Mind the gap: developing the roles, expectations and boundaries in the doctoral supervisor–supervisee relationship

Abstract

Do we really need boundaries between doctoral supervisor and supervisee when we are talking about mature learners? Drawing on reflection from my extensive experience, I believe it is critical to maintain this divide. There is an increase in doctoral students, proliferation of doctoral programmes globally and practices which vary from context to context. A shared concern, however, is the engagement between the supervisor and the supervisee which can be mutually unsatisfactory. Why is this relationship often so problematic for both parties? What kind of relationship is most appropriate and beneficial? To what extent does this academic engagement need rethinking? These questions are explored with reference to roles, expectations and boundaries and the underlying principles of good practice.

What supervisors and universities can do to enhance doctoral student experience (and how they can help themselves)

“…However, the increased diversity of the doctoral researcher population can lead to challenges and mismatches in expectations between student and supervisor (Sidhu et al . 2014 ; Bøgelund 2015 ; Parker-Jenkins 2016 ). Furthermore, although experienced in research supervision, academic staff may lack experience of the career opportunities and skills needed within this new research context, and are thus unable to provide adequate, up-to-date career support (Parker-Jenkins 2016 ).…”

“… 2014 ; Bøgelund 2015 ; Parker-Jenkins 2016 ). Furthermore, although experienced in research supervision, academic staff may lack experience of the career opportunities and skills needed within this new research context, and are thus unable to provide adequate, up-to-date career support (Parker-Jenkins 2016 ). Therefore, it is critical that universities provide high-quality continued professional development (CPD) opportunities for supervisors alongside non-judgemental spaces where supervisors can support each other and share both challenges and best practice, so that a culture is created in which CPD is expected and valued at all levels.…”

“…Studies show that more diverse doctoral student populations have a broader range of assumptions and expectations of the doctorate and of supervision (Gunnarsson, Jonasson and Billhult 2013 ; Sidhu et al . 2014 ; Bøgelund 2015 ; Parker-Jenkins 2016 ). Gunnarsson, Jonasson and Billhult ( 2013 ) found that the expectations of doctoral researchers and supervisors were often misaligned, leading to disagreements and negative student perceptions of supervision.…”

“…Gunnarsson, Jonasson and Billhult ( 2013 ) found that the expectations of doctoral researchers and supervisors were often misaligned, leading to disagreements and negative student perceptions of supervision. Therefore, it is critical that supervisors are explicit in their expectations, and ensure that their doctoral researchers have understood and correctly interpreted their supervisory discussions (Parker-Jenkins 2016 ). It is also important that academics work to create shared understanding and common practice across departments and research areas.…”

The Relationship Between Interpersonal Approaches of Thesis Supervisors and Graduate Student Satisfaction

“…However, students become dissatisfied when the supervision relationship lacks continuous communication, time spent together, and timely feedback (Abo-Daf, 2002;Alawi, Jabr, & AboSamra, 2008;Shatnawi, 2006). Therefore, maintaining a productive and positive relationship is a key factor in preventing graduate student dissatisfaction and reducing graduate program withdrawal rates (Parker-Jenkins, 2018). Ross-Gordon's (2013) three main interpersonal approaches: directive, collaborative, and non-directive, which were extracted from three main philosophies, namely essentialism, experimentalism, and existentialism.…”