The supervision of professional doctorates: Experiences of the processes and ways forward

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nedt.2009.03.004Get rights and content

Summary

The doctoral research terrain is changing, as new-styles, for example professional doctorates, are being developed (Park, C., 2005. New variant PhDL the changing nature of the doctorate in the UK. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management 27(2), 189–207). There is a scarcity of literature aimed at supervisors (Gatfield, T., 2005, An investigation into PhD supervisory management styles: development of a dynamic conceptual model and its managerial implications. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management 27(3), 311–325) and this is particularly so in relation to professional doctorates.

In this position paper we argue that the supervisory approach required for a professional doctorate student is different than that required for a PhD. Professional doctorate students, like PhD students, are required to make an explicit contribution to knowledge. Their emphasis, however, needs to be in producing knowledge that is theoretically sound, original, and of relevance to their practice area. This is of increasing importance within healthcare with the growing emphasis on patient driven translational research. As such, the students and their supervisors face unique challenges of balancing academic requirements with praxis. We suggest this requires specific tools to make explicit the dialogical relationship between a particular project and the cultural, social, educational and political aspects of its environment. We expose the potential of soft systems methodology as a means to highlight the emergent aspects of a doctoral practice development project, their respective and evolving supervisory interactions. This focus of this paper is therefore not about guiding supervision in a managerial sense, but rather at offering methodological suggestions that could underpin applied research at doctoral level.

Introduction

The scarcity of literature aimed at management of doctoral research supervision (Gatfield, 2005), begs a number of questions around how do supervisors gain, develop and share knowledge of the appropriate tools to facilitate the doctorate as a successful and smooth process. Whilst this assumption is true for PhD supervisors, it applies even more to the new and evolving art of professional doctorate supervision. This is further complicated by the majority of current supervisors having experienced, both as student and supervisor, doctoral research in the PhD format.

The current policy demands of research training that is in line with employer demands were identified in the Roberts review (2002) and have been strongly emphasised in later governmental reports and reviews (Leitch, 2006, Warry, 2006, Sainsbury, 2007). The position of the professional doctorate as doctoral training that is strongly located within the professional area means that it is ideally suited to address these policy issues. Indeed within the most recent policy initiatives there is a further development on the theme of applying research to practice in that the agenda not only includes translational research, but also transformational research (RCUK, 2008).

Professional doctorates have emerged out of the perception of traditional PhD studies as divorced from the world of practice (McKenna, 1997, Edwards, 2009). Whilst professional doctorates have been part of American universities portfolio for over half a century, they have only recently been introduced in the UK (Ellis, 2005). Despite this history, there is paucity of literature on the supervision endeavour. Edwards (2009:2) contrasts the functions of the traditional PhD and professional doctorate study, clarifying the characteristics of latter as ‘the field of study is that of a professional discipline rather than academic enquiry…’. It is generally agreed that the emphasis of the PhD is to train people in academic research. Professional doctorates however, need to be “permeated by what may be called the triple helix of practice, theory and research” (McKenna, 1997). In a sense, this article is thus symptomatic of a shift in the debate about professional doctorates, from their nature and place in academia, to the ways in which they can be best operationalised with relevance to practice. In the context of a professional doctorate, the research undertaken often takes the shape of a practice development project. In this, the dialogical relationship between a particular practice development project and the cultural, social, educational and political aspects of its environment needs to be made explicit. We therefore suggest the supervisory craft required to support a professional doctorate student may be different to that required for a PhD. Professional doctorate students, like PhD students, are required to make an explicit contribution to knowledge. Their emphasis, however, needs to be in producing knowledge that is theoretically sound and original, and of relevance to their practice area. The contribution to knowledge of such projects, Winter et al. (2000) establish, has been characterised as combining innovation and originality in practice. Students and their supervisors face unique challenges of balancing academic requirements with praxis.

Holligan (2005) describes a landscape of doctoral research as “politicised and economically informed” (2005: 268), in which students are more consumers with choices and rights than “disciples with duties and obligations”. She describes the dominant discourses of PhD programmes as informed by such market forces, and as dominated by a quantitative agenda of performativity, in which supervisors may be inclined to adopt particular management styles in order to ensure timely completions. This is corroborated by Neuman (2007), who also describes, in humanities, a move towards a ‘science’ model of supervision, in which there is generally a closer synergy between doctorate topic and supervisor’s expertise. In the context of increased time pressures on university staff and emphasis on timely completion, practices such as group supervision of several students by the same member of staff, have emerged. Petersen’s (2007) description of a supervision model where the relationship is that of a double and reciprocal apprenticeship (practice expertise and methodological insights), in which neither party aims at mastering the other, but simply borrows from it for the duration of the doctoral project is perhaps most akin to the approach we favour.

Park (2005) calls for: “a wholesale revision of assumptions and expectations about what the PhD is, or could conceivably be today, given the new and still emerging context within which it is situated and constructed.” (2005: 190). He highlights the development of ‘new style’ PhD such as professional doctorates, as requiring adjustments in the expectations of students, supervisors and examiners (Park, 2007). We share the adjustments we are developing by drawing on two strands of our experiences. One strand is our experience of research activity in a University Research Centre with an overall focus on translational research. This nurtures a culture of development for professional doctorate students, and enables supervisors, as they grapple with the complexities of practice development, to provide them with a sympathetic whilst demanding level of support.

The other strand is our experience as academic supervisors of students studying at masters and doctoral level, and in particular, those studying on a Professional Doctorate in Health and Social Care programme. This paper therefore has two purposes (1) it proposes a methodological means of supervising professional doctorate students; and (2) it offers a conceptualisation of the professional doctorate process underpinned by soft system methodology, and as such opens up the possibility for academics to study the PhD/doctorate system in a way that acknowledges the very issues highlighted by Park (2005). In particular, we expose how soft system methodology (Checkland and Poulter, 2006) has helped us untangle complex and evolving situations in a way that acknowledges and works with the fluidity of practice worlds.

Section snippets

Situation appraisal: organisational and individual learning

At the core of practice development focussed research is the need for management of the interplay between individual students and the organisation in which they function. This section provides a critical appraisal of the professional doctorate research and supervision situation, and the processes and roles to facilitate this interplay.

Cowley (1995) argues the inappropriateness of separating organisational and professional learning. She advocates the idea of ‘organisations being seen as a

The supervision craft

Moving on to supervision experiences, the issues reported here cross several education programmes, but resonate particularly with students undertaking research as part of a Professional Doctorate in Health and Social Care programme. These students are active practitioners, involved in research, which is required to be relevant to their practice area, at doctoral level. The context of their research is therefore mostly linked to their area of practice, but there is an inherent reciprocal

Summary and conclusions

The emergence of professional doctorates challenges the traditional expectations of the PhD (Park, 2005) and indeed the nature of doctorateness. New supporting methodologies, such as the one proposed here, are needed for both students and supervisors, to manoeuvre the muddy waters of practice development research at doctoral level.

Whilst we advocate the use of soft system methodology for the supervision process, we do not wish to impose this as a way of working, and resolving situations, for

References (24)

  • S. Edwards

    A professional practice-based doctorate: developing advanced nursing practice

    Nurse Education Today

    (2009)
  • P. Checkland et al.

    Learning For Action. A Short Definitive Account of Soft Systems Methodology and its Use for Practitioners, Teachers and Students

    (2006)
  • P. Checkland et al.

    Soft Systems Methodology in Action

    (1990)
  • C. Clarke et al.

    Practice development: ambiguity in research and practice

    Journal of Advanced Nursing

    (1999)
  • Cooksey, D., 2006. A review of UK health research funding....
  • S. Cowley

    Professional development and change in a learning organisation

    Journal of Advanced Nursing

    (1995)
  • L.B. Ellis

    Professional Doctorates for nurses: mapping provision and perceptions

    Journal of Advanced Nursing

    (2005)
  • B. Evans

    Doctoral education in Australia

  • T. Gatfield

    An investigation into PhD supervisory management styles: development of a dynamic conceptual model and its managerial implications

    Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management

    (2005)
  • Higher Education Funding Council for England

    Improving Standards in Postgraduate Research Degree Programmes

    (2003)
  • C. Holligan

    Fact and fiction: a case history of doctoral supervision

    Educational Research

    (2005)
  • Leitch, S., 2006. Leith review of skills. Prosperity for all in the global economy – world class...
  • Cited by (14)

    • Adapting nurse competence to future patient needs using Checkland's Soft Systems Methodology

      2017, Nurse Education Today
      Citation Excerpt :

      In another application to mental health nursing education SSM was utilized to examine the role of and significance of hospital based sheltered workshops to ‘users’ who spent occupational time in them and their education (Wells, 2006). The emerging cultural, social and political aspects of the changing nature of the “doctoral research terrain” (introduction of professional doctorates and their supervision) was addressed (Carr et al., 2010). Additionally, SSM was applied to explore the pervasiveness of practice development, establishing that developing healthcare practice includes three processes: using and creating knowledge, understanding and practice of patient care, and effecting development (Clarke and Wilcockson, 2001), as well as to analyse the information-seeking behaviour of nurse teachers (Stoke and Lewin, 2004), to understand the role of a personal tutor in clinical practice (Por, 2008) and in the development of an undergraduate nursing interns tutorial system (Jianfei et al., 2011).

    • Doctoral supervision: sharpening the focus of the practice lens

      2022, Higher Education Research and Development
    • The Professional Doctorate: A Practical Guide

      2020, The Professional Doctorate: A Practical Guide
    View all citing articles on Scopus
    View full text