A moral compass framework for resolution of wicked problems in doctoral education and supervision

Abstract

Purpose

The purpose of the paper is to design and explain a moral compass framework that informs decision-making by those engaged in shaping the doctoral education and supervision environment.

Design/methodology/approach

The research involved analysis of transcripts of 50 interviews with a range of doctoral students and supervisors. The framework was derived from the integration of the transcript analysis with a range of theoretical constructs: Rittel and Webber’s (1973) “wicked” problems; Bowden’s (2004) capability for the unknown future; Baillie et al.’s (2013) threshold capability development; liminality (Meyer and Land 2006); mindfulness (Langer and Moldoveanu, 2000; Green and Bowden, 2012); as well as our interpretation of moral compass and collective morality.

Findings

Although applicable to a wide range of contexts, with broader, potentially universal implications for professional life, the framework is explained using the doctoral education system as example, and supervisor and candidate experiences as illustration. It relates individual decision-making to notions of collective morality and moral development within a multi-level system, through moral advocacy and moral mediation, activities identified as necessary at all levels of the doctoral system.

Originality/value

Our framework demonstrates the need for developing awareness of the multi-factorial nature of the wicked problems that arise in doctoral education and the requirement to address such problems across all levels – individual, organisational and national. We identified the central importance of a new construct – collective morality and the way that moral advocacy and moral mediation can contribute to resolution of such wicked problems in doctoral education and supervision.

Citation

A. Bowden, J. and Green, P. (2014), "A moral compass framework for resolution of wicked problems in doctoral education and supervision", Quality Assurance in Education, Vol. 22 No. 4, pp. 355-369. https://doi.org/10.1108/QAE-05-2014-0020