Supervising transdisciplinary doctoral research: adopting transcendent and transgressive supervisory strategies
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
It was ten years ago that my colleagues and I fi rst wrote about ‘interdisciplinary’ doctoral education and supervision pedagogies (Manathunga, Lant and Mellick 2006). Although, as Klein (1996) emphasizes, ideas about interdisciplinarity or transdisciplinarity have been around since at least the 1930s, transdisciplinary doctoral education was still a relatively new phenomenon at the beginning of the twenty-fi rst century. To emphasize this, we called our piece ‘Imagining an interdisciplinary pedagogy’. We reviewed a number of doctoral programs around the globe that claimed to be interdisciplinary and developed a number of ‘key dimensions of a potential interdisciplinary doctoral pedagogy’ including: • relational, mediated, transformative and situated learning experiences; • intercultural knowledge and skill development; • enhancing candidates’ higher order thinking and metacognitive skills; • enhancing candidates’ epistemological understandings of their original discipline. (Manathunga et al. 2006, 368) We also suggested that there was a need to follow four principles: • create spaces for interdisciplinary dialogue – relational; • engage in interdisciplinary interaction with others and with the texts and tools of a number of disciplines – mediated; • synthesize disciplinary knowledges in order to produce original, creative ideas and futures – transformative; • create personal, interpersonal and communal intellectual contexts conducive to interdisciplinary exchange – situated. (Manathunga et al. 2006, 369) If anything, the imperatives for transdisciplinary research and doctoral education have become even stronger in the last 10 years. This was especially brought home to me in my recent role as an external reviewer of an effective transdisciplinary Doctor of Social Science program in Canada. Increasingly, doctoral candidates conduct research that moves across and between the university, industry, business, community and other sectors. The need for both supervisors and candidates to have excellent intercultural communication skills and knowledge in order to navigate the multitude of sub-cultures, discourses and languages associated with transdisciplinary and cross-sectoral research (Manathunga 2009) has become even greater. All of these trends require supervisors who have high levels of epistemological fl exibility so that they may help their doctoral candidates to engage sensitively and equitably with diverse disciplinary, sectoral and cultural knowledge. These trends also mean that supervisors need effective teamwork skills in order to manage increasingly complex transdisciplinary supervision teams. Therefore, it is highly likely that recent insights into effective transcultural supervision pedagogies (Manathunga 2014) may also have resonance for the development of a refl exive approach to transdisciplinary doctoral education and supervision.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,004 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,005 | 0,002 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,004 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,006 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».