks down at the Nigerians, yes.

Another personal reason highlight by a supervisor was problems with students due to cultural differences. That participant talked of multiple situations faced, particularly with Middle Eastern students while supervising them:

[Supervisor Participant 7]

But the hardest problem that I face is when I have one student from Iran, she distrusted me in being a good supervisor because Iranians are like this. When they come here, they want the supervisor to hold superior position and I was not professor at that time. So, in that time I was just a Head of Department, and she felt that I was not that capable. So, for the first two semesters she was testing me. If such thing would happen in Korea, they will kick you out of the university, but I was patient with it. And she completed her studies within seven semesters. But she realised it after the Viva. That day she told me, thank you for being patient with me, I realised what I have done was hard on you. She wanted to cry, and said that I’m a good teacher. But one other student, she is now in another country, and it is very hard to supervise her. She doesn't accept the critique. But Malaysians and Indonesians always accept what you say, they don't argue.

[Supervisor Participant 6]

But maybe have you had any misunderstandings or conflicts with your students? 170

So far, only one student. But I don't really know why. He is from Saudi- Arabia. The thesis is almost complete, I’ve gone through everything, but I needed him to extend to stay another week, just to amend the Chapter 2 Literature Review, because literature review not according to what I need. He used books for his literature review, but I told him that he should use journals because he is going to find out what has been done before, and then criticise and then put the problem statement, from there then you produce your own idea. But the student disagreed with me, saying that he leant this approach of doing literature review from his Masters. But I told him that now he is not in Saudi, he is in Malaysia, and the requirement is like that, why don't you follow, and he just left me.

Talking with the supervisors who never had conflicts or misunderstandings with their students, two of them highlighted that, perhaps, they never had any conflicts just because they are still new in supervision (4 years). One of them commented:

[Supervisor Participant 1]

Maybe I’m still new. I consider four years is still new. As time goes by, maybe I will encounter some conflicts, I don't know, because students’ characters can be different from one another, so yea, as I told you I don't have many issues so far.

Supervisor Participant 2 also said that there had been no conflicts with students so far, but it to come later as the supervised more students.

However, while talking with Supervisor Participant 3, who has 20 years of supervision experience, he could not recall having any conflicts with his students. Yet, he suggested if students wanted to change him to another supervisor, he never had any problems with it.

171

[Supervisor Participant 3]

So far so good. Sometimes students prefer to change the supervisor, so I just sign the form. Even there was one student who changed, but after one year that supervisor left and he came back to me, so I still accepted.

c) Respect

While in successful relationships, supervisors did not mention respect, the issue was highlighted by those supervisors who had experienced problematic relationships with their students. There were supervisors who mentioned a lack of respect towards them personally, while another one mentioned his former student lacking respect for his student peers, saying:

[Supervisor Participant 7]

But there is one student currently I’m facing problems with him. He doesn't want to participate in group discussions and having too much pride and ego. Middle Eastern, I produced three students, but this one is very ego, the present one. Not cooperative. He looks down at the Nigerians, yes.

HDR students described the respect in their relationships with supervisors as a driver for positive outcomes and a supporting element to build trust, while HDR supervisors spoke about difficulties they face if the student does not respect them or other students. One of the students felt highly empowered discussing the importance of respect.

[Student Participant 13]

We nice to each other, we have that respect for each other. For my supervisors and they also with me. It is like, I can see that we are on the same level, you know. Of course I’m the student and all that. But even though I’m student, they actually treat me with respect, yes.

One supervisor spoke about conflict with a student, which made the supervisor withdraw from supervision:

172

[Supervisor Participant 4]

Just once. This person was remote, I ask him to do this, do that, deliver, then I saw him published something, but he put someone else I don't know as a co-author and so it made me angry. Then I said, sorry, I don't want to be your supervisor. Then I didn't bother about this person, because if you want to be respected you must respect others.

Although few participants emphasised the importance of mutual respect among HDR students and supervisors, those who did agree that the notion of respect is essential in building strong student-supervisor relationships.

173

4.2.6 Theme 5. Clarifying Expectations

Overview

Clarifying expectations is the most complicated and overlooked aspect of postgraduate research supervision. While the importance of discussing expectations might not be visible to HDR students and supervisors, the early discussion of expectations can possibly eliminate a number of problems during postgraduate research supervision. Looking at how HDR students and supervisors tend to deliver/discuss their mutual expectations with each other, it appears only supervisors explicitly state their expectations in a very early stage of research. In fact, some of them have it in a written format, such as a statement of their expected “Three Years Cycle”. HDR students, however, are not as proactive in delivering their expectations to supervisors. This might be due to the notion of power distance in student-supervisor relationships, as well as the supervisors’ inability to take a step further and ask students directly about their expectations. Some of the supervisors even believe that students do not have any expectations other than the provision of the required physical facilities. Therefore, the students’ expectations in this area often remain uncovered and unknown for their supervisors. Universities, from their side, provide little guidance in the form of a checklist, whereas students and supervisors have to agree on certain aspects of supervision, such as meetings schedule and deadlines. Following the discussions with students and supervisors, none suggested using such a checklist as the method of clarifying expectations. The following table (Table 11) summarises how HDR students and supervisors convey their expectations to each other.

174

Table 11: How HDR students and supervisors convey their expectations to each other

No. of No. of Clarifying Students participants/ Supervisors participants/ Summary Expectations (Key words) No. of (Key words) No. of mentions mentions a) Explicit Always expects, wants to 10/23 Tell them, tell them 7/9 • Supervisors share/impose rather see novelty, we agreed directly, your PhD, than discuss and collectively set those expectations. upon, I’m aiming to finish adapting to it, I prefer, • in three years, she told me during the first Supervisors want to convey their expectations to students, that she wants, my meeting, made but not keen to know what students expect of them. supervisor expectations, all template called “Three • When supervisors were asked about their student’s supervisors want students Years Cycle”, I’m very expectations, they do not understand the question. to GoT, major thing I hear, direct, I set my roles, • Most students are aware of their supervisors’ spoke about completing on my requirements, expectations. time, already know my style, my expectations are too • Most HDR students do not openly share their high, students cannot expectations with their supervisors and even if they do, it follow. is done implicitly. b) Implicit I think most thing will 3/3 ------0/0 • Some students expect their supervisors to know what satisfy him is, I think that students expect of them. is enough, she did not tell me in details, indirectly she told me, no just casually. c) Never No, I did not. I never made 7/9 ------0/0 Discussed it explicit, I felt it is their responsibility, she did not specify, no, I don’t know.

175

Findings

The questions about clarifying expectations in a very early stage of candidature were equally asked both HDR students and supervisors. Looking from the supervisors’ perspective, almost all participants spoke about clarifying their expectations explicitly to the HDR students either during the first meetings or in a very early stage of students’ candidature.

[Supervisor Participant 1]

No, I think all my students, if I happen to be the main supervisor, I think our first meeting I have already told them that I prefer to have every two weeks meeting, I prefer to have something written so that you can show your progress to me and then I can comment something based on something you have written rather than having verbal conversation. So, I normally ask them to provide some written materials, but if they can't then they tell me what they have in mind by sketching some diagrams, sometimes they can come up with powerpoint presentation in point forms, what they intend to do for the next chapter for example. So, this will be informal guide for them to complete their thesis but I think I made it clear to them that these are the things that I normally want from them. But I do some kind of reasoning with them, why I do two weeks meeting, why I want them to come up with report, I explain them because I want to help you and you need to help yourself by providing me all these things so that I can guide you well.

Another supervisor suggests having prepared templates for his former and new coming students to follow.

[Supervisor Participant 4]

I made the so-called "Three Years Cycles". The first year what I expect, the second and the third, but most of the students cannot follow because it is too strict. Because this cycle is an ideal PhD, but sometimes students

176

can deliver, out of my 20 students I think three to four could do, but most of them taking four years, or three and a half years, some of them even more than that, especially the staff. But they deliver within the maximum time given. But sometimes, because of word of mouth, some students already know my style, they know my situation, that's why some of them want to come to me, but others want to find another supervisor. My expectations are too high.

He also spoke of such a notion as ‘word of mouth’, where past and current students share with newcomers the expectations of their supervisors with each other.

In regard to students discussing their expectations with supervisors, HDR supervisors did not have much experience with it. Among all, only one supervisor talked about questioning his students about their expectations towards him and research overall.

[Supervisor Participant 1]

I ask them. What do you want from me? Do you want to have more publications, or you want to have good guidance on how to do a PhD, so that you know, you can be independent after you graduate from your PhD, rather than relying on somebody to do the research and things like that? I do ask them.

Other supervisors could not specifically reply whether they asked their students about their expectations. Some of the examples of supervisors’ replies on their students clarifying expectations with them were:

[Supervisor Participant 4]

Based on my experience, I never had it, no one issued this to me. But maybe they know, based on my style, so they know what I expect from students.

177

[Supervisor Participant 2]

This is very difficult question of what they expect from me. When I come, I always find them happy, yes. Then look, definitely, as long as they have enough facilities, they never ask for anything.

In addition, the number of supervisors could not even understand the researcher question when was asked about their student’s expectations. As per the words of two supervisors:

[Supervisor Participant 10]

And if we look at you, do you know what your students expect from you? Did they tell you?

The students expect that I will demand quality from all of them. And if I want to go to undergraduate final year thesis to compare with the postgraduates. Final year students will only come to me if they think they are ready to bring what I expect. I expect from the hard work, I expect them to collect a lot of data, really good quality work. I demand a lot of output from them, first draft, second draft at very early stage and I go through their draft and if they feel they did not work that hard, they will not come to me. So, these are the students who have experience with me during their undergraduates, so they want to continue with me for the postgraduates. And some of my postgraduate students were not under me, but because they learn from the others, they want to have that experience like the other students who are under me. So, they know, if they are under me, I have a lot of expectations for them.

[Supervisor Participant 4]

But what about your students? Do you know what they expect from you? Did they tell you anything?

178

Based on my experience, I never had it, no one issued this to me. But maybe they know, based on my style, so they know what I expect from students.

[Supervisor Participant 6]

Are you aware of any student's expectations? Do they tell you what they expect from you?

I tell them, I’m not going to give them everything, the PhD, they shouldn't expect that I know everything, because when you do PhD you need to have your contribution, that means there is something new in the thesis, so you don't expect that I know everything, so I just giving you an idea and you need to look for that, so whatever thing that you produce that is yours. I can only give the direction what to do, what to do next, so I think they really understand. Because so far, I didn't have any problems, 30 students graduated, no single situation.

[Supervisor Participant 12]

And what about your students? Do they tell you what they expect from you?

Sometimes, yes, but she is trying hard, but maybe she sees that I’m quite tough. Especially when I found out that she is not complaining to whatever suggestions I have made. For example, I ask her to consult the other Master student. Instead, she consulted the undergraduate student. To me, that is just being stubborn, you know. So, I asked her, what is the purpose that she is not trying to follow my advice? So, difficult.

Such replies demonstrate HDR supervisors as being not very proactive or concerned with identifying their students’ expectations, although they are proactive in voicing their own expectations towards students.

179

Talking about HDR students, when the researcher began to ask them about their expectations towards supervisors, they were very open in sharing their views and perceptions. However, talking with HDR students about clarifying those expectations to their supervisors, the researcher noticed that among all, only three students were directly delivered to their supervisors all the expectations. As per their words:

[Student Participant 7]

Yes, of course. Just recently I discussed with them my expectations, everything. I gave them month, in that month I told them I’m expecting to wrap up my PhD, whatever it takes. If they need to push me, push me, if they need to do anything for me, they should do this. They said no problem.

[Student Participant 14]

Yes, the first meeting that we had, he kind of told me what is he expecting from me, and I also shared what I’m expecting from him. I'm getting what he wants, and he is also getting what I want, but not everything, some only.

Looking at other participants, five other students suggested they had never had discussion with their supervisors about expectations at all or had never spoken explicitly due to different reasons. For example, students commented:

[Student Participant 1]

No, I didn’t, I never really make it explicit, like this is my expectations of you. I don’t know, maybe because it is a man issue, we never make things specific. I don’t know, but I never.

[Student Participant 12]

And all these expectations we discussed just now, have you shared with your supervisors?

180

No.

[Student Participant 15]

Ok. Hmmm...Ok. Yes of course, in the beginning I did ask for more guidance and sort of things that he sees important. Whichever way is best. But I would not say that I directly highlighted that ok, please give me guidance and this and that. But as I said, everything will be interconnected when I’m asking him some questions and he is giving me his feedback. So, it kind of works like that […].

Another two participants stated that they were not responsible for clarifying their expectations to supervisors suggesting it is their responsibility to know it.

[Student Participant 11]

I didn't because I feel it is their responsibility and knowing what their responsibility is, and I don't expect less. And I got what I expected.

[Student Participant 13]

No...you know, we don't have that thought. We, as the students, never thought of asking my supervisors, "hey, this is the kind of advice i need an so on", because when we were embarked on this kind of research, we just do not know what to do. That was my feeling, so I would expect my supervisor to tell me, "this would be the kind of advice we as supervisors should be giving to you and this would be your responsibility as a student". So, I just like tell them what I want to study and they basically advised me on how I should format my chapters and kind of articles I should refer in my literature review, you know, right?

When HDR students were asked about their supervisors’ expectations, the majority spoke of knowing it very well and of supervisors being delivering those expectations very openly. To support this argument, two participants shared:

181

[Student Participant 8]

Supervisor asked me to participate in few conferences and actually he was clear to his goal. He wanted me to have feedback from a number of people in the same area of my expertise to see if my problem is existing or not, if it has been studied before or not, the way I present the problem and discuss if it is correct or not. So, I participated in three conferences in different countries, but it is completely related to my topic, so we got the feedback and I developed my work. So, this is one of the good advice that my supervisor gave me.

[Student Participant 14]

What my supervisor expects from me is to be open on everything. Because he kind of said at the beginning, "treat me as your friend". Like if I have a doubt time, I can go to him and chat with him that I have some doubts. And second expectation that my supervisor expects from me is that if I have any objection to what he says, I can voice it out immediately. He won't hesitate to accept my decision openly.

Others also spoke of their supervisors’ expectations in terms of timely completion, publications, development of necessary research skills and so on. Although there were few supervisors who were not direct in communicating their expectations to their students, these students still understood what was expected from them. For instance, one of the students suggested,

[Student Participant 6]

I'm aware. She expects me to be diligent. Just that. She didn't tell me in details, but being adult learner, I know my responsibilities. Indirectly, she told me she expects me to do my best, so I’m giving her my best.

182

This meant that only one student did not know what his expectations were towards supervisors; all other participants had expectations but rarely stated those expectations explicitly or implicitly to their supervisors.

4.3 Themes Summary. Hierarchical Model of Student-supervisor Expectations

Parallels in expectations could be observed between the level of institutional regulation and the explicitness with which students and supervisors communicated their expectations. Where roles and responsibilities were established in university policies, both HDR students and supervisors had fewer questions regarding how to perform them, and their expectations were more closely aligned without the explicit discussion. These included the more practical and measurable aspects of research, the processes of supervision, and academic outcomes. However, as the roles and responsibilities became less regulated and implicit in nature, the expectations set by both sides appeared to be more diverse. To explain emerged patterns, the Hierarchical Model of Student-supervisor Expectations has been developed (Figure 2). While the model presented cannot be treated as one size fits all approach, it illustrates the tendency to which both students and supervisors able to clarify the expectations arising during postgraduate

research. 183

Figure 2 The propensity for students and supervisors to clarify their expectations during postgraduate research

The model was constructed following the pyramid structure of Maslow’s (1943) Hierarchy of Needs, which categorizes human needs from basic biological aspects for human survival going upwards towards more advanced self-fulfilment aspects (Martin & Joomis, 2007; Maslow, 1943). In this process, Maslow suggests, individuals should satisfy lower needs deficit first before proceeding up to the next level (Maslow, 1943).

Adapting this concept to my research, the student-supervisor expectations are placed in a sequential manner where, for supervision to existing, basic academic practices need to be agreed on to construct the postgraduate supervision foundation. Students and supervisors develop expectations around guidance, frequency of meetings, feedback and updating on research progress. HLIs are aware of this and, therefore, state and regulate aspects around supervision processes, helping both parties to clarify roles and responsibilities and build the base on moving upwards. Looking onto the ways students and supervisors clarify their expectations regarding academic practice needs, supervisors tend to express it explicitly in comparison to students who prefer to not clarify their expectations and remain implicit. This might occur because supervisors are more familiar with the institutional regulations and have more authority to voice their opinions. Although HDR students tend to keep their expectations implicit, both parties have minimal challenges to pass this stage and move upwards.

As both students and supervisors gradually progress, they develop mutual expectations towards achieving academic outcomes. In this stage, both parties are aware of their roles and responsibilities, given the clear instructions provided by institutions regarding GoT, publications and conferences aspects. Similar to academic practice, supervisors prefer to discuss their expectations about academic outcomes explicitly, while students tend to keep their expectations implicit. At this stage, the disagreements on what is more important for each party to be achieved among requirements set by higher learning institutions becomes more visible. While supervisors place more explicit emphasis on the publication aspect, HDR students are more concerned with the GoT aspect. Thus, while the misalignment of student- supervisor expectations about the superiority of certain academic outcomes may present

184

challenges in the long-run, both parties tend to progress smoothly onto the next level of expectations.

Matching academic practices and academic outcomes is paramount in completing a research degree, but taking a step to the next level and clarifying expectations around skills and personal attributes is advantageous, although a less appreciated practice. Despite the government initiative (Malaysian Qualification Agency, 2017) which highlights critical thinking, diversity awareness, motivation and others to be indispensable for successful researchers, universities rarely include those in research policies. Less institutional guidance is given to the process of obtaining those skills and only occasional workshops provided to support the development of necessary skills and attributes in a researcher. Students and supervisors, on the other side, tend to have only implicit perceptions towards the expected skills of each party. This makes the expectations around the necessary skills and attributes become extremely diverse. The inability of students and supervisors to construct an explicit dialogue and negotiate the importance of developing certain skills in particular student and the lack of clear university regulations commonly leads to misaligned student-supervisor expectations in this area. . Thus, explicitly clarifying and negotiating student-supervisor expectations regarding necessary skills and attributes can be an extremely difficult practice, which not every student-supervisor team can achieve.

Similar to Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs suggests that not every individual can achieve the peak of the pyramid; not all students and supervisors can construct personal relationships successfully. This is because personal relationships are rather the complementary practice that goes beyond the prescribed scope of institutional regulations. No government or university policy can scope or dictate both HDR students and supervisors the amount of support they should provide or expect from each other. This makes both parties confused whether their expectations are reasonable and obtainable. In addition, HDR students and supervisors commonly keep their expectations about an acceptable level of personal support in postgraduate supervision implicit. Therefore, expectations around personal relationships remain unclarified and misaligned between HDR students and supervisors.

Understanding how all parties involved in postgraduate supervision clarify and negotiate their expectations should be an essential practice. Figure 2 highlights the gaps in institutional

185

policies and supervisory practice, which impact on the development of student-supervisor expectations and the success of student-supervisor relationships. It also highlights that supervisors tend to clarify their expectations explicitly only on institutionally regulated processes, leaving less regulated aspects of supervision implicit. As for students, it remains implicit throughout the process. This is suggested to be common practice, given students have less power and experience when it comes to clarifying and negotiating their expectations (Sambrook, 2016). Thus, while institutional regulations may or may not be presented in each level of student-supervisor expectations, it is arguable, the inability of students to carry an explicit dialogue and align their expectations with those of supervisors may lead towards lower level of student satisfaction and greater drop-out rates.

186

4.4 Analysis Round 2. Student-supervisor Expectations Through Dialogic Pedagogy

4.4.1 Themes Development and Importance

While previous round of data analysis has indicated student-supervisor expectations and existing gaps in various levels, the second round of thematic analysis presents the results of the critical review of student-supervisor expectations of their respective roles and responsibilities in postgraduate research supervision in Malaysia through the lens of dialogic pedagogy. Similar to the first round of thematic analysis, themes have emerged after discussions with HDR students and supervisors. Differing from the first round of data analysis which was based on questions that had arisen from extant literature, there were no questions featured in the interview schedule directly informed by dialogic pedagogy. After critically reviewing interviews through the lenses of dialogic pedagogy, however, three main themes have emerged:

Power and Hierarchy Influence Student-supervisor Dialogue Institutional Support

4.4.2 Theme 1. Power and Hierarchy Influence

Looking through the lens of dialogic pedagogy, the development of student-supervisor expectations in postgraduate supervision in Malaysia has been significantly influenced by power and hierarchy aspects. While proponents of dialogic pedagogy suggest it can be employed by students and supervisors to promote equal power relationships this would require both parties to want to share power. A critical review of the interviews conducted with HDR supervisors suggests supervisors tend to expect their students to obey the ‘suggestions and feedback’ they provide, given their role, hierarchical status and experience they possess in university and within a certain area of expertise. As per the words of some HDR supervisors,

187

[Supervisor Participant 9]

[…] So, I set my roles, I do tell them, I express what my requirements are, and most of my students are adapting to it and they are accepting it.

Could you tell, just now you were talking about the requirements? What do you require or what do you expect your students to do?

When I say, next week I would like Chapter 1 to be this and this, they should be giving that to me. When task is stated to them, they should respond to it. But when they are giving proper reason that they cannot complete within the given time, I am still very much open to it, as long as there is a progression positive progression in their work. That’s one requirement. They have to make sure that the task was given to them, progress on the thesis been asked from them to be completed when it is due. That is number one.

[Supervisor Participant 12]

Have you had any conflicts or misunderstanding with your students?

No, it is just that... No, I don't think so. They follow all the time. So, there is no conflict. It is just that not in terms of academic but in terms of attitude only. That is where the problems comes from, but other than that it is OK.

[Supervisor Participant 4]

But could you tell me, what do you expect from your students? What should they do?

They have to do what they should do. They have to deliver. Sometimes, I expect more than basic requirements placed by university. For example, they have to produce two index journal based on requirement, but I expect four journals, but most of them deliver. 188

HDR students, on the other hand, tend to accept the power and status of their supervisors, and as adapting to it, they expect their supervisors to become the main drivers of their research in terms of decision making, next steps in research, and other aspects related to their research. As per students’ comments:

[Student Participant 8]

And what about conferences or training? Is it your responsibility or your supervisor advises you?

No, my supervisor, actually from the beginning when we publish a review paper, he allowed me to publish anywhere, but once we have the results, numbers, analysis, he asked me to send my paper to him because he is co- responding author. So, he communicate with the journal, it is not my choice, it is his choice, he sees the paper and he sees which journal can publish this paper and he sends that paper.

[Student Participant 7]

My understanding throughout my experience here is that your supervisor had the power to give you a PhD, your supervisor has the power to reject your PhD, and all these things comes down to your communication with them, your understanding with them, so because of this, I needed to be careful with them, I needed them to push me, I needed them to correct me, to guide to do the right thing, so that on that day of my defence, if I get stuck, they could easily defend me, yes. But if I don't do this, in that very day of my final defence, they just going to fold their hands.

[Student Participant 6]

Why do you think conflicts never arise?

Maybe I listen to her, and when she gives me an assignment to do, like during this week do this, I do my assignment and when I meet her, probably, just probably, I also somehow meet her expectations, so I don't 189

know. Maybe I’m an obedient student. […] So, when she gives me task, I do my task, so there is no reason for her to be upset about my performance, and there is also no reason for me to be upset on her because she really supports me. And I, as a student, I think I’m also doing my part as a researcher. Perhaps, I also, because I’m obedient student, so somehow...

Examining the impact of Malaysian culture on power and hierarchy, two students and two supervisors have explicitly highlighted the inability of students to criticise, argue or disobey their supervisors. Students suggested:

[Student Participant 8]

For example, if you follow the decision of your supervisor to use particular method, but during your Viva you failed because the method was not suitable, you cannot tell anyone because this is Malaysian thinking. You have no rights to criticise your supervisor. Who you are, you are foreigner here.

Apart from being scared to criticise their supervisors because of the power they are holding, one of the participants was scared that interview (if it becomes identified) could end the research career. As soon as the researcher asked about expectations, the participant got extremely scared, saying:

[Student Participant 15]

Ok. Hmmm. Before that, can I ask you a question? I hope you don't mind. The thing is, this kind of questions, is it anonymous or …?

Of course.

Because I saw in a form that a student's name might be used, may I know what the scenario is?

190

Basically, we are going to talk right now, and then I’m going to make notes and I later on whether names or university whatever that can reveal personal identity will be deleted.

[…] I’m an international, so here the university professors there are interconnected. So, the thing is maybe something I interpreted wrong or maybe the things could have been done better, but always things are not that simple, it is always not only black and white.

Supervisors who spoke of Malaysian hierarchical culture confirmed the concerns of student participants regarding criticising or disobeying their power.

[Supervisor Participant 6]

Have you had any misunderstandings or conflicts with your students?

So far, only one student. But I don't really know why. He is from Saudi- Arabia. The thesis is almost complete, I’ve gone through everything, but I needed him to extend to stay another week, just to amend the Chapter 2 Literature Review, because literature review not according to what I need. He used books for his literature review, but I told him that he should use journals because he is going to find out what has been done before, and then criticise and then put the problem statement, from there then you produce your own idea. But the student disagreed with me, saying that he leant this approach of doing literature review from his Masters. But I told him that now he is not in Saudi, he is in Malaysia, and the requirement is like that, why don't you follow, and he just left me.

[Supervisor Participant 7]

So, the first two semesters I turn down their egos, eventually they know my style, because I’m a teacher and they are students, there is certain respect you have to show to me because we are here, we are not in Iran, not in England, not in America. Overall, teacher and student have this

191

relationship. For example, I always give example of Korea, because I go their almost every year. The supervisor cares about the student, but the student must listen. In fact, in Korea, they cannot say no to their supervisor, there is no NO, but what the student needs at that time, supervisor search for it, especially funds.

Talking about the possibility of students resisting the power of supervisors and willing to hold equal voices with them, one of the supervisors commented,

[Supervisor Participant 5]

It actually depends on the supervisor, the supervisor will usually dictate them, not they dictate us! But there are cases where student goes along the line, where they get mature and they [may] have some intentions or they have the ability to request or disagree with us. So, after certain period of time, when they feel that they disagree then they will come up with another proposal, they will voice out and try to give some ideas.

In addition to one Supervisor, two HDR students spoke about resisting the decisions of their supervisors. While one of them was successful in arguing for their choice of methodology, the other HDR student suggested he was unable to do what he wanted.

[Student Participant 12]

Ooh, there was one time I did have conflict in terms of the area of the research. I really insisted that I wanted to do my area, then we argue and at the end of the day, I knew there was implied meaning from what they said, from what they told me and started to agree to what they said. So, to disagree with what they suggested you do is quite difficult in this position. So, I had to force myself to agree to my disagreement, to something I never wanted.

Did you feel this power relationships or hierarchy while doing research?

Oh, yes yes. 192

While in most of the cases reviewed, it was apparent students/supervisor relationships and expectations were built under the umbrella of power inequalities, in few cases researcher could identify equal power relationships between HDR students and supervisors. Among supervisor participants, two that have shared their power with students equally are the young supervisors with only four years of experience.

[Supervisor Participant 1]

What I mean by treating them as friends is when it comes to serious matter, we discuss professionally, but to dictate them as if we are teacher and they are the student, I think that won't reveal the real issues that they are facing.

[Supervisor Participant 2]

And what about the research related decisions? Do you allow your students to take decisions on what methodology to use or which experiments to run?

Yes, they are fully independent. I just guide them.

But would they come to you to discuss?

Yes, discuss, yes. If they have study, they discuss that yes, we want to run this. So, I tell them, OK, never mind, no problems.

But if they have done it without the discussion, would it be OK?

It is ok, as long as it is ok, I’m fine. For me, it is ok. That is why I do multi- progress reports as long as they are on the right direction, ok.

As researcher attention has been placed towards identifying students who were perceiving having equal power with their supervisors, there were two students identified. While both of them have acknowledged the power and status of their supervisors, they still felt equal or spoke of being treated by their supervisors. One of them suggested:

193

[Student Participant 9]

Because I like the way he deals with, actually he is kind of relaxed and appreciates what I do, this is a good thing. Also, at the same time, he deals with me not like a teacher with student, but rather adult-to-adult, and we work together to achieve a certain point, not only the degree. We are both aim to transfer the knowledge to other people, this is the most important. We don't think of our relationship like because he is my supervisor, I want a PhD from him or because I’m his student, I try to get as much as possible the information from him, this is actually not a deal.

Looking at the distribution of power between HDR students and supervisors it appears, throughout the analysis, that the banking concept of education (where students are expected to obey and follow the decisions of their masters) predominates in postgraduate research supervision in Malaysia. While some students try to take the lead in their research and push to develop equal power relations with their supervisors, they face difficulties from supervisors not only resisting sharing their power but using it to threaten students who do not obey their rules. Similar to what has been identified during the first round of data analysis, supervisors tend to ensure their opinions are not only heard but implemented accordingly, while students’ opinion and position is not considered given no power they possess.

4.4.3 Theme 2. Student-supervisor Dialogue

Dialogue has been perceived as a paramount practice not only for the development of successful student-supervisor relationships but also for alignment of student-supervisor expectations of their perceived roles and responsibilities. The theories around dialogic pedagogy suggest students and supervisors should enter a dialogue to understand each other perceptions and views and co-construct knowledge and meanings around questions that have been posed. It highlights both sides are required not only simply to exchange ideas which do not lead towards the understanding of each other points of view. It rather insists on creating a discussion where both student and supervisor will have a space to share their perceptions towards each other roles and responsibilities as well as research development. Among all participants, only few students and supervisors have suggested practicing dialogue in

194

discussions with their counterparts. Looking at HDR supervisors who tend to practice dialogue in their supervision, they suggested:

[Supervisor Participant 1]

[…] That's why I tend to a while discussing the things and then after the discussion, I might ask them let's go for coffee and then tell me about your family or tell me about yourself, what are you up to. So, from this, I think we can break some barriers in terms of getting to know more about what they are facing. Because my students, some of them come from the Middle East, some from Africa, some from China, so I think I need to know whether they are OK here, because this is also something being practiced in the UK.

[Supervisor Participant 5]

How would you describe your supervision experience?

You should ask my students. Actually, it is a win-win situation, you learn from students, they also learn from you. A lot of things I leant from my students. I think, nowadays, a lot of new knowledge supervisors get from their students. They provide new information for my studies also so that actually giving me new knowledge.

[Supervisor Participant 2]

As a supervisor, if they want to do a new experiment and something very new, it is better to discuss with the supervisor because the supervisor knows better, sometimes, the project. At least discuss, because science is open for discussion because sometimes supervisor is right, but sometimes supervisor is wrong. So, discussion is better.

Similar to supervisors who practice dialogue in their supervision, a few students have enthusiastically shared their dialogue construction process. As three of them commented:

195

[Student Participant 9]

For me I did my Masters using quantitative approach to data analysis, so I already knew about that. When I applied for PhD, I also used the same method in my proposal because I was aware of it. When I met him, he opened new door for me, he suggested me to learn something else, saying that this is great time for me to learn and I agreed. And when I discussed with him, I also tried to adapt his methodology to my research. So, I feel I’m happy using new methodology.

[Student Participant 11]

There is always superior arguments with facts and figures. Arguments with justifications. So, and it is always clear, whoever puts the facts, we go with it. So, in some cases, my opinions, in some cases, theirs.

[Student Participant 7]

So, this is the truth, the students need to be patient with the supervisors and we need to be careful with kind of supervisor we pick as well. While picking the supervisor is good to ask questions, if you don't ask questions, you end up with the supervisor who you don’t understand his temper, and you on the other hand if you have a bad temper, you guys are not going to reach anything, that's the problem. […] As I said, student-supervisor communication is a relationship, you need to build it because at the end of the day, both of you will get rewarded. If you feel that you have tried everything and you cannot, just change.

While a number of students and supervisors have reacted positively towards practicing dialogue in their student-supervisor relationships, most of the participants indirectly highlighted monologic relationships with their counterparts. As for research supervisors, where they perceived as giving direction or advice to their students, they did not tend to explicitly discuss or accept the possibility of finding truth together. Looking at students who have been commonly directed to ‘do’ without co-constructing knowledge together with 196

supervisors, Student Participant 2 spoke of difficulties of having a dialogue, given his supervisor was resisting to accept another viewpoint he presented.

[Student Participant 2]

It just, perhaps, we have differences in the view, but the thing is that I’m standing very strong on my view, because it is based on the literature. At the end of the day, she to certain extent, I think she kind of argued that the literature is wrong. Hahaha.

Another participant spoke of difficulties to come to an agreement which led him to change supervisor. That participant suggested while they (participant and supervisor) have initially agreed on something, because of lack of communication, this agreement was breached initially.

[Student Participant 11]

Well, one thing I haven't mentioned to you earlier was that at one point of time, I changed the supervisor. I started with different supervisor, and along the line, I noticed that we couldn't agree on certain things, and I had to change. […] So, the first one, yes, we had some kind of...., we couldn’t clearly identify or rather realise that we cannot work together, and so we had to pathways.

While one of the participants spoke of the lack of explicit dialogue and communication, which led him to think of the possibility of changing supervisors, saying,

[Student Participant 15]

But if you were given a chance, would you change your supervisor?

Maybe...As I said, the thing is communication is an important part. I would say I would prefer a supervisor who would help me to grow, apart from my self-learning. A supervisor, who involved in many things, I

197

believe I could also be involved in, but I’m not getting full exposure to those things.

Another participant suggested lack of dialogue or any communication with his supervisor. He highlighted; the supervisors will only communicate with him when they need him to publish to get them promotion.

[Student Participant 12]

My supervisor only keeps quiet. Only at the end of the day, when he wanted to be promoted, so he needs me in terms of his supervisee to complete the PhD on time as well as article to be published and any awards to be won in order to support his promotion. You got what I mean?

Yes, but isn't it sort of using students to ....?

Yes, yes, I don't want to use that word.

Similar to students who were unable to communicate with their supervisors, one of the supervisors spoke of difficulties reaching an agreement with his student suggesting his student does not want to participate in their group discussions and having too much pride and ego.

While HDR students tend to face difficulties with supervisors practicing monologic discussions, where they (supervisors) talk and students listen, supervisors think of such practice as generating a positive outcome.

[Supervisor Participant 4]

[…]We have variety of students. Sometimes, your life is easy with good students, just tell them and they deliver. Sometimes, you are the one to break your head to think for them.

198

[Supervisor Participant 6]

I explain what they should do for the next three years, so when I’m targeting, normally we agree not on three years, but two and a half years, that's the target. Within two and a half years they finish their research, and the last six months for them to write it up, so by three years they should get their PhD already, pass their examination.

[Supervisor Participant 3]

Could you tell me how do you view your role as a supervisor?

It depends on the student. If they came from undergraduate, of course I would call them almost every week, in the beginning especially to make sure they understand my ideas and I try to coach them to develop their ideas to enhance their problem statement in order to understand their situation and etc. But for more mature students, in the beginning, I used to have with my students like weekly meeting, and during this weekly meeting I will ask them to present to see whether they understand what they have to do […].

This suggests that developing dialogic supervision serves positively for both HDR students and supervisors. Students and supervisors who are unable to implement such practice face various difficulties and more often involved in conflicts and misunderstandings as compare to their peers. Despite the positive effect of dialogic practices highlighted by a few participants, it was seldom seen, given the power inequalities that impact significantly on dialogue. Students appeared to fear initiating dialogue, and supervisors appeared to neglect such practice completely.

4.4.4 Theme 3. Institutional Support

As the number of students increased significantly with the proposed MyBrain15 scheme (The Malaysian Times, 2016), Malaysian universities were placed under pressure to develop policies supporting successful students’ GoT, reducing attrition rates and improving overall

199

research experience. To achieve the targetted outcomes, institutional policies and tools are required to support the alignment of student-supervisor expectations through improving communication between parties. Interviews revealed however, that HDR students and supervisors were commonly unaware of any documents, workshops, guidelines or toolkits available to support the development of student-supervisor relationships or expectations. As per students’ views,

[Student Participant 12]

Are you aware of any documents which clarify your research responsibilities?

No...so far. That are not given to us, no book.

Any induction day or something?

On induction day, they only tell you about the program itself. But other than that no.

And what about your supervisors? Do they have any guidelines or any book on how to supervise students?

No. No.

[Student Participant 10]

Are you aware of any documents which clarify student-supervisor relationship in your university?

For postgraduates, so far I didn't receive any document saying how you evaluate your supervisor.

And have you come across documents that suggest how you should build relationship with your supervisor?

No.

200

[Student Participant 9]

Are you aware of any documents which help students and supervisors build relationships?

No, but I think it would be good if the students and supervisors could engage together to share the knowledge.

But have you heard of any workshops that support the development of student and supervisor relationships?

No, a didn't.

[Student Participant 6]

Do you have a guideline for all research students on how they should perform the research, deal with supervisors?

I don't know about others, but as far as my relationship with supervisor, I think there is no, it is more on human interactions. Talking about academic things, no papers, no policies, no standards.

When supervisors were asked if they could suggest whether any policy or toolkit existed, they could not suggest any existing policy within their university.

[Supervisor Participant 7]

But maybe university somehow supports you to build student-supervisor relationships? Do they have any programs to help students to manage their relationship with supervisors?

No. This university doesn't bother about it.

[Supervisor Participant 9]

Could you tell me, do you have any documents in your university which clarify student-supervisor relationship? 201

Students' guidelines, but it is very formal kind not really explaining how student and supervisor relationship should be. No, it is very formal, responsibilities of supervisors, responsibilities of students. That's it.

What about the workshops? Are there any courses or workshops we both students and supervisors can take to help each other to build these relationships?

In this university, no, I don't think so. But just recently there was one for the lecturers, I think last year on ways to supervise students, yes.

Apart from students and supervisors who had no awareness about supporting documents there were few students and supervisors who spoke of such practices existing in their universities. However, when asked whether such documents could be found on the website or somewhere else none of them was sure where these were located. This suggests that such guidelines were either not-existing or not being used in their practices.

[Supervisor Participant 5]

Have you ever heard about any document that clarifies student-supervisor relationship?

Yes, there is.

Is it given to students and supervisors?

I think it is on the website.

[Student Participant 7]

Are you aware of any documents which clarify student-supervisor relationship?

Well, I didn't look actually, others maybe saw, if I looked for, I think I would probably find, but I think we have had series of presentations,

202

seminars where professors come to give a talk to students how to manage the student-supervisor relationship and all that.

Among all interviewed participants, only one HDR student spoke of requesting the university any relevant documents that could clarify student-supervisor relationships and student’s responsibilities. He further stated,

[Student Participant 11]

Yea, the document I saw was on maintaining the relationship between student and supervisor, understanding the chemistry between you and your supervisor. I mean you have to be on the same level. Else, the earlier you decide to change, the better. And of course some other documents were like talking about publications as something to make supervisors happy.

Apart from commonly not being aware of student-supervisor guidelines, one of the students spoke of being afraid to go to speak to anyone in university if facing any problems with supervisors. She commented,

[Student Participant 13]

Oh no. Oh dear. We never. Actually we just do not know who to go to. Because, for our case, we find that the coordinator for the postgraduate studies is very passive. So, we do not have that trust to share our problems with them. So, what we do, we have our classmates, a group of us, so we just share among ourselves. So, I think, a lot of times, we would be afraid to share the issues that we face, about our supervisors, because it will affect the outcome of our thesis. So, that was my feeling. I will just keep quiet.

In another case, during the induction day, one of the students was told to be responsible for everything in his research, while the supervisor is not responsible for anything.

203

[Student Participant 14]

My responsibilities for this PhD level, I do realise that I have to be 100% independent, because actually when I entered this university, they made me clear that for PhD research, student-supervisor relationship is 100%- 0%. What I mean by that is 100% student's responsibility and 0% is supervisor's responsibility. That's what I was told when I entered this university. I have to be proactive by myself and not fully relying on my supervisor, but I have to be 100% proactive from myself.

After looking at the results of this theme, it emerges student-supervisor dialogue receives negligible support at the institutional level. While there might be policies or guidelines which prescribe what needs to be done, it is not commonly promoted and appears is no being taken into consideration by supervisors or students. Both HDR students and supervisors tend not to question the neoliberal context of education, in which power inequalities and monologue have been supported by universities.

4.5 Conclusion

This chapter presented two rounds of the thematic analysis of interviews with 15 HDR students and 12 supervisors. During the first round of data analysis, the description of participants’ experiences within five themes that emerged from the analysis provides a direct comparison of various student-supervisor expectations and highlights areas of expectations where mismatches occur. The identified areas of expectations are developed into the Hierarchical model of student-supervisor expectations, which presents parallels in expectations between the level of institutional regulation and the explicitness with which students and supervisors communicated their expectations. It is through this model the less regulated and implicit areas of expectations which require attention are highlighted. The second round of thematic analysis is the re-analysed data through lenses of dialogic pedagogy which presents three themes highlighting the potential reasons for occurring expectations mismatches. It highlights the unequal distribution of power between HDR students and supervisors, difficulties students and supervisors face in developing dialogue, and the role of higher learning institutions in supporting the alignment of student-supervisor expectations. In 204

the next chapter, the focus is turned to the individual supervision experience of my supervisors and myself. It provides a story of development, negotiation and alignment of our mutual expectations throughout PhD journey.

205

Chapter 5. Phase 2 Autoethnography

5.1 Chapter Introduction

This chapter presents the results of a co-constructed narrative developed by researchers involved in this project: PhD student (Irina Baydarova) and supervisors (Heidi Collins and Deirdre Barron). After conducting interviews with HDR students and supervisors from various universities (Phase 1), expectations around respective roles and responsibilities and also mismatches in those expectations had been examined. While data collected during the Phase 1 has presented useful insights, during the interviews, the student-researcher observed hesitation from both student and supervisor participants when asked to share in-depth their personal feelings regarding critical incidents faced in their student-supervisor relationships. Most of the time, HDR students appeared unwilling to disclose difficult situations or at least appeared to avoid discussing them in detail. Therefore, applying an autoethnographic approach, this chapter is written with the intent to describe the situations that we have faced throughout the student-researcher’s candidature from each of our perspectives, surfacing the emotions we lived and ways we overcame them to connect our own insider experience of being HDR students and supervisors.

5.2 Student-supervisor Expectations: View from Inside.

First Year. The Beginnings of a Relationship

Heidi: I met Irina during the final year of her bachelor’s degree when she took one of my human resource management classes. She performed outstandingly well academically, and I loved her character – she struck me as highly organized, diligent, and not shy to speak her mind. I was always entertained watching her keep her all-male group mates firmly in-check during class. When she came to me to talk about applying for a Master program overseas, I immediately offered her a place in our own degree. Knowing it could take her a year to find the right program, apply for scholarships and get a visa to study abroad, I figured she could almost finish a masters in Swinburne in that time. I was confident she could perform well and had the right attitude to get through a research degree. So in many ways, my expectations of 206

her were formed before we started – I knew she was an independent person, had strong analytic skills and could learn quickly, but would need a lot of help with writing (English is not her first language, and although she can communicate well, her grammar and academic writing style needed a lot of development).

Irina: Fair enough to say, when Heidi offered me to enrol as a Master by Research course in Swinburne, I had no single idea what the research degree is. At that moment I was applying for the Endeavour program in Australia, a government scholarship to study in Australia with fees fully covered and stipend provided. I asked Heidi to be my academic referee, and she kindly did but also asked me whether I want to apply for our university research program. Being honest, I thought research is an assignment, just bigger in length. So, in my head I was, “Ira, why don’t you try?”

Neither my parents nor my boyfriend were happy with that. They were saying I should wait for an Australian scholarship and not enrol anywhere until the results come out. I wouldn’t listen. While everyone was quite against this decision, I accepted Heidi’s offer and started to work on developing proposal to get enrolled. So, Heidi sent me back home saying, “Think about what you want to work on.” As I got time to think about the topic of my research, I was enthusiastic about doing something related to international human resource management. But Heidi told me in that area a lot of research has been done and suggested looking at the research interests of supervisors. As I open the website and looked at her research interests, I came across the term research education. I was just trying to Google the meaning and did not understand anything about it at the starting. So, I tried to go around this topic trying to figure out what it is and what I can do with this; yet after multiple proposals and attempts, we finally agreed. “I came across student-supervisor relationships,”- I said. Heidi had that idea in her mind but did not want to tell me directly. I think because she wanted me to choose myself, but as I chose, she was happy to take this topic and develop it further. A few weeks later, we had drafted a proposal and submitted all necessary documents for enrolment, and I was left to wait for the result. Finally, end of October 2017, I officially enrolled, and that is where my research journey began…

Of course, Heidi was not my only supervisor. In the Swinburne University of Technology, Sarawak Campus, we normally have team of supervisors which includes a Principal

207

Supervisor and at least one Co-supervisor, one of whom should be based in Sarawak. When I first enrolled, I had Heidi as my Sarawak-based Co-supervisor, as well as a Sarawak based Principal Supervisor and an Australia-based Co-supervisor. Both these two supervisors left the university, and therefore the supervision team in the first and second years. Given the ethical considerations of including reflections on my relationship with those supervisors, this autoethnographic work includes a narrative first co-constructed with Heidi, as the supervisor who stayed with me throughout my research journey as a doctoral candidate, and Deirdre, who became my Australia-based supervisor in the second year, and further became my Principal supervisor during the third year.

Heidi: Irina was the first student I would supervise. Only being a year or so on from having completed my own PhD, I was conscious of coming to this project with lots of ideas and passion for the topic, but relatively little academic experience to draw from. As I was only accredited to be a co-supervisor, so invited a more experienced colleague to play the role of Principal Supervisor, and asked a Melbourne based colleague to complete the team. In the first year I worked closely with the Principal Supervisor to help Irina scope her project, while the Melbourne based supervisor was leaving the university, so was understandable not as active within the team.

Our First Conference Together

Irina: I became officially enrolled end of October, but already in September Heidi invited me to participate in the yearly BREC (Borneo Research Education Conference) conference series for researchers from different institutions in Sarawak, which she was one of the organisers. Heidi suggested that it will be good to present my initial thoughts over there and get valuable feedback from other participants. I was not sure whether it is a good idea to do that; I was not even enrolled officially when we started to prepare an abstract for submission, but I did not disagree either; I thought why not?

Well, the answer to ‘why not?’ came soon after the abstract was submitted. As I received the comments from reviewers, I felt extremely sad. Their comments suggested my paper had low academic writing proficiency, poor representation of the problem, no method for data collection discussed and other aspects. Basically, the research did not seem to have a good

208

frame for any of the reviewers. I rushed to share the reviewers’ outcome with Heidi. She assured me that I received such reviews because people who checked my work didn’t know that I am not yet officially enrolled even. Anyway, as conference date was coming closer, I was feeling less and less confident to go there. I was thinking about potential ways to avoid coming but could not create one. So, on the actual date, I had to come to airport and travel with everyone.

As the first day of conference started, I was looking around and thinking who could be on the same stage of research as I was, so I feel less scared to present. Well soon, I realized no one was on the same stage. I was looking at people around and thinking over and over, “Wow! They are so smart! What am I doing here?”

On the day of my own presentation, I was so nervous. When the time to present came, I got up and walked to the board and I could not stop thinking that my research is nothing and now my supervisors will get ashamed because of the poor understanding of problem I possessed. Heidi was sitting there and that was adding extra pressure on me. As I finished that worst presentation ever, I sat down thinking, “Probably my supervisors think that I do not fit for research now.” I was pretty sure I disappointed them so much. They never told me anything, but I had that feeling.

Heidi: I thought that taking Irina to the BREC conference would be an eye-opener for her. A conference, we were trying to get students to talk not only about their research, but about their development of researchers, was aligned very closely with Irina’s potential area of study. Irina submitted a paper outlining her proposal. The feedback she received was a bit harsh – unfortunately the reviewers didn’t realize what stage she was at. While she was clearly nervous about presenting at a conference, given she had never been to one before so wouldn’t know what to expect, I knew this conference should be a safe space for her to gain some experience and confidence. She presented her ideas with so much passion and enthusiasm, making it clear to the audience she was very new to the program. I was so proud of her and tried to tell her that. But I can see in her writing above, that she didn’t necessarily receive that message (I wonder now, did I not say it clearly enough, or was she just not in a frame of mind to believe it?). She had only been enrolled as a Masters student for about 2 weeks when we went to the conference, and particularly when that was taken into

209

consideration, she did a fantastic job. Reading her reactions now, I can see I underestimated just how intimidating it was for her. I can see she was comparing herself to PhD students who were almost finished their work. So here were some clear differences in expectations – she was expecting an awful lot of herself!

Irina: Heidi was saying that I shall go around and introduce myself to people, so later one that may become my participants. I could not do that. I did not want it even. This experience of conference to me was so different, something new, I could not act the part of it. I constantly felt to run away; from all these uncountable tea breaks…I was just placed out of my comfort zone and I didn’t like it…This is how the few days of the conference passed. After the conference, however, as we were just going for dinner as a group, few research students and Heidi, I did not feel uncomfortable or strange, but surrounded by researchers who I did not know during conference was pressuring me for no apparent reason.

During one of the days at the end of the conference, Heidi has proposed that I should write a short report in collaboration with two participants from another university. Something about ‘Developing as a researcher through perseverance’- the theme of the conference. As we got back, the parts of report got divided and I had to write about perseverance!? What? What is it even? Is this an English word? How can I write about something that I have no idea about? I did not even know what it means.

Heidi has given me some articles and I started to work on it. This was a hard task for me. I was just thinking I do not belong here. I cannot do this… How these people just take a topic, work on it and build something valuable? I did not have that vision. I could not imagine it can be done; yet few months later we submitted it. I could make it. Heidi has helped me a lot while I was working on it, and while I should have probably started feeling less useless, I still believed I was not ready that time neither to attend the conference nor to write report.

The First Year: Uncertain Expectations

Irina: During first few months of preparing papers for enrolment, I have created a lot of illusions and expectations towards myself. I was told during degree time by lecturers and other students that I am smart, I manage time well and my assignments were well done. I knew that too. While every other student would complete an assignment a day prior deadline, 210

if not the same day, my assignments would always be ready a week prior. I never asked for an extension. I never had issues understanding what lecturer wants. Therefore, I thought research would go smooth and easy, and I will benefit a lot from it by getting the prestigious status of ‘research student’.

To me, the environment of a research student looked like a dream. Fancy research students. Separate desks in the office. Higher status. Respect from others. I was thinking, “I am so creative and smart, and surely all my ideas will just be amazing!” I expected myself to be an excellent candidate to do research (funny that I did not know what research is even). I was extremely confident. It took me not long to realize, the expectations I have developed towards myself as a research student were unrealistic. Perhaps I was overestimating myself and clearly underestimating research program requirements.

Soon after I was officially enrolled and attended conference, I slowly came to realisation, that I knew nothing, and the research world is nothing of what I expected. As I met with other researchers, attended conference and worked on report, I now slowly viewed how I am going to sink…Thus, my first year being master by research student passed under the slogan:” I don’t know. I don’t understand anything. Why did I go for research?”

Every problem I faced, I had no idea how to react and what to do. Heidi was always there for me during that first year. She never left me alone, starting from improving my academic writing and explaining the basics of research to filling necessary forms (nightmare of novice research student) and appealing for a fee waiver (double nightmare for unlucky ones). Heidi did all she could to make the start of my journey as smooth as possible. Sad to say that it did not help much… Every meeting we had; I came out with feelings of frustration. I was not sure whether I understood any of what was said. It made it worse that I was too shy to come and ask again. Back in degree classes, I wasn’t shy, but now, I thought that I would look so dumb in Heidi’s eyes, not to say anything about my other (main) supervisor, who I had previously never worked with. Every time they would explain to me anything about research, I would come out from the office feeling as if I was not there even. I came home that day, and this was the first time I cried hard over this. I was sitting in the office (an additional room we had in our apartment, which I took over and made office from it) for few hours. No one

211

was home. My boyfriend just travelled back home. My friend was out. I was just sitting, looking at the window and crying.

I called my dad and said, “Dad, I don’t understand what they want from me. We had a discussion for two hours, but I don’t know what I am required to do. I listen carefully, but I couldn’t understand.” And I was crying and crying.

He listened and then asked me, “Do you remember you called me during your first semester in degree? What did you cry and asked about?”

“I was asking to drop the unit, because I was sure I will fail it”, I said.

“Did you fail it? He asked.

“No, I failed the other unit”, I said laughing.

“Then why are you crying now? You just started. Things will get better. One day you also did not know whether you will fail or pass that unit, and you panicked. But you did. Sit down and think about and try to write something at least.”

He was right. I was thinking of withdrawing from research before I even tried to understand it. I never thought about withdrawing again, although it did not get better during my first year. My supervisors used to ask me to re-write a few pages up to seven or eight times. I was getting extremely angry and frustrated. I could not understand why? I saw no difference between version 1 and version 101. To me, all of them were the same. I could not accept and understand why I, a successful degree student in the past, was now feeling this way. I could not accept critique. I knew that before, but I could not imagine it would be that sensitive for me. And my first year was full of critiques. I remember coming home after another meeting and telling my friend, “They just want me to re-write the way they like it, but I see no difference. How many times else will I re-write?”

Heidi: It was only after a few months when Irina confided in me that she would often go home and cry after our supervision meetings that I realized that she is a bit more delicate than her tough (Russian?) exterior suggests. I tried to put myself in her shoes, and realized I need to give her more reassurance that she is on the right track, and that progress is visible, despite constantly correcting myself and explaining how to improve her writing. I started to 212

try to use more humour with her—which I felt I could do as we had gotten to know each other a little better (I often hesitate to use humour with people from cultures I am not familiar with – not everyone appreciates my typically ironic / cutting Kiwi humour!).

Irina: Thus, frustration and at times depression were my main companions throughout that year. All the expectations I created towards myself have disappeared. While I expected to take research, lead it and complete fast, I began to understand that I have no skills to do that, and I got scared that I got stuck here for unknown period of time. While I expected myself to be over-prepared for research, I actually was underprepared. I realised academic writing in degree level had nothing to do with real academic writing. Reading few web pages and sometimes articles for an assignment had nothing to do with doing actual literature review. Methodology? What is methodology even? Thinking that ‘I know how’ led me towards developing false beliefs and unrealistic expectations of myself. Now I thought re-writing and correcting will never finish. Now I knew I know nothing. And now I did not know what to do.

Heidi surely felt that. Four months after my official enrolment we started to slowly prepare for Confirmation of Candidature. That is where writing and re-writing, and again re-writing, happened. Heidi started to notice how frustrated and angry at times I used to be from the process. In one of the emails, she wrote,

“Hi Irina,

I hope you found yesterday productive and not too overwhelming. I know this is a frustrating part now, but it will be worth it in the end. It may feel like you are moving slowly, going back and forth, with the intro and literature review, but I can see steady progress, and your (and our) vision is getting clearer about where to go with this. It will all come together if you keep doing what you are doing…

Drop by my office any time if you want to chat. Regards,

Heidi”

Few days later I received another email from Heidi saying,

“Hi Ira, 213

OK, V5, round 1, attached!

Overall I can see that it is really starting to take shape – it is a much more coherent narrative that we have had before. So good job!

In saying that, you will see that I have done quite a lot of editing with track changes on (please don’t cry when you see the red mess!). The changes are mostly just moving things around a little, and shortening some parts that started to wander or had too much detail, so it is not really as bad as it looks […]

H.”

Heidi: I could see early on that Irina was driven to complete her work quickly. But I was a little concerned that she got so frustrated by the constant rewrites that we were required in her early attempts at writing a literature review and introduction. I tried to reassure her that this is a normal part of the process, but I know from my own experiences as a student, there are some lessons that you cannot really understand early on, it takes time and experience for some messages to really sink in.

Irina: Heidi constantly tried her best to calm me down and to highlight my progress. She had enough patience to explain again and again, why some things should be done this way and why we need a lot of re-writing. Whenever Heidi was proofreading my work, she could always explain softly why particular word should not be used or why the structure of that sentence was incorrect. It did not sound harsh even. Well maybe sometimes only. But it was fun actually. I remember Heidi told me, “Irina, you cannot use word prove.” Then I asked her, “Why? To me it proves that…” then she looked at me and told me, “You cannot say that this author proves something, or this finding proves something. It is subjective judgment. What is right for you or proves to you something does not necessarily prove anything to others.” Another time, she tagged me on the Facebook post which suggested how people can substitute word ‘very’, my favourite word during those days, to something more ‘adult’. I cannot say that all the corrections and comments were considered and implemented by me on the spot. In fact, new ‘peacock’ words would take over as I wrote in my Russian style. I would sometimes try to defend my ‘peacock’ words.

214

“Why can’t I use this it? Do you know in Russian it sounds so nice? It makes the sentence prettier” I opposed, when Heidi was saying that some words should not be used.

“Irina, it is academic English. And it doesn’t sound nice in English”, Heidi insisted.

Therefore, the conversation about do’s and do not’s of academic English was a continuous practice throughout my first year. I truly appreciated those discussions only during my second year of research, but about this, I highlight later on.

Growing Need to Discuss Expectations: Arising Misalignments

Irina: While I was still going against re-writing, saying to Heidi, “I will not re-write again”, I slowly started to understand what was going on and even have some ideas or proposals.

Heidi would ask me all the time, “Irina, what do you think? Irina, what do you say?”

“I don’t know.” This was the common answer she would receive during my first year.

The truth is over these few months I totally lost my confidence and whatever I was thinking to propose while walking to the office to meet Heidi will mostly remain in my head. I simply could not open my mouth. I was sitting and telling myself, “Ira, just say it, say it, maybe this is a good idea. Why don’t you say it?” I couldn’t. And then, after the meeting I will come out disappointed in myself. I doubted myself in every aspect of research. I was not sure whether my ideas were actually reasonable and worth discussion.

Meanwhile, I was not sure whether the expectations I placed towards myself and my supervisors actually made any sense. Since the topic of my research was “Student-supervisor relationships with particular emphasise on expectations in postgraduate research education”, I constantly created, re-created, changed and created new expectations towards myself and my supervisors again. I started to compare what I read in the articles and books with my personal case. The more I would read, the greater expectations I would place myself, the less I would expect from my supervisors (if even I could call expectations towards my supervisors ‘expectations’). It was rather floating expectations of myself, where sometimes I would expect myself to be fully independent, while sometimes, I was not sure whether I could add a sentence without their approval. The expectations of my supervisors were ever blurred. I

215

would read articles and comment in my head, “Oh, no, these students expect too much from their supervisors. Or, no, my supervisors read my work, why this supervisor does not do it?” I was lost.

I was looking for the answers in those readings. I wanted to understand how those expectations arise, and more I was looking at whether students and supervisors actually discuss them. While this was the question of my research, in our personal case this remained unsolved for a long period of time. I was thinking, “Would the expectations be discussed during my second or third year? Would we have same expectations of what I read in those articles or would it be totally different in our case?” Can I question my supervisors to understand their expectations? I was curious to experience it. I needed to have an example of feeling more comfortable in my research. Well, that would be found out later. For now, I had just several assumptions of how I think it should be. From my supervisors, I was assuming fast turn-round of my work (I now believe I had high expectations on this aspect); I was assuming my supervisors would tell me what to do (I now don’t think it’s a beneficial practice for researcher development), I was assuming my supervisors to accept my drafts from the first time. From myself, I was expecting to complete Master’s program within 1.5 years; I was expecting myself to work 24/7; I was expecting myself to understand every new theory or method I read within few days.

Heidi: Of course, there has always been one big ‘elephant in the room.’ Despite us studying student-supervisor expectations and emphasising how important it is to discuss them, our own expectations have always remained more implicit than explicit. The longer we left it, the more difficult it became to broach. When you have already been working in a certain manner, it is pretty hard to say to someone “I don’t like your style of working, I expect you to change it”. My way of communicating has always been a bit subtler than that, so I sought indirect ways of communicating my expectations of how our supervision relationship should work. I would make myself available for her to drop in to my office whenever I was free, and would always indicate directly when she could expect feedback on her work (usually within a few days, but there are periods I was tied up and would tell her directly she would need to wait a week or two.) It was similarly clear to me that Irina expected to work at a fast pace, the she had not expected there to be so much reworking of material. I had assumed, from my interactions with her during her undergraduate degree, that she would appreciate direct

216

communication. So, we never sat with a checklist of expectations to work through, but I always felt we were more or less on the same page.

Irina: Heidi made it quite clear to me the way she was working. I could easily send her my drafts and receive them back with comments in the next few days. A week at most. This has made me create an assumption that is the way of giving and receiving feedback between students and supervisors. I cannot deny, I felt so comfortable with this style. I would receive a lot of comments, read it and start to work through it. The process was constant. Of course, this created an illusion that every student-supervisor dyad works this way.

Unfortunately, this perception of ‘everyone works this way’, which I developed was completely wrong. I neglected, although I was working on understanding student-supervisor expectations and potential misalignments, that all people are different, and two supervisors may have completely different supervision styles. Now, as I am writing it, I am thinking, could I identify and navigate different styles of supervision during my first year? Perhaps, no. I could neither place realistic expectations towards myself nor did I know what to expect from my supervisors. In addition I did not know whether I had the rights to expect something. It was mainly on my inner feelings and intuition. I had two different examples of how work could be done. And I felt confused. By the end of my first year, frustration over different supervision styles has become obvious to me. I more and more questioned myself of why it is so complicated and how could it be resolved. And although by the end of my first year, I could manage to pass confirmation of candidature review, I could not build enough understanding of my own expectations towards myself and my supervisors, nor was clear about the expectations my supervisors had towards me.

Second Year. Taking Responsibilities, Developing Dialogue, and Sharing Power.

Taking Responsibilities Irina: I just came from holidays, full of energy to move forward with my research. The ethics application was cleared, and my supervisors and I started to look for participants. After several attempts, we realized that getting participants would take more effort than we expected, or I would say I expected. I know they were aware that it would be hard given the topic was sensitive, but they did not want to say it. I assumed they wanted me to experience

217

it. After sending multiple official emails to chosen universities, only one of them had come back with reply. The person from that university provided a list of people, both HDR students and supervisors with their contact details. Bingo! I was extremely happy. So many names there, and I was sure all potential participants would be happy to accept. I was expecting data collection process to go smooth and easy; but it did not work as I expected. I have started to email one by one to both groups. That official email I was sending to everyone, I add Heidi as well. The moment Heidi saw me sending those emails one by one, she messaged me on WhatsApp saying,

“Stop sending!!! Wait for five minutes and check email”

As I opened the email, I got an email from Heidi saying,

“Hi Irina,

Sorry to say, but if I got an email (among the 100s of others I get every day with your subject line) I would just delete it. It is too vague, and rather uninspiring. To capture people’s interest, we need to really take care with wording here.

My suggested alternative is above.

Also, in the email text which I have further edited below, you don’t have enough information to ask for consent yet. Please see below for my suggestion. Then later, if and when they reply, you subsequently give them a copy of the full CIS and consent form (as per our stated intent in the ethics application).

Regards, Heidi”

The first reaction I had when I saw these texts and emails coming to me…I got extremely emotional. I could not understand why such reaction over an official email. Another aspect was that I had consulted with my supervisors before sending them. That is why, in my head, I could not understand what this reaction is… As Heidi explained and apologised, I understood why such situation happened.

“Hi Again Irina,

218

Hope I didn’t upset you with my roughly worded emails just now. Was rushing to try and get the message to you (before you sent too many more, and before I ran to class), so didn’t manage it very eloquently! I do apologise.

… I am absolutely drowning in emails these days, all competing for time and attention, so have learnt that it is super important that a subject line is informative and succinct… And then I get very judgement about others who don’t do the same!

Anyway, please don’t let my little outburst stop you from carrying on with sending these invitations out. Hope to see some responses soon.

In the meantime, as you will have seen earlier, I think the ethics modification is under control, so we can use start with the snowballing…

Good luck. H.”

Heidi: This was a pretty poor piece of communication from me - in my rush it sounded much sharper than I intended – I just didn’t want us to undermine the great work by sending out a message that would likely not get the attention of people we were trying to recruit, and so had to quickly hit the pause. I felt awful for days after, but I trusted that I had a strong enough relationship with Irina by this stage that the damage wouldn’t be too long lasting.

Irina: As that awful email got fixed, I soon emailed all of potential participants... but in return only two students have replied…and not a single supervisor. In few weeks, I had four…only four participants. Time was going and it was already middle of November. I had to re-consider expectations towards people and myself and take it easier, but it was hard at times. I felt frustrated. In my head, I expected everyone to agree to participate because I saw this research as important for everyone, regardless of field and position. I later realized; for research students it was hard to speak because they were all currently enrolled, and they were afraid this conversation could affect their completion; the supervisors either did not see the importance or were protecting their ‘face’. I commonly started thinking, if I was one of those students, I could speak, I could share my experience of working with my supervisors and the arising expectations towards them. I could understand participants’ feelings of frustration, and I think I even asked once my supervisors whether we could be participants of our own research…While we didn’t participate in that data collection phase, the necessity to discuss 219

our own expectations grew during my second year, and evolved in this autoethnographic piece during my third year.

Anyway, I needed some participants to start with. Also, I needed money to travel and collect my data. At that time there were some problems with receiving micro funds from the university, so I had to decide whether I will wait until early next year or take a step and travel myself to get participants. I was not ready to face issues with micro-funding. I expected, the moment I need to collect data the funds would be there; university is extremely supportive to their research students…again my expectations. The reality was that to get any funds; I had to fight for it. However, if I was going to fight for funds, I had to go to… Heidi. Yes, Heidi was the one to ask for funds, and that is why I could never come directly and ask for anything from the university. I was extremely shy to talk with her about finances. I was afraid it could spoil our relationships. I would only ask if I surely could get it. And since Heidi said that I need to wait until the starting of next year, which I did not really understand why I needed to find my way.

Heidi: Our School of Research was operating on a shoestring with little money available to fund student research, but behind the scenes I was working to launch a new funding scheme to make money available for all students to draw on for expenses relating to their research project. I knew it could only be launched a few months down the track, and I couldn’t show favoritism to my own student. It was frustrating, but to avoid a conflict of interest, I couldn’t find a way to help Irina with her travel costs at the time she needed it. I wasn’t sure whether Irina expected more from me in this respect. It was certainly an issue we skirted around and that she dropped several hints about, but which I found difficult to address directly.

Irina: While I realized there are low chances that I can get finances from university, at the same time I was afraid to lose those few participants I struggled to get. After thinking over for few days, I had booked air tickets and hotel and emailed my supervisors that I will be travelling to collect some data. I really could wait for neither the university nor my supervisors to help me with funds; I wanted to interview people. I did not just want; I was extremely excited to do it. So, I took that responsibility. I took my personal funds and I told myself, “Ira, you need that data, one way or the other get it done.”

220

I cannot recall whether I discussed travelling with my supervisors. I was not even sure whether I could and should expect my supervisors to look for participants with me or to arrange any interviews. In my head, I was thinking this is not how it is supposed to be. Internally, I had a feeling that this is completely my responsibility. So, I just decided, told them and went.

I can never forget how I felt as I walked into my first interview with a supervisor participant. I was extremely shy. While with students, it was more or less easy to reach appropriate level of comfort and have a light discussion; I was not sure what to expect from a supervisor who I never saw in my life. As I entered his office, I saw a young man and his two kids playing around. They all looked at me. I looked at them and smiled. And we started to talk. While I expected supervisors to be less talkative to the rigour of ‘yes, no, not given’, this first interview has changed my perceptions completely. I met a person who was happy to share, give examples, and explain in detail. I came out happy. It gave me confidence to meet more supervisors and not fear those interviews. Thus, I came back with several interviews collected. I was proud of myself not to have waited for any confirmation from anyone and finally take a small but mature step. I was proud of myself to take that step, travel without knowing whether anyone would actually show up for interview or not and whether I could find more people there.

Heidi: Irina showed a lot of independence and initiative with getting data collection underway. It is seldom easy recruiting participants for a project such as this, and I could see Irina’s frustration again growing quickly. There was nothing I could do beyond helping her follow up with potential leads and encourage her to keep pushing on.

Irina: But the happiness did not last for long… as soon as I came back, I realized that the other universities we have sent emails to were not willing to help. So, we had to start the process of looking for participants all over again. One of my friends from university (a PhD student) referred me to his supervisor, who was a former student in university from our list. The supervisor has got a friend in that university, who kindly agreed to help me to get more participants. That person didn’t just help, but he arranged interviews with 11 participants both HDR students and supervisors, accommodation, and took me around from interview to interview and from place to place. When I found out that someone was willing to help me

221

there, I booked my tickets within few hours and on next day I was already travelling there. When I went to this university, apart from collecting data, I was lucky to experience different research environments. I had something to compare with. I saw lovely people who encourage each other, who help each other and who become true friends. I talked to them, the person who took responsibility to help me took me around, introduced me to people from different fields, but most importantly, he saw my research as important and he told me I’m doing great job. Thus, at the starting of December, I have already got about 18 interviews collected. Good start, isn’t it? It was good enough to start. And a lot to transcribe. But I was happy. I collected some more over next few months and now it was time to analyse what I collected.

Opening Dialogue

Irina: After taking that first step and becoming more responsible for my own research, I started to feel more confident in what I was doing. I suddenly started to truly understand the importance of my topic; I now had a full view, not only from the books and journal articles but from people I have met! Reading the positive and negative stories/experiences of other students and supervisors have never made me feel directly involved, but now, after meeting real people with their stories, I felt responsible for their voices to be presented. To do that, I had to start my analysis.

Likely for me, I have done training in NVivo 11 Plus during my first year and I knew how the software works. However, it was hard for me to understand how to manage my data to extract the essential aspects. Heidi was kind to share her experience of how she was doing it during her PhD, so I started my analysis slowly. Soon after I started coding, I realized that I’m too often comparing their scenarios to my own. I actually started to do it earlier, as I was collecting data and talking with each participant. Every time participant would reveal his/her story, I will listen carefully and think in my head, “Do I expect the same? Or yes, that is what I expect from my supervisors too.” As I started to code data I collected, I read it over again and again, and an understanding of my own expectations started to appear. While just few months ago I was not sure whose responsibility to find participants and arrange interviews, now I clearly knew it is mine. I had internal feelings when I took responsibility fully, but now I had confirmation that I did things right. While I was not sure whether I expect my supervisors to provide me with feedback within a particular timeframe, now I knew what I

222

was feeling and expecting was normal to any research student. That is how by reading and comparing, I started to build my personal set of expectations, both towards myself and towards my supervisors. Some things, of course, I did not agree with my participants, but that was also according to my own expectations and experience. Getting my expectations clarified for myself at least, I became more confident when I was trying to ask my supervisor to provide me with timely feedback because I knew it was not my childish demand of “I want, give me now”, it was an adequate request with an appropriate timeframe to be set.

As I was coding interviews, million of questions came to my mind then. I was thinking, “Will this student complete or withdraw? What will I do if I was in that person’s shoes? Can supervisors provide this much or that less? How do my own relationships with supervisors differ? Why do I ask students whether they could discuss their expectations with supervisors if I know the answer?” and many more. In some of my notes I wrote,

“I feel I am lying to myself. How can I expect that by showing differences in student- supervisor expectations, things will change and both sides will start explicitly discussing them? My supervisors and I are working on this topic second year, and we have never clarified our expectations. We understand the importance like no one else does but still keep our expectations implicit. What is the use of my research then? Are we hypocrites?”

I asked myself those questions and I could not reply. I was thinking, if we could open a conversation of expectations towards each other, would it change anything? Could it help me during my first year to avoid some difficulties? I could not reply to these questions either. All I knew was that my case was different. I had a great opportunity to work on the topic which could help me to build a set of expectations towards my supervisors and myself. Yes, those expectations I constructed were never discussed explicitly with my supervisors. While I had them, I could not say we had matching expectations. Neither my supervisors nor I could openly discuss our expectations towards each other. During a few of our meetings we joked about it and probably realized the need for discussion, but we never did it. I think we felt uncomfortable. Well, I surely did. I was not ready to face my supervisors with my expectations because I was too scared to find out that this is not the case or even harm them by saying something wrong. They were not ready to start that conversation either. Thus, while we were doing research that was aimed at helping HDR students and supervisors to

223

become explicit and match their expectations, our own expectations still remained undiscussed. And as time was going, I realized this would never change. Perhaps, it was too late…well.

Heidi: By the time she started to analyze her data, Irina was starting to take the lead, showing more confidence, and starting to be able to argue and defend her stance when questioned. By now I could see her impatience starting to be taken over by the understanding her research requires an iterative process. Her expectations of herself were still high, but she was seeming less frustrated by going back and forth. She was getting more comfortable with asking questions and making suggestions to her supervisors. I was thrilled to see her start to argue with us – something should would not have dared done a year ago. I made sure to explicitly commend her for that so that she would know that I both expect and value that sort of passion and rigor in her work.

Sharing Power: An Unexpected Conversion to PhD.

Irina: As I gained confidence, I felt every time my supervisors and I would discuss the results, I will get more and more open towards discussion, something that never happened before. I do not know whether it is because they were open to listening to my assumptions and letting me explore while not criticising much or because I finally felt strong. Anyway, one way or another, I started to feel that I could do more. More than just simple Master’s research. I used to propose a lot of ideas of how we could expand it and what else could we look at…but I commonly started to hear from both of my supervisors, “Irina, this is too much for Master’s study, maybe later on in PhD you can do that”. That period of time I could clearly remember sitting at home and telling my spouse,

“I want to do more! I think my research worth more than just Masters. I don’t want to waste this data for something not truly significant. If I just could expand, I could do something really meaningful.”

He would not believe it. He said,

“Ira, your supervisors know more, why did they not propose by now, if they see it too?”

224

He was right… I think I was the only one that time thinking about it. I only wanted to get more space for exploring. I did not look for conversion as a matter of conversion. I wanted to take it as far as I could. I was getting excited and I could not stop thinking of ways, methods, theories that could help us in my research. Since I never proposed or actually wanted it before, the official time for conversion has already passed, so I had no choice but to continue…until one day.

12 March 2019, such a meaningful day for me! After another interview, I had a random conversation with one of the lecturers. While discussing my research, she said,

“Irina, you have too much data for Masters by Research, have you thought about converting to PhD?”

OMG…did she just said that? YES, of course, I did! And I finally heard it from someone else! I rushed home, and I screamed to my spouse,

“Prof told me that I should talk to my supervisors and convert! I knew, I told you, I should, but how?”

The normal time for conversion (at Confirmation of Candidature) has gone. I refused then. I never thought about it until my data analysis. Was it too late?

After thinking for a few days on how to approach this conversation with my supervisors, I decided to just send an email to both of them. That time, I thought it would be the best way because I was still not ready to face them and communicate and maybe even defend my position strongly. I still felt lower… my personal barrier since my first year. So, in that email, instead of screaming, “OMG, I want to convert so badly! Let’s convert”, I typed few sentences saying,

“[…] the interview went fine, and during the informal discussion, Professor suggested to think of converting my research into PhD study, as she believes that we have more than enough data and the findings are significant. So, she suggested me to discuss it with you. Personally, I would be really happy to convent and continue at the PhD level. Therefore, could we schedule a meeting on 25 or 26 of March, not the coming week but the week after it, so I can send you updated tables and then we can discuss both the findings and conversion proposal?”

225

I shortly received a reply. While my other supervisor had no issues with it, Heidi did not show much enthusiasm for it. While she suggested she will discuss that with the Melbourne campus, given that my case was unusual, I could feel from email it was not up to her expectations. This was just an email and just my assumptions that day, but few days later, during our personal discussion, I confirmed it. Heidi did not want me to convert. In fact, I could see she did not believe I was ready enough for it! Or maybe since I was her first HDR student, she wanted me to complete faster. I don’t know. She said that there is no need to convert and it would be hard to reframe the existing research into PhD, given that Masters research had no theoretical framework and since data was already collected we will face difficulties of rewriting it. She further added,

“Irina finish Masters fast and get a full scholarship from Swinburne for your PhD. It will take you 2, maybe 2,5 years to complete.”

If I was in my first year where official conversion is scheduled, I would agree, but now I knew I could. I could see that growth Heidi told me about during my first year. My writing became better; my critical thinking also advanced; I could do it. So, I was not going to let this chance go away.

Heidi: When Irina first raised the possibility of converting her Master to a PhD, I was a little scared. I knew it would be really challenging to do. I was worried Irina would get frustrated with the reworking and rethinking of the project that would be required. Irina was also my first HDR student. I had never led someone through a full research degree, let alone through an upgrade/conversion. So, a lot of the hesitation I had, in retrospect, was reservations about my own capabilities and level of experience, rather than thinking it was beyond Irina’s capabilities. But Irina showed so much enthusiasm and dedication, I did not want to hold her back. So, I had to get on board, and move my own dedication to the project, and to Irina’s development up another level.

Irina: Going back and forth, we discussed conversion several times. Agreeing and disagreeing at some points. It was never that my supervisors would decide without asking my point of view. Throughout the candidature, we would always discuss whatever was concerning us in research. I cannot recall the moment when Heidi finally agreed to go for conversion, but after I received a green light from her, things changed. I never felt the same

226

way anymore. I was close to Heidi emotionally. Her opinion and view were always paramount to me. If she was not happy or satisfied with something, I would feel frustrated. In fact, because we were working closely throughout two years, I could sense when Heidi was not agreeing or happy about something. But this time, she did not just accept it. She made sure that my confidence will grow. I do not know how she could make it. But that continuous motivation and ongoing discussions we had regarding proposal for conversion, 3MT, plans for the conference, all of these made me think that yes, I can! And now, not only I believed that I could, all of us did. Through preparation for conversion to PhD, apart from face-to-face meetings, I have received several motivational emails from her. When I looked at them again a year after, it still makes me feel happy.

Conversation one:

Irina:

Dear Heidi,

“Here is my first attempt to connect together Role Theory and PC in a framework and write proposal for conversion. I'm pretty sure it will require further work and adjustments because it is still confusing for me. I'm not sure if I clearly shown the connection between patterns, but I hope you can understand what I meant.

Best regards, Irina”

Heidi:

“Wow Irina looks like you have been working really hard!

I will take a close look over the weekend, and let’s chat early next week. H,”

Conversation 2:

Irina:

“Dear Heidi,

227

As requested, here is the whole document from Chapter 1 till Chapter 5 + the Proposal.

I have tried to amend abstract already, but Chapter 1 to 3 still the same.

Best regards, Irina”

Heidi:

“Well done Irina.

Now you can go and take a complete break and enjoy your holiday with your mother. You deserve it!

Safe travels, Heidi”

I got converted! But can I say that after conversion to PhD my supervisors started to treat me differently? Well… I do not think so. I think I started to treat myself differently, our relationships have changed. We went to a new stage. I grew up mentally and when we had discussions, I could take a part of that and maintain it equally. I started to bring ideas, share my findings and propose ways of going further in research. We started to have a dialogue. I just grew up…all that hard work we did together during my first and second year slowly started to pay off—all work which I did not feel or notice. Re-writing became less. I started to propose more than question. Heidi suggested me to find right theory and understand it, it might take me a long time, but I was not scared. I did not get frustrated or sad. I was ready to work and to prove that I could do it. This was all done because I am capable and I will not let them down. And thus, for the rest of the year I was reading and re-reading, and while it was strange to admit, I was enjoying that process. All work that used to look boring and unnecessary for me became the most exciting part of my research. And the result did not take long to come; I finally found what I want to do next.

Changes in Supervision Team Irina: In the middle of my second year, close to the conversion date, my Australia-based supervisor decided to resign from the university and asked Heidi to find another Australia- based supervisor to supervise me. I had no problems with it since my work was progressing 228

smoothly and was even questioning whether we really needed another supervisor in our team. To explain my concerns over the need for an Australia-based supervisor for our team, I need to go back and explain how such perceptions have formed in my mind.

I believe this story started way earlier, as my expectations of an Australia-based supervisor formed with my first Australia-based supervisor. My first Australia-based supervisor was recommended and later nominated to be my supervisor by Heidi and my main supervisor during my enrolment process. While she was an experienced academic in my area of expertise and probably could add a lot to our project, we rarely referred to her for advice or held a group discussion. In total, we had, perhaps, five or six email conversations…for two years…and since my work was going based in Malaysia, where Heidi and my main supervisor were present, we did not involve her much. She, at the same time, did not intend to be involved.

I perceived such aspect to be common within our campus, whereas every research student was required to have an Australia-based supervisor, but nearly none of us were working closely or even got prompt responses from our Australia-based supervisors. This was a rule of university…a rule that most of the students found at least strange and complained when certain forms were required to be signed by all supervisors…Of course, due to this rule of the university, we had to ask someone to join our team and continue working on the project, but my expectations towards the involvement of an Australia-based supervisor were formed. I believed, no matter which supervisor I will have, I will not have to communicate much with him/her. I was so wrong…

Getting to Know My Supervisor Deirdre

Irina: I knew Deirdre from Research Training Week which was held yearly in Swinburne Sarawak for off-shore and Sarawak-based research students. Deirdre and her colleagues were always a big part of it, so I actually met her for the first time during my first year, just after my Confirmation of Candidature review. At that time, I was not really paying attention to her pedagogical approach. I do not think I could even identify one that time. I wasn’t involved much in that training week, didn’t attend many workshops and overall waking up early for that was hard for me. Therefore, out of that first meeting I knew nothing much about her and her way of working with students. At the same time, I had a chance to meet with few of her 229

offshore students who spoke positively about their supervisor Deirdre. I could observe them having an open conversation and she seemed to know her students well.

As my conversion day was coming closer and by then we knew my Australia-based supervisor has decided to leave the team, we were thinking of who my Australia-based supervisor could be. Heidi proposed to invite Deirdre to my Mid-Candidature and Conversion to PhD review, so she could get to know my project in more detail, which phase I'm at and think whether she wants to join our team. I didn’t resist. It was fine for me. During that time Deirdre was attending this yearly training week and I was able to meet her personally again, which Heidi suggested being a good chance to know Deirdre better.

On the actual day of my Conversion review, I was nervous and obviously afraid. I voiced out my concerns in front of everyone and Deirdre then asked, “What are you so afraid of? What can be the worst outcome out of it?” I told her I was afraid that I would not get converted. She then replied that this would not be the end anyway; I can still finish a Masters and then do my PhD after that. This became a non-issue, I got converted. During that day everyone was extremely supportive; Heidi, my other supervisor, Deirdre, and few of her students came to watch me presenting. I felt good and as Deirdre accepted to become my supervisor, I had no issues as well, I was happy she would be my supervisor. Yet, I was sure Deirdre will not be involved much in our project because of my perceptions of the Australia-based supervisor position. So, to me, while she seemed to be an extremely professional and experienced academic, I wasn’t thinking much of developing expectations or relationships. I just didn’t see the need…

Deirdre: Thanks to the Deputy Vice Chancellor Sarawak I was able to use the Sarawak campus to meet my offshore students. Melbourne is very expensive in comparison to other countries in the Asia/Pacific area. This reduced the financial burden for these students. The person I was to liaise with was Heidi Collins. The purpose of gathering the students I supervise together was to create a sense of belonging. For that reason, the students from Melbourne also attended. There are elements of the PhD which all students encounter and these set the parameters for the meetings. When Heidi saw that I was doing generic skills training she asked that we open this to Sarawak candidates as well. In that first year there were some Sarawak students who I came to know well, Irina was not one of them, in fact I do

230

not remember her attending workshops. The following year as we organized the second Research Training week, Heidi asked if I would sit on a panel for conversion to PhD. This is the first time I remember meeting Irina.

It was obvious from Irina’s presentation for her conversion to PhD that she was a hard worker. However, I was not convinced that the research project was of a PhD standard. First and foremost, I understand that as “holders of power” we need to be supportive of students, but we also need to maintain academic integrity. The research question was obviously important to Irina, but it was a question that had been dealt with extensively in the literature. I was alarmed when I asked some probing questions when Irina cried. Alarmed that I had made a student cry, not alarmed that she cried. Nonetheless, there was sufficient work and, certainly scope, for the project to be a PhD, so Irina was confirmed.

Heidi had been quite open that she was looking to see if I would join the supervisory team. I admit that it was my trust in Heidi that had me agree. I was concerned that I was joining a team where the student was not able to engage in scholarly debate.

Third year. Within one month, both of my supervisors have resigned… and Deirdre has joined. How did it affect our expectations?

Heidi: “Irina, I’m going to Auckland, I will be happy to continue supervising you!”

Irina: I just started my third year in research and by then has already converted to PhD, my relationships with Heidi were at the highest peak of its success and understanding. We worked in collaboration, were writing an article together for publication, and in few weeks should have travelled together with Heidi to attend conference in Australia. Apart from strong professional bond we made, Heidi and I by then became more than just student and supervisor. I truly believe we were never just student and supervisor. I could always feel that connection with her. Throughout these two constant years of communication, discussions and arguments we had, I finally gained my confidence and finally took the lead on my research. I started to propose the ideas and decide on the direction we will take further. Things were just perfect! Until that day.

231

Somewhere in the middle of November she texted me on WhatsApp and asked me to come to her office to chat. That day she finished meeting so late, and I was wondering why would she not postpone our meeting until the other day? There was nothing important and urgent in my research, but it was not about research at all. I still remember how I walked in her office and just few minutes later she threw on me, “Ira, I need to tell you something. I have handed in a resignation letter and I will be leaving Swinburne…I got a position at the University of Auckland and I will be moving there, but I surely want to continue to supervise you if you want me to do that”. She further explained everything and told me that she wanted me to hear the news directly from her before everyone else will find out and people would start to ask me questions. But I was not concerned about those details at all. I looked into her eyes. She was going to cry…Omg I was going to cry too. But I knew I should not. I recall our conversation right at the beginning of my research journey. That time, two years ago, Heidi told me that she might leave anytime because she is looking for opportunities elsewhere. But those two years passed like one day. I certainly forgot about it. But the reality appeared in front of me. Millions of questions circled in my head, “What will I do? How will we continue? Can we work on a distance? Heidi was talking, but I was not listening anymore…I cannot even recall whether she said something more or not. I was all in my thoughts.

Heidi: Other than having to tell my kids and ex-husband about my plans to move, telling Irina was the hardest of anyone. Although I know she is growing in confidence and independence in her work, I worried I would really be letting her down. I had really grown to enjoy her company; our weekend coffee dates to work on project - just being there in person seemed important. I got so much motivation and satisfaction from seeing her grow. I was surprised that she seemed (on the surface anyway) to take the news so well. She sounded like she was genuinely please for me, which I really appreciated. But deep down, I know it would cause her a lot of worry and upset. I would have to work extra hard prove to her that I would still be committed… to create the expectation that things could still carry on in a positive way.

Irina: A few minutes later I realised this time it is not about me…Every time I will face difficulties, or I will be demotivated or sad, Heidi would be there for me. Throughout two years, she was my research partner, my guide, my coach and even nanny when it was required. She invested in me so much, mentally and emotionally. Now, it was my turn to

232

show appreciation and support. So, I told her, “It is a great opportunity. You cannot reject it. It is your life and you deserved that position. I’m happy for you. I think you are making the right decision. You cannot get stuck here in Kuching because of anyone. It is your life”.

She certainly did not expect me to say any of this. She probably expected me to cry… well, I did it straight after I went out of her office. But not there. I saw that it was already hard for her to take that decision. I knew how personally hard it was and I never wanted to become another reason to make that decision anyhow harder. I went home and I called my spouse. I cried so hard. I was so happy for Heidi, but I was pitying myself. Few days after I realised my tears were a matter of two reasons: I did not expect it to happen and I feared the unknown where the unknown was how to continue working on a distance. I came soon to realise, while Heidi was working closely with me for two continuous years, she has given me enough skills and knowledge. And I think the relationships we developed by then will surely remain the same regardless of the place we will be. Thus, after a week of thinking and processing the information, I realised there is nothing to panic about. Heidi and I were both confident about working on a distance. In addition, the relationships we have developed and maintained by then were giving us a strong base to continue working together, although in unusual settings.

Heidi’s notice was timely. She gave me enough time to understand and evaluate the situation that was taking place in few months. That time I did not know something, but I was going to find out few weeks later, my other Sarawak-based supervisor was leaving too. Now I would really need to work more closely with Deirdre in Australia.

Deirdre Isn’t a Usual Australia-Based Supervisor

Irina: As I mentioned earlier, my perceptions and expectations towards Australia-based supervisors were formed by my experience with my first Australia-based supervisor. It was clear to me, they are required to be on the papers only, and so I thought Deirdre would not have much interest or be working closely with us. I soon came to realise that Deirdre was planning to get involved fully in the project, and here the clash in my expectations happened. Heidi suggested scheduling a formal meeting where we could discuss the research flow, direction and what needs to be done. That actual day of the meeting was a hell day for me. I was in my other Sarawak supervisor’s office; Heidi was in New Zealand by then and Deirdre in Australia. We scheduled a meeting on Skype and started to discuss the research. 233

I could barely understand Deirdre’s accent…Heidi was trying to help and explain what Deirdre is suggesting. Clearly, Deirdre was not satisfied enough with the current stage of research. She was suggesting that there is not enough contribution in this research for a PhD – it seemed like everything I had done (which to me was obviously a great amount of work) was just not enough. And here I lost it…at one moment, I could not handle Deirdre’s critique any longer. I was no longer able to defend; her opinion was stronger, and she certainly had a point…I got up from the chair and left. I left my other supervisor’s office and went to cry. I didn’t want to come back…I was so upset by her…I was just thinking,

“What does she know about my project to speak that I have not enough contribution? She is coming in my third year and saying that I don’t have enough contribution and examiners will not pass it. I am furious. Why are my supervisors quiet? Why are they on her side? One of them just told me that I could start wrapping up and submit soon, and now doesn’t think this way anymore and got convinced with Deirdre’s opinion?”

As I returned back to the office, I remained silent until the end of the conversation. Even when I was asked to say something or explain my position, I refused to reply or ignored questions. I was just keeping quiet like an upset kid. I was convinced she was wrong, and she just wants me to do extra work. But what could I do?

Deirdre was speaking with unknown terms, which added more frustration to me. I again went to my first year with all terms of phenomenology, action research and pedagogical discourse, which of course I had no idea about and had no willingness to learn either. I experienced the same feelings of frustration and scaredness as I felt when I was asked to write a part of the article on perseverance. Now, I think I felt even worse. During my first year, I could always cover those feelings just by telling myself that I'm not experienced enough to know those terms. Now, on my third year, I couldn’t do that, and therefore, I was extra worried. I went out of this meeting extremely upset and sad. I didn’t want to work with her anymore. I wanted to complete faster and I was pretty tired of the changes which occur a lot in this project. With Deirdre now on board, completing my thesis now seemed impossible, so I had to either continue arguing and proving I was right (which I wasn’t, but I was stubborn) or accept and try looking at it from a different angle.

234

After that meeting, I was sitting and crying, thinking, what I shall do now? Heidi called me to ask whether I was fine. Of course, I wasn’t. We talked for a while and I think Heidi always knew how to calm me down, so I did. And the next meeting we had, I was more open to suggestions and comments than I did previously.

I decided to try to read about all the topics Deirdre suggested. It was extremely hard for me to understand new theories and methodologies. I was reading suggested journal papers and books with a high level of resistance and anger. I didn’t want to do it. I felt I was forced. At the same time, I was worried about whether I would complete it on time. It was an essential point for me, like for many students, who are self-sponsored or sponsored by parents. My parents started slowly pressuring me with timing. For them, my whole PhD was a source of pride, but was also a burden coming to a common question, “Ira, when will you complete?” I couldn’t give them that answer, neither I knew myself when, especially with the current changes in my supervision team, which became ever demanding and detailed. I remained stressed for a long time until I voiced out to both my parents that I cannot give them a precise date of completion because it is not an assignment with a due date, and to my supervisors that I really need to complete as soon as it is possible and I'm ready to do any work required.

Deirdre: I asked Irina to read some of the existing work in the field, and some educational theory. Her face said it all: not happy. Here is the dilemma: your role as a supervisor is 1) to advise the candidate on academic rigor and 2) to support their thought process. What do you do when these are at odds? My professional opinion was that an examiner in the field would not pass the work as it stood, so finding a way for Irina to dig deeper was crucial.

In addition, I knew that Irina struggled with my accent, Heidi had told me, what I have never said out load is that I struggled with Irina’s accent and, at times, Heidi’s. My fear was that in filling in what I thought was being said I could end up looking like I wasn’t listening. Here we were working on a project about expectations and dialogical supervision and we weren’t dealing with some fundamental issues around communication. And I had an academic struggle; while Irina struck me as being very bright, she was also stubborn. A stubbornness that could mean that she never engaged the deeper literature. I confided in Heidi, that I wasn’t sure I could be of any help. As she pointed out, coming late to the supervision I did

235

not know Irina like her. She convinced me that while Irina bucked at new ideas she was overwhelmingly curious and thorough.

Aligning Expectations and Developing Relationships with Deirdre

Irina: As I started to read all these new theories, of course I had a lot of questions that required to be clarified. Heidi made a nice move by letting Deirdre and I try to build communication and suggested scheduling meeting with Deirdre only and try to talk about these questions with her alone, without Heidi’s involvement. That was done, perhaps, because Heidi could notice that I felt uncomfortable talking to Deirdre, mainly because I didn’t understand her, but of course, also, she was a new person to me.

I was afraid to call Deirdre; I was thinking about how I will understand her accent? Can we even talk? If I'm wrong and will my questions look silly for her? I was unclear about her expectations of me. My expectations towards her were not fully formed either. I, by then, already formed my set of expectations towards my supervisors; but Deirdre was new, so I wasn’t sure how it would work. A lot of doubts…But I called. And we talked. I started to get her point and became less resistant to her and decided to try to work it out.

I think this was the only critical incident we had. It didn’t last for long and soon, we (Heidi, Deirdre and I) were all on the same page. I now was convinced, Deirdre has a lot of experience in the area I was working on. Student-supervisor expectations and pedagogy were well-known topics for her. She added a different perspective to my research, which I resisted so hard at the starting, but appreciated so much as I started to see how our project is taking that shape. I was now satisfied with the project and fell in love with it again; at the same time, as Deirdre and I passed that adjustment process, we found it to be actually quite similar. Both demanding and extremely direct.

Deirdre: Once Irina engaged in the literature, I saw what Heidi had seen in her all along. I loved her engagement, her critical reading of texts. And as if a light had come on her voice emerged in her writing. So no longer was I reading summaries of vague experiences. The discussions became more collegial than supervisor/student. I started to love the project, and the insights that Irina was bringing.

236

The Outcome of Supervisors’ Resignation and Team Changes

Irina: While Heidi was going away, she ensured necessary things to continue to smoothly my PhD research will be settled. Before relocation, Heidi made sure my fee waiver is cleared, so I do not have to worry about my fees or any papers that needed to be further submitted. My ethics application was extended, so if I am required to collect more data, I do not need to look for my supervisors and wait until they approve or sign the forms. Heidi even tried to talk with the faculty to get me a teaching load, which I wanted for so long.

Talking about research, the path was quite clear by now. The main theoretical framework has been chosen; the additional ways of data collection were decided. While there was a need for a lot of amendments to be done, there was no need for them to remain on campus for that work. By then, research has already taken its shape. All that was required is continuous improvements and hard work from me, check, feedback, and proofread from my supervisors.

Heidi and I had really nothing to complain about. I was confident in her commitment. She was confident on my commitment too. She explicitly told me when she will have time to work and when it would be quite hard for her to manage. Therefore, I knew when I need to work harder to ensure her free time does not get wasted. At the same time, I knew the time that she would be busy; I can spend working on some general amendments. I have proposed to work on the supervisor’s training together on distance, and she was happy to become a part of it. She offered me to come to Auckland sometime for sort of writing retreat. I was happy to accept such offer. In our last conversation, we hugged and talked a lot…I knew she would come back in July, only few months after she is gone, but I was still sad (that time I didn’t know we all will face the Covid19 pandemic and get stuck in different countries with low chances of meeting our families).

After that last outing together, I came home, and I called my spouse. While crying as usual I told him, “I wish things would go differently, I just got a friend. A person who is way mature than me, smarter than me, more experienced and has wiser view, but a friend. To people around I stopped saying supervisor long time ago. I do not know whether Heidi felt the same way, but I got so attached to her as a person. I am sad that she has to leave.” He listened for the while how I cried and then he replied, “Ira, Heidi is not gone anywhere. It is just a location. This is a lifetime relationship. You both will always stay in touch, even after your 237

PhD is done.” He was right. I truly wished for that! With Heidi, it was certainly a new stage in our relationships, and I was looking forward to experiencing it together.

Heidi: As I write this, it has been just over 2 months since I left Kuching. It has of course been a huge adjustment for me, settling in to a new job, new living arrangements, new life – and with the world (including my cross-border family living arrangements) being thrown into chaos with the Coronavirus, it has been difficult to remain focused on Irina’s work. I have been trying to maintain weekly contact (at least) ever since leaving, but I have admittedly been slipping behind over the last couple of weeks, slowing down in feeding back on work given the fast pace Irina works at. We now have a very experienced supervisor actively engaged with the project – Deirdre, who is based in Melbourne. Knowing she is there and playing an increasingly important role in shaping the project going forward, I have perhaps allowed myself to slacken off a little over the last couple of stressful weeks. But in the last couple of skype meetings we have had, I can see from Irina’s face that I need to step things up. I am feeling guilty, and I guess, not living up to my own expectations of myself as a supervisor. So here I am, Sunday morning at 11am, sitting in bed the whole morning with my laptop, trying desperately to show Irina that she is important to me…

Irina: Starting to work with Deirdre wasn’t easy for me. I had established perceptions and expectations towards my supervisors and their involvement in the project. Deirdre had a different working style of being straightforward and harsh at times. This was a completely new experience to me, given my main supervisor and Heidi was always soft with me when explaining or proposing something. Yes, we didn’t build that close personal relationship with Deirdre, it was more of professional discussions, but I had no issues with that. It was completely fine for me.

Deirdre, because of her straightforward personality, clarified directly the way she works with her students, what she is ready to do and how much time she is willing to invest. She suggested that if I need any help with proofreading or anything, I can always get back to her. At the same time, she clearly stated how much time she is ready to give to a student. Deirdre agreed to participate in weekly meetings, which I personally saw essential for the progress of research. I think since Heidi has moved to New Zealand and Deirdre was always located in Australia, these weekly meetings, which I was afraid to be difficult and not as effective as

238

face-to-face actually evolved in positive discussions and became my unofficial deadlines. I scheduled for myself deadlines, so every meeting I could come up with something to discuss. As these meetings became common practice for us, I felt confident to share my ideas and seeing how both Heidi and Deirdre liking or critiquing or suggesting something else. It evolved in a common practice for us. It became easier for me to say, “No, I don’t think this way. I think differently.”

The End: PhD Journey.

Irina: I think over this almost three years, my supervisors and I have done great job to make me who I have become right now. I could not help but appreciated every argument, every conversation and every misunderstanding we have had along the way and every challenge we have passed through.

Over three years of being research student, I moved from full dependence on my supervisors to independence during data collection and analysis time to interdependence and collaboration. The research has changed from some tentative ideas to concrete knowledge we constructed. What has not changed was the communication and dialogue we had and have over these years with Heidi. My voice has grown and became more meaningful in those dialogues, although it was there even during the first months of research. It was not noticeable, perhaps, given lack of skills and knowledge, but it was there. I was heard and I could hear. At least to the extent we were both capable of delivering information and listening to each other. We certainly learnt a lot from each other during these years. I can be sure about it at least from my side. I see those changes. It is like Ira version 2018 and Ira version 2020. As if I jumped in the swimming pool one person and three years later, I came out, but completely different in everything.

My way of writing has improved. I did not have to re-write multiple times and the way I was writing has changed completely. While I used to hate reading or at least did not appreciate it, now I could read every day, analyse and evaluate information and see whether it can be applicable to my research. Before I entered research, I could see in the unit outline ‘critical thinking skills development’. I thought I think critically, but I realized I was not even close to that. I started to look at every aspect of research we are doing from different angles—even the way of talking. Previously, when anyone would ask me about my research or research in 239

general, methods that could be applied, I was not educated enough in this manner. I remember one lecturer asked me about epistemology and I freaked out. “What is that?” I said. Now, while some of those terms were still unknown to me, I was not afraid to ask for clarification. I could maintain conversation equally with anyone—everything…just everything. Even what I knew about myself and my capabilities. I saw myself from a new, unknown angle and I was satisfied. I was completely reshaped by research by my supervisors. Now when I looked at myself, I could not help but acknowledge that this is who I always wanted to become…Strong, curious, critical, independent, and mature. And I can openly say now if you came out after PhD research the same person, then you did not take a PhD. Trust me!

5.3 Conclusion

In this chapter, I have presented a personal co-constructed narrative of my supervisors and myself. Throughout this narrative, we aimed to describe our supervision experiences and experiences of development, negotiation, and alignment of mutual expectations throughout my PhD journey. Throughout this narrative, the challenges of developing strong supervisory relationships, difficulties of aligning mutual expectations and conflicting situations are presented. Along with challenges, the ability to develop dialogic relationships and create a positive environment for researcher development is shown as well. As this narrative was developed, the researcher-participants sought to present an emotional side of supervision experiences to add a layer of depth to Phase 1 results. Therefore, the theoretical and practical significance of Phase 1 and Phase 2 research results is discussed in the following chapter.

240

Chapter 6. Discussion Phase 1 and Phase 2

6.1 Introduction

The aim of this research was to investigate what postgraduate research students and supervisors expect from themselves and their counterparts during postgraduate research supervision and whether those expectations are aligned. As I identified mutual and misaligned expectations regarding the roles and responsibilities of both HDR students and supervisors (see Thematic Analysis Round 1), I expanded the research to identify the reasons for this (see Thematic Analysis Round 2). The analysis of which was undertaken through the lens of dialogic pedagogy.

Participants of the first round of data collection presented a degree of discomfort while discussing some areas of expectations. This provoked a discussion between my supervisors and me about our own supervisory relationship (see Chapter 5). We then chose to reveal our personal experiences of being research students and research supervisors to add a layer of depth, particularly focusing on the emotional side of the story. As a result of this research, I have presented two rounds of thematic analysis to describe different layers of expectations and potential reasons for expectations misalignments of 15 postgraduate research students and 12 supervisors, and a co-constructed narrative of our personal experiences being research student and supervisors.

Throughout this chapter, I discuss ways in which these results address the research questions and then consider how these insights contribute to extending our scholarly understanding of HDR student-supervisor expectations. I used the interpretations participants presented on various expectations to highlight emerging misalignments, in which some have not been identified in scholarly literature previously. I viewed the results of both rounds of data analysis through the lens of dialogic pedagogy theory, which was discussed in depth in Chapter 2 to develop a deeper understanding of the reasons for misalignments of expectations. While I discuss the theoretical significance of the results, I also suggest the implications of alignment of student-supervisor expectations for postgraduate research supervision practices. By doing so, I propose the dialogic practice that is intended to help

241

HDR students and supervisors align and negotiate their mutual expectations throughout the research degree.

6.2 Aligned and Misaligned Student-supervisor Expectations

6.2.1 Academic Practice

Based on the Hierarchical Model of Student-supervisor Expectations that was derived from the first round of data analysis we can understand that expectations around Academic Practice were the most explicitly discussed from supervisor’s side and matched to some extent between both parties interviewed in this study. This is not surprising, given that at both national and international levels studies have highlighted the importance of processes such as academic guidance, the giving and the receiving of feedback, granting of supervisor access and updating on research progress (Abiddin, 2018; Abiddin & Ismail, 2011; Gunnarsson et al., 2013; Masek, 2017; Mcclure, 2005; Mcginty et al., 2010; Naim & Dhanapal, 2015; Parker-Jenkins, 2016; Stracke & Kumar, 2020, 2010; I. M. Tahir et al., 2012). These aspects of the research have also been regulated by institutional policies, particularly in RUs in Malaysia (School of Graduate Studies UTM, 2018; Universiti Sains Malaysia, 2012).

6.2.1.1 Academic Guidance

In accordance with previously published results, academic guidance has been suggested by both HDR students and supervisors to be essential in postgraduate research supervision (Doyle, Manathunga, Prinsen, Tallon, et al., 2017; Mcginty et al., 2010; Sidhu et al., 2016). This research identified similar outcomes to those in previously published studies that identified agreement between students and supervisors that supervisors were responsible for providing academic guidance. It is still noted, however, that students tend to be not satisfied with the guidance they received (Al-Naggar et al., 2012; Ives & Rowley, 2005). The degree of dissatisfaction has been presented by a number of students in this study as well. Participants suggested having different perspectives of what academic guidance shall include compared to what their supervisors are willing to provide. The lack of explanation within institutional policies of what academic guidance should include was identified in this study as one of the causes of students’ dissatisfaction with the amount and quality of academic

242

guidance they receive. I experienced similar issues during the first and second year of my own supervision experience; the lack of a clear explanation of what academic guidance shall include and where the supervisor’s responsibilities end and mine (as the student) starts caused me a great deal of confusion.

Looking through the lens of dialogic pedagogy, the degree of dissatisfaction presented by HDR students when experiencing too little guidance or too much control over research activities, along with supervisors who suggest their students to be over-demanding or independent too soon. The results demonstrate the inability of both parties to discuss and negotiate arising perceptions regarding appropriate levels of guidance. As highlighted earlier in Chapter 2, HDR students, who can be viewed as the oppressed individuals within the current neoliberal system, are forced to accept what is given to them by their oppressors (supervisors) in terms of guidance. This follows the principle of “supervisor speaks, student listens” (Freire, 1972). Some of the students justify their behaviour suggesting “not only my supervisor but all supervisors in Malaysia”, describing the lack of agreement in the perceptions of guidance to be not a single case scenario. They accept they are the amount of guidance they receive without further alignment or negotiation, given their supervisors do not have enough time because of administrative work overload and ever increased number of research students per supervisor (Emilsson & Johnsson, 2007; Manathunga, 2005a; Marouli et al., 2018; Roji, 2018). From this perspective, current neoliberal pedagogical practice does not encourage explicit dialogue formation, leaving diverse interpretations of academic guidance misaligned.

While both HDR students and supervisors highlight the importance of giving and receiving academic guidance, this research has identified diverse interpretations of academic guidance presented by students and their supervisors, which were overlooked in past research. It was also identified that the inability to create an explicit dialogue about what academic guidance should include creates an extra layer of issues around alignment of student-supervisor expectations. Such a notion raises further questions on how to develop a supportive environment for postgraduate research students and supervisors to negotiate the meaning of academic guidance and reduce the arising mismatch of expectations.

243

6.2.1.2 Feedback

With regard to feedback, findings are consistent with the previously conducted research in the area of student-supervisor expectations. In this study, both research students and supervisors have anticipated the importance of giving and receiving feedback practice. It was suggested the time to receive feedback and the quality of feedback plays a significant role for students’ progress, corresponding to participants’ views in both national and international studies (Adrian-Taylor et al., 2007; Carter & Kumar, 2017; Mcalpine & Mckinnon, 2013; Roach et al., 2019; Stracke & Kumar, 2010, 2020). What has been unnoticed in the past studies is the importance of aligned feedback methods among research supervisors. I have identified, from my supervision experience, within one team supervisors may have different working styles as well as different methods of giving feedback to the student. HDR students, myself for example, may face a degree of discomfort adapting to different feedback methods, especially during an early stage of candidature. This raises the question of whether research supervisors should align their feedback methods and creates further research opportunities to identify how research supervisors could identify the best method or strategy to provide feedback for their students.

Examining the feedback aspect through the lenses of dialogic pedagogy raises further questions regarding the role of feedback in researcher development. Within the currently dominating banking concept of education, feedback seems to be viewed as a give and take practice, whereas the tightly controlled students expect to receive feedback from their supervisors and apply it directly without thinking critically or placing questions and suggestions. Within the system of oppression, HDR students are not expected to question their supervisor’s superior opinion (Freire, 1972), and as results indicate, when students do not follow the feedback given, supervisors tend to perceive it rather negatively. Among all participants, only few spoke of feedback notion as a practice of posing questions and creating meanings together, suggesting such practice to be highly beneficial. A reflection from the literature suggests similar issues as are seen in the area of feedback, in that of what academic guidance aspect faces, whereas the neoliberalists demands result in for education being to be product-oriented rather than student-oriented (Giroux, 2014). Therefore, the question of how to develop feedback practice to become a critical and reflective practice that encourages problem-posing education and co-construction of meanings requires further investigation. 244

6.2.1.3 Supervisory Access

Almost all studies conducted previously on student-supervisor expectations have highlighted supervisor’s availability to be highly important within postgraduate research supervision (Barnes et al., 2010; Heath, 2002; Hunter & Devine, 2016; Mackinnon, 2005; Mcclure, 2005; Naim & Dhanapal, 2015; Wade‐Benzoni et al., 2007). Both HDR students and supervisors agree regular meetings boost research progress; yet some studies have suggested supervisors might be hard to access (Mcginty et al., 2010) due to role overload which negatively influences the quality of supervision (Yousefi et al., 2015). This might be due to the current trend of student massification, which forces HDR supervisors to supervise more students than they actually can (Halse & Malfroy, 2010; McCallin & Nayar, 2012). The results of my study indicate the negative effects of massification, especially from students’ view, who suggest their supervisors having not enough time to supervise them. Supervisors are currently expected to be efficient in their supervision practices (McCallin & Nayar, 2012); yet, being efficient is not always positive practice and particularly for supervisory meetings presents the negative outcome of being efficient but not effective or reflective.

While some authors have suggested students and supervisors tend to have more meetings at the starting and at the end of candidature, and less during data collection (Hunter & Devine, 2016), according to results there is no one size fits all approach, with many preferring regularly scheduled meetings through candidature. Findings are consistent with those presented in other studies suggesting the importance of having regular supervisory meetings and continuous communication, whether face-to-face or with the support of online tools. In conjunction with other studies, it was, however, identified HDR students and supervisors might have a degree of misalignment regarding the understanding of regular meetings as well as whether those meetings are to be scheduled or not, making an explicit discussion of expectations and dialogue formation to become paramount activity.

6.2.1.4 Updating on Research Progress

Previously published literature has suggested the misalignment in perceptions of HDR students and supervisors on who is responsible for updating on research progress aspect. While students expect their supervisors to keep track of their research progress (Naim &

245

Dhanapal, 2015; Pang et al., 2015); supervisors expect HDR students to be fully responsible for doing their work and update them when required (Doyle, Manathunga, Prinsen, Tallon, et al., 2017). Results derived from conversations with HDR students and supervisors in this study, however, contradict with the literature, recommending both parties have an agreed view of updating on research progress to be student’s responsibility.

6.2.2 Academic Outcomes

Academic Outcomes have also been explicitly discussed in universities’ handbooks and the Malaysian national agenda (MoHE, 2016; School of Graduate Studies UTM, 2018; Universiti Sains Malaysia, 2012). In contrast with academic practice expectations, institutional expectations of academic outcomes have a clear structure and standards to which students and supervisors are trying to adjust and match, although balancing the need for timely completion and publication requirements can be challenging.

Perceptions of the importance of students publishing have dramatically changed over the past 15 years (Rawat & Meena, 2014). While the results indicated students were not as motivated to publish as their supervisors would expect, this was not always the case. In this study, most students did not appear internally motivated to publish and rather perceived it as a requirement imposed on them by their university and supervisors. Following neoliberal trends of education, both HDR students and supervisors have been extra pressured to publish to enhance the global rating of the university. Within such an education system, Rawat and Meena (2014) have urged,

“The rewards for exceptional teaching rarely match the rewards for exceptional research, which encourages faculty to favour the latter whenever they conflict. Many universities do not focus on teaching ability when they hire new faculty and simply look at the publications list. This single-minded focus on the professor-as-researcher may cause faculty to neglect or be unable to perform some other responsibilities.”

Such position of supervisors being demanded to actively publish has negatively affected HDR students on whom the demands have also spread. Both literature and the results arose from conversations with participants highlight students have been commonly used by their supervisors to achieve university KPIs (Key Performance Indicators) through students’ 246

publications (Rawat & Meena, 2014). It is also evident from the results and the literature, this publications game has affected the quality of researcher work, with many being accused of performing research without significant contribution or unethically.

Along with ever-increasing demands for publications, there is a growing pressure to complete thesis within the stipulated time (MOHE, 2016). HDR students in Malaysia tend to prioritise completing their thesis rather than publishing during their candidature. Financial strain appeared the be the most influential factor in this, both supervisor and students being mindful of financial pressures, which can cause a lot of stress and anxiety (Khawaja & Stallman, 2011; Khodabandelou et al., 2015; Umar et al., 2014).

The dilemma students have between striving for timely completion and publishing, therefore, needs to be acknowledged by universities and supervisors and discussed more explicitly with students, given arising conflicts between HDR students, supervisors and universities (Phang et al., 2014). While in most of the cases observed, supervisors tend to impose their requirements on students without considering their opinion, it is suggested supervisors may need to reconsider their expectations of a number of student publications and rather concentrate their attention on the quality of research they are producing along with the importance of developing critical researcher, and not a KPI. Supervisors are also advised to initiate an explicit discussion with their students about their needs and preferences to avoid conflicting situations.

6.2.3 Skills and Personal Attributes

Skills and personal attributes required by research students are explicitly defined by the Malaysian Qualifications Authority (MQA, 2017). In university policies, however, little information has been provided on what essential skills both parties should develop to successfully carry research activities, and it seems there is little explicit discussion among HDR students and supervisors on such topics.

6.2.3.1 Critical Thinking

It was observed, while the need for critical thinking has been widely discussed internationally (Cadman, 2000), and acknowledged by the MQA (Malaysian Qualification Agency, 2017) as

247

a key skill required for research students, only three supervisors (and none of the students) spoke of developing critical thinking skills. Supervisors who spoke about the importance of developing critical thinking skills did not explain how their students should achieve this or how they (supervisors) should guide them to develop critical thinking. As discussed earlier in Chapter 1, with the strong dominance of neoliberalism in all levels of education, the presence of critical thinking and knowledge transformation has been erased by achieving measurable outcomes (Giroux, 2014), such as the number of publications. Students in such system are viewed as ‘empty boxes’ to be filled with knowledge (Freire, 2005; B. Moriarty et al., 2008), but certainly not as conscious individuals who are to develop critical thinking skill as an essential skill not only to produce quality work but to sustain within this world. Thus, aiming to achieve goals imposed by university representatives, who have little or no knowledge of research process (Giroux, 2014), critical thinking that has been advised by the same people to be essential was neither considered nor promoted within postgraduate research supervision practices.

Similar to the participants’ experience, within our supervision experience, we had little discussion of the importance of developing a range of skills and particularly critical-thinking. While there was no explicit discussion about developing critical-thinking and the methods and tactics that would be used, I could observe useful strategies my supervisors used to enhance my critical-thinking skills. This included allowing me to have freedom of judgement, letting me explore different methods and theories, and asking questions rather than giving students answers directly. The notion of problem-posing education proposed by Paulo Freire (Freire, 1972), which I have no doubt I experienced through my supervision was paramount to my development as a researcher. While my personal observation cannot be simply generalised as it may or may not work well for any HDR student, further research around the development of researcher critical thinking skills through problem-posing education is recommended.

6.2.3.2 Motivation

Another area of mutual expectations that require close attention and negotiation of student- supervisor expectations is a student’s motivation. A wide range of studies conducted previously have suggested HDR students expect their supervisors to provide them with

248

continuous motivation and aspiration to progress in research (Al-Naggar et al., 2012; Azure, 2016; Mcalpine & Mckinnon, 2013; Mcginty et al., 2010; Sidhu et al., 2016; I. M. Tahir et al., 2012; Woolderink et al., 2015; Yee & Mokhtar, 2013). These studies argue HDR students may lose their intrinsic motivation in a moment of crisis, and therefore supervisor is expected to help students to maintain motivation. While some of the student participants in my study have voiced similar views, the other half did not expect their supervisors to provide them with motivation, suggesting it should come from within.

The perspective of supervisors in this study, however, contradicts with findings of studies conducted previously, in which supervisors highlighted their ability to motivate their students and make them enthusiastic about their project (Woolderink et al., 2015). The results of this study indicate high level of resistance from supervisors to provide continuous motivation to their students. There are several institutional and personal reasons that could cause such position of Malaysian supervisors. Among institutional reasons, with ever-increasing demands placed on supervisors to produce more research graduates, publish their work and achieve grants (Giroux, 2014), HDR supervisors may have no time to identify the needs of their students.

Looking towards more personal perceptions of HDR supervisors, some of them doubt the ability to boost student’s motivation if students were not internally motivated to do work. Such perception could form based on the past experience of those supervisors. It is, however, possible to be the personal unwillingness of supervisors to adhere to more emotional aspects of postgraduate research supervision. Therefore, given the lack of university policy regarding this aspect, a question of whether supervisors are responsible for boosting student’s motivation or not and whether students can expect them to do so still remains largely unresolved.

This theme, therefore, represents areas where universities have yet to translate policy into practice. In particular, universities are advised to go towards developing a people-oriented approach of research supervision and emphasise on development of necessary skills in researcher, rather than simply achieving academic outcomes and remain product-oriented in nature. This need has been particularly highlighted by Ait Saadi, Collins, & Dash (2018),

249

who note discourses around the researcher development have not gained as much attention in Malaysia as discourses emphasising research output.

6.2.4 Personal Relationships

As depicted in the Hierarchical Model of Student-supervisor Expectations, personal relationships represented the least explicit and most sensitive theme relating to student- supervisor expectations. Given differences in cultures and personalities and little or no explicit guidance provided by institutions, students and supervisors are left to navigate and manage interpersonal relationships that last for at least three years.

6.2.4.1 Personal Support

As has been highlighted elsewhere, supervisors are now required not only to manage students’ research activities but also closely monitor students’ well-being (Al-Naggar et al., 2012; Franke & Arvidsson, 2011; Halse & Malfroy, 2010; Roach et al., 2019). In Malaysia, where the hierarchical culture and norms of paying respect to older and higher status individuals play an essential role in social relationships (Abdullah & Pedersen, 2003), both HDR students and supervisors question what is appropriate in those relationships and where boundaries should lay.

While dialogic pedagogy theory does not explicitly suggest the importance or ways of providing personal support and developing strong student-supervisor bond, it is suggested through the process of co-constructing knowledge together, understanding views and position of one another (Freire, 1972), both HDR students and supervisors can naturally arrive to the point of mutual understanding and identify when personal support is required. Thus, constant persistence of dialogue and open communication between parties may grant the ability to develop boundaries within which both HDR student and supervisor feel comfortable.

Adding to complexities presented by both HDR students and supervisors while constructing personal relationships, gender differences were also observed to influence the depth of personal relationships formed between students and supervisors (Yeoh, 2012). Female supervisors, in particular, preferred to avoid having any personal relationships with their male students, being afraid of gossip emerging. Such notions have likely evolved due to

250

conservative norms surrounding interactions between different genders (Heru et al., 2006), which influences the openness and affiliation one experiences in supervision (Hindes & Andrews, 2011). The effect of gender differences was observed in my supervision experience too, whereas I have developed closer relationships with my female supervisors, as compared to relationships I had with my male supervisor, which were purely professional in nature.

Apart from avoiding having personal relationships with students of different gender, results indicated that some supervisors preferred to accept only students of the same gender under their supervision, limiting opportunities for students of different genders. This aligns with the observations of Cheng (2017), who suggests some supervisors believe students of different gender tend to perform worse academically. Therefore, while both students and supervisors indicated a willingness to develop strong relationships at a personal level, Malaysian hierarchical culture and gender barriers appear to hamper this.

6.2.4.2 Conflicts and Misunderstandings

Along with the difficulties of managing personal relationships within postgraduate research supervision, conflicts and misunderstandings commonly exist between HDR students and supervisors. Both international and Malaysian studies highlight various reason for arising conflicts, anticipating the student-supervisor conflicts can lead to reduced student’s motivation, slower completion and even student’s attrition (Adrian-Taylor et al., 2007; Johansson et al., 2014; Vekkaila et al., 2013; Wisker & Robinson, 2016)

Among all, the misalignment in student-supervisor expectations has been suggested to be the primary source of the conflicts (Adrian-Taylor et al., 2007). While the findings from my study agree that most research students and supervisors face conflicting situation throughout research, we further add to previously published literature indicating the nature of conflicts and misunderstandings has been perceived differently by both HDR students and supervisors. While students tend to perceive conflicts to be professional in nature, their supervisors view it more of a personal disagreement, and particularly lack of respect towards them. Such perceptions might arise due to strong hierarchical power differentials which exist in Malaysian culture, within which it is not common for a student to openly disagree with their supervisors (Dimitrov, 2009). It may also be the effect of the banking concept of education within which students are expected to obey their masters (supervisors) (Dale & Hyslop- 251

Margison, 2010), and any arising disagreement is viewed as disrespect to status and power differentials within an established system of beliefs.

Another significant finding arose through looking at the way some supervisors tend to resolve conflicts. It appeared that some supervisors use denial and avoidance strategies when conflicts occur. This could be an effect of the Malaysian practice of ‘preserving face’ (Abdullah & Pedersen, 2003), whereby supervisors act as if they either do not notice the conflict or avoid the issue to ensure their reputation is not harmed. Another possible explanation of this behaviour might be difference in arising perceptions, where supervisors’ perceptions about themselves or the conflict clash/mismatch with those of their students. Such notion may lead to cognitive dissonance (Festinger, 1957), which occurs if the people's perceptions about themselves are inconsistent with the perceptions presented by others, making an unpleasant state of arousal that motivates attitude change (Darity, 2008). Within the banking concept of education, it becomes impossible for some supervisors to be challenged by the oppressed empty boxes, who, as perceived, have no experience and no right to have different opinions from their oppressors.

While it does not seem feasible or desirable for universities to be overly-prescriptive on how to develop interpersonal relationships, the findings from my research suggest urgent need of developing a practice that will allow explicit conversations to be opened between universities, their staff and students on what is appropriate, and what may not be. It is also suggested universities provide training on strategies of conflict resolution to be HDR students and supervisors (Adrian-Taylor et al., 2007).

6.3 Reasons for Misaligned Student-supervisor Expectations

As was seen from the discussion of results of the first round of data analysis, HDR students and supervisors often have incongruences in expectations towards each other. While researchers constantly emphasise the importance of creating a space for explicit discussion of mutual expectations (Cadman, 2000; Masek, 2017; Phang et al., 2014; Phillips & Pugh, 2005; Spear, 2000; Sullivan & Ogloff, 1998; Walford, 1981), the hierarchical model of student- supervisor expectations suggest mutual expectations, commonly, remain implicit from student’s side and only partially explicit from supervisor’s side. Therefore, the next section

252

of the discussion highlights the potential causes affecting the inability to develop an explicit discussion of mutual expectations within the Malaysian context.

6.3.1 The Impact of Hierarchical Culture

As Hofstede’s cultural comparison highlights (Hofstede Insights, 2020), Malaysia scores the highest (100%) on the power distance dimension, indicating strong persistence of, and acceptance of hierarchical relationships within local settings. Such high score can be one of the causes influencing the ability to open an explicit conversation for both HDR students and supervisors. While it is suggested elsewhere supervisors should take the initiative on an understanding of expectations of their research students (Cuenca, 2010; Masek, 2017), the results of my study indicate both inability and unwillingness from supervisors to consider their students' expectations along with strong domination of supervisors on the HDR students. Within Malaysian hierarchical settings, HDR students are expected to obey and accept the decisions of their supervisors, and disobedience is perceived as a lack of respect to the status and experience of the supervisor. From a dialogic pedagogy perspective, instead of promoting equal power relationships, HDR students become the oppressed individuals who have neither voice nor power to make any suggestions or simply voice their perspective (Freire, 1972). Paulo Freire further argued, such an authoritarian (traditional master- apprentice pedagogy) mode of education disregards critical thinking and researcher transformation through learning (Dale & Hyslop-Margison, 2010; Giroux, 2014). Indeed, this is strongly suggested in findings, where students, along with accepting the power of their supervisors, also tend to put much responsibility for the research process and results on them. The expectation of co-constructing knowledge together is substituted with students’ expectation to follow the decisions of their supervisors.

Given such a system of oppressor-oppressed is suggested to be cyclical in nature (Freire, 1972, p. 62), where the oppressed are copying the behaviour of their oppressors, HDR students tend to practice the same oppressive behaviour as they become supervisors themselves. This is similar to what is called supervising as supervised behaviour described in many studies (Holtman & Mukwada, 2014; Anne Lee, 2008; Mcalpine, 2013; Stephens, 2014), whereas a number of students anticipated using supervisory practices their former supervisors used.

253

While it is suggested the power differentials in postgraduate supervision is not always negative and can bring positive outcomes too (Boud & Lee, 2005), my research emphasise within student-supervisor relationships, the power and hierarchical status of Malaysian supervisors tend to hinder students’ ability to question the decisions and suggestions of their supervisors, and even when disagreed HDR students are forced to accept the view of the supervisors and remain silent throughout the research. Such a notion has a negative effect not only on the ability to develop strong student-supervisor relationships but also on the co- construction of knowledge. In the study conducted by Gjøtterud and Ahmad (2018), it was suggested addressing power differential issues within student-supervisor relationships and developing equal power relationships can benefit both HDR students and supervisors. The findings are of Gjøtterud and Ahmad (2018) are strongly aligned with the dialogic pedagogy perspective, which suggests only by developing equal power relationships both HDR students and supervisors can support researcher development (Khene, 2014). My personal supervision experience also supports the need for developing equal power relationships during research process as suggested by (Freire, 1972; Gjøtterud & Ahmad, 2018; Khene, 2014). Having an ability to voice out my perspective, which at times was opposite to those of my supervisors, helped me not only gain a sense of ownership of my research but also boost my motivation. As I read through our autoethnographic reflections, I observe a positive way of sharing power with my supervisors, who would continuously insist that I should decide the direction of the project, take responsibility and treated me equally to themselves. While we never had an explicit discussion specifically about our expectations, having equal power relationships within our team granted us an ability to stand our point of view clearly, slowly revealing our mutual expectations towards each other. Therefore, it is suggested the need for taking further steps to develop a practical solution towards a more liberating (student-oriented) approach, which will allow an explicit discussion of student-supervisor expectations within postgraduate research supervision in Malaysia.

6.3.2 Student-supervisor Dialogue Formation Challenges

To construct successful student-supervisor relationships, it is paramount to engage in dialogue formation. While it was suggested that within cross-cultural supervision particularly, in which both parties might have different understanding of supervision process, the development of dialogic relationships could support the building common ground for 254

successful supervisory relationships (Gjøtterud & Ahmad, 2018), this study indicates not every student-supervisor dyad was able to openly communicate within their relationships.

From the dialogic pedagogy standpoint, while dialogue is an existential necessity (Freire, 1972, p.88), it can only emerge between individuals who have willingness to critically engage with one another and have openness to different points of view occurring within a dialogue. It was argued elsewhere, the ability to listen and understand across different viewpoints is of equal importance for dialogue formation (Cuenca, 2018). In this study, both HDR students and supervisors described various reasons behind dialogue formation challenges. Students have, although indirectly, highlighted supervisors’ resistance to accept their perceptions, supervisors to approach a conversation (commonly monologic) when they required something from the student or breaching an initial agreement without communicating clearly the reasons behind it. HDR students have responded differently to the lack of dialogue in their supervisory relationships. While most of them have accepted and obeyed the monologic/directive approach of their supervisors, indicating common behaviour of an oppressed individual (Freire, 1972), one of the participants has changed the supervisor, given the inability to reach an agreement. Among all participants in this study, none has presented an ability to negotiate their position through having an explicit dialogue with their supervisors. In both case scenarios, the outcome remained negative, suggesting students either accept being oppressed and obey or leave their supervisor.

The supervisors, who unconsciously described a lack of dialogic relationships with their students presented common characteristics of an oppressor, who tell their HDR students what needs to be done and expect them to follow (Freire, 1972, p.73). It was especially noticeable when supervisors were asked about their students’ expectations. Given the majority of supervisors could not describe expectations their students might have towards them and instead mentioned multiple times their own expectations and ways they guide their students by telling them what to do, we can conclude the existence of monologic relationships. In the lesser-articulated areas of expectations, supervisors tended to question themselves whether they are acting right when providing or not providing motivation, having or not personal relationships with their students. These findings highlight the challenges for both HDR students and supervisors forming dialogic relationships. Certainly, the hierarchy of authority that has been discussed above limits the possibilities for dialogue between HDR students and

255

supervisors (Cuenca, 2018). Thus, the findings not only raise questions of how such monologic practice can be transformed into successful dialogue between HDR students and supervisors but also raises questions of the impact of monologic student-supervisor relationships on the quality of PhD theses.

Another challenge to forming dialogic relationships was revealed through autoethnographic reflection between my supervisors and myself. It appeared when a new supervisor enters the supervisory team which has already established mode of conversation (whether dialogic or monologic), several issues may arise. Having Deirdre entering the supervisory team as a new member has brought not only new perspective to my research but also conflict on negotiating communication style. Having been adapted to Heidi’s soft way of delivering information, Deirdre’s straightforward way was perceived as threatening, bringing a degree of discomfort to me as an HDR student. Difficulties to establish mutual expectations were also observed. Therefore, while establishing dialogic relationships between students and supervisors is a hard practice by itself, which many student-supervisor dyads fail to achieve, questions of how new members of supervisory team can align and negotiate their expectations within an established team require further research and investigation.

6.3.3 The ‘Toolkit’ Perspective Issue

Growing literature around postgraduate research supervision suggests the importance of higher learning institutions supporting the alignment of student-supervisor expectations. The Malaysian government has urged higher education institutions to develop policies supporting successful GoT, reducing attrition rates and improving overall research experience through setting clear expectations with the support of guidelines “that outlines how supervisors should engage with students” (Ministry of Higher Education Malaysia [MoHE], 2016, p.59).

Higher learning institutions have responded to the advice of MoHE, providing both HDR students and supervisors with guidelines on research processes (School of Graduate Studies UTM, 2018; Swinburne University of Technology, 2013; Universiti Sains Malaysia, 2012). Those guidelines, however, were mainly developed highlighting technical and administrative aspects of postgraduate research supervision, while little attention has been given to how various expectations can be successfully aligned and negotiated among parties. The findings of my study suggest a lack of awareness of those policies and guidelines from both HDR 256

students and their supervisors, who suggested either never coming across such guides or never being using them in practice.

The initiative of using student-supervisor toolkit to align mutual expectations has been commonly utilized within international context, particularly in the UK, Australia, and Canada (Cadman, 2000; Gurr, 2002; Manathunga & Goozée, 2007; Moses, 1985; Phillips & Pugh, 2005; Spear, 2000). When asked, however, none of the students or supervisors has indicated using such toolkits to discuss and negotiate their mutual expectations. This might be due to the non-existence of such a toolkit in a particular university or lack of organizational culture which does not emphasise the importance of having mutual expectations discussed.

Such neoliberal perspective of developing guidelines, but not promoting explicit discussion of mutual expectations, hinders the formation of dialogic relationships between HDR students and supervisors. While supervisors tend to voice their expectations towards students, HDR students have no institutional support to communicate their needs to their supervisors. It was further suggested, in a moment of student-supervisor conflict, students were scared to seek advice from the research department, suggesting it could affect their completion, given the power of their supervisors. Therefore, while universities take a step further by developing research policies and practices to support highlight some aspects of the supervision process, these appear to be built around neoliberal ideas and continue to reinforce monologue and power relationships within postgraduate research supervision in Malaysia.

6.4 Conclusion

Discussions between new postgraduate students and potential supervisors prior to the formalisation of student-supervisor relationships serve several useful purposes. One purpose is to explore the expectations that each partner has of the other and of themselves and the anticipated nature of those relationships (B. Moriarty et al., 2008). This is an essential practice, given the individuality of arising perceptions presented in various layers of expectations. The need for explicit discussion that can help to negotiate and align student- supervisor expectations has been presented and discussed throughout this chapter.

In Malaysia, however, strong hierarchical culture has been suggested to affect the formation of dialogic relationships and the ability to create space for explicit dialogue of expectations of

257

mutual roles and responsibilities between HDR students and supervisors, leading to monologic oppressor-oppressed relationships. A lack of supporting policies and guidelines to explicitly align mutual expectations presents further challenges developing strong student- supervisor relationships. Understanding various complexities of developing explicit discussion of mutual expectations that arise both at personal and institutional levels, I intend to extend this research by proposing Phase 3. In this phase, the findings of Phase 1 and Phase 2, along with principles of dialogic pedagogy as per Paulo Freire are combined to present a Dialogic practice to negotiate student-supervisor expectations to further address the research question of how do HDR students and supervisors negotiate and align their mutual expectations towards each other to reduce those mismatches?

Chapter 7. Phase 3 Action Research

258

7.1 Chapter Introduction

This chapter presents Phase 3 of the research, which proposes a dialogic practice to negotiate student-supervisor expectations in postgraduate research supervision in Malaysia. While at the beginning of this project there was no intention to propose any practice, after identifying wide range of student-supervisor expectations and various mismatches it presents, the understanding of the need of developing a more humanizing approach to negotiate and align student-supervisor expectations has emerged. Given existing literature (see Chapter 2 Limited Institutional Regulations of Student-supervisor Expectations ) and my conclusions (see Chapter 6 Discussion) that toolkits and guidelines that are currently used for alignment and negotiation of student-supervisor expectations tend to prescribe HDR students and supervisors the set of roles and responsibilities that they should perform rather than encourage dialogue,I sought to provide an alternative way to discuss mutual expectations. I sought to do this in a way which will leave more space open for discussion and negotiation between HDR student and supervisors.

This chapter, therefore, details a proposed dialogic practice to align and negotiate student- supervisor expectations in postgraduate research supervision in Malaysia, and reports on a final research phase of the study, used to assess the suggested practice. Taking a four-stage action research inspired approach, this chapter will highlight an existing problem, move towards the proposal of dialogic practice, invite participants to practice it, share their opinions about its usefulness, and conclude with reflection and further recommendations for improvements.

7.2 Stage 1. Current Issues in Student-supervisor Expectations Toolkits

Aiming to identify a better way for both HDR students and supervisors to initiate open discussion about their expectations, this research uses dialogic pedagogy theory together with the results that emerged from semi-structured interviews and lived experiences of myself and my supervisors to develop praxis that can create space for negotiation and alignment of student-supervisor expectations in postgraduate research supervision. By naming it ‘praxis’ and not a ‘toolkit’, I deliberately move away from the managerialist (neoliberal) checklists

259

that characterise many ‘toolkits’ and highlight the importance of action and reflection without which true praxis cannot exist.

Dialogic pedagogy suggests entering dialogue through questioning each other worldviews and trying to understand them. Communication, in this case, is anticipated to be a key component without which learning and true education are impossible (Freire, 1972). HDR students and supervisors should not build their discussion based on a ‘my responsibility, your responsibility’ notion, but rather allow themselves to question the reality of each other by fostering dialogue to gain a greater understanding of mutual expectations. Thus, instead of merely imposing worldviews on one another, they pose questions to co-create their own set of expectations by constant reflection and action activities.

Using the Hierarchical Model of Student-supervisor Expectations developed from the first round of data collection, combined with reflection on our autoethnography and key dialogic pedagogy concepts, I created a range of questions that both parties could ask themselves and each other when discussing their mutual expectations. It is intended that the proposed set of open questions should not be prescriptive in nature. Rather than being seen as a list of items required to be followed, it should instead help identify the misalignments in expectations that can be addressed between HDR student and supervisor. Understanding the strong influence of power inequalities between HDR students and supervisors, lack of institutional support and students and supervisors' inability to carry out an explicit dialogue, such practice that acknowledges misalignments and helps to address it can bring a positive outcome to the formation of successful supervisory relationships.

7.3 Stage 2. Dialogic Pedagogy Practice to Negotiate Student-supervisor Expectations

This practice has been developed to support research students and supervisors align their understandings and expectations of their respective roles and responsibilities in the student- supervisor relationship. Recognizing the wide range of contexts, constraints and needs of students and supervisors, it does not aim to prescribe ‘best practice’ or to define roles and responsibilities played by HDR students and supervisors. Instead, it encourages students and supervisors to create space for explicit dialogue between themselves by suggesting a range of questions that parties could potentially ask each other. This approach aims to support students 260

and supervisors in developing a unique set of expectations suitable to their particular student- supervisor dyad’s needs and concerns, allowing them to consider such contexts as personal background, societal cultures and university contexts.

This document is built on the results of a doctoral research project by Irina Baydarova, combined with literature relating to critical pedagogy practices proposed by Paulo Freire in his work Pedagogy of the Oppressed (Freire, 1972). In the spirit of dialogic pedagogy, the questions provided below in Table 10 should not be used as a simple checklist to be visited once and then put away. Rather, they should be treated as a foundation or starting point for opening ongoing dialogue.

Principals for Using this Practice:

1. Dialogue between students and supervisors should be for the purpose of reflection and action. Both parties should be open to explore each other views and allow for some negotiation. 2. While this document highlights various aspects of roles and responsibilities which may be useful to discuss, this list is not exhaustive. Students and supervisors should remain open to discuss other questions that may arise from both sides during explicit discussion. 3. Practicing an explicit dialogue cannot be reduced to one-time exercise. As student progresses and student and supervisor get to know each other better, their needs and expectations may change. Therefore, the discussions and discussion outcomes advocated here shall be revisited at various stages of the student’s candidature.

Step 1. Preparation for Explicit Discussion

Before meeting and having an explicit dialogue about mutual expectations, both student and supervisor are advised to think about their expectations towards themselves as well as towards their counterparts:

What roles and responsibilities do I expect from my supervisor/student? What are my roles and responsibilities as a research student/supervisor?

261

In Chapter 4, I detailed how different aspects of the student-supervisor relationship which tend to remain more/less implicit/explicit (see Hierarchical Model of Student-supervisor Expectations). This indicates that even when expectations are stated explicitly, there is still room for misunderstanding due to the many layers of meaning or assumptions. For example, if you expect a high level of personal support, what do you assume personal support includes/excludes?

Therefore, HDR students and supervisors are encouraged to think about diverse expectations they may develop towards each other and themselves by providing examples of questions or behaviours to be thought about before meeting each other for an explicit discussion. The potential questions to think of is presented in Table 12 below.

Table 12 Proposed questions for discussion of student-supervisor expectations

Questions for Discussion of Student-supervisor Expectations

Academic Practice

Guidance

a) How do I interpret the meaning of ‘guidance’ as it relates to my candidature and research project? b) In what form/when will I receive/provide guidance? Supervisory Access

a) Students and supervisors are normally encouraged to hold regular meetings. What is my understanding of ‘regular’ meetings? b) What modes of communication are preferred / acceptable? (e.g. face to face, email). Feedback

a) In my understanding, what is meant by constructive and timely feedback? b) How should I receive/give constructive and timely feedback? Why? Updating on Research Progress

a) How often do I expect to update/receive regular updates on the current progress of work? b) Who/what/why/when expects to be updated, and how should these updates be communicated? Academic Outcomes

a) What are my perceptions of the need for timely completion (‘Graduate on Time ((GoT)) and producing publications? b) Do I prioritize one over the other? 262

Skills and Personal Attributes

Diversity Awareness

a) Are there any dimensions of personal/social/cultural difference that might impact on our ways of working or personal relationship? b) How/when might you discuss these with your supervisor/student? Students’ Motivation

a) What role do I believe motivation plays in the progress of a student’s research? b) What is the primary source of motivation for this student/me as a student? Are there other sources of motivation that should be kept in mind? Critical Thinking

a) How can/should critical thinking skills be developed in researchers? b) Who is responsible for the development of critical thinking skills in research students? Knowledge

a) To what extent is it important for a supervisor to be a specialist in the same field of research as the student? b) Would you prefer to have team supervision or one-to-one supervision? If teams of supervisors with different expertise are involved, what/how they should contribute to the project/supervision process? Personal Relationships

Personal Support

a) What do I understand by the meaning of providing/receiving personal support? b) To what extent is such personal support being appropriate in my student-supervisor relationship? c) To what extent is it essential for student-supervisors to be aware of the personal circumstances of one another? Conflict/Misunderstanding

a) What areas of our project/relationship do I envisage could be the source of future conflict? b) What strategies can I use as a research student/supervisor to avoid/minimise conflict? Clarifying Expectations

a) How will I (student-supervisor) clarify arising/changing expectations with my student-supervisor?

263

Step 2. Student-supervisor Dialogue to Negotiate Mutually Agreed Expectations

Understanding the expectations of students and supervisors is an essential practice, which requires explicit dialogue and, in many cases, a degree of negotiation of expected roles and responsibilities. While initiating dialogue to negotiate student-supervisor expectations can support the identification of misalignments in expectations in the particular student- supervisor dyad, the process of negotiating those misaligned aspects can support the successful alignment of expectations. As student and supervisor enter dialogue, it shall not be limited to a simple exchange of ideas between two individuals (Freire, 1972), as it does not lead towards the understanding of each other points of views. Therefore, both student and supervisor are encouraged to initiate explicit dialogue to discuss the expectations they developed during Stage 1 and by actively engaging with ideas of one another co-construct a set of mutual expectations at this stage.

Step 3. Revision: Reflection and Action

Given that human perceptions, expectations and beliefs tend to take shape over time and with experience, as students progress through their candidature and student-supervisor relationships develop, some areas of student-supervisor expectations may require readjustment/negotiation (James & Baldwin, 1999). Students tend to expect a different degree of support, guidance, feedback and other aspects as they progress from early stage of research, moving towards their second and third year. At the same time, supervisors might expect students to develop a greater degree of independence as they progress.

To allow expectations to remain aligned throughout student’s candidature, it is advised that the student and supervisor remain conscious by reflecting (identifying current misalignments in expectations) and acting (through dialogue and negotiation) accordingly. Identifying arising misalignments in expectations might be a difficult practice, given that people tend not to notice changes occurring within themselves; yet they may discover a degree of discomfort with current practices they use. Therefore, it could be useful to keep on notes/diary to track the changes and how those changes can affect mutual expectations. This practice will allow both student and supervisor to identify why a certain degree of discomfort could occur

264

(reflect) and (act) by initiating an explicit discussion to negotiate their expectations accordingly.

In the next section of this chapter, I present two narratives of student-supervisor dyads who accepted to become a part of this study and try the proposed dialogic practice within their supervisory relationships. Their experiences of applying dialogic practice are presented, along with a discussion of the benefits and challenges that arose.

7.4 Stage 3. Narrative of Two Student-supervisor Dyads

Narrative one: Ahmed, Calvin and John

When I first approached Ahmed, Calvin (doctoral students) and John (their supervisor) to participate in this phase of the study, among dozens of other student-supervisor pairs I approached, they were the only people that presented no resistance or hesitation. Struggling to find student-supervisor pairs willing to participate in this study after being rejected or left ignored by several potential participants, I was excited to learn of their experiences. As soon as they agreed to participate in this project, I have given the participants Dialogic Practice and advised on the main stages of it. I did not expect any challenges for participants and throughout two months period I had multiple calls and informal conversations with Ahmed and Calvin to support the process and provide clarification where required. Ahmed, while happy to become a part of the study at first, soon started to show a degree of discomfort which I was quite concerned about. In particular, he voiced difficulties formulating his set of expectations towards the supervisor, suggesting “it does not really work this way”. He also expressed a degree of discomfort to have a face-to-face interview, asking whether we could do it online. Therefore, being quite worried about how the process is going I was trying to keep close contact with students, understanding their feelings of vulnerability and sensitivity. A few months later, they described their experiences in the paired interview session, the results of which I am presenting.

Both students came from different cultural and institutional settings. Calvin was an African student with previous experience of studying in Australasia, and Ahmed was a Middle Eastern student based in Malaysia. As with many of my participants from Phase 1, they have

265

met their supervisor through recommendation of other lecturers nearly one year ago and talked enthusiastically about working on their PhDs. While they approached their first conversation with their potential supervisor differently given Ahmed was a former student at the same university and Calvin was coming to study in Malaysia from another country, they both suggested having an initial discussion around similar aspects of supervision. They talked about the research topic and research process itself; their mutual expectations, however, were not discussed. John, their supervisor, is young and research-active professional. As he spoke of getting to know new students, he suggested he had never initiated any explicit discussion of expectations, emphasising that he did not approach supervision with any specific expectations towards his students. As per his words,

[Irina]

So, can you tell me what do you usually discuss with your students? What kind of expectations do you mention to them before they start working with you?

[John]

That's a really good question. I think we actually talk about the topic or research. I just talk about the research itself. Maybe for me I don't really have expectations on my students, I just allow them to do what they want to do, and I got them along the way, so they will be able to achieve their goal. Some supervisors' expectations are completion, or how many times you must see me and stuff like that. To me, I don't really have expectations. It is up to the student to come and see me when they have problem, because I think we are all adults here and if they need any advice, I’m sure they will come.

Ahmed and Calvin also confirmed not having had any formal and explicit conversation of their expectations before engaging with this research. Thus, having their expectations not explicitly discussed throughout the time of students’ enrollment, understanding how they have addressed different stages of dialogic practice was essential to me. In particular, I wanted to understand how they have approached the development of expectations before an 266

explicit discussion. All of them presented different views; while Calvin suggested using his previous supervision experience from his honours degree to formulate expectations, Ahmed took a different approach. He described,

[Ahmed]

In the beginning, I told you before, I thought of it as an understanding. So, I thought with time, I will eventually understand more and he will understand more. And to be honest, once he emailed me thing, we had to email to you (replies on the questions), I actually understood him more. Then I was like OK. Maybe I’m wrong, but I aligned my answers with his answers. Somehow, I felt that way. Because it is an understanding to me, not much of the expectations. So, yea.

Their supervisor, at the same time, decided to be straight forward while developing a set of his expectations, reflecting on his actual supervision experience. He highlighted,

[John]

I just looked at the questions. And the best way of answering them is just to be honest. And I think, my answer actually...I believe... my answers actually reflect... you guys may feel otherwise you can say (to his students), which is whatever I think I say and how I respond to those questions is actually implemented.

While both Calvin and John presented strong independent positions on developing their expectations, Ahmed’s answer was less clear and confident. It was difficult to ascertain whether he was trying to simply satisfy his supervisor, did not know what to expect, or whether he actually felt comfortable adjusting his expectations with those of his supervisor. I then remembered how worried he appeared when we had discussions prior to this interview. Coming from a country with a high power distance index, Ahmed was not sure whether he could actually place expectations as a student. Calling me multiple times, he would again ask me, “Ira, and what guidance do you expect from your supervisor?” trying to gain that understanding. While Ahmed has previously filled student-supervisor agreement, a toolkit for

267

students and supervisors to align their roles and responsibilities, lack of interpretation of what guidance, feedback, supervisory access and other research-related processes possess presented challenges as he started to formulate his expectations. Therefore, been concerned about Ahmed, I questioned him during the interview to understand his position better. While Ahmed was explaining his position, John rushed to defend him and explain,

[Irina]

So, you tend to accept your supervisor's view?

[Ahmed]

Yes.

[Irina]

But if your position is different?

[Ahmed]

Because I think, me listening is part of me learning, you know. If every time I have something of my own to say, then it will be more challenging, I will not learn as much as I want to learn, so I try my best to listen rather than...

[Irina]

But isn't it about developing critical thinking through challenging each other, questioning each other? But if you just think differently?

[John]

I think Ahmed has not come to this point yet. Ahmed one so far has been very logical. I mean it is logical to go with the floor now. There are no competing views here…

268

While I was empathetic to John’s position of defending and supporting Ahmed, that statement he made about competing views has stuck in my mind. It made me wonder whether John genuinely believed that they (his students) did not have those competing views or whether he just could not notice it, given Ahmed’s dependent position and inability to understand and voice his perceptions.

To gain a better understanding of how participants felt discussing their mutual expectations, I asked them to share their experience of practicing an explicit dialogue as the second stage of Dialogic Practice. They described not following the initial guide; they did not talk about their expectations explicitly as was advised in the Dialogic Practice guide. Instead, they emailed answers to proposed questions to each other and to me as well. On my concerns of why they did not feel like discussing their expectations face-to-face, they first suggested to have tight schedules, then claimed on not having the need to do so. While taking a different approach from those I was proposing in the guide, all spoke about already having mutual understanding, flexibility, ability to have an explicit discussion without implementing the dialogic practice. From the comments of both students and supervisor,

[John]

No. Very simple. Any problem, you can ask me. Whether it is professional reason or personal reason. Any problem, ask. If I can provide advice, I will do it. If I feel that I don't know the answer I will say I don't know the answer. And I will direct to more appropriate source that I feel could help whether it is professional or personal […].

[Ahmed]

I think no. I think every time I have an issue, I would immediately email my supervisor.

[Calvin]

Ok. So, if I have certain expectations, I say it. As I told you earlier, what is not said cannot be met.

269

While participants did not implement the communication practice I had recommended throughout this study, they all agreed on importance of practicing it. Certainly, John was applying an open communication approach with his students to create a trustable and flexible environment. He spoke of been supervised in a similar manner and felt comfortable as he was a PhD student himself. He suggested,

[John]

I think the issue that you are facing here like how come there is no tension involved is because you create an environment that minimises this tension. I think that is important. A lot of supervisors, I think, they have forgotten what they have gone through during their PhD. Some of them feel, if I suffer during my PhD, my student also should suffer. So, to me it is alright. Maybe for my own experience, because I had a lot of flexibility, so maybe that's why I practice that with my students.

[Irina]

But you, as a supervisor, allow your students to openly argue with you?

[John]

Yes, why not? The student is an expert and supervisor is just a compass. At the end, it is for student to make a decision. It is up to supervisor to convince the student this is how I see it and that is the reason, but the supervisor must also be open to the student's point of view. So, the supervisor must be logical and not self-centered. Some supervisors decide for student what to do. It is wrong. You cannot determine the method for study, before you actually find out what is going on. So, I think it is very important to have a very open mind to be able to agree or disagree. Both sides, whether it is supervisor or student. Whether there is something placed on discussion table, both parties must understand it and be open to agree or disagree and see where the person is coming from. And if you feel the person is coming from the view which is not very correct or could be 270

misunderstood, then maybe you need to clarify and to create that understanding.

John appeared to contradict this early impression I created about him during our conversation of being enforcing his opinion on his students. As he spoke about treating his students as experts, I recalled his opinion of Ahmed being not ready to present competing views.

At the same time, looking at how Calvin was approaching and disagreeing with John in certain aspects and how John was describing their arguments over different perspectives they present further developed my awareness of their strong student-supervisor relationships. John presented degree of awareness of his students’ needs, expectations, capabilities and differences. While Calvin expected to be more independent while carrying out research, Ahmed required more guidance and reassurance to progress smoothly. Yet, in both cases, John was able to identify their needs and provide support to the expected extent.

Throughout our interview session, I was wondering how open, flexible and warm I felt seeing these students and supervisor communicating with each other. I have done many separate interviews with both postgraduate students and supervisors; in none of them, I caught that feeling of students being not concerned about whether what they say will be later judged by their supervisor. In many cases, supervisors were commonly cautious too when revealing their experiences. On my comment of having first time seen such open communication without any presence of power dominations, all suggested small age gap and same gender (all participants are male) supported them to establish strong bond and stay open with each other about their expectations. Indeed, some of my participants from phase 1 of the research presented similar views, suggesting it is more comfortable to work with the same gender, particularly among females.

Reading through their files on clarification of expectations, I have noticed all of them highlighted communication to be the key aspect in their supervisory relationships. Their conflicting views were well resolved with the presence of negotiation and ability to understand each other views. Throughout the interview, John emphasised that suggesting,

271

[John]

The student is expert, and the supervisor is never an expert. So they read, so they understand, right? But when they ask for feedback from supervisor, the supervisor may see differently and can bring different kind of feedback. But if student says no and suggests different perspective with the reason, then this is when you start to see back and forth kind of conversation.

While they suggested the proposed practice was not as useful for their particular case, given already established strong student-supervisor relationships, they still believed Dialogic Practice to be a useful guide for alignment of student-supervisor expectations. From their comments,

[John]

I think it is reaffirming the things that are happening in our case. Maybe that is why it is not surprising to us. Because we also have very flexible and open approach. And this practice actually reaffirms that, so that is why it doesn't surprise us in that sense. But i think it is good that it reaffirms.

[Ahmed]

I think it was nice. Look I understand your intentions, you want to make it more transparent, and make better experience for students and supervisors. And I think even though we are not facing some things you are worried about, it made us more... it became more transparent once you put everything on the paper. The understanding between me and my supervisor is maximizing due to your work.

In summary, this case serves as an example of potential benefits that student-supervisor dyads may receive applying explicit dialogue and negotiation in their supervisory relationships. While it was noticeable that the cultural and social differences between Calvin

272

and Ahmed played an essential role in their PhD journey and ability to carry an explicit discussion with their supervisor, John’s ability to understand those differences and communicate openly with his students has helped them to voice out their issues and concerns (whether personal or professional), accept each other position and co-constructing knowledge together. While John did not articulate any direct benefits to himself by using this practice, he did reaffirm that participation in this study was important for him as a supervisor.

Narrative two: Faizal and Mohammed

Faizal and Mohammed were the second student-supervisor dyad who accepted the invitation to participate in this part of the study by trying to apply the dialogic practice to negotiate their mutual expectations. Having not previously communicated and not knowing them personally (as I did with the first student-supervisor dyad), I was both worried about how smoothly the process would go and curious to learn of their experiences. Knowing that both were Malaysians was another aspect to consider when exploring their experiences and comparing them to the first dyad’s experiences. This phase of research was conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic when face-to-face meetings were impossible, so we agreed to conduct this joint interview online.

As Faizal started to introduce himself, he directly mentioned knowing his supervisor Mohammed prior to starting his PhD research. He explained that Mohammed had been a senior during his bachelor degree, and they had taken a course together with Mohammed’s relative. Mohammed, the supervisor, was a former student at a Malaysian university but had completed his PhD in Australia. While knowing each other personally prior to starting to work together, Faizal and Mohammed had never explicitly discussed their expectations of each other beyond administrative aspects explicit in university policy. The expectations around personal support, which goes beyond prescribed institutional policies, remained undiscussed in their student-supervisor dyad. Therefore, hoping they will learn more about each other’s need and expectations, I have provided them with Dialogic Practice.

During the interview, as soon as I started questioning both Faizal and Mohammed on their experiences of implementing and using dialogic practice, I discovered that they had not used it. While neither offered the information that they had not actually used the practice, they were unable to answer any of the questions I asked them about it, and I observed a high 273

degree of confusion and discomfort from both participants. Realised that continuing my planned questioning about their experience with dialogic practice will not bring any useful outcome, I then decided to come from a different angle and try to understand the position they took in not applying dialogic practice guide in their relationships. To initiate the discussion, I asked both of them what their expectations of the student-supervisor relationship are. As per Mohammed’s words,

[Mohammed]

Let's say in our university we have this kind of candidature, similar to your school. Before Faizal had to go through CE (comprehensive examination), so there are few things he needs to fulfil. So, he needs to come up with this proposal. So, we are working on this stage basis. We fit him with what he has to look for, so the expectations at that stage to make sure he understands what the areas are we are asking him to look for. So that kind of expectations we need towards him. You must master this theory, and you must master this area, you have to look for this person, publication or article to make sure you understand the whole story, the whole discussion. So, these expectations are based on stages. But we did spell out what are the expectations, but it is based on stages.

Faizal, in contrast, had less articulated expectations. When asked, he took few minutes to think and suggested,

[Faizal]

[…] So, I’m expecting to get feedback and then I will continue research process or the writing, the thing that I want to do. So, my expectations maybe I want to start collecting, then I will be sure how to finish up, but I must have confirmation with supervisor. Yes.

Both Faizal and Mohammed were clear about their expectations of supervision processes and academic outcomes, but when I started questioning them more about research skills, motivation and the development of strong supervisory relationships, it was noticeable that 274

they never had discussion on these areas of expectations. Talking in-depth with Mohammed about motivating Faizal, he believed Faizal was getting motivated by them (supervisory team) when timely feedback and research guidance was provided. He explained,

[Mohammed]

So, everyone is looking at Faizal’s research and giving feedback. At the same time, it motivates Faizal telling him that the research is reliable, and the research is not only him and me believe it is good research, but there is someone else who is telling that it is good research. I think it is motivating him.

Faizal seems to agree with his supervisor, suggesting the main source of motivation was continuous discussion and feedback provided by his supervisors. Overall, I had the perception Faizal tended to agree with his supervisors and act accordingly. Such perception has strengthened as I started to question both of them in regard to negotiation their mutual expectations and potential areas of misalignment. Faizal recalled the situation, where one of his supervisors insisted on submitting the application for grant, and while Faizal believed not having enough time for it still decided to follow his supervisor. As he started to explain the situation, he suggested,

[Faizal]

The expectation for the grant was little shock for the starting, because I needed to do proper paper, better than before, because for grant you need to write it. I think after I wrote the proposal my research moved faster, but gave me the stress because the proposal needed a lot of time. At that time I was still in the process of preparing my research proposal I don't know. It was a little bit stressful, something like that, for the beginning.

Mohammed, trying to defend the decision taken by his supervisor suggested application for proposal to be useful for Faizal, given the project has the potential. At the same time, as I asked Mohammed to clarify whether Faizal had a choice to reject and not submit application for the grant, I could notice both participants presented degree of discomfort. Both

275

Mohammed and Faizal tried to defend the decision to apply for grant taken by another supervisor. They suggested,

[Mohammed]

If it was me the supervisor, I would give him an option whether... it is grant, it is good for you to apply, but it is up to you. Because as long as it is not a requirement for the student to have a grant to be graduated, I will not ask student to do. The same goes for publication. But maybe the other supervisor think that the project is very potential, and it is a waste if you did not apply for the grant.

[Faizal]

It was not a must. Because Mohammed told me before, there was an opportunity if we apply for grant, because at that time my other supervisor thought it is OK to try to get the grant. First time, I didn't do the grant, but supervisor encourages me to do and then suddenly...I thought the deadline is already up, and I don't do it. Suddenly, the time is extended, then I was like OK, we just try again.

Throughout the interview, I sensed a lack of alignment of understanding by these participants. The statement Faizal made when defending his supervisor’s decision did not sound convincing. It seemed contradictory; I was now questioning whether he truly believed application for the grant was beneficial to him or just did not have a choice to reject. His words “suddenly, the time is extended, then I was like OK, we just try again” sounded more like as lack of choice rather than the free decision he made himself.

This case presents an example of the hierarchical top-down structure of postgraduate supervision in Malaysia which I have observed during discussions with some of participants in Phase 1. Power distance and hierarchy within such approach played a significant role in the development of supervisory relationships and the ability to construct an explicit dialogue. While both Faizal and Mohammed presented strong supervisory relationships, such relationships were limited to the rules and regulations of institutional policies. Their

276

acceptance to participate in this project but resistance to apply dialogic practice guide align with the existing issues in postgraduate research supervision in Malaysia. These issues were highlighted in Chapter 4 Round 2 results, where after critically reviewing interviews through the lenses of dialogic pedagogy theory, power and hierarchy, inability to construct explicit dialogue and lack of institutional support were identified as reasons hindering explicit alignment of student-supervisor expectations in Malaysia.

7.5 Stage 4 Reflection on Dialogic Practice Implementation and Suggestions for Improving Practice

It was suggested earlier in this chapter that the outcomes of dialogic praxis would be expected to differ significantly among individuals, given attitudes, cultures and the previous experience of diverse research students and supervisors. The experiences and attitudes of two student-supervisor pairs while implementing dialogic practice support this statement. Although both pairs showed good supervisory relationships, in the case of Faizal and Mohammed, the participants were not able to implement the dialogic practice in their supervisory relationship. In Ahmed, Calvin and John’s case, the dialogic practice was modified and adapted to their needs but perceived positively, suggesting the importance of reaffirmation of their current supervisory practices and in getting to know better each other’s position. Such variance in observed behaviour was previously identified in Phase 1 research, where a few students and supervisors spoke of the importance of understanding each other needs and expectations, but the majority had never done so.

During the paired interview session with Faizal and Mohammed, I was going back and forth with interview questions, trying to gain an understanding of participants’ experiences using the dialogic practice guide. Analysing the interview transcript, I have identified a high degree of resistance to use the practice to negotiate and align their mutual expectations. Being unable to directly question their choice of not implementing the practice, I tried to understand their position by asking general questions about their supervisory relationships. Their approach may be understood in terms of the power distance existing within Malaysian culture, which appears to have prevented Faizal and Mohammed to openly question each other. It was especially noticeable as they refused to implement the practice in their relationships, and later throughout the interview clarified their intentions to have a discussion around administrative

277

and technical aspects of supervision only. They overall stated, developing personal relationships or going beyond the requirements placed by the university to complete PhD was not their concern. As per Mohammed’s words:

[Mohammed]

I don't think I have any other expectations for Faizal. I think we have told him what to do, and we expect him to reach. There is nothing beyond...I’m sure I don't have other expectations apart from him GoT and focus on the research and make sure every week he delivers what we ask him to do.

Another statement supporting strong power distance and hierarchy has come from the last question I asked Faizal regarding his experiences of being a research student. He suggested,

[Faizal]

Since I’m also educator, in my PhD I try to become good student and because Mohammed is also my senior, so I try to put aside the feelings. I try to be a good student to follow ethics or the rules. Sometimes, I try to improve my method and also I try to downgrade because now I’m in my learning process, so the way of our discussion I try to be a good student and try to get input to benefit me, benefit my research and also to get all the research.

Similar to student participants of Phase 1, Faizal, although being academic, acknowledged the power and status of his supervisors by not questioning the decisions they make. He believed to be a good student is to follow the hierarchy and rules set by Malaysian culture.

The inability to implement the dialogic practice in their dyad was further revealed as we discussed negotiation processes within their dyad. When asked, Faizal (student) suggested that he accepted decisions made by his supervisors, even though at times he was not agreeing. Reflecting on applying for a grant, Faizal described difficulties accepting the position of his supervisor, who insisted on the need to submit the grant application. He, however, did not explicitly clarify his disagreement and proceeded with submitting the application. Similarly, throughout our interview, Faizal did not voice any direct disagreement with his supervisor 278

position. Similar to some of the student participants from Phase 1, Faizal and his supervisors presented a lack of dialogue in their relationships and strong power distance and hierarchy in their supervisory relationships. His supervisors, at the same time, were similar to many supervisor interviewees in Phase 1, who only clarified their own expectations, showing little interest in gaining an understanding of their student’s expectations.

The results of this action research phase of my research project made clear that dialogic practice can not provide a universal solution. Rather, it highlights the varying individual approaches to dialogic practice that people will use in their student-supervisor relationships. While it is crucial to the idea of dialogic practice that it be a voluntary practice that cannot be enforced in student-supervisor dyads, it is clear that in the Malaysian context, it will be unlikely to be taken up by many students and supervisors without increased encouragement by higher learning institutions.

279

Chapter 8. Contribution, Limitations and Further Research Suggestions

8.1 Chapter Introduction

In this chapter, I summarise the main outcomes of this research, highlighting the theoretical and practical contribution it makes to our understanding of student-supervisor expectations within postgraduate research supervision in Malaysia. Limitations of the research are also discussed, and suggestions for further research are made.

8.2 Contribution to Knowledge

In this section, I summarise the key areas presented in the preceding sections that add support to and extend our understanding of expectations between HDR students and their supervisors.

8.2.1 Key Contributions to Understanding and Supporting the Alignment of Student- supervisor Expectations

Section 4.3 Hierarchical Model of Student-supervisor Expectations

a. The hierarchical model of student-supervisor expectations contributes to knowledge by classifying student-supervisor expectations and the arising differences in student- supervisor perceptions.

b. The hierarchical model of student-supervisor expectations contributes to knowledge by describing the extent to which both students and supervisors are able to implicitly or explicitly clarify their mutual expectations arising throughout the supervision relationship.

Section 5.2

a) Contributes to knowledge by exposing the emotional side of student-supervisor expectations’ formation and alignment by presenting a co-constructed narrative of supervisors and student-researcher.

280

Section 6.2.1.1

a. Supports previously published works that indicate the importance of academic guidance for both HDR students and supervisors (Doyle, Manathunga, Prinsen, Tallon, et al., 2017; Mcginty et al., 2010; Sidhu et al., 2016).

b. Contributes to knowledge by identifying various perspectives on what academic guidance should look like from students’ and supervisors’ view, given the lack of clear interpretation within institutional policies.

c. Corroborates dialogic pedagogy theory by explicitly highlighting the inability of most students and students to discuss and negotiate arising perceptions regarding the appropriate level of guidance.

Section 6.2.1.2

d. Highlights the need for explicit discussion about importance of aligned feedback method among research supervisors in postgraduate team supervision.

Section 6.2.1.3

e. Supports the importance of having regular supervisory meetings and continuous communication, whether face-to-face or with support of online tools (Helfer & Drew, 2019; Hunter & Devine, 2016; Naim & Dhanapal, 2015; Roach et al., 2019).

f. Extends knowledge of differing student-supervisor expectations relating to regular meetings as well as whether those meetings are to be scheduled or not.

Section 6.2.1.4

g. Contradicts previously published results (Naim & Dhanapal, 2015; Pang et al., 2015), presenting agreement between HDR students and supervisors regarding responsibility on updating on research progress is placed on the student.

281

Section 6.2.2

h. Supports the literature by emphasising the dilemma students have between striving for timely completion and publishing (Rawat & Meena, 2014).

Section 6.2.3.1

i. Highlights the need for explicit discussion about developing critical-thinking and the methods and tactics that shall be used.

Section 6.2.3.2

j. Supports the findings of previous studies, which highlight the importance of students receiving motivation from their supervisors (Al-Naggar et al., 2012; Azure, 2016; Sidhu et al., 2016; Woolderink et al., 2015; Yee & Mokhtar, 2013).

k. Contradicts previously published results (Woolderink et al., 2015) by suggesting within the Malaysian context, supervisors do not view the motivation of students to be their responsibility.

l. Provides evidence of the importance of developing a people-oriented rather than an outcome-oriented pedagogical approach (Ait Saadi et al., 2018).

Section 6.2.4.1

m. Highlights the need to identify personal support boundaries for successful alignment of student-supervisor expectations.

n. Supports the literature on gender differences as an influencing factor in personal relationships formation (Hindes & Andrews, 2011; Yeoh, 2012).

Section 6.2.4.2

o. Corroborates literature suggesting a conflict between students and supervisors has negative effects on students’ motivation, satisfaction and timely completion (Johansson et al., 2014; Wisker & Robinson, 2016).

282

p. Extends knowledge of different perceptions of students and supervisors towards the nature of conflicts and misunderstandings. While HDR students view conflicts to be professional in nature; supervisors believe conflicts to be personal, in particular, lack of respect.

q. Extends existing knowledge of conflicts between HDR students and supervisors, suggesting within Malaysian hierarchical culture, to preserve face some supervisors used denial and avoidance strategies when conflicts occur.

Section 6.3.1

r. Extends knowledge by highlighting the tendency for Malaysian supervisors to be unwilling or unable to consider their students' expectations and to dominate the student-supervisor relationship.

s. Corroborates the supervising as supervised practice (Holtman & Mukwada, 2014; Anne Lee, 2008; Mcalpine, 2013; Stephens, 2014), where supervisors suggest using supervisory practices their former supervisors used.

t. Supports the argument that more equal power relationships are needed during the research process (Freire, 1972; Gjøtterud & Ahmad, 2018; Khene, 2014).

Section 6.3.2

u. While supporting the need for dialogue between HDR students and supervisors (Cuenca, 2018; Freire, 1972), the study extends knowledge by identifying and describing challenges of dialogue formation presented by both parties.

v. Supports the proposition that strong hierarchy and authority limit the possibilities for dialogue between HDR students and supervisors (Cuenca, 2018).

Section 6.3.3

w. Identifies HDR students’ and supervisors’ lack of awareness of supporting university guidelines or toolkits to discuss and negotiate their mutual expectations.

283

Section 7.3 Dialogic Pedagogy Practice to Negotiate Student-supervisor Expectations

a) Proposes a new way to apply dialogic pedagogy within postgraduate research supervision, aiming to help align and negotiate student-supervisor expectations.

8.3 Limitations of the Research

This research was designed to explore student-supervisor expectations, identify existing alignments and misalignments, and to suggest potential ways to minimise those gaps. While I have justified the choice of phenomenology, autoethnography and action research as methods used in this research to data production, collection and analysis in Chapter 3, in this section, I reflect on limitations associated with the research design.

8.3.1 Size of Study

As I sought to explore in-depth the arising expectations of students and supervisors, compare them and identify potential misalignments in those expectations, a relatively small number of participants were interviewed. While I have gained a lot of new insights throughout this study, it does not allow me to generalise or test these findings for their applicability across larger populations. It is, however, suggested the concepts presented in this study may further be incorporated into larger scale studies to identify how well they align or apply with different groups of students and supervisors from diverse cultural and social backgrounds.

8.3.2 Student Participants’ Selection Criteria

Given ethical considerations, in Phase 1 the use of matched student-supervisor pairs was purposely avoided to limit the potential risk posed to relationships between currently enrolled doctoral students and supervisors. That was considered especially important given the sensitivity of topics discussed and the potential for harming current student-supervisor relationships. Throughout all phases of research, however, student participants often demonstrated a degree of discomfort with having an in-depth discussion around their supervision experiences, especially of the more emotional and personal aspects. To further mitigate such limitations, it is suggested future studies to be conducted with research students 284

who have completed their degrees and may feel less constraints in openly discussing the more delicate details of their supervision experiences.

8.3.3 Use of Audio Recorder

A notable feature that has influenced the depth of some of the interviews was an audio recorder placed on the table during an interview session. While most of the participants did not pay attention to it, some who particularly had negative supervision experience appeared worried about sharing their experiences and stories. One of the participants waited for me to finish an interview and switch off the audio recorder before sharing some negative experiences of supervision. It is suggested, therefore, to maintain a comfortable environment and allow participants to share their personal stories without fear to keep the audio recorder off and take scratch notes.

8.3.3 Researcher Positionality

Being a currently enrolled research student at the time this study was conducted, my personal experiences of negotiating and aligning mutual expectations with my supervisors could affect my interpretation of stories presented by participants. While I tried to be reflexive and position myself as a neutral outsider during Phase 1 and Phase 3, I should acknowledge that during interviews with participants and analysis of their experiences, I may have stressed some aspects more than others, potentially leading to overlooking the significance of some aspects of participants’ stories. To minimise it, I sought to make this research transparent and present information rigorously through the use of verbatim quotations and constant comparisons. Given the nature of qualitative research, it would be interesting to invite other researchers to analyse and present their interpretations of data collected to allow comparison.

8.4 Suggestions for Further Research

In this section, I suggest several aspects of student-supervisor expectations negotiation and alignment and broader aspects of postgraduate research supervision practices that deserve further research attention. By doing so, I propose several questions that may be addressed in future research.

285

Suggested question on alignment and negotiation of student-supervisor expectations: How can higher learning institutions promote explicit dialogue formation between HDR students and supervisors to support the establishment of supervisory relationships and alignment of arising expectations?

While during Phase 3 of this study, I have proposed a Dialogic Practice Guide to support alignment and negotiation of mutual expectations, this approach comes to more individual interactions between HDR students and supervisors. More research can be conducted identifying institutional practices and approaches that can help student-supervisor expectations alignment. Critical pedagogy and feminist theories can be explored in-depth to support the development of institutional practices to enhance the understanding of students and supervisors when clarifying their mutual expectations to each other and developing supervisory relationships.

Suggested questions on research outcomes: How can the dilemma between the importance of achieving Graduate on Time (GoT) and publications expectations be resolved? What can higher learning institutions do to support HDR students in achieving research outcomes?

The dilemma students have between striving for timely completion and publishing requires central attention, given arising conflicts between HDR students, supervisors and universities. It is suggested that further research should be conducted on identifying potential solutions/practices that could support HDR students resolve the dilemma of achieving various research outcomes. The research may be conducted on a langer scale using quantitative approaches to identify students’ preferences and propose strategies for HLIs on enhancing their programs and policies.

Suggested question on the development of critical thinking skills: Can problem-posing practice support the development of the researcher’s critical thinking skills?

While critical thinking is suggested to be an essential skill to be developed by researchers, throughout this study, I have identified that HDR students and supervisors have little understanding of how to successfully develop critical thinking skills. In literature too, little information is provided about practices that can support the development of critical thinking skills in postgraduate research supervision. Thus, further research is needed to understand

286

whether dialogic pedagogy or similar approaches to problem-posing education can support the development of critical thinking skills in researchers. While such practice has mainly been implemented within classroom, inviting students to reflect instead of waiting for the educator to explain for them what things mean and what to believe (Shor et al., 2017) to support the development of critical thinking skills in postgraduate research too, such practice can be beneficial. It is suggested action research can be used as a method for this study, given the importance of reflection of supervisor participants who will be applying the dialogic practice in their supervision.

Suggested questions on personal relationships development: How can HDR students and supervisors develop student-supervisor relationships at a personal level without crossing boundaries? Where do those boundaries lay?

Given both students and supervisors presented a degree of discomfort when discussing the development of supervisory relationships, which include personal support, and multiple comments on lack of understanding where the boundaries of personal support lay, it is suggested further research in this area is essential.

Suggested question on aligned feedback practice in team supervision: How can members of the supervisory team align and negotiate their feedback methods?

Supervisory teams can be both rewarding and challenging for HDR students. While most of the studies highlight benefits of team supervision, less attention is given to potential complications that may occur. Particularly for those students and supervisors who experience changes in their supervisory teams and new supervisors entering established teams, it is essential to understand how to align feedback methods of different supervisors without harming existing team and avoiding potential conflicts. It is evident from this study, students who work with supervisory teams which do not have aligned feedback method may face difficulties adapting to multiple supervision and feedback methods. It is suggested further research could be conducted identifying potential challenges and proposing strategies to allow successful alignment of feedback methods. The phenomenological study is suggested to be useful, whereas interviewing different supervisory teams can be a beneficial practice in learning challenges and strategies for alignment of feedback methods within teams.

287

Suggested questions on Dialogic Practice Guide: What are the experiences of implementing Dialogic Practice Guide in other cultural contexts? What are the identified benefits and drawbacks of using Dialogic Practice Guide in other cultural contexts?

Given Phase 3 of this study was conducted only with two student-supervisor dyads located within Malaysia, it will be useful to learn experiences of student-supervisor dyads from other cultural and societal contexts implementing Dialogic Practice Guide in their supervisory relationships. More research on the implementation of this practice may identify other challenges and benefits, suggesting improvements in existing practice and test applicability to other cultural contexts.

Suggested questions on Alignment of Expectations: What are expectations that students/supervisors see necessary throughout student's candidature and which one they are ready to give up?

This research provided an in-depth comparison of arising student-supervisor expectations and existing misalignments in identifed expectations. Future research can explore student and supervisor views regarding the essential expectations and those which they see necessary but ready to give up if the essential expectations are performed. The future study can be conducted using large-scale survey developed from the Hierarchical Model of Student- Supervisor expectations.

8.5 Conclusion

In this chapter, I have discussed the outcomes of this research project in connection with the literature that already exists about student-supervisor expectations in postgraduate research supervision. In doing so, I have offered various contributions to our growing understanding of alignments and misalignments of expectations between HDR students and supervisors and suggested a practical solution to support alignment and negotiation of mutual expectations. The use of multiple methodological approaches to data production, collection and analysis has been useful for this study for offering new perspectives on the understanding of student- supervisor relationships and mutual expectations of students and supervisors. The

288

development of this understanding, in particular, the Hierarchical model of student- supervisor expectations and Dialogic practice to negotiate student-supervisor expectations, may assist higher education practitioners to further enhance postgraduate research supervision policy and practice. While the results of this research offer a significant contribution to ongoing discussions in the field, it also offers an avenue from which new conversations may be developed to gain a greater understanding and provide better support in the future to both HDR students and supervisors in postgraduate research programs.

289

Final Reflection

As I was working on this thesis for three and a half years, like many of my participants, I too have experienced difficulties along the way. And like many other issues research students face throughout their journey, I have also experienced misalignments in expectations throughout my journey.

Reflecting on the results and discussion I have presented in this thesis, I feel satisfied at having been able to provide some answers to the questions I have posed and make a contribution to the postgraduate research supervision theory and practice. At the same time, answering the questions I have posed contributed to my own PhD journey in a positive way, giving me a chance to clarify and align my own expectations to those of my supervisors, avoid potential conflicts and develop strong supervisory relationships. At the same time, I understand the answers I have presented and contributions I have made as being partial and conditional, driving me to look towards future opportunities to ask more questions of the contributions that I have made.

While the submission of this thesis represents the end of a long PhD journey, I also view it as a starting of a new journey of my personal and professional development. Throughout my PhD journey, the areas of my interest have broadened. While I was previously interested in postgraduate research supervision and particularly concerned about the alignment of student- supervisor expectations, my interests expanded towards understanding the bigger picture within which higher education supervision lays. In particular, I am curious to understand the role of governments and economics in the development of higher research education policies and statements, along with how certain decisions are taken. In addition, while I explored in- depth dialogic pedagogy theory and applied it by proposing the dialogic practice to negotiate student-supervisor expectations, I believe there is still a lot to learn and transform into higher research supervision practice.

As a final word, I would like to quote the scholar who has inspired this thesis and developed my vision, who has acknowledged education issues and spent his life fighting for changes. As now I reflect on the years I spend working on this thesis and being a research student, I am able to empathise deeply with this statement:

290

“The teacher is of course an artist, but being an artist does not mean that he or she can make the profile, can shape the students. What an educator does in teaching is to make it possible for the students to become themselves”. Paulo Freire in We Make the Road by Walking: Conversations on Education and Social Change (1990)

291

References

Abdullah, A., & Pedersen, P. (2003). Understanding multicultural Malaysia: delights, puzzles and irritations. Prentice Hall.

Abiddin, N. Z. (2018). Postgraduate students’ perception on effective supervision: a case study at one public university in Malaysia. Journal of International Social Research, 1(1), 11–19. https://doi.org/10.17719/jisr.20185537258

Abiddin, N. Z., & Ismail, A. (2011). Effective supervisory approach in enhancing postgraduate research studies. International Journal of Humanities and Social Science, 1(2), 206–217. http://www.ijhssnet.com/journals/Vol._1_No._2;_February_2011/28.pdf

Acker, S., Hill, T., & Black, E. (1994). Thesis supervision in the social sciences: managed or negotiated? Higher Education, 28(4), 483–498. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01383939

Adams, T. E., Ellis, C., & Holman Jones, S. (2017). Autoethnography. In The International Encyclopedia of Communication Research Methods (1st ed.). John Wiley & Sons, Inc. https://doi.org/DOI:10.1002/9781118901731.iecrm0011

Adams, T. E., Holman Jones, S., & Ellis, C. (2015). Autoethnography. Oxford University Press.

Adelman, C. (1993). Kurt Lewin and the origins of action research. Educational Action Research, 1(1), 7–24. https://doi.org/10.1080/0965079930010102

Adrian-Taylor, S. R., Noels, K. A., & Tischler, K. (2007). Conflict between international graduate students and faculty supervisors: toward effective conflict prevention and management strategies. Journal of Studies in International Education, 11(1), 90–117. https://doi.org/10.1177/1028315306286313

Ait Saadi, I., Collins, H. E., & Dash, D. P. (2018). Researcher development in Malaysia: a reflection-on-action. Studies in Graduate and Postdoctoral Education, 9(2), 259–273. https://doi.org/10.1108/sgpe-d-18-00013

292

Al-Naggar, R. A., Al-Sarory, M., Al-Naggar, A. A., & Al-Muosli, M. (2012). Doctorate international students ’ satisfaction and stress on academic supervision in a Malaysian University : a qualitative approach. Educational Research, 3(3), 264–269. http://www.interesjournals.org/ER

Alber, S. M. (2011). A toolkit for action research. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.

Alfonso, R. J., & Firth, G. R. (1990). Supervision: needed research. A research agenda. Journal of Curriculum and Supervision, 5(2), 181–188. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ402295

Ali, P. A., Watson, R., & Dhingra, K. (2016). Postgraduate research students’ and their supervisors’ attitudes towards supervision. International Journal of Doctoral Studies, 11(11), 227–241. https://doi.org/10.28945/3541

Altbach, P. G., Reisberg, L., & Rumbley, L. E. (2009). Trends in global higher education: tracking an academic revolution. Vol. 278. UNESCO 2009 World Conference on Higher Education. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bse.2004.04.006

Amzat, I. H., Yusuf, M., & Kayode, K. B. (2010). Quality research supervision in some Malaysian pubic universities: supervisees’ expectations and challenges. OIDA International Journal of Sustainable Development, 1(5), 17–23. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1668172

Anderson, L. (2006). Analytic autoethnography. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 35(4), 373–395. https://doi.org/10.1177/0891241605280449

Andres, L., Bengtsen, S. S. E., del Pilar Gallego Castano, L., Crossouard, B., Keefer, J. M., & Pyhältö, K. (2015). Drivers and interpretations of doctoral education today: national comparisons. Frontline Learning Research, 3(3), 5–22. https://doi.org/10.14786/flr.v3i3.177

Angen, M. J. (2000). Evaluating interpretive inquiry: reviewing the validity debate and opening the dialogue. Qualitative Health Research, 10(3), 378–395. https://doi.org/10.1177/104973230001000308

293

Anisah, A. N., & Shukran, A. R. (2011). Making strategy at a Malaysian higher education institution (Vol. 22). 2nd International Conference on Economics, Business and Management IPEDR (pp. 193–198). IACSIT Press. http://www.ipedr.com/vol22/37- ICEBM2011-MH00050.pd...

Auerbach, C. F., & Silverstein, L. B. (2003). Qualitative data: an introduction to coding and analysis. New York University Press.

Azure, J. A. (2016). Students ’ perspective of effective supervision of graduate programmes in Ghana. American Journal of Educational Research, 4(2), 163–169. https://doi.org/10.12691/education-4-2-4

Bakhtin, M. (1984). Problems of Dostoevsky’s Poetics. University of Minnesota Press.

Bargar, R. R., & Duncan, J. K. (1982). Cultivating creative endeavor in doctoral research. The Journal of Higher Education, 53(1), 1–31. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221546.1982.11780422

Barnes, B. J., & Austin, A. E. (2009). The role of doctoral advisors: a look at advising from the advisor’s perspective. Innovative Higher Education, 33(5), 297–315. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10755-008-9084-x

Barnes, B. J., Williams, E. A., & Archer, S. A. (2010). Characteristics that matter most: doctoral students’ perceptions of positive and negative advisor attributes. NACADA Journal, 30(1), 34–46. https://doi.org/10.12930/0271-9517-30.1.34

Barry, K. M., Woods, M., Warnecke, E., Stirling, C., & Martin, A. (2018). Psychological health of doctoral candidates, study-related challenges and perceived performance. Higher Education Research and Development, 37(3), 468–483. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2018.1425979

Batty, C., & Sinclair, J. (2014). Peer-to-peer learning in the higher degree by research context: a creative writing case study. New Writing, 11(3), 335–346. https://doi.org/10.1080/14790726.2014.932814

294

Bell-Ellison, B. A., & Dedrick, R. F. (2008). What do doctoral students value in their ideal mentor? Research in Higher Education, 49(6), 555–567. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11162- 008-9085-8

Bell, J., Cheney, G., Hoots, C., Kohrman, E., Schubest, J., Stidham, L., & Traynor, S. (2020, February 11). Comparative similarities and differences between action research, participative research, and participatory action research. Arlecchino.Org. https://arlecchino.org/ildottore/mwsd/group2final-comparison.html

Benmore, A. (2016). Boundary management in doctoral supervision: how supervisors negotiate roles and role transitions throughout the supervisory journey. Studies in Higher Education, 41(7), 1251–1264. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2014.967203

Bertone, S., & Green, P. (2016). Knowing your research students: devising models of doctoral education for success. In Padró, F. F., Erwee, R., Harmes, M., Harmes, M., Danaher, P.A. (Eds.), Postgraduate Education in Higher Education (pp. 1–29). Springer Nature Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-0468-1_30-1

Bitzer, E. (2010). Postgraduate research supervision: more at stake than research training. Acta Academica, 1, 23–56. http://www.ijhssnet.com/journals/Vol._1_No._2;_February_2011/28.pdf

Bochner, A. P., & Ellis, C. (1992). Personal narrative as a social approach to interpersonal communication. Communication Theory 2, 165–172. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468- 2885.1992.tb00036.x

Bochner, A. P., & Ellis, C. (1995). Telling and living: narrative co-construction and the practice of interpersonal relationships. In W. Leeds-Hurwitz (Ed.), Communication as social construction: Social approaches to the study of interpersonal interactions (pp. 201–213). The Guilford Press.

Bøgelund, P. (2015). How supervisors perceive PhD supervision - and how they practice it. International Journal of Doctoral Studies, 10, 39–55. https://doi.org/10.28945/2096

295

Boucher, C., & Smyth, A. (2004). Up close and personal: reflections on our experience of supervising research candidates who are using personal reflective techniques. Reflective Practice, 5(3), 345–356. https://doi.org/10.1080/1462394042000270664

Boud, D., Cohen, R., & Sampson, J. (1999). Peer learning and assessment. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 24(4), 413–426. https://doi.org/10.1080/0260293990240405

Boud, D., & Lee, A. (2005). “Peer learning” as pedagogic discourse for research education. Studies in Higher Education, 30(5), 501–516. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075070500249138

Boud, D., & Tennant, M. (2006). Putting doctoral education to work: challenges to academic practice. Higher Education Research & Development, 25, 293–306. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360600793093

Bowen, W. G., & Rudenstine, N. (1992). In pursuit of the PhD. Princeton University Press.

Brown, R. D., & Krager, L. (1985). Ethical issues in graduate education: faculty and student responsibilities. The Journal of Higher Education, 56(4), 403–418. https://doi.org/10.2307/1981303

Bruce, C., & Stoodley, I. (2013). Experiencing higher degree research supervision as teaching. Studies in Higher Education, 38(2), 226–241. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2011.576338

Bryman, A. (2012). Social research methods. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1021/nl0484907

Bustamante, J. (2019, August 8). College graduation statistics. Educationdata.Org. https://educationdata.org/number-of-college-graduates

Byrne, L., & Tooley, G. (n.d.). Expectations in research supervision. https://www.deakin.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0003/238476/expectations_in_researc h_supervision.pdf

296

Cadman, K. (2000). “Voices in the air”: evaluations of the learning experiences of international postgraduates and their supervisors. Teaching in Higher Education, 5(4), 475–491. https://doi.org/10.1080/713699170

Campbell, J. (2009). Recognition and respect: globalization culture and Malaysian education. SoLLs.INTEC 2009: Language and culture: creating and fostering global communities: Proceedings of the SoLLs.INTEC 7th International Conference (pp. 183–200). Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia. http://hdl.handle.net/10536/DRO/DU:30023759

Cardilini, A. P. A., Risely, A., & Richardson, M. F. (2021). Supervising the PhD: identifying common mismatches in expectations between candidate and supervisor to improve research training outcomes. Higher Education Research and Development. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2021.1874887

Carter, S., & Kumar, V. (2017). ‘Ignoring me is part of learning’: supervisory feedback on doctoral writing. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 54(1), 68–75. https://doi.org/10.1080/14703297.2015.1123104

Charmaz, K. (2014). Constructing grounded theory (2nd ed.). Sage Publications Ltd.

Cheng, K. S. K. (2019, July 31). Understanding gender effects of teacher-student interactions. The Straits Times. https://www.straitstimes.com/opinion/understanding- gender-effects-of-teacher-student-interactions

Chiappetta-Swanson, C., & Watt, S. (2011). Supervision and mentoring of postgraduate students: it takes an academy to raise a scholar. Centre for Leadership in Learning. https://mi.mcmaster.ca/site/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/Supervision-Mentoring-of- Postgrad-Students-1.pdf

Chireshe, R. (2012). Research supervision: postgraduate students’ experiences in South Africa. The Social Science Journal, 31(2), 229–234. https://doi.org/10.1080/09718923.2012.11893032

Cohen, D., & Crabtree, B. (2006). Reflectivity. RWJF- Qualitative Research Guidelines Project. http://www.qualres.org/HomeRefl-3703.html

297

Connell, R. W. (1985). How to supervise a PhD. Vestes 28, 2, 28–42. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ333265.pdf

Connelly, L. M. (2010). What is phenomenology? Medsurg Nursing: Official Journal of the Academy of Medical-Surgical Nurses, 19(2), 127—128. http://europepmc.org/abstract/MED/20476524

Corner, P., & Pio, E. (2014). Reflections on supervising international students’ theses and dissertations: just “Grazing Asians”? Academy of Management Proceedings, 2014(1), 12953–12953. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMBPP.2014.12953abstract

Costea, D. E. (2006). Meeting students’ and supervisors’ expectations - findings from a pilot study done at Centre for International Health, University of Bergen. https://hdl.handle.net/1956/2356

Creswell, J. W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry & research design: choosing among five approaches. (2nd ed.). Sage.

Creswell, J. W., Hanson, W. E., Clark Plano, V. L., & Morales, A. (2007). Qualitative research designs: selection and implementation. The Counseling Psychologist, 35(2), 236–264. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011000006287390

Creswell, J. W., & Miller, D. L. (2000). Determining validity in qualitative inquiry. Theory Into Practice, 39(3), 124–130. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip3903_2

Cuenca, A. (2010). In loco paedagogus: the pedagogy of a novice university supervisor. Studying Teacher Education, 6(1), 29–43. https://doi.org/10.1080/17425961003669086

Cuenca, A. (2018). Dialogic pedagogy in the supervision of social studies student teachers. Social Studies Research and Practice, 13(1), 46–58. https://doi.org/10.1108/ssrp-08- 2017-0040

Da Wan, C., Sirat, M., & Abdul Razak, D. (2018). Education in Malaysia towards a developed nation. In Economics Working Paper (Vol. 4). http://hdl.handle.net/11540/8901

298

Dale, J., & Hyslop-Margison, E. J. (2010). Paulo Freire: teaching for freedom and transformation. Springer. http://www.springer.com/series/7472

Darity, W. A. (2008). International encyclopedia of the social sciences (2nd ed.). Macmillan Reference USA.

Davies, C. A. (1999). Reflexive ethnography : a guide to researching selves and others. Routledge.

Davis, D. (2019). Students’ perceptions of supervisory qualities: What do students want? what do they believe they receive? International Journal of Doctoral Studies, 14, 431– 464. https://doi.org/10.28945/4361

Delamont, S., Parry, O., & Atkinson, P. (1998). Creating a delicate balance: the doctoral supervisor’s dilemmas. Teaching in Higher Education, 3(2), 157–172. https://doi.org/10.1080/1356215980030203

Delany, D. (n.d.). A review of the literature on effective PhD supervision. Centre for Academic Practice and Student Learning.

Denzin, Norman K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1994). Handbook of qualitative research. In Norman K Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research. Sage Publications.

Devenish, R., Dyer, S., Jefferson, T., Lord, L., Van Leeuwen, S., & Fazakerley, V. (2009). Peer to peer support: the disappearing work in the doctoral student experience. Higher Education Research and Development, 28(1), 59–70. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360802444362

Devos, C., Boudrenghien, G., Van der Linden, N., Azzi, A., Frenay, M., Galand, B., & Klein, O. (2017). Doctoral students’ experiences leading to completion or attrition: a matter of sense, progress and distress. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 32(1), 61– 77. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10212-016-0290-0

Diaz, A. R. (2018). Dialogic pedagogy: the importance of dialogue in teaching and learning. Language and Intercultural Communication, 18(2), 277–279. https://doi.org/10.1080/14708477.2017.1287116 299

Dick, B. (2001). Action research: action and research. In S. Sankaran, B. Dick, R. Passfield, & P. Swepson (Eds.), Effective change management using action learning and action research: concepts, frameworks, processes, applications (pp. 21–27). Southern Cross University Press. www.scu.edu.au/schools/gcm/ar/arp/aandr.

Dimitrov, N. (2009). Western guide to mentoring graduate students across cultures. Western University, Teaching Support Centre. https://ir.lib.uwo.ca/tsc-purple- guideshttps://ir.lib.uwo.ca/tsc-purple-guides/4

Dollah, S., Abduh, A., & Rosmaladewi, M. (2017). Benefits and Drawbacks of NVivo QSR Application. 2nd International Conference on Education, Science, and Technology, Makassar, Indonesia. https://doi.org/10.2991/icest-17.2017.21

Doyle, S. (2011). Doctoral education in international context: connecting local, regional and global perspectives edited by Vijay Kumar and Alison Lee. Higher Education Research & Development, 32(2), 332-333. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2012.744715

Doyle, S., & Manathunga, C. (2017). Sitting together: a supervision resource for doctoral supervisors and students. Ako Aotearoa. https://ako.ac.nz/knowledge- centre/supervising-african-doctoral-students/sitting-together-a-supervision-resource-for- doctoral-supervisors-and-students/

Doyle, S., Manathunga, C., Prinsen, G., Cornforth, S., & Tallon, R. (2017). Supervising African doctoral students : enhancing intercultural supervision. Ako Aotearoa. https://ako.ac.nz/knowledge-centre/supervising-african-doctoral-students/supervising- african-doctoral-students-enhancing-intercultural-supervision-in-aotearoa-new-zealand/

Doyle, S., Manathunga, C., Prinsen, G., Tallon, R., & Cornforth, S. (2017). African international doctoral students in New Zealand: Englishes, doctoral writing and intercultural supervision. Higher Education Research & Development, 37(1), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2017.1339182

Duncan, M. (2004). Autoethnography: critical appreciation of an emerging art. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 3(4), 1-14. https://doi.org/10.1177/160940690400300403

300

Dyckoff, A. L., Lurakov, V., Muslim, A., Chatti, M. ., & Schroeder, U. (2013). Supporting action research with learning analytics. LAK '13: Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Learning Analytics and Knowledge (pp. 220-229). https://doi.org/10.1145/2460296.2460340

Edwards, H., Aspland, T., O’Leary, J., Ryan, Y., Southey, G., & Timms, P. (1995). Tracking postgraduate supervision. QUT Postgraduate Supervision Evaluation Project Team. https://cms.qut.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0008/545336/tracking-postgraduate- supervision.pdf

Eisenberg, D., Golberstein, E., & Gollust, S. E. (2007). Help-seeking and access to mental health care in a university student population. Medical Care, 45(7), 594–601. https://doi.org/10.1097/MLR.0b013e31803bb4c1

Elliot, J. (1991). Action research for educational change. Open University Press.

Ellis, C. (2004). The ethnographic I: a methodological novel about autoethnography. AltaMira Press.

Ellis, C. (2006). Analyzing analytic autoethnography: an autopsy. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 35(4), 429–449. https://doi.org/10.1177/0891241606286979

Ellis, C. (2007). Telling secrets, revealing lives: relational ethics in research with intimate others. Qualitative Inquiry, 13(1), 3–29. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800406294947

Ellis, C., Adams, T. E., & Bochner, A. P. (2011). Autoethnography: an overview. Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 12(1). https://doi.org/10.17169/fqs-12.1.1589

Ellis, C., & Berger, L. (2001). Composing autoethnographic stories. In M. V. Angrosino (Ed.), Doing Cultural Anthropology: Projects for Ethnographic Data Collection (pp. 151–166). Waveland Press.

Ellis, C., & Bochner, A. P. (2000). Autoethnography, personal narrative, reflexivity. In Denzin, N., Lincoln, Y. (Eds.) Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 733–761). Sage.

301

Emerson, R. M., Fretz, R. I., & Shaw, L. L. (2011). Participant observations and fieldnotes. In Atkinson, P., Coffey, A., Delamont, S., Lofland, J., & Lofland, J. (Eds.), Handbook of Ethnography (pp. 352–368). SAGE Publications. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1441- 3582(06)70060-X

Emilsson, U. M., & Johnsson, E. (2007). Supervision of supervisors: on developing supervision in postgraduate education. Higher Education Research & Development, 26(2), 163–179. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360701310797

Engebretson, K., Smith, K., Mclaughlin, D., Seibold, C., Terrett, G., & Ryan, E. (2008). The changing reality of research education in Australia and implications for supervision: a review of the literature. Teaching in Higher Education, 13(1), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562510701792112

Erichsen, E. A., Bolliger, D. U., & Halupa, C. (2014). Student satisfaction with graduate supervision in doctoral programs primarily delivered in distance education settings. Studies in Higher Education, 39(2), 321–338. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2012.709496

Evaluation Toolbox. (2010). Semi-structured Interview. http://evaluationtoolbox.net.au/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=31&It emid=137

Fenge, L. A. (2012). Enhancing the doctoral journey: the role of group supervision in supporting collaborative learning and creativity. Studies in Higher Education, 37(4), 401–414. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2010.520697

Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford University Press.

Flick, U. (2002). An introduction to qualitative research. Sage.

Fossey, E., Harvey, C., Mcdermott, F., & Davidson, L. (2002). Understanding and evaluating qualitative research. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, 36, 717–732. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1440-1614.2002.01100.x

302

Fox, S. (2000). Communities of practice, foucault and actor-netweork theory. Journal of Management Studies, 37, 853–867. https://doi.org/doi.org/10.1111/1467-6486.00207

Franke, A., & Arvidsson, B. (2011). Research supervisors’ different ways of experiencing supervision of doctoral students. Studies in Higher Education, 36(1), 7–19. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075070903402151

Fraser, H. (2004). Doing narrative research: analysing personal stories line by line. Qualitative Social Work, 3(2), 179–201. https://doi.org/10.1177/1473325004043383

Freeman, M., DeMarrais, K., Preissle, J., Roulston, K., & St. Pierre, E. A. (2007). Standards of evidence in qualitative research: an incitement to discourse. Educational Researcher, 36(1), 25–32. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X06298009

Freire, P. (1972). Pedagogy of the oppressed. Herder and Herder.

Freire, P. (2000). Pedagogy of the oppressed. Continuum.

Freire, P. (2005). Education for critical consciousness. Continuum.

Gadamer, H.-G. (1976). Philosophical hermeneutics. University of California Press.

Gappa, J. M., Austin, A. E., & Trice, A. G. (2007). Rethinking faculty work (1st ed). Jossey- Bass.

Gardner, S. K. (2009). Student and faculty attributions of attrition in high and low- completing doctoral programs in the United States. Higher Education, 58(1), 97–112. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-008-9184-7

Gariglio, L. (2018). “Good ethnography is autoethnographic and good autoethnography is ethnographic”. A dialogue with Carolyn Ellis. Rassegna Italiana Di Sociolia, LIX(3), 555–579. https://doi.org/10.1423/91084

Gibbon, M. (2002). Doing a doctorate using a participatory action research framework in the context of community health. Qualitative Health Research, 12(4), 546–558. https://doi.org/10.1177/104973202129120061

303

Giles, D. L. (2008). Exploring the teacher-student relationship in teacher education: a hermeneutic phenomenological inquiry [Doctoral dissertation, AUT University]. AUT University Repository. https://openrepository.aut.ac.nz/bitstream/handle/10292/537/GilesD.pdf?sequence=4&is Allowed=y

Giroux, H. A. (2014). Neoliberalism’s war on higher education. Haymarket Books.

Gjøtterud, S. M., & Ahmad, A. K. (2018). Transformative power of cross-cultural PhD supervision. International Journal of Doctoral Studies, 13, 441–456. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.28945/4140

Good, D. (1987). Structures of social action: studies in conversational analysis. In Atkinson, J. M., & Heritage, J. (Eds). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022226700011464

Grant, B. (2005). Fighting for space in supervision: fantasies, fairytales, fictions and fallacies. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 18(3), 337–354. https://doi.org/10.1080/09518390500082483

Grant, B. (2010). Improvising together: the play of dialogue in humanities supervision. Arts and Humanities in Higher Education, 9(3), 271–288. https://doi.org/10.1177/1474022210379376

Grant, K., Hackney, R., & Edgar, D. (2014). Postgraduate research supervision: an “agreed” conceptual view of good practice through derived metaphors. International Journal of Doctoral Studies, 9, 43–60. https://doi.org/10.28945/1952

Gray, J., O’Regan, J. P., & Wallace, C. (2018). Education and the discourse of global neoliberalism. Language and Intercultural Communication, 18(5), 471–477. https://doi.org/10.1080/14708477.2018.1501842

Grbich, C. (2007). Qualitative data analysis: an introduction. SAGE Publications.

304

Greene, M. (2014). On the inside looking in: methodological insights and challenges in conducting qualitative insider research. Qualitative Report, 19(29), 1-13. https://nsuworks.nova.edu/tqr

Greenwood, D. J., & Levin, M. (2007). Introduction to action research: social research for social change (2nd ed). Sage Publications.

Grove, J. (2016, April 7). “Toxic” PhD supervisors and students 'from hell’. Times Higher Education. https://www.timeshighereducation.com/news/phds-toxic-supervisors-and- students-from-hell

Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1994). Competing paradigms in qualitative research. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research. (pp. 105–117). Sage Publications.

Guest, G., Bunce, A., & Johnson, L. (2006). How many interviews are enough? Field Methods, 18(1), 59–82. https://doi.org/10.1177/1525822X05279903

Gunnarsson, R., Jonasson, G., & Billhult, A. (2013). The experience of disagreement between students and supervisors in PhD education: a qualitative study. BMC Medical Education, 13(134), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6920-13-134

Gurr, G. M. (2002). Negotiating the “Rackety Bridge” — a dynamic model for aligning supervisory style with research student development. Higher Education Research & Development, 20(1), 81–92. https://doi.org/10.1080/07924360120043882

Halse, C. (2011). “Becoming a supervisor”: the impact of doctoral supervision on supervisors’ learning. Studies in Higher Education, 36(5), 557–570. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2011.594593

Halse, C., & Malfroy, J. (2010). Retheorizing doctoral supervision as professional work. Studies in Higher Education, 35(1), 79–92. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075070902906798

Halse, C., & Mowbray, S. (2011). The impact of the doctorate. Studies in Higher Education, 36(5), 513–525. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2011.594590

305

Hammersley, M. (1995). Theory and evidence in qualitative research. Quality & Quantity, 29, 55–66. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01107983

Harvey, D. (2005). A brief history of neoliberalism. Oxford University Press.

Heath, T. (2002). A quantitative analysis of PhD students’ views of supervision. Higher Education Research & Development, 21(1), 41–53. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360220124648

Heidegger, M. (1962). Being and time: translated by John Macquarrie & Edward Robinson. Blackwell Publishers Ltd.

Helfer, F., & Drew, S. (2019). Students’ perceptions of doctoral supervision: a study in an engineering program in Australia. International Journal of Doctoral Studies, 14, 499– 524. https://doi.org/10.28945/4368

Hellawell, D. (2006). Inside-out: analysis of the insider-outsider concept as a heuristic device to develop reflexivity in students doing qualitative research. Teaching in Higher Education, 11(4), 483–494. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562510600874292

Hermans, H. J. M. (2001). The dialogical self: toward a theory of personal and cultural positioning theory. Culture & Psychology, 7(3), 243–281. https://doi.org/doi.org/10.1177/1354067X0173001

Heru, A. M., Strong, D., Price, M., & Recupero, P. R. (2006). Self-disclosure in psychotherapy supervisors: gender differences. American Journal of Psychotherapy, 60(4), 323–334. https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.psychotherapy.2006.60.4.323

Heshusius, L. (1994). Freeing ourselves from objectivity: managing subjectivity or turning toward a participatory mode of consciousness? Educational Researcher, 23(3), 15–22. https://doi.org/10.2307/1177221

Higher Education Statistics Agency [HESA]. (2017). What do HE students study? https://www.hesa.ac.uk/data-and-analysis/students/what-study

306

Higher Education Statistics Agency [HESA]. (2019). Higher education student statistics: UK, 2017/18 - Qualifications achieved. https://www.hesa.ac.uk/news/17-01- 2019/sb252-higher-education-student-statistics/qualifications

Hindes, Y. L., & Andrews, J. J. W. (2011). Influence of gender on the supervisory relationship: a review of the empirical research from 1996 to 2010. Canadian Journal of Counselling and Psychotherapy, 45(3), 240–261. https://cjc- rcc.ucalgary.ca/article/view/59318

Hofstede Insights. (2020). Country comparison: What about Malaysia? https://www.hofstede-insights.com/country-comparison/malaysia/

Holbrook, A., Shaw, K., Scevak, J., Bourke, S., Cantwell, R., & Budd, J. (2014). PhD candidate expectations: exploring mismatch with experience. International Journal of Doctoral Studies, 9, 329–346. https://doi.org/10.28945/2078

Holligan, C. (2005). Fact and fiction: a case history of doctoral supervision. Educational Research, 47(3), 267–278. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131880500287179

Holt, N. L. (2003). Representation, legitimation, and autoethnography: an autoethnographic writing story. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 2(1), 1–22. https://doi.org/doi.org/10.1177/160940690300200102

Holtman, L., & Mukwada, G. (2014). Challenges confronting the quality of postgraduate research supervision and its effects on time-to-degree and throughput rates: a case of a South African University. Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences, 5(6), 179–190. https://doi.org/10.5901/mjss.2014.v5n6p179 hooks, B. (1994). Teaching to transgress: education as the practice of freedom. Routledge.

Howells, K., Stafford, K., Guijt, R., & Breadmore, M. (2017). The role of gratitude in enhancing the relationship between doctoral research students and their supervisors. Teaching in Higher Education, 22(6), 621–638. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2016.1273212

307

Humphreys, M. (2005). Getting personal: reflexivity and autoethnographic vignettes. Qualitative Inquiry, 11(6), 840–860. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800404269425

Hunter, K. H., & Devine, K. (2016). Doctoral students’ emotional exhaustion and intentions to leave academia. International Journal of Doctoral Studies, 11, 35–61. https://doi.org/10.28945/3396

Husserl, E. (1982). Ideas pertaining to a pure phenomenology and to a phenomenological philosophy. Martunus Nijhoff Publishers.

Hyun, J. K., Quinn, B. C., Madon, T., & Lustig, S. (2006). Graduate student mental health: needs assessment and utilization of counseling services. Journal of College Student Development, 47(3), 247–266. https://doi.org/10.1353/csd.2006.0030

Igumbor, J. O., Bosire, E. N., Karimi, F., Katahoire, A., Allison, J., Muula, A. S., Peixoto, A., Otwombe, K., Gitau, E., Bondjers, G., Fonn, S., & Ajuwon, A. (2020). Effective supervision of doctoral students in public and population health in Africa: CARTA supervisors’ experiences, challenges and perceived opportunities. Global Public Health, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/17441692.2020.1864752

Ismail, A., Abiddin, N. Z., & Hassan, A. (2011). Improving the development of postgraduates’ research and supervision. International Education Studies, 4(1), 78–89. https://doi.org/10.5539/ies.v4n1p78

Ives, G., & Rowley, G. (2005). Supervisor selection or allocation and continuity of supervision: Ph.D. students’ progress and outcomes. Studies in Higher Education, 30(5), 535–555. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075070500249161

James, R., & Baldwin, G. (1999). Eleven practices of effective postgraduate supervisors. Centre for the Study of Higher Education and The School of Graduate Studies, University of Melbourne.

308

Johansson, T., Wisker, G., Claesson, S., Strandler, O., & Saalman, E. (2014). PhD. supervision as an emotional process - critical situations and emotional boundary work. Pertanika Journal of Social Science and Humanities, 22(2), 605–620. https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/PhD.-Supervision-as-an-Emotional-Process- Critical-Johansson-Wisker/b936e1ac1d9cd50ce96c4634e03d43318da9a0dd

Johnson, B. R., & Christensen, L. (2014). Educational research: qualitative, quantitative, and mixed method. (5th ed.). SAGE Publications.

Jones, M. (2013). Issues in doctoral studies -forty years of journal discussion: where have we been and where are we going? International Journal of Doctoral Studies, 8, 83–104. https://doi.org/doi.org/10.28945/1871

Kafle, N. P. (2011). Hermeneutic phenomenological research method simplified. An Interdisciplinary Journal, 5, 181-200. https://doi.org/10.3126/bodhi.v5i1.8053

Kam, B. H. (1997). Style and quality in research supervision: the supervisor dependency factor. Higher Education, 34(1), 81–103. https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1002946922952

Katz, R. (2018). Crises in a doctoral research project: a comparative study. International Journal of Doctoral Studies, 13, 211–231. https://doi.org/10.28945/4044

Kemmis, S., & McTaggart, R. (2000). Participatory action research. In Denzin, N.K., & Lincoln, Y. (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 567–607). Sage.

Khawaja, N. G., & Stallman, H. M. (2011). Understanding the coping strategies of international students: a qualitative approach. Australian Journal of Guidance and Counselling, 21(02), 203–224. https://doi.org/10.1375/ajgc.21.2.203

Khene, C. P. (2014). Supporting a humanizing pedagogy in the supervision relationship and process: a reflection in a developing country. International Journal of Doctoral Studies, 9, 73–83. https://doi.org/10.28945/2027

Khodabandelou, R., Karimi, L., & Ehsani, M. (2015). Challenges of international higher education students in a foreign country. Higher Education for the Future, 2(2), 165–174. https://doi.org/10.1177/2347631115584121 309

Kiley, M. (1999). Expectations and Experiences of Indonesian Postgraduate Students Studying in Australia: A Longitudinal Study [Doctoral dissertation, The University of Adelaide]. The University of Adelaide Repository. https://digital.library.adelaide.edu.au/dspace/handle/2440/19424

Koshy, E., Koshy, V., & Waterman, H. (2011). What is action research? In Action Research in Healthcare (pp. 1–24). SAGE Publications. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781446288696.n1

Krauss, S. E., & Ismail, I. A. (2010). PhD students’ experiences of thesis supervision in Malaysia: managing relationships in the midst of institutional change. Qualitative Report, 15(4), 802-822. https://doi.org/10.5923/j.sociology.20110101.01

Kumar, V., & Lee, A. (2011). Doctoral education in international context: connecting local, regional and global perspectives. Universiti Putra Malaysia Press.

Kvale, S. (1996). Interviews: an introduction to qualitative research interviewing. Sage.

Kvale, S. (2007). Qualitative research kit: doing interviews. SAGE Publications. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781849208963

Langdridge, D. (2007). Phenomenological psychology: theory, research and method. Pearson Education.

Laurel, D. (2019, August 13). Peer learning groups versus communities of practice. The Peer Learning Institute. https://peerlearninginstitute.com/peer-learning-groups-versus- communities-of-practice/#:~:text=An easy way to tell,in the same professional area.&text=Communities of practice discuss issues as they arise.

Lave, J. (1991). Situating learning in communities of practice. In Perspectives on socially shared cognition (pp. 63–82). American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1037/10096-003

Laverty, S. M. (2003). Hermeneutic phenomenology and phenomenology: a comparison of historical and methodological considerations. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 2(3), 21–35. https://doi.org/10.1177/160940690300200303 310

Lee, Alison, & Boud, D. (2003). Writing groups, change and academic identity: research development as local practice. Studies in Higher Education, 28(2), 187–200. https://doi.org/10.1080/0307507032000058109

Lee, Alison, & Green, B. (2009). Supervision as metaphor. Studies in Higher Education, 34(6), 615–630. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075070802597168

Lee, Anne. (2008). How are doctoral students supervised? Concepts of doctoral research supervision. Studies in Higher Education, 33(3), 267–281. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075070802049202

Lee, Anne. (2012). Successful research supervision. Routledge.

Lessing, C. A. (2011). The role of the supervisor in the supervisory process. South African Journal of Higher Education, 25(5), 921–936. https://doi.org/doi/10.10520/EJC37722

Levecque, K., Anseel, F., De Beuckelaer, A., Van der Heyden, J., & Gisle, L. (2017). Work organization and mental health problems in PhD students. Research Policy, 46(4), 868– 879. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2017.02.008

Lindsay, S. (2015). What works for doctoral students in completing their thesis? Teaching in Higher Education, 20(2), 183–196. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2014.974025

Lloyd, P., & Fernyhough, C. (1999). Lev Vygotsky: critical assessments. Routledge.

Loganbill, C., & Hardy, E. (1983). Developing training programs for clinical supervisors. The Clinical Supervisor, 1, 15–21. https://doi.org/10.1300/J001v01n03_03

Macann, C. (1993). Four phenomenological philosophers: Husserl, Heidegger, Sartre, Merleau-Ponty. Routledge.

Macdonald, C. (2012). Understanding participatory action research: a qualitative research methodology option. Canadian Journal of Action Research, 13(2), 34–50. https://doi.org/10.33524/cjar.v13i2.37

311

Mackinnon, J. (2005). Academic supervision: seeking metaphors and models for quality. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 28(4), 395–405. https://doi.org/10.1080/0309877042000298876

Mahony, P., & Weiner, G. (2019). Neo-liberalism and the state of higher education in the UK. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 43(4), 560–572. https://doi.org/10.1080/0309877X.2017.1378314

Mainhard, T., van der Rijst, R., van Tartwijk, J., & Wubbels, T. (2009). A model for the supervisor-doctoral student relationship. Higher Education, 58(3), 359–373. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-009-9199-8

Malaysian Qualification Agency. (2017). Malaysian qualifications framework (MQF) 2nd edition. https://www.mqa.gov.my/pv4/document/mqf/2019/Oct/up- dated%20MQF%20Ed%202%2024102019.pdf

Manathunga, C. (2005a). Early warning signs in postgraduate research education: a different approach to ensuring timely completions. Teaching in Higher Education, 10(2), 219– 233. https://doi.org/10.1080/1356251042000337963

Manathunga, C. (2005b). The development of research supervision: “Turning the light on a private space.” International Journal for Academic Development, 10(1), 17–30. https://doi.org/10.1080/13601440500099977

Manathunga, C. (2019). ‘Timescapes’ in doctoral education: the politics of temporal equity in higher education. Higher Education Research and Development, 38(6), 1227–1239. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2019.1629880

Manathunga, C., & Goozée, J. (2007). Challenging the dual assumption of the “always/already” autonomous student and effective supervisor. Teaching in Higher Education, 12(3), 309–322. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562510701278658

Manathunga, C., Guilherme, M., & Dietz, G. (2017). Intercultural doctoral supervision: the centrality of place, time and other forms of knowledge. Arts and Humanities in Higher Education, 16(1), 113–124. https://doi.org/10.1177/1474022215580119

312

Mantai, L. (2019). “A source of sanity”: The role of social support for doctoral candidates’ belonging and becoming. International Journal of Doctoral Studies, 14, 367–382. https://doi.org/10.28945/4275

Marambe, K. N., Vermunt, J. D., & Boshuizen, H. P. A. (2012). A cross-cultural comparison of student learning patterns in higher education. Higher Education, 64(3), 299–316. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-011-9494-z

Marecho, E. W. (2012). Factors influencing the role of quality assurance and standards officers in primary school curriculum implementation in Kitui county, Kenya [Doctoral dissertation, University of Nairobi]. University of Nairobi Repository. http://erepository.uonbi.ac.ke/bitstream/handle/11295/7158/Marecho_Quality assurance.pdf?sequence=1

Marouli, C., Misseyanni, A., Papadopoulou, P., & Lytras, M. D. (2018). A new vision for higher education: lessons from education for the environment and sustainability. In Active learning strategies in Higher Education: teaching for leadership, innovation, and creativity (pp. 361–380). Emerald Publishing Limited.

Marshall, C., Rossman, G. B., & Publishing., S. (2006). Designing qualitative research. SAGE Publications.

Martin, D., & Joomis, K. (2007). Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs. In Building teachers: a constructivist approach to introducing education (pp. 72–77). Belmont. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12978-017-0365-7

Martinsuo, M., & Turkulainen, V. (2011). Personal commitment, support and progress in doctoral studies. Studies in Higher Education, 36(1), 103–120. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075070903469598

Masek, A. (2017). Establishing supervisor-students’ relationships through mutual expectation: a study from supervisors’ point of view. IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering (pp. 3–12). https://doi.org/10.1088/1757-899X/226/1/012200

Maslow, A. H. (1943). A theory of human motivation. Psychological Review, 50, 370–396. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0054346 313

Mcalpine, L. (2013). Doctoral supervision: not an individual but a collective institutional responsibility. Journal for the Study of Education and Development, 36(3), 259–280. https://doi.org/10.1174/021037013807533061

Mcalpine, L., & Mckinnon, M. (2013). Supervision - the most variable of variables: student perspectives. Studies in Continuing Education, 35(3), 265–280. https://doi.org/10.1080/0158037X.2012.746227

McCallin, A., & Nayar, S. (2012). Postgraduate research supervision: a critical review of current practice. Teaching in Higher Education, 17(1), 63–74. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2011.590979

Mcclure, J. W. (2005). Preparing a laboratory-based thesis: Chinese international research students’ experiences of supervision. Teaching in Higher Education, 10(1), 3–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/1356251052000291530

McCormack, C. (2004). Tensions between student and institutional conceptions of postgraduate research. Studies in Higher Education, 29(3), 319–334. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075070410001682600

Mcculloch, A., & Picard, M. (2015). “PhD, meet QPR”: the quality in postgraduate research conference and the development of doctoral education. International Journal for Researcher Development, 6(1), 2–8. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJRD-03-2015-0008

McFarland, J., Hussar, B., de Brey, C., Snyder, T., Wang, X., Wilkinson-Flicker, S., Gebrekristos, S., Zhang, J., Rathbun, A., Barmer, A., Bullock Mann, F., & Hinz, S. (2017). The Condition of Education 2017 (Report No. NCES 2017-144). U.S. Department of Education. https://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2017144

Mcginty, S. C., Koo, Y. L., & Saeidi, M. (2010). A cross-country study on research students’ perceptions of the role of supervision and cultural knowledge in thesis development. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 14(5), 517–531. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603110802668682

314

McWilliam, E. (2002). Mentor, manager and mentoree: new academic literacies for research education. In M. Kiley & G. Mullins (Eds.), Quality in postgraduate research: Integrating perspectives (pp. 107–119). CELTS, University of Canberra. http://www.qpr.edu.au/2002/mcwilliam2002.pdf

Meijers, F. (2013). Monologue to dialogue: education in the 21st century. International Journal for Dialogical Science, 7(1), 1–10. http://ijds.lemoyne.edu/journal/7_1/pdf/IJDS.7.1.01.Meijers.pdf

Memon, M. A., Salleh, R., Rosli Baharom, M. N., & Harun, H. (2014). Factors influencing the satisfaction of international postgraduate students in the Malaysian context-a literature review and a proposed model. International Education Studies, 7(11), 76–83. https://doi.org/10.5539/ies.v7n11p76

Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education (2nd ed). Jossey-Bass.

Merriam, S. B. (2002). Qualitative research in practice: examples for discussion and analysis (1st ed). Jossey-Bass.

Miles, M. B., & Huberman, M. A. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: an expanded sourcebook. SAGE.

Millis, B. J. (2012). Why faculty should adopt cooperative learning approaches. In Cooperative learning in Higher Education: across the disciplines, across the academy (pp. 1–10). Stylus Publishing.

Ministry of Education Malaysia. (2015). Malaysia Education Blueprint 2015-2025 (Higher Education).

Ministry of Higher Education Malaysia. (2016). Enhancing academic productivity and cost efficiency. https://www.moe.gov.my/en/penerbitan/1468-unitp-silver-book-enhancing- academic-productivity-and- cost-efficiency/file

315

Mohd Zain, N., Aspah, V., Abdullah, N., & Ebrahimi, M. (2018). Challenges and evolution of higher education in Malaysia. UMRAN - International Journal of Islamic and Civilizational Studies, 4(1), 78-87. https://doi.org/10.11113/umran2017.4n1-1.207

Moriarty, B., Danaher, P. A., & Danaher, G. (2008). Freire and dialogical pedagogy: a means for interrogating opportunities and challenges in Australian postgraduate supervision. International Journal of Lifelong Education, 27(4), 431–442. https://doi.org/10.1080/02601370802051447

Moriarty, J. (2011). Qualitative methods overview. National Institute for Health Research. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781405198431.wbeal0977

Moses, I. (1985). Supervising postgraduates. Higher Education Research & Development Society of Australasia. https://catalogue.nla.gov.au/Record/178831

Moxham, L., Dwyer, T., & Reid-Searl, K. (2013). Articulating expectations for PhD candidature upon commencement: ensuring supervisor/student “best fit.” Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 35(4), 345–354. https://doi.org/10.1080/1360080X.2013.812030

Naim, N. M., & Dhanapal, S. (2015). Students’ perception of the supervisory process: a case study at a private university in Malaysia. Malaysian Online Journal of Educational Managament (MOJEM), 4(4), 31–49. https://mojem.um.edu.my/article/view/6078

Olson, K., & Clark, C. M. (2009). A signature pedagogy in doctoral education: the leader- scholar community. Educational Researcher, 38, 216–221. https://doi.org/10.3102/001389X09334207

Orellana, M. L., Darder, A., Pérez, A., & Salinas, J. (2016). Improving doctoral success by matching PhD students with supervisors. International Journal of Doctoral Studies, 11, 87–103. https://doi.org/10.28945/3404

Pang, V., Teng, L. M., & Koo, Y. L. (2015). Doctoral research experience in Malaysia. Journal of Institutional Research South East Asia, 13(2), 96–112. http://eprints.ums.edu.my

316

Park, C. (2007). Redefining the Doctorate. The Higher Education Academy. https://eprints.lancs.ac.uk/id/eprint/435/1/RedefiningTheDoctorate.pdf

Parker-Jenkins, M. (2016). Mind the gap: developing the roles, expectations and boundaries in the doctoral supervisor–supervisee relationship. Studies in Higher Education, 0(0), 1– 15. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2016.1153622

Pearson, M. (2005). Changing contexts for research education: implications for supervisor development. In Green, P. (Ed.), Supervising postgraduate research: contexts and processes, theories and practices (pp. 11–29). RMIT Press.

Pearson, M., & Brew, A. (2002). Research training and supervision development. Studies in Higher Education, 27(2), 37–41. https://doi.org/10.1080/0307507022011

Pearson, M., Evans, T., & Macauley, P. (2012). Exploring the nexus between research and doctoral education. Joint AARE APERA International Conference (pp. 1–9). https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED542341.pdf

Pearson, M., & Kayrooz, C. (2004). Enabling critical reflection on research supervisory practice. International Journal for Academic Development, 9(1), 99–116. https://doi.org/10.1080/1360144042000296107

Pedersen, H. S. (2014). New doctoral graduates in the knowledge economy: trends and key issues. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 36(6), 632–645. https://doi.org/10.1080/1360080X.2014.957891

Phang, F. A., Sarmin, N. H., Zamri, S. N. A., & Salim, N. (2014). Postgraduate supervision: supervisors versus students. Proceedings - 2014 International Conference on Teaching and Learning in Computing and Engineering, LATICE 2014, April, 251–255. https://doi.org/10.1109/LaTiCE.2014.55

Phillips, E. M., & Pugh, D. (2005). How to get a PhD: a handbook for students and their supervisors. Open University Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0965-2299(03)00003-7

317

Pyhältö, K., Vekkaila, J., & Keskinen, J. (2012). Exploring the fit between doctoral students ’ and supervisors’ perceptions of resources and challenges vis-à-vis the doctoral journey engagement in doctoral research. International Journal of Doctoral Studies, 7, 395–414. https://doi.org/10.28945/1745

Pyhältö, K., Vekkaila, J., & Keskinen, J. (2015). Fit matters in the supervisory relationship: doctoral students and supervisors perceptions about the supervisory activities. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 52(1), 4–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/14703297.2014.981836

QSR International Pty Ltd. (2018). What is NVivo. http://www.qsrinternational.com/nvivo/what-is-nvivo

Radice, H. (2013). How we got here: UK higher education under neoliberalism. ACME: An International E-Journal for Critical Geographies, 12(3), 407–418. https://acme- journal.org/index.php/acme/article/view/969

Rawat, S., & Meena, S. (2014). Publish or perish: where are we heading? Journal of Research in Medical Sciences, 19(2), 87–89. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3999612/

Rea, J. (2016). Critiquing neoliberalism in Australian universities. Australian Universities’ Review, 58(2), 1–14. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1113452.pdf

Reason, P., & Bradbury, H. (2001). Handbook of action research: participative inquiry and practice. SAGE Publications.

Reidy, J., & Green, P. (2005). Collaborative knowledge management and the art of coaching: reflections on the diverse roles of the successful supervisor. In Supervising Postgraduate Research: contexts and processes, theories and practices (pp. 48–69). RMIT University Press.

Richardson, L. (2000). Evaluating ethnography. Qualitative Inquiry, 6, 253–255. https://doi.org/10.1177/107780040000600207

318

Riessman, C. (2005). Narrative analysis. In Narrative, memory and everyday life (pp. 1–7). University of Huddersfield. htpp://eprints.hud.ac.uk/4920/

Roach, A., Christensen, B. K., & Rieger, E. (2019). The essential ingredients of research supervision: a discrete-choice experiment. Journal of Educational Psychology, 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000322

Roberts, J. (2006). Limits to communities of practice. Journal of Management Studies, 43, 623–639. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2006.00618.x

Roberts, L. R., Tinari, C. M., & Bandlow, R. (2019). An effective doctoral student mentor wears many hats and asks many questions. International Journal of Doctoral Studies, 14, 133–159. https://doi.org/10.28945/4195

Roji, A. B. (2018). The pedagogical legacy of Dorothy Lee and Paulo Freire. In Active learning strategies in Higher Education: seaching for leadership, innovation, and creativity (pp. 339–359). Emerald Publishing Limited.

Saldaña, J. (2016). The coding manual for qualitative researchers (3rd ed.). Sage Publications.

Sam, R., Zain, A. N., Jamil, H. Bin, Souriyavongsa, T., & Quyen, L. T. D. (2013). Academic adjustment issues in a malaysian research university: the case of Cambodian, Laotian, Burmese, and Vietnamese postgraduate students’ experiences. International Education Studies, 6(9), 13–22. https://doi.org/10.5539/ies.v6n9p13

Sambrook, S. (2016). Managing the psychological contract within doctoral supervisory relationships. Innovations in Higher Education Teaching and Learning, 6, 61–87. https://doi.org/10.1108/s2055-364120160000006012

Sankaran, S. (2017). Taking Action Using Systems Research. In M. C. Edson, P. Buckle Henning, & S. Sankaran (Eds.), A Guide to Systems Research: Philosophy, Processes and Practice (pp. 111–142). Springer Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10- 0263-2_5

319

School of Graduate Studies UTM. (2018). Code of practice for research postgraduates. https://science.utm.my/pg/files/2018/12/KAPS-10-Kod-Amalan-Penyelidikan-Pasca- Siswazah.pdf

Schulze, S. (2012). Empowering and disempowering students in student–supervisor relationships. Koers - Bulletin for Christian Scholarship, 77(2), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.4102/koers.v77i2.47

Schwalbe, M. (1996). The mirrors in men’s face. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 25(1), 58–82. https://doi.org/10.1177/089124196025001005

Severinsson, E. (2015). Rights and responsibilities in research supervision. Nursing and Health Sciences, 17(2), 195–200. https://doi.org/10.1111/nhs.12160

Shariff, M. N., Abidin, A. Z., Ramli, K. I., & Ahmad, R. (2015). Predictors of timely PhD completion: investigating the perceptions of PhD candidates at the Malaysian university. Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences, 6(3), 259–267. https://doi.org/10.5901/mjss.2015.v6n3s1p259

Shor, I., & Freire, P. (1987). What is the “Dialogical Method” of teaching. Journal of Education, 169(3), 11–31. https://doi.org/10.1177/002205748716900303

Shor, I., Matusov, E., Marjanovic-Shane, A., & Cresswell, J. (2017). Dialogic & critical pedagogies: an interview with Ira Shor. Dialogic Pedagogy: An International Online Journal, 5, 3–21. https://doi.org/10.5195/dpj.2017.208

Sidhu, G. K., Kaur, S., & Fook, C. Y. (2016). Postgraduate students’ level of dependence on supervisors in coping with academic matters and using digital tools. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 28(3), 370–388. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12528-016- 9121-1

Sidhu, G. K., Kaur, S., Fook, C. Y., & Yunus, F. W. (2013). Postgraduate supervision: exploring Malaysian students’ experiences. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 90, 133–141. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.07.074

320

Sidhu, G. K., Kaur, S., Fook, C. Y., & Yunus, F. W. (2014). Postgraduate supervision: comparing student perspectives from Malaysia and the United Kingdom. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 123, 151–159. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.01.1409

Silverman, D. (2010). Doing qualitative research (3rd ed.). Sage.

Singh, P (2014, July). Wiser to review PhD targets. The Sun Daily. https://www.thesundaily.my/ar- chive/265103-YRARCH265103

Singh, J. K. N. (2018). What are the factors that contribute to postgraduate international students’ academic success? A Malaysian qualitative study. Higher Education Research and Development, 37(5), 1035–1049. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2018.1467383

Spear, Skarakis-Doyle, E., & McIntyre, G. (2008). Western Guide to PhD Supervision. Purple Guides. http://www.uwo.ca/tsc/resources/pdf/PG_1_Supervision.pdf

Skidmore, D., & Murakami, K. (2016). Dialogic pedagogy: the importance of dialogue in teaching and learning. Multilingual Matters. https://doi.org/10.21832/9781783096220

Sloan, A., & Bowe, B. (2014). Phenomenology and hermeneutic phenomenology: the philosophy, the methodologies, and using hermeneutic phenomenology to investigate lecturers’ experiences of curriculum design. Quality and Quantity, 48(3), 1291–1303. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-013-9835-3

Smith, J. A., Flowers, P., & Larkin, M. (2009). Interpretative phenomenological analysis: theory, method and research. Sage Publications.

Sparkes, A. C. (2000). Autoethnography and narratives of self: reflections on criteria in action. Sociology of Sport Journal, 17(1), 21–43. https://doi.org/10.1080/2159676X.2013.79

Spear, R. (2000). Supervision of research students: responding to student expectations. Canberra, ACT: Australian National University. https://openresearch- repository.anu.edu.au/handle/1885/41534

321

Spry, T. (2001). Performing autoethnography: an embodied methodological praxis. Qualitative Inquiry, 7(6), 706–732. https://doi.org/10.1177/107780040100700605

Stephens, S. (2014). The supervised as the supervisor. Education + Training, 56(6), 537– 550. https://doi.org/10.1108/ET-10-2012-0095

Stewart, T.T., & McClure, G. (2013). Freire, Bakhtin, and collaborative pedagogy: a dialogue with students and mentors. International Journal for Dialogical Science, 7(1), 91–108. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/274073142_freire_bakhtin_and_collaborative_ pedagogy_a_dialogue_with_students_and_mentors

Stracke, E. (2010). Undertaking the journey together: peer learning for a successful and enjoyable PhD experience. Journal of University Teaching & Learning Practice, 7(1), 1–12. http://ro.uow.edu.au/jutlphttp://ro.uow.edu.au/jutlp/vol7/iss1/8

Stracke, E., & Kumar, V. (2010). Feedback and self‐regulated learning: insights from supervisors’ and PhD examiners’ reports. Reflective Practice, 11(1), 19–32. https://doi.org/10.1080/14623940903525140

Stracke, E., & Kumar, V. (2020). Encouraging dialogue in doctoral supervision: the development of the feedback expectation tool. International Journal of Doctoral Studies, 15, 265–284. https://doi.org/10.28945/4568

StudyMalaysia. (2020, June 24). List of Universities in Malaysia. https://www.studymalaysia.com/education/top-stories/list-of-universities-in-malaysia

Suhaimi, A. T. (2013). What it takes to GOT [PowerPoint slides]. Universiti Teknologi Malaysia. https://sps.utm.my/mdps/2016/03/16/program-got-u/

Sullivan, L. E., & Ogloff, J. R. P. (1998). Appropriate supervisor-graduate student relationships. Ethics & Behavior, 8(3), 229–248. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327019eb0803

Swinburne University of Technology. (2013). Supervision of higher degree by research students: supervisor resource book. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/au/

322

Swinburne University of Technology. (2019). Research training statement of practice: candidature handbook. https://www.swinburne.edu.au/about/policies- regulations/research-training/

Tahir, A., & Asmuni, A. (2016). Community of practice in doctoral education. Graduate Research in Education Seminar (GREDuc 2016) (pp.464–470). https://www.researchgate.net/publication/331980295

Tahir, I. M., Ghani, N. A., Atek, E. S. E., & Manaf, Z. A. (2012). Effective supervision from research students’ perspective. International Journal of Education, 4(2), 211–222. https://doi.org/10.5296/ije.v4i2.1531

Taylor, S. (2012). Changes in doctoral education. International Journal for Researcher Development, 3(2), 118–138. https://doi.org/10.1108/17597511311316973

Taylor, S., & Beasley, N. (2005). A handbook for doctoral supervisors (1st ed). Routledge.

Taylor, S., Kiley, M., & Humphreys, R. (2018). A handbook for doctoral supervisors (2nd ed.). Routledge.

Teijlingen, E. (2014). Semi-structured interviews [PowerPoint Slides]. Bournemouth University. https://docplayer.net/20974698-Semi-structured-interviews.html

Terry, D., & Jackson, C. (2019). Universities Australia higher education: facts and figures. https://www.universitiesaustralia.edu.au/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/190716-Facts- and-Figures-2019-Final-v2.pdf

Thachil, T. (2009). Neoliberalism’s two faces in Asia: globalization, educational policies, and religious schooling in India, Pakistan, and Malaysia. Comparative Politics, 41(4), 473– 494. https://doi.org/10.5129/001041509X12911362972593

The Group of Eight. (2013, March). The Changing PhD. https://go8.edu.au/files/docs/the- changing-phd_final.pdf

The Sun Daily. (2016, November 1). Over 54,000 students sponsored under MyBrain15. https://www.thesundaily.my/archive/2046106-GTARCH405386

323

Times Higher Education (2017, June 1). Of monsters and mentors: PhD disasters, and how to avoid them. https://www.timeshighereducation.com/features/monsters-and-mentors-phd- disasters-and-how-to-avoid-them

Times Higher Education. (2020). World University Rankings 2020. https://www.timeshighereducation.com/world-university-rankings/2020/world- ranking#!/page/0/length/25/locations/MY/sort_by/name/sort_order/desc/cols/stats

Toews, J. A., Lockyer, J. M., Dobson, D. J. G., Simpson, E., Brownell, A. K. W., Brenneis, F., & Cohen, G. S. (1997). Analysis of stress levels among medical students, resident, and graduate students at four Canadian schools of medicine. Academic Medicine, 72(11), 997–1002. https://doi.org/10.1097/00001888-199711000-00019

Trahar, S. (2014). “This is Malaysia. You have to follow the custom here”: narratives of the student and academic experience in international higher education in Malaysia. Journal of Education for Teaching, 40(3), 217–231. https://doi.org/10.1080/02607476.2014.903023

Umar, A., Azlan, N., Noon, M., & Abdullahi, M. (2014). Challenges confronting African students in Malaysia: a case of postgraduate Nigerian students at International Islamic University Malaysia (IIUM) Kuala Lampur. Journal of Acfrican Studies and Development, 6(9), 161–168. https://doi.org/10.5897/JASD2013.0269

Universiti Sains Malaysia. (2012). USM code of good practice for postgraduate research studies. http://www.indtech.usm.my/images/stories/PPTI/Postgraduates/CodeofGoodPractice

University of Michigan. (2007). How to mentor graduate students: a guide for faculty. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2014.11.017 van Manen, M. (1990). Researching lived experiences. The Althouse Press.

Vekkaila, J., Pyhältö, K., & Lonka, K. (2013). Experiences of disengagement–a study of doctoral students in the behavioral sciences. International Journal of Doctoral Studies, 8, 61–81. https://doi.org/10.28945/1870

324

Vereijken, M. W. C., van der Rijst, R. M., van Driel, J. H., & Dekker, F. W. (2018). Novice supervisors’ practices and dilemmatic space in supervision of student research projects. Teaching in Higher Education, 23(4), 522–542. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2017.1414791

Vilkinas, T. (2008). An exploratory study of the supervision of Ph.D./research students’ theses. Innovative Higher Education, 32, 297–311. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10755-007- 9057-5

Wade‐Benzoni, K. A., Rousseau, D., & Li, M. (2007). Managing relationships across generations of academics. International Journal of Conflict Management, 17(1), 4–33. https://doi.org/10.1108/10444060610734154

Walford, G. (1981). Classification and framing in postgraduate education. Studies in Higher Education, 6(2), 147–158. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075078112331379402

Waterman, H., Tillen, D., Dickson, R., & De Koning, K. (2001). Action research: a systematic review and guidance for assessment methodology. Health Technology Assessment, 5(23), 1–174. https://doi.org/10.3310/hta5230

Watt, D. (2007). On becoming a qualitative researcher: the value of reflexivity. The Qualitative Report, 12(1), 82–101. https://nsuworks.nova.edu/tqr/vol12/iss1/5

Weber, M. (1968). Economy and society: an outline of interpretive sociology. Bedminster Press.

Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: learning, meaning and identity. Cambridge University Press.

Wenger, E. (2000). Communities of practice and social learning systems. Organization, 7(2), 225–246. https://doi.org/10.1177/135050840072002

Wenger, E. (2018). Communities of practice: learning as social system. The System Thinker. https://thesystemsthinker.com/communities-of-practice-learning-as-a-social-system/

325

Wenger, E., McDermott, R., & Snyder, W. M. (2002). Cultivating communities of practice: a guide to managing knowledge. Harvard Business School Press.

Weston, C., Gandell, T., Beauchamp, J., Mcalpine, L., Wiseman, C., & Beauchamp, C. (2001). Analyzing interview data: the development and evolution of a coding system. Qualitative Sociology, 24(3), 381–400. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1010690908200

Wijers, G. (2013). Dialogical education in a time of globalization: expansion, localization, and connection. International Journal for Dialogical Science, 7(1), 129–135. http://ijds.lemoyne.edu/journal/7_1/pdf/IJDS.7.1.11.Wijers.pdf

Willis, B., & Carmichael, K. D. (2011). The lived experience of late-stage doctoral student attrition in counselor education. The Qualitative Report, 16(1), 192–207. https://nsuworks.nova.edu/tqr/vol16/iss1/11/

Winchester-Seeto, T., Homewood, J., Thogersen, J., Jacenyik-Trawoger, C., Manathunga, C., Reid, A., & Holbrook, A. (2014). Doctoral supervision in a cross-cultural context: issues affecting supervisors and candidates. Higher Education Research and Development, 33(3), 610–626. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2013.841648

Wisker, G., & Robinson, G. (2016). Supervisor wellbeing and identity: challenges and strategies. International Journal for Researcher Development, 7(2), 123–140. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJRD-03-2016-0006

Wisker, G., Robinson, G., & Shacham, M. (2007). Postgraduate research success: communities of practice involving cohorts, guardian supervisors and online communities. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 44(3), 301–320. https://doi.org/10.1080/14703290701486720

Wisker, G., Robinson, G., Trafford, V., Warnes, M., & Creighton, E. (2003). From supervisory dialogues to successful PhDs: strategies supporting and enabling the learning conversations of staff and students at postgraduate level. Teaching in Higher Education, 8(3), 383–397. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562510309400

326

Woolderink, M., Putnik, K., & Klabbers, G. (2015). The voice of PhD candidates and PhD supervisors. A qualitative exploratory study amongst PhD candidates and supervisors to evaluate the relational aspects of PhD supervision in the Netherlands. International Journal of Doctoral Studies, 10(10), 217–235. https://doi.org/10.28945/2276

Woolhouse, M. (2002). Supervising dissertation projects – expectations of supervisor and student. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 39(2), 137–144. https://doi.org/10.1080/14703290252934586

Yarwood-Ross, L., & Haigh, C. (2014). As others see us: what PhD students say about supervisors. Nurse Researcher, 22(1), 38–43. https://doi.org/10.7748/nr.22.1.38.e1274

Yee, C. P., & Mokhtar, A. H. A. (2013). International students’ learning experiences at private higher education institutions in Malaysia. Proceeding of the Global Submit on Education, 2020(March), 298–312.

Yeoh, J. S. W. (2012). The challenges of international research students studying in an Australian university context. International Conference: Innovative Research in a Changing and Challenging World (pp. 1–9). https://doi.org/10.13189/ujer.2013.010319

Yousefi, A., Bazrafkan, L., & Yamani, N. (2015). A qualitative inquiry into the challenges and complexities of research supervision: viewpoints of postgraduate students and faculty members. Journal of Advances in Medical Education & Professionalism, 3(3), 91–98. https://jamp.sums.ac.ir/article_40930.html

Zhao, F. (2003). Transforming Quality in Research Supervision: A knowledge-management approach. Quality in Higher Education, 9(2), 187–197. https://doi.org/doi.org/10.1080/13538320308149

327

Appendices

Appendix Tittle

A. Full List of Universities and University Colleges in Malaysia

B. Consent Information Statement (Phase 1)

C. Informed Consent Form (Phase 1)

D. Text for email to invite HDR students and supervisors to participate in interview session for the research (Phase 1)

E. Counselling Service Handout for Participants (Phase 1)

F. Approval for Research with Human Subjects (Phase 1)

G. Questions Guide for Student and Supervisor Participants (Phase 1)

H. Consent Information Statement (Phase 3)

I. Informed Consent Form (Phase 3)

J. Recruitment Email Template (Phase 3)

K. Counselling Service Handout for Participants (Phase 3)

L. Approval for Research with Human Subjects (Phase 2&3)

M. Instructions for Participants of Using Dialogic Practice to Negotiate Mutual Expectations (Phase 3)

N. Interview Questions Guide for Student-supervisor Dyads (Phase 3)

328

Appendix A. Full List of Universities and University Colleges in Malaysia

Universities University Colleges

Universiti Malaya (UM) Multimedia University (MMU) International University College of Technology Twintech (IUCTT)

Universiti Sains Malaysia (USM) Universiti Tenaga Nasional (UNITEN) Selangor International Islamic University College (SIUC)

Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia Universiti Tun Abdul Razak Cyberjaya University College (UKM) (UniRAZAK) of Medical Sciences (CUCMS)

Universiti Teknologi Malaysia Universiti Teknologi Petronas (UTP) INSANIAH University College (UTM)

Universiti Putra Malaysia (UPM) International Medical University Kuala Lumpur Metropolitan (IMU) University College (KLMUC)

Universiti Teknologi MARA (UiTM) Universiti Selangor (UNISEL) TATI University College

Universiti Islam Antarabangsa Open University Malaysia (OUM) Berjaya University College of Malaysia (UIAM) Hospitality

Universiti Utara Malaysia (UUM) Malaysia University of Science & Masterskill University College Technology (MUST) of Health Sciences

Universiti Malaysia Sarawak AIMST University International University (UNIMAS) College of Science and Technology

Universiti Malaysia Sabah (UMS) Universiti Tunku Abdul Rahman Melaka Islamic University (UTAR) College

Universiti Pendidikan Sultan Idris Universiti Kuala Lumpur (UniKL) City University College of (UPSI) Science and Technology

Universiti Sains Islam Malaysia Wawasan Open University Linton University College (USIM)

329

Universiti Malaysia Terengganu Albukhary International University KDU University College (UMT)

Universiti Tun Hussein Onn Malaysia Al-Madinah International University Shahputra University College (UTHM) (MEDIU)

Universiti Teknikal Malaysia Melaka International Centre for Education in KPJ Healthcare University (UTeM) Islamic Finance (INCEIF) College

Universiti Malaysia Pahang (UMP) Limkokwing University of Creative Lincoln University College Technology

Universiti Malaysia Perlis (UniMAP) Management and Science University Southern University College (MSU)

Sultan Zainal Abidin (UniSZA) Asia e University (AeU) Bestari University College

Universiti Malaysia Kelantan (UMK) UCSI University Sultan Azian Shan Islamic University College

Universiti Pertahanan Nasional Quest International University Perak Vinayaka Mission International Malaysia (UPNM) University College

Monash University INTI International University (IIU) University College of Technology Sarawak

Curtin University Taylor’s University Tunku Abdul Rahman University College

The University of Nottingham Sunway University Islamic University College of Malaysia Campus Science & Technology

Swinburne University of Technology Manipal International University Geomatika University College

Newcastle University Medicine Perdana University Islamic University College of Perlis (KUIPs)

University of Reading HELP University University College Sabah Foundation (UCSF)

University of Southampton UNITAR International University Kolej Universiti Agrosains

330

Malaysia

Heriot-Watt University Raffles University Iskandar (RUI) Kolej Universiti Islam Pahang Sultan Ahmad Shah

Xiamen University Malaysia Institute of Supply Chain Kolej Universiti Poly-Tech Innovation (MISI) MARA

Asia Pacific University of Technology Nilai University KDU University College and Innovation (APU)

Binary University of Management and SEGI University First City University College Entrepreneurship

Infrastructure University Kuala Universiti Islam Malaysia Lumpur (IUKL)

Asia Metropolitan University DRB-HICOM University of Automotive Malaysia

Putra Business School Asia School of Business

Global NXT University International University of Malaya- Wales

MAHSA University Universiti Malaysia of Computer Science and Engineering

331

Appendix B. Consent Information Statement (Phase 1)

Consent Information Statement

Project Title: Comparative analysis of student and supervisor expectations of roles and responsibilities

Introduction to the research We would like to invite you to participate in our research project. This project aims to explore the student-supervisor relationship during the postgraduate research process. We seek to develop a more in-depth understanding of postgraduate supervisors’ and students’ experiences regarding supervision practices, by making their expectations around respective roles and responsibilities explicit and identifying where discrepancies may lie. By doing so, we hope to gain insights that can inform the development of higher degree by research policy and practice in our institutions.

The people involved with this research project are: • Dr. Ismail Ait Saadi (Associate Investigator) • Associate Professor Deirdre Barron– Associate Supervisor • Dr. Heidi Collins (Chief Investigator) • Ms Irina Baydarova – Student researcher

What participation will involve: We will invite you to an interview (in person or by Skype, if you prefer), in which we will ask you to tell us about your supervision experiences in postgraduate research as either a higher degree by research (HDR) student or HDR supervisor. Questions will include broad topics about your experiences as a student, as well as more specific questions about your relationship with your supervisor(s) and your expectations of the kind of support a supervisor should give to their research students. Interviews will last approximately one hour. This will help us to understand more about the processes by which students and supervisors establish their mutual expectations and interact with each other during the postgraduate research journey.

Consent to Participate & Right to Withdraw Your participation in this research is entirely voluntary. Before the research begins, we need to have what is known as your ‘Informed Consent’. That means we need you to have carefully considered this ‘Consent Information Statement’ and then sign the attached ‘Informed Consent Form’. The consent form can be returned to the researchers at any time before the commencement of your interview.

332

After giving your consent to participate in interviews, it is your right to withdraw from the research up to two weeks after the completion of your interview. This means that you may cease to participate in interviews without giving any reason, and you may also request that any data collected be omitted, returned to you, or destroyed. During interviews if we touch on any topics that cause you to feel uncomfortable or distressed at any time you are free to pause or stop the interview or decline to answer the question. If required, Irina can provide details of confidential counselling services available to you. We do hope that you will also derive some enjoyment and benefit from participating in this research. Your contribution will potentially help other students like yourself to develop as researchers, and your own understanding of research education experiences may be enhanced through discussing and reflecting on them during the interview.

Privacy & Confidentiality Irina Baydarova will be the project’s Record Keeper and the records will be stored securely within the premises of the University’s Faculty of Business, Design and Arts in Swinburne Sarawak.

Privacy Protection: Your confidentiality will be protected as follows: - • Your signed Informed Consent Form will be kept in a separate, locked file. • A “Participant Index” will be created which assigns a code (pseudonymous you created) to your identity. All records of your interview will be identified only by this code, never by your name. • Records of your interviews (hard copy and audio) will be identified by your code only and will be kept in a locked filing cabinet in a locked room. • All computer files will be kept on a password-protected computer. Back-up disks will be kept in a locked cabinet. • Only the people listed above who are involved with this research will have access to these records. • Following completion of the study the data will be kept for a minimum of five years and maximum of seven years. After this time all notes and recordings will be destroyed.

What we will do with your information? Irina Baydarova will analyse the interview transcripts collected in this project for her PhD by Research thesis and expects to publish some of the information in articles in academic journals. She will also present some of the information at conferences. Some direct quotes may be included in published documents. In these cases you and others will be described in a standardised format such as Code Name/age-at-interview/nationality (such as: John/35/Malaysian). It is important that you understand that some of the information you reveal about your experiences may identify you (for example: names of people, locations, dates, other distinctive/identifying details). These identifying details will be removed from the transcript of your interview and will not be included published material.

Who to contact If you would like further information about the project, please do not hesitate to contact:

333

Dr. Ismail Ait Saadi or Dr. Heidi Collins Faculty of Business, Design and Arts Swinburne University of Technology, Sarawak Campus Jalan Simpang Tiga 93350 Kuching Sarawak, Malaysia Tel +60 (82) 416353 Email: [email protected] or [email protected]

Concerns or complaints about the project: This project has been approved by or on behalf of Swinburne’s Human Research Ethics Committee (SUHREC) in line with the Australian National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Research Involving Humans. If you have any concerns or complaints about the conduct of this project, you can contact:

Research Ethics Officer, Office of Research & Graduate Studies (H68), Swinburne University of Technology, P O Box 218, HAWTHORN VIC 3122. Tel (03) 9214 5218 or +61 3 9214 5218 or [email protected]

334

Appendix C. Informed Consent Form (Phase 1)

Informed Consent Form

Comparative Analysis of postgraduate student and supervisor expectations of roles and responsibilities

Researchers:

• Dr. Ismail Ait Saadi (Associate Investigator) • Associate Professor Deirdre Barron • Dr. Heidi Collins (Chief Investigator) • Irina Baydarova Swinburne University of Technology, Sarawak Campus

1. I consent to participate in the project named above. I have been provided a copy of the project consent information statement to which this consent form relates and any questions I have asked have been answered to my satisfaction.

2. In relation to this project, please circle your response to the following:

I agree to be interviewed by the researcher Yes No I agree to allow the interview to be recorded by electronic device Yes No I agree to make myself available for further information if required Yes No

3. I acknowledge that:

(a) my participation is voluntary and that I am free to withdraw from the project within two weeks of my interview, without explanation;

(b) the research project is for the purpose of research and not for profit;

(c) any identifiable information about me which is gathered in the course of and as the result of my participating in this project will be (i) collected and retained for the purpose of this project and (ii) accessed and analysed by the researcher(s) for the purpose of conducting this project;

(d) my anonymity is preserved, and I will not be identified in publications or otherwise without my express written consent.

By signing this document I agree to participate in this project.

Name of Participant: ……………………………………………………………………………

Signature & Date: ………………………….……………………………………………………

335

Appendix D. Text for Email for HDR students and supervisors to participate in interview session (Phase 1)

Dear XXX,

We are writing to you to request consent to be recruited to participate in our research project on higher degree by research student and supervisor expectations of their respective roles and responsibilities. This research project is being undertaken by our PhD by Research student, Ms Irina Baydarova, under the supervision of Dr Ismail Ait Saadi, Dr Heidi Collins, and Associate Professor Deirdre Barron. As a part of our research, Irina would like to gain an understanding of experiences of HDR students and their respective supervisors towards their roles and responsibilities. Irina believes that mutual expectations between students and supervisors can have a significant impact on the overall process of postgraduate research, completion on time rates and development of researcher. To enable us to conduct this research, we would like to invite HDR students and supervisors to participate in this research. We would also like to invite you to be interviewed by Irina either in person, or by Skype. With your permission, interviews will be recorded on an audio recorder, and will later be transcribed into writing. We expect interviews to last approximately 90-120 minutes. Before the interviews will be conducted, we will ask you to sign consent form.

The selection criteria for HDR students to participate are:

1. Any higher degree by research student who are currently enrolled in postgraduate research for at least six months.

The selection criteria for postgraduate research supervisors will be:

1. Any based university staff who have had at least at least three years’ experience as an active main supervisor (Principle Coordinating Supervisor or equivalent) in one of the main five research Universities in Malaysia.

336

If you would like further information about the project, please do not hesitate to contact me. Email: [email protected] or Kindly indicate your consent to this request either by email to [email protected], or by return letter. Thank you for you kind consideration.

Dr. Ismail Ait Saadi or Dr. Heidi Collins Faculty of Business, Design and Arts Swinburne University of Technology, Sarawak Campus Jalan Simpang Tiga 93350 Kuching Sarawak, Malaysia Tel +60 (82) 416353 [email protected]

337

Appendix E. Counselling Services for Student and Supervisor Participants (Phase 1)

Counselling Services

Project Tittle: Comparative Analysis of Student and Supervisor Expectations of Roles and Responsibilities

During interviews we may touch on topics that could cause you to feel uncomfortable or distressed. If you do find that any of the topics we discuss cause you to feel upset, either during or after the interview, professional confidential counselling services are available in Kuala-Lumpur. Each University that will be participating in the research, provide counselling services for their respective students and staff. Additionally, Swinburne Sarawak provide professional counsellors support for participants (up to 4 hours) free personal consultations (details to be provided).

Details of University Counselling Services provided below: 1. Universiti Teknologi Malaysia Aspires to be Centre of Excellence in providing quality service in the field of Psychology and Counselling. The centre is staffed by professionally licensed and trained counsellors and psychology officers. It offers a broad range of personal and psychological services of UTM students, staffs and local community.

Services Offered: • Conduct psychological tests and interpret the results of psychological tests taken. • Organize lectures, courses, workshops and seminars focusing on psychology, mental health, self-development and personality, and the development of self-potential and competence • Providing speakers, facilitators and moderators for counselling and counselling programs, motivation, self-development and personality • Show you how to enjoy relaxation through the relaxation facilities provided • Spread information about counselling and psychological services through various circuits • Conduct studies on current issues faced by students in the field of counselling and psychology

Contact details and Working Hours:

338

List of Counsellors:

Additionally, E-Counselling is available on [email protected] .

2. Universiti Sains Malaysia

USM provides various services for its students including counseling/motivational guidance. To contact: Pusat Media dan Perhubungan Awam Aras 1, Bangunan E42, Canselori II Universiti Sains Malaysia 11800 USM Pulau Pinang, Malaysia Tel: +604-653 3888 339

Fax: +604-653 6484 Email: [email protected]

3. Online Counselling Services

Apart from University Counselling Services, should you require support or need to share your worries, 24/7 hotline counselling is available for you. Befrienders Online/Hotline Counselling Services

Befrienders is a 24 hour nation-wide confidential telephone counselling service. If you find yourself feeling desperate to talk to someone at any time of the day or night.

Languages spoken (English, Bahasa Malaysia, Mandarin, Cantonese, Tamil)

Website: www.befrienders.org.my.my

Better Help Online Counselling Services

Website: https://www.betterhelp.com/

Charges apply (please visit website for the rates and available services).

Grace Counselling

Services offered include:

• Counselling helps individuals understand their emotional crises and how to better cope with them • Relationship therapy helps people to examine and change patterns of interaction that do not support the stability and growth of the relationship. • Psychotherapy helps individuals explore and resolve more enduring and deeply felt sources of conflict and dissatisfaction so that they gain confidence and inner wholeness. Hotline: +6082-341411

340

Appendix F. Approval for Research with Human Subjects (Phase 1)

SHR Project 2018/279 - Ethics Clearance SHR Project 2018/279 - Comparative analysis of postgraduate student and supervisor expectations of roles and responsibilities Dr Ismail Ait Safadi, Dr Heidi Collins, Baydarova Irina (Student) - Sarawak/Prof Santina Bertone – FBL Approved duration: 17-08-2018 to 17-05-2019 [Adjusted]

I refer to the ethical review of the above project by a Subcommittee (SHESC2) of Swinburne's Human Research Ethics Committee (SUHREC). Your responses to the review as e-mailed on 16 and 17 August 2018 were put to the Subcommittee delegate for consideration. I am pleased to advise that, as submitted to date, ethics clearance has been given for the above project to proceed in line with standard on-going ethics clearance conditions outlined below. The approved duration is 17 August 2018 to 17 May 2019 unless an extension is subsequently approved.

All human research activity undertaken under Swinburne auspices must conform to Swinburne and external regulatory standards, including the National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research (2018) and with respect to secure data use, retention and disposal.

The named Swinburne Chief Investigator/Supervisor remains responsible for any personnel appointed to or associated with the project being made aware of ethics clearance conditions, including research and consent procedures or instruments approved. Any change in chief investigator/supervisor, and addition or removal of other personnel/students from the project, requires timely notification and SUHREC endorsement.

The above project has been approved as submitted for ethical review by or on behalf of SUHREC. Amendments to approved procedures or instruments ordinarily require prior ethical appraisal/clearance. SUHREC must be notified immediately or as soon as possible thereafter of (a) any serious or unexpected adverse effects on participants and any redress measures; (b) proposed changes in protocols; and (c) unforeseen events which might affect continued ethical acceptability of the project. At a minimum, an annual report on the progress of the project is required as well as at the conclusion (or abandonment) of the project. Information on project monitoring and variations/additions, self-audits and progress reports can be found on the Research Internet pages.

A duly authorised external or internal audit of the project may be undertaken at any me. Please contact the Research Ethics Office if you have any queries about on-going ethics clearance, ci ng the Swinburne project number. A copy of this e-mail should be retained as part of project record-keeping. Best wishes for the project and apologies for the delay. Yours sincerely, Sally Fried Secretary, SHESC2

341

Appendix G. Questions Guide for Student and Supervisor Participants Phase 1

Question Reference

1. Are you a PhD or Master student? Why 1. General did you decide to enroll in a postgraduate research degree?

2. Are you a full time or a part time 2. General student? Based on what criteria did you chose the mode of study?

3. Are you self-funded or scholarship 3. General student? What type of scholarship do you hold?

4. How long have you been enrolled? 4. General

5. What is your field of research? 5. General

6. Where/when did you do your previous 6. General degrees?

7. How did you choose your supervisors? 7. (Ives & Rowley, 2005)

8. How often do you meet with your 8. (Bryman, 2012; Chireshe, 2012; Halse, supervisors? 2011; Heath, 2002)

9. During the first (first few) meeting(s), 9. (Woolhouse, 2002) what did you discuss?

10. How would you describe the 10. (Abiddin & Ismail, 2011; Gunnarsson et relationship you have with your al., 2013; Krauss & Ismail, 2010;

342

supervisor(s)? Mcginty et al., 2010)

11. What do you expect from your 11. (Krauss & Ismail, 2010; Pang et al., supervisor(s)? What is his (her) roles 2015; Sidhu et al., 2016; Woolhouse, and responsibilities? 2002) a) Guidance a) (Mcclure, 2005; Mcginty et al., 2010; Naim & Dhanapal, 2015; Pang et al., 2015) b) Autonomy on research related decisions b) (Al-Naggar et al., 2012; Gunnarsson et al., 2013) c) Feedback c) (Naim & Dhanapal, 2015; Parker- Jenkins, 2016; Pyhältö et al., 2015) d) Availability d) (Krauss & Ismail, 2010; Mcginty et al., 2010; Schulze, 2012) e) Pastoral care e) (Al-Naggar et al., 2012; Pang et al., 2015; Pyhältö et al., 2012)

12. Is your supervisor(s) aware of your 12. (Woolderink et al., 2015) expectations?

13. Does your supervisor meet your 13. (Krauss & Ismail, 2010; Woolderink et expectations? al., 2015)

14. What do you think your responsibilities 14. (Mcginty et al., 2010; Severinsson, are in the development of your research 2015) project, and your development as a researcher? 15. Are you aware of what your 15. (Doyle, Manathunga, Prinsen, Tallon, et supervisor(s) expect from you? al., 2017; Krauss & Ismail, 2010; Woolhouse, 2002)

343

16. Have you ever had any 16. (Adrian-Taylor et al., 2007; Johansson conflicts/misunderstandings with your et al., 2014; Times Higher Education, supervisor? 2017)

17. Why do you think such conflict arises? 17. (Adrian-Taylor et al., 2007; Hunter & Devine, 2016; Willis & Carmichael, 2011)

18. How much impact does your 18. (Abiddin & Ismail, 2011) relationship with your supervisor have on a) your overall experience as a student, b) the progress of the research, c) your willingness to pursue academic career? 19. If given a chance would you change 19. (Johansson et al., 2014; Mcclure, 2005; supervisors? Why or why not? Severinsson, 2015) 20. Are you aware of any document which 20. Self-Created clearly states research student’ responsibilities and what is expected of them?

21. Are you aware of any document, which 21. Self-Created clearly state supervisors’ responsibilities and expectations?

22. Does your university research handbook 22. Self-Created fully clarify those roles and responsibilities? Or is there something else?

23. Do you feel there are other people in the 23. (Manathunga, 2005a; Times Higher university that can help you with your Education, 2017) research and development other than your supervisor? 344

24. Overall, how can you describe your 24. (Al-Naggar et al., 2012; Devos et al., postgraduate research experiences? 2017; Erichsen et al., 2014; Sidhu et al., 2013, 2014)

Question Reference 1. Why did you decide to become 1. (Bøgelund, 2015) supervisor?

2. How many years have you been 2. General supervising?

3. How does supervision practices 3. General changed over the time you have been supervising?

4. How many students until now you have 4. General successfully led to completion?

5. How many students are you supervising 5. General currently?

6. How do you get new HDR students 6. (Ives & Rowley, 2005) under your supervision? 7. How do you view your role as a 7. (Barnes & Austin, 2009; Bøgelund, supervisor? 2015; Alison Lee & Green, 2009; Spear, 2000)

8. How often do you meet with your 8. (Bryman, 2012; Delamont et al., 1998; students? Heath, 2002)

9. (Woolhouse, 2002) 9. What did you discuss during the first meeting(s)?

345

10. How would you describe the 10. (Boucher & Smyth, 2004; Halse & relationship you have with your Malfroy, 2010; Anne Lee, 2008; student(s)? Mcginty et al., 2010) 11. What do you expect from your student(s)? a) Pastoral Care a) (Al-Naggar et al., 2012; Halse & Malfroy, 2010) b) Guidance b) (Delamont et al., 1998; Krauss & Ismail, 2010; Mcginty et al., 2010) c) Availability c) (Anne Lee, 2008; Phillips & Pugh, 2005; Woolhouse, 2002) d) Authority on Research-Related d) (Gunnarsson et al., 2013) Decisions e) (Ali et al., 2016; Carter & Kumar, 2017; e) Feedback Halse & Malfroy, 2010)

12. Do you expect the same from all 12. (Bøgelund, 2015; Delamont et al., 1998; students? Phillips & Pugh, 2005)

13. Do/does your student(s) aware of your 13. (Delamont et al., 1998; Mainhard et al., expectations? 2009; Yarwood-Ross & Haigh, 2014)

14. Are you aware of what your student(s) 14. (James & Baldwin, 1999; Manathunga, expect from you? What do you think 2005b; Severinsson, 2015) your roles and responsibilities? 15. Have you ever had any 15. (Adrian-Taylor et al., 2007; Johansson conflicts/misunderstandings with your et al., 2014) student? 16. Why do you think such conflict arise? 16. (Gardner, 2009; B. Grant, 2010; Gunnarsson et al., 2013)

346

17. Have you ever withdrawn from 17. (Johansson et al., 2014) supervision practices with any student? Why did it happen? 18. Are you aware of any document which 18. Self-Created clearly state research supervisor’ responsibilities and what is expected of them?

19. Are you aware of any document, which 19. Self-Created clearly state student’ responsibilities and expectations?

20. Due to establishment of MyBrain 15, a 20. Self-Created greater number of students have entered postgraduate research courses. How do you think it affects the quality of research? 21. Do you think all students are equally 21. Self-Created prepared? 22. Do you feel there are other people in the 22. Self-Created university that can help you to perform your responsibilities as a supervisor?

23. Overall, how would you describe your 23. (Delamont et al., 1998; Walford, 1981) supervision experiences?

347

Appendix H. Consent Information Statement (Phase 3)

Consent Information Statement

Project Title: Comparative analysis of student and supervisor expectations of roles and responsibilities

Introduction to the research You are invited to participate in a research project that aims to explore the ways postgraduate research student-supervisor dyad discuss, develop, and align their mutual expectations towards each other using an approach we refer to as Dialogic Practice. We seek to develop an understanding of postgraduate students’ and supervisors’ experiences when aligning their expectations using dialogic practice. This project involves student and supervisors holding explicit discussions of their expectations of student-supervisor roles and responsibilities as they work together over a period of 1-2 months. By discussing the challenges of implementing this practice, and exploring possible outcomes of using it, we hope to gain insights that can inform the development of higher degree by research policy and practice in our institutions.

The people involved with this research project are: • Dr. Ismail Ait Saadi - Principal Supervisor • Dr. Heidi Collins -Co – Supervisor • Associate Professor Deirdre Barron - Co-Supervisor • Ms Irina Baydarova – Student researcher

What participation will involve: You will be invited to actively participate in this project. You will be given a Dialogic Practice guide to follow. As a student-supervisor dyad, you will be asked to carefully read a few pages of background explaining dialogic practice, then implement such practice as you work within your own student-supervisor relationship. The implementation will follow three stages. At Stage 1, you will be asked to think about and develop set of your expectations towards yourself and your counterpart (1-2 weeks). This will be followed by the second stage, where both parties will be asked to initiate explicit discussion with each other to 348

attempt to negotiate and align their expectations towards each other to develop a unique set of expectations for their student-supervisor dyad. During the third stage of this practice, you will be asked to reflect and revisit your set of expectations and make necessary adjustments if required. In general, we expect student-supervisor discussions to take up to 2-3 hours of your time; yet participants’ personal reflection after discussions may also take extra time. After two months, you student-supervisor pair will be invited to share your experiences with the research student, Irina Baydarova in a joint interview session (in person or by Skype, if you prefer). Interviews will last approximately one hour. You will be asked about your experiences of developing expectations towards yourself and towards your counterparts, how well you were able to negotiate and align your expectations, and your experiences after using Dialogic Practice.

Consent to Participate & Right to Withdraw Your participation in this research is entirely voluntary. Before the research begins, we need to have what is known as your ‘Informed Consent’. That means we need you to have carefully considered this ‘Consent Information Statement’ and then sign the attached ‘Informed Consent Form’. The consent form can be returned to the researchers at any time before the commencement of your interview. After giving your consent to participate in the project, it is your right to withdraw from the research at any stage. This means that you may cease to participate in this project without giving any reason, and you may also request that any data collected be omitted, returned to you, or destroyed. During the interview, if we touch on any topics that cause you to feel uncomfortable or distressed at any time, you are free to pause or stop the interview or decline to answer the question. If required, Irina can provide details of confidential counselling services available to you. We do hope that you will also derive some enjoyment and benefit from participating in this research. Your contribution will potentially help other student-supervisor dyads like yourselves to initiate explicit discussions on their mutual expectations.

Privacy & Confidentiality Irina Baydarova will be the project’s Record Keeper and the records will be stored securely within the premises of the University’s Faculty of Business, Design and Arts in Swinburne Sarawak.

Privacy Protection: Your confidentiality will be protected as follows: -

349

• Your signed Informed Consent Form will be kept in a separate, locked file. • A “Participant Index” will be created which assigns a code (pseudonymous you created) to your identity. All records of your interview will be identified only by this code, never by your name. For example, “Student-supervisor Dyad 1 Interview”. • Records of your interviews (hard copy and audio) will be identified by your code only and will be kept in a locked filing cabinet in a locked room. • All computer files will be kept on a password-protected computer. Back-up disks will be kept in a locked cabinet. • Only the people listed above who are involved with this research will have access to these records. • Following completion of the study, the data will be kept for a minimum of five years and maximum of seven years. After this time all notes and recordings will be destroyed.

What we will do with your information? Irina Baydarova will analyse the interview transcripts collected in this project as part of her PhD thesis, and expects to publish some of the outcomes of the research in conferences in academic journals. Some direct quotes may be included in published documents. In these cases you and others will be described in a standardised format such as Code Name/age-at-interview/nationality (such as: John/35/Malaysian). It is important that you understand that some of the information you reveal about your experiences may identify you (for example: names of people, locations, dates, other distinctive/identifying details). These identifying details will be removed from the transcript of your interview and will not be included published material. After removing any obviously identifying features, if there appears any risk of your identity still being deduced by readers, drafts of papers being submitted for publication will be shared with you for your comment, and any you will be given the opportunity to request further detail to be removed.

Who to contact If you would like further information about the project, please do not hesitate to contact: Dr. Heidi Collins School of Graduate Studies, The University of Auckland Private Bag 92019 Auckland 1142 New Zealand Tel +64204369009

350

Email: [email protected]

Associate Professor Deirdre Barron Faculty of Health, Arts and Design Swinburne University of Technology, Hawthorn campus John Street, Hawthorn Victoria 3122 Australia Tel +61430413809 Email: [email protected]

Concerns or complaints about the project: This project has been approved by or on behalf of Swinburne’s Human Research Ethics Committee (SUHREC) in line with the Australian National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Research Involving Humans. If you have any concerns or complaints about the conduct of this project, you can contact: Ethics & Integrity Officer, School of Research, Swinburne University of Technology, Jalan Simpang Tiga 93350 Kuching, Sarawak, Malaysia Tel 82 260 923 or +60 82 260 923 or [email protected]

351

Appendix I. Informed Consent Form (Phase 3)

Informed Consent Form

Project Title: Comparative Analysis of postgraduate student and supervisor expectations of roles and responsibilities

Researchers: • Dr. Ismail Ait Saadi • Dr. Heidi Collins • Associate Professor Deirdre Barron • Irina Baydarova Swinburne University of Technology, Sarawak Campus

1. I consent to participate in the project named above. I have been provided a copy of the project consent information statement to which this consent form relates and any questions I have asked have been answered to my satisfaction.

2. In relation to this project, please circle your response to the following: I agree to be interviewed by the researcher Yes No I agree to allow the interview to be recorded by electronic device Yes No I agree to make myself available for further information if required Yes No

3. I acknowledge that: (a) my participation is voluntary and that I am free to withdraw from the project within two weeks of my interview, without explanation; (b) the research project is for the purpose of research and not for profit; (c) any identifiable information about me which is gathered in the course of and as the result of my participating in this project will be (i) collected and retained for the purpose of this project and (ii) accessed and analysed by the researcher(s) for the purpose of conducting this project; (d) my anonymity is preserved, and I will not be identified in publications or otherwise without my express written consent.

By signing this document, I agree to participate in this project.

Name of Participant: ……………………………………………………………………………

Signature & Date: ………………………….……………………………………………………

352

Appendix J. Recruitment Email Template (Phase 3)

Dear [HDR student] and [supervisor],

We would like to invite you to participate in our research project titled: “Comparative analysis of student and supervisor expectations of roles and responsibilities”. This research is being undertaken by Ms Irina Baydarova, a PhD candidate at Swinburne University of Technology Sarawak, under the supervision of Dr Ismail Ait Saadi, Dr Heidi Collins, and Associate Professor Deirdre Barron.

This project aims to provide space for HDR student-supervisor dyad to develop, discuss and align their mutual expectations towards each other using Dialogic Practice. As a student- supervisor dyad, you will be asked to implement proposed dialogic practice to understand and negotiate your expectations towards each other. This project will require participants to follow three stages, where you will be asked to consciously develop a set of expectations towards yourself and your counterpart, then initiate explicit discussion to highlight, negotiate and align your expectations towards each other, and finally to reflect and revisit your set of expectations and make necessary adjustments if required.

After two months of working together while practicing a dialogic approach to expectation setting, you will be invited to share your findings/notes/reflections with Irina Baydarova in a dyadic interview session (this could be arranged in person or by Skype). We expect the interview to last approximately an hour, and that over the two months of working on your research project, you would use an additional 2-3 hours thinking and talking about expectations with your student-supervisor. The interview would involve discussion about your experiences of using dialogic practice to negotiate your student-supervisor expectations, the difficulties (if any) you faced while using it, and further suggestions for improvements.

353

If you interested in taking part in this project or would like further information, kindly reply to this email, or contact Dr. Heidi Collins at: [email protected] . We will then send you further details about the project and request your formal consent to participate. Thank you for your kind consideration. Best regards, Irina Baydarova

354

Appendix K. Counselling Service Handout for Participants (Phase 3)

Counselling Services

1. Swinburne Sarawak Counselling Services Face to Face Counselling We offer short-term counselling for Swinburne’s students with both academic and personal issues, at no cost.

Personal, relationship and family issues Effective study and academic progress problems Exam anxiety, motivation and time management Stress, grief and loss International and country students adjusting to the culture and university life We offer free and confidential support, but this is not an emergency service.

Liew Hui Yann (Evelyn) Senior Counsellor Direct line: 260 789 G106 Ext: 8789 [email protected]

Fazlia binti Azhari Student Counsellor Direct line: 260 873 G106 Ext: 8873 [email protected]

Liong Siau Wui (Chloe) Student Counsellor Direct line: 260 932 G106 Ext: 8932 [email protected]

Swin-eCounselling Counselling Services has extended its service to provide online counselling for currently enrolled Swinburne students. Swin-eCounselling staff is employed by Swinburne University and consists of qualified counsellors, who have completed further training specifically designed for online counselling. With compassion and support, Student Development and Counselling service is committed to providing the highest quality of care and confidentiality. Swin-eCounselling is an online counselling service made available for individuals whom do not feel comfortable meeting a counsellor face-to-face. Students can express their concerns to counsellor via email. Counsellors on duty will respond to the email within 3 working days to guide the students through the issue. Swin-eCounsellors can be reached

355

at [email protected]. All information share in the emails will be regarded as confidential. 2. Online Counselling Services Apart from University Counselling Services, should you require support or need to share your worries, 24/7 hotline counselling is available for you. Befrienders Online/Hotline Counselling Services

Befrienders is a 24 hour nation-wide confidential telephone counselling service. If you find yourself feeling desperate to talk to someone at any time of the day or night.

Languages spoken (English, Bahasa Malaysia, Mandarin, Cantonese, Tamil)

Website: www.befrienders.org.my.my

Better Help Online Counselling Services

Website: https://www.betterhelp.com/

Charges apply (please visit website for the rates and available services).

Grace Counselling

Services offered include:

• Counselling helps individuals understand their emotional crises and how to better cope with them • Relationship therapy helps people to examine and change patterns of interaction that do not support the stability and growth of the relationship. • Psychotherapy helps individuals explore and resolve more enduring and deeply felt sources of conflict and dissatisfaction so that they gain confidence and inner wholeness. Hotline: +6082-341411

356

Appendix L. Approval for Research with Human Subjects (Phase 3)

SHR Project 2018/279 - Ethics Clearance

SHR Project 2018/279 - Comparative analysis of postgraduate student and supervisor expectations of roles and responsibilities

15/06/2020

Ref: 20200889-4406: Comparative analysis of postgraduate student and supervisor expectations of roles and responsibilities

Approved Duration: 17/08/2018 to 30/11/2020

Chief Investigator: Ismail Ait Saadi

I refer to your request to modify the approved protocol for the above project. The request was put to a SUHREC/SHESC delegate for consideration.

I am pleased to advise that, as modified to date, the project may continue in line with standard ethics clearance conditions previously communicated and reprinted below.

Please note that information on self-auditing, progress/final reporting and modifications/additions to approved protocols can now be found on the Research Ethics Internet pages.

Please contact the Research Ethics Office if you have any queries about on-going ethics clearance, citing the project number. A copy of this correspondence should be retained as part of project record- keeping and forwarded to relevant members of the project team.

As before, best wishes for the project.

Yours sincerely, Ms Leah Barham Research Ethics Office Swinburne University of Technology P: +61 3 9214 8145 | E: [email protected] Page

357

Appendix M. Instructions for Participants of Using Dialogic Practice to Negotiate Mutual Expectations (Phase 3)

1. In preparation for discussion to gain better understanding of one’s own expectations towards yourself and your counterpart, both students and supervisors are asked to read the accompanying document Dialogic Practice and take 1 - 2 weeks to think over it.

2. While considering questions proposed in Dialogic Practice (Stage 1), students and supervisors are advised to make some notes on the topics they wish to discuss with their counterparts. Those notes for discussion should not be limited topics proposed in guide. Both student and supervisor may wish to discuss other arising expectations which were not proposed for discussion in this practice.

3. As soon as student and supervisor have both considered their perceptions about roles and responsibilities of each other and themselves, they should initiate meeting to discuss their perceptions Dialogic Practice (Stage 2).

4. Throughout this meeting, both student and supervisor are advised to take notes on mutual expectations, identifying areas where their expectations were aligned and areas of misaligned expectations that required further dialogue and negotiation. Please think about whether the explicit dialogue and negotiation helped you to align the misaligned expectations. Think about whether any areas of expectations remain undiscussed or misaligned.

5. Continue working together on the student’s project after the dialogue (i.e. over 1-2 months) and make notes on any changes you notice in your relationship or current mode of supervision. Think about whether any areas of expectations require further discussion/negotiation. If identified, you may wish to hold another explicit discussion. It may also be useful to conduct meeting if some areas of expectations were previously not discussed Dialogic Practice (Stage 3).

6. After two months, you will be invited to share your findings/notes/reflections with researcher over dyadic interview session. In the interview we will discuss whether some of expectations were more difficult to discuss, or more difficult to agree on than other. You will be invited to reflect on your experiences over the past two months and share whether the use of such a dialogic pedagogy was useful.

358

Appendix N. Interview Guide Schedule for Student-supervisor Dyads (Phase 3)

Interview Guide Questions for Student-supervisor Dyads

First of all, I would like to thank you for becoming a part of this project. This project, in comparison with other traditional methods of data collection, required a lot of extra time and commitment to be completed. So, today, as a final step of your participation in this study, I would like to learn about your experiences using Dialogic Practice to negotiate your student-supervisor expectations. If there are some questions you don’t want to answer, that’s OK, and if there are any other aspects of your experience you would like to share with me, I am happy to learn about whatever is important to you. Let’s start with some background questions, Background questions: 1. Could you tell me, how did you come across each other? 2. Could you tell me, how long have you been working together? 3. Have you explicitly discussed your expectations before participating in this project? Why? Why not? Student and supervisor experiences developing expectations towards themselves and counterpart (Stage 1): 4. How can you describe the process of drafting expectations towards your student-supervisor? 5. How can you describe the process of drafting expectations towards yourself? 6. Were there any areas of expectations that you did not think about previously? If yes, what are those areas? 7. Have you found any areas of expectations extra challenging to approach/develop perceptions around? If yes, which ones? Student-supervisor explicit dialogue, negotiation and alignment of expectations (Stage 2): Let’s recall that actual day of discussion, how it was and what you felt when voicing your expectations towards each other, negotiating and aligning them one by one.

8. What was the first feeling you had as you started an explicit discussion? 9. How did you approach a discussion of your expectations? 10. Have you experienced any difficulties explicitly presenting your expectations? Why? 11. What areas of expectations did you find the most challenging to discuss/align? 12. Have you learnt anything new about each other expectations after using Dialogic Practice? Can you give an example? 13. Have you had expectations that required negotiation? What are those expectations? Why? How did you negotiate them? 14. Were there areas of expectations that you could not explicitly discuss over that meeting?

359

15. Have you discussed expectations that were not proposed in Dialogic Practice? If yes, what are those expectations? If no, why? 16. Did this practice help you to understand more each other perceptions towards supervision? 17. How many times have you discussed your expectations? Was it one explicit dialogue or you revisited your expectations again explicitly or implicitly over 2 months?

Doing reflection and action on developed set of expectations (Stage 3): 18. After having an explicit discussion about your expectations, have you noticed any changes in your relationship or in current mode of supervision? 19. After having an explicit discussion about your expectations, have you noticed any changes in your behaviour? If yes, what are those changes in behaviour? 20. Has your student-supervisor noticed those changes? If yes, what do you feel about changing behaviour of your student-supervisor? 21. Do you feel more comfortable discussing arising or changing expectations after using this practice? 22. How can you describe your overall experience of using Dialogic Practice? Do you find this practice useful when aligning student-supervisor expectations? 23. Based on your personal experience of using Dialogic Practice, do you have any suggestions for improving this practice?

360

List of Publications

Baydarova, I., E Collins, H., & Ait Saadi, I. (2021). Alignment of Doctoral Student and Supervisor Expectations in Malaysia. International Journal of Doctoral Studies, 16, 001– 029. https://doi.org/10.28945/4682

361