Supervision – The Most Variable of Variables: Student Perspectives

This study followed the habits of 16 participants completing doctoral degrees in social sciences at two  different UK universities, in attempt to determine students’ day-to-day experiences of their supervisory  relationships over time.

Findings

Four main categories of need were identified in the catalogued interactions of 15 of the students with  their supervisors (although it is noted that nine of these students logged interactions with their  supervisors in which they did not need or want any help from them).

The four categories were represented in the following proportions:

• “Writing” – 37 %
• “Research plans and processes” – 22 %
• “Institutional issues” – 21 %
• “Disciplinary/ academic practices” – 18 %

In the early stages of the degree, help needed by participants from their supervisors tended toward  formal institutional expectation. During data collection, help needed was more related to unexpected  difficulties with data collection/ fieldwork, and non-inquiry aspects of academic work (ex. writing a

research paper). Those who were farther along on their doctoral journey tended to need help with data  analysis and writing. Although participants would reach out to their supervisors when they needed help,  they did not feel that they needed help from their supervisors on a regular basis; infact, many stated  that they preferred to act independently.

More often than not, students reported that interactions with their supervisors were positive, causing  them to feel pleased, proud, and encouraged. Negative affect emerged from students’ intentions being  curtailed by the supervisors, either by lack of access or disruptive interactions.

This study also looks at interactions when more than one supervisor is present. A variety of benefits and  drawbacks are discussed, such as a co-supervisor taking the lead in the case of an intellectually-absent  main supervisor, and supervisory conflicts.

Supervisory relationships are also looked at from three perspectives: (1) origins of the relationship, (2)  supervisory power and student intentions, and (3) student description of the relationship.

Overall, students found their supervisor relationships to be satisfactory or positive, meeting needs that  it would be hard for others to meet. Dissatisfaction with supervisory relationships arose from a lack of  supervisory intellectual investment, one’s supervisor lacking availability, and tensions amongst  supervisors later in the co-supervisory relationship. The relationships that students described were  important yet largely confined to a particular role assigned for the duration of the degree.

Students acted independently of the supervisor, sometimes without revealing their actions. This paper  suggests that this is evidence that supervisors, while important, are not paramount in the doctoral  journey.

Weaknesses

Weaknesses in this research people include:

• Extremely small sample size: there were only sixteen participants in this study
• Reliance on self-reporting: students were asked to keep a log of their interactions, meaning that  there is a high risk of inconsistent reporting
• Logs only represented one week from each month, meaning that they may not provide an  accurate representation of the every day lives of the participants
• All of the students were pursuing doctoral studies in social sciences at UK universities, meaning  that this study likely isn’t representative the experiences of all doctoral students