Symposium 18 The road less travelled: Preparing research supervisors in an interprofessional context

Symposium lead:
Mary Brown, Senior Lecturer, Nursing and Applied Clinical Studies, Canterbury Christ Church University, Canterbury, United Kingdom mary.brown@canterbury.ac.uk

Symposium chair:
Dr Loretta Bellman, Senior Nurse Research & Development, Corporate Nursing Department, University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK

Abstract 1: The road less travelled: preparing research supervisors in an Interprofessional context

Dr Tim Clark

Recent changes in research governance (DH, 2005) have resulted in many Universities changing the nature of dissertations for undergraduate degrees due to practical pressures such as completing the ethical processes needed. Many universities have opted for more literature based studies and whilst this has provided some useful new understandings, those progressing to Master level work now do so from a different starting point than former students. Whilst the traditional approach to Masters Level dissertations was by completion of an empirical research project, this is challenging for those who have not completed any research before. This is compounded by a consequent reduction in experienced staff with a range of research experience who can act as research supervisors. New approaches to dissertations have included development of systematic reviews, although there are difficulties in this approach at Masters Level which include the quality of supervision and the focus of the study. An alternative approach for Masters Dissertations is to critically examine and evaluate an aspect of professional practice. Whilst the latter two approaches provide a useful range of possibilities for dissertation work, the need for a new and different type of supervisor is identified. At Canterbury Christ Church University students in the Interprofessional Masters’ degree framework can now choose any of these three approaches for their dissertations. This symposium will be chaired by an external examiner to the Masters Programme and considers four aspects; the context in which these changes have occurred, the development of supervisors, the nature of systematic reviews and the plans for a new approach for critical evaluation of an aspect of professional practice.

Intended learning outcomes:

At the end of the presentation, participants will:

  • Identify key issues influencing the context of master level supervision
  • Be aware of the key features of supporting M level students undertaking systematic reviews
  • Discuss the development of supervisors for empirical studies
  • Gain an appreciation of a new approach to dissertation work for professional practice

References:

  • Department of Health (2005) Research Governance Framework for Health and Social Care (Second Edition) London, Department of Health 300

Source of Funding: Faculty

Level of Funding: N/A

Abstract 2: Research Supervision: Empowering others to take the Research Road.

Mary E Brown

In 1984 Scott Peck said in his first book The Road Less Travelled “Life was Difficult”– in his later book Further along the Road less Travelled he said “Life was Complex”.

For many students in today’s Higher Education Institutions ( HEI’s) this is how they view their Dissertation; difficult and complex. The complexity may be one factor why so many students fail to complete their post graduate programme.

A report by the Higher Education Funding Council for England (Hefce, 2005), revealed that almost a third of full-time and two-thirds of part-time doctoral students had not completed their degree within seven years. These figures make uncomfortable reading, especially from the point of view of the non-completers which can bring disappointment. The Hefce report goes onto to suggest that mature, part-time students, who self-fund, often have lower rates of successful completion.

In 2005, I took over as Programme Director for the MSc Interprofessional Health and Social Care programme and I found that 25% (50) students registered on this programme had opted to interrupt from the programme with no qualification and another 25% (50) nearing completion had not considered the research element. One of the main factors that emerged following telephone interviews with these students (n=100) was the availability of supervisors at the research proposal stage of the process.

As a result of this survey I implemented a series of Research Supervisor workshops:

  • For lecturers considering undertaking the role of supervisor and
  • To offer support to existing supervisors within the Faculty of Health and Social Care.

This presentation will discuss the outcome of these workshops and the impact on current supervision. It will also address the Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education Code of Practice (QAA, 2004) which emphasises a move away from the single supervisor system towards the notion of a "supervisory team”.

References:

Higher Education Funding Council for England (Hefce 2005) PhD Research Degrees Ref 2005/02 Quality Assurance Agency (2004) Code of practice for the assurance of academic quality and standards in higher education: Post Graduate Research Programmes: 2nd Edition QAA London. 300

Abstract 3: Old route, new travellers: The new development needs of supervisors of empirical studies

Dr Tim Clark

Background:

This presentation considers the development needs of supervisors regarding the research proposal module for empirical studies. Recent changes in research governance (DH, 2005) have influenced the potential for undergraduate research and this in turn has changed the skill profile of those accessing the master’s programme. With literature based studies predominating at undergraduate level, Masters students appear to have limited knowledge of research methods and this has impacted on the nature of the research supervision required.

Methods:

An audit of the research interests of supervisors was completed to develop a ‘live register’ of completed research, areas of specific professional interest and preferred methodologies. Student and staff evaluation data from the research proposal and orientation modules were scrutinised for emergent themes. In a staff development day staff perceptions of their research and scholarship needs were sought and all the data combined to help identify areas for further consideration.

Results:

The audit indicated many supervisors had skills focused in mainly one research paradigm. Whilst some staff had limited experience of literature based studies few identified they felt confident in supervising systematic review dissertations. Whilst many staff preferred to supervise student research in areas of mutual professional interest, students valued more those supervisors who had a good working knowledge of the specific methodology being used. The development day identified supervisors felt the need to develop the breadth of their understanding of different methodologies.

Discussion:

Supervisors are likely to prefer one methodology; this has impact on the choice that students make regarding the nature of their own studies. Students currently lack sufficient knowledge and skills to select an appropriate methodology and therefore rely on their supervisor resulting in a potential lack of fit between the question and the chosen research perspective. This may be one reason for the apparent fall out of students during the dissertation period.

References:

  • Department of Health (2005) Research Governance Framework for Health and Social Care (Second Edition) London, Department of Health 300

Abstract 4: Building a new map: issues in research supervision of systematic reviews

Dr Doug Mac Innes

The traditional Master dissertation work has been an empirical study; however, difficulties in undertaking these studies has led to an increase in literature based studies that have been used as an alternative approach. However, for an analysis of the literature to take place there needs to be some empirical research to analyse. The main emphasis for systematic reviews has been on quantitative research, although more qualitative reviews are taking place. Effectively, systematic reviews provide a detailed map that co-ordinates and provides detail to something that was previously known in part. According to Sackett et al (1996) a systematic review is a "scientific tool which can be used to summarise, appraise, and communicate the results and implications of otherwise unmanageable quantities of research”. It is therefore of particular value in bringing together a number of separately conducted studies and synthesising their results to evaluate either existing or new technologies or practices. It does this by analysing the evidence, and objectively: searching the literature, applying predetermined inclusion and exclusion criteria, critically appraising the literature, and the extraction and synthesis of data to formulate findings.

There are three main approaches to systematic reviews:

  • Narrative review is a literature review to collate relevant studies and to draw conclusions from them, but which do not make explicit their methods or decision-making rules
  • Systematic review to systematically identify all relevant primary studies, which they have then systematically appraised and summarised according to an explicit and reproducible methodology
  • Meta-analysis is a statistical method of combining and summarising the results of studies in a systematic review that meet minimum quality criteria.

This presentation identifies the key aspects of systematic reviews and explores difficulties for the supervisors such as phrasing of the systematic review question, data extraction, analysis of the literature and the assessment of quality.

References:

  • Sackett, D.L. et al. (1996) Evidence based medicine: what it is and what it isn't. BMJ 312 (7023), 13 January, 71-72). 300

Abstract 5:

Presenter: Dr Esther Coren

With the increasing workplace pressures on students, allied to the difficulties in identifying a manageable project, an increasing number of students fail to successfully complete their dissertations. Nationally this picture is especially marked in health and social care students. Lack of confidence in research skills and sometimes limited availability of robust evidence for meta analysis has left some with limited options beyond these traditional approaches. A third option provides a new route that captures the need to critically evaluate a wider range of evidence has been developed.

Master level work related to clinical practice demands three key outcomes:

  • Systematic understanding of knowledge and critical awareness of current problems in practice
  • Critical evaluation of current research and practice evidence and where appropriate propose new approaches to inform practice
  • Ability to make informed judgements with regard to a focused aspect of practice.

These key outcomes can be explored through consideration of policies, an understanding of specific organisational issues, practitioner and service user perspectives and relevant research evidence. This new dissertation approach shares a rigorous initial approach to examining literature, however some of the ‘softer’ evidence drawn from policies, protocols, and perceptions of issues from practitioners and service users are included that would not normally be in a systematic review. Data drawn from local audit can therefore be utilised to supplement the themes explored in the literature. Critical exploration of the context is a tenet of this approach and this therefore increases the relevance of findings at both an organisational and service user level. This presentation explores the issues arising from the development of this approach and the challenges this brings to those acting as new supervisors.