Circle Principles

From MicroJustice

[edit] Introduction

On September 2004, Organization Studies installed so-called ‘thesis circles’ for the purpose of thesis supervision. Supervising students doing internships and writing their thesis in higher education is typically a matter of personal interaction between supervisor and student. This leads, especially in higher education organizations with many graduating students, to a considerable additional burden for staff members.

This manual presents some practical guidance to enhance the efficiency of supervision by way of the thesis circle. A thesis circle consists of one or more supervisors and a number of students who share the responsibility for the supervision process of the student members. As such, a thesis circle is a permanent facility for thesis supervision. In the following, the principles and objectives of thesis circles are described. It is important to understand that this educational instrument is explicitly aimed at supervision and not at thesis writing itself (Romme and Nijhuis 2000/2002: 2). Thesis circles serve as a ‘sounding-board’ and are initiated for both Bachelor and Master’s thesis students.

[edit] Purpose thesis circles

Thesis circles provide students with the additional benefit of sharing process experiences and knowledge with their peers. Moreover, the circles support supervisors in their supervising task by sharing feedback responsibility. In contrast to traditional tutor-student relationships, circles provide opportunities for additional insights and inspiration.

[edit] Vision of OS and its circles

Inspired by the need for self-actualization and academic freedom, the department of Organization Studies intends to provide students with analytic skills. To ensure the quality of theses, OS uses the Dublin Descriptors: (1) knowledge and understanding, (2) applying knowledge and understanding, (3) making judgments, (4) communication, and (5) learning skills. (See also Appendix 1.) In line with these Dublin Descriptors, the responsibility, independence and creativity of students is to be stimulated. Concomitantly, students have to know how they are doing, and what they can do with this knowledge. Moreover, they have to develop a critical ‘eye’ and acquire skills to evaluate themselves.

The Master's thesis is a serious demonstration of a student's ability to explore, develop, and organize materials relating to a certain research area or problem in the field of Organisation Studies. The goal of the master's thesis is not only to pursue research and investigation, but also to write an extended scholarly statement clearly, effectively and directly. The Master’s thesis should contribute to increasing the following skills of the student: knowledge and understanding, applying this knowledge and understanding, making judgements, communication and learning skills. The process of producing the Master’s thesis will be based on the general educational principles of the Department of Organization Studies: the provision of a context in which both students and teachers can on a permanent basis assess how they are doing. The final assessment and quality of the end product should not become as a surprise neither to the student or the teacher. Both the Master Seminar and the Master Thesis Circle are important instruments to help achieve the above objectives.

[edit] Link between circles and research groups

To maximize the synergetic benefits of thesis circles, they are constructed around research areas. These research areas ensure relevant background knowledge of circle participants or peer students. Moreover, these research areas are related to the department’s research program, which avoids reinventing the wheel and provides students with fundamental knowledge in their field of research. In addition, research area-centered circles provide additional opportunities for students, such as participating in current studies or publishing their results.

[edit] Course format of thesis

Writing a thesis equals following a course, either in the Bachelor or in the Master’s program. This means that participating in the thesis circles and having one’s Master’s thesis graded results in 24 ECTS credits.

[edit] Link with Ba course POO

Admission to thesis circles is restricted. Master’s students have to have passed POO in order to take part in the Master’s thesis circles.

[edit] Coordinators and supervisors

The thesis circles are guided by two staff members, the first acting as supervisor, and the second as his/her back-up in case of absence. The coordinator for 2004/2005 is Dr. Patrick Vermeulen.

[edit] Design of thesis circles

[edit] What is a thesis circle?

A thesis circle consists of 8-10 participants. Two mentors - a supervisor and his back-up - monitor processes and progress in the background. Students organize the thesis circle meetings for the purpose of receiving feedback on their thesis under construction. Together these circle members bear the responsibility to evaluate each other’s working documents. Decision-making occurs by consent.

[edit] Number of participants

The Master’s thesis circles include a maximum of eight student participants. This means students have to enroll on a first-come first-serve basis.

[edit] Start-end point and meeting frequency

The thesis circles start in November. By then, Master’s students are participating in the Master’s seminar in Organization Studies. Defense and grading occurs in the last thesis circle sessions in June.

Circle meetings take place once every two weeks and take 90 minutes each. If required, students can arrange more meetings and meeting for specific purposes. It is also possible to have different kinds of meetings. For instance, once a month the work of the students is discussed in a longer session (120 minutes), while the other meeting is shorter (60-90 minutes) and deals with general issues in the thesis process, problems and questions.

[edit] Meeting structure

Before a circle meeting, every participant receives an agenda, composed by the chairperson. Each member is allowed to add agenda points during a meeting.

Opening. The meeting is structured by an opening, which facilitates transition from the ‘outside world’ to the ‘inside atmosphere’ of the meeting.
Organization part. Subsequently, domestic business is discussed, e.g., personal events worth noting, meeting minutes, document deadlines and the next meeting, and new agenda points.
Content part. The meeting continues with a discussion of every document handed in. A student can ask for specific feedback, because of questions (s)he is struggling with, or (s)he can let the other participants decide what they would like to address. The other participants make comments and, if necessary, they can ask for some clarification. After having discussed all documents, students announce what they plan to hand in for the next meeting.
Evaluation. The meeting ends with an informal evaluation. In this closing round, participants can express their feelings with regard to the meeting atmosphere, the comments received, et cetera.

[edit] Principles

For circle participants to have similar expectations, some guiding principles have been explicated.

Because thesis writing is considered a course, students are expected to attend all circle meetings.
By means of active participation and assignment to (circulating) roles of chair and scribe or secretary, collaborative learning is facilitated (Romme and Nijhuis 2000/2002).
Commitment among circle participants is generated by open assessment of each other’s theses during circle meetings. The quality of feedback from peers is based on psychological contracts, agreed upon by the circle as a whole. By reading and evaluating other participants’ documents carefully, one can expect valuable feedback in return. Thus, circle participants are inclined to feel mutual responsibility.
Bearing their own responsibility, students are free to either accept or ignore the comments of their peers.

[edit] Rules

In order to facilitate the efficiency of thesis circle meetings some rules have to be agreed upon.

Decision-making on policy issues of the thesis circle is based on the rule of informed consent, or no argued objection. That is to say that a decision is taken if none of the participants has an argued objection. As a result, supervisors and students are equal to each other as participants in decision-making, which is necessary to substantiate the key principle of shared responsibility. The no-objection rule is used, for instance, when choosing a chairman and scribe, delegating certain powers to members of the thesis circle, or assessing the final version of a thesis (Romme and Nijhuis 2000/2002: 11).
Feedback is given in a constructive and motivated way. This means circle participants comment by providing suggestions rather than giving commands. Moreover, a positive remark can be started with to avoid attack-and-defense dialogues. By using this tone of voice, an atmosphere of mutual respect and safety is intended.
Students receiving comments and questions can answer after all participants have contributed. This is to avoid distracting and repeated dialogues.

[edit] Roles and tasks

An elected chairperson structures the meeting and readjusts individual contributions by monitoring relevance of remarks, speech time and expressed feelings.
An elected scribe or secretary provides meeting minutes, in which every member can read remarks and decisions made during the respective meeting.
The circle participants in general (including chair and scribe) provide feedback on documents.

[edit] Process

This section includes information about the process of writing a thesis when participating in a thesis circle. Essential questions on, for instance, admission and internal workings are addressed in the following.

[edit] Finding a research area

A list of research fields or research areas is presented in a fact sheet on Blackboard Course Info. The Master’s Seminar in Organization Studies informs students in the beginning of September on what and who is available in terms of content. Students have to register themselves for the thesis circle that centers on the research area they prefer.

[edit] Admission and enrollment

Master’s students have to show their credits for POO.
Furthermore, they have to register for the research area having their interest.

[edit] Internal workings thesis circle

According to a philosophy of collaborative learning, students arrange thesis meetings. This means that one student is elected as chairperson and another as scribe. Both roles are circulated after approx. 5 meetings.
Every participant can bring in additional agenda points, e.g. presenting or discussing articles in a meeting.
Decisions are made by consent, which means that no one has an argued objection.
Participants bear the responsibility to provide other participants with valuable feedback. This establishes a psychological contract, which guarantees the quality of feedback.
Feedback is based on argumentation, which diminishes personal or emotional conflicts. Participants are also advised to start or end with positive feedback.
In the first meeting, organizational practices/domestic business is discussed.

[edit] Meeting purpose

In thesis meetings, students discuss each other’s thesis chapters. For this reason, documents have to be handed in one week before the next meeting. Deadlines have to be agreed upon.

[edit] Timeframe

Considering thesis writing as a course means that starting-point and end of the thesis circles have been defined. As a result of this, students leave the circles after 26 weeks, when they have finished the writing of their thesis.

[edit] Receiving and providing information

Blackboard Course Info serves as the platform for information, communication and paper exchange.
Each thesis circle has its own place on Blackboard
Information on Blackboard includes a research area list, circle history/information database, thesis abstracts, thesis assessment criteria, theses, interviews with participants, grades, articles resulting, et cetera.
Documents to be handed in are distributed by means of Blackboard.
The webpages of the individual circles enable participants to obtain feedback of peers within 48 hrs or extend discussions outside meetings.

[edit] Guidelines for circle participation: Role of students

In order to prepare students for active participation in thesis circles, a couple of guidelines are provided. These guidelines concern research areas such as organizing meetings, providing valuable feedback, being chair and scribe, and handling conflicts.

[edit] Organizing a circle meeting

Because students are delegated the task of organizing meetings a shortlist of actions is provided:

reserve a meeting room
optional: arrange coffee and tea
draw up a list of (email) addresses
Prepare the proposed agenda
optional: make an outline of the objectives and working methods of the thesis circle
send invitations/agenda (with any corresponding documents) to all participants (Romme and Nijhuis 2000/2002: 15).

[edit] Giving feedback

In thesis circles, not only the supervisor(s), but other students supervise the thesis student. This means that the quality of the dialogue between thesis writer and the supervision team and the dialogue within the supervision team is decisive for effective guidance and supervision of the thesis writer (Romme and Nijhuis 2000/2002: 14). In the following, a number of practical guidelines for this dialogue are presented, based on Argyris’ et al. (1985) inference ladder. The concept of the inference ladder is depicted in Figure 1 and involves a step-by-step process a referent can use in providing feedback.

Figure 1 Inference ladder

5 Meanings allocated by observer to inference processes on steps 1 to 4

4 Theories used to create meanings on step 3

3 Meanings allocated to simple meanings (often with reference to implicit suppositions)

2 Simple meanings allocated to directly observable data

1 Relatively directly observable data

Source: Argyris et al., 1985

The inference ladder is of importance, because it explicates complex thinking processes that occur in every conversation. In practically every conversation, people:

speak on a relatively high inference level (especially steps 3 and 4);
rarely openly test or check the things we say with the help of directly observable data;
in spite of that, mostly have the feeling that we are very concrete and clear when speaking; and
can therefore avoid an open test (Romme and Nijhuis 2000/2002: 14).

Romme and Nijhuis (2000/2002) explain the inference ladder by means of an example. The example is given from a discussion of a draft chapter between supervisor and thesis writer. Box 1 presents part of this discussion.

Box 1 Example inference ladder

Supervisor: I think that the way in which you are reviewing literature in Chapter 2 is unacceptable. It is not clear what your interpretation is and where you lean on the authors you read. You should really tackle this differently! Thesis writer: Yes, but last time you said that this draft-chapter should be written in a much livelier and more fascinating way to hold the reader’s attention, and now (...) Supervisor interrupts: May be true, but in your rewritten text you are now really inclining to a journalist’s story, in which facts and interpretation are running over into each other. I have a few other remarks as well, so let’s continue. (....).

“This discussion between thesis writer and supervisor will very likely not lead to the improvements required by the supervisor. This is mainly due to the apparent incompetence of both persons to define the problem and possible solutions in a way that is (a) clear and understandable to both parties and (b) leads to a joint way of solution. In this respect, the work of Argyris and Schön in the field of reasoning, speaking and discussing, provides some useful guidelines. These authors state that a typical diagnosis – such as from the text of the thesis writer in the example – is executed on a high level of inference. In Figure 1, this argument is elaborated in terms of the so-called inference ladder. On the bottom of this ladder there are the directly observable data, such as conversations among persons, written text, statistical data, drawings, and the like. In case of thesis supervision, these are, for instance text fragments from a draft chapter, or data arising from empirical investigations by the thesis writer. A step higher up the ladder we find simple meanings, which we connect or allocate to directly observable data, such as for instance, a text, conversation or drawing being either difficult, acceptable, beautiful or pleasant or not. For the supervisor in the example given before, such a meaning is, for instance, the literature review in the draft chapter being “unacceptable”. On the third step of the inference ladder are the meanings, which are allocated again to the simple meanings on the second step. This happens through suppositions or assumptions, which are made either explicitly or not. In the example, the supervisor supposes, among other things, that a good, acceptable literature review should take place by a clear separation of literature review and one’s own interpretation. Besides, the supervisor apparently supposes that this understanding had better be taught to the thesis writer by means of powerful wordings. Finally, the supervisor also supposes that the thesis writer understands how to solve the problem mentioned. Anyway, these last two suppositions have an implicit character: they are not made explicit and probably not deliberately “thought” either. On the fourth step, theories are used to create the meanings on the steps below. These theories have a basic form, that is, they consist of a collection of elementary cause-effect relations such as: if A, then B; if C and D, then not B, et cetera. In the case of the conversation between supervisor and thesis writer, one of the cause-effect relations might be: “if I make clear to the thesis writer in powerful wordings that the text in question is unacceptable, he knows what to do to make it acceptable as yet”. Another hypothesis might be, in that case: “if I adopt a vulnerable attitude, for instance by asking the thesis writer if he knows what I mean, then this will increase the likelihood of loss of face for one of us”. In the example, the cause-effect relations as such do not come up for discussion. Finally, the highest step of the ladder consists of meanings that an observer allocates to the various meanings and inference processes on lower levels of the ladder”. Source: Romme and Nijhuis 2000/2002: 14-15

[edit] Performing role of chair

The chairperson organizes the meeting and determines the agenda. He also leads the discussions.
The chairperson can turn the meeting in the right direction in several ways and with the help of several kinds of interventions. The main tools are the agreements made about principles, rules and roles and tasks (see part III). Being able to apply these rules is very important for effective chairing. Part of the rules, for instance, refers to introducing a clear agenda structure. The agenda is built up according to a regular structure of an opening round, organizational part, contents part, and evaluation round (Romme and Nijhuis 2000/2002: 19).
The chairperson can also steer the discussion of each separate item. During the discussion, some of the participants’ contributions or remarks may (threaten to) disturb it. It may, for instance, be possible that somebody is straying from the subject, is expanding too much, is speaking before his turn, or is going into too much detail. It will then be up to the chairman to correct this. Table 4 contains a number of instructions to maintain the structure in frequently occurring situations during meetings, with distinction being made between ineffective and effective interventions.

Table 4 Ineffective and effective intervention Problem/symptom N is Not or less effective E is Effective intervention Incomprehensible flood of words N cutting it off or ignoring it E summarizing and asking for its underlying meaning Straying N reacting E ignoring, cutting off carefully, or asking for meaning Premature remarks N cutting off or ignoring them E reminding of structure (e.g., postponing discussion until that item is relevant or on agenda) Misplaced principal discussions N breaking off, or letting them continue E summarizing with the emphasis on concrete aspects Misplaced interruptions N allowing them E cutting off, and keeping change of turns under control Loose meaningless remarks N ignoring them E asking for meaning Source: Romme and Nijhuis 2000/2002

[edit] Performing role of scribe

An important condition for an effective chairmanship is a memory system, in which agreements, decisions and other relevant information, are laid down in a way accessible to all participants. The scribe manages and maintains the memory of the thesis circle (Romme and Nijhuis 2000/2002: 22). The following tasks are defined:

drafting of draft agenda
sending or making available to the members of the thesis circle the papers and documents – the minutes of the previous meeting, the agenda and documents sent to the chairman - some considerable time before the meeting
timely reserving and announcing of meeting-room (preferably together with agenda proposal)
checking if meeting-room is free, just before the meeting
noting down the members present and absent and decisions (with main arguments) during the meeting, and laying down these notes in the minutes, after the meeting
consulting together with the chairman about any possible actions to be taken, after the meeting.

[edit] Handling conflicts

Conflicts have to be solved by the thesis circle using the open atmosphere, the consent rule (no argued objections) and the inference ladder.

Retrieved from "http://microjusticia.org/wiki/Circle_Principles"