T. Mwamburi Mcharo talks about six important lessons that encompass what to do and what not to do while supervising students. Drawing from his vast experience and pedagogical understanding, he gives all future teachers a blueprint for effective and compassionate supervision of students.
I hold the position of Senior Lecturer at Taita Taveta University, a public institution in Kenya, where I instruct postgraduate courses in plant breeding and biostatistics. In my role, I design courses, instruct, conduct research, and supervise postgraduate students. I started supervising master’s and doctoral students five years ago. During this time, I have enjoyed supervising successful students as well as suffering the pain of regressive students. In my experience, doctoral student supervision is fundamentally different from supervising master’s students. At the doctoral level, I am developing a future independent creator of knowledge and innovations. The need for doctoral degree holders in Kenya is mostly fuelled by higher education regulations (Commission for University Education, 2014) that require lecturers to earn doctorate degrees. In this essay, I will reflect on the lessons I have learned as a doctoral student supervisor and how the lessons relate to the context of my supervision practice.
Firstly, how I was supervised both at master’s and doctoral levels has had a great impact on the way I supervise. My first supervisor at master’s level realized that I had weak writing skills. Consequently, he did a lot of edits when correcting my thesis; he literally took over writing my thesis. In the past, I have also used the same corrections approach on my first two doctoral students. I rewrote their proposals to suit my style. What I did not recognize is that my students often accepted all my corrections without question. In retrospect, the issue of a supervisor taking over the writing of a student’s thesis was counterproductive. As much as I can, I now reflect deeply on my students’ writing and work with them to improve their documents. I have learned to make comments and direct the students on how to organize their ideas rather than doing the improvements myself. I now view a student as an independent being who can be guided to develop his or her own style. This approach is very important because my students are in their 50s, with long field experience. These lessons are a journey of self-improvement that I am undertaking to effectively supervise the modern doctorate (Lee, 2018).
Secondly, I would like to summarize my experience as a doctoral student being supervised. This experience has shaped the way I approach a doctoral student. I pursued my PhD in the United States of America, a country that is 8,000 kilometers from my home country Kenya. A country whose go-getting culture is markedly different from my laidback mien. Once I arrived there, I was forced to hit the ground running doing coursework and research concurrently. Although I had interacted with my supervisor on email, we had never met prior to commencing my studies. Further, African non-whites were rare in my department. It was going to be a novel experience. My interactions with my supervisor were initially formal, either in the laboratory or in the experimental field. Since I was a relatively mature student (over 30 years old) with a fair amount of field experience, he left me to handle my field experiments independently. This approach empowered me to express myself. With time, our relationship became cordial, and friendly and I even perceived him as an elder brother figure. I similarly allow my students to do their field crop research with minimal supervision, once we agree on the methodology. On the other hand, my training in laboratory techniques was mostly through a more experienced fellow student and through the laboratory technician. Where field and laboratory resources were lacking, we innovated and sought assistance. In addition, my supervisor always made reading material available to induct me into this new research field of plant molecular breeding. I similarly promote a student research group format and share my publications with my students to help them along.
As an African doctoral student, I sensed that the university system generally perceived me as not capable of measuring up to American doctoral student standards. This was disconcerting especially because I had to learn some things through trial and error, but I chose to focus on the positive lessons. Eventually, I proved myself to be as good as any other student. What motivated me to go on with my studies was my determination to complete my studies. Failure was not an option even though the coursework was very demanding. This experience made me realize that as a doctoral student supervisor, I should not assume that my students can work without guidance. However qualified my student is, I now see myself as a guide. I first assess each student to identify their individual strengths and weaknesses. Depending on their needs, my plan is to require my students to undertake extra lessons, especially on writing skills and data analysis, to bridge knowledge gaps. I realize that there is no student who is always ready and independent to undertake doctoral studies without guidance. Consequently, I try to create a good professional relationship with my students with the aim of guiding them through their studies.
Thirdly, I have learned the importance of looking at each student as unique. The way I relate with one student is now different from the way I relate with another (Schulze, 2012). The practical result of this lesson is that I have stopped comparing my students with each other. When I adopt this perspective, I am inclined to empower my students in their doctoral journey rather than disempower them through inappropriate supervision approaches. It is, therefore, important that I focus on the process rather than the product of supervision. When I focus on the process, then I am more aware of my student’s abilities and emotions. I then demand more from my hardworking doctoral student while I am more patient with the less motivated one. In fact, this approach unearthed the fact that among my two PhD students, my less motivated student did not have a research thesis component for his master’s. I will have to hold his hand in the first year of his research as he gains experience and confidence to conduct research.
The fourth lesson, which involves relationships with my students, is for a balanced power structure in a mentoring process. I resonate with the idea that mentoring as a practice in supervision has great benefits (Manathunga, 2007). It could also have negative consequences if as a supervisor I start feeling that such a relationship gives me the power to be overbearing on a student. I, therefore, focus my mentoring on the research process and the objective to be achieved – graduation. It is important, therefore, for me to be well-equipped with adequate mentoring skills, especially interpersonal skills so that I get the best out of my students. I am now keener to listen to both verbal and non-verbal cues to gauge a student’s continuing interest and emotional status. In my view, if interpersonal skills are lacking, the mentoring-supervising relationship may break down. It’s unlikely any meaningful research progress would be made fast enough in this environment. I think that, at best, I (the supervisor) and my student would not understand each other and at worst, the student would abandon the work. My first doctoral student abandoned his funded research project because I did not take the time to understand his inadequate research skills. Although some may advocate for friendship in a mentoring process, I think such friendship should be within clearly set boundaries. Mixing friendship and mentoring can be risky if the relationship gets too close. For example, I do not meet my students in secluded places or even in a closed office. There is always a respectable physical distance between us. Further, we do not discuss our social or family lives.
Fifthly, the importance of critical study and thinking skills are traits that have been affirmed in me through the recent doctoral supervision course I attended. Critical thinking and studying skills are the abilities to logically and productively reflect on one’s work and the work of others. I believe students develop their scholarly identity well if they can adequately use logical reasoning in research. On the contrary, I have realized that some of my students tend to often accept my comments or corrections unquestioningly. They portray limited ability to evaluate evidence and thus are not always able to distinguish quality from shoddy research. However, I will hesitate to condemn such students without understanding their intellectual foundations. As a result of these experiences, I recently proposed that we include a course on scientific logic in every doctoral curriculum in our department. This course will help fill in gaps in students’ critical reading and thinking abilities. The skills to be gained will include using induction and deduction, analyzing a paradox, assessing what is scientifically valid, and identifying fallacies. While it may not be a perfect solution, I feel that students will gain greatly from such a course.
Finally, I have learned that there are different student learning mechanisms whose effectiveness depends on the stage of a student’s research project. In the early stages of research, a student learns from modeling. I model and instruct on the acceptable discipline-specific behavior of a researcher. This approach establishes a good intellectual foundation for the student at the early stages of his or her research. As the student matures, I focus more on giving constructive suggestions, advice, and feedback. I have discovered the importance of giving constructive and timely feedback, in the appropriate language, to my students. Critiquing a student’s work while concurrently offering guidance on how to improve it has great value. Some of the most useful feedback I received as a doctoral student concerned scientific writing skills. I did not realize what my supervisors were doing at the time, but once I completed the revisions I was impressed by the result.
In conclusion, a doctoral student needs to be mentored and guided to develop an independent scholarly identity, not to be a reproduction of the supervisor. These doctoral students are also unique, with different needs, capabilities, and objectives for pursuing a doctorate. Where the research facilities like laboratories and office space are inadequate, the supervisor needs to model innovation and resilience. Finally, doctoral supervision is part of the teaching and learning process. I, therefore, subscribe to the concept of supervision as a pedagogy that encompasses the student, the learning environment, and the supervisor.
T. Mwamburi Mcharo
Senior Lecturer at Taita Taveta University
Editorial comment:
“ It is sad (and a wake-up call) to read: “As an African doctoral student, I sensed that the university system generally perceived me as not capable of measuring up to American doctoral student standards”. Hopefully Wisaarkhu’s readers will be enlightened and led to reflection and improvement (where necessary).”
References
- Commission for University Education. (2014). Harmonized criteria and guidelines for appointment and promotion of academic staff in universities in Kenya. https://www.cue.or.ke/images/news/appointment_promotion_criteria_universities_2014.pdf
- Lee, A. (2018). How can we develop supervisors for the modern doctorate? Studies in Higher Education, 43(5), 878-890. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2018.1438116
- Manathunga, C. (2007). Supervision as mentoring: The role of power and boundary crossing. Studies in Continuing Education, 29(2), 207-221. https://doi.org/10.1080/01580370701424650
- Schulze, S. (2012). ‘Empowering and disempowering students in student–supervisor relationships’. Koers – Bulletin for Christian Scholarship, 77(2). http://dx.doi.org/10.4102/koers.v77i2.47
