Magister Artium (Psychology) - MA(Psych) / Knowledge-based competition within a globalising economy is prompting a fresh consideration of the role of higher education in development and growth. Previously, it was often viewed as an expensive and inefficient public service that largely benefited the wealthy and privileged. It is now understood to make a necessary contribution to the success of national efforts to boost productivity, competitiveness and economic growth. Several governments see universities as engines for change and expansion of prosperity. There is also an increasing recognition that Higher Education has become dominated by a market-driven, consumerist service ethic and that this may have an impact on the style of research output and research supervision that academics adopt for a new knowledge economy. Research education or training, as it is often termed, is attracting greater scrutiny as research itself is seen of greater importance in the global knowledge economy. Students in post-graduation degree programmes across the world conduct research projects as a requirement to complete degrees A thesis or dissertation develops the ability to work independently and critically, the ability to develop arguments, and awareness and use of advanced methodological designs that pertain to the student's discipline of study. Thus such learning is argued to be facilitated in the context of research advisement or supervision. Through this process the student might adopt or internalise values and attitudes of the supervisor regarding research. This process is referred to as internalisation of the research supervisor, thereby contributing to the development of the student researchers. The theoretical framework chosen for this study was social constructionism. The aim of this present study was to explore the perceptions and experiences of students in relation to the internalisation of the supervisor that may take place during research supervision. The study utilised in-depth semi-structured interviews to collect data. Eleven participants from various supervisors consented to be part of the study. These were recruited using purposive sampling. The ethics considerations of the study adhered to the guidelines stipulated by Ethics committee of the University. Data was transcribed, and analysed using thematic analysis. The findings of this study indicate factors contributing to internalisation vary depending on aspects such as personalities of both the supervisor and the student, perceived quality of supervision and the supervision process itself. Findings also suggest that internalisation, whether positive or negative, of the research supervisor took place among the participants.

The pivotal role that R&D plays in a nation’s development is well recognized globally. Even India has made long strides in this area post-independence. However, it is plagued by issues such as lack of investment, dearth of research work force, poor quality of research output, lower enrollment and inefficient policies. India has for the last few years; strongly felt the need for the increase in the quality and the quantity of research output. This has direct implications on research scholars who are considered as foot soldiers of research institutions in India. Besides the pressure to outperform, research scholar’s face challenges on multiple fronts— academic, personal, financial, and social. To successfully navigate through these challenges a cordial relationship with the research supervisor is most desirable. However, this is not easily achieved as there can be various conflict situations arising between a supervisor and a research scholar. Resolving these conflicts amicably is essential for smooth sailing of the research journey. Thus, studying the nature of conflicts between research scholars and supervisors; and investigating the patterns in conflict resolution behavior of research scholars is a challenging and complex research problem. This was accomplished in three phases. In the first phase, we analyzed the relationship between the Big Five Personality types (Neuroticism, Extraversion, Agreeableness, Openness and Consciousness) and the Thomas-Kilmann Conflict Resolution Styles (Collaborating, Compromising, Accommodating, Competing, and Avoiding). This was motivated by past studies linking personality and conflict resolution behavior. In the second phase, we used a Narrative based instrument to determine the dominant styles of Conflict Resolution employed by the research scholars. This was motivated by the strength of Narrative approach in effecting a change in the belief systems of individuals as demonstrated in past studies. The third phase involved modeling two Conflict Resolution Styles — Collaborative (high assertion and high cooperation) and Competitive (high assertion and low cooperation) — using influence functions applied to the research scholar – supervisor relationship. Results from the first study indicated that Accommodation and Avoiding were the two most preferred styles of conflict resolution employed by research scholars. We found association between personality types and conflict resolution styles: Agreeableness with Accommodation, Avoiding and Competing; Openness with Accommodation and Competing; Neuroticism with Accommodation; and Extraversion with Avoiding. Further, research scholars in advanced stage (>3 years) were found to be more Accommodating than those in the early stage (<3 years). Our second study showed that research scholars while evaluating a conflict situation objectively as an observer, consistently suggested co-operative styles of conflict resolution (Collaboration and Compromising). It also highlighted the role of the nature of conflict situation and the supervisor response, on choice of conflict resolution styles. The third study emphasized the effectiveness of Collaboration style of conflict resolution in maintaining a fruitful relationship with the supervisor in the long-term. In summary, the results emphasized and provided future directions to encourage research scholars to seek out co-operative ways of resolving conflicts with supervisors.