Power relationships and postgraduate supervision

Introduction

According to Sharp and Howard (1996:159), 'research supervision of postgraduate taught Masters Programmes should resist the temptation to proceed with its execution until an acceptable plan has been formulated', and that 'in large part, avoidable problems should be highlighted by systematic planning processes. However, a successful supervision experience given by tutors to students in their charge according to Sharp and Howard (1996:163) cannot be underestimated as they note 'students undertaking research projects have a right to expect to receive advice, supervision or direction'. However, the students' experience of supervision is dependant upon their supervisor whose attitudes to supervision are affected by the fact that demands made upon them differ from those that arise in traditional teaching situations (Sharp and Howard, 1996). This may manifest itself in several ways as Sharp and Howard (1996:163) note that 'they [supervisors] may feel a lack of competence in research methodology and in coping with problems which arise in areas in which they are unfamiliar. More fundamental is the degree of obligation which the supervisor carries for the successful completion of a research study', and for many postgraduate programmes two conditions have to be met. Firstly, the research report or dissertation must be handed in on a particular date and, secondly, minimum standards have to be satisfied. As Sharp and Howard (1996:163) note:

'Postgraduate degrees are often based wholly or in part on dissertations or theses for which the submission date is flexible within what might be quite an extended period', and that 'In these circumstances (even though the student may be paying substantial fees) supervision can become lax and solely reactive. Therefore an important factor if they wish to complete their research projects and dissertations successfully'.

As Hussey and Hussey (1997:28) state, 'therefore, you may need to find specialist supervisors who will be interested in your research, supportive, and most important, whom you will be able to get on with'. Philips and Pugh (1994) who identify several key aspects of the supervisor-student relationship also note these points. They note that 'the relationship is so crucial that students cannot afford to leave it to chance, it must be managed' (Philips and Pugh, 1994:93). The expectations placed upon the supervisor are also exacerbated further as Philips and Pugh (1994:101) go on to state that:

'Managing your supervisor efficiently involved an educational programme as well as a training course. The training course involves fulfilling the expectations of supervisors and moulding them to fit in with your own needs and requirements. The educational programme need not be so subtle, as it is more acceptable to acknowledge that you will know more than your supervisor about your research topic, given time, than it is to admit that you have a supervisor who does not know how to supervise effectively'.

Although referring to doctoral supervision, Hussey and Hussey (1997:28) note that such sentiments can be applied with equal validity to taught Masters Students as well, and they go on to quote Philips and Pugh (1994:16) in their defence by noting:

'Get as much information as you can before choosing your academic institution. Visit the college or university beforehand: talk to potential supervisors and view the facilities/resources. Discuss with potential supervisors what research experience they have, their publication record and their preferred style of supervision.'

These pressures and expectations that are thrust upon supervisors might affect how students progress in their research project and dissertations (Wisker, 2004). It must also be acknowledged that other factors, that might a result of supervisory intervention and power relationships between supervisor and supervisee can affect the outcome for students to complete their research projects and dissertations. This can manifest itself for example in the supervisor taking a personal and emotional interest (see for example Grant and Graham, 1997; Karn, 1997; Delamont et al, 2000, Smeby, 2000; Pearson and Brew, 2002). Sharp and Howard (2000:164) identifies several problems suffered by students on the research journey when completing their project or dissertation, noting that:

'There are a number of ways in which research progress may be affected by what may be termed "personal" factors such as illness, loss of motivation, occurrence of other opportunities and the need to search for a job.'

They go on to note that 'ideally, a student should relate to one supervisor throughout the project' (Sharp and Howard, 1996:167). However, the supervisory experience and associated problems in this area thrusts other responsibilities on supervisors.

Recent studies have addressed issues of power relationships within the supervisory process and have been noted by the work of Gatfield (2005) who has reviewed supervisory styles and extracted the two dimensions of 'structure' and 'support' to analyse supervisory styles. He then subsequently identifies four supervisory styles as follows:

• Laisser-faire (Low Structure – Low Support). This Style characterises supervisors as playing a minimal role in the organization and management of the of the research project and in the provision of support, these being seen as matters for the candidate to address.
• Pastoral (Low Structure – High Support). This is characterised by supervisors who see themselves as having a significant role to play in providing pastoral support and resources, but leaving the candidate to manage and organize the research process.
• Directional (High Structure – Low Support). This characterises supervisors as seeing themselves as playing a significant role in organizing and managing the research process, but leaving the candidate to arrange personal support and resources.
• Contractual (High Structure – High Support). This characterises supervisors as playing a significant role in both organizing and managing the research process and in providing support for the candidate.

Also relevant is the work of Gurr (2001) who has developed a tool that maps out how supervisors and candidates can independently plot on a graph where they perceive their relationship between each other at any given time. However this does not address the supervisor-supervisee power relationship (see also Grant, 1999 and 2000; Karn, 1997; Delamont et al, 2000, Pearson and Brew, 2002).

Thus, the focus of this study generated a central research question that emerged by reviewing the related studies and conceptual literature of power and relationships that underpinned this study (Schein, 1980; Hetrick and Trafford, 1995) and the following research question was generated:

What are the roles, expectations and experiences of academic staff in their supervision and management of dissertations on taught part-time Masters Programmes?

Literature review

Emerson (1962) develops the importance of the relational aspect of power concerning the importance of dependency relationships in what he terms the 'total power constellation'. He suggests that power resides 'implicitly in the other's dependency', in other words, that the parties in a power relationship are tied to each other by mutual dependency. Hall (1972) however notes that power and conflict are processes that cannot be ignored and are important elements in social relationships and are part of the dynamics of organizational life in that they are major components of change. The processes are often related because conflict often occurs as a result of a power relationship. However, a power relationship can exist without conflict and conflict can occur without power having been a precedent event.

Both processes according to Hall (1972) are also important outside the organizational context. Social relations commonly entail ties of mutual dependence between the parties. 'A' depends upon 'B' if they aspire to goals or gratifications whose achievement is facilitated by appropriate actions on 'B's' part. By virtue of mutual dependency, it is more or less imperative to each party that they be able to control or influence the other's conduct. At the same time, these ties of mutual dependence imply that each party is in a position to some degree to grant or deny, facilitate or hinder the other's gratification. It can therefore be argued that the power to control or influence the other resides in control over the things they value.

French and Raven (1959) classified power into five types of power bases and is based on the nature of the relationship between the power-holder and the power-recipient. The first of these is "reward power", or "power whose basis is the ability to reward" and is limited to those situations in which the reward is meaningful for the power-recipient. "Reward power" also known as "resource power" or "remunerative power" is the power source implicit in most calculative contracts. It arises from the perceived control over resources that the potential recipient desires (Handy, 1993).

Their second power base is "coercive power", based on the recipient's perceptions and the ability of the power-holder to distribute punishments. French and Raven note that the same social relationship could be viewed as one of "reward power" in one instance and "coercive power" in a second.

Their third form of power is very close to the implication of the Weberian distinction between power and authority. This type is called "legitimate power" or "position power" and sometimes "legal power" or authority (Drummond, 2000). The recipient acknowledges that the power-holder has the right to influence them and they have an obligation to follow the directions of the influence which Drummond (2000) calls "institutional power". This type of power is based on the formal role of the individual within the organisation and as Huczynski and Buchanan (1991) note may rely on a job title, which followers see as conferring on the leader the right to give orders.

Their fourth type of power base is "referent power" and is present when a power-recipient identifies with a power-holder and tries to behave like them. In this case, the power-holder may be unaware that he or she is, in fact, a power-holder.

The final form, "expert power", is based on the special knowledge attributed to the power-holder by the recipient and is sometimes called "information power" (Geenberg and Baron, 2003). The power-recipient behaves in a particular way because they believe that the information possessed by the holder is relevant and that he himself does not have that sort of information available.

Research design and methodology

The approach of the study

The study used an inductive research design and used an ethnographic methodology which exemplifies an approach to investigate organisational culture in the context of the supervisory process and dynamics (Fuller and Petch, 1995; Radnor, 2001). As such the study endeavored to develop theory and model building as a means to inform professional practice and to add knowledge to the extant literature regarding the supervision of postgraduate dissertations.

The research instrument

The guiding questions for the study were developed from the underpinning literature and were intended to explore how the different aspects of the research process could be affected by the power relationships between supervisor and supervisee. These guiding questions were framed as follows:

• What expectations do supervisors have of their students during the supervisory process?
• Does supervisor subject expertise/knowledge guide the research topic?
• How do supervisors manage the supervisory relationship with their students over the life cycle of the dissertation process?
• What are the preferred research paradigms that supervisors are located within?
• What are the difficulties and fears of analysing primary and secondary data and to what level of competence can they as a supervisor operate?

The fieldwork consisted of semi-structured interviews and was conducted with 14 practitioners who supervise Masters Degree dissertations in the Professional Development Department of a UK Business School. These included the MSc in Management, MSc in Human Resources, MSc in Health, and the MBA. The sample was a self selecting sample and because of the qualitative nature of the research it was not seeking to gather large sample data, but rather to study the practices of a group of practitioners in depth.

The guiding questions were piloted with two colleagues who supervise dissertations on other Postgraduate Programmes (Fuller and Petch, 1995:74), and confirmed that they were appropriate questions to ask. Each respondent in the main study was asked the five guiding questions to ensure that there was a commonality in the data collection process. However respondents were allowed to deviate from these questions if they wished to add insights and other issues to their responses. Upon the conclusion of the interviews, each was transcribed from audiotapes and respondent validation was used in order to confirm the accuracy of what had been recorded in the interviews (Radnor, 2001). Miles and Huberman's (1994) General Analytic Procedure was then used to code the data by grouping it into patterns or themes that emerged from the interviews. The following categories emerged from the interviews were the initial supervisory meeting; supporting the student during the dissertation process; supervisors' expectations of the dissertation process; and supervisors' paradigms and methodological positions. These will now be considered in the following section concerning findings.

Discussion and interpretation of findings

Finding 1: The initial supervisory meeting

Both the interview and case note evidence reveal that the initial supervisor meetings covered several issues. The first issue was that of establishing a rapport with the student, the formation of a working relationship and setting boundaries. This suggests that the supervisor is adopting a directive approach at the early stage of the supervisory process and is using their technical expertise as the subject specialist as a means to establish their authority (French and Raven, 1959; Greenberg and Baron, 2003). However, it must be recognised that this also couched within what might be perceived as a supportive environment in terms of guidance and advice regarding university regulations and the contents of the final dissertation document in the guise of what Drummond (2000) calls institutional power.

Without exception all of the respondents said that the initial meeting was an important aspect of the dissertation process. It was noted by supervisors that the terms of reference and the setting of boundaries at this meeting were important issues to establish in order to form an adult one-to-one working relationship with their students. As one respondent noted:

"The initial meeting with students allows me to find out whether a student is weak or well grounded in research methods."

The second issue is that of a directive approach adopted by supervisors whereby they explain the need for methodology within the dissertation process to their students. Thus, informative and confronting interventions are exhibited by the supervisor whereby they impart knowledge and information to their students and raise their consciousness about this aspect of the dissertation process despite the fact that they might have already undertaken a research methods module prior to the dissertation itself. However, as French and Raven (1959) have noted, the influence of legitimate and expert power might be other factors that are part of this initial relationship formation where power relationships in the supervision process is an area that lies firmly with the supervisor. As one supervisor noted the initial meeting was used as a means to establish which students might need extra attention and the direction of the research noting that:

"Establishing a rapport at the outset gives me an idea as to who will be in need of 'heavy counseling', and it helps to clarify the student's direction of their research."

The third issue is an expectation of the supervisors that students will be aware of research methodologies and methods prior to the initial meeting. This can be interpreted as an unspecified obligation on the part of supervisors whereby they expect students to have grounding in these issues. Thus, the evidence indicates that supervisors, although giving support and direction at the initial meeting, expect the notion of reciprocity to be upheld their students in terms of what they bring to the initial supervisory meeting.

The issue of methodology without exception caused much interest by the respondents, and varied responses were offered regarding this area of the dissertation. As one respondent noted:

"I expect students to be aware of the various research methodologies and methods, especially as we now teach a three-day research module before they start (the students) their dissertation. I think this has been a helpful development as the research methodology is almost written in a 4,000 word assignment, and it makes this chapter easier to write."

However another respondent had a differing view of the research methods module:

"Most students are very weak in this area. I still have to guide and advise them step by step through the methodology chapter although they have done the research methods module."

Another respondent also made remarks about the research methods module which is a precursor to the dissertation, commenting that:

"Despite the fact we now have a research methods module students are still weak in this area when they start the dissertation. Perhaps we need to evaluate the way we teach and deliver this module, because in my opinion students still have little understanding of methodology."

Finding 2: Supporting the student during the dissertation process

Four issues emerge as being central to this relationship. The first issue is that of academic support as the dissertation process progressed. Bennett and Knibbs (1986) have elsewhere posited the notion of the mentor as an interpersonal role of the supervisory process whereby the supervisor has to provide students with guidance and tutoring of the aspects of the dissertation process. This is supported by legitimate or position power (French and Raven, 1959) or information power (Greenberg and Bacon, 2003) in the early stages of the supervisory relationship. As one respondent said that students needed help with ideas and direction in terms of the literature that they should be reading noting that:

"Students do tend to need help and support in terms of getting ideas and books to read and to clarify the direction of their research, and to set clear objectives. Those that do not get this support at the beginning do have difficulties."

The second issue is that of the validation role or as French and Raven (1959) term it position power, which is evidenced by the interview as, supervisors have to act as a stern critic and evaluator within their supervisory role. The former is provided both within the interviews and, for example, in the form of giving feedback regarding advice on the presentation of work and the use of English, developing their students as critical thinkers and alerting them to the feasibility of undertaking a particular approach, or providing feedback regarding draft chapters they submit. As Bennett and Knibbs (1986:139) have stated elsewhere 'research students must be capable of handling criticism of their work. They have to defend their arguments, views and approach. The supervisor can, and should, provide a challenge to the student's arguments and offer critical appraisal'. Thus, this form of evaluation will help the student determine appropriate standards against which to measure the worth of the output achieved. In the final analysis, the supervisor may be one of the examiners, thus extending the evaluator role in a critically important way i.e. referent and position power or as what Drummond (2000) has termed legal power.

The third issue was that of pastoral support, which emerged from the interview data as one supervisor became involved with the personal issues of their student at the first meeting thus acting as a friendly helper and might be seen as an appeal to the referent power of the supervisor. This can be argued within the notion of social exchange whereby the supervisor does a favour by lending support to their students' predicament in the expectation that the student will return to continue his dissertation. As Blau (1961:90) has noted elsewhere

'social exchange, whether it is in ceremonial form or not, involves favours that create diffuse obligations, not precisely specified ones, and the nature of their return cannot be bargained about but must be left to the discretion of the one who makes it'.

Other support tended towards that of the included pastoral type as some students had to balance their studies with work and family life. This was exemplified quite candidly by one respondent who offered the following insight:

"Many students do not estimate the time that it will actually take to produce a dissertation, as work and family life get in the way of good intentions. One student had been going through a rough time at work, and his studies were also putting pressure on his home life – I think his wife had threatened divorce at one stage. As his supervisor, I could not help but get involved at a personal level. I ended up giving study skill advice, extra tutorials, and a supporting shoulder of encouragement. However, in the end I had to suggest that he took time out, and he intercalated so he could sort himself out."

The fourth issue identified the personal development of the supervisor and the continuation of a personal and professional relationship after the dissertation process had ended. This manifested itself in the form of developing personal and professional relationships with the student in terms of co-authoring conference papers and a catalytic intervention ensued that sought to affirm self-discovery, self-directed learning in an equal one-to-one relationship. This indicates that the power base of this supervisor' expectations of the dissertation process has moved from that of expert and legitimate power to that of referent power (French and Raven, 1959), whereby the supervisor and student have a feeling of oneness with each other or a desire for such an identity. Here, the influence of referent power manifests itself in the form of the student sharing the same social goals as the power-holder (Hall, 1972). Another form of support was also seen in the form of personal development, as one respondent revealed that:

"I think that the personal relationship is an important part of the dissertation process, and I have developed these in the course of the supervisory process. Some of my students have gone on to do doctorates, others have produced conference papers with, and as such professional relationships have developed into personal ones – I still exchange Christmas cards with some of my former students."

The implications of the above perhaps highlight the professional interests of supporting students in their intellectual journey, and the development from teacher-student to an equal peer-peer relationship.

Finding 3: Supervisors' expectations of the dissertation process

The first issue concerns the supervisors' expectations about what they expect the dissertation to provide for students within the role of management research. The evidence provided indicates that supervisors expect the dissertation to provide students with an opportunity to use knowledge gained in their taught modules to explore a topic in depth, and an expectation by supervisors that the dissertation would be an enriching process. As such, it can be argued that supervisors exhibit a catalytic intervention strategy in terms of this issue (see Heron, 2001) and this is manifested as an intervention that seeks to elicit self-discovery, self-directed living, learning and problem solving in the client.

The interview findings produced various responses regarding supervisors' expectations of the dissertation process and what follows is endemic of supervisory attitudes regarding this issue. This category produced a varied set of responses; all respondents however were in general agreement of the dissertations role in management research. One respondent saw the issues as follows:

"The role of the dissertation is to provide students with the opportunity to synthesise skills they have learned in modules, and a chance to explore a specific topic of interest with their organisation – it has organisational utility. As such the dissertation is used as a means to be process-centred – the results do not matter, as long as they are researched in a rigorous manner."

Another respondent saw the dissertations having an academic utility stating that:

"The dissertation is a link to professional doctorate and PhD research as it develops the student's way of looking at the world from different perspectives – it develops individual criticality and reflexivity of practice."

The second issue focused upon the expectation that students should have knowledge of research methodologies and methods. The evidence provided indicates that supervisors found that students had difficulties in this aspect of management research and making connections between the methodology literature and the dissertation process regarding its use in the research process. Here, the evidence pointed to use of expert power (French and Raven, 1959) by the supervisors whereby they exerted their knowledge of the methodological aspects of doing research and assuming the "high ground" on this issue. One particular respondent identified other issues that the dissertation should challenge:

"Methodology is the weakest chapter of a dissertation, and I stress the importance of getting this right. The dissertation is expected to deliver both process (methodology) and output (findings), but I would not be expected to be prescriptive in these processes, the supervisor facilitates the research journey only."

Finding 4: Supervisors' paradigms and methodological positions

The interview evidence indicates an eclectic approach when dealing with methodological issues as supervisors appear to be happy working within the positivistic or phenomenological paradigms and are willing to deal with qualitative and quantitative data alike. Only one respondent stated that if they had to use quantitative data they would seek advice. These findings indicate that supervisors are loath to cede their expert and positional power (French and Raven, 1959) in this phase of the supervisory process where some reported that a successful supervisor should have knowledge of research methodology. As one stated:

"I am happy to supervise in either paradigm (positivistic and phenomenological), but I do prefer to use more inductive approaches. As it is, many students doing dissertations do not use sophisticated statistics in any case."

In addition, another articulated that:

"I am quite happy to use either positivistic or phenomenological paradigms, and I can deal with both soft and hard approaches to data analysis. However, this has to be thought through before data collection takes place."

Further issues were explored by another respondent who felt that the dissertation should be a challenge to both supervisors and students, stating:

"Supervisors have methodological comfort zones. We all probably work in comfort zones – consciously or unconsciously, for example only a few dissertations use quantitative or statistical analysis – most are qualitative. If we do not challenge comfort zones how can we expect students to do so. In other words quantitative paradigms are dominant in the business school."

Some also stated that the requirements for supervisors to operate in their own areas of interest and competence were paramount but were less comfortable within the mentoring role perhaps indicating that their positional power status (see French and Raven, 1959) might be exposed, as one stated that:

"Students require guidance and tutoring on many aspects of their work - reading, research design, methodology, analysis, conceptualisation, report writing. Supervisors have to counsel across a wide field and I'm not sure if I am competent to do all these things well".

Conclusions

Summary

The conceptual underpinnings of this study were formulated within the notions of power, and the findings from the interviews reveal issues that direct the supervisory process. The evidence to emerge appears to indicate that supervisors do perhaps have to acknowledge that there is a power dynamic between themselves and their supervisees, which are not always readily recognised. Furthermore, the study identifies the absence of supervisors not ceding their power bases either as subject specialists or as "methodologists" preferring to work within a well-trodden path that suits their normal way of thinking.

The wider implications of this research perhaps ask more questions than it initially set out to ask and with the ever increasing need for higher education teachers to deal with a more diversified student population then it is paramount that they adopt a style that is appropriate for dealing with students in one-to-one supervisory environments.

The emergent nature of the study has pointed to the fact that other research in this area of academic practice has not as yet grasped the full implications of the 'power dynamic' of the supervisory process see for example the work by Gatfield (2005) whose has reviewed supervisory styles and extracted two dimensions upon which supervisory styles have been analysed, namely 'structure' and 'support' (see also Grant, 1999 and 2000; Karn, 1997; Delamont et al, 2000, Pearson and Brew, 2002). Also the work of Gurr (2001) who has developed a tool that describes how supervisors and candidates can independently plot on a graph where they feel that the relationship is between them at any given time does not address the supervisor-supervisee power relationship.

Whilst it is recognised that generalisability cannot be claimed by this study, the findings produced do bear similarities with these other extant sources and studies such as Gatfield (2005) and thus but might have transferability into other contexts (Miles and Huberman, 1994). Thus based on these findings it is proposed that the following model fro supervisory practice is offered to educational practitioners as a means to guide their dealings with students.

A way forward: A model for supervisory practice

The evidence to emerge from this study and the extant literature a model of supervisory styles shown in Figure 1 is proposed and is based upon the consultative model of Margulies and Raia (1972) and the description of the consultant's role as devised by Lippett and Lippet (1978). The model in Figure 1 which develops Gatfield's (2005) Support-Structure dimensions of supervisory styles shows the diametrically opposed dimensions of task vis-à-vis process-centred supervision role. This is on a continuum moving from the supervisor as the expert and holding legitimate or power, or authority (see French and Raven, 1959; Drummond, 2000) or that of information power (Greenberg and Baron, 2003) to the role of being facilitator as is when the case when pastoral support is required within the supervisor-supervisee relationship. The model also displays how supervisory roles can be shown to change depending on the supervisory style adopted by the supervisors. It can be represented on the continuums of task/process centred concerns and directive/non-directive supervisory roles and again is drawn from the referent, information, legal power and position power perspectives (see French and Raven, 1959; Drummond, 2000; Greenberg and Baron, 2003).

Figure 1: A framework for supervision styles

At one end of these continuums, the supervisor acts as a technical expert having an input into the planning of the dissertation in a prescriptive manner. At this end of the continuum, the supervisor is focused upon the task of completing the dissertation and takes little account of the needs, requirements and ideas of the student, relying upon their perceived expert knowledge (French and Raven, 1959) of the subject to direct the supervisory process and relationship with the student. The supervisor also displays little support to the student outside the bounds of the supervisory process and has no interest in developing medium or long-term personal and professional relationships with their students. Developing "problem-based" solutions is not seen as part of the functions of the supervisory role, and the supervisor sees the research problem from their own perspective where they provide ideas, opinions, tactics and the methodology with little recourse to the student and exhibits the characteristics of information power (Greenberg and Baron, 2003). At the other end of these continuums, the supervisor is concerned with process-centred activities in a non-directive supervisory role. Here, the supervisor takes account of the needs and requirements of the student and adopts a collaborative and participative style of supervision. At this end of the continuum, the supervisor recognises that power based upon expert subject knowledge and their position of authority as an academic supervisory might have consequences upon their relationship with their students. As such, these are ameliorated as the supervisor builds their credibility with their students in a participative style of supervision whereby they discuss and identify barriers to progress and offer advice and guidance to the student in a collaborative and supportive manner.

References

Acker, J, Hill, T. and Black, E. (1994) Thesis supervision in the social world. Higher Education, Vol. 28, 483-498.
Armitage, S. and Rees, C. (1988) Project Supervision. Nurse Education Today Vol.8, 99-104.
Armstrong, M. and Shanker, V. (1983) The supervision of undergraduate research: student perceptions of the supervisor role. Studies in Higher Education Vol.8 (2), 177-183.
Barron, D. and Zeegers, M. (2002) 'O' for Osmosis. 'P' for Pedagogy: Fixing the Postgraduate Wheel of Fortune. Paper presented at the 2002 Annual Conference of the Australian Association for Research in Education.
Bartlett, A. and Mercer, G. (2000) Reconceptualising Discourses in Power in Postgraduate Pedagogies. Studies in Higher Education 5(2): 195-204.
Bennett, G. and Mansell, I. (2002) An Exploration of Nurse Lecturers' Perceptions of their Role. In The Academic Supervision of Students' Projects, RTF Occasional paper. Wales: University of Glamorgan.
Bennett, R. and Knibbs, J. (1986) Researching for a Higher Degree: The Role(s) of the Supervisor. Management Development and Education, Vol. 17 (2).
Blau, P. (1961) The Dynamics of Bureaucracy, 2nd ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Blau, P. (1964) Exchange and Power in Social Life. New York: Wiley.
Darwall, S. (2003) Contractaniarism/Contractualism. London: Blackwell.
Delamount, S., Atkinson, P., and Parry, O. (2000) The Doctoral Experience: Success and Failure in Graduate School. London: Falmer.
Delamount, S., Atkinson, P., and Parry, O. (2004) Supervising the PhD: A Guide to Success: 2nd ed. Buckingham: Open University Press.
Drummond, H. (2000) Introduction to Organizational Behaviour. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Emerson, R.M. (1962) Power and Dependence Relations. American Sociological Review, Vol.27, No. 1, February 32.
Etzioni, A. (1961) A Comparative Analysis of Complex Organizations. New York: Free Press.
Ferman, T. (2002) The knowledge needs of doctoral supervisors. Paper presented at the 2002 Annual Conference of the Australian Association for Research in Education.
French, J.R.P. and Raven, B. (1959) The Bases of Social Power. In Cartwright, D. (Ed.) (1959) Studies in Social Power. University of Michigan: Ann Arbor.
Frey, J.H. (1989) Survey research by telephone, 2nd ed. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Frey, J.H., and Fontana, A. (1991). The group interview in social research. Social Science Journal, Vol.28, 175-187.
Fuller, R. and Petch, A. (1995) Practitioner Research: The reflexive social worker. Buckingham: Open University Press.
Gatfield, T. (2005) An Invetigation into PhD Supervisory Management Styles: Development of a dynamic conceptual model and its management implications. Journal of Higher Education Policy Research and Development, 23(3): 375-388.
Geenberg, J. and Baron, R.A. (2003) Behaviour in Organizations, 8th ed. New York: Prentice Hall.
Grant, B. (2005) Unfinished business: subjectivity and supervision. Higher Education Research and Development, 24(2):151-183.
Gurr, G. (2001) Negotiating the "Rackety Bridge" – a Dynamic Model for Aligning Supervisory Style with Research Student Development. Higher Education and Development, 20(1):81-92.
Hall, R.H. (1972) Organizations: Structure and Process. London: Prentice Hall.
Handy, C.B. (1985) Understanding Organizations, 3rd ed. Harmondsworth; Penguin Books.
Handy, C.B. (1993) Understanding Organizations, 4th ed. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books.
Hartnett, R.T. and Katz, J. (1997) The Education of Graduate Students. Journal of Higher Education, Vol. XLV111, No.6, November/December.
Harrow, J. and Loewenthal, D. (1992) Management Research Supervision: Some Users' perspectives on Roles, Interventions and Power. Management Education and Development, Vol.23 (1), 54-64.
Hastrati, M. (2005) Legitimate peripheral participation and supervising PhD students. Studies in Higher Education, 30(5): 557-570.
Heron, J. (1986) Six Category Intervention Analysis. Human Potential Research Group, University of Surrey.
Heron, J. (1997) Behaviour Analysis in Education and Training, British Postgraduate Medical Federation. University of London and Guildford: University of Surrey.
Heron, J. (2001) Helping the Client, 5th ed. London: Sage.
Hetrick. S and Trafford, V.N. (1995) The mutuality of expectation: mapping the perceptions of dissertation supervisors and candidates in postgraduate department of a new university. Journal of Graduate Education, Vol.2 (2), 35-43.
Hockey J (1994) Establishing Boundaries: problems and solutions in managing the PhD supervisor's role. Cambridge Journal of Education Vol.24 (2), 293-305.
Huberman, A.M. and Miles, M.B. (1994) 'Data Analysis Methods'. In Denzin, N.K and Lincoln, Y.S. (Eds.), Handbook of Qualitative Research. London: Sage.
Huczynski, A. and Buchanan, D. (1991) Organizational Behaviour, 3rd ed. Hemel Hempstead: Prentice Hall International.
Hussey, J. and Hussey, R. (1997) Business Research. London: Macmillan Press.
Jowett S, Walton I and Payne S (1994) Challenges and change in nurse education: a study of the implementation of Project 2000. Slough: National Foundation for Educational Research in England and Wales.
Joyce, B.R. (1991) The five doors to organizational improvement. Education Leadership, Vol. 48, No.8, 59-62.
Karn, B. (1997) Style and quality in research supervision. Higher Education, 34(1): 81-103.
Katz, D. (1964) Approaches to Managing Conflict. In Kahn, R.L. and Boulding, E. (Eds.) (1964) Power and Conflict in Organizations. New York: Basic Books.
Lippitt, G. and Lippitt, R. (1978) The consultancy process in action. California: University Associates.
Margulies, N. and Raia, A.P. (1972) Action Research and the Consultative Process. In Margulies, N. and Raia, A.P. (Eds.) (1972) Organizational Development, Values, Process and Technology. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Mazhindu, G. N. (1990) Contract learning reconsidered: a critical examination of implications for application in nurse education. Journal of Advanced Nursing Vol.15, 101-109.
McEvoy, C.A. (1995) The Report of the Summative Evaluation of Project 2000 in Northern Ireland. Northern Ireland: National Board for Nursing Midwifery and Health Visiting for Northern Ireland.
Middlewood, D, Coleman, M. and Lumby, J. (1999) Practitioner Research in Education. London: Sage.
Miles, M.B. and Hubermann, A.M. (1994) Qualitative Data Analysis – A Source Book of New Methods. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Peabody, R.L. (1962) Perspectives of Organizations Authority: A Comparative Analysis. Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol.6, No. 4 (March), 463-483.
Perrow, C. (1970) Departmental Power and Perspectives in Industrial Firms. In Zald, M.N. (1970) Power in Organizations. Nashville: Vanderbilt University Press.
Phillips, E. M. and Pugh, D.S. (1994) How to Get a PhD, 2ed. Buckingham: Open University Press.
Phillips, E.M. and Pugh, D.S. (2000) How to get a PhD: A Handbook for Students and their Supervisors, 3rd ed. Buckingham: Open University Press.
Pondy, L.R. (1967) Organizational Conflict: Concepts and Models. Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol.12, 296-320.
Saunders, M., Lewis, P., and Thornhill, A. (2003) Research Methods for Business Students. Harlow: Prentice Hall.
Schein, E.H. (1980) Organizational Psychology, 3rd ed. Prentice Hall: Englewood Cliffs.
Scott, W.R. (1964) Theory of Organizations. In Farris, E.L. (1964) Handbook of Modern Sociology. Chicago: Rand McNally.
Sharp, J.A. and Howard, K. (1996) The Management of a Student Project, 2ed ed. Gower: Publishing, Aldershot, England.
Smith, D.J. (1995) Professional Development through Post-Graduate Supervision. Journal of the National Association for Staff Development, Vol.32, 24-33.
Snowball, J., Ross, K. and Murphy, K. (1994) Illuminating dissertation supervision through reflection. Journal of Advanced Nursing Vol.19, 1234-1240.
Wamsley, G.L. (1970) Power and Crisis of the Universities. In Zald, M.N. (1970) Power in Organizations. Nashville: University of Tennessee Press.
Warren, D.I. (1968) Power, Visibility and Conformity in Formal Organizations. American Sociological Review, Vol. 33, No. 6, December, 951-970.
Weber, M. (1947) The Theory of Social and Economic Organization. New York: Frees Press.
Weber, M. (1958) The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism. In Haralambos, M. and Holborn, H. (1995) Sociology Themes and Perspectives, 4th ed. London: Harper Collins.
Wisker, G. (2004) The Good Supervisor. Basingstoke: Palgrave.
Woodhouse, M. (2002) Supervising Dissertation Projects: Expectations of Supervisors and Students. Innovations in Education and Teaching, Vol. 39, No.2, 137-147.