This is a part 2 of 2, looking at what uncertainty and vulnerability might look like from a supervisor perspective. Part 1, the student angle is here. In this post I am again considering how trust may be a marker of a ‘good quality’ supervision relationship.
‘Trust’ as a phenomenon can be understood as “willingness to accept uncertainly and make oneself vulnerable in the face of insecurity” (Hope-Hailey et al., 2012).
So, where could uncertainty and vulnerability exist in for doctoral supervisors? Some ideas from interviews with doctoral supervisors are below:
Recruitment practices. Supervisors frequently speak of restrictive rules related to the recruitment of doctoral students. Specifically, being expected to take on any and all self-funded students, was a major cause of increased workload, tension and conflict in the supervisory relationship.
Management and leadership are inherently difficult. Supervisors report feeling pressure to be a good supervisor and to ‘get it right’ for the student. Most spoke of the need to be flexible and try different approaches with different students whilst maintaining equity and not ‘showing favouritism’. Supervisors who have received supervisor ‘training’ are still in the minority and those who have received no support to performing this difficult role, feel the university has a responsibility to provide this.
Complicated processes and checkpoints on the doctorate. A key vulnerability is the complex administration and regulation of doctoral programmes (e.g. statements of expectations, codes of practice, handbooks, supervision policies, progression criteria) — this often leaves supervisors feeling lost about how to best advise their student.
Accountability. The pressure of being accountable for good research practices, and for delivering published outputs from doctorates that have attracted funding could be acutely felt. The tension between ‘rushing them through in three years’ and ‘making the research actually worth funding’ is a common uncertainty.
The value of doing supervision well. Supervisors often find that talking about the more ‘tricky’ (relational) aspects of supervision with others is impossible, or at least not formally required or facilitated. The lack of formal spaces or requirements for talking about supervisory practice makes things difficult. Supervision is not always a common feature of institutional promotion, or other reward and recognition processes, and it instead relies on intrinsic motivation to do a good job.
Supervisory teams, and supervisory ‘mentoring’. As students also reported, the tensions involved in working as supervisory teams can be acutely felt. Supervisors describe being paired with a more experienced colleague as a supervision ‘mentor’, but felt it was done so ‘the dept. could cover their backs’ rather than as a genuine developmental mentoring opportunity.
I am interested to know how you as supervisors negotiate all this? Do you personally see these things as challenges? What good supervisory methods have you developed? What would you disagree with, and what would you add to that list?