SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Eğitim Bilimleri Araştırmaları Dergisi / 2017 / Cilt: 7 Sayı: 1

Supervision and the PhD Process: Perspectives of Research Assistants

İşıner SEVER
Ali ERSOY
Pages
163–182
Publication Date
2017-04-01
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Moreover, they underlined the necessity that their supervisors‘ intervention to the process should be limited to guidance

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:The aim of this phenomenological study was to examine the supervisor-supervisee relationship in the PhD process based on Turkish PhD students‘ views.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Eight PhD students who work as research assistants in educational sciences participated in the study.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Moreover, they underlined the necessity that their supervisors‘ intervention to the process should be limited to guidance
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Supervision · PhD Education · Phenomenology

Abstract

The aim of this phenomenological study was to examine the supervisor-supervisee relationship in the PhD process based on Turkish PhD students‘ views. Eight PhD students who work as research assistants in educational sciences participated in the study. The data were gathered through semi-structured interviews with the participants, and analyzed by means of Interpretive Phenomenological Analysis. As a result of the analyses, three main themes, “My PhD”, “My Supervisor” and “My Expectations”, were revealed. The findings showed that the participants perceived doing a PhD as a means for actualizing themselves and their dreams. The PhD students described their supervisors as guiding, supportive and instructive. They spoke of the personal and professional characteristics that their supervisors should have and how these characteristics affect them. They expected the PhD education to be student-centered and more practice-based. They argued that their relationship with supervisors should have a balance, and it should not go beyond the professional dimension. Moreover, they underlined the necessity that their supervisors‘ intervention to the process should be limited to guidance

Özet

-

🔖

Cite This Article

SEVER, İ., ERSOY, A. (2017). Supervision and the PhD Process: Perspectives of Research Assistants. Eğitim Bilimleri Araştırmaları Dergisi, Cilt: 7 Sayı: 1, 163–182. https://ajindex.com/articles/973225

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (8)

  1. Akbulut İpek, H., Şahin, Ç., & Çepni, S. (2013). Doktora tez sürecinde karşılaşılan problemlerin belirlenmesi: Eğitim fakültesi örneği. Dicle Üniversitesi Ziya Gökalp Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 20, 50-69.
  2. Alam, F., Alam, Q., & Rasul, M. G. (2013). A pilot study on postgraduate supervision. Procedia Engineering, 56, 875-881. doi:10.1016/j.proeng.2013.03.210 Arabacı, B. İ., & Akıllı, C. (2013). Lisansüstü öğretimde öğrenci sorunları. In Proceedings of VI. National Symposium on Graduate Education (pp. 124-133). Sakarya University Graduate School of Educational Sciences. Bakioğlu, A., & Gürdal, A. (2001). Lisansüstü tezlerde danışman ve öğrencilerin rol algıları: Yönetim için göstergeler. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi 21, 9-18.
  3. Bakioğlu, A., & Yaman, E. (2004). Araştırma görevlilerinin kariyer gelişimleri: Engeller ve çözümler. Marmara Üniversitesi Atatürk Eğitim Fakültesi Eğitim Bilimleri Dergisi, 20, 1-20.
  4. Beer, M., & Mason, R. (2009). Using a blended approach to facilitate postgraduate supervision. Innovations doi:10.1080/14703290902843984 and Teaching International, 46(2), 213-226.
  5. Bibi-Nawaz, S., Stronach, I., Grant, D., & Frankham, J. (2015). A reflexive autoethnography of doctoral supervision. International Review of Qualitative Research, 8(4), 419-441.
  6. Biggerstaff, D., & Thompson, A. (2008). Interpretative phenomenological analysis (IPA): A qualitative methodology of choice in healthcare research. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 5(3), 214-224.
  7. Boud, D., & Lee, A. (2005). “Peer learning” as pedagogic discourse for research education. Studies in Higher Education, 30(5), 501-516. 0.1080/03075070500249138 Campbell, L. F. (2000, August). Mentoring and functions in supervision. Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the American Psychological Association. Washington, DC. Campbell, L. F. (2001, August). The role of mentoring in supervision. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Psychological Association, San Francisco, CA. Creswell, J. W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches. (2nd ed.). USA: Sage. Creswell, J. W. (2013). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. USA: Sage. Çakıcı, C. A. (2006). Turizm alanında lisansüstü tez hazırlayan öğrencilerin danışman öğretim üyelerini ve danışman öğretim üyelerinin de öğrencilerini değerlendirmesi. Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 8(3), 74-104.
  8. Emilsson, U., & Johnsson, E. (200