So far, I have discussed the thesis process, its demands and the various problems and challenges that students may encounter with it. The latter part of this framework briefly discusses the various support mechanisms that students have available to them.
Various studies on multilingual scholars have displayed that in addition to having courage, patience, and persistence, writing academic publications in a foreign language requires using constructive criticism to make constant revision and rewriting, and collaboration with
experienced researchers can help tremendously with publication success (Uzuner, 2008: 259).
Studies on graduate students have found that novice scholars need sufficient guidance, modelling and mentoring to be able to socialize into disciplinary research communities, and that mentoring relationships should be constructive and dialogic (Uzuner, 2008: 260). In terms of Master’s thesis writing, the most experienced researcher available for help is the supervisor, but nothing prevents a student from asking for help from other lecturers or members of the research community.
There are various ways in which the university supports a student’s thesis writing process.
Students receive personal supervision, seminar group guidance, and study counselling during their thesis process (Annala, Korhonen and Penttinen 2012: 313–336). In addition to this, students may use peer support, and various kinds of support from outside the university. Here is a short excerpt from the University of Jyväskylä’s (2019) thesis advice:
“Guidance for the thesis process is provided in Master’s seminars, in which the research topic and plan are accepted. Individual guidance is also provided during and after the seminars.
Additional fine-tuning seminars may be arranged at the final stage of the process. Peer support is also important during the thesis process. You are thus recommended to find other thesis writers and, for instance, establish a thesis circle where you can discuss the various phases of thesis writing and share experiences.” (University of Jyväskylä, 2019)
2.3.1 Thesis supervision
Supervision is arguably one of the most important assistive factors affecting thesis writing, and thus has received a considerable amount of discussion among literature in the field (Chang, 2006; Alas, 2018; Jonsson, 2012; Wang and Li, 2011; Khozaei, 2019; Määttä, 2011). While there was no research available that discussed Master’s thesis group seminars at the time of writing, information on thesis supervision was of abundance, particularly on Dissertation supervision. As discussed before, some of the information on Dissertation supervision is likely to also apply to Master’s thesis supervision, but there are likely also some differences between the two styles of supervision. Students’ views on Master’s thesis supervision have only been studied to some extent, for example by Filippou et al. (2017: 334-352), in international master’s degree programmes in Finnish universities. By investigating four Finnish universities via surveys, Filippou et al. (2017: 334-352) found that students in international programs had
problems communicating and defining the responsibilities between student and their supervisor.
Although there has been some interest in developing practices of supervising and guidance within Finnish universities (Erikson and Mikkonen 2003; Nummenmaa, Korhonen and Eerola 2005; Välimaa 2001: 55-72), information regarding NNES thesis writing in Finland remains scarce.
Supervisory relationships and their issues are a wide topic that could easily fill the entirety of this paper. The challenges of supervision and the difficult nature of student-supervisor relationships have been studied rigorously (see for example Eley and Murray 2009; Butler et al. 2014: 203-227; Paltridge and Woodrow 2012: 88-104; Filippou et al. 2017: 334-352).
Ashwin et al. (2015) have stressed in their work that close cooperation and relationships between students and supervisors are essential. Wichmann-Hansen and Wirenfeldt-Jensen (2015: 330), on the other hand discovered that the cooperation might be challenged by differences in the perception of each other’s role in the process, how the work should progress, how much independence should be displayed by the student and what the academic level of the graduation thesis should be. The general findings of Alas (2018: 5-21) were that while supervisors’ tailored support was crucial for the students’ sense of progress and overall development, students and supervisors often had different expectations for the supervisory relationship and focused on different areas in the process. Bitchener and Basturkmen (2006: 4-18) also found that students and supervisors had different understandings of the major difficulties and the root causes of those difficulties.
All this seems to indicate that while supervision is a crucial part of the thesis process, it is often riddled with problems within the relationship between the student and their supervisor. Wang and Li (2008: 88-96), also propose that some of the challenges may emanate from pedagogical shortfalls or lack of intercultural sensitivity in the supervision of students. Chang (2006: 2) agrees in highlighting the need for better academic support and intercultural sensitivity, while also concluding that supervision should be characterized by mutual respect and genuine communication to promote effective learning.
The kind of feedback and advice in thesis supervision has also received much discussion.
Jonsson (2012: 63-76) has argued that for feedback to be productive, it needs to be useful, i.e.
something that can be incorporated in students’ upcoming work in the foreseeable future. Wang and Li (2011: 101–112) have divided thesis students into two broader categories: those
displaying a “reactive attitude who demand explicit and directive feedback” and those with a
“proactive attitude who seek guidance and inspiration”. The category that the student falls into is determined by how advanced he or she is in terms of research experience (Wang and Li 2011:
101-112). Dekleijn et al. (2013: 1012-1026) have highlighted the complex nature of feedback in thesis writing, since the goals of a master’s thesis are often complex and differ from course work also in the dialogue-driven cyclical relationship of the student and supervisor discussing the student’s work continuously. They identified that students perceive goal-relatedness of feedback in terms goal setting, how well they are doing, as well as how to proceed to next steps.
Students who perceived their feedback as positive and providing information on what they should do next were most satisfied with their supervision (Dekleijn et al. 2013: 1012-1026).
To give a further idea of how multifaceted the issue of supervision is, I have included here a direct quote from Alas (2018: 5-21), who had studied supervisors and students in Estonia:
”While guiding thesis writing, however, supervisors report on numerous problems that the students seem to encounter during the process and display in the writing produced in spite of the completed writing courses (e.g. finding a research focus, choosing proper sources, etc.). The reasons are probably diverse: lack of respective experience in their mother tongue, the volume of new information to be processed, lack of longitudinal feedforward (Jonsson 2012: 63–76), inability to transfer the skills acquired in the academic writing class to thesis writing and seeing the writing class content as a thing in itself rather than something that could inform thesis writing.
Also, the area of research chosen by the student sets its own standards for the writing.” (Alas, 2018: 5-21)
Observing the citation above, one can begin to see that the issues involved in thesis writing and its guidance are vast, and probably also highly personal. It is likely difficult to pinpoint the exact origins of the students’ problems, but these types of studies give indications as to what to look for. The supervisory relationship and the type of guidance and feedback required by each individual student seem to be central aspects in what constitutes a successful thesis process, and thus deserve attention within the present study.
2.3.2 Peer support
While support and feedback from supervisors is the most important support mechanism for most, studies in peer support have also yielded positive results. Chang’s (2006: 3) student
interviews in New Zealand also showed that students relied significantly on self-study and assistance from supervisors and peers. Data from her interviews “indicated that emotional support from supervisors and their social networks with peers play important role in facilitating their thesis writing process”. Kaakinen, Suhonen and Kaasila, (2017: 27) found in interviewing Master’s thesis students in Finland that peer support in the context of group supervision was a well-working method for Master’s thesis supervision, as it “supported students in completing their Master’s theses within the given time and helped them to reflect upon emotions during the process.”. Mental support seemed to be the most important type of peer support.
Based on a limited number of studies available, peer support seems to have a positive impact on thesis writing, especially related to emotional support. But what about friends and family?
Many students mention them in the acknowledgement sections of their theses and highlight their importance in supporting their work throughout the process. Thesis stories written by PhD or Master’s students and collected by Waring and Kearins (2011) occasionally mention that family and friends were important in handling the pressure of working with the thesis. It seems that the impact of friends and family in thesis writing may be important, perhaps depending on the individual, and so the area warrants more research.