How a Principal Investigator Supervises a Student Research Group: An Autoethnographic Longitudinal Examination

Abstract

Background: Research groups are social locations where teaching and learning merge among students and a principal investigator (PI). When joining, some students are able to contribute to groundbreaking research that addresses complex problems, under the direction of their PI. However, there are accounts of students having a wide range of negative experiences, often at the hands of the PI. Despite the important roles that PIs play in the supervision of students, there is no standardized or required training for researchers holding these roles. As a result, some may replicate the practices they experienced—both positive and problematic. More knowledge is needed regarding group supervision for those in PI roles. Purpose: This autoethnographic longitudinal study explores students’ experiences with and perceptions of PI supervision. The findings from this study offer insights into the design of group practices for current PIs and emerging researchers interested in serving as group PIs. Research Design: To better understand the culture of our own research group, and thus students’ experiences with and perceptions of the PI’s role in supervision, this study included 23 student group members in 12 focus group interviews over four years. Basic qualitative analysis techniques were used to document, identify, and examine our group’s nuanced cultural practices and norms. Findings: Findings reveal balanced perspectives on four PI practices: (1) communicating clearly and validating group members works best in person; (2) providing transparency and reducing uncertainty is desired; (3) inclusive group composition is created through intentional recruitment practices; and (4) group size and member transitions need to be managed to maintain stability. Taken together, student group members believed these PI practices to be both beneficial and challenging to the group’s learning, cohesion, and productivity. The findings also show that group members’ desires and expectations may at times be in conflict. Conclusions: Being a PI offers a unique opportunity to develop new approaches that benefit a group’s research and the learning of all of its members. Learning from students’ experiences with and perceptions of their PI in this study, we hope that current and future group PIs will consider how they compose practices for their groups and support student members through research. Creating new approaches to group supervision may create healthier models for current and future researchers to implement in their own research practices.