4.1 Me and my shadow ...

Where projects are double-marked, the second "supervisor" often doesn't see the project until it is completed and handed in

---ooOoo---

This bundle aims to fill any "gaps" that may be expected or anticipated by the allocation of a second member of staff to existing student-supervisor pairs. A secondary aim is to spread the talents of the supervising staff as widely as possible.

The way it works is to ensure that the allocation of shadows is done sufficiently early in the process to have meaning well before the final assessment, and to require some correspondingly early input. This gives an opportunity for tangible inputs both to supervisor and student.

The project co-ordinator (in almost all instances, a single individual) may be expected to have a reasonable idea of the talents of individuals - these include skills of supervision (based on feedback from earlier years, or less formal understandings), experience (contrasting new with more established staff), experience with "how things are done here" (enculturation), as well as technical or specialist expertise. It is not unusual for the allocation process to have projects being supervised by staff who are not specialists in the topic area, and likewise for some students to be supervised by "beginners". The allocation of shadows can then take this into account and ensure that supervisor-student pairings of potential weakness are bolstered by the shadow having the appropriate skills.

Identification of likely "gaps" can be achieved by stipulating a brief, very early deliverable that itemises the project's objectives and probable skills requirements - this can be the contract between the student(s) primary supervisor. Such a document permits the co-ordinator to see quickly where skills shortages might lie.

Early involvement of the shadow can be achieved by requiring an intermediate deliverable that gives fuller details of the project plan, perhaps with bibliography and progress report [see 7.2 Mid-project Report). This report should be assessed, or at least scrutinised, by the shadow, requiring written feedback that both student and supervisor will see. This can be brief (in the form of "tick-boxes", plus comments). This involves the shadow in partial "ownership" of the project at an early stage.

It is a very good way of getting experienced supervisors to talk directly to the less experienced, and provides a mechanism for ensuring that any "lame ducks" among supervisors are backed by a safe pair of hands. In the same way, inexperienced shadows can be allocated to supervisors known to be reliable and safe, to expose them to good practice.

It works best when the co-ordinator has a clear understanding of the strengths and weaknesses of the supervising staff, and the authority to make pairings as desired.

It doesn't work if the co-ordinator is short of some of this knowledge, or is not given sufficient information about the projects being conducted, or if affairs are conducted in a rush.

---ooOoo---

So: use shadows for more than double-marking, to plug the gaps that you know are going to occur.