Sustainability of the accounting and finance academic profession: students’ and supervisors’ views about the PhD supervision process
We would like to thank all participants who took part in the research project. We also express our gratitude to the Accounting and Finance Association of Australia and New Zealand (AFAANZ) for distributing the students’ and supervisors’ surveys to Heads of Department/Schools of Accounting and Finance in Australian and New Zealand universities. In turn, we are grateful to the Heads of Department/School who circulated these surveys to their staff and students. Finally, we express our gratitude to attendees at the 2016 and 2017 AFAANZ conferences and the 2016 APIRA conference for their valuable feedback. We also thank Lee Parker, Ken McPhail, Paul Mather, Robert Faff, Nicholas McGuigan, Meredith Tharapos, Neil Marriott and Patricia Everaert for their feedback. Dr. Luisa Unda acknowledges the funding support from the Monash University – New Academic Staff Support Grant.
Abstract
This study explores the research supervisory practices of accounting and finance PhD students at Australian and New Zealand universities. Given documented faculty shortages in the accounting and finance disciplines, such investigation is timely and relevant. In the context of student engagement with their community of academic practice and their intrinsic motivation related to individual competence and autonomy, situational adjustments are inevitable and explain some differences between students’ perceptions and supervisors’ expectations. Our findings demonstrate that, despite general satisfaction with the PhD supervision process, students articulated concerns regarding constructive feedback and pastoral care provided by their supervisors, as well as guidance regarding data analysis/statistics.
1 Introduction
Australia's higher degree by research training system currently produces more than 8,000 new research doctorate graduates each year, and almost 1,500 research masters graduates (Department of Education and Training, 2015a,b). To support this, in 2016, the Australian Government invested $980 million through block grants and funded 3,500 Australian Postgraduate Award scholarships (McGagh et al., 2016). Through this investment, the government sought to deliver on its goal to achieve a 3.2 percent growth in employees with a PhD in the period to 2020 (Go8, 2013). Yet, there are concerns with the quality of PhD training, including staffing costs for suitably qualified academics; the quality of students at entry; timely completion rates; student expectations; and the quality of supervision and research in successful theses (i.e. Heaney et al., 2013). A recent review of Australia's PhD training notes that ‘currently available data is inadequate to determine the performance of the research training system and its value to Australia's economic and social well-being. Longitudinal data on PhD course satisfaction, course completions and career outcomes need to be collected and reported… The absence of this data prevents effective performance monitoring and evaluation’ (McGagh et al., 2016, p. xv).
In response, drawing upon unmatched survey data and interviews, our study explores the perceptions of accounting and finance PhD students concerning their research experience and supervisors’ expectations of PhD supervisory practices in Australian and New Zealand universities. Exploration is motivated by reported attrition rates in doctoral studies, particularly the under-representation of accounting and finance graduates amongst PhD completions. For example, in 2015, of the 160,342 students completing a Bachelor Degree at an Australian university, 30.08 percent were studying management and commerce, yet of the 8,366 doctorate by research completions, management and commerce represented only 7.12 percent (Department of Education and Training, 2015a,b). Across time, based on census data collected by the Australian Bureau of Statistics, in 2011, there were 118,396 PhDs in Australia1 – 3,935 in management and commerce versus 36,814 in natural and physical sciences (Go8, 2013). Similarly globally, the issue of a serious shortage of accounting PhDs is well documented (The Pathways Commission, 2012; Brown, 2013).
Compounding this are concerns in the accounting supply chain, with a growing number of senior academics retiring and inadequate renewal of PhD graduates entering academe (Irvine et al., 2010). In 2013, there were 1,355 reported unfilled full-time faculty positions, with the largest demand (26.8 percent) in accounting (Brown, 2013). In the United States, professional bodies and major accounting firms have recognised this as a major threat to the accounting profession (The Pathways Commission, 2012). Similarly, in the United Kingdom, there is an academic labour shortage for the accounting and finance disciplines (Smith and Urquhart, 2018), despite an increase in recent years in PhD student numbers (Beattie and Smith, 2012).
To date, research has focused on establishing the urgency of the problem (i.e. Brown, 2013; Buchholz et al., 2013), with researchers adopting a broader cross-disciplinary focus (i.e. Edwards et al., 2011; Kiley, 2011) investigating accounting PhDs in non-Australian contexts (i.e. Baldwin and Brown, 2010; Baldwin et al., 2010; Beattie and Smith, 2012) and/or with a focus on the role of supervisors (Kiley, 2011; Bastalich, 2017). Yet, besides resourcing and supervisor training, there is an identified ‘need … to consider the students themselves – and the value they gain from undertaking a PhD program’ (Go8, 2013, p. 44). With reference to management and commerce, one Australian study of PhD students’ overall satisfaction reported 87.4 percent as being satisfied, which is seventh in a ranking of ten disciplines (Lindsay, 2015).
In exploring these expectations and perceptions, our study responds to a number of serious concerns related to the discipline and its capacity to deliver on Australian Government goals for higher education. Specifically, focusing on Australia and New Zealand, our research aims to:
- Investigate the motivation for undertaking a PhD in accounting and finance and the level of satisfaction held by students with current supervisory processes and
- Develop a theoretical understanding of the pedagogic practices drawn from knowledge of the context that articulates ‘the pedagogy of becoming a peer’ (Bastalich, 2017, p. 1151).
Our findings show that despite students being generally satisfied with the PhD process, student satisfaction is influenced by reward and recognition of capability through timely contact, constructive feedback, pastoral care and guidance regarding data analysis/statistics. This is significant as students’ top three motivating factors for undertaking a PhD were personal growth and development, the ability to pursue an academic career and professional recognition. Supervisors’ views differed, reporting that pursuit of an academic career is a decisive factor, with encouragement to continue research and success in prior studies being other top factors. A key point of difference between students’ and supervisors’ view is the role of pastoral care. Our findings articulate the influence of motivation as it relates to students’ perceptions of competence and autonomy. Therefore, in framing an appropriate pedagogy, we argue for the relevance of linking situated learning theory and cognitive evaluation theory (with its focus on autonomy and competence) to accommodate dual understanding of students’ learning required to be part of a community of academic practice and the motivational forces required to become competent autonomous members of their chosen academic discipline.
Given Australia, together with the United States and the United Kingdom, is viewed worldwide as one of the leading countries for doctoral students (Beattie and Smith, 2012), our focus on the interactive role of both parties (students and supervisors) contributes new insights. Specifically, with a focus on accounting and finance, we contribute insights into (i) the dynamics of their engagement as it affects PhD completions (an issue identified by Beattie and Smith (2012)) and (ii) the related process of subjectification (an issue identified by Petersen (2007)). In doing so, we redress the ‘under-theorisation [of the supervision relationship] as a specifically ‘pedagogic’ practice’ (Bastalich, 2017, p. 1149). We propose that to pedagogically accommodate the transition from a novice researcher (‘apprentice’) to a qualified PhD graduate (‘master’) requires a dual focus of situated learning theory and self-determination theory (and its subset, cognitive evaluation theory). Understanding PhD supervisory practices in Australia and New Zealand is both relevant and timely in potentially mitigating the unintended consequences of faculty shortages in accounting and finance. Creation of a future generation relies heavily on recruiting from these PhD programmes to both increase the number and quality of younger academics and extend universities’ research capabilities.
The remainder of the paper is organised as follows. In Section 22, we provide a summary of the background and relevant academic literature including the underpinning theoretical framework and research questions. In Section 33, we outline our research context and detail the methodology. In Section 44, we present the results of the study, and in Section 55, we provide a discussion of these results. Section 66 concludes the paper with the study's limitations and key findings.
2 Background
2.1 Issues regarding accounting academia
Worldwide there is a well-documented shortage of accounting faculty (Fogarty and Markarian, 2007; Plumlee and Reckers, 2014; Boyle et al., 2015), including in Australia (Irvine et al., 2010; Go8, 2013). This is a concern for the accounting profession (Plumlee et al., 2006; Fogarty and Holder, 2012) and has extensively been discussed in both the academic and practitioner literature. Importantly, shortages in the United States have been attributed to inadequate renewal of PhD graduates (AAA/AAPLG, 2005; Leslie, 2008), with the number of retirements likely to exceed the number of qualified replacements in the immediate future (Leslie, 2008; Gary et al., 2011). Similar problems are evident in the United Kingdom, despite a large increase in PhD student numbers in recent years (Beattie and Smith, 2012).
This drought of senior academics is due to a marked increase in recruiting competition and mobility within the sector (Go8, 2013). Similar concerns relate to the adverse consequences of institutional pressures to focus on increasing the number of PhD students, whether current programmes are producing academics, who are fit for the purpose in terms of teaching and producing relevant research, and the barriers to recruiting professionally qualified accountants to academia (Beattie and Smith, 2012). In Australia, increased workload and institutional pressures have negatively affected accounting academic's well-being, work quality and the attractiveness of accounting academia as a career (Steenkamp and Roberts, 2018). Similarly, Vesty et al. (2018) argue that increased teaching workloads, combined with publication pressures, has intensified the burnout potential amongst accounting academics in Australia and New Zealand. Increased emphasis in accounting schools on entrepreneurial and grant-winning activities means that accounting professors bear heavy workloads (Irvine et al., 2010). Managerial practices, increased workloads and governmental funding pressures related to timely PhD completions (i.e. Steenkamp and Roberts, 2018), place pressure on quality doctoral supervision.
The shortage of academics is adversely impacting accounting (and finance) schools, academics and students, including negatively affecting the overall functioning of many departments (Plumlee and Reckers, 2014) and threatening some schools’ ability to maintain accreditation standards (Brink et al., 2012). Exacerbating this is the growth in demand for accounting education at the bachelor and master levels (Leslie, 2008; Baysden, 2013). This is driven by a shortage of trained accountants in Australia, leading to graduate accountants seeking employment external to universities where the rewards are much more immediate (Go8, 2013).
Changes to funding of higher degree by research, especially post introduction of the Research Training Scheme in 2002; increasing demand for PhD-qualified academics in Australian universities where appointment is limited without a PhD (Heaney et al., 2013); growth in international PhD candidate enrolments; and changes in research funding and policy have had an impact on PhD completions. Whilst Heaney et al. (2013) document an increase in total PhD completions from 1988, as well as an increase in the dispersion of these completions across Australian universities, Brown's (2013) report of 1,355 unfilled full-time faculty positions, the majority of which are in accounting, reinforces the need for investigation of the issue. In the short term, it results in a paucity of quality research output from accounting and finance schools, including training and supervision of PhD students.
2.2 Literature review
In the PhD supervision process, students arguably engage with learning activities that involve both acquiring knowledge in its situated context and abstracting new knowledge. Such issues relate to the ‘tension between the ‘dependence’ and ‘independence’ of students’ as they transition from ‘relative dependency to … competent autonomy’ (Bastalich, 2017, p. 1147). To achieve this, a PhD student must acquire both knowledge about his/her community of practice and the ability to abstract new knowledge through critically engaging with this scholarship as an independent academic. Hence, the pedagogy must relate to becoming a peer in the academic community. Importantly, the pedagogy must accommodate the student transitioning to becoming a researcher who is capable of judging others through discipline-specific methodological and theoretical knowledge, writing skills and access to research networks (Bastalich, 2017).
Existing literature regarding doctoral supervision studies has conceived it as an apprenticeship (Cumming, 2010) or focussed on functional matters rather than a conceptual approach towards research supervision (Lee, 2008). An appropriate pedagogy must go beyond perceiving the inputs (e.g. physical and human resources) and outputs (e.g. theses and graduates) of PhD studies, instead focussing on the ‘ecosystem’ to translate the interdependence and interrelationship of the many components (Cumming, 2010) required for students to acquire ‘competent autonomy’ (Bastalich, 2017). In this study, we develop an understanding of this pedagogy by considering the complementary roles of two learning theories. The first, situated learning, relates to learning acquired in collaborative activities and social interactions as students become involved in their ‘community of practice’ (Lave and Wenger, 1991). The second, related to cognitive evaluation theory (Chae et al., 2017), is required for critically and independently engaging with disciplinary scholarship and abstracting new knowledge.
2.2.1 Situated learning theory
In a situated learning framework, learning is viewed as a situated activity, with a central characteristic, namely ‘legitimate peripheral participation’ (Lave and Wenger, 1991, p. 29). Central to this is the concept of apprenticeship. Arguably, the PhD supervision process is an apprenticeship, with PhD students engaging in required learning experiences, developing identities and crafting their membership in the academic community under their supervisor's (master's) guidance. Hence, PhD studies can be considered as an apprenticeship for gaining the relevant skills and knowledge to become a ‘master’ (Brown and Atkins, 1988).
In shaping the apprentice–master relationship, conferring legitimacy is important. Legitimacy is acquired through situational adjustment, where a person moves in and out of a variety of social situations, learning the requirements for continuity and success (Becker, 1964). For PhD students, these research apprenticeships require the student and supervisor to accommodate the interlocking of situated learning processes, situational adjustment processes, as well as collaborative activities and social interactions with the process progressively being between equals. Prior research (Becker, 1964) indicates several conditions, which predicate success, including a strong desire to continue; the ability to assess accurately what is required; and the ability to deliver the required performance. Problems arise when masters prevent learning by acting as pedagogical authoritarians, viewing the students as novices who should be instructed rather than as apprentices participating in a community (Lave and Wenger, 1991).
2.2.2 Self-determination theory
Self-determination theory focuses on motivation for participation, categorising it as either intrinsic or extrinsic (Deci and Ryan, 1985). Intrinsic motivation relates to personal satisfaction, with the reasons for participation being considered completely autonomous or self-determined. Alternatively, extrinsic motivation may either be autonomous or controlling (Matosic et al., 2014). Autonomous forms include participating because it is part of who you are and/or participating because the benefits are perceived as valued. Controlling forms include participating to gain pride or avoid guilt and anxiety and/or for rewards (external regulation). When motivation relates to participating without any interest or desire, it reflects unintentional behaviour (Standage and Ryan, 2012).
Prior research consistently reports intrinsic motivation as the strongest predictor of positive cognitive, affective and behavioural consequences (i.e. Matosic et al., 2014; Chae et al., 2017). As such, cognitive evaluation theory (CET), a subtheory of self-determination theory, has particular relevance (Ryan and Deci, 2000) as it proposes that the impact of external events on intrinsic motivation depends on the extent to which they impact participants’ feelings of competence and/or autonomy (Chae et al., 2017).
Prior studies demonstrate that people's fundamental needs for autonomy are satisfied when they perceive that they can regulate their behaviours (Chae et al., 2017). In our context, students are motivated to undertake a PhD from: (i) a genuine interest in the research topic; (ii) a desire to contribute to discipline knowledge (Guerin et al., 2015); and (iii) intrinsic motivation concerning personal identity to pursue a doctoral degree (Leonard et al., 2005; Burgess et al., 2011).
2.3 Research questions
2.3.1 Students’ motivations and expectations
-
- RQ1a
-
- What factors motivate accounting and finance students to undertake a PhD?
-
- RQ1b
-
- How do these factors align with supervisors’ perceptions of students’ motivation to undertake a PhD?
Prior research indicates PhD students’ satisfaction is positively linked to supervisor selection (Golde, 2000). However, there is considerable variation (Zhao et al., 2007), with students who are active in choosing their supervisors more likely to be satisfied (Barnes et al., 2012). Whilst not specifically related to management and commerce, Zhao et al. (2007) show that supervisor reputation and compatibility are more important for humanities students and slightly less for social science students, with pragmatic benefits being most valued by science students.
Beyond initial pairing, a supervisor's style may have an ongoing impact on student satisfaction, including thorough intellectual compatibility (Zhao et al., 2007). Supervisors acting as a critical friend and facilitator (Deuchar, 2008) support students’ situational adjustment (Becker, 1971). As either may be appropriate, findings show advantages when the student–supervisor relationship is negotiated (Acker et al., 1994). Nonetheless, the actions of students and supervisors may be based on perspectives derived from their past and present experiences, as well as interactions with others. For example, the interpretation of situations may draw on the influence of ‘shadow figures and relationships’ (Grant, 1999), including the effect of transference (Giblett, 1992).
-
- RQ2
-
- What are accounting and finance PhD students’ expectations regarding supervisors’ roles in this student-supervisor relationship? How effectively are these expectations met?
2.3.2 The role of PhD supervisors
A primary dimension of the PhD process is supervisors’ support via intellectual guidance and criticism. In practice, guidance and criticism are difficult to separate, as criticism may constitute a form of guidance (Kleinman, 1983). Balancing them generates tensions (Hockey, 1994), particularly regarding supervisors’ decisions about the content and delivery. Supervisors must balance students’ needs to engage in the community of academic practice with their needs to develop autonomy/competence (Delamont et al., 1997).
Whilst such support may assume a dyadic relationship between the supervisor and the student, it is impacted by university demands such as limited allocation of time for academic support. For example, supervisors have other students to supervise and personal research expectations (Pearson and Brew, 2002). There is evidence of student dissatisfaction related to supervisors’ accessibility and commitment, which is associated with reduced government funding and increased academic workloads (Harman, 2002).
-
- RQ3
-
- What role do accounting and finance PhD supervisors’ play in academic and pastoral support that impacts these students?
-
- RQ4
-
- How do the dual challenges associated with becoming part of the community of academic practice, and an independent researcher, influence accounting and finance students’ perceptions and supervisors’ expectations of their respective roles in the PhD process? How may this be conceived as a pedagogy?
3 Context and methodology
3.1 Context
In Australia, the high demand for business education (i.e. Appendix) and an ageing academic workforce expecting to retire within the next decade has prompted a most severe academic shortage yet, especially in business and commerce (Go8, 2013) and therein for academics in accounting and finance (Hugo and Morriss, 2010; Irvine et al., 2010). Current data reveal that senior academics (those in professorial or associate professorial positions) represent 25.58 percent (31.06 percent) of the Australian (New Zealand) accounting academic workforce.2 This drought of senior academics is arguably due to a marked increase in recruiting competition and mobility in the sector (Go8, 2013), with evidence indicating that accounting academics do not believe it is a good time to aspire to a career in Australian universities (Steenkamp and Roberts, 2018). Despite sustainability issues for the Australian accounting academic profession (Irvine et al., 2010), the focus has been on supervisory practices (Kiley, 2011) rather than PhD candidates (Baldwin and Brown, 2010).
3.2 Methodology
The study, involving PhD students and supervisors in Accounting and Finance Departments at Australian and New Zealand universities, was conducted in two stages: Stage 1 entailed online surveys, whilst Stage 2 comprised a series of semistructured interviews. Whilst self-reported methods were used, for which there is some debate about leniency bias (Thornton, 1968), our use of two methods from two alternative sources addresses some concerns. Given respondents were drawn from a broad range of institutions across Australia and New Zealand, they were considered to be representative. In both stages, to assess the clarity and appropriateness of the questions, pilot studies were conducted, with feedback incorporated before proceeding to the next stage. Results from the study are reported below with no matching of students and supervisors.
Stage 1's online surveys were explorative as it sought to build knowledge regarding the context, as well as gain initial understanding about factors that influence the decision to study a PhD and research supervision experiences (RQ1a, RQ1b and RQ2). The instruments comprised a modified version of the survey questions developed by Beattie and Smith (2012), which investigated students’ satisfaction with PhD supervisory processes in the United Kingdom. Our surveys, comprising a mix of open-ended and Likert scale items,3 probe information about availability of supervisors, supervisory assistance, guidance on the literature review, topic selection and data analysis. They were administered via online links sent to Heads of Departments/Schools of Accounting and Finance in all Australian and New Zealand universities,4 who in turn were asked to forward the survey links to their PhD students and supervisors.
Responses were anonymous,5 with the surveys open for 11 months from November 2014 to September 2015. As the links were forwarded by a Head of Department/School, we are unable to accurately quantify the number of students and supervisors who received the surveys. In total, we received 63 responses from students and 44 from supervisors. After removing incomplete responses, the sample comprised a total of 53 PhD students and 38 PhD supervisors from 19 universities (two in New Zealand and 17 in Australia). Using aggregated higher education statistics reporting that 4,041 students were enrolled in PhD research in management and commerce in 2014 (Department of Education and Training, 2014), we estimate that 13.81 percent belong to accounting and finance.6 With an approximate population of 558 PhD students, this represents a student response rate of 8.42 percent.7
Stage 2 involved semistructured interviews, with questions drawn from the survey findings. The aim was to gain deeper understanding about students’ and supervisors’ roles in the PhD supervision process (RQ2, RQ3 and RQ4). The majority of the interviews, which were recorded and transcribed, were conducted face-to-face between September and November 2016. Participants, who were free to withdraw at any point, were selected on the basis of prior interest expressed in Stage 1 and/or were newly recruited at the 2016 AFAANZ and 2016 APIRA conferences. Consequently, some had not completed the survey. Twenty-one interviews were conducted with students and 15 with supervisors.
- Supervision process : meetings, quality of feedback and cosupervisors’ contribution – factors directly influenced by the supervisor.
- University support : student support and funding and training programmes – an area managed by the university.
- Pastoral care : the emotional care or pastoral supervisory support.
4 Results
4.1 Participant details
4.1.1 Stage 1 demographics
As shown in Table 1, 56.5 percent of student respondents were male. The majority (78.4 percent) were pursuing a PhD in Accounting, were enrolled on a full-time basis and currently in their second year. Regarding educational background, many held a master's degree (by research), and most (71.7 percent) were financed by university scholarships. When employed during their candidature, students predominantly worked in academia (56.5 percent), averaging 1–8 h per week. Approximately 22 percent were not working. The majority (72 percent) intend to pursue an academic career following completion, with approximately one-third intending to work in their home country and the remainder intending to stay in Australia or New Zealand.
| Male | Female | Total | |
|---|---|---|---|
| N = 26 | N = 20 | N = 46 | |
| Gender | 56.5 | 43.5 | 100 |
| Age | |||
| Under 25 years | 3.8 | 15.0 | 8.7 |
| 26–30 years | 23.1 | 15.0 | 19.6 |
| 31–40 years | 30.8 | 35.0 | 32.6 |
| 41–50 years | 34.6 | 20.0 | 28.2 |
| 51 years and over | 7.7 | 15.0 | 10.9 |
| Discipline | |||
| Accounting | 61.5 | 95.0 | 78.4 |
| Finance | 26.9 | 5.0 | 15.7 |
| Multidisciplinary | 11.5 | 0.0 | 5.9 |
| Enrolment year of PhD | |||
| Year 1 | 19.2 | 20.0 | 20.4 |
| Year 2 | 46.2 | 30.0 | 44.9 |
| Year 3 | 11.5 | 25.0 | 16.3 |
| Year 4 | 15.4 | 15.0 | 14.3 |
| Year 5 | 3.8 | 5.0 | 4.1 |
| Enrolment status | |||
| Full-time | 69.2 | 70.0 | 70.6 |
| Part-time | 30.8 | 30.0 | 29.4 |
| Educational background/Language | |||
| Honours | 26.9 | 25.0 | 26.1 |
| Masters (research component) | 53.8 | 60.0 | 56.5 |
| Masters (by coursework) | 19.2 | 15.0 | 17.4 |
| English – First language | 34.6 | 45.0 | 39.1 |
| PhD research scholarship | |||
| Yes | 76.9 | 50.0 | 71.7 |
| No | 23.1 | 26.9 | 28.3 |
| Employment status | |||
| In academia | 57.7 | 42.3 | 56.5 |
| Outside academia | 15.4 | 3.8 | 10.9 |
| Both | 7.7 | 11.5 | 10.9 |
| Not working | 19.2 | 19.2 | 21.7 |
| Post-PhD employment plan | |||
| Academia | 69.2 | 75.0 | 72.3 |
| Outside Academia | 23.1 | 0.0 | 12.9 |
| Not sure | 7.7 | 25.0 | 14.8 |
| Gross income for last financial year | |||
| Below AUD 30,000 | 34.6 | 26.9 | 34.8 |
| 30,001–50,000 | 3.8 | 3.8 | 4.3 |
| 50,001–80,000 | 3.8 | 15.4 | 10.9 |
| Over 80,001 | 34.6 | 7.7 | 23.9 |
- a Percentages may not total 100 percent because blank responses are not shown.
Most supervisors (see Table 2) were currently employed at a professorial level. Of the 199 reported completions in Accounting and Finance, 83 percent (13 percent) were supervised by professors (associate professors). This may be attributable to either (i) the greater percentage of senior academics in our sample (68.4 percent) compared to senior lecturers (18.4 percent) and lecturers (13.2 percent); (ii) the number of years of service; and/or (iii) required experience.
| Professor | Associate professor | Senior lecturer | Lecturer | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| N = 17 | N = 9 | N = 7 | N = 5 | |
| Average number of years in academia | 26.5 | 26.3 | 11.9 | 7.1 |
| Average number of students supervised to completion | 9.7 | 2.8 | 1.1 | 0.2 |
| Role in PhD supervision (%) | ||||
| Principal supervisor | 66 | 21 | 11 | 2 |
| Cosupervisor | 32 | 41 | 15 | 12 |
| Associate supervisor | 43 | 36 | 0 | 21 |
| Formal training in supervision | 53 | 67 | 57 | 60 |
Concerning formal supervisory training, on average 57.8 percent of supervisors possessed this. For those with formal training, most indicated that it was a university requirement, with a need to undertake additional courses or workshops at least every 2 years.
4.1.2 Stage 2 demographics
The overall demographics (see Table 3) are as follows:
| Students | Male | Female | Total | SUPERVISORS | Male | Female | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| N = 11 | N = 10 | N = 21 | N = 10 | N = 5 | N = 15 | ||
| Gender | 52.4 | 47.6 | 100 | Gender | 66.7 | 33.3 | 100 |
| Discipline | Discipline | ||||||
| Accounting | 72.8 | 80 | 76.2 | Accounting | 60 | 60 | 60 |
| Finance | 18.1 | 20 | 19 | Finance | 40 | 40 | 40 |
| Multidisciplinary | 9.1 | 0 | 4.8 | ||||
| Enrolment year in the PhD programme | Academic position | ||||||
| Year 1 | 9.1 | 20 | 14.3 | Lecturer | 0 | 20 | 6.7 |
| Year 2 | 36.4 | 10 | 23.8 | Senior Lecturer | 20 | 0 | 13.3 |
| Year 3 | 45.4 | 40 | 42.8 | Associate Professor | 20 | 40 | 26.7 |
| Year 4 | 9.1 | 30 | 19 | Professor | 60 | 40 | 53.3 |
| Enrolment status | |||||||
| Full-time | 81.8 | 70 | 76.2 | ||||
| Part-time | 18.2 | 30.0 | 23.8 | ||||
- the majority of students were male (52.4 percent), undertaking a PhD in accounting (76.2 percent), enrolled in either second or third year and studying on a full-time basis and
- most supervisors were male (66.7 percent), holding a professorial position in accounting (60 percent).
4.2 Findings
4.2.1 Motivation to undertake a PhD
As reported in Table 4, when PhD students and supervisors were asked about motivating factors that influenced their decision to study a PhD (RQ1a), 45 percent of students agree that the need to have a PhD for an academic position is influential. Supervisors’ agreement was stronger (80 percent). Students’ top three motivating factors were as follows: personal growth and development (91 percent); the ability to pursue a career in academic research (89 percent); and professional recognition (85 percent). Supervisors agree that pursuit of a career in academic research is a decisive factor (94 percent), with encouragement to continue research (91 percent) and success in prior studies being other top factors (89 percent). Comparative analysis (see Table 4) shows disparities in viewpoint between students and supervisors, that is, 91 percent of students agree versus 71 percent of supervisors that personal growth and development is an important factor in pursuing a PhD.
| Factors that motivate pursuing a PhD | Studentsa | Supervisors | (t-test) | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agree (%)b | Disagree (%) | Average Scorec | SD | N | Agree (%) | Disagree (%) | Average Score | SD | N | ||
| Personal growth and development | 91 | 2 | 6.02 | 1.20 | 45 | 71 | 17 | 4.97 | 1.25 | 35 | (−3.82)*** |
| Ability to pursue career in academic research | 89 | 7 | 6.11 | 1.30 | 46 | 94 | 3 | 6.40 | 0.95 | 35 | (1.12) |
| Professional recognition | 85 | 4 | 5.80 | 1.28 | 46 | 60 | 26 | 4.49 | 1.60 | 35 | (−4.13)*** |
| Ability to pursue a career in teaching | 76 | 13 | 5.52 | 1.70 | 46 | 69 | 17 | 5.06 | 1.61 | 35 | (−1.25) |
| Increase earnings potential | 63 | 24 | 4.83 | 1.86 | 46 | 66 | 23 | 4.66 | 1.64 | 35 | (−0.64) |
| Encouragement from academics to continue into research | 72 | 6 | 5.38 | 1.38 | 47 | 91 | 3 | 5.51 | 0.85 | 35 | (0.30) |
| Success in undergraduate or postgraduate study | 70 | 13 | 5.28 | 1.55 | 47 | 89 | 9 | 5.43 | 1.12 | 35 | (0.26) |
| Limited employment opportunities prior to commencing PhD | 34 | 47 | 3.53 | 2.10 | 47 | 49 | 34 | 4.26 | 1.60 | 35 | (1.70)* |
| Requirement of an academic contract | 45 | 45 | 3.89 | 2.45 | 47 | 80 | 11 | 5.46 | 1.52 | 35 | (3.32)*** |
- This table includes nonparametric t-test statistics for the differences in mean values between the two groups (students and supervisors).
- a Percentages may not total 100 percent as the neutral category is not shown.
- b Response categories: Agree = strongly agree, mostly agree, somewhat agree; Disagree = strongly disagree, mostly disagree, somewhat disagree.
- c Average score is based on a 7-point Likert scale.
- Statistical significance level at *10, **5, ***1 percent.
4.2.2 Supervision experience: Student expectations and influences upon supervisors
In both the survey and interviews, students were asked about their experiences with the supervision process, and supervisors about their responsibilities in this regard (RQ2). The feeling of not being well supervised derives from students viewing supervision/supervisory responsibilities quite differently from supervisors. This contributes to intrinsic motivation through perceived competence, reward and recognition (see Table 5).
| Factors that affect students’ experiences with the PhD supervision process | Studentsa | Supervisors | (t-test) | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agree (%)b | Disagree (%) | Average Scorec | SD | N | Agree (%) | Disagree (%) | Average Score | SD | N | ||
| Supervision is available when you need it | 88 | 10 | 6.00 | 1.51 | 49 | 86 | 11 | 5.83 | 1.50 | 36 | (−0.50) |
| Your supervisor/s make a real effort to understand difficulties you face | 88 | 8 | 5.96 | 1.49 | 49 | 92 | 8 | 5.81 | 1.51 | 36 | (−0.55) |
| Your supervisor/s provide additional information relevant to your topic | 82 | 10 | 5.80 | 1.59 | 49 | 94 | 6 | 5.75 | 1.32 | 36 | (−0.14) |
| You are given good guidance in topic selection and refinement | 82 | 10 | 5.61 | 1.62 | 49 | 92 | 6 | 6.19 | 1.50 | 36 | (1.52) |
| Your supervisor/s provide helpful feedback on your progress | 82 | 12 | 5.80 | 1.35 | 49 | 94 | 6 | 6.39 | 1.08 | 36 | (2.73)*** |
| You receive good guidance in your literature search | 80 | 16 | 5.37 | 1.66 | 49 | 92 | 8 | 5.75 | 1.41 | 36 | (0.32) |
| You are given good guidance on data analysis or statistics | 71 | 10 | 5.31 | 1.56 | 48 | 94 | 6 | 5.97 | 1.25 | 36 | (2.08)** |
| Your supervisor set clear expectations from the beginning regarding PhD progress | 87 | 9 | 5.77 | 1.58 | 47 | 94 | 6 | 6.23 | 1.37 | 35 | (1.38) |
| You are given pastoral care (emotional support) during your PhD | 65 | 16 | 5.12 | 1.87 | 49 | 81 | 14 | 5.42 | 1.61 | 36 | (0.81) |
- a Percentages may not total 100 percent as the neutral category is not shown.
- b The survey used a 7-point Likert scale.
- c The average score is based on a 7-point Likert scale. This table includes nonparametric t-tests for differences in mean values between the two groups (students, supervisors).
- Statistical significance level at *10, **5, ***1 percent.
Results from the survey show that students perceive supervision is available when needed and moreover that supervisors make real efforts to understand the difficulties encountered (both 88 percent). The second most important supervisory issue concerns supervisor's providing clear expectations from the beginning (87 percent), followed by additional information relevant to the topic, providing good guidance on topic selection and helpful feedback on progress (all 82 percent). Supervisors agreed that helpful feedback on progress is a primary responsibility. 82 percent of students agree that they were given feedback on their progress, compared with 94 percent of supervisors. Significant results from the t-test suggest that students expect more helpful feedback than supervisors perceive is warranted.
Other relevant tasks endorsed by the results from the supervisors’ survey include providing information relevant to the student's research topic; setting clear expectations; and guiding data analysis/statistics (all 94 percent). Again, differences are apparent regarding guidance on data analysis/statistics (see Table 5), with students wanting more guidance (71 percent of students agree they're given good guidance versus 94 percent of supervisors accepting this as their responsibility).
Prior research shows that communication between the PhD supervisor and student is fundamental (Ives and Rowley, 2005), requiring adjustment depending on student needs. Thus, pressures arise for both parties. Key factors identified through the interviews that affect supervision (RQ2 and RQ3) include the frequency of meetings, feedback, other supervisors’ contributions, funding and training programmes, and pastoral care. We report results in terms of these below.
We tend not to cancel the meeting, never ever… So what do we do?… last week we did Skype.
(Supervisor A)
We meet every fortnight in my office, so I schedule the meetings at the start of each semester.
(Student A)
I'm more restricted now I've become head of department. You just have more things to do so there's less time.
(Supervisor B)
I tend to travel too much and be too busy. I would be lying to you to say I see my students every fortnight, which I think is a good model to have.
(Supervisor C)
I'm not taking on more than three or four PhD students and to have eight PhD students I think is ludicrous in our system… time constraint is up to us to manage but there is some pressure from higher up to take on more.
(Supervisor D)
I think all of these supervisors tend to take on more … students than the time they've got … there's such a shortage of supervisors.
(Student B)
Supervisors should give time to students… proper time, proper action plan first … Sometimes… he may reply me even after 2–3 months. He never thinks he should help students.
(Student C)
I also sometimes feel the PhD student in their priority list is low.
(Student D)
I would suggest less number of students for every single supervisor, and there should be a process of meeting.
(Student E)
My supervisor would never say that they were too busy or would never decline a meeting. I felt that myself, that their time is very valuable.
(Student F)
These findings indicate students’ awareness of time pressures on supervisors and a willingness to adapt (indicating situational adjustment), but equally show they have their own deadlines. Similarly, supervisors are aware of the need for meetings and that time pressure causes poor performance. Responses suggest the need for universities to assess workload pressures and ensure adequate time is allocated to supervisory roles.
Feedback is not always going to be positive. I look at it as critical; it's just feedback that you need to improve and that's part of the process.
(Student A)
I look at it quite objectively. So I'm able to see that they're just critiquing my work; it's not a critique of me as a person.
(Student G)
…some students really do not like critical commentary on their work… I'd hate to be telling my student that everything is wonderful and it's all good and then them go to a conference or submit something and get that kind of critical comment in a public forum.
(Supervisor E)
They [supervisors] just be silent partners on the projects, pushing the student to write the papers rather than thinking about quality thesis … In case students cannot work with the supervisor to get a publication, the supervisor lost interest on the students.
(Student C)
I need concrete feedback. Obviously I know that it will do but I want a more definite guideline. That's what I'm not getting.
(Student E)
So they probably say that it's great but there's no structure in the chapter. But I would like to know what is that structure, what is missing, exactly how can I bring structure to this.
(Student H)
If we send big content to the supervisor, it's really hard for them to find the time to read it carefully.
(Student I)
He's a very critical person. He has a high standard… would say your work is … [not good] … I'm not sure about other students, they might find it offensive.
(Student J)
I didn't select my supervisor it was just by chance… If I can start my PhD again, I would like to choose.
(Student K)
So in terms of that direct supervisory process… they're not experts in the field where I am reporting… the topic that I have chosen is not common in this department.
(Student L)
I think you can adapt to the interests of the student … the biggest way of squashing any passion that someone has is to tell them [students] no, no, no you have to do this topic because it's in my narrow area of expertise.
(Supervisor C)
It's really just a question of encouraging them, showing… you're genuinely interested in their work.
(Supervisor F)
In summary, findings demonstrate that feedback is impacted by workloads, lack of specific expertise and sensitivity to feedback, which can impact its quality. Whilst some students indicated that they understood the need for this critique and that general feedback was not enough as they seek specific feedback to guide and improve their work, this is hampered by untimely feedback when supervisors take too long to respond. Untimely feedback can be a result of workload pressures on the supervisor due to university workload allocations.
Sometimes [supervisors] would have arguments as well, but usually… reach a point where they do agree this is the best method.
(Student M)
Each supervisor brings a different skill set to the table … someone else to rely on.
(Supervisor G)
So I've got some of the really good supervisions … but I have got one at the moment where there isn't such a natural fit… I am a second supervisor and I've now taken very much a backwards step.
(Supervisor E)
I have one … [student] … who feels the pressure… because your co-supervisor and you may not necessarily have the same approach.
(Supervisor H)
There seems awareness by supervisors of the need to strategically manage cosupervisory arrangements and how they impact students’ motivation and perceived competence.
I am going for training to know the structure and modelling. So that is good.
(Student E)
Typically it's just hard to find funding for that student to actually go to the conference and present.
(Supervisor I)
University runs a number of workshops, free … Some of the things I can help, but most of the things I can't help. My knowledge is a bit outdated now. They [students] just manage.
(Supervisor J)
It's probably the one that most academics would feel least qualified in … they'd probably say well no that's not part of my role.
(Supervisor C)
I think it's whether they feel comfortable in opening up about the issues… it's important that as a supervisor, you look after your student when they need it.
(Supervisor G)
I'm very resistant to that – the relationship can become intensive … I'm your academic advisory … not your life coach.
(Supervisor I)
I'm not sure that the supervisor is the pastoral care provider, but there are other support services.
(Supervisor K)
… out of trying to manage my image I'm probably reluctant to disclose the trouble I might have been having with my PhD supervisor … Whereas, I might be quite comfortable talking about that with pretty much all the other professors.
(Student F)
… I've felt really comfortable talking with them [supervisors] and they've encouraged me to talk about anything as it comes up, which has definitely helped. But saying that, they're not my best friend. I'm not going to have the same sort of level of intimacy with them… it's more like a mentor relationship.
(Student G)
I'm not sure if supervisor is correct person to do that … when I'm emotionally vulnerable I don't talk to anybody.
(Student J)
When I look at my other PhD colleagues they refrain from expressing their emotions or feelings or even thoughts. Then they're left between their supervisor's expectations and then what they can respond in terms of those expectations … supervisor won't understand why you're performing … the way you are.
(Student N)
I think a lot of it also depends on the student and the supervisor… when I was a student – I do like some kind of separation between the student and the supervisor … I would say I'm close to them but academically, go to conferences and spend time with them but not close.
(Supervisor E)
Such sentiments recurred in more than one interview and allude to the influence of shadow figures and relationships and the effect of transference based upon prior experience. One supervisor indicated that, having been left alone as a PhD student, he now adopts that supervisory style. Another, whose PhD experience had been very isolating, had introduced a team PhD structure to combat this.
Pastoral care is a difficult one … who do you speak with? I have to say the co-supervisor was fantastic … Sometimes I wished I had gone directly and had that whinge… I think that would have helped me more … I'd strongly recommend people to do that and not … fear that you would be seen in a negative light.
(Student B)
I think PhD students need psychologists more than supervisors… they go through so many phases, not only through their PhDs, through their personal lives also.
(Student H)
He [supervisor] left me exactly on my 1 year. We had a good chemistry… when he left … I lost some energy…
(Student J)
Luckily my best friend is here … she's actually been really good … I didn't want them [supervisors] to be my emotional crutch as well.
(Student L)
I'm comfortable telling him my family problems, relationship problems – he's my career advisor.
(Student O)
As long as you can get the academic support that is okay. So, in terms of the emotional support I would suggest that maybe there's a particular unit or maybe a department that can actually take care of that.
(Student P)
Importantly, students might receive emotional support and discuss their study concerns with the administrative support provided by the university or department. Given the PhD process can be an isolating experience for students, support may profoundly affect their satisfaction and research outcomes.
Our interview findings show that obtaining pastoral care from supervisors is not straightforward. One explanation is that supervisors do not view this as part of their role, leaving others to assist, whilst contrastingly some see a role in pastoral care. This evidences that supervisory practices are influenced by shadow figures and relationships. A second explanation for insufficient pastoral care is the supervisor's lack of expertise to deal with emotional turmoil in students’ lives. Finally, limiting pastoral care may be a conscious choice made by supervisors due to increased work pressures and limited time availability. This lack of support is likely to affect students’ intrinsic motivation, perceived competence and autonomy.
5 Discussion
Despite survey responses showing students are, in general, satisfied with their supervision, in particular their supervisor's availability, assistance and encouragement, our findings indicate two mismatches. These concern (i) students’ perceptions regarding the helpful feedback and pastoral care provided by their supervisors and (ii) issues regarding guidance on data analysis/statistics.
Firstly (RQ2), although 82 percent of the students surveyed are satisfied with their feedback, they are less positive than the surveyed supervisors (94 percent). This relates to insufficient alignment between the student's topic and supervisor's expertise; a lack of trained supervisors (57.8 percent); or an issue of student choice of supervisors. These differences are reflected in personal growth and development, and professional recognition being more highly ranked by students than supervisors. Whilst 65–88 percent of students appear to generally agree with the quality of their experience, there is evidence of students’ lack of strong endorsement. This is most apparent with respect to providing guidance on data analysis/statistics, pastoral care, helpful feedback on progress and guidance on the literature (see Table 5).
Despite students indicating a general unwillingness to change supervisors, interviews show two recurring issues (RQ3): students’ concerns with supervisors’ support (i.e. its nature, timing and adequacy) and some supervisors’ equivocation about their role in pastoral care. As a PhD requires substantial and sustained commitment, students acknowledged insight from the use of situational adjustment. This mechanism may explain why students, in the earlier phases, expressed greater dissatisfaction, which is possibly attributable to insufficient time for both parties to adjust.
These insights regarding students’ motivation, its impact on their autonomy and competence, and acknowledgement of situational adjustment inform our proposal of a pedagogy for PhD studies (RQ4). Whilst it is heartening to see the accord between students’ perceptions and supervisions’ expectations of the PhD supervision process, tensions are evident in the dual trajectories for students’ learning, namely: through an apprenticeship style of learning, they become part of a community of practice; they seek to become a competent autonomous member of an academic discipline. To provide a pedagogy for transitioning PhD candidates from studentship to apprenticeship and thence to competent membership of their academic discipline, we argue it is necessary to link situated learning theory and cognitive evaluation theory (with its focus on autonomy and competence).
Regarding situated learning theory, students’ learning and related meaning is configured by their participation in sociocultural practices to acquire legitimacy as a ‘full member’. Success factors include a strong desire to continue; the ability to assess accurately what is required; and the ability to deliver the required performance. Problems occur when ‘masters’ act as pedagogical authoritarians, viewing students as novices who ‘should be instructed’ rather than as apprentices who learn by participating.
Yet to function as a competently autonomous member of academia, a student must be motivated to actively engage with scholarship and develop independence of thought. Herein self-determination theory (and its subset CET) has relevance, in particular the role of intrinsic motivation as a strong predictor of cognitive, affective and behavioural consequences, particularly when participation is more autonomous rather than controlled. The availability of funding for PhD students is a functional input that may well create motivational outcomes through ensuing opportunities related to conference attendance, networking and software training for data analysis – all of which foster autonomy and independent competence. Other evidence supporting the relevance of CET includes findings showing that students’ perceptions of their autonomy and competence were variously impacted by their level of self-support; length of time in the programme; support networks; and awareness of the subtleties in supervisor relationships. The varying perceptions regarding critical feedback are particularly interesting. Some students report that their motivation was not diminished by their supervisors’ negative feedback, as they used criticism positively to benefit their competence and autonomy as researchers.
The main contribution of our study is to provide evidence about the duality of the supervision process that requires both students and supervisors to engage at a number of levels in order to achieve learning outcomes that ensure the ‘learner’ finally becomes as motivated, autonomous and competent as the ‘master’. We propose that, to pedagogically accommodate this tension, a dual focus of situated learning theory and self-determination theory is required, which extends the work of Lave and Wenger (1991).
6 Conclusion
This study provides useful insights regarding the PhD supervision process, which contributes to the debate about the impact of the current shortage of accounting academe. Accounting and finance schools need to continue to find ways to improve the PhD supervision experience, whilst at the same time recognise the need for longer-term sustainability of the academic profession. In part, the insights provided by our pedagogy rationalise the tensions and enrich understanding of how these tensions are an intrinsic part of the PhD process.
Our research offers some pedagogical guidelines for students and supervisors. Whilst students may commence as ‘apprentices’, who should be inculcated into the community of academic practice, they ultimately need to become independent researchers who can abstract new knowledge for themselves. Hence, supervisors have a dual role, with ultimate success being achieved when the student achieves equality. Of particular importance is the application of CET to demonstrate that intrinsic motivation is the strongest predictor on positive cognitive, affective and behavioural skills. Our results show that, despite PhD students’ competence and motivation being an essential component of entry into the programme, the effect of external events on intrinsic motivation is dependent upon how they impact feelings of competence and/or autonomy. Evidence shows that student satisfaction is influenced by reward and recognition of capability through timely contact, feedback, sources of alternative support and appropriate supervisory styles. Equally, satisfaction can be diminished through pastoral care, feedback, lack of access to training and lack of supervisors’ expertise. Therefore, it is crucial that universities create a culture in which their PhD students are trained and mentored adequately and receive appropriate support throughout their doctoral journey.
In drawing conclusions from our findings, some limitations must be acknowledged. Firstly, results are based on self-reported measures. Secondly, survey response rates may be affected by negative/apathetic attitudes as follows: (i) heads of departments/schools may not have forwarded Stage 1's surveys and (ii) respondents may have had concerns about confidentiality. Thirdly, potential biases include (i) researcher bias because the researchers gathered and analysed the data and (ii) a sampling response bias as the approach was likely to attract those more motivated. To generalise findings, the current study could be extended via interviews with PhD graduates and/or junior academics. Moreover, given our new findings about the importance of pastoral care, the study may be extended to other countries employing a similar PhD model.
In summary, our study demonstrates both the importance of pastoral care and the relevance of a pedagogy that accommodates both cognitive evaluation theory and situated learning in capturing how interactions in the student–supervisor relationship impact students’ intrinsic motivation, with consequences on cognitive, affective and behavioural competence.
Notes
Appendix: A Award completions by students in Australian universities for 2012–2015
| Department of Education: Award completions 2012–2015 (as a % of total completions for each category) | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Bachelor | Honours | Masters by Research | Doctorate by Research | |||||||||
| Natural and Physical Sciences, % | Society and Culture, % | Management and Commerce, % | Natural and Physical Sciences, % | Society and Culture, % | Management and Commerce, % | Natural and Physical Sciences, % | Society and Culture, % | Management and Commerce, % | Natural and Physical Sciences, % | Society and Culture, % | Management and Commerce, % | |
| 2012 | 9.3 | 22.7 | 27.0 | 24.5 | 42.7 | 6.1 | 12.2 | 19.1 | 4.7 | 20.3 | 23.3 | 7.8 |
| 2013 | 8.6 | 19.6 | 32.0 | 24.5 | 33.0 | 6.3 | 14.6 | 16.0 | 4.6 | 22.4 | 20.7 | 7.6 |
| 2014 | 9.1 | 20.1 | 30.1 | 23.8 | 27.3 | 5.9 | 16.0 | 18.3 | 4.2 | 22.3 | 21.2 | 7.5 |
| 2015 | 9.6 | 20.2 | 30.1 | 19.3 | 23.8 | 5.0 | 18.6 | 24.0 | 3.7 | 22.8 | 20.1 | 7.1 |
