Teaching and Training Postgraduate Research Students Outside the Supervisory Context in the UWA School of Humanities

Dr Kate Riley

In 2005, while I was a Teaching Intern, I was also the postgraduate representative in History, in the School of Humanities. I was involved in reinvigorating the seminar series in History during 2004– 05, and seeing the positive impact upon postgrads’ attitudes regarding their discipline’s culture reinforced my interest in working towards improving the overall collegial experience of postgraduates in the School.

In this context I decided to use my Internship research project as an opportunity to investigate the non-supervisory teaching and training opportunities for research postgraduates in the School of Humanities at UWA, in relation to the University’s policies for postgraduate teaching and learning.

I knew, too, that my project was relevant in terms of educational research into tertiary learning and teaching. It addressed a gap in studies of the research training experience of postgraduates in the liberal arts and humanities, where the emphasis commonly falls upon what is learnt in the process of writing and researching the thesis, within the supervisory relationship. I hoped that considering the status quo at UWA in late 2005 might prompt reflection on the role of programs run at departmental or higher organisational levels in universities in the acquisition of discipline-specific and/or generic skills by postgraduates.

Beginning with the assumption that it is constructive to look at research students as independent learners engaged in an ongoing learning process – much in the same way that academics continue learning in their fields throughout their careers – I started with the simple question: ‘What do research postgraduates need, other than a completed and passed doctoral thesis?’ That is, what do they need to learn during their candidacy so that they will graduate equipped with a set of practical skills related both to research in general and to their particular academic field?

Listening to student feedback is always a good place to start when trying to assess and design teaching programs, so I surveyed Humanities postgrads’ opinions of their extrasupervisorial needs. The results fell into six rough categories:

• infrastructural (mail, phone, email, photocopying, computing facilities, work and meeting spaces)
• informational (pooling contacts, conference ads, postdoctoral opportunities, online resources, for example via a website)
• methodological (training seminars, archival methods, palaeographical skills workshops, language classes, theory sessions, referencing, database use)
• generic (IT skills including software programs, communication skills, organisational techniques)
• professional (teaching training, direction on CV writing, postdoctoral research/grant/job applications, and publication) and
• collegial (postgrad seminars, academic social events, departmental ‘culture’, exchange with specialists, interdisciplinary contact and collaboration).

I moved on from what the students said they wanted, to what the institution pledged itself to provide, investigating the position of the University as set out in the Graduate Research School’s protocols for postgraduate supervision (which the separate schools are responsible for implementing). I investigated the support for the acquisition of generic skills that UWA believed it should provide to postgraduate students. I grouped the various provisions under the same headings used to describe what Humanities postgraduates wanted, and was thus able to illustrate the points of congruence and the gaps between student expectations, conditions on the ground in the School, and UWA standards.

I found that what was already in place more or less catered for four of the six areas in which postgrads had requested assistance, that is, infrastructural, generic, professional and collegial skills. I showed that responsibility for providing or accessing this skills training was dispersed between the University, schools, the supervisor and the candidate. The other two issues – the fields that I labelled informational and methodological – are sites where very specific disciplinary and sub-disciplinary teaching and information is required. Here I found a deficit, and it is a matter for discussion as to who ought to be responsible for providing them – though they do seem to depend on localised information. Furthermore, there was a noticeable lack of documentation related to the provision of training opportunities specific to schools or discipline groups. It makes sense that there should be a degree of flexibility in the arrangements for such things as language classes or historiographical seminars, and that they should be arranged on an ad hoc basis. However, if such services are not gazetted as obligatory they can be omitted or fall victim to the habit of passing the buck. Should postgraduates receive core training, and if so, in what? Which organisational level should administer it?

Despite the strain on material, financial and staffing resources, there is at least a case for review and formal canvassing of postgraduate students’ requirements, particularly as the nature of academia and thus the relevant skills demanded of postgrads continue to change. More research into what postgraduates need outside of supervision sessions could help to streamline the provision of enrichment services and may alleviate some of the responsibilities loaded onto research supervisors.