What a GAS!
Action research as a peer support process for postgraduate students

Author: Dr. Kath Fisher, James Bennett-Levy und Ros Irwin

pdf version

Southern Cross University, Lismoree, N.S.W., Australia.

Keywords: Higher Education reform, research training, postgraduate research, action research, peer support, supervision.

Article style and source: Peer reviewed, original ultiBASE publication.

Contents

• Abstract
• Introduction
• Forming the group: GAS is born
• Evolving structure and process: the action research framework
• Three Key Processes: accountability, support and reflection
• Evaluation: Three Questions
• Postscript
• References

Abstract

In the current climate of higher education reform in Australia, universities are facing unprecedented pressure to produce timely completion of postgraduate research degrees. Little has been written about the impact on research students of such changes, nor the types of processes that can support students through the comparative isolation of undertaking a research degree, particularly in the humanities and social sciences. The authors describe how the experience of participating in GAS, a peer support group consciously set up within an action research framework, provided intellectual, practical and emotional support for their research, as well as offering accountability and opportunities to reflect on the process. It is argued that the benefits of such a group significantly outweigh the potential costs and that structured meetings of small peer support groups offer an important adjunct to supervision.

Introduction

Higher education in Australian universities is undergoing unprecedented change and nowhere is the change more significant than in the area of 'research training', the term now used for the education of postgraduate research students (Kemp 1999b, 1999a). The changes to funding of research degree programs foreshadowed in the Kemp papers have placed emphasis on timely completions of postgraduate research degrees. Programs must address issues of student progress, support and pacing in order to access funding to support research supervision, producing a new distinctive 'social space' of research training rather than research education (Doecke & Seddon 2002). The new funding frameworks are placing significant pressures on supervisors to be selective about whom they take on as postgraduate students as well as finding ways to ensure their students complete within specified time frames.

While much has been written on the impact of these changes on higher education in general and the way that research and research training are conducted in Australian universities in particular (Considine et al. 2001; McWilliam & Singh 2002), there is little focus in the literature on the impact on postgraduate students themselves. Postgraduate research has been a relatively isolating experience, particularly for those studying in the humanities and social sciences, while isolation from peers may not be as significant an issue for students researching in more collaborative laboratory environments. Universities have not generally provided formal support structures for postgraduate students and networking between students is more often confined to presentations at departmental seminars. Such isolation and lack of support can be one of the reasons students drop out prior to the completion of their studies (Green 1997; Kluever 1997). Up until the recent funding changes, such attrition did not financially disadvantage Australian universities and there was little incentive for supervisors to ensure their students formed strong peer networks to counter problems of isolation.

The effectiveness of peer support in promoting student learning and sense of collegiality at undergraduate level has been well documented (Anderson & Boud 1996; Boud, Cohen & Sampson 1999; Griffiths, Houston & Lazenbatt 1995; Hampton & Norman 1997; Slavin 1995). Writers of 'survival guides' for PhD students (e.g. Elphinstone & Schweitzer 1998) also recognise the advantages to be gained from the formation of such groups-they can offer personal support, increase motivation, allow involvement in a research culture, assist with time management, give opportunities to make presentations and offer exposure to a broader range of research questions and processes. As pressures on universities increase, supervisors are likely to be less accessible to students, and as a result, 'postgraduate students will need to become more self-reliant and have alternative sources of academic support. This being the case, student supervisory groups are likely to become more essential to student progress and completion' (Elphinstone & Schweitzer 1998, pp. 64-65).

The case study presented in this paper offers a model for the development of peer support groups among postgraduate research students, a model that may contribute to an environment more conducive to students being supported to complete their studies, particularly in the non-sciences. The authors were participants in a peer support group structure based on an action research model developed and documented over a period of eight months during our postgraduate candidature. The process incorporated the key elements of action research: planning, action, monitoring, evaluation and reflection. We found the structure that evolved through applying action research principles immensely beneficial, particularly in providing intellectual and emotional support, as well as offering accountability and reflection on our process.

Our experience suggests that the peer support group is a structure which supervisors and students in the humanities and social sciences might profitably consider and we would argue further that the benefits outlined in the paper make the model particularly relevant in the current pressured research training climate. We begin by introducing ourselves and the context in which our group formed. After describing the structure we adopted and the action research cycles we moved through, we examine the three key elements of our process-support, accountability and reflection-as they impacted on our postgraduate experience. We conclude by addressing three key questions to assist other students and supervisors considering embarking on a similar process. back

Forming the group: GAS is born

At the time of the formation of our postgraduate support group, we all lived in or around Lismore in Northern New South Wales, Australia. We already had existing connections and friendship through community networks, political campaigning, Southern Cross University and a previous accountability and support group for Community Independent Councillors on Lismore Council. Perhaps our key connecting force was the Heart Politics approach to social action, which emphasises small group work and interpersonal processes, reflection, social justice and environmental concern (Peavey 1986, 2000).

When the support group formed, Kath was five years into her (part-time external) PhD which investigated empowering educational strategies for demystifying economics, and was at the stage of writing a first draft of her thesis; Ros had commenced a Master's degree by research on Aboriginal employment in local government; and James had begun interviews for a PhD thesis which examined life paths of social and environmental activists.

The group originated from an initial discussion between Kath and James who were reflecting on the challenges they were facing in their study, particularly the isolation they were experiencing. They decided to form a small postgraduate support or network group and approached Ros, who saw it as an effective way of dealing with the isolation she was experiencing in the early stages of being a postgraduate research student. So GAS (Group for Accountability and Support) was born. We held regular face-to-face meetings for eight months and continued for another six months by email and phone after James left the area. This paper describes and evaluates the structure and processes developed and refined during our face-to-face meetings.

Postgraduate research and the vagaries of personal lives are rarely separable and the story that unfolds here is no exception-this period featured the challenges of new relationships for Kath and James; moving house for Kath; decisions about new work opportunities for James; health issues for Ros; decisions about the direction of postgraduate study for both James and Ros; and for Ros, unexpectedly being elected Mayor of Lismore City Council. As the story in this paper demonstrates, GAS proved invaluable in providing support for some of our significant personal as well as research challenges. back

Evolving structure and process: the action research framework

At our first meeting we each described our research and talked about the particular issues we were facing as postgraduate students. Each of us felt enthusiastic and impressed by each other's projects, much to our astonishment as we had all tended to devalue the potential interest to others of our own work. From early in the process, we recognised the opportunity and advantages that applying an action research framework to the peer support process would bring. The attractions of the action research approach to us were its participatory and collaborative nature; its grounding in practice and action; and its emphasis on self-reflection and improvement. Self-reflection in particular proved the most rewarding aspect and perhaps would not have been such a strong feature of the experience if we had not consciously adopted an action research model.

In Kurt Lewin's original conception of action research (cited in Kemmis 1983, p. 131), the key elements include analysis and conceptualisation of a problem, planning of action, carrying out the action, evaluation of the action following reflection, and then a repetition of this circle of activities, indeed a spiral of such circles.

Through spirals of these activities, action research creates conditions under which learning communities will be established; that is communities of inquirers committed to learning about (and understanding)the problems and effects of the action strategies they implement themselves, and the improvements of these strategies in practice (Kemmis 1983, p. 132).

Educational research has been a fertile ground for the application of action research (Carr & Kemmis 1986; Kemmis & McTaggart 2000; Parker 1997; Zuber-Skerritt 1992, 1994), primarily involving collaboration between teachers or between teachers and students. However, we are not aware of it being consciously used as part of a peer process for postgraduate students.

Most action research literature describes individual cycles as having the components plan, act, observe, reflect. As reflection became an ongoing part of our process through a weekly reflection discipline, and was therefore not solely a feature of the end point of the cycle after planning, acting and observing, we preferred the model as outlined by Kemmis (1983), which describes the components plan, act, monitor, evaluate and which shows reflection as a continual process throughout the cycles as illustrated in Figure 1.

Figure 1: A spiral of action research cycles

The main features of each of the three cycles which form the action research spiral are summarised in Table 1. As the table illustrates, we developed a structure which served us very well, dividing the time between 'check-ins' on our lives and how we were feeling; reflection on the content and process of our meetings; accountability time for each participant; and in-depth focus time for one participant per session. Details of these features are covered in the next section. Reviews at the end of each cycle provided further valuable opportunities for reflection on, and improvements to, our process.

The improvement in practice that developed throughout the spiral of action research cycles was undoubtedly our capacity for self and group reflection. This emerged as the key process that impacted beyond the life of our support group. This improvement in reflective capacity enhanced and deepened the effectiveness of the two key processes we were initially seeking for ourselves when GAS was established: accountability and support. back

Table 1: Details of each stage of the 3 action research cycles.

 

Cycle No.	Plan	Act	Monitor	Evaluate
eight sessions	meet weekly, share time and document the process	8 x 2hr sessions  5 min check-ins 30 min focus sessions for each person learning how to reflect	document each session email dialogues	8th session: continue meeting address dominance issues formalise meeting structure distinguish process from content increase time for in-depth focus
four sessions	4 x 2 hr weekly sessions new structure: 3x5 min check-ins 25 min reflection on emailed dialogues 2x10 min sessions on accountability 1 x 1 hr focus session shared facilitation - R&J documentation rotated - R, J & K session 4 set aside to review	followed planned structure honed reflective skills supported individual processes on-going feedback on facilitation skills	continued documentation of each session one person reported on meeting; each reflected on content and process separately	4th session: new structure worked well focus on facilitation skills very productive reflecting on written reflections in following session produced most significant learning check-in time too short R&J felt equal contributors to K documentation and reflection time- consuming
four sessions	4 x 3 hr fortnightly sessions adjust structure - longer times for check-ins, reflection and accountability maintain 1x1 hr focus facilitation - R&J rotate documentation - R, J & K	request to write book chapter incorporated into structure incorporated preparation for seminar presentation otherwise kept to plan became aware of GAS time ending and the mourning process	continued to document using established structure	4th session: fortnight between meetings too long 3 hrs better than 2 short accountability time can be frustrating worked efficiently on set tasks little attention to closure of meetings decision to continue by email and phone

Three Key Processes: accountability, support and reflection

1. Accountability

As two of the three of us had only sporadic contact with our supervisors, we felt that a major challenge in our research process was lack of regular and effective accountability. The chances of letting things slide, making other parts of our lives a higher priority, failing to stay on task, and so on, were so much greater if there appeared to be no-one to answer to. We resolved this dilemma by providing a weekly accountability structure, where we would report progress on the previous week's tasks, and plan for the following week. Accountability was also provided in more depth in the focus sessions in the second and third cycles where we grappled as a team with our individual research dilemmas and issues. Having this regular check allowed each of us to stay more 'on task' than we would have if the meetings had been less regular and less structured around an accountability focus.

The subjects of accountability sessions covered both large-scale plans, involving major life decisions, and small-scale concerns, encompassing more immediate and practical decisions. For instance, after one session in which she was faced with the stark realities of her circumstances, Kath realised that she needed to change her living situation (she described it as 'stepping out of her life') over the next year, so that she could focus more fully on her thesis. Over the next month, her plans solidified, and she moved house a further month later. Ros realised, after discussing her dilemmas, that she could not combine the scope of her research with her new role as Mayor within her original time frame, and found it necessary to reconsider both the design of her study and the time allocated to carrying out her research.

On the other hand, many accountability sessions tackled smaller scale issues (perhaps not the concerns we would take to our supervisors), e.g. helping Ros get her letters written and sent out to research participants and assisting James in getting his timetable organised. Such sessions provided accountability and validation for nuts-and-bolts tasks, which allowed us to feel that we were making progress, even if we felt we had no visible outcomes in the form of written work or completed interviews.

A key technique each of us employed to great effect during accountability sessions was 'strategic questioning', a skill introduced to us by Fran Peavey through the practice of Heart Politics (Peavey 1994, 2001). Such questioning allows for creative solutions and responses to emerge, often slowly and in their own time, from below conscious awareness. Examples include:

• what would it take for you to feel passionate about your topic?
• what is it going to take for you to focus on your thesis while your life is so full?
• what is the key question that your research addresses?

Invariably, accountability sessions reinforced the second key process that assisted our development as students-that of support. back

2. Support

Through our experience of Heart Politics in particular, we were very conscious of the essential role of individual support in maintaining the effectiveness of the work of social change activists (Green & Woodrow 1994), and had each been involved in support groups of various kinds over many years. We recognised that a key aspect of being isolated as postgraduate students was the lack of practical, emotional and intellectual support for our work. GAS provided practical support as described above through accountability sessions; intellectual support by setting aside time to think through, and dialogue about, the ideas we were grappling with in our research; and most importantly, emotional support, a very different kind of support traditionally provided by (or expected of) supervisors.

From the outset, we recognised that if issues in our personal lives were directly impacting on our research progress, then we would offer one another listening time and support around those issues. 'Check-ins' at the start of each session were the main vehicle for informing each other of the significant emotional ups and downs of our current lives. These sessions frequently gave us the opportunity to listen as well as offer practical support and suggestions for overcoming personal difficulties, an extremely valuable and affirming experience for each of us.

For instance, an incident in James's life caused him to arrive at one session in a very distressed state. In her reflections Kath wrote:

We needed to do very little other than reassure him that it was just fine to be getting it all off his chest, and to hold his hand while he unloaded the stress and worry. This is very much what I see the support group as doing-giving space to each other to express whatever needs to be expressed, especially if it's something getting in the way of the rather large task at hand. The fact that James was able to bounce right back and give good attention to both Ros and me was testament to the simplicity and power of such a simple act of support.

On another occasion, Kath and James prompted Ros, who was physically ill and worn down, to look at the implications for her workload and commitments. Ros wrote in her reflections:

The caring and concern I had from both of you and the support in terms of strategies really helped me ... it's also awful being 'sick' and feeling down-I'm reluctant to talk about that with people because it's a bit depressing and it seems to be going on for so long.

Our experience has been that affirmation and validation, as well as good listening, are important emotional support processes. Kath, who was progressing well in writing up early chapters of her thesis, was moved to reflect that her:

apparent need for more accountability time was more about wanting to show off than seriously needing assistance ... once I'm moving and producing, I don't really need anything other than encouragement and validation that I'm on track.

Another element of our very effective support process was giving 'robust' feedback. The safety we developed through listening well and demonstrating our deep respect and care for each other as whole beings allowed us to take risks with giving feedback that was not always comfortable to receive. Examples include giving Ros feedback about her 'inner critic' and defensiveness; Kath hearing about her tendency to dominate and exclude; and James being encouraged to overcome his hesitancy and 'just come out and say it!'

This giving of constructive feedback permitted a fourth type of support that was unexpected for all of us, and that was support for our individual processes. This became a regular feature of our sessions. A good example was a time when James had been discussing the fact that he felt he operated on a more 'kinaesthetic' level than Kath or Ros and therefore appeared 'slow off the mark' in making contributions to discussions. Kath asked 'what can we do to ensure that James gets his opportunity to be heard?' In response, James said he could represent himself more strongly, Kath said she could act with more spaciousness and containment, and Ros said that she needed to do that too, especially as she had an issue of 'filling up the spaces' and was fearful of 'wasting time' through silence (and then reflected: 'is silence a waste?'). James followed this with the suggestion that in a future cycle we take 5 minute breaks for silent reflection. He commented that this discussing of his process and looking at how to change the process to meet his different style was very affirming for him.

Support and accountability were the two reasons we formed GAS in the first place, as we had each felt the need to supplement our supervisory relationships with a more ongoing and regular process. However, we had not planned on the central and transformative role that reflection would come to play in our GAS experience. back

3. Reflection

From the first meeting, we made a conscious decision to reflect on our process, given that we decided that action research was to be our framework. The pivotal role of reflection is well-documented in the action research literature (Carr & Kemmis 1986; Kemmis 1985; McTaggart 1991) as well as the literature on transformative adult education (Barnett 1997; Brookfield 1987; Mezirow 1990, 1992). The decision to document our meetings and to incorporate reflections into these documentations was crucial in assisting the deepening process of reflection.

Each of us had different notions of what reflection was and this emerged early in our first cycle. Ros wrote a report of the first meeting, and her reflections noted:

Today was an inspiring and supportive experience. We were all excited by each other's research projects, particularly in the immediate relevance and depth of issues being covered. It felt like a privilege being able to share what we are each involved in.

The appreciation that each of us experienced self doubt, frustration and self-criticism from time to time reduced our sense of independence or isolation and led to the realisation that these feelings might be integral to doing postgraduate research. Being part of this group and meeting on a weekly basis is a useful strategy to limit the duration of these feelings.

Kath wrote the reflections for the second meeting, and as well as reporting, she included some reflections on how she saw herself operating in the group:

I enjoyed this process of working on Ros's article very much. I noticed myself getting excited and inspired, and the ideas just seemed to flow out of me ... I believe Ros's research is exceptionally important and I feel very committed to her and her process. Working with her in this way feels very pleasurable and it also helps me overcome my sense of isolation as a writer myself. Being in this sort of interaction seems to unlock the creative spirit within me ...

[In response to assisting James with a group he was about to run] I suggested we 'brainstorm' and then proceeded to give my ideas on what he should do! This didn't leave much room for Ros, and I became aware that I was beginning to dominate everything. There's a dilemma here for me. I get excited and interested, get ideas and want to say them all at once. I also want to hear from others, because I know I can learn from their experience. I'm afraid my pushiness can be a deterrent to others offering what they think. In this case, Ros felt she had nothing to add after my rave, and I realised I had dominated.

This reflective attitude modelled a more personal and self-revealing way of reflecting, which came to be the hallmark of the GAS experience. This particular reflection opened up possibilities for further self-disclosure and in the third week we discussed the issue of how to deal with dominance and reticence in the group. James commented:

I could do with a course in jumping in there and taking a leadership role! My natural reticence gets in the way until I feel very confident in a situation-at which stage I thrive.

And Ros revealed:

At the last meeting, although I still felt excited about the group and gained so much support and assistance from it, I had been feeling quite inadequate and very unsure about what I could contribute with two people who are so good with ideas and processes. I was really relieved to read Kath's reflection because it gave me 'permission' to be more open about expressing my feelings, which I generally put through a sieve of whether or not it might hurt the other person. I also thought that GAS will have implications far beyond just the group-it will help me address broader issues about me that I avoid. I also empathise strongly with Kath's 'leadership' temptations because I have a tendency to want to jump in and organise.

From these encouraging beginnings, we were able to make our own processes much more conscious and this assisted the group to become a place for safe and robust feedback, as mentioned above, allowing for some tremendous personal insights, which we came affectionately to call 'eureka experiences'.

The reflections above were the impetus for changing our structure to take account of the perceived dominance of Kath, and relative hesitancy of Ros and James in the first cycle. In the second and third cycles, the group was facilitated by either Ros or James (not Kath). This adjustment worked well, and Ros and James now felt themselves to be equal contributors in the group. As one observer commented when we were describing this process at a seminar, it enabled us to deal consciously with one of the 'power issues' in our group from the very beginning.

Making the conscious decision to reflect and document those reflections meant that we found ourselves reflecting on the process of reflection in our first review session at the end of the first cycle. We tackled two questions: what do we mean by 'reflection'? and what is the difference between reflection and mere reporting? Some of the thoughts that emerged during one of these discussions (in our eighth week of meeting) included: reflection is emotionally based (feeling first, rising to cognition); it is retrospective, i.e. thinking back over what we've said and think about what came out that was useful, or what was I sitting on, or what have I got to learn here, etc.; and a need to distinguish between reflecting on process and reflecting on content. We also found that we had different experiences of reflection. For Kath, it seemed to happen as she wrote and as she engaged with her memories of what had occurred, and involved critical self-reflection on her own role. James commented that, for him:

the reflective mind requires a certain level of stillness to allow depths ... to be plumbed. In turn the process of reflection actually stills the mind further.

We recognised that being engaged in this conscious process was very useful, as it validated and enriched what is usually invisible. In any research process, it is the reflection that is usually missing in the process of reporting. In discussing this notion of reflecting versus reporting, we looked at the fact that we are much better trained to report than reflect, and that we need more practice in consciously reflecting. We decided to note or comment when we thought someone was simply reporting rather than reflecting. Our reflections, which we emailed to each other, moved from a 'dialogue' approach, which allowed for inclusions of comments throughout the 'narrative' of the meeting, to separate comments at the end of the meeting report from each of us, distinguishing reflections on content from reflections on process.

It was during our reflection time, which we structured into our meetings and which mainly involved reflecting on our personal interactions and patterns, that the deepest personal insights emerged. An example was a key insight for Ros about listening. Ros believed she was not a good listener and needed to practise a lot, and saw Kath and James as much better listeners who seemed to be able to do it effortlessly. When Kath said that for her listening was always a conscious effort and not automatic, especially when the atmosphere was emotionally charged, Ros found this information immensely comforting. She realised she had made an assumption that she was the only one who seemed to have difficulty, and hearing that others needed to decide consciously to listen was extremely enlightening. She noted in her reflections:

The Eureka experience was profound for me and since then I have somehow found it far easier to concentrate on listening-perhaps because when I find my attention straying it's just a gentle reminder to myself to refocus rather than self-criticism ...

James had a very valuable insight after feeling he had not done an adequate facilitation job and was having difficulty believing Kath and Ros, who were reminding him of his natural skill. Kath emphasised that she thought he was a natural facilitator due to his perceptiveness, sensitivity and understanding of dynamics and 'atmospheric conditions' and Ros said that above all he demonstrated respect and care for others. James said he felt that Kath and Ros were being helpful, as counsellors would who were wanting to encourage their self-doubting clients, but Kath said strongly that she would not say these things if she didn't mean them and that support meant giving each other feedback with integrity and honesty. This really challenged James's unconscious attribution that Kath and Ros were 'just being nice.' For almost the first time, he was forced to take seriously that Kath and Ros thought that he really was a natural facilitator and could do the job well.

Another extremely positive outcome of this conscious reflection that we engaged in each week was its transference to individual research processes. For instance, Kath, who was in the write-up stage of her PhD, went through a process of reflecting on the assumptions that she had taken into her action research in the classroom. She identified nine key assumptions and, in discussion with James and Ros, made a decision to use them to focus her literature review. This in turn led to a deeper reflective process, which had a significant effect on the structure and theoretical orientation of the thesis, giving it a much more effective and powerful dimension. She has no doubt that GAS and its reflective emphasis significantly contributed to the way her thesis took shape.

To summarise, reflection was central to the power and success of this support and accountability process. It would not have been as effective without a safe and respectful environment that was nurtured and built upon through our engagement with our 'whole selves'. It produced valuable personal insights as well as a powerful and constructive effect on the research and writing dilemmas we were grappling with. back

Evaluation: Three Questions

As a way of concluding and evaluating this particular experience, we will now address three questions which may need to be considered by students and/or supervisors contemplating adopting a similar process in the hope of enhancing the productivity and effectiveness of the postgraduate research experience. These questions concern elements of success of such a group; its dangers and pitfalls; and the relationship to supervision.

1. What are the essential elements of success for such a group?

We speculate that the success of GAS was dependent on a number of factors.

(a) Basis in friendship and shared values.

Through our previous connections we shared similar values, and had mutual respect and liking for each other. We shared a passion for social justice combined with a belief in social and political action, reflected in our choice of research topics. We shared an understanding and commitment to interpersonal and group processes, especially good listening, validation and empathy and a respect for well structured dialogue and debate. And, perhaps most important of all, we shared a belief in the importance of self-reflection in the process of personal and professional development.

(b) Openness to feedback

Each of us was prepared to be open with each other and to give and receive constructive feedback. These processes were, we believe, essential to the rich reflections and the development of deep personal insights that characterised the GAS process. The cyclic action research process ensured that feedback was incorporated into our reviews and discussions.

(c) Commitment of time

We were willing to commit the time required to enable us to prepare, meet, document and reflect, and this commitment was substantial. Although we experimented with the length, and with the distribution of time in GAS meetings, it never felt onerous-indeed GAS meetings became the one commitment we were not prepared to question, as demonstrated by our decision to continue after the final cycle.

(d) Documentation

The decision to document was a key decision as the process of formalised reflection that we adopted would not have been as rich, or even possible, without a written record to refer to. In fact, the process of writing and responding to others' reflections assisted the reflective process itself, and created a particular sort of discipline that facilitated the quality and depth of our thoughts.

(e) Process structure

The structure of the process was most important as it enabled us to be focussed on our tasks and to provide personal support to each other. The elements of the structure we would consider essential would be:

• check-ins: the personal story of our lives needs to be heard, to maintain trust and connection;
• structured time for reflection: making this conscious is essential to ensure reflection is sustained as a priority;
• focused time for one person per session: the importance of receiving quality attention for one's work for an extended period of time cannot be overestimated; and
• regular review: without a continual process of review and planning, the process could become stale and lose its power and freshness.

We should note here that an aspect of structure that we handled poorly was closure of the meetings. We had a tendency to rush the end and often failed to provide a summary or final check-in on the process we had just completed. Our recommendation would be to allow a minimum of five minutes at the end of each session to provide at least a summary of agreed tasks and goals and reflection on the meeting's process to ensure a sense of completion.

(f) Number in group

We think that three or four is probably the best number of people for a GAS-like group. Elphinstone and Schweitzer (1998) suggest six to eight. We do not think this is optimal. The more people in the group, the more is lost: not enough focus time for one's own research; less chance of emotional support; and little or no opportunity for reflection. Less than three is a possibility. James and Kath have both experimented using a similar process with just one other individual, which has proved to be useful and effective. This should be encouraged if a third participant is not readily available. However, the advantage of three is that it allows for feedback from more than one source, different perspectives, and the synergy that a group process allows. With four participants, while there is generally less time for each person (or a greater overall time commitment is required), the possibility of a productive meeting if one is absent is much greater.

(g) Congruent research paradigms

We were each involved in social research within a qualitative research paradigm. This allowed us not only to be enthusiastic about each other's work, but also to offer practical assistance and share theoretical and methodological understandings. It is difficult to say how essential this element is for success, because it is certainly possible that support and accountability could be provided despite unfamiliarity with the research area (proven to be the case in other support groups held since GAS). back

2. What are the costs, dangers and potential pitfalls of a GAS group?

Our particular experience, as this report reveals, was a very positive and constructive one. However, this is not to say that there were not costs and limitations to the process, or that there are not dangers and pitfalls for others considering embarking on a similar process.

(a) Time commitment

The most obvious 'cost' that needs to be identified is time. For us, the time commitment was considerable. We not only put aside a half day per week or fortnight to meet, but we also spent considerable time in writing up our reflections, which could take anything from one hour to several hours. Travelling to meet at each other's houses, which were widely separated geographically, was also time-consuming. Willingness to commit to such time, however, seems to be essential for full benefit to be derived from the process.

In the third cycle, because circumstances had changed, we decided to meet less frequently for a longer period of time. On reflection, we lost momentum by meeting fortnightly and noticed the lessening of the effectiveness of accountability.

(b) The risk of personal exposure

A cost or limitation which we did not directly experience, but which could prove a challenge for others attempting this process, is the potential harm that can be caused by giving and receiving feedback on individual processes. Without adequate awareness and sensitivity, it is possible to violate trust inadvertently and leave a person feeling exposed and humiliated through giving well-meaning, but inappropriate, feedback. As most supervisors will be aware, giving constructive feedback is an essential skill if the student is to develop and learn through the process of undertaking his or her research.

This last point illustrates a potential danger, that of failing to establish an atmosphere of trust and safety, an essential condition for deriving full benefit from constructive feedback. We consider that to establish such trust, there needs to be a willingness to get to know each other personally, a willingness to listen and be empathetic, and an ability to communicate respect. These are all basic interpersonal skills that help any group function well (Tyson 1998), but in this situation, when there is a great deal of vulnerability about sharing our intellectual fears and doubts, and ultimately putting up our work to be examined and judged, such skills are vital.

(c) Risk of challenging relationships of power

Our group would not have been as successful if we didn't take risks with each other. Challenging the dynamics of power through consciously structuring our sessions to minimise Kath's dominance was potentially risky, but worked well because she was willing to relinquish her familiar facilitative role and James and Ros were willing to risk learning from challenging their feelings of timidity and inadequacy. This strategy is not always destined to succeed, however, and directly addressing power relationships, particularly those embedded in relations of class, gender, age, disability and race and unconsciously acted out and reproduced, can have unpredictable and damaging results. Our warning would be: handle with care!

(d) No substitute for supervision

Another danger we can see is GAS becoming a substitute for supervision. This could be a temptation in cases where supervision appears inadequate for any number of reasons, e.g. the supervisor is too busy, or is not fully in tune with the student's process, or is not familiar with the area of research. The danger is that the peers' unfamiliarity and inexperience in relation to what is required for examination, or their inexperience in research methods or their lack of understanding of the research topic could lead to the student being led astray, going off on irrelevant tangents and wasting a lot of time. As our own experience testifies, there is no substitute for good supervision. back

3. To what extent can a GAS-like structure be a useful adjunct to formal supervision?

We have identified three key processes in GAS: accountability, support and reflection. How do these relate to the kind of supervision typically provided in a postgraduate research context?

(a) Accountability

Accountability is, of course, a key aspect of good supervision (Delamont, Atkinson & Parry 1998; Fraser & Mathews 1999). In the student/supervisor relationship, accountability particularly addresses the substantive content of the thesis: e.g. is the theoretical basis sound? have the thesis questions been adequately formulated and tested? is the research methodology congruent with the aims of the research? Supervision is also essential for preparing the student for the examination process. GAS did not, and could not, provide this kind of specialist theoretical and subject-specific feedback. Good supervisors also have to ensure that students are making adequate progress within the given time frame, and need to suggest ways to keep on track. Usually this has a medium term perspective, perhaps with checks every 1 or 2 months once the thesis is under way.

Accountability in GAS had a different flavour. It provided week-by-week accountability for ensuring that often mundane tasks got done, and for brainstorming strategies to proceed on to the next phase or task. These are not necessarily the kind of issues which students bring to valuable supervision time, but for which it is extremely useful and gratifying to get good attention and some validation and support on the often lonely postgraduate research road.

(b) Support

In GAS we explicitly set out to provide each other with emotional support, both in the context of personal issues which might have been hampering our research progress, and in giving each other robust feedback to enable us to address often unconscious negative beliefs which might have been hindering our progress. This kind of support was very different to that usually provided by supervisors, with whom students are often reluctant to engage at an emotional level, unless they are in particular crisis. Ultimately, of course, the type and quality of support offered by the supervisor depends very much on the particular relationship and personalities involved. Kath's supervisor, for instance, took a holistic view of the relationship between supervisor and student, combining intellectual rigour with personal insight and compassion. In general, we would argue that receiving this more personal and immediate level of support from peers frees up valuable supervision time to be more focused on theoretical and discipline-specific issues.

(c) Reflection

The process of reflection as practised within our support group is generally absent from the supervisor/student relationship, where meetings are more likely characterised by discussion of theory, studies, updates and plans. The power of the reflective process was the unique and unexpected delight of GAS. It was the place in the group where we experienced our most profound learning. Particularly for those research students involved in qualitative research, the process of reflection in a GAS-like group may provide an important, deepening experiential insight into the practice of action research. In fact, we would suggest that forming such a group would be essential for any students undertaking action research.

In summary, we see an accountability and support group as being highly complementary to the traditional supervision relationship. It provides for needs (emotional support and accountability on a regular basis) which are not usually met in the supervision relationship, and in addition may provide rich experiential learning through the process of reflection. We would thoroughly recommend it to both supervisors and students. back

Postscript

Since the cessation of GAS, Kath was awarded her PhD, titled A Wealth of Notions: Reflective Engagement in the Emancipatory Teaching and Learning of Economics. She has developed a professional and theoretical interest in the process of teaching critical reflection, one of the outcomes of insights developed through the GAS experience. Ros took a period of leave to complete her term as Mayor, subsequently changed her topic to the role of women leaders in local government and converted her Masters to a PhD. James changed his thesis completely and has since been awarded his PhD, which analysed the impact of personal experiential work and self-reflection on the training of cognitive therapists. In fact, James' experience in GAS had a direct influence on his thesis as he developed a professional interest in the role of reflection in psychotherapy training. James is now working in Oxford as a clinician and academic in cognitive therapy and is developing a strong publication record based on his research (e.g. see Bennett-Levy 2003).

In the later stages of their doctorates, Kath and James became part of another accountability group, 'Collaborators', a group of five students and writers who met less frequently for full day sessions. Collaborators saw both James and Kath, as well as a third member, through to completion of their doctoral studies. back

References

Anderson, G. & Boud, D. (1996) 'Extending the Role of Peer Learning in University Courses'. Research and Development in Higher Education, 19 (1), 15-19.

Barnett, R. (1997) Higher Education: A Critical Business. Buckingham: The Society for Research into Higher Education & Open University Press.

Bennett-Levy, J. (2003) 'Reflection: A Blind Spot in Psychology?' Clinical Psychology, July, 16-19.

Boud, D., Cohen, R. & Sampson, J. (1999) 'Peer Learning and Assessment'. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 24 (4), 413-425.

Brookfield, S. (1987) Developing Critical Thinkers: Challenging Adults to Explore Alternative Ways of Thinking and Acting. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.

Carr, W. & Kemmis, S. (1986) Becoming Critical: Education, Knowledge and Action Research. Melbourne: Deakin University.

Considine, M. S., Marginson, S., Sheehan, P. & Kummick, M. (2001) The Comparative Performance of Australia as a Knowledge Nation. Report to the Chifley Research Centre. Melbourne: Monash Centre for Research in International Education.

Delamont, S., Atkinson, P. & Parry, O. (1998) Supervising the Phd: A Guide to Success. London: Allen & Unwin.

Doecke, B. & Seddon, T. (2002) 'Research Education: Whose Space for Learning?' Australian Educational Researcher, 29 (3), 85-99.

Elphinstone, L. & Schweitzer, R. (1998) How to Get a Research Degree: A Survival Guide. Sydney: Allen and Unwin.

Fraser, R. & Mathews, A. (1999) 'An Evaluation of the Desirable Characteristics of a Supervisor'. Australian Universities Review, 42 (1), 5-7.

Green, K. E. (1997) 'Psychosocial Factors Affecting Dissertation Completion'. In LF Goodchild, KE Green, EL Katz & RC Kluever (eds), Rethinking the Dissertation Process: Tackling Personal and Institutional Obstacles. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 57-64.

Green, T. & Woodrow, P. (1994) Insight and Action: How to Discover and Support a Life of Integrity and Commitment to Change. Philadelphia: New Society Publishers.

Griffiths, S., Houston, K. & Lazenbatt, A. (1995) Enhancing Student Learning through Peer Tutoring in Higher Education. Coleraine: Educational Development Unit, University of Ulster.

Hampton, M. R. & Norman, C. (1997) 'Community-Building in a Peer Support Center'. Journal of College Student Development, 38 (4), 357-364.

Kemmis, S. (1983) 'Action Research'. In DS Anderson & C Blakers (eds), Youth, Transition and Social Research. Canberra: Australian National University.

Kemmis, S. (1985) 'Action Research and the Politics of Reflection'. In D Boud, R Keogh & D Walker (eds), Reflection: Turning Experience into Learning. London: Kogan Page.

Kemmis, S. & McTaggart, R. (2000) 'Participatory Action Research'. In NK Denzin & YS Lincoln (eds), Handbook of Qualitative Research. 2nd edn, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Kemp, D. A. (1999a) New Knowledge, New Opportunities: A Discussion Paper on Higher Education Research and Training. Canberra: AGPS.

Kemp, D. A. (1999b) Knowledge and Innovation: A Policy Statement on Research and Research Training. Canberra: AGPS.

Kluever, R. C. (1997) 'Dissertation Completers and Non-Completers: An Analysis of Psycho-Social Variables'. Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, 24-28 March.

McTaggart, R. (1991) Action Research: A Short Modern History. Geelong: Deakin University.

McWilliam, E. & Singh, P. (2002) 'Towards a Research Training Curriculum: What, Why, How, Who?' Australian Educational Researcher, 29 (3), 3-18.

Mezirow, J. (1992) Transformative Dimensions of Adult Learning. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Mezirow, J. (ed.) (1990) Fostering Critical Reflection in Adulthood: A Guide to Transformative and Emancipatory Learning. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Parker, S. (1997) Reflective Teaching in the Postmodern World: A Manifesto for Education in Postmodernity. Philadelphia: Open University Press.

Peavey, F. (1986) Heart Politics. Philadelphia: New Society Publishers.

Peavey, F. (1994) 'Strategic Questioning'. In T Green & P Woodrow (eds), Insight and Action: How to Discover and Support a Life of Integrity and Commitment to Change. Philadelphia: New Society Publishers.

Peavey, F. (2000) Heart Politics Revisited. Sydney: Pluto Press.

Peavey, F. (2001) Strategic Questioning. San Francisco: Crabgrass.

Slavin, R. E. (1995) Cooperative Learning. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Tyson, T. (1998) Working with Groups. Melbourne: Macmillan Education.

Zuber-Skerritt, O. (1992) Action Research in Higher Education. London: Kogan Page.

Zuber-Skerritt, O. (1994) Professional Development in Higher Education: A Theoretical Framework for Action Research. London: Kogan Page. back

About the authors

Kath Fisher: kfisher@scu.edu.au
James Bennett-Levy: Jamesbennettlevy@aol.com
Ros Irwin: rirwin@scu.edu.au