Perceptions and expectations of authorship: Towards development of an e-learning tool facilitating discussion and reflection between post-graduate supervisors and candidates

Authors

  • Michelle Picard Adelaide Graduate Centre, University of Adelaide
  • Kerry Wilkinson School of Agriculture, Food and Wine, University of Adelaide
  • Michelle Wirthensohn School of Agriculture, Food and Wine, University of Adelaide

Abstract

This paper describes an online flexible learning project aimed at Higher Education by Research (HDR) Candidates and their supervisors to encourage discussion around issues of authorship. The project was developed in response to the new Australian Code for the Responsible Conduct of Research which requires discussion between all participants in a project followed by a “written acknowledgment of authorship”. However, despite providing guidelines on the definitions of authorship and the responsibilities of authors and institutions, this document does not address the inherent unequal power relations when one of the authors is an HDR candidate and another a supervisor. In addition, more ambivalent issues such as order of authors which could potentially be a source of considerable conflict between supervisors and HDR candidates are not addressed. In order to engage fully in authorship discussions, HDR candidates require both knowledge of authorship protocols and the ability to negotiate within the supervision relationship. Since supervision is a particular type of pedagogy where the aim is the development of ‘competent autonomy’, the supervisor’s role is to model and foster negotiation skills along with ethical behaviour. In order to develop HDR candidate’s reflective practice and negotiation skills towards the attainment of this autonomy, an online questionnaire which ascertains the opinions of HDR candidates and their supervisors around various authorship issues and their reasons for their answers is proposed. Interactive worksheets to educate both supervisors and students on authorship protocols are also proposed. This paper describes the background to the project, along with an initial evaluation of the questionnaire content and pragmatic issues surrounding the creation of the online tool. 

References

Chan, C. C., Tsui, M. S., Chan, M. Y. C. & Hong, J. H. (2002) Applying the Structure of the Observed Learning Outcomes (SOLO) Taxonomy on Student’s Learning Outcomes: an empirical study. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 27, 511-527.

Cuthbert, D., Spark, C. & Burke, E. (2009) Disciplining writing: the case for multi-disciplinary writing groups to support writing for publication by higher degree by research candidates in the humanities, arts and social sciences. Higher Education Research & Development, 28, 137-149.

Diezmann, C. M. (2005) Supervision and scholarly writing: writing to learn - learning to write. Reflective Practice, 6, 443-457.

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 & Management, 27, 311-325.

Grant, B. (2003) Mapping the Pleasures and Risks of Supervision. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 24, 175.

Grant, B. & GRAHAM, A. (1999) Naming the game: reconstructing graduate supervision. Teaching in Higher Education, 4, 77.

Grant, B. M. (2005) Fighting for space in supervision: fantasies, fairytales, fictions and fallacies. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education (QSE), 18, 337-354.

Green, B. (2005) Unfinished business: subjectivity and supervision. Higher Education Research & Development, 24, 151-163.

Gurr, G. M. (2001) Negotiating the “Rackety Bridge”—a Dynamic Model for Aligning Supervisory Style with Research Student Development. Higher Education Research & Development, 20 (1).

Humble, Ã. I. M., Soloman, C. R., Allen, K. R., Blaisure, K. R. & Johnson, M. P. (2006) Feminism and Mentoring of Graduate Students. Family Relations, 55, 2-15.

Johnson, L., Lee, A. & Green, B. (2000) The PhD and the Autonomous Self: gender, rationality and postgraduate pedagogy. Studies in Higher Education, 25, 135-147.

Kember, D., Jones, A., Loke, A., McKay, J., Sinclair, K., Tse, H., Webb, C., Wong, F., Wong, M. &Yeung, E. (1999) Determining the level of reflective thinking from students’ written journals using a coding scheme based on the work of Mezirow. International Journal of Lifelong Education, 18, 18-30.

Kiley, M. & K. Cadman. (1997). “Expectation in Supervision Questionnaire.” Research Handbook Retrieved 1 August 2009, from http://www.adelaide.edu.au/graduatecentre/ rep/tools/svr/expectations.pdf.

Knowles, S. (2007) Getting up close and textual: An interpretive study of feedback practice and social relations in doctoral supervision. Education. Murdoch University.

Malfroy, J. (2005) Doctoral supervision, workplace research and changing pedagogic practices. Higher Education Research & Development, 24, 165-178.

Manathunga, C. (2007) Supervision as mentoring: the role of power and boundary crossing. Studies in Continuing Education, 29, 207-221.

Manathunga, C. & Goozee, J. (2007) Challenging the dual assumption of the ‘always/ already’ autonomous student and effective supervisor. Teaching in Higher Education, 12, 309-322.

Manathunga, C., Lant, P. & Mellick, G. (2007) Developing professional researchers: research students’ graduate attributes. Studies in Continuing Education, 29, 19-36.

Morris, S. E. (2008). Authorship dilemmas for Research Higher Degree students. In Kiley, M. & Mullins, G. (eds), Quality in Postgraduate Research: Research Education in the New Global Environment. Canberra, The Centre for Educational Development and Academic Methods, The Australian National University.

National Health and Medical Research Council, Australian Research Council & Universities Australia. (2007). Australian code for the responsible conduct of research [electronic resource]: revision of the Joint NHMRC/AVCC statement and guidelines on research practice. Canberra, NHMRC. http://nla.gov.au/nla.arc-86901

Petersen, E. B. (2007) Negotiating academicity: postgraduate research supervision as category boundary work. Studies in Higher Education, 32, 475-487.

Samara, A. (2006) Group supervision in graduate education: a process of supervision skill development and text improvement. Higher Education Research & Development, 25, 115- 129.

Siddle, D. (1997) Submission to the Committee conducting the review of Higher Education Financing and Policy. Deans and Directors of Graduate Education.

University of Adelaide. (2010). Guidelines and Rules for Responsible Practice in Research. Adelaide, Research Branch, The University of Adelaide. Retrieved 23 February 2010, from http://www.adelaide.edu.au/rb/policies/resprac.html.

Vallance, M. (2008) Using a Database Application to Support Reflective Practice. TechTrends: Linking Research & Practice to Improve Learning, 52, 69-74.

Wilkinson, K. L. (2008). Should publication be a compulsory component of Australian HDR programs? In Kiley, M. & Mullins, G. (eds), Quality in Postgraduate Research: Research Education in the New Global Environment. Canberra, The Centre for Educational Development and Academic Methods, The Australian National University.

Yang, Y-T. C., Newby, T. & Bill, R. (2008) Facilitating interactions through structured web- based bulletin boards: A quasi-experimental study on promoting learners’ critical thinking skills. Computers & Education, 50, 1572-1585.

Downloads

Published

2010-02-26

Issue

Section

Articles