Eligibility to Supervise: A Study of UK Institutions
01 Nov 2018
Read the headline findings of Dr Stan Taylor’s — Durham University and the UKCGE’s Research Supervisors Network — paper examining the requirements at UK HEI’s relating to eligibility to supervise research.
Eligibility to Supervise: A Study of UK Institutions
Supervision is crucial in determining the quality of the experience of research students and the chances of their completing on time. It has long been recognised that appropriate criteria are needed to determine eligibility to supervise. In many countries, these are specified at national level, but in the UK, since 1992, it has been left up to institutions.
Dr Stan Taylor, of Durham University and the UKCGE’s Research Supervisors Network has written a paper examining the requirements at UK HEI’s relating to eligibility to supervise research. The paper uses publicly available institutional regulations and codes of practice — supplemented where appropriate by e‑mail and telephone enquiries – of 142 of 143 UK institutions providing research degrees.
HEADLINE FINDINGS
Dr Stan Taylor, of Durham University and the UKCGE’s Research Supervisors Network has written a paper examining the requirements at UK HEI’s relating to eligibility to supervise research. The paper uses publicly available institutional regulations and codes of practice — supplemented where appropriate by e‑mail and telephone enquiries – of 142 of 143 UK institutions providing research degrees.
HEADLINE FINDINGS
The survey, carried out between June and December 2017, identified 9 common criteria for eligibility to supervise. A number of these criteria were investigated in further detail, particularly initial and continuing professional development. While 8 out of 10 institution require mandatory initial professional development programmes:
- Three quarters of these training programmes lasted only a day or less – and focus on regulatory and pedagogical matters rather than diversity, student support and development.
- 60% of institutions had no requirement for experienced supervisors to update their knowledge and skills. Of the two-fifths of institutions which did, requirements often seemed symbolic rather than substantive, which would seem to leave many possibly ill-equipped to cope with the realities of supervision in the 21st century.
- Only half of institutions specified that supervisors needed to be research active, have research expertise aligned to the candidate’s project, have research degrees, or have the capacity to take on additional research students, all of would all seem to be necessary for effective supervision.
REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS
On the basis of report’s findings it is hoped that, where appropriate, institutions might:
- Review their provision for initial professional development in the light of its duration and comprehensiveness in preparing supervisors for their roles, in particular in relation to diversity, student support, and student development.
- Consider whether they should explicitly incorporate subject expertise, research degrees, or research experience into their criteria for supervisors.
- Consider whether it would be worth considering limits to provide reassurance that supervisory workloads are realistic.
- Consider how they can ensure that experienced supervisors remain up to date.
- Review the duration and content of continuing professional development programmes, particularly in relation to diversity, student support, and student development, and consider how they can be made more relevant and attractive.
- Consider whether there could be advantages in introducing mentoring as a way of supporting the development of new supervisors and engaging established ones in developmental activities as mentors.
DOWNLOAD THE FULL REPORT
To see the full report findings, including the common eligibility criteria conclusions and recommendations, download the report.
