Current issues in doctoral supervision practice in the UK

ABSTRACT

Doctoral study remains the most popular form of research degree globally. The student and supervisor relationship is an integral part of the postgraduate researcher (PGR) experience. Supervisory relationships can be complex and multi-faceted, with differing expectations from both supervisor and PGR. However, comparing different perspectives of the PGR supervisory journey is relatively unexplored. This study aimed to explore how both PGRs and supervisors perceive the evolution of supervisory relationships throughout the doctoral journey. Employing a mixed methods design, the findings indicate that there is a transition in the dynamics of the relationship between the supervisor and the student which changes during this process. The role of the supervisor moves from being a more knowledgeable other operating in an advisory capacity, described by one participant as a ‘balance of expertise’ that ‘swings’ as the relationship evolves. Drawing upon Jindal-Snape’s multiple and multi-dimensional transitional theory, the results suggest that managing expectations, supporting the transition to doctoral study, the role of peer support for PGRs and supervisors are fundamental to a positive supervisory experience. The global pandemic affected the supervisory relationship and research journey posing some challenges for data collection; however, it facilitated opportunities to adapt and evolve supervisory practice.

KEYWORDS:

• Supervision
• doctorate
• postgraduate research
• supervision styles
• doctoral support
• COVID-19

Introduction

The doctoral degree is one of the most well-known and well-established postgraduate qualifications with increasing numbers of students registering for postgraduate research degrees globally (UK Council for Graduate Education 2021a). This continued growth has resulted in a welcome diversity of PGRs, coupled with the need to increase research supervisory capacity. Integral to the research supervisory relationship is maintaining a balance of support and direction, whilst also promoting student independence. Through this exploration, we uncover how the relationships between student and supervisor evolve during the doctoral journey, particularly considering the COVID-19 pandemic.

The doctoral thesis route remains the most popular, yet increasing numbers of candidates are registering for professional doctorates, and routes by publication or portfolio (Parker-Jenkins 2018). Doctoral choice of study routes varies due to experience, discipline, and career with a substantial number of students seeking to undertake postgraduate study in Higher Education (HE) in the UK (Westphal and Ilieva 2022). However, with increasing numbers of students comes greater accountability and scrutiny for supervisors. Hockey (1997) alluded to the accountability of becoming a doctoral supervisor over 20 years ago, noting the fine balancing act between guiding students’ academic journey, being a critical examiner, while also ensuring students’ work fulfilled required academic standards. Today, with more doctoral students and choice in doctoral pathways, there is even more of a ‘fine balancing act’, in terms of ‘employability, skills formation and timely completion’ (Lee 2007, 681). When PGRs consider where to study, completion rates at institutions can influence choice. Supervisors are under pressure to ensure PGR completions in a timely manner. They may have to liaise with external employers if the PGR is undertaking a professional doctorate, adding another layer of complexity to the supervisory process. Pearson and Brew (2002, 135) call for a framework approach to supervisor development, arguing that research has become ‘increasingly recognised as vital to innovation and national economic growth.’ The recently published ‘Good Supervisory Practice Framework’ by Taylor (2023) aims to set expectations for all supervisors and to support supervisor development programmes. This is a welcome step in ensuring a consistent approach and in establishing good supervisory practice criteria, however, has yet to be evaluated.

According to the Postgraduate Research Experience survey in 2020, satisfaction among PGRs remains high at 80% (Pitkin 2020). Arguably, the continued trend in high student satisfaction suggests supervisors are providing effective supervision. However, the doctoral supervisory relationship and the research journey are lengthy and can be complex. Many universities, recognising this complexity, have developed codes of conduct for both the supervisor and the student. This can offer some protection to both parties and sets out the expectations of the relationship, for example if PGRs are full- or part-time. A code of conduct makes it clear who is accountable and responsible for what during the supervisory relationship (Cardiff University 2019). A review of UK social sciences doctoral training provision in 2020 stated that the UK has a doctoral completion rate of around 75% (ESRC 2021). However, the same report found significant numbers of doctoral students reporting poor mental health, the impact of which can lead to attrition and lengthen completion. As Murphy, Bain and Conrad (2007) argue, supervision is a major factor in PGR progression and a need to get it right from both a supervisor and PGR perspective. Embarking upon a doctorate does not guarantee a successful outcome. Notably, Wisker (2012) highlights the importance of discussing the possibility of failure with all PGRs before commencing a doctoral study.

Recent research focuses on large-scale surveys of research supervisors, explorations of the global doctorate landscape, and the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic (e.g. Afzal 2021; Li 2016; UK Council for Graduate Education 2022). Yet the stories and experiences of students and supervisors engaging in the supervisory relationship are sparse and warrant further exploration of how the relationship evolves during the PGR journey, so supervisors are best equipped to support and promote a good student experience. In doing so, it is worth considering Jindal-Snape’s (2023) multiple and multi-dimensional transitions (MMT) theory which recognises that an individual inhabits multiple ‘domains’ (which can be physical, social, psychological, and cultural) daily, for example between home and work (Gordon et al. 2017). When an individual experiences transition in one domain, such as a change in role in work or in living circumstances, this can influence further transitions or changes in other domains, and impact upon the significant others around the individual. Likewise, the transition experiences of others can trigger and/or have an impact on the individual too. Jindal-Snape (2023) theorises that the domains of transition can be envisaged as 12 pillars¹ of transition, related to dispositions, beliefs, support systems, and environmental affordances which include culture and discourse. All interact with each other and are interdependent. However, it is worth noting that not all the pillars, as identified by Jindal-Snape (2023) will be relevant in the context of this study. As students’ journey through the doctoral process and transition from dependence to independence, greater consideration needs to be given to the multiple and multidimensional transitions that may be taking place, not only at a developmental level but also at emotional, social, and psychological levels (Packer et al. 2021). Applying Jindal-Snape’s MMT theory (Jindal-Snape 2023) requires consideration of changes and challenges in the relational dynamics between supervisor and student, recognising that both parties need to adapt as the student becomes autonomous (Taylor 2023).

Given the complexity of the PGR journey, and ever-changing needs of students, we conducted an exploratory study to explore the views of both PGRs and supervisors on how the supervisory relationship changes during the doctoral journey. Our study took place during the COVID-19 pandemic, and with consequent social restrictions meant that both doctoral study and supervision had to operate under new constraints, presenting a new aspect to the supervisory relationship.

To gain breadth and depth, we employed a mixed methods design and recruited PGRs and supervisors in the UK to explore contemporary views of the doctoral journey and to seek perspectives from both parties. This paper provides a mixed methods exploratory study of supervision stories gathered through interviews and questionnaires from participants across the UK to explore how relationships change during the doctoral journey considering the COVID-19 pandemic. In exploring the relationships between both supervisor and student, our research questions were:

1. What are the perspectives and opinions (including any challenges) on the PhD student–supervisor relationship?

2. To what extent has the pandemic changed the student–supervisor relationship?

Literature review

In exploring the literature regarding doctoral supervision, it was pertinent to ascertain findings around expectations for both supervisors and students alike, particularly as research identifies anomalies in expectations and experiences from both parties involved in the process (Halse 2011). Literature has explored the transitory nature of the supervisory relationship, how supervisors adapted styles of supervision in response to student needs and necessity (considering the pandemic), and the move from dependent student to independent researcher. Critical in supporting the growth of the researcher in taking ownership of their work is feedback, and additional support mechanisms to provide guidance during the PGR journey, areas that have traditionally been less considered. Finally, in considering the solitary nature of the PGR role, awareness of student mental health and wellbeing is critical in developing a greater understanding of how to effectively support the PGR.

Doctoral supervision: what does it mean for supervisors and PGRs?

Halse and Bansel (2012) define the supervisor and student relationship as ‘individualised’ in the preparation or supervision of a thesis or dissertation. Bui (2014, 13) further contends that successful doctoral completions depend on the ‘quality of supervision and the interaction and relationship between supervisors and students.’ Supervisors play an essential role in the experience and the relationship between the supervisor and student is central. Successful relationships lead to faster progression and lower attrition rates among students (Golde and Walker 2006; Lee 2008; Sadlak 2004). Poor supervision can result in non-completion, both in terms of quality of work produced and student motivation (Haksever and Manisali 2000). To mitigate this, Ryan (2005) states that early clarification of roles and expectations within the relationship is essential. Taylor (2023) warns of not assuming a ‘one-size-fits-all approach’ recognising that some students will want and require more guidance than others.

Universities have a key role in developing students as researchers (Wisker 2012) with supervision an essential component. Halse and Malfroy (2010, 79) describe the criticality of ‘good’ doctoral supervision for successful doctoral programmes and posit that developing ‘scholarly expertise’ is crucial. However, developing this with PGRs takes time, which can limit opportunities for supervisors to pursue their own research. Furthermore, a supervisor’s workload can also impact upon provision for PGRs. A recent survey published by the UK Council for Graduate Education (2021b) reported that only 52% of supervisors indicated their institutions formally recognised supervision as part of workload. Consequently, supervisors were not able to allocate the desired time to their supervisory roles, which impacted upon expectations from PGRs.

As well as workload and time, there are several other reasons why interactions between supervisor and students can be challenging. Aspland et al. (1999) conclude problems in supervision arise because PGRs and supervisors proceed on different assumptions with varied or unclear expectations, supporting the findings of Ryan (2005). In addition, doctoral supervisors are largely allocated with the student having little say in the appointment process (Parker-Jenkins 2018). Despite an increasingly positive trend towards team supervision, within a team dynamic uncertainty over roles and responsibilities can arise, such as the role of the primary supervisor and division of roles between teams. With greater emphasis on multi- and interprofessional working cutting across disciplines and methodologies, a team approach is welcomed. However, at times, it can lead to confusion for the student as to whom to contact and what to expect in terms of supervision and guidance (Wegener, Meier, and Ingerslev 2016). Iphofen (2001) argues that PGRs need a realistic view of the supervisor role and that supervisor cannot be all-encompassing for the student. Our study explored the challenges of the PGR journey within a COVID-19 environment and the evolving nature of the student–supervisor relationship from the perspectives of both parties.

Changes and transitions in the PGR journey

During the PGR journey, the role of the supervisor and expectations of the PGR relationship changes. Viewed through the MMT (Jindal-Snape 2023) lens enables a better understanding of the holistic impact of the transition from PGR to researcher (Gordon et al. 2017). It is likely to be a more pro-active approach initially with the supervisor viewed, from a social constructivist approach (e.g. Vygotsky 1978), as a ‘more knowledgeable other’ within the dyad during the initial stages of the relationship. Here, the supervisor guides the PGR in developing knowledge and skills with more scaffolding needed during preliminary supervision meetings (Bruner 1977; Deuchar 2008).

Copeland, Dean and Wladkowski (2011, 26) in discussing power dynamics of supervisory relationships, argue that ‘supervision is an activity filled with ethical dilemmas related to the power held by the supervisor, a power that should be exercised with care.’ This can be viewed as a balancing act between meeting the needs of the PGR whilst simultaneously facilitating their growing autonomy. Copeland, Dean and Wladkowski (2011) recommend that expectations of both supervisor and student are made clear from the outset, suggesting a continual dialogue evaluating the supervisory process by all parties involved. Armitage (2007) contends that the supervisor needs to be a collaborator, supervising through facilitation, thus channelling their power to become facilitation centred. This is congruent with the work of Lee (2008), Taylor (2023) and Thompson et al. (2005) who suggest that students become more powerful and independent as their research progresses, however, it is vital that the supervisor is clear on this role. As the PGR becomes more autonomous, working towards greater research independence, less support is required from the supervisor who can then take a more advisory role (Hu, Zhao, and van Veen 2020; Wisker 2012). Here, the PGR is moving across Vygotsky’s zone of proximal development (ZPD) to become more autonomous (Vygotsky 1978). However, consideration needs to be given to the evolving power dynamics in the relationship between the supervisor and PGR and, within the supervisory team itself, which tends to be hierarchical in nature (Johansen et al. 2019). A successful supervision dynamic needs to accommodate power relationships between individuals. Robertson (2016) asserts that if effective, this enables a highly productive supervision process but acknowledges that levels of trust between supervisors and a student is a key component. However, it is important to begin by creating a relational space, where individuals feel comfortable acknowledging what they do not know and are open to learning from others (Gittell 2016). From this, relational coordination can develop, that is, coordination through high-quality communication, supported by shared goals, shared knowledge, and mutual respect.

Supervisory Styles

Supervisory style and approach vary at all levels of study, yet the doctoral relationship is a long-term relationship that requires sustained nurturing over several years. Gatfield (2005) devised four models of PGR supervision. Firstly, the laissez-faire approach with a minimal role in the provision of support. Secondly, significant pastoral support and resources, but little in managing the research process. Thirdly, the directional model where supervisors play a significant role in managing the research process but little in the way of pastoral support. And lastly, the contractual model where supervisors have a significant role in both organising and managing the research process and supporting the candidate.

These differing styles of supervision allow for successful matches between supervisor and student but can also result in mismatches too. Mismatches can contribute to a poor student experience and potentially lead to a failure to complete. Attrition and lengthening times to completion are commonly associated with poor student satisfaction and wellbeing (ESRC 2021); however, reasons are varied and cannot solely be attributed to supervision. Further, Richards and Fletcher (2020) found a lack of explicit training around the supervisory role and identified that supervisors drew upon practices based on personal experiences of supervision rather than drawing upon current theories of supervision as a form of teaching and learning. Taylor (2023) warns this may work for some students but not for all, and supervisory practices need to adapt depending on the students’ needs.

Naturally, the relationship between a supervisor and PGR will vary depending upon the discipline, stage of project, cultural expectations, and mode of study. The relationship is transitionary, and as a result, roles will adapt and need reviewing with change over time (Richards and Fletcher 2018; Wisker 2012).

Feedback

Wisker (2012) refers to ‘supervisory dialogues’ which are central to research students’ learning. Feedback encouraging the student to develop criticality, and become well-informed and well argued in their writing, is crucial in the development of a good thesis or dissertation. Murray (2002) contends that supervisors need to decide on the type of feedback to give, and this can and will depend on where PGRs are in their research process. Wisker (2012) describes a ‘feedback sandwich’ where positive comments are made first, followed by more challenging and evoking comments and finally closing with positive comments. Importantly, the PGR is asked to reflect upon what has been achieved and to decide upon the next steps. McAlpine and Amudsen (2012) argue that feedback needs to be actionable so the students can understand it and make any required changes.

Occasionally PGRs may receive conflicting feedback which can raise concerns for students (Olmos-López and Sunderland 2017), particularly in the context of co-supervision. In contrast, Guerin and Green (2013) argue that diverse feedback and appraisal of supervisory feedback contribute to the development and autonomy of the student as a researcher. Power dynamics between the supervisor and the PGR may also impact on the relationship. Research suggests that some PGRs are expected to work autonomously and to execute agency in making decisions about their projects, but then to apply deference and respect to supervisor feedback-even if conflicting (Guerin and Green 2013). It is complex and at times contradictory when a student needs to be both ‘independent of and dependent on the supervisors’ (Guerin and Green 2013, 326). As students’ autonomy and agency grow, then relational dynamics evolve, allowing students to respectfully disagree with feedback, leading to robust discussions and new avenues of thinking. This supports the work of Vygotsky as discussed above, where initially the supervisor can be viewed as the more knowledgeable other (MKO), but as the student grows in autonomy, they become less reliant on the MKO and more secure in their own writing (1978).

However, supervisors have a responsibility to recognise the impact feedback can have on students and to ensure students recognise that competing views are a valuable part of academic life (Guerin and Green 2013).

Support mechanisms

Olmos-López and Sunderland (2017) discuss moral aspects of supervision, with supervisors having an ethical obligation to ensure PGRs are supported throughout. In contrast, some supervisors see their role as solely for professional activities and that any other issue outside the supervision process should be dealt with at an institutional level. The Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education (Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education 2014) explicitly states the need for a supervisory team for PGRs, citing the opportunities it allows for valuable skill development for staff in becoming ‘effective research supervisors.’ For the PGR, it facilitates access to a range of experience, support, guidance, and understanding throughout the supervision process.

As well as ensuring support is in place for PGR students, there is a need for professional training, support, and development for supervisors. However, Halse and Malfroy (2010, 88) found that supervisor professional development often attends to the instrumental, administrative aspects of the doctorate, because these are ‘embedded and explicit in the systematic routines, procedures, policies, and practices of universities, and therefore can be easily coded, commodified, taught to and learned by doctoral supervisors.’ This lack of support around the actual practicalities of supervision, rather than the formalities of supervision was echoed in the findings from this research. Several supervisors interviewed felt there was a need for increased guidance around supervision. Halse also points out that there is a ‘silence about what doctoral supervisors learn through supervising doctoral students' (2011, 557) and this research has sought to unpick that silence.

The Communities of Practice theory (Lave and Wenger 1991; Wenger 1998) proposes that learning occurs within an authentic context, with people with a shared interest working together for collective learning. Here, both supervisors and PGRs can recognise what can be learned through relationships and clear communication (Packer et al. 2021). Students can benefit from being part of a supportive academic community, and the input of critical friends can help maintain momentum and develop quality writing practices (Wisker 2012). Postgraduates can become part of communities of researchers, leading to knowledge exchange and increased research capacity.

Student mental health and well-being

Embarking upon a doctorate can be a lonely and lengthy process. Wisker (2012) provides suggestions to support PGR motivations such as setting up peer group activities, having regular supervisions and guiding students to available support and mentoring facilities. With COVID-19 leading to a shift to online and blended learning, there was a risk that PGRs became isolated from peers, so fostering a PGR community who feel part of a research culture is paramount (Kumar et al. 2021).

Recent evaluations of the challenges in doctoral education during the COVID-19 pandemic found supervisors were able to use email check-ins, text messages, and online forums to support PGR engagement and maintain momentum (Borgeson et al. 2021). Miller (2020) demonstrates that digital platforms allowed opportunities for reviews and reflections on asynchronous work. Written work in progress could be shared online and allowed for intellectual discussion (Wisker et al. 2021). Greater flexibility in meeting deadlines relieved the pressure some PGRs felt, while others believed they were better mentored throughout the pandemic as supervisors had more time for them. Students appreciated that some supervisors had been sympathetic and shown interest in their mental well-being.

However, research indicates that for some students the frequency of supervision decreased, and they felt a need for more emotional support. Insufficient support needs can be attributed to the findings from a recent large survey of 3,435 UK research supervisors by the UK Council for Graduate Education (2021b). Here, supervisors identified a lack of support and training on the provision of pastoral care for PGRs, linking back to an earlier point made that support for supervisors focused on formalities rather than practicalities. Supervisors participating in this survey mentioned their own mental health and well-being concerns, with a third stating they had feelings of anxiety and sleepless nights over concerns around supervision during the pandemic (UK Council for Graduate Education 2021b). Some supervisors also reported feeling lonely during the pandemic which resonated with the feelings of some PGRs. This supports Wisker et al. (2021) who found that remote supervision can obstruct an academic atmosphere and create a lack of community.

Research design

Materials and methods

A mixed methods design was used to answer our research questions to provide a comprehensive understanding of the PGR supervisory relationship. A sequential design was used which comprised two stages, firstly, an online mixed-methods survey, followed by further in-depth qualitative interviews with a smaller sample of survey participants. It was therefore possible to integrate the findings from the different phases of the research. There were methodological benefits as the survey phase was used to inform the construction of the interview schedule (Hall and Wall 2019). The approach aimed to offer some breadth by gaining UK perspectives from different types of higher education institutions, but also the depth of experiences by exploring the issues more qualitatively. The planned design encompassed an explanatory sequential design to follow up on the survey findings in phase one and use qualitative interviews in the second phase to elaborate and explain findings from the first phase (Creswell and Plano Clark 2017).

Sampling and recruitment

To provide a comparison of views and experiences, supervisors and PGRs were included as important stakeholders in the supervisory relationship. Participants were primarily recruited using purposive sampling of individuals with experience of either being a Ph.D. supervisor or PGR, accessed through a convenience pool of individuals with access to social media (Twitter) and relevant contacts from the research team. The eligibility criteria were as follows: PGRs currently studying at higher education institutions in the UK who have undertaken doctoral studies within the last 5 years; supervisors currently supervising doctoral students; supervisors who have supervised doctoral students in the past 5 years. As a result, we were able to recruit PGRs at different stages of the student journey and supervisors with varied levels of doctoral supervisory experience. The decision to focus solely on doctoral studies was due to the longevity of the relationship and the intention to capture how the relationship evolves over the research student journey.

Recruitment occurred between March and July 2021 using primarily social media and relevant HEI contacts in the UK. The survey was disseminated locally to PGRs and supervisors at the researchers’ HEIs. All participants met the inclusion criteria and were included in the study. The number of responses for the survey was n = 94 with n = 15 online one-to-one interviews conducted.

Respondent profile

Online survey

Forty-four PGRs and 50 supervisors responded to the survey. Supervisors were evenly distributed by gender (50:50) with over 60% (n = 23) aged 55+. Conversely, the majority (70%; n = 23) of PGRs were female, with only 18% (n = 8) aged 55+ and just under a third (n = 14) aged 34 years and under. PGR respondents were predominantly White (British, European, or American) with only one student from a Black, Black British, Caribbean, or African ethnic background. Most supervisors (87%, n = 33) were White British or Irish with 6% (n = 3) from Mixed or Multiple Ethnic Groups, and 8% (n = 4) from Asian or Asian British (Chinese, Asian Sri Lankan, and Malaysian). The students were predominantly home students with 13% (n = 6) international students. Slightly more PGRs were studying Full Time (FT) (54%, n = 24) compared to Part Time (46%, n = 20). Most PGRs were studying/or had studied in Wales (56%, n = 24) with the remainder 39% (n = 18) from England and one student studying in Scotland. There were no respondents from Northern Ireland. Likewise, most of the supervisors were from Wales (78%, n = 30) and regions across the North, Midlands, and South of England.

Most PGRs 84% (n = 37) were currently enrolled for a doctorate, with the remainder having completed their studies within the past 5 years. A range of doctoral routes were reported with 76% (n = 31) Ph.D. by thesis, 17% (n = 7) Professional Doctorate, and 7% (n = 3) Ph.D. by portfolio. Students were well distributed across the stage of their research degree, with 17% in each of the years 1–4, respectively, 12% in years 5 and 6+, and the remaining 17% having completed their studies in an average of 4.5 years. Most students were fully funded, 5% (n = 2) by research councils, 54% (n = 20) fully funded (other), 16% (n = 6) partially funded, and 24% (n = 9) self-funded.

Interviews

In total, 15 interviews were conducted across PGRs and supervisors. Nine interviews were conducted with students, two-thirds of whom were studying part-time. Students ranged in their PGR journey with one first-year student, three in their second year, two in their final year, and three students who had completed their doctoral studies. Most were studying for a thesis route with two Professional doctorates and one Ph.D. by Portfolio. The research included a range of disciplines including education (n = 4), health, humanities, creative, engineering, and psychology. Most (n = 6) students had studied or were studying at HEIs in England and three from HEIs in Wales from a mix of Russell group and University Alliance HEIs.

Six interviews were carried out with supervisors, three from HEIs in Wales and three from England. As with the PGR respondents, there was a mix of HEIs from the University Alliance and Russell Group. Most supervisors were experienced with a few years of experience and doctoral completions, and all were currently supervising students.

Survey design

A self-completion online survey was designed based on themes from the literature to address the research aim. For example, supervisor training and workload, other forms of support for supervisors and students, challenges, and good supervisory practice. While building on existing literature, greater emphasis was placed on the changing nature of the supervisory relationship. Given the global pandemic happening at the time of data collection, questions on the impact of COVID-19 upon research supervision were also included. Participants were asked to respond to a range of questions centred on their experiences in addition to providing more general demographic information.

A key consideration for questionnaire design was that the research tool needed to be easy to follow, with predominantly closed questions, and not too lengthy (Fowler 2009). A series of closed categorical questions alongside open-ended questions were included. The open-ended questions were factual in nature, for example asking direct questions about research supervisory training received, rather than perception-based with the intention that responses would be brief in nature. However, participants often offered lengthy responses to the open-ended questions resulting in detailed and meaningful open-ended data from the survey phase.

The questionnaire was piloted with a small number of PGRs and supervisors to determine the face and content validity of the questionnaire. Several considerations were made at this point in relation to question ordering and focus. It was also necessary to include further focussed response options, for example using the subject/discipline category ‘please state’ was considered too broad.

The questionnaire was administered online using Qualtrics software to maximise response rates, reduce costs, and for time efficiency. It also provided anonymity and so reduced the potential influence of an interview-administered questionnaire.

Interviews

Initial analysis of survey responses, coupled with themes identified from the literature, influenced the development of the semi-structured questions to enable deeper exploration of the research questions from both PGR and supervisor perspectives. An interview schedule was used as a guide for interviewers with the aim of introducing open questions about supervisory experiences (Flick 2018). A semi-structured approach provided a balance of focused questions and an opportunity for respondents to raise issues of importance related to the supervisory relationship (Silverman 2019). It also enabled the researchers to build up a rapport in contrast to a more structured interview approach whilst being mindful of researcher reflexivity (Day 2012). Example questions included an initial question about current supervisory roles, followed by ‘what makes a good supervisory relationship.’ Bespoke interview schedules were developed for supervisors and PGRs to reflect the different nature of their roles.

As part of the data collection process and to minimise bias, any students from the researchers’ own HEIs were interviewed and analysed by a researcher from a different HEI. Interviews were conducted online and audio-recorded using MS Teams. Given the increase in online working because of COVID-19 the platform worked well, and all participants were happy to engage in an online medium. The online medium enabled a greater reach of participants from across the UK overcoming restrictions on in-person data collection due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Interviews were arranged to accommodate participants’ schedules and resulted in a slightly greater response from PGRs than supervisors. Supervisors were keen to take part, yet for some, it was not possible to schedule the interviews during the recruitment period and so they could not be included in the research. The data collection period spanned March–July 2021 with the hope of including less busy periods of the academic calendar.

Data analysis

This paper focuses predominantly on the open-ended questions from the survey and the interviews conducted in the second phase. Quantitative data are presented as percentages and include the profile of the supervisors and students.

Qualitative data were transcribed verbatim. Relevant concepts and themes emerging from the data were identified and coded using thematic analysis (Braun and Clarke 2006). Each researcher conducted an initial analysis of the interviews and agreed to a coding framework to aid the development of final themes. Some were influenced by the questions in the interview guide, whereas others emerged from the data (Silverman 2019). As there was a team of researchers conducting the interviews, we analysed each other’s interviews and discussed the coding as our framework developed. We engaged in a series of iterations of analysis until our final themes were confirmed. Some of the themes were merged and reframed during this process.

Ethical considerations

Ethics approval was obtained from Cardiff School of Education and Social Policy, Cardiff Metropolitan University and the Faculty of Life Sciences and Education at the University of South Wales. The principal ethical considerations for the research were to ensure that participants (including researchers) were not put at risk and that the research was appropriately designed. Several ethical principles were central to the study design, principally beneficence, emphasising the importance and potential contribution that the research could make to future PGR supervisory relationships and non-maleficence to avoid any harm to participants (Sanjari et al. 2014). Informed consent was gained from participants and as part of this process emphasising confidentiality and anonymity and the right to withdraw up to the analysis phase. Data management and storage were maintained by the lead author, the data custodian.

Results

A total of 94 participants completed the online survey, with just over half (n = 50) from supervisors and 44 student respondents. A third (17) of supervisors and just over half of students (23) agreed to be contacted to take part in an interview; however, this number was reduced due to individual availability and timing of the data collection.

Interview and survey findings

As part of the mixed methods sequential approach, findings from the interview and questionnaire have been integrated into the following themes to structure our interpretation of findings drawn from patterns of shared meaning across the data set.

• Roles and expectations

• Change and Transitions

• Supervisory Styles

• Feedback

• Support Mechanisms

• Advice to Others

Results

The study adopted a constructivist approach where the research was shaped from the ‘bottom-up’, facilitated by individual experiences, multiple realities, and understandings (Creswell and Plano Clark 2011, 40). Utilising a constructivist approach facilitated the interpretation, description, and analysis of data by considering the perspectives of different research participants (Kiger and Varpio 2020; Nowell et al. 2017). Drawing upon information collected via the distribution of online questionnaires (Student Survey – SS and Supervisor survey – S) and interviews (Supervisors and PGR – SUP), emerging themes arose from the data gathered. The overarching theme of this research was an exploration of the unfolding relationship between the supervisor and the PGR student. To examine the different nuances within this relationship, different themes were identified from the data that evidenced the different components that influenced the relationship. Searching for and identifying common threads systematically from data gathered provided an effective method for identifying, analysing, organising, describing, and reporting themes found within the data set (Braun and Clarke 2006).

Roles and expectations

Clarification of roles and expectations around the supervision process is essential in establishing a good supervisory relationship (Ryan 2005). Just over half the PGRs questioned noted they had received training and guidance about commencing doctoral studies, the supervision process, and what to expect; however, 41% reported they had not received any guidance and 2% noted they were unsure. Information on roles and expectations given to students was mostly given centrally as part of a PGR induction process although some students sought information elsewhere to provide general guidance around the supervisory process and expectations or drew on previous experiences as Masters’ students:

This information was provided within the Level 8 induction event, of which it really centred on the role of the supervisors and discuss how to make the most and get the most out of the process.

(SS13)

I researched the process online in advance, gathering enough information to help begin the process.

(SS6)

Responses from the Supervisor Survey indicated that over 91% of the supervisors had attended training to be a supervisor, provided by both internal and external providers and supervisors were aware of support mechanisms that they could access at their institution should they require it. These included peer mentoring, graduate research office, and colleagues. Half of all respondents were supervising between one and five PGRs, with five respondents noting that they were supervising more than 10. Supervisors reported meeting their students regularly, with frequent informal contact interspersed between formal meetings, although the nature of the doctoral funding dictated the frequency of meetings for some supervisors. Many noted that the meetings were arranged in response to the needs according to where the PGR is on the research journey, described by one student as the ‘intensity of the first stages’ and an ‘initial needy phase’ (PGR1). Bui (2014) notes that developing an analytical response to student needs during the supervision process facilitates a more nurturing relationship. However, Conway et al. (2016) comment that the supervisory process is a developmental process that takes time, commitment, and a willingness to reflect on one’s beliefs, values, and actions, recognising the transitory process of the doctoral journey as identified by Gordon et al. (2017).

Meetings at the beginning of the supervisory journey for most PGRs (74%) included initial discussions on how the supervision process would be organised. Ascertaining from the outset a clear focus on the process of supervision can ensure that both PGR and supervisor agree and that supervisors’ expectations around autonomy are in line with student needs, mindful of the paradigms of supervision styles (Gatfield 2005). One respondent recalled that this encompassed ‘timelines, the role of supervision meetings over the course of the project, the balance of expertise and how this will swing the project’ (SS3). Another respondent noted that ‘the team described the official process and procedures that we would undertake as we progressed. We discussed my initial responsibilities and what I should do in the first month, which was followed by setting targets to achieve by the next meeting’ (SS4). Deuchar (2008) comments that using scaffolding to provide guidance during initial supervision meetings can be useful for students as they are often working in an environment that is individualistic in nature and conducted in relative isolation. It can also assist in the transition to becoming a researcher. Ensuring good social interaction and clear guidance from the outset of the doctoral journal can also serve to avoid or mitigate potential conflicts or disputes that may arise during the relationship trajectory (Adrian-Taylor, Noels, and Tischler 2007).

Responses from the Student Survey indicated that during initial meetings most PGRs discussed ideas for their doctoral research and agreed on a general structure for meetings and how the team would work together. Typically, these included general discussions around the research area, the structure of the supervision process and recording information, expectations in terms of work to be submitted, and a focus on getting to know each other. For some PGRs, the funding element of the process dictated criteria in terms of meeting: ‘ … there were criteria within the contract which my supervisors needed to meet e.g. 104 hours of supervision a year’ (SS37). While individual discussions between supervisors and PGR is a key element in exploring roles and expectations from the outset of the doctoral journey, there is evidence to suggest from the data collected that additional guidance for both PGRs and supervisors at a HEI level is useful in ensuring parity of experience for all. In identifying the roles and expectations of both student and supervisor, it is apparent that it is the nature of the relationship that develops between both parties which is critical. PGRs were asked to describe their relationship with their supervisors, with most describing their relationship with their supervisors in a very positive light: ‘encouraging and understanding’ (SS10), ‘incredible professionals who are experts in their relative fields, and this enables me to be guided by a supportive and critical team. We speak regularly and they are incredibly welcoming, friendly, and encouraging. The team allows me to structure my thoughts and plans in a manageable and realistic way, without their input I would be lost’ (SS4) and ‘I have been totally supported both personally and academically’ (SS6). Only a few PGRs described their relationship with their supervisor as ‘challenging’ (SS23) and ‘fairly distant’ (SS26).

This resonates with Communities of Practice theory as discussed previously, where the supervisor and the PGR work together within a shared interest, leading to collective learning (Lave and Wenger 1991; Wenger 1998). As indicated in the responses detailed, communication both formal and informal is crucial to the supervisory process.

Students who were also staff at the HEIs where they were undertaking their doctorate commented on some of the challenges in navigating relationships with individuals who were both colleagues and supervisors. From the responses collated, it appears that this required additional communication around roles and expectations and the setting of clear boundaries between the role of colleague and supervisor/PGR and that this is a continual discussion as the relationship develops and changes across the doctoral journey. This is summarised in a response given about the optimal supervisory approach towards the latter stages of the doctorate:

I was coming close to the end, and I was in a really good position to be able to have those conversations, but just that kind of, you know, really intense academic discussion with somebody who really knows the topic and is as passionate about it as you are, and is actually really interested in what you’ve found, but then also links it into something that they’ve been researching, and you just have those really kind of dynamic, interesting conversations.

(PGR1)

The COVID-19 pandemic had an impact on supervision roles, particularly in terms of how meetings are organised, and feedback given. Kumar et al. (2021) notes that there has been a potential for PGRs to feel distanced from research communities when supervised remotely. Given that COVID-19 restrictions meant that face-to-face interactions were limited, comments by students on the use of online forums to conduct meetings range from not having any noticeable impact to making a significant difference in terms of ease of access to the team and quicker response times. One student stated that ‘the move to online working had made the relationship stronger as both sides had to problem solve together in navigating how to keep the project on course’ (SS29). This was reinforced by supervisor responses who commented that meeting online was easier when travel might have been an issue previously and that they considered themselves to be more available to students. However, there was a concern about the impact of the pandemic on students’ ability to collect data for their research projects, and a need to meet face-to-face as a way of getting to know the student properly, as one supervisor noted, ‘there is a loss of sense of belonging and the informal nature of the relationship’ (S26). While recognising how critical fostering a good working relationship is, there needs to be clear recognition on the part of the supervisor in scaffolding expectations to facilitate the academic development and growth of the PGR as an independent researcher.

Change and transitions

With a commitment to widening participation in HE, increasing number of students commence doctoral studies from a variety of backgrounds, and with a wealth of experience. The transition journey to becoming a PGR can often be challenging, particularly in terms of time management, self-discipline, and working independently (Hu, Zhao, and van Veen 2020; Wisker 2012). There can also be a shift in terms of an individual’s professional identity (Watts 2009). Some PGRs noted that they either already had connections with the HEI and so the transition was eased due to familiarity with the environment, an understanding of systems and perhaps previous experience of being a student or working at the setting. As one PGR noted: it was ‘a smooth transition – I had a prior connection with the institution (through work and study) and the focus of my research represented a continuation of an interest linked to my work and previous studies’ (SS2). Another noted, ‘I have been doing my Ph.D. alongside a full-time teaching post at the same university, so it is less a transition, more of a juggling act! It is part of the job role that we all undertake PhDs or Ed Ds (sic) so all of the staff here are in the process or have completed’ (SS8). However, most PGRs appeared prepared for the transition and either saw it in terms of academic progression or as continuing professional development, as one student noted, ‘I had previously been working as a research associate, so transitioning to the Ph.D. was fairly logical … ’ (SS26).

Other students commented on challenges faced in relation to a ‘lack of structure’, feelings of loneliness, and being scared due to the increase in expectation and a ‘step up’ in learning autonomy (SS21, 31, 32). This resonates with Gordon et al. (2017) and Gurr (2001) who acknowledges the varied trajectories of students in moving from being dependent on the supervisor to taking ownership of their project. These experiences of transition relate to the, first MMT pillar of transition, Habits of Mind (Jindal-Snape 2023). In this transition, both parties are required to negotiate new relationships, solve problems creatively, and be open-minded in a potential context of uncertainty and ambiguity. Some challenges were faced as the transition from work to higher education placed value on other skills not always recognised in the workplace. This draws upon the ‘experience of diverse pedagogical/andragogical approaches/work practices’ pillar of Jindal-Snape’s, (2023, 540) MMT. As one student noted, ‘ … many of my existing skills/approaches were valued for teaching, but not considered to be grounded in the preferred epistemological and ontological background for research in my new department’ (SS26). This ties in with Watts (2009) who recognises the difficulties faced by professionals when starting their doctoral journey, where the transfer and utilisation of existing skills in new ways can be challenging.

The role of the supervisor in supporting the transition is critical and requires, as Deuchar (2008) notes, a considered reflection of supervision styles appropriate to the needs of the student and understanding of potential impact on the PGR of their transition experiences, not only from an academic perspective but also considerations on other domains such as social, psychological, and emotional areas (Jindal-Snape 2023). While responsive changes were required at short notice due to the COVID-19 pandemic, it appears from responses by both supervisors and PGRs that the transition in the way that supervisory meetings were held did not have a detrimental impact, and that on the most part both parties were sensitive to the potential broader impact of the pandemic.

Supervisory styles

From the responses given by PGRs, it was apparent that supervisors adopted a variety of styles when supervising, and that this varied between supervisors on the same team. Some students found this a complementary relationship that enhanced discussions and enabled a deeper consideration of the research being undertaken. However, other PGRs found inconsistency in feedback between supervisors challenging, with conflicting messages from supervisors causing confusion and potential misunderstanding. This too was noted by the supervisors interviewed who commented that they amended their styles according to where the PGR was in their doctoral journey and according to need. This draws upon Richards and Fletcher’s (2020) hypothesis that supervision practices tend to be drawn from personal experiences of supervision rather than from guidance drawn from teaching and learning, whilst recognising flexibility in adapting styles to accommodate need. This reflects pillar 4 of Jindal-Snape’s, (2023, 540) MMT in ‘perception of ability and skills to navigate transitions.’ Designated milestones within the doctoral journey seemed to have a positive impact on the supervisory styles adopted, as goals for both PGRs and supervisors provided a clear focus on the task in hand and directed expectations from both parties. As one supervisor commented, ‘the Prof Doc has very clear milestones for e.g. completion of work and timescale for study’ (S32). This was commented upon by PGRs, with one student commenting on the degree of autonomy given which has ‘proved to be both a strength and problematic’ (SS2). The strength of working independently allows for the individual to work through problems resulting in a self-assurance and confidence regarding decisions taken. Conversely, the student notes that ‘during times of challenge, I have felt cast adrift, and this has impacted negatively on the rate of progress’ (SS2). While Barnard and Schultz (2019) acknowledge the central goal of the doctoral journey is to become an independent researcher, the journey to autonomy is a transformational process, from which the starting point varies according to previous experience and understanding. This is exemplified in a response from one PGR with experience in practice before starting doctoral studies:

I think in terms of the supervisory process, I mean, for the most part, I enjoyed the independence, to be honest, that I was given to… I think in some ways, maybe because it work… worked out quite well for both of us, because like I said, I think my supervisor was a little bit scared of it. And initially, she was a little bit scared of letting me just go off and do it. But then after a while, I think she sort of realised that I… I did really want to do this, and because I’d been in practice and done research on it before, that I could sort of be trusted to just go away and get on with it.

(PGR1)

Responses from all participants evidenced a flexibility in approach which appeared individualistic in nature and reflective of supervisors’ own experiences. Having a greater understanding of the transitionary nature of the PGR role (as identified by MMT theory (Jindal-Snape 2023)) and ensuring communication channels are open enables the fostering of more supportive relationships; however, a framework of good practice can facilitate this further.

Feedback

At the heart of the doctoral journey is feedback. The quality and method of feedback given to PGRs is pivotal as noted by Wisker (2012). Feedback given to PGRs varied, but generally, written feedback was given on submitted work with a follow-up meeting for verbal feedback and discussion. PGRs valued honest and constructive feedback on a regular basis and supervisors noted that this was a ‘negotiated’ process (SUP2) whereby PGRs could question feedback until a consensus was reached in terms of moving forward. As Delamont, Atkinson and Parry (1997, 29) contend it is important to give honest but positive feedback to build students’ confidence, especially when commencing their doctoral journey.

Other supervisors encouraged their PGRs to ‘write through the whole process and to publish if possible’ (SUP3). All the students surveyed seemed to be content with feedback processes, considered to be ‘so encouraging and quick’ (SS8), and ‘very thorough’ (SS27). One PGR noted that ‘a research paper developed from these discussions as we got excited by ideas being explored’ (SS11).

While Guerin and Green (2013) recognise the importance of acknowledging the power dynamics within the supervisory relationship, responses suggest that regular, effective feedback mechanisms allow PGRs to reflect on work, to take ownership and, at times, to develop collaborative partnerships with supervisors in disseminating elements of their work. This resonates with Jindal-Snape’s, 2023 MMT as described earlier, where the students are transitioning from dependence to interdependence (Gordon et al. 2017). This connects with the research questions underpinning this research, where the focus has been on the relationship and how it changes throughout the PhD journey.

Support mechanisms

Doloriet, Sambrook and Stewart (2012, 733) state that the purpose of supervision is to ‘steer, guide and support students through the process of conducting a doctorate’ and is one pinnacle of an academic’s career. In acknowledging the responsibility of the supervisor in providing appropriate guidance Olmos-López and Sunderland (2017) note this can be conceptualised as a form of teaching. However, this can be complex to navigate, dependent on the nature of the relationship between supervisor and student, and has been cited as the ‘most critical element in doctoral education’ (Sugimoto 2012, 4). Both supervisors and students in the study commented on the challenges of working with colleagues in terms of shifting power dynamics, for example supervising a colleague who is the supervisor’s line manager or vice versa (SUP1, PGR3, PGR5) and the ability to switch to appropriate supervision roles (Deuchar 2008). Several supervisors requested additional support for supervision and for increased guidance around supervision styles. It appears that for some supervisors there is a need for direction and support in providing further clarity around the role.

Both supervisors and PGRs noted the value of peer mentoring. Students commented on the value of good peer support: ‘as all of my colleagues are also doing doctoral study, we have tended to support each other’ (SS6). PGRs who were also HEI staff drew upon the work of others for guidance and direction but also mentioned the value of sabbaticals, writing retreats ‘where you shut up and write’, weekly writing boot camps, and opportunities to present their work in moving their work forward (PGR2, PGR3). Another student (PGR4) identified the value of a study group where students in similar situations work together can meet up and share experiences around the research process. This resonates with Scott and Miller (2017) who describe both individual and collective experiences that form the doctoral trajectory as transformational, particularly in relation to communication, the ability to reflect critically, and shifts in thinking as academics and individuals. Further, studies by Wegener, Meier, and Ingerslev (2016) demonstrate how peer interaction supports the development of researcher identity. Gardner (2009, 2010) asserts that systems such as supportive and collegial environments are central to the doctoral experience.

Students were aware of formal support mechanisms in place at their HEIs, with the majority citing Student Services and Graduate School as places to go should they need advice. While the majority had not accessed support services, those who did found them to be very useful: ‘I needed support with my wellbeing and the online anonymised service was really useful’ (SS14). Reasons given for not using the available services on offer were attributed to good peer support. It could be argued that sharing practice and seeking advice from fellow supervisors enables a greater understanding of specific nuances related to the role and that this should be embedded within HE environments. Findings from the data suggest that seeking advice and support during the supervisory process during the pandemic was found to be beneficial in most instances.

Advice to others

In terms of providing advice to other supervisors or PGRs about supervision, expectations were a common theme emerging from both supervisor and PGR surveys and interviews. This draws upon the fourth pillar identified by Jindal-Snape (2023) in individual’s perception of ability and skills to navigate the transition. Sharing experiences empowers both the individual who has experienced the journey and the one who is yet to embark on it. Supervisors and PGR students felt the expectations from both parties needed to be made clear and, if not, to seek clarity. Wisker contends that ‘clarity of mutual expectations, ground rules…and focus of supervisions are all essential (2012, 37). Further advice if the relationship was not working was to address this as early as possible to seek a way forward. For some students, this meant changing supervisors and although acknowledging this as being stressful was necessary. Supervisors and PGRs stated that listening was crucially important even if the relationship had broken down, both felt by listening to each other, important lessons could be learned. Wisker (2012, 190) uses the term ‘learning conversation’ arguing that the supervisory process is arduous and challenging. Wisker (2012) also advises that dialogues need to match cognitive processes so there are fewer misunderstandings in the relationship.

From the data collected, supervisors felt a need to be clear from the outset that PGRs took ownership of their work, although realising this was a challenge for some PGRs. While supervisors wanted to motivate students, ultimately, the students’ own desire to succeed was essential. Experienced supervisors recommended that individuals new to the supervisory role seek advice from more experienced supervisors as and when needed. Lee (2008) contends PGR supervision can be regarded as the pinnacle of teaching experiences for academics, but also a privilege and a responsibility.

Discussion

This research has contributed original knowledge around the supervisor and PGR doctoral research journey in exploring the voices of both supervisors and PGRs about their experiences during the pandemic. Initial findings suggest the supervisor/PGR relationship is a complex one which, at times, requires careful navigation by both parties. Navigating the findings within an MMT framework recognises the complexity, not only from the perspectives of supervisor and PGR but also in acknowledging a wider ‘ripple’ effect.

Changes in the way PGRs were able to meet and interact with supervisors because the pandemic has mostly facilitated the development of relationships; however, there is a clear recognition from the data of the importance in seeking out expectations and working on initial relationships from the outset. Developing social capital, identified as the fifth pillar in MMT enables positive transition experiences, supporting PGRs in affiliating themselves as researchers within the HEI environment.

Initial foundations, and scaffolding development, can serve to support or mitigate later differences of opinion by ensuring channels of communication enable open dialogue by both parties in supporting the shift from dependence to independence. This resonates with Communities of Practice theory (Lave and Wenger 1991; Wenger 1998), where relationship building and communication are at pivotal throughout the supervisory journey. Recognition that this transition can be complex, as identified by Jindal-Snape’s (2023) MMT theory, enables greater sensitivity of the PGR experience. In this context, the transition to becoming a doctoral researcher from an academic perspective is in continual flux. Dynamic interactions between PGR and supervisors necessitate a positive transition experience (MMT, pillar 1). Structured support systems within HEIs can serve to provide guidance and clarification for both parties when needed. These continual support mechanisms, with regular opportunities for discussion, are important both for supervisor and PGRs.

Retrospection appeared to be of value to participants in that all involved were keen to offer advice to others, which included setting clear expectations from the start and always seeking advice when needed. Providing such opportunities further enables the understanding of the transition process itself by the individual while also allowing confidence in embarking on other transition experiences, as Jindal-Snape (2023) notes in the tenth pillar. Using Jindal-Snape’s (2023) theory of Multiple and Multi-dimensional transitions and drawing upon the 12-pillar analogy enables a deconstruction of both PGR and supervisor experience while also recognising that these experiences interact with each other and are interdependent.

Conclusion and recommendations for supervisory practice

The findings from our study highlight several fundamental considerations of the supervisory process. These considerations vary according to each stage of the research journey. Findings recognise the multi-faceted challenges of the supervisory relationship, and the need to be responsive and flexible during this transitionary process from dependent to independent researcher. There is a recognition that different types of doctoral studies can affect supervisory relationships and that the pandemic necessitated a change in the supervisory approach, which in most cases, made for a more fluid, dynamic relationship between PGR and supervisor. Viewing the PGR and supervisor relationship through MMT has allowed this research to provide an original contribution to knowledge and understanding. The recommendations that can be made from this work (as evidenced in Table 1) can provide a wider contribution to good supervisory practices as evidenced from the data gathered in this paper.

Table 1. Features of good practice for stakeholders involved in PGR supervision.

Table 1 outlines a series of recommendations for stakeholders involved in PGR supervision, using a précis of themes derived from the study and to present the findings within this paper. Firstly, within the PGR community, between PGRs and Supervisors and lastly considerations between supervisors.

This small-scale mixed-method exploratory study aimed to explore the supervisory experiences of PGRs and supervisors. Combining qualitative data gathered from survey responses and semi-structured interviews offered breadth and depth; however, the small sample size and concentration of responses from Welsh HEIs (despite attempts to gather data more widely) must be acknowledged which challenges the generalisability of findings.

Several interesting perceptions emerged from this study about the supervisor and PGR relationship. While the PGR trajectory is not always a linear one, PGRs are aware of the wealth of support available in the transition to becoming a PGR regardless of previous experiences and background. Supervisors can access a range of training and while predominantly focused on regulations and processes, courses are available that focus on supervision relationships and interactions with students. PGRs who were also members of staff found navigating relationships with colleagues as supervisors, challenging on occasions. With a growing number of PGRs in HEIs, communities of practice are developing, allowing PGRs to support each other, and to a degree, this seems to be occurring among supervisors as well. Allowing time to reflect on roles and ways of operation serves to ensure greater responsivity and reflectivity by both partners in the process. While the challenges of COVID-19 cannot be ignored, it appears that it facilitated flexible supervision opportunities. The positive outcomes of working during a global pandemic were an unexpected finding, it was not just about remote working and accessibility but also the experience of more focused time and experiences of the supervisory relationship.

Our research includes PGRs with an emphasis on the evolving relationship, yet the findings and features of good practice also have broader significance for a range of research supervisors/mentors supporting researchers towards researcher independence. For PGRs, given the increasing student growth globally, our findings and recommendations from this UK study have potential application internationally for research students and their supervisors. Managing expectations, transition to doctoral study, and the role of peer support for students and supervisors are fundamental to a positive supervisory experience.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Amanda Thomas

Amanda Thomas is a senior lecturer in early years education and initial teacher education at the University of South Wales. She is interested in educational transitions and play-based pedagogies. Amanda has published several books on early years education and child development.

Rhiannon Packer

Rhiannon Packer is a senior lecturer in Additional Learning Needs (ALN) at Cardiff Metropolitan University. She is interested in educational transitions from early years to HE and has published a book in this area and several papers. Other research interests are additional learning needs (neurodiversity), bilingualism, and well-being.

Notes

1. The 12 pillars identified by Jindal-Snape (2023, 540) are: Multiple and Multi-dimensional Transitions Habits of Mind, Multiple and Multi-dimensional Transitions Habits of Heart; Attitudes and beliefs about transitions; Percpetion of ability and skills to navigate transition; experience and outcomes of other multiple and concurrent transitions; discourse about transitions at homes, school, workplace, in the wider community, media; Social Capital; Significant others’ ability to support transitions; Significant others’ experiences and outcomes of their own transitions; Opportunities to discuss transitions in everyday life; Experience of diverse pedagogical/andragogical approaches/work practices; Organizational, familial and community culture.