Research Proposal

Perceptions Of University Teachers And Research

Scholars About Supervision Of Research Work At
M.Phil Level In Public And Private Universities

By
Muhammad Asghar
M.Phil education
Student I D 8019-D
Supervisor
Dr.Muhammad Shah
Department Of Education
Qurtaba University Of Science & Information Technology
Dera Ismail Khan.

Recommendation Sheet
Certified that the research proposal of

Mr. Muhammad Asghar

M Phil education
Student I D: 8019D

With the title

Perceptions of University teachers and research scholars about

supervision of research work at M Phil level in public and private
universities.
has been reviewed and recommended to be presented to board of advance studies and
research (BOASAR) for final review and approval.

Supervisor

Dr. Muhammad shah

Introduction

05

Statement of problem

05

Objectives of study
Research questions
Significance of study

05
06
06

Method and procedure

06

Population

06

Sample

06

Construction of tools

07

Administration of the instruments

07

Data analysis

07

Findings and conclusions

07

Limitations

07

Delimitations

07

Review of related literature

07

References

12

Introduction
Education is the foremost element to build a civilized, well cultured and good nation. A
progressive and welfare state needs to have highly educated and responsible citizens. It enables to
fulfill the needs of human activity by using their full potential. Thus higher education is considered to
be primary to achieve this purpose. Higher education enables all individuals to use their maximum
potential. Education is the mean through which a nation seeks its goals and ambitions.
Research degree supervision is a bi lateral process, a complex interaction between the supervision and
the student. This interaction plays a significant role in affecting the quality of supervisory process. It
finds that a students reliance on her or his supervisor for guidance and motivation on work
organization and problem solving, research preparation and communication exerts a significant effect
on the relationship between style and quality of research supervision.
Research program in higher education is worldwide. When we analyze the research program then we
find many things that are difficult for researchers during research work. Students are unprecedented
with the significance of research. Most of students like to do research work but majority of them tend to
avoid it as research methodology has been found a complicated subject to grip over.
To choose an entirely new topic and work on it within available resources and without proper
supervision is not an easy task and in a situation the research seems to be the most difficult subject.
which cannot be qualified easily that people usually found it. They encounter while they conduct
research work. A research degree is about research training as well as contributing to knowledge and,
although it is not impossible to find ways of training oneself, the whole process is designed to be
guided by a supervisor (Cryer 2000).
Both student and supervisor must have cordial relationship to succeed otherwise; the problems in the
relationship can affect the students progress. Buckley and Hooley (1988) show that only highly
unusual students successfully complete their research degrees if the relationship with their supervisor is
poor. Besides, much research has found that there is a high number of research students who fail to
complete their studies in the UK, with the most frequently cited problems being the nature of the
supervision given (Delamont and Eggleston 1983; Marsh 1972).
There are numerous problems faced by researchers during the research work. We try to find in our
research work the perceptions of administrators, university teachers and research scholars at m Phil
level about research work supervision.

Statement of problem
Aims/purpose of study is to obtain the perceptions of university teachers and research scholars
about supervision of research work at M Phil level in public and private universities.

Objectives of the study

a. Identify the perceptions of university teachers and research scholars about supervision of research
work at M Phil level.
b. Identify the difficulties faced a researcher during research work supervision at M Phil level.
c. To obtain the views of supervisors about supervision of research work at M Phil level.
d. To examine the factors that may affect the quality of supervisions

Research questions
a. What are the perceptions of university teachers and research scholars about supervision of research
work at M Phil level?
b. Is there significance difference between the perceptions of university teachers and M Phil research
scholars?
c. Are the resources available for research work?
d. Are the supervisors available in public and private universities?
e. Are research scholars satisfied about the supervision of research work?

Significance of the study

A sum of literature reviews show various challenges faced by international research students in
their research journey. One of major issue concerned by international research students is quality of
supervision (Abiddin, et al., 2011; McClure, 2005). Supervision is one of important component for
research students to guide them throughout the research journey. This is specifically crucial for those
who study aboard. In postgraduate research study, supervision plays an important role as an intensive,
one to one interaction between research students and supervisors. In research journey, supervisors
should be considered as tour guides who show directions and give academic supports to research
students, specifically at the beginning of research. It is important for supervisors to supervise research
students and make sure they success in their research studies.
The study will be of great significance in Pakistan because researchers in Pakistan face many
difficulties during research work about supervision. This study will be significant for policy makers of
hec. They may necessary modification and improvement. Expected findings of this study of given topic
will certainly proves as one of the leading chain of developing in the field of research supervision.
With the help of this study we obtain difference views of research scholars about difficulties of research
work. After that we can highlight the problems of researchers that face during research work. Every
administrator university teacher and researcher has his own perception about supervision. In this study
we will identify this perception. The present effort may eradicate the hurdles and drawbacks and
enhance the research work. Further the finding of study may be fruitful for the research scholars. This
effort provides guideline for future researchers. This study will identify the difficulties of research
scholars during research work about supervision and clarify the perceptions of administrators and
university teachers about supervision.

Method and procedure

a. population
All public and private universities of Khyber Pakhton Khan will comprise the population of the
study.

b. sample
Two public universities Gomal University Dera Ismail khan and University Of Bannu and one
private university Qurtaba university of science and technology Dera Ismail khan will be selected as
sample. Ten working teachers in each university and ten students per department in each university will
be selected as sample.

c. construction of tools
Reliable questionnaire based on teachers and research scholars perceptions about research work
supervision will be constructed in four stages and structured interview will be conducted for getting
perceptions of administrated.
i. The literature about research work supervision will be studied and item will be constructed in the
light of that literature.
ii. With the consultation of supervisor the item structure, relevance and their number will be improved.
iii. After face validity of items the questionnaire will be sent to twenty PhD experts for reliability and
after getting their views the items of the questionnaire will be made reliable.
iv. Structured Interview will be used for administrators.
d. administration of the instruments
The reliable questionnaire will personally be administered to the university teachers and M Phil
research scholars with the request to return. A structured interview will be conducted for obtaining
perceptions of administrators.

e. data analysis
In this study both quantitative and qualitative types of method will be used.
Mean standard deviation, t test and f ratio used in this study.

f. findings and conclusions

Finding will be obtained from the data analysis and relevant recommendation will be
stated accordingly.

Limitations
There may be many methods but in this study interview and reliable questionnaire will be used.

Delimitations
The study will be delimited to the M Phil research scholars university teachers and
administrators of three universities namely Gomel University Dera Ismail khan and University Of
Bannu and one private university Qurtaba University of science and technology Dera Ismail khan.

Review of related literature

Supervision of research work:
Supervisors have responsibility for guiding their students in a choice of research topic. It is
therefore necessary for the supervisor to know the background to the topic in sufficient depth to have a
clear view as to the project's feasibility. This is especially vital as students may have unrealistic views
of what is needed to successfully complete a piece of research and can be easily side-tracked.
Equally some students are too readily canalized to realize when a side-track is more interesting than the
main-line they set out to follow. It is therefore vital that the supervisor is closely involved in drawing up
the research plan and in following the progress of the research. Clearly the question of resources and
their provision is of relevance. Students have the reasonable expectation that their supervisor is not
going to point them towards a topic that cannot be developed due to there being insufficient resources
or because the resources are unavailable. It isalso vital that the supervisor is aware of the experience
and competency the student brings with them and the fit that has to the research project/topic.
Monitoring of the student's progress is also vital. In the formal, non-academic, sense this involves
knowing the regulations of the School and those of the University (when is the submission date, what
happens if the student overruns or appeals?) Monitoring also involves commenting, constructively and
promptly, on a student's oral and written work. Failure to do so should be regarded as unprofessional
behavior and can lead to serious problems and a rapid deterioration in the student/supervisor
relationship at a critical time.
Critiquing any person's work is difficult. Even constructive criticism can sometimes be misinterpreted
as disinterest. For example one might try to encourage a weak student by restricting comment to the
positive aspects of a piece of work leaving the impression that the remaining parts, which might be
substantial and which are less worthy were unread. It is good practice to alert students to what they
may expect from their supervisor by way of a critique of their work.
Some supervisors have a policy of only reading their student's work once others are happy to read it
more often. Though it is the student and not the supervisor who is responsible for producing and
writing their thesis/dissertation nevertheless some students may rightly seek a second reading of their
work notably those whose first language is not English.All research students and their supervisors
complete annual progress report which is an essential element in monitoring the progress of a research
student and often highlighting unexpected problems which can then be addressed.
One of the most critical processes in terms of progress is that of transfer of a student from the Masters
to the Ph.D. register. Though the Procedures vary for good reason from School to School there is now a
rigorous system of student assessment in place described in the Calendar.
Supervisors must know and understand the procedure which operates within their School and within
College at large. Supervisors must also be aware of the regulations and guidelines relating to thesis
submission.

I read the article by Lloyd and Becker on pediatric with interest Spars' views of educational supervision
and supervisors (JRSM 2007:100. It highlights the problem of educational supervision not only among
pediatric Spars, but perhaps across the whole of spectrum of postgraduate training. It is important to
note that educational supervision is a relatively new concept to the UK. Although it was recommended
at the time of creation of the specialist training, clinical and educational supervision often went handin-hand and the terms have been (and still are) used interchangeably. More recently Modernizing
Medical Careers (MMC) has attempted to establish a clear demarcation between the two and identify a
set of responsibilities for each role.
To supervise research students is a great privilege. Students make a huge contribution to the academic
research enterprise worldwide. They also provide a considerable effervescence to the academic
environment of their host departments (Spear, 2000, p. 18).In some previous research studies on
supervisions, it is shown that international research students have their own perspectives on how an
ideal supervisor should be. Asian international postgraduate students had concepts that an ideal
supervisor is someone who provide guidance at the initial stage of a research project (McClure,
2005).Furthermore, postgraduate students have their views on effective supervisors who take initiative
to create a positive climate in research community (Conrad, 2003).
This will make research students feel more comfortable and get the supports throughout their research
journey. To form this phenomenon, close supervisor-student relationship is essential to build up.
Supervisors should make sure they have good relationship with their research students because the
supervisory relationship often leads to lifelong friendships (Spear, 2000, p.18).
Thus, it is challenging for both international research students and supervisors in maintaining good
relationship.
There are some factors that threaten relationship between supervisors and research students identified in
some previous research studies. The conflict exists due to the lack of some sources in both supervisors
and students such as lack of openness, time, feedback; unclear expectations; and poor English
proficiency (Adrian-Taylor et al., 2007).
The lack of sources will affect the relationship between supervisors and students. Besides, gender is
also one of the factors that influence supervisory relationship. Gender power always an issue in a
relationship. Gender power relation between women and men are very important in determining the
success or failure for research study (Acker et al.,1994; Conrad, 1994; Conrad & Philips, 1995;
Rhedding-Jones, 1997; Margolis & Romero, 1998) (as cited in (Deem &Brehony, 2000, p. 161).
Male and female supervisors will have different way in communication, different expectation and
feedback pattern on those they supervised (Shakeshaft et al, 1991).
Same-gender and cross-gender in a supervisory will have different interaction and impact on
supervision. In a study done by Sosik and Godshalk (2005) in mentoring relationship, they found out
cross-gender in mentoring will receive more benefits in the amount of psychosocial supports compared
same gender mentoring. Another factor to be considered is supervision time which is significant in
maintaining the interpersonal relationship between supervisors and students (Harrison &Emmerson,
2009).

Supervisory time plays important role for students to clarify, discuss and solve their problems in
research. However, there are some supervisors do not fulfill their responsibilities. They tend to spend
more time in their own stuffs rather than on their supervised students. This makes international research
students lack of guidance from supervisors and lost their focus and direction, especially at the
beginning of their research. Therefore, factors that potential to influence quality of supervisions should
take into consideration to make sure supervisors conduct good quality of supervision with international
research students.
A research degree is about research training as well as contributing to knowledge and, although it is not
impossible to find ways of training oneself, the whole process is designed to be guided by a supervisor
(Cryer 2000).
.

Supervisor and Student Relationship

The supervisor and student relationship is unique amongst all other relationships the student
may have during their candidature. Studies identifying factors of the supervisor and student relationship
related to and significantly directed towards producing highly advanced graduate independence and
originality are many.
Ferer de Valero (2001) states, the style of advising (supervision) is another important factor for
graduate success (pg 343). Young and Shaw (1999) identified the five most significant characteristics
effective university teachers and supervisors displayed to students were valuing of the course,
motivating students to do their best, effective communication, course organization and genuine respect
for the student (pg 678) Parry and Hayden (1994) identifies that the supervisor acts as a mentor,
guide, or adviser. Phillips and Pugh (2000) identify that it seems rapport and good communication
between students and their supervisor are the most important elements of supervision (pg12). James
and Baldwin (1999) recognizing that no single guide or formula would generate good supervisors,
outlines five principles of good supervision and eleven practices of effective postgraduate supervisors.
Underpinning all these reports is the premise that all supervisor and student relationships are unique
and must be built by effective communication and the development of a personal relationship that is
effective for that particular combination of supervisor and student.
Research degrees remain a challenge for both supervisors and the researchers whom they are trying to
help. It is more challenging than ever to find a good doctorial program and it is difficult to manage all
the different facets of a research degree that have to be attended to. Not everyone who thinks it is a
good idea to undertake a research degree will be successful and this book indicates the characteristics
which are required to produce high quality academic research. The book explores a number of
important issues including the nature of theory development in academic research and how positivist
and interpretive research functions.
Effective supervision of research students is acknowledged as a crucial factor in the latter success
completion of the PhD (Frischer& Larsson, 2000). How well they are supervised is likely to be linked
to the way they choose to occupy their roles. Therefore supervision is concerned as the mechanics of
ensuring that the students make good progress towards completion (Hockey, 1996). Therefore, on both
the supervisor and individual basis, must be diligent about explicitly working with students to establish
mutual expectations, responsibilities and benefits for working together and with other parties (Phillips
and Pugh, 2000).

Student perception about research work supervision

Early research in the UK (Welsh, 1979) reported that strategies for making progress in the arts,social
sciences and sciences are different and that some of the main problems students face arethose of
adjustment, intellectual isolation, loneliness, personal difficulties, and lack ofappropriate facilities for
study. Welsh (1981, 1982) later recommended the importance ofmatching students expectations with
those of supervisors in order to deal with these issues.
Research from Australia (Moses, 1984) suggested that 29% of students samples weredissatisfied with
the supervision they were receiving and that there was considerable uncertaintyin staff about their role
and responsibilities as supervisors.Some of the issues students were concerned about included
supervisor neglect, personality clashes, communication barriers such as age, culture and language
differences, and personal differences in approach to work.
Supervisors, on the other hand, were concerned about the appropriate amount of supervision,topic
selection, frequency of meetings, the variety of approaches to supervision, and personalrelationships
with students.Moses (1984, 1985) recommended that more communication should be encouraged
betweenstudents and supervisors, that supervision should be more structured, and that meetings
shouldbe more formal.
Powles (1988a) found that although 60% of her sample were satisfied with the supervision theywere
receiving, the area of greatest dissatisfaction concerned a lack of appropriate guidance inthe early
stages, particularly with analysis (34%), topic (23%), and design (23%). This dissatisfaction seemed to
increase with the number of years of candidature, and if the student was female or part-time. Powles
recommended a more structured approach to the research proposal and to the monitoring of the
students progress.Later research (including AVCC, 1990 and Wright, 1992) was concerned with the
issues oflengthy completion rates and student drop-out.
Powles (1989a) suggested that although the factors contributing to drop-out rates seemed to becomplex,
involving student personal factors and not just university factors alone, those whodiscontinued were
more likely to be dissatisfied with their experience of supervision. Inparticular, they wanted more
guidance and feedback in the early stages and in the writing upphase of the work.The issue of
difference in assumptions and expectations is further highlighted by work such asBecher et al (1993)
which shows clear linkages between different research epistemologies in thedifferent disciplines and
supervisory practice and research education.
Other significant sources of difference include gender (Conrad, 1994), cultural
background(Aspland&ODonoghue, 1994), age and part-time status (Ryan, 1994).Philips research
(1994) goes beyond identifying factors contributing to possible differences.Her research shows the
prevalence of communication breakdown, primarily because of aneglect to make assumptions and
expectations explicit. Her main message is that we should notassume that anything is understood. For
example, a student may believe that all is progressingwell, whereas the supervisor may see the student
as incapable of progress without their help.

Teacher perception about research work supervision

Throughout the history of the United States, there have been many variations ofteacher supervision. In
colonial times, members of the community or representatives ofthe governments evaluated local
teachers. These people were not educators, and theywere mainly concerned with assessing the students

knowledge and determining thequality of the teaching methods being used (Glanz, 1991, 1998; Tanner
& Tanner, 1987,1990; Valverde, 1998). Badiali (1998) termed this the community accountability
historical phase.
Teachers were not only judged on the quality of the instruction they delivered, but also on their place
and appropriateness in the community at large.A new supervisory process emerged in the 1800s.
Delegation of supervision and evaluation responsibilities allowed traveling educators to evaluate and
demonstrate effective teaching skills to teachers in larger communities (Glanz, 1991, 1998; Tanner
&Tanner, 1987, 1990). At thispoint, the role of a supervisor expanded to include knowledge of teaching
and learning by having a teacher supervise other teachers.
By the late 19th century, other changes had come about in the area of teacherevaluation. During this
era, termed the first scientific phase (Badiali, 1998; Pfeiffer,1998; Tracy &MacNaughton, 1993), a
teacher or administrator was designated as thesupervisor over all teachers in most large areas. This
person used an evaluation checklistto determine the quality of teaching (Glanz, 1991, 1998; Nolan &
Hoover, 2008; Tanner3& Tanner, 1987, 1990). This phase saw the first attempt at developing an
objective wayto evaluate teachers. If certain conditions existed in the classroom and planningoccurred,
then the teaching was determined to be adequate. Glanz (1991, 1998) calledthis bureaucratic
supervision; Badiali (1998) called it professionalization.
This trend toward objective evaluation coincided with the Progressive Movement.The Progressive
Movement called for government and business reform to make politicaland industrial systems more fair
and democratic. The Progressive Movement ineducation started during which time supervisors
attempted to incorporate democraticideals into supervision. Supervisors also tried to gain recognition
for their abilities asprofessionals (Glanz, 1991, 1998; Nolan & Hoover, 2008; Tanner & Tanner, 1987,
1990). Guba and Lincoln (1985) described this period as the first generation ofevaluation. They also
called it the technical generation because the basis for evaluationwas test results; students took
standardized tests, and their performance generatedstatistics by which to measure teacher effectiveness
(Guba& Lincoln, 1985).
The validity of using testing to determine a teachers merit is still debated today. Andersonand
Robertson (2000) explained two opposing viewpoints on whether student testingshould be part of
evaluation. The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001uses test scores toevaluate and judge schools and
administration performance.
In the early 20th century, schools were charged with building better workers andcitizens. The
requirement for a school to have books, a building, desks, and a teacher ledto the first standards for
instructional supervision. Schools standards were based onhierarchical models from religious
institutions, the military, business, and government(St. Maurice & Cook, 2005).

References
1. .Abiddin, et al., 2011; McClure, 2005Effective Supervision from Research Students
Perspective.
2. Adrian-Taylor, S. R., Noels, K. A., &Tischler, K. (2007). Conflict between international graduate
Students and faculty supervisors: Toward effective conflict prevention and management strategies.
Journal of Studies in International Education, 11(1), 90-117.
3. .Aubeeluck, A. (2006) 'Capturing the Huntingdon's Disease Spousal Carer Experience'
in Dementia Buchanan, H. p.107, vol 5.
4. . Buckley, P.J. and Hooley, G.J., 1988. The Non-Completion of Doctoral Research in Management:
Symptoms, Causes and Cures.In Haksever, A. M.and E. Manisali, 2000. Assessing Supervision
Requirements of Ph.D Students: The Case ofConstruction Management and Engineering in the
UK. European J. Engineering Education, 25: 19-32.
5. Cryer /The-American-Girls-Revue-by-Gretchen-Cryer-2000-Compact-Disc/2818605&item.
6.Cullen, K., Gentry, W. A., Sosik, J. J., Chun, J. U., Leopold, C., &Tonidandel, S. (2013). Differences
in self-other rating agreement of integrity across managerial levels. Presented at the national meetings
of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Houston, TX, April 11-13, 2013.
7. Delmont and Eggleston 1983; Marsh 1972
8.Ferer de Valero, Y. 2001. Departmental factors affecting time-to-degree and completion
rates of doctoral students at one land-grant research institution. Journal of Higher Education.
Vol.72, no. 3, pp 341 367.
9.Harrison, S. D., &Emmerson, S. (2009). The challenges of supervision of a doctorate in practiceBased research in music: Perceptions of students and supervisors.Text 6. Retrieved from
http://www.textjournal.com.au/speciss/issue6/Harrison&Emmerson.
10.Paediatric specialist registrars' views of educational supervision and how it can be
improved: a questionnaire studyJRSM 2007:100
11. Pearson, M., and Brew. A, (2002) Research Training and Supervision Development Studies in
Higher Education Vol 27 No 2 pp.135-150
12. .Pearson, M., and Kayrooz, C. (2004) Enabling Critical Reflection on Research Supervisory

Practice. International Journal for Academic Development Vol 9 No 1 May 2004 pp 99-116
Routledge.
13. Phillips, E. M. and Pugh, D. S. (2000). How to Get a PhD- A Handbook for Students and Their
Supervisors. Buckingham: Open University Press
14. R. J. McQueeney, J. L Sarrao, and R. Osborn Phys. Rev. B 60, 80 (1999).
15. Russell, A. (1996). Postgraduate Research: Student and Supervisor Views. The Flinders University
of South Australia
16. Shakeshaft, C., Nowell, I, & Perry, A. (1991). Gender and supervision theory into practice, 30, 134139.
17.Sosik, J.J. (2005). The role of personal values in the charismatic leadership of corporate managers: A
Model and preliminary field study. The Leadership Quarterly, 16, 221-244.
18. Spear, F.S. and Peacock, S.M. (1989) Metamorphic Pressure-Temperature-Time Paths, 102
p. American Geophysical Union, Washington.
19. .Taylor, S., and Beasley, N., (2005) A handbook for Doctoral Supervisors.(Abingdon.Routledge)
20.University

of

Leicester

(2004).

Handbook

for

Research

Student.Available

http://www.le.ac.uk/education/research/research_student/research_student_handbook/contents.html
(Accessed Feb. 05, 2004).

at: