Page 1 of 20
Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal – Vol. 11, No. 11
Publication Date: November 25, 2024
DOI:10.14738/assrj.1111.17927.
Ribau, I. (2024). Supervisory Practices and the Profile of the Ideal Supervisor from the PhD Student’s Perspective. Advances in Social
Sciences Research Journal, 11(11). 281-300.
Services for Science and Education – United Kingdom
Supervisory Practices and the Profile of the Ideal Supervisor
from the PhD Student’s Perspective
Isabel Ribau
NOVA School of Science and Tecnology
ABSTRACT
Implementing qualification frameworks in response to the Bologna process during
the latter part of the 20th century prompted considerable change regarding Higher
Education. Such alterations brought up apprehensions concerning the acquisition
of competencies following each cycle of studies, as well as the means employed to
oversee and assess teaching and learning procedures. The NOVA University of
Lisbon (UNL) has recently researched Doctoral Education, focusing on supervisory
practices. Since 2018, surveys regarding doctoral supervision have been conducted
across multiple schools at UNL. This research report presents an overview of the
national numbers regarding doctoral education enrollment, and the results of a
study conducted at four schools within the UNL: The National School of Public
Health (ENSP), Technological Institute of Chemistry and Biochemistry (ITQB), NOVA
Medical School | FCM NOVA, and NOVA School of Science and Technology | FCT NOVA.
The study presents data regarding part-time PhD students' and full-time PhD
students' views of the supervisor rule and focuses on examining the characteristics
of an ideal supervisor and the supervision practices experienced by doctoral
students throughout their PhD programs. The findings suggested that supervision
practices were slightly different considering the type of attendance, the enrolment
year (during all doctoral research projects), and the schools' culture and field
(Health or Science and Technology). Furthermore, the supervisor's role (mentor or
coach) was similar within the school field, but the “ideal” supervisor varied
depending on the school attendance type.
Keywords: Doctoral supervision, supervisory practices, supervisor profile, Doctorates.
INTRODUCTION
Over the past two decades, doctoral education has become increasingly important in Europe.
As a result of regulations implemented through the Bologna process in signatory countries,
such as the qualifications/competencies grids, education has been subject to reflection and
questioning across a range of areas. These include the objectives, function, preparation of
doctoral students, supervision practices, experiences of doctoral students, socialization
processes, Ph.D. design, and employability, among others (Jones, 2013). Many institutions have
adjusted their practices during the doctoral program to improve retention rates and
completion times. They have also developed strategies to support both doctoral students and
supervisors, as well as monitoring and evaluating the implementation of doctoral projects.
Doctoral Supervision
In the past 30 years, the doctorate has undergone significant changes, including formalization,
growth, and diversification of candidates, study modes, and purposes, as noted by Taylor (2014,
Page 2 of 20
282
Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal (ASSRJ) Vol. 11, Issue 11, November-2024
Services for Science and Education – United Kingdom
2016 and 2018). These changes require supervisors to be highly attentive and responsible for
meeting the educational needs of their doctoral students. This involves providing exceptional
learning experiences, monitoring progress systematically, and adhering to institutional
deadlines for completing the Ph.D. Supervisors must also integrate themselves into national
and international research ethics and effectively manage interactions with formal and informal
co-supervisors. The increasing and diverse Ph.D. student population presents challenges in
guiding, motivating, and overseeing larger, culturally diverse groups amidst the increased
workload faced by university professors. The students' profile indicates that many are already
employed part-time, possess mature outlooks, and rely on alternative technological tools for
learning, demanding more time and assistance from supervisors than traditional face-to-face
instruction. Taylor (2014, 2016 and 2018) states that the PhD now serves a diverse range of
purposes, impacting the practice of supervisors. This includes the possibility of co-supervision
within or across disciplines, nationally or internationally, and new forms of PhD programs
carried out in industrial or artistic contexts, which require navigating multiple knowledge
areas, languages, perspectives, and methodologies. Furthermore, the declining trend of
students seeking academic careers and instead pursuing other professional development
opportunities has resulted in a greater need for supervisors to possess varied knowledge and
skills beyond what was traditionally required.
Meanings of Supervision and Their Implications:
Historically, supervision has been viewed as a task best suited for highly experienced PhDs with
a strong research background. The prevailing notion is that those who are skilled at
investigating will naturally be able to teach others how to investigate, and as such, supervision
has been commonly carried out without any additional training beyond that which is gained
through scientific expertise in a particular field. A doctoral degree is often perceived as the
ultimate certification for this type of work (Ribau & Alves Gaio, 2017 and 2018; Lee, 2018). The
style and functional content of the supervision activity were modelled during the PhD process,
by the relation between apprentice/master. Anne Lee pointed out, "There are two key
influences on supervisors' approach to supervision: firstly, their concept of research
supervision and, secondly, their own experience as a PhD student” (Lee, 2008; 2018). Research
provides compelling evidence of the importance of using management techniques in PhD
tutoring or guidance. Orozco's study identified three distinct leadership styles among tutors:
the authoritarian style, where the tutor dictates everything and expects students to comply; the
democratic style, where the tutor engages in discussions, provides feedback, and evaluates
progress; and the laissez-faire style, where the tutor gives complete freedom and only provides
feedback when requested. Most tutors tend to adopt the laissez-faire style, which is often due
to the high number of doctoral students per tutor. Furthermore, studies have shown that
leadership styles tend to vary by field of study, with a more authoritarian approach in the exact
and natural sciences, and a more democratic approach in the human sciences. Based on
Gatfield's (2005) research, thesis completion is determined by three critical dimensions:
structural elements, which are agreed upon by the student and supervisor; optional support
elements, which can come from either the supervisor or institution and are non-directive; and
exogenous elements, inherent to both the student and supervisor, often associated with
individual psychological factors. Based on Delany's (2009) research, supervisory guidance
relies on the connection between the advisor or supervisor and the supervisee or doctoral
student. This suggests that supervision involves a collaborative effort between the doctoral
student and their supervisor, to complete the PhD program. The dynamic between supervisor
Page 3 of 20
283
Ribau, I. (2024). Supervisory Practices and the Profile of the Ideal Supervisor from the PhD Student’s Perspective. Advances in Social Sciences
Research Journal, 11(11). 281-300.
URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.14738/assrj.1111.17927
and supervisee is shaped by principles that guide it toward accomplishing specific goals.
According to Halse and Malfroy (2009), key qualities of this dynamic involve friendship and
professional rapport built upon mutual respect and trust. A fruitful PhD journey necessitates a
shared set of values, expectations, and motivations between advisor and advisee. For Gatfield
(2005) the supervisory relationship is often perceived as a power dynamic or a professional
agreement that is based on the management of boundaries between the guide and advisee. This
viewpoint implies that the supervision process is influenced by the degrees of responsibility
and independence given to both parties in the relationship (Gatfield, 2005; Frick and Glosoff,
2013; Overall, Deane & Peterson, 2011). According to Maxwell and Smith (2011), supervision
involves modifying the teaching and learning process, personalising instruction, and embracing
diversity (including uniqueness, autonomy, and openness). It values in-person and virtual
tutoring, effective communication, and the integration of technologies. Additionally, it involves
changes in training (both didactic and technological), reflective practice, and collaborative
work. However, some researchers view supervision as the role of a discerning ally who
provides abundant encouragement and understanding, attuned to the requirements expressed
by the supervisor or demonstrated by the doctoral candidate. Under this perspective, the
educational aspect of the connection and the pedagogical expertise of the supervisor are
strengthened as crucial factors in the quality of the relationship. In this conception, the
pedagogical component of the relationship and the pedagogical knowledge of the supervisor
are reinforced as a determinant of the relationship quality (Boud and Lee, 2005; Halse and
Malfroy, 2010; Åkerlind and McAlpine, 2017).
Several authors have analyzed the various approaches to supervision and found that they result
in different conceptions. These conceptions can be categorized into two axes: those that
prioritize the product, with the thesis and its intrinsic quality being essential, and those that
prioritize the process that leads to the production of the thesis and its results. In the latter
approach, the quality of the thesis is a consequence rather than the central focus (Vehviläinen
and Löfström, 2016; Åkerlind and McAlpine, 2017; Boehe, 2014). In their 2016 study,
Vehviläinen and Löfström highlight two distinct approaches to doctoral supervision: the
traditional product-focused perspective and the more contemporary process-focused
perspective. They demonstrate that conceptions of supervision have evolved from an
individualistic framework - wherein the PhD student and advisor bear sole responsibility - to a
more collaborative one, wherein the academic community as a whole share the responsibility
within a socio-cultural context. In this approach, supervision requires knowledge and skills
from the supervisor as a researcher and specialist in an area of knowledge, as well as in
Pedagogy. Supervision is then seen "as a learning" process as well as a participatory process
that shapes the identity of the supervisee" and, in this sense, "supervision is a matter of
pedagogical choices, rather than merely following the traditions of the disciplinary culture or
local routines" (2016:509). This notion of the product process is questioned by Akerlind and
McAlpine (Åkerlind and McAlpine, 2017) to the extent that they consider that the two
dimensions are interconnected and construct different supervisory matrices. They consider
that in the relationship there is always a conception of "what" (product) and "why" (process),
in interaction - Advisor/Advisee - which does not result linearly. It is worth noting that the
polarization of this approach often assumes a uniformity of intentions among advisees, which
is not necessarily the case, even among teachers. Maxwell and Smith (2011) further reinforce
this notion by suggesting that supervision must always consider three key areas: The Process
of teaching and learning, the development of the student, and the production of a
Page 4 of 20
284
Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal (ASSRJ) Vol. 11, Issue 11, November-2024
Services for Science and Education – United Kingdom
product/research project as a social practice and that the importance of each area may vary
depending on the project's stage of development, as well as the advisor and advisee's unique
characteristics and requirements. According to Halse and Malfroy's (2009) research, it is
essential to understand the role of supervisors and how it can be defined, especially with the
recent changes in universities and PhD programs.
Doctoral Supervision as A Teaching and Learning Process:
The supervision of doctoral research or thesis can be considered a practice that falls under the
umbrella of research pedagogy or doctoral training, depending on the perspective (Huet &
Casanova, 2022; Fillery–Travis & Robinson, 2018; Lee, 2018). The common goal, however, is to
create a marked pedagogical space where the supervisor aims to facilitate the student's
learning, development and completion of their thesis for the degree supervision plays a crucial
role in the PhD process as it helps attain specific goals. It is intricately linked to the institutional
objectives that shape the program's purpose, as well as the personal goals of those involved,
including the advisor or supervisor. At the same time, the advisee aims to shift from being a
mere consumer of knowledge to becoming a researcher who produces knowledge. Fillery–
Travis and Robinson (2018) state that there is little research on the component of teaching and
much less on learning in the area of supervision of PhDs - they argue that the need for pedagogy
arises with the modern forms of PhD which there is a context and a specific pedagogy.
According to Fillery-Travis, Robinson (2018) and Tayor (2014), the role of a supervisor has
evolved to that of a support rather than an expert, recognizing that expertise in a particular
area does not necessarily translate to expertise in the profession or specific professional
context. This approach aligns with the concept of pedagogical supervision of teaching practices.
While identifying common practices is important, it's also crucial to recognize that these
practices are shaped by the advisor's beliefs, conceptions, and perspectives (Lee, 2008;
Åkerlind and McAlpine, 2017; Pyhältö, Vekkaila & Keskinen, 2015). Several studies, including
those conducted by Latona, K. & Browne, (2001), Brew and Peseta (2004), Pearson, and Brew,
A. (2002), Barnes and Austin (2009), Halse and Malfroy (2010), and Halse (2011) as well as
Taylor (2012, 2014), have conducted empirical research to identify the challenges and
obstacles faced by supervisors. These studies have revealed several barriers, including the
doctoral students' expectations and feedback provided by supervisors, institutional
requirements and regulations, and the doctoral students' desire to improve performance
through the acquisition of knowledge and skills. Some of these problems, difficulties, demands,
and interests identified will correspond to possible supervisors' training needs. According to
authors like Lee (2009), supervisors should be well-prepared for their roles and possess a
thorough knowledge of the areas in which their doctoral students' projects are developed. This
will enable them to provide effective support to their students. As Sidhu, Kaur, Fook, and Yunus
(2014) point out, PhD students appreciate supervisors who read their work before their
meetings, critique their work constructively, are available when students need them, and
deadlines should be set so that PhD students take the work seriously. According to research
conducted by Meanwhile, Worthington, and Roehlke, and cited by Sidhu and collaborators
(2014), PhD students tend to perceive supervision positively when their supervisor provides
adequate support, offers prompt feedback, fosters positive interpersonal relationships, and
implements structured and education-oriented supervision practices. For Pyhältö and Vekkaila
(2012) the adjustment between the perception of supervisors and doctoral students about their
roles and the doctoral research process also promotes student engagement and effective
Page 5 of 20
285
Ribau, I. (2024). Supervisory Practices and the Profile of the Ideal Supervisor from the PhD Student’s Perspective. Advances in Social Sciences
Research Journal, 11(11). 281-300.
URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.14738/assrj.1111.17927
supervision. In this context, the supervisor should support, with his/her experience and
knowledge, the student throughout the research process, giving quality feedback promptly, so
that the student develops high-quality research skills (Mainhard, van der Rijst, van Tartwijk, &
Wubbels, 2009). A proposed strategy for helping PhD students overcome the difficulties
encountered during their studies is to provide peer support. This strategy is effective in
benefiting both supervisors and students who receive the support, and it allows for better
integration of the latter (Mason & Hickman, 2017). Several studies have shown that PhD
students recognize the value of engaging in institutional tasks within academia. This not only
reinforces their sense of belonging but also contributes to their growth as scholars and
researchers, equipping them with skills specific to the natural sciences and adeptness in
managing doctoral research and institutional tasks. Collaborative academic settings provide
opportunities for crucial learning experiences, such as research activities, training, and peer- to-peer and researcher interactions (Vekkaila, Pyhältö, Hakkarainen, Keskinen & Lonka, 2012).
Supervision Practices
Doctoral supervision, which involves supervision of research projects and theses, can be
viewed as a practice that falls within the realm of research pedagogy or doctoral training
pedagogy, depending on one's perspective (Manathunga, 2007; Halse and Malfroy, 2010; Huet
& Casanova, 2022). Both approaches emphasise the importance of intentionality and purpose
in the supervisory process. The supervisor seeks to support the student's growth and successful
completion of their thesis to obtain their degree, while the advisee aims to learn how to conduct
research and transition from a consumer of knowledge to a producer of knowledge (Fastuca
and Wainerman, 2015). The success of a PhD student is highly dependent on the relationship
and interaction with their supervisor (Loganbill & Hardy, 1983; Mainhard, van der Rijst, van
Tartwijk & Wubbels, 2009). It is vital to provide a learning environment that fosters their
development as researchers and deepens their knowledge (Sze, 2007; Malfroy & Yales, 2003,
Lee, 2008 and 2009). To achieve effective supervision, it is crucial to establish a good social
environment that encourages the doctoral student to creatively build original knowledge based
on the research teams they belong to (Cullen, Pearson, Saha & Spear, 1994; Ali & Kohun, 2007;
Gardner, 2008 and 2010). It is essential to tailor the supervision practices to the specific needs
of the doctoral student and their project (Nakabugo & Ssebunga, 2004). In any research
endeavour, it is crucial to have the guidance and supervision of an experienced mentor,
regardless of whether the research is aimed at generating knowledge or achieving practical
objectives. Providing such mentorship is a complex process, especially when it comes to
specialized subject matter like research. Doctoral students, for instance, need to be taught how
to approach research, including designing projects, analysing data, reviewing the literature, and
sharing findings (Pearson and Brew, 2002).
METHODOLOGIES
National data was collected from an open source, the internet page of “Direcção geral das
estatísticas de educação e ciência” (https://www.dgeec.medu.pt/), page
https://www.dgeec.medu.pt/art/ensino-superior/bases-de- dados/todas/652ff89abd5c2b00958292d7 in January 2024. The data regarding the NOVA
Lisbon school was extracted from their internet page, https://www.unl.pt/nova/factos-e- numeros and https://www.unl.pt/nova/relatorio-de-atividades-e-contas in January 2024
Page 6 of 20
286
Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal (ASSRJ) Vol. 11, Issue 11, November-2024
Services for Science and Education – United Kingdom
An online questionnaire was made available to doctoral students across all schools at UNL. The
questionnaire included an inventory of doctoral supervision practices and characteristics of
supervisors. It was anonymous and open for three months, from March to May 2018. In total,
243 doctoral students responded, with 25 from ENSP (Escola Nacional de saúde publica), 156
from FCT (Faculdade de ciencias e tecnologia), 21 from ITQB (Instituto de Tecnologia Química
e Bioquímica), and 41 from FCM (Faculdade de Ciências Médicas).
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
PhD in Portugal and at NOVA Lisbon University: An Overview
At National Level:
Since the beginning of this century, the number of students enrolled in PhD in Portugal has
grown until 2013/2014, then had a slight decrease, but after 2015/2016 started growing again,
Fig. 1.
Fig 1: Students enrolled in PhD (░) and teachers in higher education (□). since the
school year 2001/2002. b) Beginning of the Bologna Process (Decree-Law No.
74/2006, of 24 March) c) Beginning of the collection of the Register of Enrolled
Students and Graduates of Higher Education. Data Retrieved from
https://www.dgeec.medu.pt/art/ensino- superior/estatisticas/diplomados/652fbe07bd5c2b00958292c9 and
https://www.dgeec.medu.pt/art/ensino- superior/undefined/undefined/657061b5602a6e14599d3922
Typically, part-time PhD students and mature students bring a unique perspective to their
studies, due to their varied backgrounds and experiences in comparison to full-time, younger
students. Mature students are often established in their careers or have families and tend to be
older. Part-time PhD students, on the other hand, may have to balance their work and other
commitments alongside their studies. Strong time management skills are crucial for these
students, who must allocate their time effectively between work, family, and research. As a
result, flexible scheduling and creative solutions may be required to accommodate their other
commitments and meet deadlines and also a change in the supervision practices. In current
times, the PhD student population is quite diverse, which also extends to the types of enrolment,
Fig. 2.
Page 7 of 20
287
Ribau, I. (2024). Supervisory Practices and the Profile of the Ideal Supervisor from the PhD Student’s Perspective. Advances in Social Sciences
Research Journal, 11(11). 281-300.
URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.14738/assrj.1111.17927
Fig 2: PhD students enrolled in the first year, in Portugal in all scientific fields,
since the school year 1996/1997, enrolled in part-time (░) and full-time (□).
https://www.dgeec.medu.pt/art/ensino- superior/estatisticas/diplomados/652fbe07bd5c2b00958292c9
Figure 2 reveals that the number of PhD students enrolled full-time has remained almost
unchanged since 2016/2017. Data indicates that pursuing a PhD full-time after obtaining a
master's degree is highly valued by society. The data from “Direção-Geral de Estatísticas da
Educação e Ciência” (https://www.dgeec.medu.pt/art/), show that the number of students
enrolled in the PhD at a national level has grown since 2015/2016 (Fig.1), however, the
graduates have not shown the same profile (Table 1).
Table 1: Total of students enrolled in the PhD, graduate students, students enrolled for
the first time in PhD, Percentage of students enrolled in the PhD, percentage of doctoral
graduated, percentage of students in the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th in attrition (calculated
considering the students enrolled for the first time and graduated four years later:
(students enrolled for the first time- graduated four years later)/ students enrolled for
the first time).data from Tabelas de dados do Ensino Superior (media. pt)
https://www.dgeec.medu.pt/art/ensino-superior/bases-de- dados/todas/652ff89abd5c2b00958292d7
Scholar Year 2011/2012 2012/2013 2013/2014 2014/2015 2015/2016 2016/2017 2017/2018 2018/2019 2019/2020 2020/2021 2021/2022 2022/2023
Total of students
enrroled in Ph.D.
19 213 19 471 20 245 19 465 19 214 19 759 20 452 21 090 21 764 23 545 24 616 25 202
Ph.D graduates 1 859 2 463 2 503 2 351 2 344 2 135 2 266 2 103 1 941 2 080 2 317 -
Total students enrroled
for the 1st time
5 251 4 575 4 960 4 622 4 696 5 073 5 456 5 535 5 824 6 193 6 139 6 180
Students enrolled in the
2,3 and 4 year 12 103 12 433 12 782 12 492 12 174 12 551 12 730 13 452 13 999 15 272 16 160 -
Percentage of students
enrolled in 1 st year 27% 23% 24% 24% 24% 26% 27% 26% 27% 26% 25% 25%
Percentage of students
enrolled in 2, 3 and 4
year
63% 64% 63% 64% 63% 64% 62% 64% 64% 65% 66% -
Percentage of graduates 10% 13% 12% 12% 12% 11% 11% 10% 9% 9% 9%
Attrition ("Students who took
more than four years to
complete their PhD.")
55% 49% 57% 51% 55% 62% 62% 58%
Page 10 of 20
290
Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal (ASSRJ) Vol. 11, Issue 11, November-2024
Services for Science and Education – United Kingdom
It is important to note that the respondent population from the ENSP is most part-time
students, which contrasts with the FCT respondent population and ITQB (Fig. 3) where almost
all students are enrolled full-time.
A comprehensive analysis was conducted on ten domains of PhD students with both full-time
and part-time enrolment. These domains included Planning, Task Demand, Self-Monitoring,
Supervisor Monitorization, Autonomy Development, Communication Skills Development,
Tasks Outside of the PhD Project, Socialization Process, Supervision Assessment, and
Supervisor Performance as a Guide Project. From the doctoral student’s perspective, it is
evident that tasks assigned by supervisors differ based on attendance type, whether full-time
(174 students) or part-time (70 students), Table 3.
Interestingly, there were no significant differences in the Planning domain among respondents.
However, when the tasks (that students must do at the request of their supervisor) were
analysed, a difference emerged as 44% of part-time students reported that supervisors asked
them to write the thesis simultaneously with the research project development, and this only
happens with 22% of full-time students’ enrolment. The request to write papers at the end of
each year is highlighted by 36% of students on time part-time but only 22% of full-time PhD
students. On the other hand, 20% of the supervisors ask full-time students to write the thesis
at the end of the research period and only 9% demand the same from part-time students. Lee,
Kamler, Wellington, and Lindsay (2008) consider the issue of teaching the PhD student to write
the thesis and articles as one of the assignments/obligations of the supervisor that must be
practised regularly. Research on the continuous model of thesis writing highlighted that this is
a production of knowledge that can support the PhD student in your doctoral pathway and help
or monitor your PhD work (Lee & Kamler, 2008; Wellington, 2010; Lindsay, 2015). As Lindsay
says "Serial writing allows the writer to work to a pattern that ideally suits their working and
social environment, with the latter sustaining the writing process and not undermining it."
(Lindsay, 2015: 185). It should be noted that Murray (2011) considers serial writing "critical
for the development of our thinking through writing". The writing of the thesis is a task that for
Kamler and Thompson (2006) is one of the key pieces for the formation of the identity of the
doctoral student as "the scholar or researcher", it is very important to evaluate the work of the
doctoral student during the doctoral journey. Writing should take place throughout the
doctoral course (and not only at the end), as it is a learning process (which implies advances
and setbacks in the construction of knowledge), but it is also one of the bases for the
construction of the doctoral student's identity. It can be seen because of this work, that this
perception is not transversal to all supervisors, but it exists.
Monitorization and self-monitorization of the research project are essential to balance the
planning and the concretization/operationalization of it. A person with metacognition
possesses the ability to reflect on their own thought processes, understand their own cognitive
biases and limitations, and actively engage in self-monitoring and self-regulation of their
thinking. They can identify errors in their thinking, adjust their strategies to improve their
problem-solving abilities, and have a strong awareness of their own strengths and weaknesses
in terms of cognitive abilities. They also tend to be more adaptable, open-minded, and able to
learn from their experiences. The data allow us to perceive that monitorization is not a practice
that are done usually by students or supervisors. Only 28% of the PhD students enrolled in full-
Page 11 of 20
291
Ribau, I. (2024). Supervisory Practices and the Profile of the Ideal Supervisor from the PhD Student’s Perspective. Advances in Social Sciences
Research Journal, 11(11). 281-300.
URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.14738/assrj.1111.17927
time report the use of a self-monitorization technique, and 53% assign supervisor
monitorization, Table 3.
Table 3: Inventory of practices. Tasks carried out during the PhD project. The
statement that was made was: "My supervisor or co-supervisor asked me (asks me)
to...Percentage of Ph.D. students on part-time, full-time attendance, who assigned the
supervisory task/practice.
Regarding critical thinking, more than half of students enrolled part-time and full-time reported
the supervisor's emphasis on critical thinking development, but few assigned strategies for
increasing autonomy research development (10% part-time students and 31% full-time
students). The development of communication skills can be analysed considering the
attendance to national and international congresses or meetings- less than half are changed to
participate as speakers (36% part-time students and 43% full-time students) and writing
papers to disseminate their results (36% % part-time students and 22% full-time students).
Regarding work in the academy besides the PhD project, 32% of PhD students enrolled full- time are called to supervise Master or Bachelor students and 16 % to give classes (teach a
subject). The socialization process is hindered, only 56% of the PhD students enrolled full-time
are invited to be a part of the research group meetings, and this only happens to 27% of PhD
Domains My supervisor or co-supervisor asked me (asks me) to... Part-time Full-time
... plan my research 49% 43%
... write the thesis over the research period 44% 22%
... write my thesis at the end of my research 9% 20%
...whenever we meet, a written record should be made of the topics discussed 11% 13%
... prepare a portfolio with materials for both of us to consult 7% 6%
... do an oral resume of the research I have been doing, in the individual meetings 23% 53%
... prepare a regular report of the activities carried out 26% 20%
... only present him/her the research at the end of it 0% 4%
...have a critical view regarding my research 57% 67%
... read articles regularly for us to discuss in face-to-face meetings. 23% 31%
...try to solve the research problems that arise before asking for their help 10% 31%
... just perform/do what he/she suggests 3% 7%
... participate as a speaker in national and international congresses or seminars. 36% 43%
...write an article at the end of each year 36% 22%
... give an oral presentation at the end of the semester 4% 8%
... supervise a Master's or Bachelor's student 16% 32%
... teach a discipline 14% 16%
Socialization ...participate in meetings of the research group, to which I belong 27% 56%
...give my opinion regarding their orientation / supervision 0% 6%
...evaluate his/her orientation/supervision 0% 1%
...usually he/she doesn't ask for anything 24% 23%
...I rarely meet with my supervisor (co-supervisor) 13% 12%
... remind him/her of the topic of my thesis whenever we meet 7% 6%
Planning
Tasks demand PhD
students
... prepare a work diary with the activities carried out (dated and with a summary of
them) or a laboratory notebook. 11% 28%
Monitorization
Communication
skills development
Tasks outside the
Ph.D. project
Supervision
assessment
Supervisor
performance as a
guide project
Self-monitoring
Critical thinkig
development
Autonomy
development
Page 12 of 20
292
Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal (ASSRJ) Vol. 11, Issue 11, November-2024
Services for Science and Education – United Kingdom
students enrolled part-time. The supervision assessment doesn ́t exist in both attendances, and
23-24% of the PhD students assign no guidance.
The respondents were also asked to assign the characteristics they considered to be part of the
profile of the ideal supervisor. The data were analysed considering the profile of a coach and
mentor, Table 4. Both give support, but coaching is more structured and goal-oriented, while
mentoring is more informal and relationship-focused. The results were analysed considering
the type of attendance (full-time and part-time).
Table 4: Percentage of students pursuing part-time (red) and full-time (blue) PhD
students from all schools.
In the respondent population, the characteristics of a coach are considered more important
than those of a mentor. For part-time PhD students, the mean score for coach characteristics is
58.4%, while for mentorship it is 49.2%. For full-time PhD students, the mean score for coach
characteristics is 59.7%, and for mentorship, it is 51.62%. Looking at the results, it is possible
to say that the supervisor profile is similar in both populations regarding the characteristics of
a coach, but regarding mentorship, full-time students give more emphasis on being a “patient
explainer” and “good listener”. The profile that arises from the results, for each attendance,
indicates that a good supervisor is a coach, should give feedback promptly, collaborate with
a doctorate to solve problems during the research, be critical, honest, and clear regarding their
comments, be accessible, be present, and accompany students during their PhD research
(which implicitly implies do the research project monitorization). It is important to note that,
prompt and timely feedback is reported in several studies to be very important for completion
time as well as frequent meetings and monitoring of PhD research (with explicit research
Supervisor Type
of support
Profile of a good supervisor (A good supervisor...) Part-time Full-time
... should give feedback on the work promptly. 76% 74%
... should collaborate with the doctoral student in solving the problems that arise in
doctoral research 72% 79%
... should be critical 70% 62%
... must show that he/she feels responsible for the failure/success of the PhD student 32% 39%
... should be active (in the research field) 32% 32%
... must be creative 30% 37%
... should not intervene in the doctoral student's decision-making during the PhD 3% 5%
... should be honest in their opinions about the PhD student's work 76% 74%
... should be present 68% 69%
... should be clear in the comments on the work done by the doctoral student. 63% 59%
... be inspiring 45% 41%
... should always support the doctoral student 35% 29%
... should be a patient explainer 28% 45%
... must be a friend 17% 17%
... must be a good listener 15% 35%
... must not interfere with doctoral research 4% 4%
... must be accessible 56% 62%
... must accompany the doctoral student in doctoral research. 55% 69%
... must be calm 24% 31%
Mentor
Coach
Coach / Mentor
Page 13 of 20
293
Ribau, I. (2024). Supervisory Practices and the Profile of the Ideal Supervisor from the PhD Student’s Perspective. Advances in Social Sciences
Research Journal, 11(11). 281-300.
URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.14738/assrj.1111.17927
milestones, which allow students and supervisors to monitor the process) (Latona & Browner,
2001; van de Schoot, Yerkes, Mouw & Sonneveld, 2013; Sidhu Katur, Fook & Yunus, 2014), and
that for this population is very relevant.
Coaching helps individuals achieve specific goals or overcome challenges through structured
sessions with clear objectives. Coaches offer expertise, advice, feedback, and guidance, focusing
on skill improvement and goal achievement. Mentoring, on the other hand, emphasizes
personal growth, career development, and overall well-being. Mentoring is a longer-term
relationship based on mutual respect and trust. It aims to provide guidance and support in a
collaborative process where a more experienced individual, known as the mentor, assists the
mentee in mastering tasks or concepts that may initially be beyond their grasp. The mentor
provides guidance, feedback, and encouragement to the mentee, as well as temporary support
as they work on tasks beyond their current abilities.
Attendance Year for Doctorate in Full-Time:
Considering only doctoral students who attend doctorates full-time it was also possible to see
some diversification of tasks considering the year of attendance, Table 4.
The tasks requested by supervisors do not differ much from the first year to the last year of the
PhD enrolment. However, there is a slight increase in supervisors who ask students to only
write the thesis at the end of the research period (from 8% in the first year to 32% in the 3rd or
4th year). It should be noted that the percentage of supervisors who ask students to try to solve
problems that emerge from research before communicating them to the supervisors decreases
from 37% in the first year to 27% in the 3rd or 4th year, which may reveal a weak development
of the doctoral student's autonomy. It is also possible to see that the supervisors request for
PhD students to have a critical view of their research every year (a slight decrease from 72% in
the first year, 59% in the second year and 67% in the 3rd or 4th year). Considering that the two
main goals of the research project are to develop the doctorate as a researcher (become an
independent researcher with inherent research skills), and create (edge)knowledge, without
the autonomy and critical thinking development, he will be only a specialised and qualified
worker. To have a critical view regarding the research implies a reflection on data, results
methods, and knowledge, but also attitudes, ethics and self-regulation (involves the ability to
monitor and adjust one's behaviour in response to different situations, to set goals, monitor
one's progress, and to adjust one's strategies tend to perform better). Fillery-Travis and
Robinson (2018: 847) argue that the process "of critical reflection is central to” the
development of the doctorate as a researcher. For these authors, “critical reflection enables
learners to: discover the richness of the resources that lie within themselves; expand their
perspectives; take responsibility for learning and to move towards independence and sustain
motivation (...). Learning is epitomised by their paying careful attention as to what is happening
in practice and making changes accordingly to improve performance and outcomes”. In this
context, supervisors ask doctoral students to critically evaluate their research, viewing the PhD
experience as transformative. Research tool acquisition is seen as a social practice, with some
authors suggesting that it involves "legitimate peripheral participation," where novices are
supported and acknowledged as members of the community while gradually taking on more
challenging tasks (Hasrati, 2005; Lee & Roth, 2003).
Page 15 of 20
295
Ribau, I. (2024). Supervisory Practices and the Profile of the Ideal Supervisor from the PhD Student’s Perspective. Advances in Social Sciences
Research Journal, 11(11). 281-300.
URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.14738/assrj.1111.17927
professional development, especially for PhD students. Despite their differences, they also
complement each other in various ways. An analysis, regarding the supervisors' profile as
coaches and mentors, was conducted considering the schools, Table 5.
Table 5: Percentage of Ph.D. students by UNL school who value the characteristics
identified in a supervisor.
Considering that ENSP and FCM are health schools, their supervisor profile is similar. In the
ENSP and the FCM, the most valued characteristic of the supervisor is giving feedback on the
work, as indicated by 96% of respondents in the ENSP and 85% in the FCM. The second and
third most mentioned characteristics in the ENSP and FCM were "collaborating with the
doctoral student in solving research problems" (76% in ENSP and 85% in FCM) and "being
honest in opinions about doctoral research" (76% in ENSP and FCM). Being critical is also a
characteristic highlighted by many doctoral students in both schools (75% of respondents in
ENSP and 76% in FCM).
For the majority of ENSP and FCM PhD students, a good supervisor should give feedback on the
work promptly, be honest in their opinions about the PhD student's work, collaborate with the
doctoral student in solving the problems that arise in doctoral research, must accompany the
doctoral student in doctoral research, also be present, should be critical and clear in the
comments on the work done by the doctoral student, and be accessible.
Analysing ITQB and FCT, which are schools of science and technology, for ITQB PhD students
an ideal supervisor should be accessible, and honest in their opinions about doctoral research,
and collaborate on the resolution of doctoral research problems – characteristics are the most
appreciated (81% of respondents). However, with a high percentage of assigns, there are also
the statements "accompanying the doctoral student in doctoral research" (76%) and "giving
feedback promptly" (71%). The doctoral student respondents from FCT highlighted important Supervisor Type
of support
Profile of a good supervisor (A good supervisor...) ENSP FCM ITQB FCT
... should give feedback on the work promptly. 96% 85% 71% 70%
... should collaborate with the doctoral student in solving the problems that arise in
doctoral research 76% 85% 81% 75%
... should be critical 72% 66% 52% 65%
... should be active (in the research field) 40% 37% 14% 37%
... must show that he/she feels responsible for the failure/success of the PhD student 32% 34% 52% 36%
... must be creative 24% 44% 19% 33%
... should not intervene in the doctoral student's decision-making during the PhD 8% 2% 5% 4%
... should be honest in their opinions about the PhD student's work 76% 76% 81% 74%
... should be present 68% 61% 69% 72%
... should be clear in the comments on the work done by the doctoral student. 68% 49% 33% 65%
... be inspiring 48% 32% 48% 43%
... should be a patient explainer 28% 34% 43% 43%
... must be a good listener 20% 20% 29% 33%
... should always support the doctoral student 16% 39% 38% 31%
... must be a friend 16% 20% 14% 17%
... must not interfere with doctoral research 3% 3% 5% 4%
... must be accessible 64% 56% 81% 59%
... must accompany the doctoral student in doctoral research. 52% 71% 76% 64%
... must be calm 16% 34% 29% 30%
Coach
Mentor
Coach / Mentor
Page 17 of 20
297
Ribau, I. (2024). Supervisory Practices and the Profile of the Ideal Supervisor from the PhD Student’s Perspective. Advances in Social Sciences
Research Journal, 11(11). 281-300.
URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.14738/assrj.1111.17927
time students indicate that their supervisors ask them to critically evaluate their research
(67%), participate in research group meetings (56%), summarize their research in individual
meetings (53%), plan their research (43%), take part in conferences or meetings (43%), give
classes (32%) read papers for discussion (31%), and attempt to solve research problems
(31%). This indicates that the doctoral research process of full-time students is more closely
monitored, and less autonomous, but has a better socialization process. Part-time students are
more autonomous but less socialized.
Considering the year of enrolment, in the first-year supervisors ask them to critically evaluate
their research (72%), take part in research group meetings (50%), plan their research (50%),
resume their research in individual meetings (50%), read papers to discuss (38%), participate
in conferences or meetings (37%) and to try to solve their research problems (37%). These
PhD students are at the beginning of the research project process and must plan (50%)/or
understand (if the project is already approved) their research critically having field knowledge
and critical thinking. Their socialization process in the academy and research group is not a
priority for half of the supervisors. In the second year, supervisors ask them to have a critical
view of their research (59%), resume their research in individual meetings (52%), plan their
research (50%), take part in research group meetings (48%), try to solve their research
problems (38%) and read papers to discuss (34%). The tasks demanded by supervisors are like
the first year but with less degree of suggestions. In the third and fourth year of enrolment,
supervisors ask them to have a critical view of their research (67%), take part in research group
meetings (62%), resume their research in individual meetings (56%), participate in
conferences or meetings (51%), but only 27% ask doctorate to try to solve their research
problems. At this point, it is possible to conclude that autonomy is not cultivated by the majority
of the supervisors of the PhD students' respondents, as autonomous researchers always try to
solve their research problems before asking for help. The doctorate profile that emerges is not
of a scholar, but of a specialized science worker, who is integrated into the research group, who
has critical thinking to engage in research, and who has communication competencies that
allow him to disseminate the knowledge produced in the research. Understanding and actively
participating in the culture of higher education institutions is crucial for shaping the
experiences and professional development of PhD students. Doctoral students at ENSP and FCM
prioritize strong coaching competencies, with their “ideal” supervisors acting more as coaches
than mentors. Conversely, at FCT, it is expected that supervisors possess not only coaching
characteristics but also mentorship qualities. These differences may be due to the school
culture and academic field. The culture of academic communities significantly impacts the
experiences of PhD students, and their perception of the “ideal supervision”, as it shapes their
expectations, the support resources available for their research, and the values upheld within
the academic community. By engaging with this culture, PhD students can enhance their
success and well-being during their doctoral studies and beyond.
References
Ali. A. & Kohun, F. (2007). Dealing with social isolation to minimize doctoral attrition four-stage framework.
International Journal of Doctoral Studies, 2, 33-49.
Åkerlind, G., & McAlpine, L. (2017). Supervising doctoral students: variation in purpose and pedagogy. Studies in
Higher Education, 42(9), 1686–1698. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2015.1118031