| Summary: | Doctoral education in the technical fields has several distinct features, such as, the research is often projectbased, interdisciplinary, dependent on external funding, and affiliated with an industry. In other words, the epitome of a “modern doctorate” (Fillery-Travis, 2017; Lee, 2018). While literature on doctoral supervision in general is abundant (see e.g. Gatfield, 2005; Gurr, 2001; Ives & Rowley, 2005; Kobayashi, Grout, & Rump, 2015; Lee, 2008, 2012; Lindén, 2005; Lindén, Ohlin, & Brodin, 2013), supervision specifically in the technical fields has received less discussion. Haksever & Manisali (2002) study discrepancies between the expected and received supervision in an engineering field in the UK, and conclude that effective communication is critical. Grevholm, Persson, & Wall (2005) present a supervision model developed andused in Luleå University of Technology. Smit (2010) discusses the access to research community in engineering sciences, and sees it affected by the requirement of independence and power relations. Finally, two Danish studies focus on supervision practices in the context of international PhD students in engineering (Bøgelund & Graaff, 2015; Kolmos, Kofoed, & Du, 2008). This study attempts to fill the research gap with empirical evidence, focusing on factors influencing supervision style specifically in the technical fields. The study employs a qualitative research approach, and utilizes semi-structured interviews. Altogether 24 interviews were conducted during spring 2019 at institutions linked to Lund University. As the ambition was to capture the perspectives of both supervisors and students, the informants comprised 13 supervisors and 11 doctoral candidates. Interviews focused on communication practices, and the supervisory relationship. The interview protocol was followed loosely to allow important issues to emerge from an open discussion. The study identifies several influencing factors, that may be roughly divided into three categories. Factors ...
|
|---|