Manajemen | Fakultas Ekonomi Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji joeb.82.4.212-219
Journal of Education for Business
ISSN: 0883-2323 (Print) 1940-3356 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/vjeb20
An Assessment of Research Supervision: A
Leadership Model Enhancing Current Practices in
Business and Management
James L. Morrison , Ganiyu T. Oladunjoye & Cynthia Onyefulu
To cite this article: James L. Morrison , Ganiyu T. Oladunjoye & Cynthia Onyefulu (2007) An
Assessment of Research Supervision: A Leadership Model Enhancing Current Practices in
Business and Management, Journal of Education for Business, 82:4, 212-219, DOI: 10.3200/
JOEB.82.4.212-219
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.3200/JOEB.82.4.212-219
Published online: 07 Aug 2010.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 32
View related articles
Citing articles: 2 View citing articles
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=vjeb20
Download by: [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji]
Date: 11 January 2016, At: 23:25
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 23:25 11 January 2016
An Assessment of Research Supervision:
A Leadership Model Enhancing Current
Practices in Business and Management
JAMES L. MORRISON
UNIVERSITY OF DELAWARE
GREENVILLE, DELAWARE
GANIYU T. OLADUNJOYE
ALBANY STATE UNIVERSITY
ALBANY, GEORGIA
ABSTRACT. Students enrolled in busi-
T
ness and management assessed the research
supervisory process less favorably when
compared with their counterparts. In this
article, the authors found that there was
considerable dissatisfaction with the interaction and relationships that students had
with their supervisors, especially within the
business program. As a result of the findings, the authors developed an innovative
leadership research model to enhance current faculty supervisory practice.
Keywords: business program, leadership
research model, research supervision
Copyright © 2007 Heldref Publications
212
Journal of Education for Business
he process of research supervision
in institutions of higher learning
calls for careful supervision from the
moment a faculty supervisor is assigned
to a student. According to Connell,
“research supervision is the most
advanced level of teaching in the educational system” (as cited in Zhao, 2001,
p. 2). Laske and Zuber-Skerritt defined
research supervision as a “process of
fostering and enhancing learning,
research, and communication at the
highest level” (as cited in Zhao, p. 2).
Issues relating to formal research supervision in higher education generally
relate to such factors as quality of faculty supervision, student time management, and availability of qualified
supervisors, among others.
The assessment of research supervisory practices, according to Armstrong
(2004), is an area of the academic
process seriously overlooked in higher
education. However, the commitment
to intellectual advancement through
sponsored research has received considerable attention since the University
of Technology, Jamaica (UTECH),
achieved full university status in 1995.
In this regard, the Office of Research
and Graduate Studies at UTECH commissioned this study to assess, among
other things, the research experiences
encountered by students during the crucial phase of their academic program.
Although the focus here is on studying
CYNTHIA ONYEFULU
UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY - JAMAICA
JAMAICA, WEST INDIES
one specific institution in terms of
research supervisory practices, the findings may be helpful to other universities that offer similar research opportunities to their students either as
undergraduates or graduates.
Purpose of the Study
In this study, we assessed the quality
of final-year student research supervision performed by faculty within a university setting. One important outcome
of the study was the design of a research
model for expanded supervision. To
analyze the issue of faculty supervision,
we considered five research questions
from the nucleus of the study: (a) How
satisfied are students with their faculty
research supervisors? (b) How helpful is
a research methods course to students
doing their final year project? (c) To
what degree are faculty supervisors
available to students for assistance? (d)
How adequate is the feedback given by
research project supervisors to their students? and (e) How adequate are the
resources and facilities for students’
undergraduate research projects?
Literature Review
According to Zhao (2001), the key
issue of research supervision is how to
achieve quality, effectiveness, and productivity. He described the difference
between the traditional and new models
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 23:25 11 January 2016
of research supervision. According to
Holbrook and Johnson, the traditional
models are “based on a single supervisor
working with a motivated, well-prepared
student over an extended period of time”
(as cited in Zhao, p. 3). Because of the
diversity of students and the increased
enrollment in postgraduate programs,
Zhao described the need for a new
model to be more flexible, more mixedmode (joint supervision), and characteristic of a supervisory team structure.
Zhao (2001) proposed a nonconventional approach: the use of a knowledge
management approach for the research
supervision process that he adapted
from Armistead (1999). The Armistead
model, which is a project-based
approach, is a spiral cycle model that
involves the basic input–output transformation process. This model designates
“knowledge and people as its basic
inputs, and applied knowledge and
intellectual capital as its desired outputs” (Zhao, p. 5). The knowledge conversion process comprises “preserving,
embedding and enhancing knowledge
of process, products and services”
(Zhao, p. 5); see Figure 1.
Zhao’s (2001) knowledge management model is based on three major
components (i.e., knowledge creation,
knowledge transfer, and knowledge
embedding). He stated that
research supervision is also knowledge
creation, transfer and embedding
processes in which research candidates
develop new knowledge, theory, and
methodology (knowledge creation)
through integrating, synthesizing and
valuing existing knowledge (knowledge
transfer), and in which candidates
advance understanding and develop new
insights into their area of investigation
(knowledge embedding). (p. 6)
In a 2002 study, published in the Maximizing Access and Quality papers
(MAQ), Marquez and Kean (2002) identified four basic tasks in the supervision
process: setting expectations, monitoring and assessing performance, identifying problems and opportunities, and taking action (see Figure 2).
METHOD
This assessment of research supervisory practices reflects a cross-sectional
survey study. This type of research
Input
Output
• Research candidate
• Research
environment
(knowledge networks,
& knowledge
technologies)
• Researcher
• Completion of
research degree
• Research products
Knowledge creation
process
Knowledge
conversion process
Knowledge transfer
process
Knowledge
embedding process
Developing students as researchers
FIGURE 1. The knowledge management process.
Set expectations
Monitor & assess
performance
Take actions
Identify opportunities
FIGURE 2. The undergraduate research process.
design “involves collecting data from
selected individuals in a single time period” (Gay & Airasian, 2003, p. 281). The
rationale for the use of this approach is
that it facilitates the comparison of perceptions of students completing the
final-year research project associated
with a business and management program with those enrolled in other disciplines within a university setting.
British educational systems) supervising research projects. We obtained the
total population of undergraduate students for the study from a student
enrollment database for five disciplines
(see Table 1). We obtained the lists of
graduates from the 2000–2004 graduation booklets and the names of the lecturers from the Office of Human
Resource Management.
Study Sample
Data Collection and Analysis
Procedures
The target population of this study
comprised (a) final-year (full-time) university students who were recipients of
research supervision, (b) graduates
within the past 5 years, and (c) lecturers
(e.g., a faculty designation typical of
The data collection methods in this
study included a questionnaire and a
structured interview. Initially we
designed three different questionnaires
for students, graduates of programs, and
March/April 2007
213
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 23:25 11 January 2016
lecturers. Because of low rate of
response to the lecturers’ questionnaires, we used structured interviews to
collect data from those lecturers
involved with supervision. However, we
collected data from the final-year students and the graduates through the use
of questionnaires. All survey items were
designed to address the same questions
across all groups.
We pretested two sets of questionnaires with 15 undergraduate students
and 10 graduates in March 2004. We did
not include these participants, who volunteered for the pilot study, in the main
study. We also asked three lecturers to
examine the pertinence of each item to
the study and to make comments or suggestions for improving the clarity and
understanding of the items on the questionnaire.
We analyzed the data collected
through surveys using the Statistical
Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS)
for Windows, version 10.0. For
anonymity, during the data collection
and analysis stages, we asked the participants not to write their names on the
questionnaire. Similarly, during the data
analysis stage, we did not identify the
participants by their names.
We determined the study samples
from the total population by using probability sampling techniques (stratified
sampling and simple random sampling)
and nonprobability sampling technique
(purposive and snowball sampling).
Because the students were in different
disciplines, we needed to first stratify
this population by discipline. We randomly stratified the final-year students
and graduates into five segments, resulting in a final-year student sample of 277
and a graduate student sample of 1448.
Approximately 30% of the graduates
selected for the study were from the
business and management area of study.
Finally, the purposive sampling method
resulted in having 36 lecturers for the
study (n = 36; see Table 2).
Participants
A total of 123 final-year students participated in the main study. The overall
participation rate for the undergraduate
students was approximately 44% (see
Table 3). In addition, the 42 graduate
214
Journal of Education for Business
students who participated in the study
came from primarily three disciplines.
Efforts made to increase the number of
graduates in the sample did not yield
any significant additional results. A total
of 36 lecturers, whom we initially contacted but did not respond to the original
request for participation, agreed to be
interviewed.
A vast majority of the final-year stu-
TABLE 1. Total Population of Full Time Final-Year Students, Graduate
Students, and Lecturers by Academic Discipline
Final-year
students (n)
Graduate
students (n)
Lecturers (n)
Built Environment (architecture)
Business & Management
Education & Liberal Studies
Engineering & Computing
Health & Applied Science
42
73
168
211
57
283
2,369
964
699
573
69
118
93
141
97
Total
551
4,888
518
Academic discipline
TABLE 2. Results of Stratified Sampling Procedure of Total Populations
for Selecting Participants by Discipline
Selected
final-year
students (n)
Selected
graduate
students (n)
Selected
lecturers (n)
Built Environment
Business & Management
Education & Liberal Studies
Engineering & Computing
Health & Applied Science
21
37
84
106
29
142
405
482
350
69
3
10
14
4
4
Total
277
1,448
36
Academic discipline
TABLE 3. Response Rates of Final-Year Students and Graduates by
Academic Discipline
Academic
discipline
Academic
discipline
Built Environment
(architecture)
Business &
Management
Education & Liberal
Studies
Engineering &
Computing
Health & Applied
Science
Total
a
Selected
final-year
Selected(n)
students
final-year
students (n)
Participating
final-year
studentsa
n
%
Selected
graduate
Selected
students
(n)
graduate
students (n)
21
11
52
37
34
84
Participating
graduate
studentsa
n
%
142
0
0.0
92
405
13
8.4
46
55
482
19
3.9
106
22
21
350
10
2.9
29
10
35
69
0
0.0
277
123
1,448
42
Percentage indicates selected respondents who participated in study sample.
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 23:25 11 January 2016
dents in the study sample were women,
except in the discipline of built environment (architecture and design) where
more men participated. This could be
the result of the nature of that discipline
where there is typically more male
enrollment. The majority of final-year
students were between 21 years and 25
years of age. The discipline of business
and management had more older graduates (36 years and over) than any other
discipline. Of the 36 lecturers whom we
interviewed, approximately 61% were
women.
Approximately 42% of the lecturers
had been involved with final year
research supervision for over 9 years.
The remainder (58%) indicated an
involvement not longer than 5 years.
Approximately 55% of the final-year
students and 52% of the graduates stated that their supervisors were women.
On the type of employment, 90% of the
undergraduates and 95% of the graduates indicated that their supervisors
were full-time lecturers at UTECH.
Results of Current Practices
The findings indicated that about
89% of the final-year students in the
disciplines of business and management, engineering and computing, education and liberal studies, and health
and applied sciences indicated that they
worked in groups for their final-year
projects. Of the 110 students and 32
graduates who indicated that they had
worked in groups, a slight majority
(55%) of undergraduate students and
graduates participated in five-member
research teams. However, 65% of the
final-year students from business and
management indicated that they enjoyed
working in teams, whereas 82% of the
students from the discipline of built
environment (architecture and design)
revealed that they did not like the idea
of group work.
Moreover, the results of the graduates’ responses were quite different.
About 69% of the graduates from business and management indicated that
they liked the idea of doing the research
projects in teams, whereas approximately 42% of the graduates of education
and liberal studies expressed disapproval of group work. Over 80% of the
graduates within the discipline of business and management chose members
of their actual research supervisory
team, whereas only 16% of those graduates of education and liberal studies
did likewise. However, all the students
of health and applied sciences indicated
that they were allowed to choose members of their research team. The findings
also revealed that 88% of the graduates
of three disciplines (business and management, engineering and computing,
and education and liberal studies) did
not have the privilege of choosing
supervisors.
Assessment of General Organizational
Support
On the basis of a 5-point rating scale
ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5
(strongly agree), the undergraduate students from the disciplines of business
and management rated their general
organization of research support relatively low (between disagree and undecided). However, students from education and liberal studies had the highest
agreeable rating with less variation (M =
3.09, SD = 0.99). The students of health
and applied sciences gave the item a disagreeable low rating (M = 2.10, SD =
1.20).
The findings from the graduates were
quite different. The graduates of business and management were more in
agreement than were final-year students
that the support of their research projects was generally well organized (M =
3.23, SD = 1.59), being similar to those
graduates of engineering and computing
(M = 3.40, SD = 1.07) and education
and liberal studies (M = 3.09, SD =
1.26).
In terms of having their expectations
of the research project clearly stated by
their supervisors, undergraduate students in business and management had
the lowest mean rating of the five academic programs in the study (M = 3.03,
SD = 1.24). Similarly, those graduates
of business and management programs
also had the lowest rating in this regard
(M = 2.92, SD = 1.18).
Final-year students had varying
views as to whether members of their
research teams were supportive. The
final-year students of business and man-
agement indicated a neutral perception
of the degree of support, with their
mean scores hovering around 3.0. However, the graduates of business and management rated this item high in agreement (M = 3.64, SD = 1.78). These
findings indicated that graduates were
more in agreement with the quality of
the support that they received from
members of their research teams.
Assessment of Helpfulness of Research
Methods Course
The findings indicated that the
research methods course was generally
helpful to students writing their projects. The final-year student mean values were high (more agreeable),
although with some variations in their
responses: business and management,
(M = 3.38, SD = 1.35), engineering and
computing (M = 3.41, SD = 1.56), built
environment (M = 3.64, SD = 1.12), and
education and liberal studies (M = 3.59,
SD = 0.58). However, the final-year students of the faculty of health and
applied sciences had less favorable
views of the research methods (M =
2.60, SD = 1.51).
However, the mean scores of graduates regarding helpfulness of a research
methods course were slightly higher,
depicting more agreement when compared with those of the final-year students. The mean values for the graduates of business and management,
engineering and computing, and education and liberal studies were 3.85 (SD =
0.38), 4.10 (SD = 1.29), and 3.32 (SD =
1.42), respectively.
However, the findings suggested that
the final-year students did not think that
there was a balance between the theoretical and practical components in the
research methods course. The mean values for students from the five disciplines
ranged from 1.90 to 3.27, whereas the
standard deviations ranged from 0.88 to
1.44. In this regard, the mean score for
graduates of business and management
was quite high when compared with the
mean values of the final-year students.
The mean values for graduates of business and management (M = 4.00, SD =
0.10) revealed that the graduates generally perceived an appropriate balance
between the theoretical and practical
March/April 2007
215
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 23:25 11 January 2016
components of the research methods
course.
In terms of whether the research
methods course was perceived as being
a challenge, the findings revealed that
the final-year students of business and
management (M = 4.47) assessed the
difficulty as higher than did students in
any of the other four academic programs. Similarly, the mean values for
the graduates of business and management (M = 4.23, SD = 1.09) were also
the highest as compared with their academic counterparts.
Assessment of Research Project
Supervision
The findings revealed that final-year
students (M = 3.27) of business and
management met with their faculty
research supervisors on a weekly basis,
whereas graduates of the program indicated less frequent meetings (M = 2.38).
These findings also showed that a
vast majority of the participants held the
view that their supervisors were generally not on time for meetings regardless
of the academic program. On the basis
of a 5-point rating scale ranging from 1
(low rating) to 5 (high rating), the mean
values from the final-year students’ data
ranged from 2.90 to 3.45. Similarly, the
ratings from the graduate students were
low to average, with mean values ranging from 1.69 to 3.30.
The findings also revealed that a
majority of students and graduates
expressed the views that the duration of
meetings with their supervisors was
inadequate. Of all five disciplines
included in this study, the undergraduates (M = 2.55, SD = 1.01) and graduates (M = 2.23, SD = 1.42) of business
and management rated this item lower
than did their counterparts.
The findings also indicated that participants felt some disappointment in
the atmosphere in meetings with their
supervisors. The final-year students and
the graduates of business and management gave a lower rating to general
atmosphere of meetings with their faculty supervisors than did their counterparts in the other academic programs
with mean values and standard deviations of 3.32 (SD = 1.53) and 2.54 (SD
= 1.33), respectively.
216
Journal of Education for Business
In terms of availability of their supervisors, the graduates of business and
management were most critical (M =
2.46, SD = 1.27). Approximately 56%
of the final-year students and 45% of
the graduates indicated that their supervisors were not available for previously
scheduled consultations.
Finally, both final-year students and
graduates of business and management
indicated that their supervisors generally did not achieve a specific set of
objectives for each meeting or document in writing the accomplishments at
such meetings. In this regard, they rated
this item lower than did their counterparts. The mean values ranged from
3.40 to 3.73 for the other four academic
programs. The graduates of business
and management also rated this item
below a 3.0 rating. The low rating could
have been because of the lack of availability of a research manual that was
supposed to be provided to and used by
faculty supervisors and students.
Assessment of Assistance Received
In terms of usefulness of advice
received during the supervisory process,
the findings also supported the perspective that there was some variation of
perceptions among the graduates and
final-year students. Using a 5-point rating scale that ranged from 1 (strong disagreement) to 5 (strong agreement),
those in the sample from business and
management, built environment, and
health and applied sciences had mean
agreeable values between 3.40 and 3.70.
In addition, a vast majority of the sample population in each of the five academic programs agreed that their supervisors were approachable. In terms of how
knowledgeable their research supervisors were, the ratings again were above
average across the five disciplines.
Moreover, the participants of all five
disciplines generally believed that their
research supervisors directed them to
the appropriate resources for their finalyear projects.
Generally, the agreeable ratings from
final-year students and graduates of
business and management were lower
than those of participants from other
disciplines in terms of the goodness of
fit with their supervisors. Similarly,
final-year students and graduates of
business and management were less
agreeable in terms of being motivated
during the research process. In addition,
participants agreed, with some variation, that their supervisors treated them
with respect. The mean values ranged
from 3.10 to 4.18, with students in the
business program falling in the middle
of the range. In terms of recommending
their research supervisors to other students, the mean values were high for all
disciplines with the exception of business and management students, whose
ratings were slightly lower (M = 2.94,
SD = 1.37).
Assessment of Adequacy of Resources
No matter what the academic program, students who participated in this
study generally reported that they did
not have a sufficient research timeline, a
critical component of the research
process. In terms of whether the software provided on institutional computers was useful, both final-year students
and graduates of all five disciplines
gave low agreement ratings on a scale of
1 (low) to 5 (high) with mean values
ranging from 1.81 to 2.32. When asked
if resources at the library were adequate
for their needs, the final-year students
generally disagreed regardless of the
academic program, as depicted by the
mean range of 1.80 to 2.54; whereas the
ratings of the graduates were slightly
higher, with the mean ranging from 2.95
to 3.54.
In addition, when asked if their disciplines provided enough support and
needed resources to facilitate research,
the responses of the final-year students
in all the disciplines indicated disagreement, with mean values ranging from
1.41 to 2.64.
Benefits and Concerns of Doing
Research Projects
Of the 165 final-year and graduate
students surveyed, 91 students responded. The data summarized in Table 4
revealed that 66% of these 91 participants perceived benefits from the current research mentoring process in
regard to actually developing and implementing a research project. Another
56% perceived benefits from acquiring
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 23:25 11 January 2016
useful problem-solving skills, and an
additional 46% received benefits fromlearning to use the American Psychological Association (APA) style of writing. However, only 17 of the 91
respondents (approximately 19%) indicated that the research methods course
benefited them in conducting their
research.
When requested to indicate their concerns about writing a final-year research
project, participants identified several
prominent issues (see Table 5). Of the
165 students and graduates surveyed, 88
students responded. The data summarized in Table 5 revealed that all 88 participants expressed the need for more
time in completing the research projects; 94% expressed unavailability of
resources; 91% expressed the need for a
central writing format; 90% stated lack
of proper supervision; 86% stressed the
unavailability of some research supervisors for consultation; and 58% stated
that they did not get early feedback
from their supervisors.
TABLE 4. Written Responses of Final-Year and Graduate Students
Identifying Benefits of Doing a Research Project (Combined Reporting;
n = 91)
Response
Developing and implementing the research project
Acquiring problem solving skills through research process
Learning to use the APA style of writing
Making recommendations based on findings of our study
Reviewing the literature
Analyzing of data, and using SPSS to analyze data
Presenting report and findings
Collecting data, research experience gained from field work
Working with different students and learning from each other
Meetings with my supervisor
Studying Research Methods course
Developing new programming skills
Developing new thesis statement
Regarding what could be done to
improve research supervision for finalyear undergraduate students and graduate students, 94% of the 165 respondents indicated that they would like to
see more qualified and experienced
lecturers supervising research; 88%
indicated additional resources made
available; 78% indicated the inclusion
of a daily consulting schedule; and
86% indicated they needed extension
of time for writing research project
(see Table 6).
Building a Six-Tier Leadership
Capability Research Model
On the basis of the study findings, we
developed a six-tier model to assist others as they undergo a similar analysis of
their programs. Faculty can use the parameters of the model indicated below as a
framework for generating a formal
research support model to enhance the
quality of faculty supervision.
1. Research mentoring. In addition to
assigning faculty supervisors to students, it is critical to provide research
%
60
51
42
34
33
29
28
27
25
25
17
11
7
66
56
46
37
36
32
31
30
27
27
19
12
7.6
Note. APA = American Psychological Association; SPSS = Statistical Program for Social Sciences.
TABLE 5. Written Responses of Final-Year and Graduate Students
Voicing Concerns About Writing Final Year Project (Combined Reporting;
n = 88)
Response
Strategies for Improving
Research Supervision
f
Limited time for consultation and completion of project
Unavailability of resources for undergraduate research projects
Different format for writing and presenting the research project
Poor quality of supervision
Unavailability of some research supervisors
Some lecturers do not return the drafts submitted to them on time
Inadequate meeting or consultation space
Lack of knowledge of the supervisor on projects being supervised
Irregular meeting schedules with supervisors
Poor attitude of some of the supervisors
Some supervisors do not consider the undergraduate research
project as important
Some supervisors impose their research ideas on students
mentors (possibly graduate students) for
students involved in the research
process. Research mentors may help fill
a void of perceived isolation from
research team members and possibly the
faculty supervisor who may be unavailable due to other obligations.
2. Accountability. There should be a
set of criteria in place for aligning a
faculty research supervisor with a student. In this regard, a research manual
should be distributed to both the student and the faculty advisor. In that
guide, there should be an accountability provision depicting the responsibilities of each participant, specifically
including a research timeline and a
f
%
88
83
80
79
76
51
45
34
27
27
100
94
91
90
86
58
51
39
31
31
16
12
18
14
series of benchmarks of accomplishment. In this regard, it may be conducive to conduct workshops for lecturers who are new to project supervision.
These workshops should cover skills
needed for conducting the research project, principles of project management,
effective research supervision, and
human relations.
3. Constructive feedback. It is critical to ensure that students get constructive feedback from research
supervisors to know how to produce
good quality projects. In this regard, it
is also important to build in mechanisms for participants to report conflicts (e.g., relationship and communiMarch/April 2007
217
TABLE 6. Written Responses of Final-Year and Graduate Students
Suggesting Ways of Improving Research Supervision (Combined
Reporting; n = 81)
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 23:25 11 January 2016
Response
Make more qualified and experienced supervisors available
Provide adequate resources for the undergraduate research process
Extend the time for research project
Provide schedule for consultation with supervisors
Encourage choice of doing individual or group research projects
Teach students how to use SPSS software
Provide more computers and software programs
Start the preparation for research projects earlier
Set a schedule for consultation and ensure that both students and
lecturers abide by it by signing a log book
Move research to first semester instead of second semester
Make the objectives of research methods and projects clear to
students as early as in second year
Faculty should agree on a format for the research project and also
allow students to choose their own supervisors
Maintain one lecturer in the 3rd & 4th year for research methods
Issue funds early to Engineering and Computing students
f
%
76
71
70
63
54
37
34
34
94
88
86
78
67
46
42
42
32
30
40
37
30
37
30
21
10
37
26
12
Note. SPSS = Statistical Program for Social Sciences.
cation problems) early in the supervisory process.
4. Research timetable. A timetable
should be established at the beginning
of research projects to ensure that
research supervisors are available during periods specified for consultation.
In this regard, special funding should
be available for faculty to support the
purchase of special materials, software,
and other needs as incentives for meeting with students on a regular basis. In
this effort, it is critical to ensure proper records management to avoid repeating topics over time. This could be
achieved through careful documentation of all the names of the researchers,
date of submission, names of supervisors, titles of the study, the abstracts,
and key descriptors or words in the
study.
5. Research development. An added
dimension to generating and maintaining an active research program for students is the establishment of an honors
program with financial support for the
students who will be allowed to conduct final year research projects. In that
case students should be allowed to do
individual programs rather than group
projects. However, it is vital to begin
interested students in research early
enough in their academic programs.
218
Journal of Education for Business
This could be accomplished by having
a three-part training effort that will
reinforce the importance of doing
undergraduate research projects. The
first set of experiences would be the
establishment of an orientation program at the beginning of the research
process to reinforce the dos and don’ts
of research supervision. The second
level of accomplishment relates to
coordinating the content of a research
methods course to student needs. In this
regard, it is important to emphasize the
connection or link between the theoretical knowledge imparted in the research
methods course and its relevance for
conducting final-year research projects.
The third aspect of preparation should
reflect the nature of a group project.
There should be a way of ensuring that
clear roles are defined and each team
member contributes equally to the project and that students have the option of
doing individual projects.
6. Research integrity. The education
institutions should provide students and
faculty supervisors with software programs and training needed to use the
software programs to enhance research
activities and output. In this vein, it is
vital to instruct students not to violate
intellectual property and copyright laws
to avoid cases of plagiarism. The ability
to maintain exceptionally high levels of
ethical conduct and to correspondingly
maintain the integrity required to produce legitimate research should become
the main ingredient of any research
process.
Conclusion
We conclude that both final-year students and graduates of the business and
management program were at best only
moderately satisfied with the research
process. Their assessment was slightly
more negative than was those of their
counterparts in the four other academic
programs in the study. In terms of the
five research questions proposed for
study and with specific focus on finalyear students and graduates of business
and management, we found that (a)
there was considerable dissatisfaction
with aspects of the supervisory practices currently in existence; (b) a
research methods course was generally
challenging but could be more helpful;
(c) supervisors gave good direction but
were frequently unavailable; (d) faculty supervisors could have been of
greater assistance by giving thorough
feedback as research projects moved
along; and (e) resources that were
available were not spectacular but were
acceptable.
However, the graduates of the business and management program were
somewhat more positive about the quality of leadership provided by the faculty research supervisors. Therefore, having time, in this instance up to 5 years,
to reconsider the quality of their
research supervision, graduate students
assessed their experiences in a more
favorable way than did students who
were currently enrolled in the business
program. As a result of these findings,
we propose an enhanced capability
research model.
NOTE
Correspondence concerning this article should
be addressed to Dr. James L. Morrison, Leadership Studies, University of Delaware, 188-C Graham Hall, Newark, DE.
E–mail: jlm@udel.edu
REFERENCES
Armstrong, S. J. (2004). The impact of supervisors’ cognitive styles on the quality of research
supervision in management education. British
Gay, L. R, & Airasian, P. (2003). Educational
research: Competencies for analysis and applications (7th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill Prentice Hall.
Marquez, L. & Kean, L. (2002). Making supervision supportive and sustainable: New approaches to old problems. (Supplement to Population
Reports, Paper No. 4). Retrieved August 29,
2005, from http://www.maqweb.org/maqdoc/
MAQno4final.pdf
Zhao, F. (2001). Postgraduate research supervision: A process of knowledge management.
Retrieved August 19, 2005, from http://ultibase
.rmit.edu.au/Articles/may01/zhao.1.htm
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 23:25 11 January 2016
Journal of Educational Psychology, 74,
599–616.
Armistead, C. (1999). Knowledge management
and process performance. Journal of Knowledge Management, 3, 143–159.
Connell, R. (1985). How to supervise a Ph.D.
Vestes, 2, 38–40.
March/April 2007
219
ISSN: 0883-2323 (Print) 1940-3356 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/vjeb20
An Assessment of Research Supervision: A
Leadership Model Enhancing Current Practices in
Business and Management
James L. Morrison , Ganiyu T. Oladunjoye & Cynthia Onyefulu
To cite this article: James L. Morrison , Ganiyu T. Oladunjoye & Cynthia Onyefulu (2007) An
Assessment of Research Supervision: A Leadership Model Enhancing Current Practices in
Business and Management, Journal of Education for Business, 82:4, 212-219, DOI: 10.3200/
JOEB.82.4.212-219
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.3200/JOEB.82.4.212-219
Published online: 07 Aug 2010.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 32
View related articles
Citing articles: 2 View citing articles
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=vjeb20
Download by: [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji]
Date: 11 January 2016, At: 23:25
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 23:25 11 January 2016
An Assessment of Research Supervision:
A Leadership Model Enhancing Current
Practices in Business and Management
JAMES L. MORRISON
UNIVERSITY OF DELAWARE
GREENVILLE, DELAWARE
GANIYU T. OLADUNJOYE
ALBANY STATE UNIVERSITY
ALBANY, GEORGIA
ABSTRACT. Students enrolled in busi-
T
ness and management assessed the research
supervisory process less favorably when
compared with their counterparts. In this
article, the authors found that there was
considerable dissatisfaction with the interaction and relationships that students had
with their supervisors, especially within the
business program. As a result of the findings, the authors developed an innovative
leadership research model to enhance current faculty supervisory practice.
Keywords: business program, leadership
research model, research supervision
Copyright © 2007 Heldref Publications
212
Journal of Education for Business
he process of research supervision
in institutions of higher learning
calls for careful supervision from the
moment a faculty supervisor is assigned
to a student. According to Connell,
“research supervision is the most
advanced level of teaching in the educational system” (as cited in Zhao, 2001,
p. 2). Laske and Zuber-Skerritt defined
research supervision as a “process of
fostering and enhancing learning,
research, and communication at the
highest level” (as cited in Zhao, p. 2).
Issues relating to formal research supervision in higher education generally
relate to such factors as quality of faculty supervision, student time management, and availability of qualified
supervisors, among others.
The assessment of research supervisory practices, according to Armstrong
(2004), is an area of the academic
process seriously overlooked in higher
education. However, the commitment
to intellectual advancement through
sponsored research has received considerable attention since the University
of Technology, Jamaica (UTECH),
achieved full university status in 1995.
In this regard, the Office of Research
and Graduate Studies at UTECH commissioned this study to assess, among
other things, the research experiences
encountered by students during the crucial phase of their academic program.
Although the focus here is on studying
CYNTHIA ONYEFULU
UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY - JAMAICA
JAMAICA, WEST INDIES
one specific institution in terms of
research supervisory practices, the findings may be helpful to other universities that offer similar research opportunities to their students either as
undergraduates or graduates.
Purpose of the Study
In this study, we assessed the quality
of final-year student research supervision performed by faculty within a university setting. One important outcome
of the study was the design of a research
model for expanded supervision. To
analyze the issue of faculty supervision,
we considered five research questions
from the nucleus of the study: (a) How
satisfied are students with their faculty
research supervisors? (b) How helpful is
a research methods course to students
doing their final year project? (c) To
what degree are faculty supervisors
available to students for assistance? (d)
How adequate is the feedback given by
research project supervisors to their students? and (e) How adequate are the
resources and facilities for students’
undergraduate research projects?
Literature Review
According to Zhao (2001), the key
issue of research supervision is how to
achieve quality, effectiveness, and productivity. He described the difference
between the traditional and new models
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 23:25 11 January 2016
of research supervision. According to
Holbrook and Johnson, the traditional
models are “based on a single supervisor
working with a motivated, well-prepared
student over an extended period of time”
(as cited in Zhao, p. 3). Because of the
diversity of students and the increased
enrollment in postgraduate programs,
Zhao described the need for a new
model to be more flexible, more mixedmode (joint supervision), and characteristic of a supervisory team structure.
Zhao (2001) proposed a nonconventional approach: the use of a knowledge
management approach for the research
supervision process that he adapted
from Armistead (1999). The Armistead
model, which is a project-based
approach, is a spiral cycle model that
involves the basic input–output transformation process. This model designates
“knowledge and people as its basic
inputs, and applied knowledge and
intellectual capital as its desired outputs” (Zhao, p. 5). The knowledge conversion process comprises “preserving,
embedding and enhancing knowledge
of process, products and services”
(Zhao, p. 5); see Figure 1.
Zhao’s (2001) knowledge management model is based on three major
components (i.e., knowledge creation,
knowledge transfer, and knowledge
embedding). He stated that
research supervision is also knowledge
creation, transfer and embedding
processes in which research candidates
develop new knowledge, theory, and
methodology (knowledge creation)
through integrating, synthesizing and
valuing existing knowledge (knowledge
transfer), and in which candidates
advance understanding and develop new
insights into their area of investigation
(knowledge embedding). (p. 6)
In a 2002 study, published in the Maximizing Access and Quality papers
(MAQ), Marquez and Kean (2002) identified four basic tasks in the supervision
process: setting expectations, monitoring and assessing performance, identifying problems and opportunities, and taking action (see Figure 2).
METHOD
This assessment of research supervisory practices reflects a cross-sectional
survey study. This type of research
Input
Output
• Research candidate
• Research
environment
(knowledge networks,
& knowledge
technologies)
• Researcher
• Completion of
research degree
• Research products
Knowledge creation
process
Knowledge
conversion process
Knowledge transfer
process
Knowledge
embedding process
Developing students as researchers
FIGURE 1. The knowledge management process.
Set expectations
Monitor & assess
performance
Take actions
Identify opportunities
FIGURE 2. The undergraduate research process.
design “involves collecting data from
selected individuals in a single time period” (Gay & Airasian, 2003, p. 281). The
rationale for the use of this approach is
that it facilitates the comparison of perceptions of students completing the
final-year research project associated
with a business and management program with those enrolled in other disciplines within a university setting.
British educational systems) supervising research projects. We obtained the
total population of undergraduate students for the study from a student
enrollment database for five disciplines
(see Table 1). We obtained the lists of
graduates from the 2000–2004 graduation booklets and the names of the lecturers from the Office of Human
Resource Management.
Study Sample
Data Collection and Analysis
Procedures
The target population of this study
comprised (a) final-year (full-time) university students who were recipients of
research supervision, (b) graduates
within the past 5 years, and (c) lecturers
(e.g., a faculty designation typical of
The data collection methods in this
study included a questionnaire and a
structured interview. Initially we
designed three different questionnaires
for students, graduates of programs, and
March/April 2007
213
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 23:25 11 January 2016
lecturers. Because of low rate of
response to the lecturers’ questionnaires, we used structured interviews to
collect data from those lecturers
involved with supervision. However, we
collected data from the final-year students and the graduates through the use
of questionnaires. All survey items were
designed to address the same questions
across all groups.
We pretested two sets of questionnaires with 15 undergraduate students
and 10 graduates in March 2004. We did
not include these participants, who volunteered for the pilot study, in the main
study. We also asked three lecturers to
examine the pertinence of each item to
the study and to make comments or suggestions for improving the clarity and
understanding of the items on the questionnaire.
We analyzed the data collected
through surveys using the Statistical
Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS)
for Windows, version 10.0. For
anonymity, during the data collection
and analysis stages, we asked the participants not to write their names on the
questionnaire. Similarly, during the data
analysis stage, we did not identify the
participants by their names.
We determined the study samples
from the total population by using probability sampling techniques (stratified
sampling and simple random sampling)
and nonprobability sampling technique
(purposive and snowball sampling).
Because the students were in different
disciplines, we needed to first stratify
this population by discipline. We randomly stratified the final-year students
and graduates into five segments, resulting in a final-year student sample of 277
and a graduate student sample of 1448.
Approximately 30% of the graduates
selected for the study were from the
business and management area of study.
Finally, the purposive sampling method
resulted in having 36 lecturers for the
study (n = 36; see Table 2).
Participants
A total of 123 final-year students participated in the main study. The overall
participation rate for the undergraduate
students was approximately 44% (see
Table 3). In addition, the 42 graduate
214
Journal of Education for Business
students who participated in the study
came from primarily three disciplines.
Efforts made to increase the number of
graduates in the sample did not yield
any significant additional results. A total
of 36 lecturers, whom we initially contacted but did not respond to the original
request for participation, agreed to be
interviewed.
A vast majority of the final-year stu-
TABLE 1. Total Population of Full Time Final-Year Students, Graduate
Students, and Lecturers by Academic Discipline
Final-year
students (n)
Graduate
students (n)
Lecturers (n)
Built Environment (architecture)
Business & Management
Education & Liberal Studies
Engineering & Computing
Health & Applied Science
42
73
168
211
57
283
2,369
964
699
573
69
118
93
141
97
Total
551
4,888
518
Academic discipline
TABLE 2. Results of Stratified Sampling Procedure of Total Populations
for Selecting Participants by Discipline
Selected
final-year
students (n)
Selected
graduate
students (n)
Selected
lecturers (n)
Built Environment
Business & Management
Education & Liberal Studies
Engineering & Computing
Health & Applied Science
21
37
84
106
29
142
405
482
350
69
3
10
14
4
4
Total
277
1,448
36
Academic discipline
TABLE 3. Response Rates of Final-Year Students and Graduates by
Academic Discipline
Academic
discipline
Academic
discipline
Built Environment
(architecture)
Business &
Management
Education & Liberal
Studies
Engineering &
Computing
Health & Applied
Science
Total
a
Selected
final-year
Selected(n)
students
final-year
students (n)
Participating
final-year
studentsa
n
%
Selected
graduate
Selected
students
(n)
graduate
students (n)
21
11
52
37
34
84
Participating
graduate
studentsa
n
%
142
0
0.0
92
405
13
8.4
46
55
482
19
3.9
106
22
21
350
10
2.9
29
10
35
69
0
0.0
277
123
1,448
42
Percentage indicates selected respondents who participated in study sample.
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 23:25 11 January 2016
dents in the study sample were women,
except in the discipline of built environment (architecture and design) where
more men participated. This could be
the result of the nature of that discipline
where there is typically more male
enrollment. The majority of final-year
students were between 21 years and 25
years of age. The discipline of business
and management had more older graduates (36 years and over) than any other
discipline. Of the 36 lecturers whom we
interviewed, approximately 61% were
women.
Approximately 42% of the lecturers
had been involved with final year
research supervision for over 9 years.
The remainder (58%) indicated an
involvement not longer than 5 years.
Approximately 55% of the final-year
students and 52% of the graduates stated that their supervisors were women.
On the type of employment, 90% of the
undergraduates and 95% of the graduates indicated that their supervisors
were full-time lecturers at UTECH.
Results of Current Practices
The findings indicated that about
89% of the final-year students in the
disciplines of business and management, engineering and computing, education and liberal studies, and health
and applied sciences indicated that they
worked in groups for their final-year
projects. Of the 110 students and 32
graduates who indicated that they had
worked in groups, a slight majority
(55%) of undergraduate students and
graduates participated in five-member
research teams. However, 65% of the
final-year students from business and
management indicated that they enjoyed
working in teams, whereas 82% of the
students from the discipline of built
environment (architecture and design)
revealed that they did not like the idea
of group work.
Moreover, the results of the graduates’ responses were quite different.
About 69% of the graduates from business and management indicated that
they liked the idea of doing the research
projects in teams, whereas approximately 42% of the graduates of education
and liberal studies expressed disapproval of group work. Over 80% of the
graduates within the discipline of business and management chose members
of their actual research supervisory
team, whereas only 16% of those graduates of education and liberal studies
did likewise. However, all the students
of health and applied sciences indicated
that they were allowed to choose members of their research team. The findings
also revealed that 88% of the graduates
of three disciplines (business and management, engineering and computing,
and education and liberal studies) did
not have the privilege of choosing
supervisors.
Assessment of General Organizational
Support
On the basis of a 5-point rating scale
ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5
(strongly agree), the undergraduate students from the disciplines of business
and management rated their general
organization of research support relatively low (between disagree and undecided). However, students from education and liberal studies had the highest
agreeable rating with less variation (M =
3.09, SD = 0.99). The students of health
and applied sciences gave the item a disagreeable low rating (M = 2.10, SD =
1.20).
The findings from the graduates were
quite different. The graduates of business and management were more in
agreement than were final-year students
that the support of their research projects was generally well organized (M =
3.23, SD = 1.59), being similar to those
graduates of engineering and computing
(M = 3.40, SD = 1.07) and education
and liberal studies (M = 3.09, SD =
1.26).
In terms of having their expectations
of the research project clearly stated by
their supervisors, undergraduate students in business and management had
the lowest mean rating of the five academic programs in the study (M = 3.03,
SD = 1.24). Similarly, those graduates
of business and management programs
also had the lowest rating in this regard
(M = 2.92, SD = 1.18).
Final-year students had varying
views as to whether members of their
research teams were supportive. The
final-year students of business and man-
agement indicated a neutral perception
of the degree of support, with their
mean scores hovering around 3.0. However, the graduates of business and management rated this item high in agreement (M = 3.64, SD = 1.78). These
findings indicated that graduates were
more in agreement with the quality of
the support that they received from
members of their research teams.
Assessment of Helpfulness of Research
Methods Course
The findings indicated that the
research methods course was generally
helpful to students writing their projects. The final-year student mean values were high (more agreeable),
although with some variations in their
responses: business and management,
(M = 3.38, SD = 1.35), engineering and
computing (M = 3.41, SD = 1.56), built
environment (M = 3.64, SD = 1.12), and
education and liberal studies (M = 3.59,
SD = 0.58). However, the final-year students of the faculty of health and
applied sciences had less favorable
views of the research methods (M =
2.60, SD = 1.51).
However, the mean scores of graduates regarding helpfulness of a research
methods course were slightly higher,
depicting more agreement when compared with those of the final-year students. The mean values for the graduates of business and management,
engineering and computing, and education and liberal studies were 3.85 (SD =
0.38), 4.10 (SD = 1.29), and 3.32 (SD =
1.42), respectively.
However, the findings suggested that
the final-year students did not think that
there was a balance between the theoretical and practical components in the
research methods course. The mean values for students from the five disciplines
ranged from 1.90 to 3.27, whereas the
standard deviations ranged from 0.88 to
1.44. In this regard, the mean score for
graduates of business and management
was quite high when compared with the
mean values of the final-year students.
The mean values for graduates of business and management (M = 4.00, SD =
0.10) revealed that the graduates generally perceived an appropriate balance
between the theoretical and practical
March/April 2007
215
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 23:25 11 January 2016
components of the research methods
course.
In terms of whether the research
methods course was perceived as being
a challenge, the findings revealed that
the final-year students of business and
management (M = 4.47) assessed the
difficulty as higher than did students in
any of the other four academic programs. Similarly, the mean values for
the graduates of business and management (M = 4.23, SD = 1.09) were also
the highest as compared with their academic counterparts.
Assessment of Research Project
Supervision
The findings revealed that final-year
students (M = 3.27) of business and
management met with their faculty
research supervisors on a weekly basis,
whereas graduates of the program indicated less frequent meetings (M = 2.38).
These findings also showed that a
vast majority of the participants held the
view that their supervisors were generally not on time for meetings regardless
of the academic program. On the basis
of a 5-point rating scale ranging from 1
(low rating) to 5 (high rating), the mean
values from the final-year students’ data
ranged from 2.90 to 3.45. Similarly, the
ratings from the graduate students were
low to average, with mean values ranging from 1.69 to 3.30.
The findings also revealed that a
majority of students and graduates
expressed the views that the duration of
meetings with their supervisors was
inadequate. Of all five disciplines
included in this study, the undergraduates (M = 2.55, SD = 1.01) and graduates (M = 2.23, SD = 1.42) of business
and management rated this item lower
than did their counterparts.
The findings also indicated that participants felt some disappointment in
the atmosphere in meetings with their
supervisors. The final-year students and
the graduates of business and management gave a lower rating to general
atmosphere of meetings with their faculty supervisors than did their counterparts in the other academic programs
with mean values and standard deviations of 3.32 (SD = 1.53) and 2.54 (SD
= 1.33), respectively.
216
Journal of Education for Business
In terms of availability of their supervisors, the graduates of business and
management were most critical (M =
2.46, SD = 1.27). Approximately 56%
of the final-year students and 45% of
the graduates indicated that their supervisors were not available for previously
scheduled consultations.
Finally, both final-year students and
graduates of business and management
indicated that their supervisors generally did not achieve a specific set of
objectives for each meeting or document in writing the accomplishments at
such meetings. In this regard, they rated
this item lower than did their counterparts. The mean values ranged from
3.40 to 3.73 for the other four academic
programs. The graduates of business
and management also rated this item
below a 3.0 rating. The low rating could
have been because of the lack of availability of a research manual that was
supposed to be provided to and used by
faculty supervisors and students.
Assessment of Assistance Received
In terms of usefulness of advice
received during the supervisory process,
the findings also supported the perspective that there was some variation of
perceptions among the graduates and
final-year students. Using a 5-point rating scale that ranged from 1 (strong disagreement) to 5 (strong agreement),
those in the sample from business and
management, built environment, and
health and applied sciences had mean
agreeable values between 3.40 and 3.70.
In addition, a vast majority of the sample population in each of the five academic programs agreed that their supervisors were approachable. In terms of how
knowledgeable their research supervisors were, the ratings again were above
average across the five disciplines.
Moreover, the participants of all five
disciplines generally believed that their
research supervisors directed them to
the appropriate resources for their finalyear projects.
Generally, the agreeable ratings from
final-year students and graduates of
business and management were lower
than those of participants from other
disciplines in terms of the goodness of
fit with their supervisors. Similarly,
final-year students and graduates of
business and management were less
agreeable in terms of being motivated
during the research process. In addition,
participants agreed, with some variation, that their supervisors treated them
with respect. The mean values ranged
from 3.10 to 4.18, with students in the
business program falling in the middle
of the range. In terms of recommending
their research supervisors to other students, the mean values were high for all
disciplines with the exception of business and management students, whose
ratings were slightly lower (M = 2.94,
SD = 1.37).
Assessment of Adequacy of Resources
No matter what the academic program, students who participated in this
study generally reported that they did
not have a sufficient research timeline, a
critical component of the research
process. In terms of whether the software provided on institutional computers was useful, both final-year students
and graduates of all five disciplines
gave low agreement ratings on a scale of
1 (low) to 5 (high) with mean values
ranging from 1.81 to 2.32. When asked
if resources at the library were adequate
for their needs, the final-year students
generally disagreed regardless of the
academic program, as depicted by the
mean range of 1.80 to 2.54; whereas the
ratings of the graduates were slightly
higher, with the mean ranging from 2.95
to 3.54.
In addition, when asked if their disciplines provided enough support and
needed resources to facilitate research,
the responses of the final-year students
in all the disciplines indicated disagreement, with mean values ranging from
1.41 to 2.64.
Benefits and Concerns of Doing
Research Projects
Of the 165 final-year and graduate
students surveyed, 91 students responded. The data summarized in Table 4
revealed that 66% of these 91 participants perceived benefits from the current research mentoring process in
regard to actually developing and implementing a research project. Another
56% perceived benefits from acquiring
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 23:25 11 January 2016
useful problem-solving skills, and an
additional 46% received benefits fromlearning to use the American Psychological Association (APA) style of writing. However, only 17 of the 91
respondents (approximately 19%) indicated that the research methods course
benefited them in conducting their
research.
When requested to indicate their concerns about writing a final-year research
project, participants identified several
prominent issues (see Table 5). Of the
165 students and graduates surveyed, 88
students responded. The data summarized in Table 5 revealed that all 88 participants expressed the need for more
time in completing the research projects; 94% expressed unavailability of
resources; 91% expressed the need for a
central writing format; 90% stated lack
of proper supervision; 86% stressed the
unavailability of some research supervisors for consultation; and 58% stated
that they did not get early feedback
from their supervisors.
TABLE 4. Written Responses of Final-Year and Graduate Students
Identifying Benefits of Doing a Research Project (Combined Reporting;
n = 91)
Response
Developing and implementing the research project
Acquiring problem solving skills through research process
Learning to use the APA style of writing
Making recommendations based on findings of our study
Reviewing the literature
Analyzing of data, and using SPSS to analyze data
Presenting report and findings
Collecting data, research experience gained from field work
Working with different students and learning from each other
Meetings with my supervisor
Studying Research Methods course
Developing new programming skills
Developing new thesis statement
Regarding what could be done to
improve research supervision for finalyear undergraduate students and graduate students, 94% of the 165 respondents indicated that they would like to
see more qualified and experienced
lecturers supervising research; 88%
indicated additional resources made
available; 78% indicated the inclusion
of a daily consulting schedule; and
86% indicated they needed extension
of time for writing research project
(see Table 6).
Building a Six-Tier Leadership
Capability Research Model
On the basis of the study findings, we
developed a six-tier model to assist others as they undergo a similar analysis of
their programs. Faculty can use the parameters of the model indicated below as a
framework for generating a formal
research support model to enhance the
quality of faculty supervision.
1. Research mentoring. In addition to
assigning faculty supervisors to students, it is critical to provide research
%
60
51
42
34
33
29
28
27
25
25
17
11
7
66
56
46
37
36
32
31
30
27
27
19
12
7.6
Note. APA = American Psychological Association; SPSS = Statistical Program for Social Sciences.
TABLE 5. Written Responses of Final-Year and Graduate Students
Voicing Concerns About Writing Final Year Project (Combined Reporting;
n = 88)
Response
Strategies for Improving
Research Supervision
f
Limited time for consultation and completion of project
Unavailability of resources for undergraduate research projects
Different format for writing and presenting the research project
Poor quality of supervision
Unavailability of some research supervisors
Some lecturers do not return the drafts submitted to them on time
Inadequate meeting or consultation space
Lack of knowledge of the supervisor on projects being supervised
Irregular meeting schedules with supervisors
Poor attitude of some of the supervisors
Some supervisors do not consider the undergraduate research
project as important
Some supervisors impose their research ideas on students
mentors (possibly graduate students) for
students involved in the research
process. Research mentors may help fill
a void of perceived isolation from
research team members and possibly the
faculty supervisor who may be unavailable due to other obligations.
2. Accountability. There should be a
set of criteria in place for aligning a
faculty research supervisor with a student. In this regard, a research manual
should be distributed to both the student and the faculty advisor. In that
guide, there should be an accountability provision depicting the responsibilities of each participant, specifically
including a research timeline and a
f
%
88
83
80
79
76
51
45
34
27
27
100
94
91
90
86
58
51
39
31
31
16
12
18
14
series of benchmarks of accomplishment. In this regard, it may be conducive to conduct workshops for lecturers who are new to project supervision.
These workshops should cover skills
needed for conducting the research project, principles of project management,
effective research supervision, and
human relations.
3. Constructive feedback. It is critical to ensure that students get constructive feedback from research
supervisors to know how to produce
good quality projects. In this regard, it
is also important to build in mechanisms for participants to report conflicts (e.g., relationship and communiMarch/April 2007
217
TABLE 6. Written Responses of Final-Year and Graduate Students
Suggesting Ways of Improving Research Supervision (Combined
Reporting; n = 81)
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 23:25 11 January 2016
Response
Make more qualified and experienced supervisors available
Provide adequate resources for the undergraduate research process
Extend the time for research project
Provide schedule for consultation with supervisors
Encourage choice of doing individual or group research projects
Teach students how to use SPSS software
Provide more computers and software programs
Start the preparation for research projects earlier
Set a schedule for consultation and ensure that both students and
lecturers abide by it by signing a log book
Move research to first semester instead of second semester
Make the objectives of research methods and projects clear to
students as early as in second year
Faculty should agree on a format for the research project and also
allow students to choose their own supervisors
Maintain one lecturer in the 3rd & 4th year for research methods
Issue funds early to Engineering and Computing students
f
%
76
71
70
63
54
37
34
34
94
88
86
78
67
46
42
42
32
30
40
37
30
37
30
21
10
37
26
12
Note. SPSS = Statistical Program for Social Sciences.
cation problems) early in the supervisory process.
4. Research timetable. A timetable
should be established at the beginning
of research projects to ensure that
research supervisors are available during periods specified for consultation.
In this regard, special funding should
be available for faculty to support the
purchase of special materials, software,
and other needs as incentives for meeting with students on a regular basis. In
this effort, it is critical to ensure proper records management to avoid repeating topics over time. This could be
achieved through careful documentation of all the names of the researchers,
date of submission, names of supervisors, titles of the study, the abstracts,
and key descriptors or words in the
study.
5. Research development. An added
dimension to generating and maintaining an active research program for students is the establishment of an honors
program with financial support for the
students who will be allowed to conduct final year research projects. In that
case students should be allowed to do
individual programs rather than group
projects. However, it is vital to begin
interested students in research early
enough in their academic programs.
218
Journal of Education for Business
This could be accomplished by having
a three-part training effort that will
reinforce the importance of doing
undergraduate research projects. The
first set of experiences would be the
establishment of an orientation program at the beginning of the research
process to reinforce the dos and don’ts
of research supervision. The second
level of accomplishment relates to
coordinating the content of a research
methods course to student needs. In this
regard, it is important to emphasize the
connection or link between the theoretical knowledge imparted in the research
methods course and its relevance for
conducting final-year research projects.
The third aspect of preparation should
reflect the nature of a group project.
There should be a way of ensuring that
clear roles are defined and each team
member contributes equally to the project and that students have the option of
doing individual projects.
6. Research integrity. The education
institutions should provide students and
faculty supervisors with software programs and training needed to use the
software programs to enhance research
activities and output. In this vein, it is
vital to instruct students not to violate
intellectual property and copyright laws
to avoid cases of plagiarism. The ability
to maintain exceptionally high levels of
ethical conduct and to correspondingly
maintain the integrity required to produce legitimate research should become
the main ingredient of any research
process.
Conclusion
We conclude that both final-year students and graduates of the business and
management program were at best only
moderately satisfied with the research
process. Their assessment was slightly
more negative than was those of their
counterparts in the four other academic
programs in the study. In terms of the
five research questions proposed for
study and with specific focus on finalyear students and graduates of business
and management, we found that (a)
there was considerable dissatisfaction
with aspects of the supervisory practices currently in existence; (b) a
research methods course was generally
challenging but could be more helpful;
(c) supervisors gave good direction but
were frequently unavailable; (d) faculty supervisors could have been of
greater assistance by giving thorough
feedback as research projects moved
along; and (e) resources that were
available were not spectacular but were
acceptable.
However, the graduates of the business and management program were
somewhat more positive about the quality of leadership provided by the faculty research supervisors. Therefore, having time, in this instance up to 5 years,
to reconsider the quality of their
research supervision, graduate students
assessed their experiences in a more
favorable way than did students who
were currently enrolled in the business
program. As a result of these findings,
we propose an enhanced capability
research model.
NOTE
Correspondence concerning this article should
be addressed to Dr. James L. Morrison, Leadership Studies, University of Delaware, 188-C Graham Hall, Newark, DE.
E–mail: jlm@udel.edu
REFERENCES
Armstrong, S. J. (2004). The impact of supervisors’ cognitive styles on the quality of research
supervision in management education. British
Gay, L. R, & Airasian, P. (2003). Educational
research: Competencies for analysis and applications (7th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill Prentice Hall.
Marquez, L. & Kean, L. (2002). Making supervision supportive and sustainable: New approaches to old problems. (Supplement to Population
Reports, Paper No. 4). Retrieved August 29,
2005, from http://www.maqweb.org/maqdoc/
MAQno4final.pdf
Zhao, F. (2001). Postgraduate research supervision: A process of knowledge management.
Retrieved August 19, 2005, from http://ultibase
.rmit.edu.au/Articles/may01/zhao.1.htm
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 23:25 11 January 2016
Journal of Educational Psychology, 74,
599–616.
Armistead, C. (1999). Knowledge management
and process performance. Journal of Knowledge Management, 3, 143–159.
Connell, R. (1985). How to supervise a Ph.D.
Vestes, 2, 38–40.
March/April 2007
219