Institutional Logics in Research Supervision

According to Halse and Malfroy (2010) research supervision should be viewed as a profession. Professions have their own institutional norms, of course; explicit norms are distinguishes a profession from a craft. This paper examines the growing literature on research supervision through the lenses of a) knowledge theory, with its tacit, explicit and latent dimensions; and b) new institutional theory, with its focus on the diffusion of norms of social practices through isomophorism. It identifies three competing institutional logics: the traditional "craft" approach, an emerging "factory" mentality of targets and measurable outcomes, and a middle way: a "professional" logic. The paper concludes with a discussion of how accountability influences the legitimacy of these competing institutional logics