CASE STUDIES

This case study explores research supervision at Master level (Level 9) and reflects on key research drivers for design and architecture enquiries. I explore how I understand the role of supervisors and reflect on the relationship of supervisor and research candidate.

Academic tasks are generally separated into the categories of teaching, research and administration or service. This is not only an operational distinction but one that is reflected in academic identity of individuals (Clegg 2008) or, more to the point, in the identity of academics. Robertson and Bond (2005) declare that teaching and research are neither complete nor separate ideologies but united in that both activities aim to enquire. As Neumann (1992, p. 167) states, “[at the postgraduate] level the teaching and research activities of academics tend to intermingle and become blurred”. In this reflective text, I examine the theoretical and practical underpinnings of my approach to supervision.

I have so far acted as a primary supervisor for almost 40 students studying the degrees of Master of Architecture, Master of Architecture (professional), Master of Interior Architecture, Master of Landscape Architecture, Bachelor of Architecture (level 9), and Bachelor of Design (Hons).  As the Postgraduate Coordinator for Architecture at Victoria University of Wellington I also handled the academic administrative side for 140-150 student annually.

Downton (2003) describes three key ways in which architecture and design research can be conducted. He differentiates between research for, through and about design. Research for design, that is research to enable design, is primarily prescriptive as it aims to identify information and data that can help designers in achieving a desirable design outcome. Research through design aims to create knowledge about design processes, not a project solution; and research about design is exactly that – basic (or basis) research. These categories are also applicable to the architecture context, and I have carried out supervision in all three categories of research.  Initially, I had anticipated that there might be implications for supervision depending on the type of research that a student is doing, but I have not found that to be the case.  I will explain in the following paragraphs which aspects of supervision I have rather found to be thought-provoking (and, importantly, action-provoking).

Despite obvious research connections and implications, supervision is at the core a teaching activity. After all, generating a lasting understanding of research requires just as much deep learning (Biggs & Tang, 2007) and the development of a meta-level of understanding and application of what has been learned as undergraduate learning. Taking into account the vast variety of tasks associated with supervision, it seems I am not exploring a specific set of goals but rather a process of mutual engagement with students and their chosen topic areas. Indeed, supervision is a teaching situation that affords the luxury for both teacher and learner to create a personal space where learners’ needs can be matched with teachers’ capacities more specifically. As James and Baldwin (2006, p. x) state, “Supervision is an intensive form of teaching, in a much broader sense than just information transfer. The sustained complexity of supervision involves much time and energy. Good supervisors are aware of this and of the professional commitment necessary to every student they agree to supervise.”

Student and supervisor have (different) intrinsic, extrinsic and vested interests to successfully complete the project. The sense of shared purpose is therefore reflected in the roles that a supervisor can have. From the perspective of the supervisor, these can range from mentoring, coaching and sponsoring to more administrative tasks such as progressing the candidature (Pearson and Kayrooz (2004) in Nulty et al.(2009, p.4)). The administrative side of supervision was more than covered during my time as the Postgraduate Coordinator for Architecture at Victoria University of Wellington so I shall concentrate on the thesis supervision for the purposes of this portfolio. Indeed, mentoring, coaching and sponsoring are all equally relevant to my supervision approach. I see mentoring closely related to the development of reflective practice as well as to the induction into relevant Communities of Practice (see Teaching Philosophy). Students do not only require content and task feedback but also wider context – I help students by teaching them to situate and negotiate their work in the wider fields of architecture and/ or design research. In doing so, students learn to see their own work in relation to that of others which helps them to assess its quality and feasibility, thereby gaining valuable additional perspectives on their own work and that of others. Others can here refer not only to other students or local members of the CoP but indeed to well-known architects or designers, too.

The coaching part of supervision on the other hand refers to the design tasks related to the student project. In order to help students’ achieve a high-quality design outcome I provide detailed feedback on nearly every step of the design. For some students, this feedback takes the nature of a friendly conversation about their already praiseworthy design; others require more formative feedback that enables them to fix mistakes and get a flawed design back on track. Mentoring is arguably part of supervision, but it is also often offered by the relevant tertiary education provider who offers opportunities for students to meet prospective employers and tries to instil application skills, among other things. The mentoring I offer to my supervisees therefore needs to be much more individualised. Depending on their research or development needs, or career aspirations, I will introduce them to industry stakeholders or other academics. The individual side of mentoring as a part of supervision has also been identified by James and Baldwin (2006, p. x) who emphasise the personal subjective dimension of supervision. They declare: “Research students are highly individual. [...] Good supervisors recognise and value this diversity, and adjust their own practices accordingly”.

This implies the need for supervisors to get to know their students as persons; indeed, supervisors need to see their students as persons as there is not one supervision approach that will suit all. The remainder of this section will provide examples of individual student needs, and how I was able to address them. These examples will show that, interestingly, students often choose design problems close to their hearts and own identities.

One Landscape Architecture student of Scottish heritage, Robert B., developed design interventions specific to a deprived fishermen’s village in Scotland. Whilst the design steps themselves were largely generic, it was of upmost importance to understand the student’s desire to improve the lives of people in that township in order to provide guidance. Further, the design included an implementation plan, and we have spent much time discussing how this needed to be framed politically to suit the location and its people. His research was awarded with a research award by the Scottish Society of New Zealand.

Simon H., on the other hand, explored the kiwi-specific (his word, not mine) design aspirations that contradict and counteract the need for high density housing. I have tremendously enjoyed supervising this project as it gave me many insights into what Simon described as the ‘kiwi psyche’ with regard to not only housing but general expectations of quality of life. We decided to focus on economic drivers and their manipulation and impacts to arrive at possible design solutions. This project resulted in the candidate winning the New Zealand Institute of Architecture student award of 2009. 

Hannah F. worked on the history of Norwegian whaling huts on Stewart Island. As Hannah is a 5th generation Stewart Islander, she is a good example of a student choosing a topic relevant to their own identity. While researching and designing traditional transportable architectures, Hannah also traced back her family origins which was reflected in the thesis. In her case, the supervision roles of mentoring and coaching were overshadowed by having to manage the strong personal immersion of Hannah in her work. The challenge was that her topic was so close to her personal identity that the positive impacts of high motivation and willingness to explore the content were sometimes conflicting with a somewhat desirable professional (though not necessarily detached) attitude.

In 2010 I have supervised William M. who designed through design experimentations. William used 3D model making and simulation to arrive at a highly technological, yet passive solar design solution for a weather station in the Simpson Desert, Australia. This work went beyond what students were taught with regard to technology so William and I spent much time on task and content related conversations – a good example of coaching in supervision. The work was shortlisted for the New Zealand Institute of Architecture student award of 2010. He presented his research also at a postgraduate research seminar at Griffith University in 2011.

Based on my personal supervision experiences; I concur with Hosking (2009) who introduced a set of principles (‘C’ words) that describe qualities of a reflective research supervisor.

​

• Context: a clear understanding of the context in which research is undertaken; the literature, professional practice and existing work within our group, together with the benefits of ongoing research programmes rather than individual projects.

• Confidence: in the students’ research abilities; that their research “counts” and is of international significance.

• Collaboration: recognition that drawing on strengths of others and contributing to their development is mutually beneficial.

• Collegiality: that collaboration is not only beneficial but the responsibility of an academic

• Communication: that getting your message out and hearing the messages of others is an essential component of research.

• Celebration: recognizing and celebrating achievement.

• Career: encouraging students to look beyond their research projects to career establishment.

It is interesting to note the variety of possible supervision experiences, and the different foci on mentoring, coaching or sponsoring that students need or request. Whilst the majority of this portfolio focuses on undergraduate teaching, the above examples are included to illustrate how reflective practice can be fostered in the supervision of postgraduate students.

In my experience, it is valuable for the supervisor to find out about the student’s motivation and to help defining the scope of the project in the early stages of a research project. This is of upmost importance to jointly determine research focus and to discuss appropriate methods that will help to data collection that will assist in making a meaningful contribution to knowledge. When students start to indulge in the research process, clear expectations and timelines need to be estblished to move candidates from critical anylsis work to draw own conclusions and to make meaningful design contributions. Regular, ideally weekly meetings in which formative feedback is provided, are of great value for candidates and encourage them advance own thinking and design aspirations.   

Ako; superviors cannot possibly determine the exact outcome of research and need to be open for design exploration and experimentation. It is deeply satisfying to see development of intellectual pieces of work that transform students into peers. The four research candidates I featured all went through these steps and enriched mine and others learning about place-based identity in the New Zealand context.

This case study provides insights into my supervision values and practices that can be linked to the following Graduate Attributes: 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, and 11.