Generally, students who are new to research expect lots of help from their guides in different aspects. How far as a guide can help a student researcher?
Kindly share your experience...
Dear @Ratan, I think that the student should be given the possibility of expressing his thoughts in the research of his thesis; The supervisor should be a ware of giving the student hints to the solutions before the student tries his way and method.
Unlike a curriculum course work, Project work is more derivative towards the objective... when it comes to thesis, documenting all activities related to the project and consigning into a REPORT is a package to the delivery... I ask management students to file all the papers of the related project into one BOX file... Give numbering to each set of the filed papers... Prepare a summary of the paper-sets and then group them as to how they need to get aligned into the report chapters.
The chapter related paper-sets are then ranked according to the way it is required to be reported...
In case if they have the contents in soft form there also folders are created and the relevant files are dropped into it...
As a guide I check only the work flow before the student draft their thesis....
Usually there are two periods of a new researcher:
@ The first period, is characterised by an untrained intuition, which make the new researcher to say and do a lot of false things. During this period, he needs a close supervision.
@ In the second period, intuitions is trained and of high fidelity. In this period, ideas are cler and work is almost error free.
I can say from my experience in the State, Jordan, UAE, and Oman that students are varies in their requirement and culture background. In the state I found student adapted to be more independent and supervisor just mentor him/her in their work. In the Gulf students demand more help and in most cases need help in all aspects of the research. In Jordan it fluctuates between dependency and independency with the supervisor.
And what if there is no guide, or if you realize that the guides are towards i)either to solve an already been solved problem ii)or to solve a non-solvable problem, at least inside the given requirements?
Research supervisor is to advise the student to move in the correct direction. He/she is a mentor to help the student during all the times for completion of the research work. Initially supervisor helps in getting the student in to an appropriate field of interest where research is to be done. Once the topic is identified, supervisor will help the student to assess the quality of work being performed, correct him/her and make sure that the research is completed in time. The supervisor is also supports the student morally and emotionally at times depending upon the student’s state of progress.
Dear Ratan
The advisor-student relationship is a very long period of living during an important era of scientific training in a student's life. The empathy must exist between the advisor and student, a communion of ideas with regards to academic life, a mutual respect, a collaboration of both , with ethics and honesty and commitment. For a closer relationship between teachers and students, it is important a good social life. The orientation is not straightforward, because each student is different. The supervisor has to adapt to guiding, watching details, motivating and praising, but drawing attention when necessary. Those who can not leave books or research need advice for playing sports, watching shows, reading other type of book or even sleep. Others can not focus on a subject and is interested in everything and are very distracting. Basically, the counselor is a facilitator
This is an interesting topic. The most important thing for a supervisor to do, is to assess the needs of the individual student at the start, and then monitor the student's progress in relation to the supervisory plan (concept). Some students need and want a lot of advice and guidance. Others need very little, or even none at all. Monitoring a student's progress, while not interfering unnecessarily, is very important because a student may appear at first to be highly independent (showing a lot of self-confidence), but is actually not as competent as may appear. On the other hand, some students need to be taught independence by being challenged.
Many scientific techniques are complex and a supervisor must ensure that the student is carrying them out correctly. Once it is clear that the student is doing the work properly, it is then important to give them some freedom, including freedom to make mistakes and learn from the mistakes.
Ultimately, the supervisor's job is to create the conditions for a student to learn to become an independent researcher. Capable researchers are generally driven by an innate desire for discovery, and therefore the supervisor's job is to create the conditions for the student to find, and to develop, the researcher that lies inside themselves. Of course, some are not able to achieve this, and it is then necessary for a supervisor to assist the student to find another line of professional work.
@Rajesh ... this does happen, but hopefully the student's institution has a mechanism to deal with this situation, including a way for a student to change the supervisor, or the supervisory committee, or the subject being studied. If this cannot be done at the supervisory committee level, then it should be possible at the department level, or higher. A student should never be placed in a position of having no-one else to turn to.
@Rajesh
Supervisor is also human and he/she will have the limitation of his/her knowledge. When you choose a supervisor the basis will be the topical area that you are working is where he/she has abundant knowledge. If during the selection process you make a mistake there should be some way in IIT to rectify it. You do not have to be afraid to bring this to the notice of your graduate committee or the HOD for a change or addition.
@Rajesh .. does the student have a supervisory committee? Each post-graduate student should have a small group of supervisors with various skills. While the major supervisor is responsible for the overall progress of the student, some aspects of technical supervision are best done by someone else. If your university has a supervisory committee structure, then the student can turn to another member of the committee for help. If there is only one supervisor, then the student can turn to the most suitable person. Good researchers are generally happy to help a student who is struggling with a technical problem, even if the researcher is not formally involved in supervising the student.
Dear all, what if the guide get such a student who is completely rely on to guide for everything, not able to take decision by his/ her own? I have seen many example students of such type.
Dear Kamal, I agree with you but in India lots of such students get admission by any means and become burden for guide.
Dear Ratan
I think we have mechanisms to weed out such students. We conduct a comprehensive examination to test the preparedness of the student for the purpose. If they fail they will not continue.
Mechanisms exist, but they are merely a bureaucratic process. The advisor is the one and other members of the comitee usually do not even respond to mails from the PhD student. Of course you can change advisor, but then you have probably to throw away your already been done work, since the new supervisor will want to revise the topic and it is not sure that your old work will still be compatible with the 'new project'.
@ Demetris, it is very true that changing the advisor is not going to make easier for the student...
Dear Ratan,
My opinion is that some scientists are researchers, while some are technicians. I think both are important in scientific endeavours. Students who wish to become technicians should not be trained to be independent scientists. I think the Ph.D. degree should be training that leads to the capacity to be an independent researcher. Training for the M.Sc. (or equivalent) degree may be a testing ground for ability to become a Ph.D. student, or may be high-level technical training in a specialty. Students who display an inability for independence from supervision should be steered in the technical direction. If they prove incapable of this, then the system should have a way to remove them without destroying their self-respect. The earlier such students are "weeded out" the better. I have known students who fall into all five categories (clearly Ph.D., wanted to be Ph.D. but needed 'steering', clearly technician and happy to be so, not suitable for research and needed to be weeded, not weeded and caused trouble). Fortunately, the fifth category of student has been rare in my experience.
Dear J.H. Martin, I found your opinion identical to mine, so I want to ask you another question:
*A PhD student works independently, following the initial guides of supervisor and produces work by finishing the Chapters of his Thesis and by having sent more than 9 articles for publishing (although they have been rejecting, it's another story). His supervisor do not recognize that work and is trying to add him more 'tasks', by giving him a new entire theme to work on, so the above mentioned student will never take his diploma... What about such a situation?
A very interesting question ....
The mentor should be limited to hearing and to submit questions and experiences that show the best way for the student. These paths do not need to be shorter, because a graduate is a maturing experience.
The friendship between mentor and student can be harmful in many cases.
@ Alexandre, yes I agree with you... The advisor need to maintain some space with the student as it may be harmful to professionalism...
Dear Demetris,
It is difficult to assess a specific situation without seeing the details. I think the situation in this case may need to be reviewed independently. I served on committees in my university at both department level and higher which reviewed cases of appeals by students, and we had some cases in which we ordered changes due to improper supervision. There were also cases in which the student appeal was denied. In the end, I think a student has the right to defend a thesis, even if the supervisor is opposed, and should be held to the same standard as any other student. It is the responsibility of the university to establish a process which is fair and equal for all. I think it is important that the university should select a chairperson for a controversial thesis defence who is respected by the university community as a fair person. I've done these jobs, and it is difficult work.
Dear J.H. Martin, what I can share is that some times from the history of past PhD students from the same advisor, it can be concluded that the advisor forces the students to reproduce a very specific and narrow view, based in his/her own made job, before 20+ years. My opinion is that every Thesis should be an original work contribution to science and not a slightly modification of the supervisor's already done work in the past. What is your opinion, after this supplementary released information? Thank you.
Daar Demetris,
I agree with you in many respects. A PhD student should gain a general background, which would allow him to be able to read the relevant references. After such background
the supervisor should introduce him to what he is doing, and what are the possible themes that could be thesis subjects. The final subject of the PhD thesis, should be formed with discussions between student and supervisor, so that the student has to do research in a subject which give him pleasure and understanding. Every supervisor has some repertoire of possible thesis themes. This is unavoidable.
In my experience I have seen many advisor who force the student to do research on his given topic or area so the same data can be used in his (advisor) personal work. In this situated the student is just doing the technical work, others are pre decided by the advisor. This method does not allow the student to bring up any new idea. Dear all, what is your opinion on this?
Dear Ratan, I have also observed this abuse of the power relationship between advisor and student, although in my experience it has been less common than the better condition in which the advisor teaches the student how to develop the ability to properly investigate a question. An important part of the research-education process is the selection by the student of the right advisors. Students sometimes make their biggest mistake at this initial step, which is why it is important for the university to have mechanisms that allow such mistakes to be corrected.
Dear Demetris, I think one rule does not fit all cases. I agree with you with respect to Ph.D. students working in disciplines that are not extremely technical. In highly technical areas of study, it may take several years just to master a technique, and so a good thesis may rely heavily on the previous work of a mentor.
There are people who want to learn to be like someone else, who are happy following a mentor, and who want to join a team. There are others who fight to be as independent as possible. There are many in between. The system should be able to accommodate all types of people. The world is diverse and diversity is good.
Dear Martin, I agree with you totally... and thanks for sharing valuable experience...
Many advisor force the student to do research on his given topic or area so the same data can be used in his (advisor) personal work. I agree completely with you Ratan. The identifying of the problem and writing the problem statement by the student himself is very essential.
@ Mahfouz, thanks for the valuable inputs. Is there any mechanism to come out of such issue?
Psychological Stress and its relationship to creativity Thinking to the basketball players
Dr. Abdul Wadood Ahmed Khattab Dr. Nibras Younis Mohammed
Dr. Hamoody Issam Naman
This study aimed to identify the relationship between stress and creative thinking to the basketball players Toz club sports, and researcher assumed that there was no statistically significant relation between stress and creative thinking to the basketball players Toz Sports Club. The total study sample (18) players representing Toz Sports Club Co-first division for the sports season 2009-2010 who did not (6) for their involvement exploratory experiment, a researcher used statistical methods (percentage, Alallost arithmetic, the standard deviation, test (v)). The researcher concluded by the results obtained from the research sample as follows:
- There is a negative impact of stress on the creative thinking of the basketball players.
- The level of players in the creative thinking was high without the influence of stress.
The researcher recommended the following:
- The need for instructors to train their athletes on the skills of the complex and the difficulty of the existence of high-pressure psychological support training competitive.
- Make the players to understand the creative thinking and its effects on their careers and its significant role in improving their performance.
- Continuing players in the high-intensity exercises are to strengthen the competitive spirit of creative thinking.
- Conduct similar studies to know the positions of other psychological effect on the creative thinking of the basketball players.
And what if the supervisor does not pick up the telephone? Suppose that the PhD student is calling him in order to give him the work that has been done and the advisor does not answer the phone calls? Any practical advise for the student?
You should find some other people to whom you will discuss, work independently, and finally submit the final version to him!
Dear all, a big thanks to all of you for valuable contributions. As a summury of above statements the role of a guide need to simply assistive or resistive according to the situation. Many of you have try to discourage the misuse of power as a guide which is a very good message to all.
Regards
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Microbiology
- Scientific Research