At a time when resources within research organisations are stretched, the PGR experience, and the role doctoral supervisors play in supporting that experience, needs closer attention.
The release of the pilot indicators for the REF People Culture and Environment (PCE) has promoted a flurry of conversations across UK universities as to what ‘counts’. For the first time, institutions may evidence that “infrastructure, processes and mechanisms in place to support the training and supervision of research students are working effectively” and are invited to consider the inclusion of “pre and post training assessments” for supervisors.
This signals to institutions that research supervision needs to be taken seriously– both in terms of quality and consistency of PGR experience, as well as the support and recognition for supervisors themselves. In doing so it validates the contribution of doctoral research to the research ecosystem.
Accelerated prioritisation of research supervision shouldn’t come as a complete surprise. This lack of consistency in PGR experience was recognised less than a year ago in the UKRI New Deal for Postgraduate Research, which stated that “All PGR students should have access to high quality supervision and Research Organisations should ensure that everyone in the supervisory team is well supported, including through induction for new supervisors and Continuous Professional Development (CPD)”. That messaging has been repeated in the UKRI Revised Statement of Expectations for Doctoral Training (2024), alongside a call to research organisations to “build supervisor awareness of PGR mental health, wellbeing, bullying and harassment, and equality, diversity and inclusion issues.”
So, what do we know about research supervision?
Data from the UK Research Supervision Survey 2024 (UKRSS) confirms that, overwhelmingly, research supervision is considered valuable, rewarding and enjoyable by those who undertake it. Supervision also positively impacts upon their own research. However, a third of respondents reported feeling anxious about supervision and reported their main challenge was fostering student confidence and focus, followed by offering compassionate support to students facing difficult issues ranging from mental health and wellbeing, to finances and funding.
Lack of time continues to be a barrier to high quality supervision practice, and rising supervisor-to-candidate ratios complicate this further. While early career supervisors were likely to be allocated one to two candidates, those later in their career could be supervising five to ten– only 30 per cent of UKRSS respondents reported that their institution had a policy on maximum candidate numbers. Respondents also made it clear that doctoral research supervision is not being adequately calculated into workload allocations, with a typically described workload model allocating 42 hours per candidate, per year, but supervisors reporting investing an average of 62 hours.
Time constraints like these contribute greatly to the ability of supervisors to participate in CPD opportunities. This itself is a barrier to good supervision practice, as the UKRSS revealed that supervisors who engage in regular, mandatory CPD reported higher levels of confidence in all areas of supervisory practice. A staggering 91 per cent of respondents who had experienced mandatory induction reported they felt able to enact their institutions’ procedures around supervision– compared to 66 per cent of those for whom induction was not mandatory and 55 per cent who reported no mandatory requirements..
The data illustrates that supervisors care about and take satisfaction from supporting the next generation of researchers, but they are getting a raw deal from their institutions in terms of time, reward, recognition and opportunities to develop and enhance their own practice. Underscoring this point, just 56 per cent of supervisors reported feeling valued by their institution, compared to 90 per cent who felt valued by their students. Until now this has gone under the radar, making the inclusion of the PCE indicators a welcome sign for those of us working to make changes within the sector.
Engaging supervisors with high quality Continuing Professional Development
Focus groups conducted with supervisors at five UK universities as part of the Research England funded Next Generation Research SuperVision Project (RSVP), have provided insight into what CPD is considered useful, meaningful and relevant. Supervisors were well aware of the need to develop and improve their practice, with one participant reflecting “… there isn’t sufficient training for supervision, you have a huge responsibility to another person’s career. So I think the idea that we ‘wing it’ perhaps shouldn’t be acceptable.”
An overwhelming majority of participants reported that the most important aspects of their supervision practice and development come from interactions with, and support from, their peers and more experienced colleagues. The idea that supervision practice is best developed by watching other supervisors on the job and through communities of practice was repeated by participants across experience levels, genders, disciplines, and institutions– with some even claiming this to be the only way to become a truly good supervisor.
Far from being reluctant to engage in professional development, many supervisors welcomed the idea of having the space and time to reflect on their practice. What they were less keen on was anything perceived as a ‘tick-box’ exercise– examples given included short courses without time for discussion, and self-directed online modules. There was a recognition by some that these approaches can be useful, but should form part of a more varied approach to CPD.
Generally speaking, supervisors with less experience were more likely to engage in facilitated workshops and other interventions that help them understand their role and the doctoral journey. Those with more experience expressed a strong preference for discussion-based CPD, including peer reading groups, opportunities for facilitated reflection and mentoring.
Recognising supervision as part of research culture
Whatever the final version of the PCE metrics look like, there is now a growing body of empirical evidence to suggest that a revision in the way we manage, reward and recognise research supervision is needed. When government enabled universities to introduce fees for undergraduates the issue of quality assurance quickly surfaced. It was recognised that students should be taught by properly trained staff with a knowledge and understanding of pedagogy and approaches to learning and teaching. Arguably that moment has now come for research supervision.
If the UK HE sector wishes to attract capable, committed, creative doctoral candidates from a range of backgrounds then those supervising them need to be treated, and trained, as professional practitioners. This means creating the time and space to enable supervisors at all levels of experience to engage in meaningful exchanges about their practice and to refresh their knowledge of policies and new areas as they arise.
Quick wins?
For institutions looking for ways to bolster their supervision support there are some empirically grounded ways to improve practice
Firstly, tap into existing levers for change. The Concordat to Support the Career Development of Researchers outlines the need for PIs (many of whom are supervisors) to engage in professional development. Postdoctoral researchers are also required to engage in “10 days of professional development.” Since postdoctoral researchers are often informally involved in doctoral supervision (15% of the UKRSS respondents identified themselves as ‘early career researchers’) their engagement in CPD could also be counted. Actively recognising and celebrating the diversity of doctoral researchers and their supervisors also aligns with Athena Swan.
Secondly, increase the visibility of provision. Many supervisors in the UKRSS and focus groups didn’t know what CPD was available in their institution. Very few knew about routes to recognition of supervisory practice (e.g.through the UKCGE Research Supervision Recognition Programme). There is little to be lost in an institution showcasing themselves to prospective researchers and funders as one which takes the quality of supervision seriously and actively invests, rewards and recognises supervisors.
Thirdly, actively enable conversations about supervision. Aside from the formal training it is the time spent together which is often valuable. This may include offering simple opportunities for new and experienced supervisors to come together to talk about their experiences on topics that matter to them. It may mean enlisting a few champions who will speak about their experience. If there is already a mentoring scheme research supervision could be added to the list of topics that can be discussed as part of that relationship. It is also helpful to encourage supervisors to engage with the UKCGE Supervisor’s Network which offers cross-disciplinary and national level value as a community of practice.
Finally, use existing PGR and supervisor networks and expert spaces to find out what works well and where the gaps are. Including working with RSVP which is designing, with 58 partners, CPD interventions for new and more experienced supervisors around the topics identified above. Following pilots and evaluation these will be made freely available to the sector. Specific resources to support supervisors to engender a *neurodiversity-affirmative culture will be available later this year. Webpages to support mentoring will be available very soon. Join the RSVP mailing list to be kept up to date.
*with thanks to Professor Debi Riby at the centre for Neurodiversity & Development at Durham University
