Negotiating the "Rackety Bridge" — a Dynamic Model for Aligning Supervisory Style with Research Student Development

By G. Gurr. 2001

189 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Education, General Health Professions

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/b426286be64c4bd54cfe33d13d61d3174a396d53

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Education

In General Health Professions

Citations in the corpus

PhD experience and subsequent outcomes: a look at self-perceptions of acquired graduate attributes and supervisor support (2012, background): “Frischer and Larsson 2000 ; Gurr 2001 ; Pearson and Brew 2002 ), with empirical evidence demonstrating the value of such support to PhD success (Sinclair 2004 ).”
Facilitator, director or critical friend?: contradiction and congruence in doctoral supervision styles (2008, methodology): “However, Gurr ( 2001 ) has developed a tool for enabling supervisors and students to confront the issue of the need for evolving supervision styles, as illustrated in Figure 1 .”
Challenging the dual assumption of the ‘always/already’ autonomous student and effective supervisor (2007, methodology): “Supervisor Student Alignment Tool Kit (Gurr, 2001).”
An Investigation into PhD Supervisory Management Styles: Development of a dynamic conceptual model and its managerial implications (2005, methodology): “The focus is on adjustment, ‘‘as a student undergoes academic growth during candidature, the supervisory style needs to be adjusted to a more hands-off approach in order to allow competent autonomy to be developed’’ (Gurr, 2001, p. 86).”
An Exploratory Study of the Supervision of Ph.D./Research Students’ Theses (2008, background): “ Gurr (2001) has recommended that students need such direction early in the process of working on their theses; and Heath (2002) has pointed out that students are more satisfied if supervisors guide their thesis work.”
Enabling critical reflection on research supervisory practice (2004, background): “…“for Improving Research Supervision and Training” (fIRST) website) provide supervisors with “tools” for such reflection and for structuring informal conversation with their students, some supported by published accounts of their development and use (Gurr, 2001; Wisjesundera, Hicks, & Mann, 1996).”
Enhancing the doctoral journey: the role of group supervision in supporting collaborative learning and creativity (2012, background): “The purpose of this article is not to explore individual student/supervisor responsibilities and styles of supervision, as this is explored elsewhere (Gatfield 2005; Gurr 2001).”
Improving Doctoral Success by Matching PhD Students with Supervisors (2016, methodology): “What Students Look for in a Supervisor With respect to the characteristics of an ideal supervisory relationship, whether they were identified spontaneously by the interviewee or at the interviewer’s request, it can be deduced that as suggested by Gurr (2001), a supervisor may adopt different styles ”