Ethics in the supervisory relationship : supervisors’ and doctoral students’ dilemmas in the natural and behavioural sciences

This study explored the perceptions of ethical issues in supervision among doctoral students and supervisors. The nature of ethical issues identified by doctoral students (n = 28) and their supervisors (n = 14) is explored and the degree of fit and misfit between their perceptions in two cases representing the natural and behavioural sciences is analysed. Supervisors and students identified different ethical issues, which suggest that there are aspects in the supervisory relationship about which there is no shared understanding. There were also differences between the ethical issues emphasised in the natural sciences from those emphasised in the behavioural sciences, suggesting differences between the domains.Peer reviewe

Doctoral Student Learning Patterns : Learning about Active Knowledge Creation or Passive Production

Peer reviewe

Doctoral Students’ Sense of Relational Agency in Their Scholarly Communities

Peer reviewe

What Engages Doctoral Candidates in Biological and Environmental Science to Doctoral Studies?

Peer reviewe

The supervisory relationship as an arena for ethical problem solving

Peer reviewe

What Are Ethics in Doctoral Supervision, and How Do They Matter? Doctoral Students' Perspective

The purpose of this study was to examine ethics in doctoral supervision, and to analyse whether ethical issues in doctoral supervision relate to doctoral experience, and if they do, how. It focused on doctoral students and explored the relationships between ethical issues in doctoral supervision and attrition intentions, research engagement, satisfaction with supervision and with doctoral studies, and burnout. The study provides a tool for analyzing ethical issues in doctoral supervision. The respondents were 236 doctoral students in behavioral sciences. Ethics in supervision predicted both positive outcome variables (engagement, satisfaction with doctoral studies and supervision) and negative ones (burnout, attrition intentions). Autonomy and beneficence were essential components for engagement, while fidelity, justice, and non-maleficence were vital for satisfaction.Peer reviewe

Tiedeyhteisön merkitys tohtorikoulutettavalle

Tiedeyhteisö on tutkijaksi oppimisen ensisijainen ympäristö. Tiedeyhteisöllä on väliä jatko-opintopolun ja tohtoreiden työelämään siirtymisen kannalta, ehkä enemmän kuin moni meistä tulee ajatelleeksikaan. Tässä kirjoituksessa pyrin kokoamaan tohtorikoulutuksen ja tutkijanuriin kohdistuneen tutkimuksen tuloksia ja pohdin, mitä merkitystä tiedeyhteisön tuella on ja miksi siitä kannattaa olla kiinnostunut

Supervisorsʼ Perceptions of Primary Resources and Challenges of the Doctoral Journey

The focus of this study was to explore doctoral supervisors’ perceptions of the factors contributing to doctoral studies. The study draws on the job demands-resources (JD-R) framework to analyze supervisors’ perceptions of core resources and challenges at different levels of doctoral education. The data comprise 15 semi-structured interviews with professors in their roles as supervisors in economics, medicine, natural sciences, engineering, humanities and social sciences at three Finnish universities. The supervisors identified a variety of resources and challenges related to structures, organization of doctoral studies, the scholarly community, supervisory relationships, and individual competence. Slightly more challenges than resources were identified. The challenges described were related to structural elements and embedded in the research community, whereas many of themperceived resources were associated with social aspects of work. The results highlighted the importance of different supervisory resources such as a good supervisor-student relationship, support of the research team, and international contacts, as ingredients of high-quality supervision in the doctoral process. The study also showed that many of the challenges require focusing on and developing the whole community rather than individuals.Peer reviewe