Research supervision: faculty perspectives

Abstract

Background: Research supervision is an increasingly important professional role of faculty members. There is now a growing body of research that explores factors which underpin good supervisory practice. Despite the progress in this area, there is scarcity of existing literature about the readiness of academic faculty who are involved in both undergraduate and postgraduate research supervision. One of the main obstacles in not being able to understand these issues is the lack of appropriate tools to measure research supervision skills. The aim of this thesis is to develop a valid and reliable scale to explore research supervision practices among health science faculty members, identify factors affecting the supervisory process and assess research supervisor’s readiness/preparedness towards guiding students’ research projects. Methods: A stepwise mixed methods study was carried out to develop and validate an instrument, the Research Supervision and Academic Readiness Scale (RSARS) that explored research supervision and academic readiness among health sciences faculty. The first stage (stage I) involved expert’s opinions, a focus group and a Delphi technique which generated appropriate items that were deemed necessary to be included in the instrument. The scale was piloted to identify the main dimensions/domains which included administrative and personal skills and interpersonal factors while looking for the internal consistency and the strengths of individual items. In stage II, a follow up in-depth qualitative study of the research supervisors’ experiences and practices was conducted with 18 participants from two universities to explore factors that influence academic supervision and to further refine the RSARS. Finally (stage III) was carried out to test the instrument in two different academic institutions representing two different contexts: King Saud Bin Abdul Aziz University for Health Sciences (KSAU-HS) and the University of Sydney (Sydney). To identify the underlying relationships between the items under each domain, Cronbach’s alpha were calculated and Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) performed to evaluate items step by step and 15 items were finally retained for the main study. Results: In stage I, the experts’ opinions highlighted the different questionnaire sections and domains. Findings from analysis of the focus group confirmed these domains and helped in refinement and additional items. The Delphi rounds helped in further items refinement and modification. Two rounds were considered adequate and all developed items were approved by 75% of the expert panel in agreement. The developed scale at this stage consisted of a total of thirty-eight items and Cronbach alpha of 0.98 showed item redundancy indicating the need for further review. In stage II (semi-structured interviews), the results were summarized into five main emergent themes, including institutional factors, supervisor/student interaction, professional development opportunities, motivational factors and challenges faced by supervisors. These issues are related to supervisors, students and their contexts. There was consensus among all participants regarding their motivation, challenges, and personal concerns when supervising research students. Rewards, recognition and time management were important factors expressed by the majority of the participants. Students’ personal characteristics such as enthusiasm, professional level and progress were of importance to the research supervision process. Contextual factors included clear institutional rules and regulations of supervision, valuing and recognition of supervisors, which were essential to majority of the supervisors. However, some structural differences were observed between the KSAU-HS and Sydney research supervisors. The majority of Sydney University participants had reservations about being co-supervisors rather than primary supervisors compared to KSAU-HS. In stage III, the RSARS was further developed and completed by a total of 235 participants as part of a survey including participant characteristics. There were 112/235 (47.7%) from KSAU-HS and 123/235 (52.3%) from the University of Sydney in the sample. The majority of KSAU-HS participants were males (p-value of 0.002); of younger age group (p-value of < 0.001), and had less teaching and supervision experience with a p-value of < 0.05 than their counterparts at Sydney. There was a highly significant difference between the two groups in the areas of initiating new studies or number of published papers with p-values of < 0.001. However, there were no significant differences between the two study areas with regard to the number of research students supervised (p-value < 0.36) or the number of times they were the primary supervisor (p-value of < 0.18). Also, there was variability in the supervisors’ personal skills and professionalism scores between the two study sites. Despite those differences, all study participants were in agreement with the need for more institutional support while also encouraging faculty enhancement activities for better supervision outcome. Conclusions: This study developed and validated a tool to assess the needs and readiness of research supervisors for individual assessments and faculty development interventions. The finding reports a range of validity evidence to support the use of the Research Supervision and Academic Readiness Scale (RSARA). This study highlighted that research supervision is influenced by multiple factors that need to be recognized and implemented for improving research supervisory skills. It is envisaged that this will have important implications for research supervisors' professional development. Future research is needed to further explore these factors from the perspective of supervisees as well as other relevant stakeholders.