Research supervision as praxis: A need to speak back in dangerous ways?

Hopwood, N; Frick, L

Research supervision as praxis: A need to speak back in dangerous ways?

Hopwood, N

Frick, L

Permalink

Publisher:: University of Boras, Faculty of Librarianship, Information, Education and IT
Publication Type:: Journal Article
Citation:: Journal of Praxis in Higher Education, 5, (2), pp. 140-166

Open Access

Copyright Clearance Process

Recently Added
In Progress
Open Access

This item is open access.

Adobe PDF

Download Accepted versionAdobe PDF (211.82 kB)

View on publisher's site

View statistics

Full metadata record

Field	Value	Language
dc.contributor.author	Hopwood, N https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2149-5834
dc.contributor.author	Frick, L
dc.date.accessioned	2024-01-25T04:17:11Z
dc.date.available	2024-01-25T04:17:11Z
dc.identifier.citation	Journal of Praxis in Higher Education, 5, (2), pp. 140-166
dc.identifier.issn	2003-3605
dc.identifier.issn	2003-3605
dc.identifier.uri	http://hdl.handle.net/10453/174931
dc.description.abstract	<jats:p>Viewing research supervision as praxis offers alternative perspectives on this crucial aspect of academic work. In this paper, we consider the contributions in this Special Issue as counterpoints to dominant discourses on research supervision by drawing on the idea of praxis as morally committed and history-making action. This brings insights from Swedish research into dialogue with literature from across the world, particularly the Global South. We thematize these contributions by highlighting issues of complexity; considering how history, future and positionality shape supervision praxis; challenging narrow production-oriented discourses in favour of creativity as a foundation for supervision as praxis; and reflecting on how a shift from precarity to nuance may enable us to view supervision as praxis as enablement towards a better future. Our consideration of research supervision as praxis necessitates a stance that does not conform to the status quo, thus provoking further debate and action to think, and supervise, in non-routine, future-changing ways. As supervisors, we do not need to be resigned to futures where neoliberal regimes of surveillance, measurement and accountability shape our practices as strongly as they do today. We argue that there is a need to speak back to supervision as praxis in dangerous ways.</jats:p>
dc.language	en
dc.publisher	University of Boras, Faculty of Librarianship, Information, Education and IT
dc.relation.ispartof	Journal of Praxis in Higher Education
dc.relation.isbasedon	10.47989/kpdc411
dc.rights	info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
dc.title	Research supervision as praxis: A need to speak back in dangerous ways?
dc.type	Journal Article
utslib.citation.volume	5
pubs.organisational-group	University of Technology Sydney
pubs.organisational-group	University of Technology Sydney/Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences
utslib.copyright.status	open_access	*
dc.date.updated	2024-01-25T04:17:10Z
pubs.issue	2
pubs.publication-status	Published online
pubs.volume	5
utslib.citation.issue	2

Abstract:

Viewing research supervision as praxis offers alternative perspectives on this crucial aspect of academic work. In this paper, we consider the contributions in this Special Issue as counterpoints to dominant discourses on research supervision by drawing on the idea of praxis as morally committed and history-making action. This brings insights from Swedish research into dialogue with literature from across the world, particularly the Global South. We thematize these contributions by highlighting issues of complexity; considering how history, future and positionality shape supervision praxis; challenging narrow production-oriented discourses in favour of creativity as a foundation for supervision as praxis; and reflecting on how a shift from precarity to nuance may enable us to view supervision as praxis as enablement towards a better future. Our consideration of research supervision as praxis necessitates a stance that does not conform to the status quo, thus provoking further debate and action to think, and supervise, in non-routine, future-changing ways. As supervisors, we do not need to be resigned to futures where neoliberal regimes of surveillance, measurement and accountability shape our practices as strongly as they do today. We argue that there is a need to speak back to supervision as praxis in dangerous ways.

Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:

http://hdl.handle.net/10453/174931