13/07/2018
Peter Green (who did a PhD part time with the OU) was asked to share his experience with an Australian HE institution looking at distance learning experiences of doing a PhD. Here are some of his reflections ...
I had an enormously positive experience of doing my PhD with The Open University. [...]
Though I realise that this may be more than you require, you can glance at my thesis here:
http://oro.open.ac.uk/23430/1/Peter_G_Green_PhD_Thesis.pdf
1. How were supervisions conducted?
The Open University’s practice was to have two supervisors: an Internal Supervisor who was ideally a member of the University’s central staff – although it could be an Associate Lecturer if needs be – and an External Supervisor who was not necessarily a member of the OU staff but was meant to be as geographically proximate to the student as possible.
It was expected that one should have at least one meeting with the Internal Supervisor every year. The Internal Supervisor was meant to have a general overview of the project.
It was expected that one should meet with the External Supervisor at least three times a year. The External Supervisor was meant to have a more day-to-day relationship with the project.
I had unrestricted email and telephone contact with both supervisors – but, needless to say, I had little occasion to contact either outside of the minima. Towards the end of the project, I started to meet slightly more frequently with the Internal Supervisor whilst maintaining the same (or greater) frequency of contact with the External Supervisor.
The supervisors were expected to produce (I think) quarterly reports on my progress.
2. What library and other resources were available to you, and were provided and/or expected by the OU?
The nature of my research required that (with very few exceptions) what I needed was access to texts. The British Universities operate a system that gives students access to University libraries across the UK (the “SCONUL” card) and OU students are entitled to use this system – and research students have an increased access to resources. Whether one could borrow books – and how many – seemed to vary between participating libraries. We could also access the British Library if we wanted to. Needless to say, we were entitled to register with The Open University’s library in Milton Keynes – but that was only of use if one lived fairly close by.
In my case, where I lived had a big effect on the usefulness of the SCONUL card – and I wasn’t really close enough to a library that had the kind of resources that I needed. The result of this is that I was hugely dependent on The Open University’s online library – and the SCONUL card didn’t give access to online resources from other Universities. As it happens, the OU’s online library was (for my purposes) absolutely superb – especially for electronic copies of rare or unusual primary texts. However, I also found myself having to rely on Amazon – and I spent a lot of money with them – for texts that were not otherwise available. The fees were (comparatively) very low – one of the hidden/unannounced costs of studying was in travel and the purchase of books.
The Literature Department ran an optional annual day school in London for all Research Students and for the Literature MA students who had arrived at the dissertation stage. These day schools usually had some excellent scholarly input and were very supportive. They were (needless to say) less accessible the further away from London one lived.
The OU gave us some SUPERB generic material on doing academic research (an unassessed course with accompanying textbooks) that was supplementary to what one might learn on a taught Master’s degree – the use of which was optional. It included video material on the viva from both the student and examiners’ perspective – how the thesis is read by examiners and a good, clear description of the process. A lot of students didn’t use this material because its use was optional. When I showed it to my sister-in-law (at the time a leading academic at Aberdeen University who routinely supervised PhD’s) she was enormously impressed – “We don’t do anything like this at Aberdeen”.
3. Was it necessary to meet face-to-face for any activities or events?
My recollection may be mistaken, but I think that the expectation was that the minima of meetings (three with the External and one with the Internal) should be met in face-to-face sessions. Whether this was stipulated, I don’t know because I preferred face-to-face meetings and gladly fulfilled this requirement – if such it was.
My External Supervisor was based some distance away – a good six hours drive or more.
There was (as I have already said) an optional annual day school in London which was face-to-face.
The Literature Department was also happy for us to participate in the meetings of their research groups – but as this was optional and neither of them was especially relevant to my area, this was an aspect of their provision that I never dealt with.
4. What were the strengths/weaknesses of the distance education from your experience?
Distance Learning can be a lonely experience if one is fairly gregarious – and it’s even lonelier if one is a research student. My interactions with the one other research student working in a related field was essential to motivate me and help me clarify the experience.
No University can guarantee that one will have a trouble-free relationship with one’s supervisors – and not all OU research students with the Literature Department got on well with their supervisors. I was very lucky indeed – my supervisors were outstanding – they were patient, unflustered, encouraging without being flattering, extremely experienced in the field and their differences turned out to be highly creative as each pushed me to develop in areas that the other would not normally engage with. My interactions with research students from other Universities since I completed have shown me how important it is to have third party monitoring to try and mitigate the effect of breakdowns in student-supervisor relations. I never needed the help or intervention of the third party monitor but knowing it was there was helpful.
The preparation for the viva I was given was very sound and, when I got to it, one of the key realisations about the quality of supervision became clear: it really was my own work – the process of supervision had consisted of some extremely well judged nudges rather than tuition. I was grateful for the presence of my External Supervisor in the viva – although, needless to say, he wasn’t entitled to speak unless spoken to by the examiners. The viva was an extremely positive experience. [The very positive outcome was] (amongst other things) a tribute to the quality of supervision offered by The Open University.
