Fit matters in the supervisory relationship: doctoral students and supervisors perceptions about the supervisory activities

Doctoral Students’ Social Support Profiles and Their Relationship to Burnout, Drop-Out Intentions, and Time to Candidacy

“…This partly contradicts the findings of previous studies that suggest that doctoral students in STEM disciplines are often more satisfied with their supervision and researcher community support and have higher completion rates and shorter completion times than their counterparts in the human sciences (Gardner, 2010;Pyhältö et al 2015;Visser, Luwel, & Moed, 2007;Wright & Cochrane 2000). A reason for this discrepancy may be that these studies have typically been primarily focused on exploring attributes between disciplines.…”

“…Instrumental support is, however, less often emphasized by students, although it has been suggested that supervisors recognize this issue to a great extent (Pyhältö, Vekkaila, & Keskinen, 2012. Doctoral students have, for instance, been found to value feedback that enables them to solve problems related to their research projects, (Jairam & Kahl, 2012;Pyhältö et al, 2015;Woolderink, Putnik, van der Boom, & Klabbers, 2015), personal attention in the form of regular interaction with (Wao & Onwuegbuzie, 2011) and interest (Lovitts, 2001) from their supervisor, as well as encouragement (Jairam & Kahl, 2012;Weidman & Stein, 2003). Students have also been found to value the basic prerequisites of supervision, such as the supervisor being available, responding to the students' e-mails within a reasonable time and showing a commitment to supervisory relationships .…”

“…The Doctoral Experience survey (previous versions Pyhältö et al, 2009Pyhältö et al, , 2015 included Likert-type statements and open-ended questions concerning six topics: (1) interest in doctoral studies, (2) doctoral students' positive and negative key experiences, (3) the research environment, supervision and collaboration , (4) academic writing (Lonka et al, 2014), (5) burnout (Stubb et al, 2012), and 6) engagement and drop-out intentions, as well as background questions. The survey was available in Finnish and English.…”

“…For example, constructive feedback, emotional support (Vekkaila, , including an open, honest, and ongoing discussion between doctoral students and their supervisors concerning student experiences, expectations and goals are reported to have a positive influence on students' perseverance (Ives & Rowley, 2005). Frequent, good-quality supervision has been associated with progress in and the timely completion of doctoral studies (Jairam & Kahl, 2012;Martinsuo & Turkulainen, 2011;Wao & Onwuegbuzie, 2011), satisfaction with supervision, and the overall doctoral experience (Pyhältö, Vekkaila, & Keskinen, 2015). Moreover, positive relationships with faculty and peers and between the candidate's goals and aspirations with the doctoral program have been shown to contribute to student resilience (Hoskins & Goldberg, 2005).…”

A Preliminary Examination of Doctoral Student Retention Factors in Private Online Workspaces

“…Doctoral supervisors can provide invaluable direction for students such as resources, knowledge in the discipline, study structure, research skill development, regular feedback, and publishing opportunities. Although perceptions among doctoral students and their supervisors differ regarding the role of the supervisor (Orellana et al, 2016), extant research shows that adequate supervision reduces attrition (Pyhältö, Vekkaila, & Keskinen, 2015) and emotional exhaustion (Rigg, Day, & Adler, 2013), and doctoral students benefit when the supervision varies (Cornér, Löfström, & Pyhältö, 2017). Although doctoral students should transform from course-takers into autonomous researchers, supervisors can facilitate the development of independent scholars by offering their expertise and guidance.…”