Higher Education Research & Development ISSN: 0729-4360 (Print) 1469-8366 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cher20 A handbook for doctoral supervisors Nancy November To cite this article: Nancy November (2018): A handbook for doctoral supervisors, Higher Education Research & Development, DOI: 10.1080/07294360.2018.1493770 To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2018.1493770 Published online: 05 Jul 2018. Submit your article to this journal Article views: 13 View Crossmark data Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=cher20 HIGHER EDUCATION RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT BOOK REVIEW A handbook for doctoral supervisors, 2nd ed., by Stan Taylor, Margaret Kiley and Robin Humphrey, New York, Routledge, 2018, 264 pp., ISBN: 978-1-138-19482-3 A handbook for doctoral supervisors first appeared in 2005, co-authored by Stan Taylor and Nigel Beasley. In terms of coverage, the second edition, published in 2018, is virtually identical: each volume is divided into six parts, covering contexts in which doctoral supervision is situated; preparing the ground for doctoral work; supporting the research project; supporting the candidate; completion and examination; and improving practice. But if the overall structure is the same, the subject matter has been wholly reconsidered in light of the considerable shifts in doctoral education and doctoral demographics in the intervening 13 years. The sections that have been added are telling, notably those on doctoral programme context (Chapter 4), responding to diversity (Chapter 13 and 14) and modes of study (Chapter 15). These new sections are crucial in reflecting the considerable shifts in contexts, understandings and practices since the early 2000s. One of the values of this book is the inclusion of numerous real-life examples and case studies, which have also been up-dated and broadened in scope for this second edition. Examples from Australian and UK universities are well represented, as one might expect given the backgrounds of the two new authors who join Stan Taylor (Durham University): Margaret Kiley (ANU) and Robin Humphrey (Newcastle University). It is also true that the book is written with the UK model of doctoral supervision in mind, and so with the term ‘supervisor’ used in the broad sense of the word, which, as the authors note, ‘implies a wider range of interventions than the US “advisor”’ (p. 2). The first sustained consideration of the US context occurs in Chapter 4, on ‘the programme context’ in the section on ‘the structured doctorate’ (p. 48). Nonetheless, US case studies are included, and US literature on doctoral education is well represented. The handbook functions as such not only through its summarising of issues and exceptionally broad and useful citation of literature. The authors have also adopted a tone and manner of presentation that encourages engagement and reflection on the part of the reader. A self-interrogatory style is adopted, designed to help supervisors to reflect on and improve their practices: prompts are given at key points in the text, which allow for this reflection. Often these prompts are open-ended and ask the reader (supervisor) to consider his or her own practice in relation to the larger context. Thus, for example, in the chapter on ‘programme context’, the reader is asked to consider ‘How can you support candidates [in practice-led research degrees] to integrate theory and methods into their research?’ and ‘How can you support them in producing academic writing?’ (p. 53). These are fundamental questions, to which there are no simple answers: the new programme contexts are demanding that we address such questions. At these points in the book, the onus clearly falls on us, the supervisors, to interrogate our practices and find ways to move ahead. However, these question prompts tend to point the supervisor more towards knowledge of the existing institutional and disciplinary frameworks within which he or she operates, rather than further, towards a critique or questioning of these frameworks. Thus, regarding the PhD by publication, the supervisor is asked ‘Does your institution offer doctorates by publication to staff and/or candidates?’ (p. 51). One might want to go further, asking: if not, would the PhD by publication be relevant and useful as a new initiative at my institution or within my discipline? Of course, as the authors point out in Chapter 2, it is highly necessary to know local 2 BOOK REVIEW institutions norms, and not assume that one’s own doctoral experience will translate into the new contexts in which today’s students find themselves. Knowledge of disciplinary norms is also vital in the context of cross-disciplinary research, a point that the authors make in Chapter 3. But at the doctoral level, supervisors and students can also think about and negotiate the extent to which they are going to subscribe to disciplinary norms. With regard to interdisciplinary research projects, the authors take a careful approach: ‘Academic recruitment is still largely structured around single disciplines, and doing an interdisciplinary doctorate can be career suicide for interdisciplinary academics’ (p. 42). If this approach seems somewhat over cautious, the advice that comes with it, for successful interdisciplinary PhDs is useful, involving, for example, thinking in terms of long-term collaborations and career goals. The reader is not asked to accept institutional policies unquestioningly. This much is clear in the ‘contexts’ chapters of part 1, which begins with a discussion of the McDonaldisation and dislocation of doctoral research in our times (the latter arising, e.g., when supervision routinely takes place via Skype). The authors are realists, who appreciate that conquering the commodification of the doctorate is not a battle that can be won. Rather, it is an ideological context that creates significant challenges. The successful supervisor needs to understand this context in order to operate effectively within it, and perhaps move beyond it. In Chapter 4, the authors offer useful ways of thinking about a new area in doctoral supervision: practice led PhDs. Six pertinent questions are raised here, notably ‘How can you support [practice-led PhD students] in producing academic writing’ (p. 53). For most practice-led PhDs, the practice takes centre stage in project conception and inspiration, and many of these students lack full support in planning, carrying out and disseminating their research in ways that are relevant to their practices. Students in the PhD with Creative Practice (or similar) may struggle with the task of producing a 60,000 word written document (or similar), finding other formats than the traditional thesis more congenial, but relevant exemplars difficult to find. Another major area of expansion in this volume is in part 4, on supporting the candidate. Responding to diversity, covered in some detail here, is a vitally important subject, especially at the postgraduate level, where many students will travel abroad to work with a chosen supervisor. However, the sections on responding to diversity tend to be somewhat one-sided, because the authors adopt a procedure of talking about ‘benefits of’ certain types of candidates for the supervisor/institution and ‘challenges for’ those students; whereas one would like further consideration of the ‘benefits for’ certain types of candidates and ‘challenges of’ those students for the supervisor. An important side of the cultural coin is missing from the section on ‘culture shock’, which might not be immediately apparent. Disciplines, of course, have their own cultures; and today, in an era in which international conferences are on the yearly agendas of many academics and postgraduates, disciplinary cultures have become more or less internationalised. Even in the 1990s, when I arrived at Cornell University as a postgraduate student from New Zealand, I did not experience was the slowly creeping culture shock that the authors describe: ‘There is a well-recognised process whereby an initial honeymoon period for the newly arrived student may be followed by the shock of new and unexpected experiences which can be unfamiliar and painful, leading to confusion, disorientation and loss of identity’ (p. 190). My own experience, and I would wager that of many other ‘internationals’, was rather the reverse: LAX was the height of culture shock, followed, to a much lesser extent, by the culture of a small town (with a very large university) in up-state New York. But the Cornell Music Department itself was a haven of like-minded colleagues, who read the same books, shared similar cultural values, and studied music history in similar ways to those I knew from my life as an HIGHER EDUCATION RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT 3 undergraduate and Masters student in New Zealand, albeit with the higher demands of a graduate programme. It is this latter form of shock – ‘study shock’, induced by the much higher demands for independent thinking and project management – that for many international students probably cuts much deeper than the slighter international cultural differences in one’s own discipline. A handbook for doctoral supervisors focuses on ‘best practice’, but avoids this overused word. The authors make it clear from the beginning that they are not interested in a supervisatory practice that allows students to merely get through. Rather, they are looking to develop supervisors who will help their doctoral students foster creative, critical and analytical skills and knowledge, which will lay the basis for their future careers. Thus there is an emphasis on how to support the candidate along the entire doctoral journey, and beyond that journey; the final chapters, on preparing for the exam and submitting the thesis are the shortest, in keeping with the authors’ process and journey orientation. The long-reach of their approach is emphasised in this second edition by the inclusion of a ‘reflection and recognition’ section in the final chapters, an apt ending to a book that sets reflecting on one’s own practice every few pages. Nancy November School of Music, The University of Auckland n.november@auckland.ac.nz © 2018 Nancy November https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2018.1493770