Effective Doctoral Supervision through the Supervisee Lens: A Multidimensional Study of Public Universities in Pakistan
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.55737/trt/v-iii.338Keywords:
Doctoral Supervision, Doctoral Supervisees, Quality Feedback, Supervisory Relationship, Academic Development, Higher Education, PakistanAbstract
Good doctoral supervision should not only ensure the completion of the doctoral thesis but also support doctoral researchers in becoming independent, critical, ethical, and professionally connected scholars. This study explored doctoral supervisees’ perceptions of effective supervisory practices across five dimensions: Relationship Building, Quality Feedback, Explicit Communication, Accessibility and Responsiveness, and Academic Development. Using a quantitative cross-sectional survey design, data were collected from 226 doctoral supervisees enrolled in four public sector universities in Southern Punjab, Pakistan through proportionate stratified random sampling. A researcher-made 29-item questionnaire was employed, demonstrating high internal consistency overall (Cronbach’s alpha = .952) and across all dimensions (.834–.895). Descriptive statistics revealed an overall positive perception of supervision (M = 3.54, SD = 0.74). Among the dimensions, Quality Feedback received the highest rating (M = 3.63, SD = 0.86), followed by Accessibility and Responsiveness (M = 3.59, SD = 0.85), Relationship Building (M = 3.52, SD = 0.86), Academic Development (M = 3.48, SD = 0.90), and Explicit Communication (M = 3.46, SD = 0.89). Particularly favourable supervisory practices included needs-responsive and timely feedback, supervisor accessibility, equitable treatment, and encouragement of original ideas. However, weaker areas included early clarification of expectations, participatory goal-setting, support for scholarly writing and networking, monitoring incremental progress, and maintaining regularity. The findings suggest that while the overall quality of supervision in the selected universities was generally good, supervisees experienced it differently. Strengthening explicit communication, expectation setting, and academic development opportunities may help shift doctoral supervision from a narrow focus on thesis completion toward a more comprehensive process of researcher formation.
References
Anttila, H., Pyhältö, K., & Tikkanen, L. (2024). Doctoral supervisors’ and supervisees’ perceptions on supervisory support and frequency of supervision—Do they match? Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 61(2), 288–302. https://doi.org/10.1080/14703297.2023.2238673
Bahtilla, M. (2024). Supervisory feedback: Supervisors’ reasons for not giving timely feedback. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 61(1), 19–30. https://doi.org/10.1080/14703297.2022.2083656
Bao, J., & Feng, D. (2025). Supervisory feedback and doctoral students’ academic literacy development: The case of writing for publication. Teaching in Higher Education, 30(4), 862–879. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2023.2283727
Bao, J., Feng, D., Hu, G., & Wang, J. (2025). ‘You could make original contributions, just like them!’: Supervisory interactions and a doctoral student’s academic identity construction. Studies in Higher Education, 50(2), 349–364. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2024.2338267
Baydarova, I., Collins, H. E., & Barron, D. (2023). Formation, negotiation, and alignment of doctoral student and supervisors’ expectations: A co-constructed narrative. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 47(10), 1362–1374. https://doi.org/10.1080/0309877X.2023.2256683
Bearman, M., Tai, J., Henderson, M., Esterhazy, R., Mahoney, P., & Molloy, E. (2024). Enhancing feedback practices within PhD supervision: A qualitative framework synthesis of the literature. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 49(5), 634–650. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2024.2307332
Buirski, N. (2022). ‘Ways of being’: A model for supportive doctoral supervisory relationships and supervision. Higher Education Research & Development, 41(5), 1387–1401. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2021.1910209
Cardilini, A. P. A., Risely, A., & Richardson, M. F. (2022). Supervising the PhD: Identifying common mismatches in expectations between candidate and supervisor to improve research training outcomes. Higher Education Research & Development, 41(3), 613–627. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2021.1874887
Carless, D., Jung, J., & Li, Y. (2024). Feedback as socialization in doctoral education: Towards the enactment of authentic feedback. Studies in Higher Education, 49(3), 534–545. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2023.2242888
Corcelles-Seuba, M., Suñe-Soler, N., Sala-Bubaré, A., & Castelló, M. (2023). Doctoral student perceptions of supervisory and research community support: Their relationships with doctoral conditions and experiences. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 47(4), 481–491. https://doi.org/10.1080/0309877X.2022.2142102
Guarimata-Salinas, G., Carvajal, J. J., & Jiménez López, M. D. (2024). Redefining the role of doctoral supervisors: A multicultural examination of labels and functions in contemporary doctoral education. Higher Education, 88, 1305–1330. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-023-01171-0
Gunasekera, G., Liyanagamage, N., & Fernando, M. (2021). The role of emotional intelligence in student-supervisor relationships: Implications on the psychological safety of doctoral students. The International Journal of Management Education, 19(2), Article 100491. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijme.2021.100491
Li, Y., Xu, W., & Chen, J. (2025). PhD student-supervisor relationship and its impacts: A perspective of the interpersonal relationship model. Frontiers in Education, 10, Article 1570137. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2025.1570137
Masek, A., & Alias, M. (2020). A review of effective doctoral supervision: What is it and how can we achieve it? Universal Journal of Educational Research, 8(6), 2493–2500. https://doi.org/10.13189/ujer.2020.080633
Masood, S., Khawaja, F., & Waqar, Y. (2023). The road to doctoral success: A model for high-quality PhD supervision in education. Global Educational Studies Review, 8(2), 660–672. https://doi.org/10.31703/gesr.2023(VIII-II).59
Polkinghorne, M., Taylor, J., Knight, F., & Stewart, N. (2023). Doctoral supervision: A best practice review. Encyclopedia, 3(1), 46–59. https://doi.org/10.3390/encyclopedia3010004
Pyhältö, K., Tikkanen, L., & Anttila, H. (2024). Relationship between doctoral supervisors’ competencies, engagement in supervisory development and experienced support from research community. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 61(3), 555–569. https://doi.org/10.1080/14703297.2022.2160369
Rönkkönen, S., Tikkanen, L., Virtanen, V., & Pyhältö, K. (2024). The impact of supervisor and research community support on PhD candidates’ research engagement. European Journal of Higher Education, 14(4), 536–553. https://doi.org/10.1080/21568235.2023.2229565
Seeber, M., & Horta, H. (2021). No road is long with good company: What factors affect PhD students’ satisfaction with their supervisor? Higher Education Evaluation and Development, 15(1), 2–18. https://doi.org/10.1108/HEED-10-2020-0044
Taylor, S., & Kiley, M. (2025). A handbook for doctoral supervisors (3rd ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003432159
Thomas, A., Packer, R., & Dolan, G. (2024). Current issues in doctoral supervision practice in the UK. Research in Post-Compulsory Education, 29(1), 158–188. https://doi.org/10.1080/13596748.2023.2285634
Tikkanen, L., Ketonen, E. E., Toom, A., & Pyhältö, K. (2025). PhD candidates’ and supervisors’ wellbeing and experiences of supervision. Higher Education, 90, 1451–1469. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-024-01385-w
Waheed, S. A., Gilani, N., & Zafar, S. (2021). Responding to supervisory feedback: Doctoral students’ understanding of supervisors’ attitudes and improvement of the feedback. Research Journal of Social Sciences and Economics Review, 2(1), 365–374. https://doi.org/10.36902/rjsser-vol2-iss1-2021(365-374)
Zahid, M., & Mahmood, Q. K. (2025). Exploration of doctoral students’ supervisory experiences in Pakistani universities. Masyarakat, Kebudayaan dan Politik, 38(1), 30–43. https://doi.org/10.20473/mkp.V38I12025.30-43
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
