SUPERVISION STYLES IN THE COLLEGE OF EDUCATION AT THE UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH AFRICA: USING INFOMETRICS ANALYSIS TO “TURN THE LIGHT” ON A PRIVATE SPACE

Supervisors and their supervision practices play a pivotal role in the production of research higher degrees students. Research supervision is taken for granted and is under-theorised (Wisker 2012:2). Lovitts (2008), Hodza (2011) and Mouton (2001) identified the supervisor as the single most important factor that influences the success or failure of research higher degree. In spite of the fact that “good supervision is central to successful postgraduate research...” (Bitzer 2007:1011), research supervision seems to be one of the last remaining private pedagogical spaces in the higher education system (Manathunga 2005). The academy in South Africa needs to understand and engage with this ‘private space’ and underscore its importance. Research supervision has been on the spotlight in recent times for various reasons. Many students were taking longer than the stipulated time to complete their studies (ASSAf 2010; Mouton 2007; Taylor & Beasley 2005). That has a negative impact on the need to increase the number of doctoral candidates in the higher education knowledge system in South Africa to meet the developmental needs of the country (ASSAf 2010). Some studies have underscored the need to monitor supervisory practices and address the inefficiencies that cause low postgraduate throughputs and completion rates (Mouton 2007). Using an informetrics analysis approach the purpose of this study was to investigate supervision practices in the College of Education at the University of South Africa. Although, research supervision styles may vary between universities, faculties, departments and supervisors, but patterns of practice are discernible. The findings show that supervision in the College was still rooted in the “classic British model of supervision” characterized by “a single candidate working with a single supervisor on an assigned or agreed-on topic over a lengthy period of time...” (Dietz, Jansen & Wadee 2006: 9). The shift towards interdisciplinary and multidisciplinary, transdisciplinary research have steered the policy discourses in many universities to advocate team supervision as best practice (Manathunga 2012). Even if we concede that no one supervision model is right or wrong, and that at times models do overlap, this study recommends team supervision or joint supervision.