Lee Nancy-Jane
Salford University, School of Nursing, Mary Seacole Building, Frederick Rd. Campus, Salford, Greater Manchester, United Kingdom.
Nurse Educ Today. 2009 Aug;29(6):641-8. doi: 10.1016/j.nedt.2009.02.004. Epub 2009 Mar 6.
This paper discusses research supervision within one professional doctorate programme; focusing on the processes and issues students and supervisors gave priority. An exploratory, descriptive approach was used to develop a pilot study. Data was collected from three sources. First student perceptions and experiences of supervision were obtained during a group workshop. Observations and field notes were gathered during this event. A second, similar event was undertaken with professional doctorate research supervisors. Finally a convenience sample of students and supervisors (two of each) participated in open ended one to one discussions regarding supervision. The discussions were tape recorded, transcribed and analysed, along with the workshop field notes and observations. There are implied differences between professional doctorates and the PhD relating to process, purpose and outcome [Yam, B., 2005. Professional doctorate and nursing practice. Nurse Education Today 25 (7), 564-572; Laing, S., 2000. Linking research to practice. Physiotherapy 86 (7), 371]. Given such implications professional doctorate research supervision could, or should, embrace critical engagement with issues related to the leadership of research in professional practice; moving beyond research and methodological issues. Indeed it had been presupposed such issues would emerge in this study. For example it had been anticipated that students would want a supervisor or adviser from within their practice setting, to provide insight and support in relation to leading research in practice and to complement the role of their research supervisor. Such complementary supervisory roles within the practice context are given credence in the literature [Kemp, S., 2004. Professional doctorates and doctoral education. International Journal of Organisational Behaviour 7 (4), 401-410]. However students preferred to utilise support networks within the professional doctorate itself to address professional issues.
本文讨论了一个专业博士项目中的研究指导;重点关注学生和导师优先考虑的过程和问题。采用探索性、描述性方法开展了一项试点研究。数据从三个来源收集。首先,在小组研讨会上获取了学生对指导的看法和经历。在此活动期间收集了观察结果和现场记录。对专业博士研究导师开展了第二次类似活动。最后,抽取了一个便利样本的学生和导师(各两名)参与了关于指导的开放式一对一讨论。对这些讨论进行了录音、转录和分析,同时分析了研讨会的现场记录和观察结果。专业博士学位与哲学博士学位在过程、目的和结果方面存在隐含差异[Yam, B., 2005年。专业博士学位与护理实践。《今日护理教育》25(7),564 - 572;Laing, S., 2000年。将研究与实践联系起来。《物理治疗》86(7),371]。鉴于这些影响,专业博士研究指导可以或应该积极参与与专业实践中研究领导力相关的问题;超越研究和方法问题。事实上,本研究预先假定会出现此类问题。例如,预计学生会希望有来自其实践环境中的导师或顾问,以便在实践中开展研究方面提供见解和支持,并补充其研究导师的作用。实践背景下的这种互补性指导角色在文献中得到了认可[Kemp, S., 2004年。专业博士学位与博士教育。《国际组织行为杂志》7(4),401 - 410]。然而,学生更倾向于利用专业博士项目本身内部的支持网络来解决专业问题。