名古屋高等教育研究 第 12 号 （2012）

Supervision and Culture:
Post-colonial Explorations
Catherine MANATHUNGAᴾ ᴾ ᴾ ᴾ ᴾ ᴾ ＜Abstract＞
The purpose of this article is to explore the dynamic interplays ofpower and identity within intercultural supervision in Australia andwithin Japanese supervision. This article presents the findings fromtwo studies of intercultural supervision experiences of culturally
diverse supervisors and students in the Humanities, Social Sciences
and the Sciences at an Australian university. Drawing upon several
post-colonial metaphors, this paper investigates how supervisors!
pedagogical practices and students! learning approaches are impacted
upon by working in an intercultural supervision space. This article
will also outline some preliminary observations from a small pilot studyof supervision in the Humanities and Social Sciences and in the
Sciences at a Japanese university. Finally, this article will explore
some of the potential implications for supervision pedagogies of
examining the role of culture using a post-colonial lens.

1ȅIntroduction
This article reports on two qualitative investigations of the dynamic
interplays of culture and identity that take place in intercultural
supervision in Australia.

Specifically it uses post-colonial theory topresent an analysis of supervisors! and students! accounts of intercultural
supervision in Australia.

This article also begins to explore how culture

Senior Lecturer, Teaching & Educational Development Institute, The
University of Queensland, Australia(Visiting Professor, Center for the Studies of Higher Education, Nagoya
University)175and identity play out in Japanese supervision, drawing on a recent small,pilot study.

This article builds upon earlier work that I have been

exploring (Manathunga 2007a, 2009, under review).
First of all, this article outlines the different discourses that are present
in the existing English-language literature on supervision and argues forthe need for more post-colonial explorations of supervision.

It thenoutlines a number of useful post-colonial metaphors that I have applied tothese qualitative data on intercultural supervision.

I provide details about

the methodology and data analysis approaches used in two studies ofAustralianintercultural

supervision

andprovideone

exampleassimilation, unhomeliness and transculturation from these data.

of

I thenoutline a recent small study of Japanese supervision and provide a series ofpreliminary observations.

Finally, I explore what implications thesestudies might have for our understandings of the ways in which culture andidentity play out in supervision pedagogy in Australian intercultural
settings and in Japan.

2ȅA Critical Literature Review
Supervision pedagogy has been increasingly investigated in the
English-language literature in many countries since the mid-1990s.

Thereis also a large body of literature on research education and supervision in
many other languages, but as I only speak English, this article provides abrief analysis of the English-language literature.

I would like to focus on

three key theoretical paradigms that have been used in this literature.
The most dominant discourse on supervision can be described as anadministrative or liberal discourse, which includes both positivist &interpretativist research.

This discourse emphasises supervisors

andstudents roles and responsibilities and depicts supervision as a form ofproject management. In terms of investigating the role of culture insupervision, this literature suggests that expectations of students andsupervisors should be made explicit.

This literature also recommends a

number of effective intercultural communication strategies (eg. Ryan &Zuber-Skerritt 1999).

176

There are some authors writing within thisSupervision and Culture
theoretical paradigm that portray cultural diversity as a deficit or problem(eg. Ballard & Clanchy 1997).
A number of authors also investigate supervision from a criticaltheoretical paradigm. These explorations focus on empowering students
and regard power as oppressive and as exerted only by supervisors.

They

also seek to challenge dominant liberal discourses about researchparadigms that do not adequately address the issues of women, ethnic
minorities, working class and Indigenous people.

Generally, wheninvestigating supervision and culture, they prefer to explore theintersections of culture with social class and gender.
Finally, a growing number of researchers have used postmodernist

theoretical paradigms to interrogate supervisory discourses.

Thesetheorists regard power as both oppressive and productive and think ofpower as circulating in complex ways between supervisors and students
rather than only as exerted by supervisors and institutions.

They

investigate the impact of disciplinarity and governmentality on supervision
pedagogy (Manathunga 2007b) and regard supervision as !chaotic (Grant
2003: 189) and rewarding.

These theorists go beyond simple dichotomies(ie. good or bad supervision) and adopt a both/and rather than either/or
logic (Green & Lee 1995, Grant 2003, Johnson et al. 2000).

Research using

this discourse tends to focus on culture (and gender) as embodied
inscriptions (in other words, as a series of bodily practices and identity
constructions) and investigates how supervisors and students account for
their experiences of culture and supervision (Grant 2010).

3ȅPost-colonial Theory and Supervision
3.1ġ Why Post-colonial Theory?
I have argued (Manathunga 2007a, 2009) that postmodernist discourses
do not take sufficient account of the impact of colonisation on the ways inwhich culture operates in supervision.

Although people assume that theera of colonisation is over, many authors and activists from ethnic minority
and Indigenous groups argue that neo-colonisation continues to impact on
their daily lives (even though it now assumes different guises).

Scholars177

from the Global South/East continue to encounter colonial stereotypes
about their cultures when they study in the Global North/West.
This is why post-colonial theory is helpful in [re]thinking the role ofculture within supervision.

Post-colonial theory offers more nuanced

understandings of culture and identity as never fixed, but as fluid,
fragmented and multiply constructed (Hall 1996).

It also encourages us tothink about the impact of both linear and layered time on supervision.

Itencourages us to think about what it might mean to supervise research
students at this particular moment in history and at this particular time inthe lives of supervisors and students.

It also challenges us to think about

how echoes, fragments and unconscious emergences of the past leak into
the present in perplexing ways.
Post-colonial theory also reminds us about the importance of place insupervision.

It challenges universalist or Eurocentric interpretations ofresearch where place is an abstract or invisible category or where theories
developed in the West/North are assumed to apply to all places andcultures.

Post-colonial notions of place include both physical space "where in the world are we located when we supervise or study? " andmetaphorical space " where do we imagine ourselves to be located inrelation to our discipline, to the global flow of people and ideas.

A numberof other scholars have also used post-colonial theory to investigate aspectsof supervision and culture (Grant 2010, Kenway & Bullen 2003, Venables etal. 2001).
3.2ġ Useful Post-colonial Metaphors or Tropes
In this paper, I draw upon three post-colonial metaphors that I havefound particularly powerful in seeking to understand how culture operates
within supervision.

These include assimilation, unhomeliness andtransculturation (Manathunga 2007a).

Assimilation is !a unidimensional,

one- way process by which outsiders relinquished their own culture infavour of that of the dominant society (Penguin Dictionary of Sociology: 18).
In supervision, this is where students from Eastern/Southern/Indigenous
cultures are required to discard their own values and cultural knowledge
and adopt Western/Northern ways of thinking.

178

Supervision and Culture
The second post-colonial metaphor that is useful is ambivalence or what
Bhabha (1994) called !unhomeliness .

Unhomeliness is !the culturalalienation, sense of uncertainty and discomfort that people experience as
they adjust to new cultural practices(Manathunga 2007: 98).

Insupervision, this is most problematic for students as they begin to build
bridges between their existing cultural ways of knowing and being andthose used in the West/North.

However, as my earlier research shows(Manathunga 2007a), supervisors can also experience unhomeliness as theyseek to reach out to their culturally diverse students and, in so doing, may
need to adopt supervisory styles that they are not entirely comfortable within order to more effectively support their students journeys across andbetween two or more ways of knowing.
Finally, transculturation is also a useful trope to enhance ourunderstandings of intercultural supervision pedagogies. Transculturation iswhen !subordinated or marginal groups select and invent from materials
transmitted to them by a dominant # culture (Pratt 1992: 6).

Throughtransculturation new cultural possibilities and new ways of knowing andbeing can be opened up for both students and supervisors.

In supervision,transculturation is where !culturally diverse students may carefully selectthose parts of Western knowledge that they find useful and seek to blend
them with their own knowledge and ways of thinking (Manathunga 2007:97-8).

In this process, supervisors can also learn from students.

In

particular, if they chose, students from diverse cultures may open up new
literatures and ways of thinking for supervisors to engage with.

In thisway, the supervisor becomes the learner and engages with their own!cross-cultural ignorance (Singh 2009: 185).

4ȅAn Australian Study of Intercultural Supervision: Context andMethodology
This article draws upon two studies of intercultural supervision in the
Humanities,

SocialSciences

research-intensive university.

andSciencesatanAustralian

I conducted a pilot study in the Humanities

and Social Sciences in 2007 (Manathunga 2007a) and then a larger study was179carried out in the Sciences as well as the Humanities and Social Sciences in2009 and 2010, with the assistance of research assistants Dr Maryam(Shirin) Jamarani and Dr Suzanne Morris (Manathunga, under review).

In

total across both studies, 22 supervisors, who were Chinese, Japanese,
Spanish, English, and Australian, and 25 students, who were Vietnamese,
Malaysian, Mexican, Bangladeshi, Italian, German, Chinese, Iranian,Indonesian, and Thai were interviewed.

Standard ethical clearance wasobtained from participating university and interviews were conductedusing a semi-structured approach.

A thematic analysis was carried out onthese data, using the post-colonial metaphors of assimilation, unhomelinessand transculturation.

This article contains an analysis of data from the

Humanities and Social Sciences and Engineering from the pilot and second
studies.

5ȅCulture and Identity in Australian Intercultural Supervision
These studies produced a number of significant findings about the role ofculture and identity in Australian intercultural supervision, which I havereported in previous publications (eg. Manathunga 2007a).

In particular, I

have focused my analysis on the post-colonial tropes or metaphors of
assimilation, unhomeliness and transculturation.

In this article, I willreport on only one example of each of these metaphors from these data inorder to remain within the expected word limit.
The examples of assimilation and unhomeliness come from the second
study of Australian intercultural supervision and are both located in theEngineering discipline.

This analysis is reported on in one manuscript thatis currently under review and has therefore not yet been widely
disseminated(Manathunga,

underreview).

The

exampleoftransculturation included in this article is from the first pilot study ofAustralian intercultural supervision, which was published in 2007
(Manathunga 2007a).

The reason I have incorporated it in this article isbecause it illustrates the intercultural experiences of a Japanese supervisor(and former student) working in Australia.
relevant for this Japanese academic journal.

180

It is, therefore, especiallySupervision and Culture
5.1ġ Moments of Assimilation
One particularly interesting example of assimilation was present in thedata from the second, later study of Australian intercultural supervision.
In this case, it involved an Australian female supervisor and a German
female student (see Manathunga, under review for more detail).

The

supervisor described in her interview some of the difficulties she had
experienced in giving her German student feedback on her draft writing.
She indicated that she had had
a problem in the fact that she convoluted everything. She wrote things
three or four times. And it took me a little while to realize what she wasdoing and then for us to have that conversation and for her to get very
cross with me and say not that # [this] is the way we do it in Germany
and that is the way that papers are published (Australian supervisor,
interview 2009: 28).
However, the German student described this experience very differently.
She interpreted this feedback as suggesting that
Now I do understand that first of all I have to repeat myself many times
before they [the supervisors] really understand what I mean, and I haveto try to come from certain different corners, and I have to develop thearea much more.

I can t assume that they have the same background(German student, interview 2009: 13).
While it is possible to analyze this example in a number of ways
(Manathunga, under review), I think the main point I would like to make inthis article is that it could be viewed as a form of assimilation to an
Anglo-American

style

of

writingthatdominates

English-language

publishing in many disciplines, particularly in Engineering and the Sciences.
While in English-language publications, this writing should be brief andfocused, other research has shown that German styles of writing permit
more repetition and divergence (Clyne 1987).

The student s reaction (asrecalled by her supervisor) suggests that she interpreted her supervisor s

181

feedback as a criticism of her writing style, which she had learnt as a
researcher in Germany.

However, the student s memory of this situation

was completely different from her supervisor s interpretation of thisincident.

The student seems to suggest that she found this kind ofrepetition necessary in order to explain her point of view to hersupervisors.
5.2ġ Moments of Unhomeliness
There was an intriquing example of unhomeliness in the data from thesecond, later study of Australian intercultural supervision.

This example

illustrates the fact that that cultural difference is a complex interplay
between culture and personal histories and experiences (see Manathunga,
under review for more detail).

A Chinese male supervisor outlines anunhomely moment in his supervision, indicating that:
I had one case it was a Chinese student actually, that s interesting, I m
Chinese myself and he discussed with me about a number of ideas andI ve probably rejected those ideas too quickly and he never complained
and they always said yes, yes, yes #Then #I was inviting him to comeover to my office we have a meeting and I did not receive a reply fromhim.

Then I thought something was wrong.

Then I emailed him again#and he replied #can we communicate by email I don t want to havemeetings with you #I thought oh, this is serious # I invited him to havea coffee elsewhere, not in the office.

Office is too serious sometimes.

So

we had a coffee #and I talked with him to see what was wrong # I
learned #he felt that I had rejected his ideas too often and probably tooquick # Well two things there, I think in my case one is I ve been livingin the Western world for a long time.

You know, I went out from China#already nearly 20 years #The other thing is # even when I was astudent [in China] #I was independent.

I had my strong opinions andwhen I had opinions which were different from those from mysupervisors I would debate (Chinese supervisor, Interview 2009: 15-7).
Clearly, this supervision incident demonstrates how culture interacts

182

Supervision and Culture
with different personalities, personal histories and professional experiencesin supervision.

It appears that the supervisor assumed that, because his

student was from the same culture as him, he would understand thepositive intentions behind his feedback on the student s ideas.

However,he had clearly forgotten the extent to which his experiences in the West
had changed his supervisory approach over the years and how his
personality had always been quite assertive and confident.

His student

was unprepared for the extent to which his supervisor would critique his
ideas, not realizing that the supervisor was waiting for him to defend his
own ideas and argue back.

For this Chinese student, such explicit

disagreement with his supervisor felt impolite and disrespectful.
5.2ġ Moments of Transculturation
There was also an interesting example of transculturation in the datafrom the first, pilot study of Australian intercultural supervision.

This

involved a Japanese female supervisor (and former student) who had
conducted research in Australia for more than 20 years since her doctoral
studies (see Manathunga 2007a for more detail).

This supervisor spoke

about the challenges she faced as a doctoral student in reconciling her
Japanese values about collectivity, reciprocity and holistic connections
between her mind, body and spirit with Western approaches to researchthat focus principally on the individual and the mind.

It was only when shecame across largely Western postmodernist theories about identity andsubjectivity that challenged this previous Western focus that she was able
to creatively blend these theories with her own Japanese values to produce
her original contribution to knowledge.

6 ȅ A Small Study of Japanese Supervision: Context andMethodology
In this article, I would also like to outline some very preliminary
observations from a small pilot study of masters and doctoral supervision in
the Humanities, Social Sciences and Sciences at a Japanese researchintensive university that I conducted in 2011 with the assistance of Dr

183

Yoshiko Saitoh.

This study received ethical clearance from The

University of Queensland and was also implemented in line with therequirements of ethical research in Japanese universities.

This study

involved interviewing 7 Japanese supervisors in English (4 in Sciences; 3 in
Humanities/Social Sciences) and 6 Japanese students in a combination ofEnglish and Japanese (3 in Sciences; 3 in Humanities/Social Sciences).
Rather than a focus on intercultural supervision, the purpose of this study
was to begin to explore contemporary Japanese graduate student
supervision. There is very little research in English on Japanesesupervision. In many Western countries, stereotypes about !Asian
approaches to graduate supervision remain prevalent as do Western
approaches to supervising Asian international students.
The second layer of data collection involved recording supervision
meetings in Japanese (for transcription and translation into English) andcollecting the post-meeting emailed reflections of 1 supervisor in the
Humanities and 1 in the Sciences and 3 students (1 in the Humanities; 2 in
the Sciences).

Finally, a number of observations were conducted.

I

recorded field notes and reflections about the data collection and observed
3 Science Masters students presenting their oral defence of their theses andYoshiko observed two supervision meetings in the Sciences.
At this stage, no formal analysis has been completed of these data but I
have identified one potential example of transculturation and briefly
reflected upon some possible similarities and differences between
supervision in Australia and Japan.

Of course, it is important toacknowledge not only the very early stage of this interpretation but also theinevitable limitations of conducting research across cultures where theprincipal researcher does not have expert knowledge of the culture andvery little knowledge of the language.

So, it is very much from the positionof Outsider that I describe these preliminary thoughts.

7ȅPreliminary Observations
7.1ġ Transculturation?
Firstly, there was one example in these data which appears to suggest

184

Supervision and Culturethat transculturation has been part of one Japanese supervisor s approachto supervision.

This Science supervisor had done his Masters in Japan andhis Doctorate in the US.

Indeed, a number of supervisors we interviewed

had completed some of their studies or postdoctoral fellowships in Westerncountries. He described the different kinds of supervision pedagogies hehad experienced in these two countries:
In Japan at that time " or still " the master's education or supervising, isfirst conducts in so called seminar.

That s the kind of the small lecturesconsisting of just two or three or five or six people plus the faculty
members # Already, we read the papers in advance and then they makealmost a lecture to the audience.

It s not a kind of discussion. However,in the United States they rather like to make a discussion which is means
just as you said; you can raise some problem, to which even theprofessors didn t know the answer.

However, we are discussing or talkabout some method or think about some examples or sometimes counterexamples and so on.

Also this is one to one discussion.

So it never

happens in Japan, at least to me (Interview 2011: 3-4).
He then explained how he uses a combination of these approaches as asupervisor:
I would say I ve taken the intermediate style between the United States
and the older Japanese style.

My experience is then in our style, thathas advantages since we study with our classmate which means we canbe taught the same subject with our friend and that s very good to study[Science].

However, if you really take the American style, then each

student has a different subject which means the students never talk toeach other on the same subject.

Since if you give the same subject toboth of them, there may be some conflict.

Maybe that s a reason why.

So I make some small notes in our style especially in the beginning in themaster's course for students.

Also in the later maybe the doctor course

or second year master's student, I started to make some private
discussions like the American style (Interview 2011: 12).

185

Therefore, this Science supervisor has sought to create a hybrid,transcultural approach to supervision pedagogy that harnessed theadvantages of the Japanese and American styles of supervision that heexperienced. Further analysis may reveal whether there are also
experiences of unhomeliness and assimilation in these data.
7.2ġ Similarities and Differences in Australian and Japanese Supervision
At this very preliminary stage and with the positioning of an Outsider, I
would say that I was mostly struck by the similarities between supervisionin Australia and Japan, despite the different systems of graduate educationin the two countries.

Although it is only a very small study, the Japanesesupervisors that we interviewed appeared to have very diverse supervisionstyles, which were influenced to varying extents by their own experiencesof supervision both in Japan and abroad.

Interestingly, the majority of thesupervisors we interviewed indicated how they had modelled aspects of
their supervisory approaches on those used by their own supervisors.
There were also a few supervisors who claimed to have adopted an
opposite style of supervision or who indicated that their own supervisor
was not really a role model for their supervision.
The Japanese supervisors in this study also emphasised the need to tailor
their supervision approaches to suit each individual student.

These

characteristics of supervision are also reported in some of the literature onsupervision in Australia and many other Western countries (eg. Grant 2003,
Manathunga 2005, Venables et al. 2001).

So too, it became clear thatdisciplinary discourses, rituals, practices and artefacts had a huge influenceon the range of Japanese supervision pedagogies represented in these data
and the overall positioning of supervisors and students in relation to theresearch and to each other.

This is also the case in research about

Australian and Western supervision more generally (eg. Grant 2003,
Johnson et al. 2000).
The only significant difference that I could observe at this preliminary
stage and as an Outsider, was a tendency of all of the students weinterviewed to be very respectful of their supervisor, who they often

186

Supervision and Culture
referred to as !sensei , which translates as guru or master in English and iscommonly used for teachers and academics.

This appears to be in linewith Confusion traditions of according teachers a great deal of respect andreverence.

In Australia and many Western contexts, teachers at any level

do not necessarily occupy a special position in society.

There is also atendency in many Western cultures for supervisors to expect theirresearch students to debate and question their supervisory advice.

It isalso common for research students in many (though not all) Westerncountries to refer to supervisors by their first name rather than their title
or family name.

Further analysis may reveal other key differences.

8ȅConclusions and Implications for Supervision Pedagogies
Therefore, I believe that these three studies demonstrate that the impactof culture in supervision and on research is complex.

It is clear, indifferent ways in the Australian and Japanese studies, that cultural
diversity both complicates and enriches supervision.

In the Australianstudies, the focus is very much on a diversity of cultures in a post-colonial
context of invasion/settlement.

In the Japanese study, where all theparticipants were Japanese, the issue of the Westernization of knowledge
and the dominance of the English language in publishing in many disciplines
highlights a different kind of post-colonial experience.

In a sense, although

as one member of the audience pointed out in the seminar upon which thispaper is based Japan did colonise parts of Asia (particularly Korea), Japan is
not a post-colonial country in the way that Australia is.

Although it

experienced post-war occupation by the US, it has not been !invaded byother countries.

However, since the Meiji Restoration from 1868, Japan

has embarked upon a deliberate policy of Westernization.

In a sense then,Japanese society has engaged in cultural borrowing and transculturation
for nearly a century and a half.
This cultural history, combined with the number of Japanese professors
who received part of their research training or postdoctoral experience inWestern countries and the increasing influence of the English language inmany academic disciplines, has ensured that transculturation may have187

become a feature of Japanese research and, in turn, supervision.

Furtheranalysis will interrogate the data in the Japanese study to see if it also
contains evidence of moments of assimiliation and unhomeliness.

So too, as

I emphasised in an article on research as an intercultural contact zone
(Manathunga 2009), when students engage in research studies they are also
becoming fully-credentialed members of disciplinary or academic culturesand so they are also likely to experience moments of assimilation andunhomeliness as they adjust to a disciplinary way of thinking and being.
I think all of these studies and the post-colonial theoretical lens applied tothem also demonstrate that contextual factors such as linear and layered
time, the impact of colonisation or Westernization, and the impact ofphysical and metaphorical space and location matter in supervision.

As

explored in the seminar discussion, history, varying and complex
positionings in relation to colonisation or Westernization, culture or
ethnicity, class and gender are already inscribed on the bodies ofsupervisors and students as they begin interacting in supervision.

Theycannot leave these features of themselves outside the pedagogical space ofsupervision.

So too, I was particularly struck in the Japanese study by the

impact of disciplinary rituals, practices, artefacts and physical office and/or
lab space upon the shape and features of supervision.

In providing genericguidelines and strategies, liberal discourses on supervision never accountfor this type of metaphorical and physical space and difference.
Finally, I think trying to understand more about the inherent tensions,challenges and complexities in supervision as well as the moments ofintense pleasure and reward is important and reassuring for supervisorsand students.

So many of the supervisors and students that I have worked

with over the last decade in many cultural contexts like Australia, the UK,
Vietnam, Fiji, Oman, Malaysia and Japan find that their experiences ofsupervision are not simple, rational forms of project management.

Ratherthey have experienced supervision as a highly complex, challenging butvery rewarding form of pedagogy in ways that remain absent from liberal
accounts in the literature and university guidelines.

This is why I think

post-colonial theory can offer us some very productive intellectual concepts
and frameworks through which to understand more about graduate

188

Supervision and Culture
supervision.
References
Abercrombie, N., Hill, S. & Turner, B., 1984, The Penguin Dictionary of Sociology,
4th ed., London: Penguin Books.
Ballard, B. & Clanchy, J., 1991, Teaching Students from Overseas: A Brief Guide

for Lecturers and Supervisors, Melbourne: Longman Cheshire.
Bhabha, H., 1994, The Location of Culture, London & New York: Routledge.
Grant, B., 2003, Mapping the Pleasures and Risks of Supervision, Discourse:

Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 24(2): 175-90.
Grant, B., 2010, Challenging Issues: Doctoral Supervision in Post-colonial Sites,
Acta Academica Supplementum, 1: 103-29.
Hall, S., 1996, Introduction: Who Needs !Identity ?, Hall, S. & Du Gay, P., eds.,
Questions of cultural identity, London & Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications,
1-17.
Johnson, L., Lee, A., & Green, B., 2000, The Ph.D. and the Autonomous Self:
Gender, Rationality and Postgraduate Pedagogy, Studies in Higher Education,25(2): 135-47.
Kenway, J., & Bullen, E., 2003, Self-representations of International Women
Postgraduate Students in the Global University !Contact Zone , Gender and

Education, 15(1): 5-20.
Manathunga, C., 2005, Early Warning Signs in Postgraduate Research
Education: a Different Approach to Ensuring Timely Completions, Teachingin Higher Education, 10(2): 219-33.
Manathunga, C., 2007a, Intercultural Postgraduate Supervision: Ethnographic
Journeys of Identity and Power, Palfreyman, D. & McBride, D., eds., Learning

and Teaching across Cultures in Higher Education, New York: Palgrave
Macmillan, 93-113.
Manathunga, C., 2007b, Supervision as Mentoring: the Role of Power andBoundary Crossing, Studies in Continuing Education, 29(2): 207-21.
Manathunga, C., 2009, Research as an Intercultural Contact Zone, Discourse:
Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 30(2): 165-77.
Manathunga, C. (under review), Moments of Transculturation and Assimilation:
Post-colonial Explorations of Supervision and Culture.
Pratt, M., 1992, Imperial Eyes: Travel Writing and Transculturation,

London &New York: Routledge.

189

Ryan, Y. & Zuber-Skerritt, O., eds., Supervising Postgraduates from Non-English
Speaking Backgrounds, Buckingham: SRHE & Open University Press, 1-11.
Singh, M., 2009, Using Chinese Knowledge in Internationalising Research
Education: Jacques Rani$re, an Ignorant Supervisor and Doctoral Students
from China, Globalisation, Societies and Education, 7(2): 185-201.
Venables E, Ahjum, S. & De Reuck, J., 2001, !The Remembrance of Things
Past : Memory and Migration as Tropes in the Construction of Postgraduate
Subjectivities, A. Bartlett & G. Mercer, eds., Postgraduate Research

Supervision: Transforming (R)Elations, New York: Peter Lang, 233-46.
Acknowledgements
I would like to acknowledge the Australian Learning & Teaching Council
for contributing part of the funding for the second Australian projectthrough a related project led by Dr Judi Homewood (Macquarie University)and my research assistants, Dr Maryam (Shirin) Jamarani and Dr Suzanne
Morris.

I would also like to acknowledge the CSHE, Nagoya University forcontributing some funding and my associate investigator, Dr Yoshiko Saitoh.
I would also like to thank the Nagoya academics who attended my seminarand contributed to clarifying my ideas.

190

研究指導と文化−ポストコロニアル的探究−
キャサリン・マナトゥンガ

ᴾᴾᴾᴾᴾᴾ!" #$"

本論文の目的は、オーストラリアの大学における異文化間の研究指導および日本の大学における研究指導において、教員が持つ権力と学生側の主体性の間におこる相互作用がどのように変化するかを探求することである。まず、オーストラリアの大学の人文科学、社会科学、自然科学において、文化的な多様な背景をもつ指導教員と学生が経験した異文化的な研究指導の二つの事例から得られた知見を明らかにする。いくつかのポストコロニアル的な隠喩を用いながら、本稿では指導教員の教育実践と学生の学習方法が、異文化的環境のもとで実施される研究指導からいかに大きな影響を受けているかを考察する。また、日本の大学の人文科学、社会科学、自然科学分野における研究指導に関する試行調査の結果をもとに、いくつかの予備的考察を行う。
最後に、研究指導の方法論についてポストコロニアル的な眼を通して映る文化の役割を考察することにより、その可能性について探求したい。

ニュージーランド ヴィクトリア大学（ウェリントン）教育政策実践学部・准教授
名古屋大学高等教育研究センター・客員准教授

191