Is more formal training needed?

Discussion ● Dagron Astrid Arrow-Engine and John Engelsrud

Useful content is generated in conversations between course holders and participants, not in formal courses, more institutionalized and compulsory training.

We followed The controversy surrounding doctoral guidance reactivated itself in Khrono throughout the spring and summer. It doesn’t bring us anything new under the summer sun. Unfortunately.

We know that The issues are, but not least, proposals for measures that come to the table: clearer and stricter rules, more training of judicial leaders, and a better “order”. We are also aware of not discussing the preconditions of the problem and the results of the measures. The debate over problems and measures does not make us any wiser about what PhD supervision is and what it is about. On the other hand, we have to prove again that the exchange of words is dominated by a language in which education and guidance are understood and dealt with through rational economic language.

The role of phrase and language We admit in our own institutions. Language reduces higher education to the field of political administration. In this managerial parlance, man is an extra person. In the main roles, Justitia and Formalia shine – with Byråkratia as coach. The language does not articulate research, education, and doctoral supervision as a human societal project, and so we are simply speaking outside the case itself—the educational processes that take place in doctoral supervision.

We’re skeptical To the fact that we need more detailed or rigorous formal contracts, unified management methods, global “best practices”, to “fill in the gaps” in systems and arrangements, and to create common “rules of the road”. PhD supervision contracts are adequate and clear enough. The problems that arise are rarely formal problems, but personal ones. Adding more standardized formal training for supervisors will not in and of itself solve, we believe, what research colleagues and supervisors find difficult in practice. What we want now, on the eve of summer, is for organizations to take a critical look at themselves in the mirror and shift discussions from actions to problematic issues. Anecdotes from colleagues and supervisors may indicate that we need to address basic questions. One of these questions is: What kind of space are we creating so that research fellows and supervisors can participate in educational processes in the way that PhD education is institutionalized? In order to discuss this question, one needs to observe phenomena other than those which are translated into the language of management.

as an alternative to Management language requires discussions about the prerequisites for understanding mentoring as an educational phenomenon as we engage in knowledge development and professional cultivation. The research work and knowledge that goes into doctoral projects contribute to the development of the field, sometimes to convey the limits of what the professional community can understand. If the goal is to improve orientation, then orientation should be understood as a complex, unpredictable, and imprescriptible personal phenomenon; which takes place in the social environment, where life, research and academic work takes place.

We must understand that Mentoring is always done as concrete practices, on specific professional projects. The answer to what is right and good about management is that it “depends”. This insight is not a relative declaration of bankruptcy. On the contrary, it is this necessary explanatory recognition that forms the starting point for the analytical educational awareness that we develop and use in our work as teachers and counselors. In order to mobilize my judgment and actions as a judge, I must update my general view of people and knowledge, my subject-specific knowledge, the people I interact with, the PhD project, the here-and-now situation, and the potential consequences of my actions and actions.

to improve
Thus, the practice of mentoring states that frameworks and training are based on meaningful ideas about knowledge processes in human life and societal life that enable us to fulfill the educational mission – to create space for educational processes.

Therein lies the problem. Very simple and demanding at the same time.

we human beings They tend to confuse representations of phenomena with phenomena themselves. We confuse text, knowledge, publication numbers, research papers, diplomas, and productivity numbers with education. We also confuse practices that must support the institutionalization of educational and research activities, that is, bureaucratic practices, with knowledge-based activities, which we ideally see as the essential activities of higher education.

at worst It leads to time and consciousness being trapped in bureaucratic practices, giving them priority over educational practices. When we, as supervisors and colleagues, expect to do something else, this confusion and dominance of corporate red tape makes no sense. It’s like endlessly setting the table without even starting to eat. Quality assurance system, routines and training are necessary activities for table setting in a higher education institution, but they cannot replace what should be facilitated, the meal and, in this context, the orientation meeting.

We do not participate Without further ado, we believe in compulsory courses as the best solution to problems we saw some examples of in the discussion in Khrono recently. Anyone who has “taken” or “taken” a mentoring course knows that the course syllabus is only a formal framework, and the aim of the course is only the intentions of mentoring. Meaningful course content is created in conversations between course holders and participants, conversations that probe experiences, literature, theme, hope, place, time and place.

He’s in conversation With others, supervisors get a chance to highlight and illustrate subject-based, experience-based knowledge. For this reason, many course providers today focus on inspiring counselors to create community and opportunities to discuss academic issues necessary in mentoring and for counselors across disciplines, in order to make discussions about mentoring an ongoing thing, which cannot be concluded by overlapping. Exit in the form of administrative system. We can create meaning in the here and now within cycles. But the important thing happens between us at the meeting. What the individual course means to each of us when we sit as guidance counselors in the guidance practice the following year is not easy to answer. This also depends.

We see too Many of the problems we face – as candidates and as supervisors – do not arise from supervision. But mentoring becomes precisely where many of the complex aspects of a PhD course are articulated, brought to life, shaped, and can be discussed and shared. We must protect this space, as there is value in working with challenging academic questions over time. The Orientation Room is created where the work is carried out by professionals in unique and biographical-defined situations who meet in a joint current interaction project, where participation in the research project depends on the interaction project to exist for each other in a shared human world.

We believe it Systematically developing a pedagogically and theoretically informed language and performance is far more forward-looking than creating compulsory courses for oneself. Technical and institutional language should enable us to understand mentoring as qualitative and human experiences. We need it to work well when needed.

to give space Creating a professional environment – where we have each other’s interests as a common goal – is a corporate responsibility. The solution lies not in mandatory counseling training alone, but in providing time and opportunities so that each person, on their own and with their peers, can explore the possibilities of educational processes that can be brought to life in mentoring.