The Routledge Companion to Research in the Arts

Contexts

do this very effectively, but it is not universally the case, especially across the broad
international spread of postgraduate study in the creative arts and design. in the
short term, therefore, doctoral research training programmes need also to inculcate in
students the kind of generic understanding of research that i have outlined.
Taking into account the arguments presented above, i now want to turn my attention
to the framework through which research skills are delivered. The model of research
training i am suggesting has four levels: (i) individual research supervision; (ii) subject-
based research training; (iii) participation in an active research culture; (iv) generic
training workshops. There may of course be some overlap, but activity at all four levels
is consistent with good practice in research training. disagreements around research
training have occurred most often where one level is prioritized over another, or where
there are misunderstandings as to what might be achieved at any one level.

Individual supervision

individual supervision, by which i mean supervision focused on the individual student’s
research (not, i emphasize, necessarily a single supervisor) remains central to doctoral
study. at the detailed project level, the value of an ongoing dialogue with a supervisor
or supervisory team is absolutely crucial. Research supervisors certainly provide
specialist subject knowledge, but perhaps more important is the ongoing guidance they
provide as the research progresses, enabling the student to develop a reflexive working
knowledge of research. at the level of individual supervision, support and advice is
tailored to the student’s particular needs, introducing issues for consideration and
prompting reflection at appropriate points. doctoral students, typically, are embarking
on a significantly larger scale piece of research than they have previously, and one role
of the supervisor is to see the development of the student’s initial ideas within this larger
framework. When it works well individual supervision can be extremely rewarding for
students and supervisors. individual supervision has historically been the dominant
model, but it is for good reason that it should not be seen as providing the totality of the
doctoral training experience. one disadvantage is that the student’s engagement with
the institution is dependent on just one or two individuals. This can lead to a sense
of isolation on the part of the student, one of the most common complaints voiced by
doctoral students in the arts and humanities. There are also advantages, i would argue,
in fostering an appreciation of the broader research context within which the student’s
project is situated.

Subject- based research training

The next level is what i am referring to as subject- based research training. This may
be department, school or faculty based, and is where the majority of what we generally
think of as research training should take place. This can be viewed simply as a way of
achieving economies of scale: rather than each student having some common process
explained to them individually, this can be done at small group level. however, my
intention here is to suggest a deeper rationale. Bringing students together in cognate
areas has two benefits. First, it enables research training to address generic processes
and skills embedded within a subject context. Whilst all students need proposal writing