Supervisory and ethical considerations of doctoral training /Coordinator, Technology and Natural Sciences Introduction to Doctoral Training 3.10.2014
Supervising Ethics
Spervising Supervising University of Oulu Education Bylaws 3 The planning and implementation of doctoral studies of a post-graduate student is the responsibility of a main supervisor and other supervisors appointed by the chairperson of the Doctoral Training Committee.
Apprentice-Master relationship? In general definition: Apprenticeship is a system of training a new generation of practitioners of a trade or profession with on-the-job training and often some accompanying study (classroom work and reading). Apprentices or protégés build their careers from apprenticeships. the concept of on-the-job training leading to competence over a period of years is found in any field of skilled labor. Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/apprenticeship
Doctoral student vs. supervisor: View of resources and challenges In overall doctoral training: Scholarly community and supervision Personal aspects Perceived motivation, self-regulation and competence Research-specific factors e.g. research questions Structures and resources e.g. funding, time resources, doctoral training If both the doctoral student and supervisor share a common understanding about the resources and challenges, this corresponds to: -the student s satisfaction with their overall training and supervision -the student s commitment with their doctoral training Source: K Pyhältö et al., Exploring the fit between doctoral students' and supervisors' perceptions of resources and challenges vis-à-vis the doctoral journey International Journal of Doctoral Studies, 2012
Supervising Discussion with your neighbour 5 minutes Shortly: What are the resources and challenges in your doctoral training (research and studies)? Take-home-message: Does your supervisor share your view?
Styles of relationships between doctoral student and supervisor Delegator leave me alone Editor help me write Friend be my buddy Supervision Styles Quality controller keep me sharp Expert Guide tell me what to do Coach steer my ambition Source: http://rozenbergquarterly.com/effective-phd-supervision-chapter-5-therelationship-between-phd-candidate-and-supervisor/
Styles of relationships between doctoral student and supervisor Independent -without circus of supervision Personal & interactive needs both taskrelated advice and personal attention Styles of Students Personal relationship You will see it when I am ready. Businesslike What is the quality of my performance? Source: http://rozenbergquarterly.com/effective-phd-supervision-chapter-5-therelationship-between-phd-candidate-and-supervisor/
Typical problems with supervisor: Supervisor has no time Supervisor disappears Communication problems Different views If you have problems with your supervisor: First discuss with your supervisor Second discuss with your follow-up group Or you can take a contact to one of the coordinators, in /DP-level Note! Substance knowledge is in your department!
Supervising Ethics
Finnish Advisory Board on Research Integrity (TENK) Guidelines in Finland for Responsible conduct of research Procedures for handling problems Sharing the good scientific practices e.g. Researcher s curriculum vitae http://www.tenk.fi/en/template-researchers-curriculum-vitae A public document it has to be verifiable If misconduct has not been solved in the research organisation The Advisory Board can give a statement Website of TENK: http://www.tenk.fi/
Ethical challenges within supervision Principle at stake Ethical issues Percentage of ethical Influenced by practices of the community issues (%) Doing no harm What are the Exploitation values, attitudes and abuse and norms 36 there? Benefiting others Dual relationships 17 Competence and adequacy of support 8 Boundaries of supervisor role/support 13 Respect for autonomy Conflicting demands 9 Being faithful Abandonment 13 Justice Inequity 4 Source: E Löfström& K Pyhältö, The supervisory relationship as an arena for ethical problem solving, Education Research International, 2012
Research misconduct and questionable research practices Scientists behaving badly Top ten behaviours 1. Falsifying or cooking research data 2. Ignoring major aspects of human-subject requirements 3. Not properly disclosing involvement in firms whose products are based on one s own research 4. Relationships with students, research subjects or clients that may be interpreted as questionable 5. Using another s ideas without obtaining permission or giving due credit 6. Unauthorized use of confidential information in connection with one s own research 7. Failing to present data that contradict one s own previous research 8. Circumventing certain minor aspects of human-subject requirements 9. Overlooking others' use of flawed data or questionable interpretation of data 10. Changing the design, methodology or results of a study in response to pressure from a funding source UnOGS Source: (Table 1) in B.C. Martinson et al., Scientists behaving badly, Nature 435:737-738 (9 June 2005) doi: 10.1038/435737a
Research misconduct and questionable research practices Scientists behaving badly Other behaviours 11. Publishing the same data or results in two or more publications 12. Inappropriately assigning authorship credit 13. Withholding details of methodology or results in papers or proposals 14. Using inadequate or inappropriate research designs 15. Dropping observations or data points from analyses based on a gut feeling that they were inaccurate 16. Inadequate record keeping related to research projects UnOGS Source: (Table 1) in B.C. Martinson et al., Scientists behaving badly, Nature 435:737-738 (9 June 2005) doi: 10.1038/435737a
Rectification Process University of Oulu Education Bylaws 24 A student who is dissatisfied with the assessment of his or her study attainment may address a spoken or written request for rectification to the instructor who made the assessment. Rectification must be requested within 14 days of the student being in a position to be informed of the results of the assessment and the application of assessment criteria in his or her special case. A student who is dissatisfied with the decision on rectification may appeal to the Board of Examiners within 14 days of having been informed of the decision. A student dissatisfied with the assessment of his or her doctoral thesis may address a request to the Board of Examiners concerning the rectification of the assessment within 14 days of having been informed of the decision. Board of Examiners:http://www.oulu.fi/yliopisto/hallinto/tutkintolautakunta
The best way to predict your future is to create it. -Abraham Lincoln