Doctorate Supervision in Virtual Borderland Spaces
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
This round table will discuss the design, delivery and first year experiences of a transnational, structured dual award doctoral programme between Stellenbosch, Walter Sisulu and Coventry Universities. We will focus on the programme’s embedded mechanisms for training, development, and practice-sharing amongst the cohort of supervisors from across the three institutions. We will briefly share how an international cohort of doctoral candidates was recruited for the dual award programme in order to meet the funders’ profiling and equity targets and explain how the research programme itself is addressing complex challenges in contemporary higher education in South Africa and the UK. <br/><br/>The aim of the discussion is to centre our ideas around doctorate supervision of fellow academics in virtual Borderland spaces (Billot et al., 2021). The use of “border” not only referring to geo-political borders across our education landscapes, but also the territorial borders linked to research knowledge versus indigenous and societal knowledge (Le Grange, 2012; Mignolo & Tlostanova, 2006). In these Borderland spaces, we will share the coming together of our diverse perspectives and in how “cultural, social, and epistemological change” is prompted / encouraged / taking place, as our knowledges and discourses are brought into “conversation” challenging and potentially reshaping the way, as programme partners/supervisors, we are thinking and acting (Moje et al., 2004:44). Further, being appreciative of the supervisory relationships within which we are involved, issues of power, gender and cultural differentials will be acknowledged in our discussion on how as ‘Border-dwellers’ our relational hierarchies, as programme participants (being territorial) are open to scrutiny (Mignolo & Tlostanova, 2006). <br/><br/>Main points/issues: Significantly, we will discuss the virtual Borderland space within which we have all dwelt since the dual award programme began (Year 0 - September 2020). The virtual space itself having displaced us all, whilst also highlighting how the conditions and possibilities of Border thinking relate not least to having access to computers and the internet with acknowledgement of one another’s digital learning ecologies (Gomes & Chang, 2021).<br/><br/>Presenters: 12 contributors drawn from all three participating universities with Dr Gerber as moderator.<br/><br/>Implications for the practice of supervision: We will promote discussion about how students and supervisors are collaborating culturally, institutionally, disciplinarily, and technologically, to foster a virtual Border-transcending supervision practice. <br/><br/>References<br/>Billot, J. et al. (2021) Borderlanders: Academic staff being and becoming doctoral students. Teaching in Higher Education, 26(3), 438-453.<br/>Gomes, C., & Chang. S. (2021). Introduction. In (Eds.), S. Chang & C. Gomes, Digital Experiences of International Students: Challenging Assumptions and Rethinking Engagement. (pp xx - xxix), London: Routledge Taylor and Frances.<br/>Le Grange, L., (2012). Ubuntu, ukama, environment and moral education. Journal of Moral Education, 41(3), 329 – 340.<br/>Mignolo, W. D., & Tlostanova, M. V., (2006). Theorizing from the Borders. Shifting to geo- and body-politics of knowledge. European Journal of Social Theory, 9(2), 205-221. <br/>Moje, E. B. et al. (2004). Working toward third space in content area literacy: An examination of everyday funds of knowledge and discourse. Reading Research Quarterly, 39(1), 38 – 70. <br/><br/><br/><br/>
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 | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,005 | 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 ».