Best Practice in Postgraduate Supervision – Literature and
Current College Guidelines - a Discussion Document
Dr. David Delany, CAPSL
delanydi@mee.tcd.ie
on behalf of the Trinity Postgraduate Supervision Research Group
Introduction and Purpose
Following a literature review designed to illuminate the major issues influencing
effective PhD supervision, it was agreed that a useful starting point for relating this
literature to current practice in TCD would be to map the current TCD postgraduate
supervisor guidelines onto issues identified in the literature. This document reviews the
TCD good practice guidelines for postgraduate supervision in the context of the research
literature on postgraduate supervision with two key goals in mind:
(i) to identify whether the current college guidelines are a comprehensive summary of
good practice based on evidence within the rapidly extending literature base on
postgraduate supervision.
(ii) to create the starting point for the working group to collaboratively develop a
supervisor-supervisee survey instrument that could be used internally (or more widely) to
explore supervision as enacted in practice.
This document comprises a summary comparison of the good practice guidelines and the
current literature base. In-text citations are used to compactly indicate literature support
for key elements of the good practice guidelines (although, were useful these reference
points are elaborated).
This is followed by a table of key concepts, as bullet points, derived from the literature
review on effective supervision that are addressed (or not) within the TCD guidelines.
Further columns and rows in the Table are presented as blank spaces to encourage
comments and questions .
TCD Postgraduate supervision guidelines
The Trinity College Dublin’s postgraduate supervision guidelines (Parnell and
Prendergast, 2006) constitute the culmination of TCD’s research supervision best practice
recommendations for academic staff and students. Originally written by Prof. John
Parnell in 1998, the guidelines have undergone at least two subsequent revisions (in 2005
and 2006) under the deanery of Prof. Patrick Prendergast.
Within the guidelines the relationship of the supervisor to the student is considered under
four headings:
Supervision of research
Student training and development
Monitoring student welfare
Supervisory competence
These sections are prefaced by a general introductory section in which the supervisorsupervisee relationship is defined as ideally a mentoring or apprenticeship relationship
between partners (Hasrati, 2005; Down et al., 2000; Elton and Pope, 1989). Although the
importance of establishing a trusting, secure relationship is emphasised (Green, 2005),
potential problems with the mentoring model, such as the masking of the power
relationship between student and supervisor (Manathunga, 2007), are not addressed.
However, the impact of the perception that students commonly have of themselves as
being on the power-receiving end of the supervisor-student relationship is explicitly
addressed in the guideline’s final section (Dinham and Scott, 1999).
The broad categories of patronage that the supervisor is expected to provide (e.g.
consultation, advice, and resources such as material, equipment, etc) are also touched
upon, along with indications as to desirable characteristics of such support as
accessibility, regularity, and timeliness (Manathunga, 2005).
Although the role of the supervisor as ‘gatekeeper’ of academic standards is mentioned
(Manathunga, 2007), the guidelines emphasis that the student is ultimately responsible
for their own work (Connell, 1985).
(i) Supervision of research
In this section aspects of the role of the supervisor as a competent academic guide are
explored (Haksever and Manisali, 2000; Edwards, 2002). These duties are considered to
include guiding research topic choice, matching student abilities/experience to project
(Hockey, 1994), determining the feasibility of project with available time and resources,
and helping to devise a plausible research plan. An important aspect of this process is
helping the student to flexibly (avoid unprofitable/pursue lucrative) side-tracks and avert
premature canalization of the research question (Haksever and Manisali, 2000).
Constructive and prompt commentary on oral and written work (Torrance et al., 1994),
and the use of progress reports (Gurr, 2001), and formal assessment procedures (Li and
Seale, 2007) are also flagged as important processes for monitoring of student progress.
(ii) Student training and development
As depicted in the guidelines, effective student training and development constitutes a
balancing act between three main factors: basic regulatory competence in the workplace
(i.e. compliance with the relevant regulations, laws and ordinances), academic
presentation (Kamler and Thomson, 2004) and teaching skills, and depth of scholarship
(which includes the ability to create well-designed experiments) (Cryer, 1997, ChenevixTrench, 2006).
(iii) Monitoring student welfare
The guidelines assert that the supervisor’s responsibility for student welfare starts with
ensuring clear communications with the student (Edwards, 2002, Manathunga, 2005).
This is facilitated by ensuring that students are aware of their rights. Abdelhafez (2007),
for example, found a positive correlation between student completion probabilities and
knowledge of their college’s code of supervisory practice.
Supervisors are also advised to be wary of assuming responsibility for student problems
that are beyond their personal limitations and are urged to become familiar with the
various institutional support structures available to students, such as student counselling
services, etc (Manathunga, 2005; Conrad, 2003; Elton and Pope, 1989).
Missing from the guidelines is a pragmatic emphasis on the relative importance of
awareness of the various factors influencing PhD completion (Manathunga, 2005;
Ehrenberg et al., 2007; Gurr, 2001; Lovitts and Nelson, 2000; Seagram et al., 1998).
(iv) Supervisory competence
The supervisory competence section addresses the importance of basic management
aspects of supervision such as time management (Woodward, 1993) and project
management skills, such as budgeting sufficient time for students and milestones
(Yeatman, 1995), establishing clear lines of responsibility (Abdelhafez, 2007), and
managing student over-reliance/dependence (Kam, 1997). The fundamental importance
of basic academic competence to effective supervision is also mentioned (Ferman, 2002).
The final piece of advice reiterates the central role of communication skills to managing
the supervision process (Kam, 1997).
Other issues
Perhaps surprisingly, despite the emphasis within the guidelines on helping students
develop ‘competent autonomy’ (Gurr, 2001) the influence of the supervisor’s
characteristics on the quality of the supervisory relationship (Cullen et al., 1994) are not
touched upon. The level of systematic reflective upskilling of supervisor skills
(Manathunga, 2005; Pearson and Kayrooz, 2004; Emilsson and Johnsson, 2007) is one
such issue. This omission is especially surprising given the opportunities for continuing
professional development for research supervisors within TCD e.g. CAPSL’s research
supervisors workshop. The issue of supervision of supervisors is also unaddressed
(Emilsson and Johnsson, 2007).
There is also a lack of emphasis on the relative empirical likelihood/importance of the
various supervisory issues. For example, Seagram et al., (1998) report that 30% of the
variance in time to completion is accounted for by four factors: beginning the dissertation
research early in the program, remaining with the original topic and supervisor, meeting
frequently with supervisor, and collaborating with the supervisor on conference papers.
Furthermore, no mention is made of discipline-specific aspects of postgraduate
supervision, such as the notable differences in PhD completion rates between the
humanities and sciences (Seagram et al., 1998; Wright and Byrne, 2000; Ehrenberg et al.,
2007).
Table Mapping Key Concepts of Effective Supervision Practice from the Literature to the
TCD Guidelines (presence + and absence -) .
PREREQUISITES
+ Relevant expertise (academic competence) (Phillips and
Pugh, 2000)
- PhD (Edwards, 2002)
RELATIONSHIP
+ Mentorship/apprentice (Hasrati, 2005; Down et al., 2000;
Elton and Pope, 1989)
+ Secure, trusting (Green, 2005; Fraser and Mathews, 1999)
- Potential problems with mentoring model
e.g masking of power relationship (Manathunga, 2007)
ASSISTANCE
- Consultation, advice, resources e.g. material, equipment,
etc (Edwards, 2002)
- Supervisor accessibility, regularity of meetings, speed of
feedback (Woodward, 1993)
SUPERVISION
of RESEARCH
+ Guiding research topic choice (Cryer, 1997)
+ Feasibility of project with available
+ Drawing up research plan
+ Matching student abilities/experience to project (Hockey,
1994)
+ Guiding progress of research [side-tracking, canalisation]
(Haksever and Manisali, 2000)
+ Provision of resources
Monitoring student progress:
+ Commenting on oral & written work constructively &
promptly (Torrance et al., 1994)
+ Progress reports, formal assessment procedures, safety
concerns (Li and Seale, 2007)
STUDENT TRAINING &
DEVELOPMENT
+ Training process: thesis (training, presentation, depth of
scholarship) (Cryer, 1997)
STUDENT WELFARE
DUTIES
+ Clear communications (Edwards, 2002, Manathunga,
2005)
+ Inform students of rights (Abdelhafez, 2007)
+ Know institutional support structures (Manathunga, 2005;
Conrad, 2003; Elton and Pope, 1989)
- Pragmatic awareness of factors influencing PhD
completion (Manathunga, 2005; Ehrenberg et al., 2007;
Lovitts and Nelson, 2000; Seagram et al., 1998; D'Andrea,
2002)
SUPERVISORY
COMPETENCE
+ Time management (Woodward, 1993)
+ Academic competence (Ferman, 2002)
+ Project management - clear timetable & milestones
(Yeatman, 1995)
+ Clear lines of responsibility (Abdelhafez, 2007)
+ Handling student over-reliance/dependence (Kam, 1997;
Scevak et al., 2007)
- Supervisor characteristics (Cullen et al., 1994)
- Reflexive upskilling of supervisory skills (Manathunga,
2005; Pearson and Kayrooz, 2004)
- Disipline differences (Seagram et al., 1998; Wright and
Byrne, 2000)
SUPERVISORY
SUPERVISION
- Supervision of supervisors (Emilsson and Johnsson, 2007)
References
Chenevix-Trench, G. (2006). What makes a good PhD student? Nature, 441, 252.
Connell, R. W. (1985). How to Supervise a Ph.D. Vestes, 28(2), 38-42.
Conrad, L. M. (2003). Five Ways of Enhancing the Postgraduate Community: Student Perceptions of
Effective Supervision and Support. Retrieved May 27, 2008, from
http://surveys.canterbury.ac.nz/herdsa03/pdfsref/Y1033.pdf
Cryer, P. (1997). Helping students to identify and capitalise on the skills which they develop naturally in
the process of their research development programs. In P. Cryer (Ed.), Developing postgraduate key skills:
Issues in postgraduate supervision, teaching and management: A series of consultative guides No 3 (pp. 1013). London: Society for Research in Higher Education.
D'Andrea, L. M. (2002). Obstacles to completion of the doctoral degree in Colleges of Education: The
professors’ perspective. Educational Research Quarterly, 25(3), 42-58.
Dinham, S., & Scott, C. (1999). The Doctorate: Talking about the Degree. Sydney, Australia: University of
Western Sydney.
Down, C., Martin, E., & Bricknell, L. (2000). Student Focused Postgraduate Supervision A Mentoring
Approach To Supervising Postgraduate Students (Version 1). Melbourne: RMIT University.
Edwards, B. (2002). Postgraduate supervision: Is having a PhD enough? In Australian Association for
Research in Education Conference. Brisbane, Australia.
Ehrenberg, R. G., Jakubson, G. H., Groen, J. A., So, E., & Price, J. (2007). Inside the Black Box of
Doctoral Education: What Program Characteristics Influence Doctoral Students' Attrition and Graduation
Probabilities? Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 29(2), 134-150.
Elton, L., & Pope, M. (1989). Research Supervision: The Value of Collegiality. Cambridge Journal of
Education, 19(3), 267-76.
Emilsson, U. M., & Johnsson, E. (2007). Supervision of Supervisors: On Developing Supervision in
Postgraduate Education. Higher Education Research and Development, 26(2), 163-179.
Ferman, T. (2002). The knowledge needs of doctoral supervisors. Retrieved April 3, 2008, from
http://www.aare.edu.au/02pap/fer02251.htm.
Fraser, R., & Mathews, A. (1999). An evaluation of the desirable characteristics of a supervisor. Australian
Universities' Review, 42(1), 5-7.
Green, B. (2005). Unfinished business: subjectivity and supervision. Higher Education Research &
Development, 24(2), 151.
Gurr, G. M. (2001). Negotiating the "Rackety Bridge" — a Dynamic Model for Aligning Supervisory Style
with Research Student Development. Higher Education Research & Development, 20(1), 81.
Haksever, A. M., & Manisali, E. (2000). Assessing Supervision Requirements of PhD Students: The Case
of Construction Management and Engineering in the U.K. European Journal of Engineering Education,
25(1), 19-32.
Hasrati, M. (2005). Legitimate peripheral participation and supervising Ph.D. students. Studies in Higher
Education, 30(5), 557.
Hockey, J. (1994). New Territory: Problems of Adjusting to the First Year of a Social Science PhD. Studies
in Higher Education, 19(2), 177-90.
Kam, H. (1997). Style and quality in research supervision: the supervisor dependency factor. Higher
Education, 34(1), 81-103.
Kamler, B., & Thomson, P. (2004). Driven to Abstraction: Doctoral Supervision and Writing Pedagogies.
Teaching in Higher Education, 9(2), 195-209.
Knowles, S. (1999). Feedback on Writing in Postgraduate Supervision: Echoes in Response-Context,
Continuity and Resonance. Supervision of Postgraduate Research in Education, 113-128.
Li, S., & Seale, C. (2007). Managing criticism in Ph.D. supervision: a qualitative case study. Studies in
Higher Education, 32(4), 511.
Lovitts, B. E., & Nelson, C. (2000). The Hidden Crisis in Graduate Education: Attrition from Ph.D.
Programs. Academe, 86(6), 44-50.
Manathunga, C. (2005). Early Warning Signs in Postgraduate Research Education: A Different Approach
to Ensuring Timely Completions. Teaching in Higher Education, 10(2), 219-233.
Manathunga, C. (2007). Supervision as Mentoring: The Role of Power and Boundary Crossing. Studies in
Continuing Education, 29(2), 207-221.
Parnell, J., & Prendergast, P. J. (2006). Postgraduate Supervision: Best Practice Guidelines On Research
Supervision For Academic Staff and Students. Retrieved May 27, 2008, from
http://www.tcd.ie/Graduate_Studies/docs/Supervison%20Guidelines.pdf.
Pearson, M., & Kayrooz, C. (2004). Enabling critical reflection on research supervisory practice.
International Journal for Academic Development, 9(1), 99.
Phillips, E., & Pugh, D. (2000). How to Get a PhD: A Handbook for Students and Their Supervisors (3rd
ed.). Maidenhead: Open University Press.
Seagram, B. C., Gould, J., & Pyke, S. W. (1998). An Investigation of Gender and Other Variables on Time
to Completion of Doctoral Degrees. Research in Higher Education, 39(3), 319-35.
Wisker, G., Exley, K., Antoniou, M., & Ridley, P. (2006). Working One-to-one with Students: Supervising,
Coaching, Mentoring, and Personal Tutoring, Routledge.
Woodward, R. J. (1993). Factors affecting research student completion. Presented at the 15th annual forum
of the European Association for Institutional Research. Turhu, Finland.
Wright, T., & Byrne, R. M. J. (2000). Factors Influencing Successful Submission of PhD Theses. Studies in
Higher Education, 25(2), 181-195.
Yeatman, A. (1995). Making Supervision Relationships Accountable: Graduate Student Logs. Australian
Universities' Review, 38(2), 9-11.