research supervisor and

Research management

Sponsored by

What does a research supervisor do?

Research supervisors must learn to be authentic mentors, as well as sharing their experience and knowledge. Robert Crammond reflects on his time in the role

Robert Crammond

• More on this topic

Elsevier helps researchers and healthcare professionals advance science and improve health outcomes for the benefit of society.

Discover elsevier.

Created in partnership with

You may also like

Popular resources

.css-1txxx8u{overflow:hidden;max-height:81px;text-indent:0px;} Students using generative AI to write essays isn't a crisis

How students’ genai skills affect assignment instructions, turn individual wins into team achievements in group work, access and equity: two crucial aspects of applied learning, emotions and learning: what role do emotions play in how and why students learn.

Sharing expertise and experience of academia will come naturally to most academics, but acting as a source of developmental support might not, at least not initially.

Over the last decade, I’ve had the privilege of supervising many students at various stages of their academic journeys. Some have been undergraduate students working on their dissertations, some postgraduate master’s students, while others have been working on their doctoral theses.  Here I share my advice based on what I’ve learned during my time as a research supervisor and the five key aspects of the supervisory role.

Set realistic goals

First, as supervisors embark on new projects, they should be realistic with their goals – and this is also the case for the supervisees. In short, a work-life balance must be met to ensure that progress is not at the expense of health and well-being. Setting appropriate milestones to effectively respond to the demands of the project is crucial. This should allow time for priorities to be met, while also putting welfare at the forefront.

• Five tips for building healthy academic collaborations
• How to change research cultures to suppor t the well-being of PhD students
• No one agrees on what research leadership is, let alone how to do it well

Across the term or semester, confirm a number of mini-deadlines and ensure that simple catch-ups take place every seven to 10 days. I’ve found that setting these rules helps to reassure students and maintains their focus.

Communicate to gain context

It is vital that supervisors understand new and ongoing factors affecting their research. This appreciation of context, and engaging in conversation about it, both motivates researchers and increases the validity of the work in question. It also helps in understanding any gaps, problems or challenges within the topics. Students and new researchers will feel included and valued as they begin their investigations.

As a key starting point – ask relevant questions. What is the situation that this research topic concerns? Who is involved? What are the impacting factors and where can more information be found?

Be the mentor, not a research robot

Being knowledgeable is fundamental to being a successful and competent supervisor – but so is being relatable. Those you are working with need to know that you care about them not only as colleagues, but also as individuals. Be aware of (and willing to talk about) how the research journey affects each researcher and their family and how it can lead to sacrifices being made in day-to-day life. Being approachable builds strong working relationships and ultimately leads to a positive research culture.

Supervisors should emphasise that the journey has its ups and downs. They should encourage students and research groups to take time to relax, recharge and enjoy their hobbies and interests . A focus solely on work is not sensible or sustainable. The role of the supervisor is not merely about meeting research objectives – it’s about helping students become well-rounded and successful individuals.

Manage workloads

For many academics and research students, workload consists of both teaching and research and can feel rather intense. That’s not to mention role-specific duties, which obviously vary. Agreeing on what is the priority term-to-term results in working smarter and more efficiently. 

Consider the many responsibilities your team members are juggling and plan effectively. Target specific conferences or external engagement activities relevant to the research focus, to confirm writing projects and timelines for research within the calendar year.

Emphasise exposure and impact

Effective supervisors ensure that their students and groups are part – and feel part – of their research communities. They also ensure the work they are supervising is visible on the widest possible scale and that the supervisee understands why this is important. What is the purpose of research if it is not shared and placed firmly in the public sphere? If we are to make an impact on society, we must talk about what we are doing.

Pose the following questions to your supervisees at the beginning and end of the journey: What are the (expected) contributions of this research? What knowledge or subject area does this research advance? Where is the significant value? Most importantly, who benefits – and how?

Reflecting on my career as a research supervisor has helped me identify the challenges that need to be addressed in the role. Above all, being an authentic mentor who is approachable, takes workloads into consideration, prioritises work-life balance and provides reassurance will benefit everyone.

Robert Crammond is a senior lecturer at the University of the West of Scotland.

If you would like advice and insight from academics and university staff delivered direct to your inbox each week,  sign up for the Campus newsletter .

Students using generative AI to write essays isn't a crisis

Eleven ways to support international students, indigenising teaching through traditional knowledge, seven exercises to use in your gender studies classes, rather than restrict the use of ai, embrace the challenge, how hard can it be testing ai detection tools.

Register for free

and unlock a host of features on the THE site

What Makes a Good Research Supervisor?

Understanding Expectations

For research supervisors, the role is assigned as part of a broader and more complex faculty role that may include teaching responsibilities, administrative committee assignments, research development, and the fundraising and writing tasks that can accompany that research. In that context, being a supervisor may not be perceived as such a central role as it may for the supervisee.

For research supervisees, the expectations they may have of their respective supervisors can often be guided by good or bad experiences with prior supervisors, but they will typically include such variables as commitment, accessibility, regularity of communication, and supportiveness.

A Tailored Solution

With those common variables identified, it would seem that an individual supervisory relationship would be fairly straightforward—just make the necessary fine adjustments to each of those variables based on the displayed needs of the individual supervisee—some will need more support, more frequent communication, etc. However, if it really is that easy, why do so many postgraduate research students complain about supervisors who don’t “get” them, or who appear to be simply “going through the motions,” or who don’t seem to care if they graduate or not?

Supervisor relationship contracts may be built on clear outcomes to be achieved (graduation, research publication, etc.), but for those students being supervised, success comes in the form of “walking the talk.” In practice, this means making an investment of time to learn about the individual needs of the student and then adjusting your behavior accordingly.

The Functions of Supervision

Alfred Kadushin’s work on theories of supervision in social work (which is built on the earlier work of John Dawson) grouped the functions of supervision into three distinct areas:

• Educational—helping the student achieve the necessary competence in research methodology to conduct independent research upon graduation
• Administrative—guiding the student through the necessary internal and external protocols of a postdoctoral research project
• Supportive—providing an appropriate level of emotional support for the student to feel capable in tackling a complex research project. This can vary from reassurance to inspirational and even “tough love” reminders of expectations if needed.

Soft Skills

For experienced faculty who prefer not to be categorized by academic theory, good supervisory skills can best be found in the realm of “soft” managerial skills. Remaining empathetic, flexible, and sensitive to the needs of the aspiring research professionals under your care will put you on the path to success. There are no guarantees that there won’t be some rough spots, especially when a passionate researcher resists a suggested reorientation of a topic to which he or she has been committed since high school, but if a culture of mutual respect and professionalism has been established from the outset, the experience should be a positive one for all involved.

Rate this article Cancel Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Enago Academy's Most Popular Articles

• Career Corner
• PhDs & Postdocs

When Your Thesis Advisor Asks You to Quit

I was two months into the third year of my PhD when it happened. In…

How a Mentor Can Be the Wizard to a Researcher’s Success

Have you ever had a mentor? Alternatively, have you ever been a mentor to others?…

• Publishing Research
• Understanding Reviews

Are Peer Reviews Reports Being Written By Early Career Researchers?

Peer review seeks to ensure scientific integrity. All good journals use peer review to decide…

Tips on Developing an Effective Undergraduate Research Program

Undergraduates can partake in research and they do so regularly. These opportunities are good for…

4 Crucial Tips on How to Effectively Mentor Graduate Students

What is the Role of a Mentor? In graduate schools, students often find themselves in…

Sign-up to read more

Subscribe for free to get unrestricted access to all our resources on research writing and academic publishing including:

• 2000+ blog articles
• 50+ Webinars
• 10+ Expert podcasts
• 50+ Infographics
• 10+ Checklists
• Research Guides

We hate spam too. We promise to protect your privacy and never spam you.

I am looking for Editing/ Proofreading services for my manuscript Tentative date of next journal submission:

As a researcher, what do you consider most when choosing an image manipulation detector?

• Research degrees
• Your study experience
• Responsibilities and expectations

What is the role of your supervisor?

2 Minute read

The supervisory relationship lies at the heart of your research experience. Learn about the role of your supervisors and why they’re the key to your success.

Here are the answers to your frequently asked questions.

You need at least two supervisors, with one designated as the principal supervisor.

• To assist and support you in your study
• To provide helpful feedback
• To ensure you stay on track

But they are not expected to take charge of your research or project. As a graduate researcher, you are expected to be self-motivated and proactive.

Whether you want to join an established project with an assigned supervisory team or find supervisors for your own research project, the questions below may help you determine who is best placed to support your research journey:

• Do they have expertise relevant to your intended research project?
• Do they share your passion for your chosen topic?
• Are they well connected with other researchers?
• Have they developed skills in people management and mentoring?
• What is their reputation amongst current and past PhD candidates? Discover more about their supervision style, availability and accessibility, and the value of their feedback.
• Will you work well together? Consider your respective personalities and communication styles.

You should meet with your supervisors at least monthly. It is essential to build an effective working relationship, and this relies on frequent communication.

Your supervisors form part of your advisory committee. This is a broader group that provides support and advice, and might include people with specific technical or industry expertise. This committee also has a formal role in monitoring your progress. Your advisory committee should comprise at least three members, including your supervisors and the advisory committee chair.

Further detail on the roles and responsibilities of supervisors and advisory committee members is located in the Graduate Research Training Policy .

First published on 17 February 2022.

Keep reading

University life.

Learn more about campus life at the University of Melbourne. And discover why cosmopolitan Melbourne is a great place to live.

Learning & development

Develop your professional and academic skills by participating in our valuable courses, workshops and programs.

Safety and support

Learn how we’re working to create a safe, inclusive and respectful community at the University.

• How it works

The Supervisor’s Role in Developing your Research Skills

Published by Owen Ingram at August 1st, 2023 , Revised On August 1, 2023

An academic supervisor plays a pivotal role in shaping your research journey. The importance of an academic supervisor in the research process cannot be overstated. They mentor, guide, and advocate for the researcher, providing invaluable support and expertise throughout the journey. 

The role of an academic supervisor extends beyond overseeing the project because they play a crucial part in shaping the researcher’s growth, ensuring the integrity of the study, and maximising the chances of research success. Let’s explore it in detail. 

Why an Academic Supervisor is Essential in the Research Process?

Here are some key reasons why an academic supervisor is essential in the research process:

Expertise and Guidance

Academic supervisors bring a wealth of knowledge and experience to the table. They possess subject-specific expertise and are well-versed in research methodologies, design, and analysis. Their guidance helps researchers navigate complex theoretical frameworks, identify appropriate research methodologies, and develop a comprehensive understanding of the field.

Leveraging their Knowledge and Experience to Provide Guidance

An academic supervisor’s knowledge and experience are invaluable resources for researchers. They have extensive expertise in their field and can provide guidance based on years of research and academic experience. Supervisors can leverage their knowledge to offer valuable insights and perspectives, helping researchers navigate the complexities of their research journey.

Refining Research Objectives

An academic supervisor helps researchers define and refine their research objectives. They assist in aligning research goals with the broader scope of the field, ensuring that the study contributes to existing knowledge. With their expertise, supervisors provide valuable insights that refine the research questions, making them more focused, relevant, and impactful.

Assisting in Refining Methodologies

Academic supervisors assist researchers in refining their research objectives to ensure they are specific, measurable, achievable, relevant, and time-bound (SMART). They work closely with researchers to evaluate the feasibility and relevance of the research objectives, considering the available resources and time constraints. 

Supervisors also provide valuable input in selecting appropriate research methodologies, considering the nature of the research questions, the data required, and ethical considerations. 

Provide Advice on Data Collection, Analysis, and Interpretation

Providing advice on data collection, analysis, and interpretation is a crucial role of an academic supervisor in the research process. Here’s how supervisors offer guidance in each of these areas:

Data Collection

Supervisors provide advice on selecting appropriate data collection methods and instruments. They help researchers identify the most suitable techniques, such as surveys, interviews, observations, or experiments, based on the research objectives and the nature of the data required. 

They offer insights on sampling strategies, data collection protocols, and ethical considerations. Supervisors also assist in ensuring data quality by guiding on maintaining consistency, accuracy, and reliability throughout the data collection process.

Data Analysis

Supervisors guide researchers in selecting appropriate data analysis methods to address their research questions. They provide advice on statistical analysis techniques, qualitative data coding and analysis approaches, or mixed methods analysis frameworks. 

Supervisors assist in understanding the assumptions and limitations of the chosen analysis methods, helping researchers apply them correctly. They may also recommend relevant software or tools for data analysis and assist in interpreting the results.

Interpretation of Findings

Supervisors support researchers in interpreting the findings derived from data analysis. They help researchers identify patterns, trends, and relationships within the data. Supervisors offer insights into the significance and implications of the findings, guiding researchers to draw valid conclusions. 

They encourage critical thinking and assist in connecting the research findings with existing theories, literature, or practical applications.

Quality Assurance

Supervisors play a vital role in ensuring data quality and research integrity. They advise on quality assurance measures during data collection, such as piloting surveys or conducting inter-rater reliability checks. Supervisors review the methodology, calculations, and interpretations during data analysis to ensure accuracy and rigour. They help researchers address potential biases, outliers, or confounding factors to enhance the validity and reliability of the research findings.

Methodological Support

Developing a robust research methodology is critical to the success of a study. Academic supervisors assist researchers in designing suitable methodologies and research frameworks. They offer guidance on data collection techniques, sampling strategies, and data analysis methods. This support ensures that the research is methodologically sound and aligns with established standards in the field.

Feedback and Quality Assurance

Academic supervisors are crucial in providing ongoing feedback throughout the research process. They review drafts, provide constructive criticism, and offer suggestions for improvement. This feedback helps researchers identify strengths and weaknesses, refine their arguments, and enhance the overall quality of their work. Supervisors ensure that the research maintains high standards and adheres to academic rigour.

Troubleshooting and Problem-Solving

Research projects often encounter challenges and obstacles. An academic supervisor serves as a troubleshooter, assisting researchers in identifying and addressing potential issues. They offer guidance and advice on overcoming obstacles, helping researchers navigate complexities, and providing alternative perspectives to problem-solving.

Ethical Considerations

Ethics play a vital role in research. Academic supervisors guide ethical considerations, ensuring researchers follow ethical guidelines and protocols. They assist in obtaining necessary approvals from research ethics committees, protecting participants’ rights, and maintaining research integrity.

Professional Development

Academic supervisors focus on the immediate research project and contribute to the researcher’s long-term professional development. They provide mentorship, helping researchers enhance their research skills, critical thinking abilities, and academic writing. They advise publishing research findings, networking opportunities, and career advancement.

Is your research paper plagiarism-free?

Find out with our plagiarism checker today and save yourself from embarrassment. 💁‍, networking and collaboration.

Supervisors often have extensive networks within the academic community. They facilitate networking opportunities and collaborations, connecting researchers with experts and potential collaborators. This exposure broadens researchers’ horizons, fosters interdisciplinary perspectives, and opens doors for future collaborations and opportunities.

Publication and Dissemination Support

Publication and dissemination support from academic supervisors is crucial for researchers to share their findings with the wider academic community. Supervisors guide preparing research papers for publication, including manuscript organisation, formatting, and citation styles. 

They assist in selecting suitable journals or conferences for submission and offer insights into the publication process. Supervisors may review and provide feedback on drafts, helping researchers improve the clarity and coherence of their work. 

They also encourage researchers to present their findings at conferences or seminars, providing opportunities for networking and knowledge exchange. With their support, supervisors help researchers effectively disseminate their research, increasing its impact and visibility.

Striking a Balance Between Autonomy and Guidance in the Research Process

Striking a balance between autonomy and guidance in the research process is crucial for researchers. While autonomy allows for independent thinking, creativity, and ownership of the research, guidance from academic supervisors provides essential support and expertise. 

Supervisors offer insights, advice, and feedback to ensure the research stays on track and aligns with established standards. They provide a valuable external perspective, help researchers navigate challenges, and ensure methodological rigour. 

Balancing autonomy and guidance allows researchers to take ownership of their work while benefiting from the experience and expertise of their supervisors, ultimately leading to a successful and impactful research outcome.

Encourage Independent Thinking and Decision-Making 

Encouraging independent thinking and decision-making is vital to the academic supervisor’s role in developing researchers. By fostering a supportive environment, supervisors empower researchers to explore their ideas, think critically, and make informed decisions. They provide opportunities for researchers to engage in independent research and encourage them to challenge existing knowledge. 

Supervisors help researchers develop their analytical and problem-solving skills through constructive feedback and guidance, promoting autonomy in the research process.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is the role of an academic supervisor in developing research skills.

Academic supervisors are crucial in guiding and nurturing research skills by providing mentorship, offering advice on methodologies, and promoting critical thinking and problem-solving abilities.

How does an academic supervisor support the development of research skills?

Supervisors support the development of research skills by providing guidance on research methodologies, offering feedback and constructive criticism, encouraging independent thinking, and providing opportunities for professional development and networking.

What impact does an academic supervisor have on enhancing research skills?

An academic supervisor enhances research skills by sharing knowledge and expertise, helping researchers refine their research objectives and methodologies, promoting effective data collection and analysis techniques, and fostering critical thinking and academic growth.

How does collaboration with an academic supervisor contribute to developing research skills?

Collaboration with an academic supervisor provides researchers with mentorship, guidance, and opportunities for learning. Through ongoing communication and feedback, researchers can develop their research skills, improve their ability to analyse data, and critically enhance their overall research capabilities.

You May Also Like

Where to find the perfect supervisor? How to find an experienced supervisor who has the same interests as you? How can you evaluate your potential supervisor? 

Master the art of communication with your supervisor. Uncover essential tips for building a strong relationship, expressing ideas clearly, and climbing the career ladder.

Regular and effective communication with your supervisor is essential to the success of any research project or dissertation. During the research process, these sessions offer an opportunity to obtain direction, support, and feedback. 

USEFUL LINKS

LEARNING RESOURCES

COMPANY DETAILS

• How It Works

Teaching & Learning

• Education Excellence
• Professional development
• Case studies
• Teaching toolkits
• MicroCPD-UCL
• Assessment resources
• Student partnership
• Generative AI Hub
• Community Engaged Learning
• UCL Student Success

Research and project supervision (all levels): an introduction  

Supervising projects, dissertations and research at UCL from undergraduate to PhD.

1 August 2019

Many academics say supervision is one of their favourite, most challenging and most fulfilling parts of their job.

Supervision can play a vital role in enabling students to fulfil their potential. Helping a student to become an independent researcher is a significant achievement – and can enhance your own teaching and research.

Supervision is also a critical element in achieving UCL’s strategic aim of integrating research and education. As a research-intensive university, we want all students, not just those working towards a PhD, to engage in research.

Successful research needs good supervision.

This guide provides guidance and recommendations on supervising students in their research. It offers general principles and tips for those new to supervision, at PhD, Master’s or undergraduate level and directs you to further support available at UCL.

What supervision means

Typically, a supervisor acts as a guide, mentor, source of information and facilitator to the student as they progress through a research project.

Every supervision will be unique. It will vary depending on the circumstances of the student, the research they plan to do, and the relationship between you and the student. You will have to deal with a range of situations using a sensitive and informed approach.

As a supervisor at UCL, you’ll help create an intellectually challenging and fulfilling learning experience for your students.

This could include helping students to:

• formulate their research project and question
• decide what methods of research to use
• become familiar with the wider research community in their chosen field
• evaluate the results of their research
• ensure their work meets the necessary standards expected by UCL
• keep to deadlines
• use feedback to enhance their work
• overcome any problems they might have
• present their work to other students, academics or interested parties
• prepare for the next steps in their career or further study.

At UCL, doctoral students always have at least two supervisors. Some faculties and departments operate a model of thesis committees, which can include people from industry, as well as UCL staff.

Rules and regulations

Phd supervision.

The supervision of doctoral students’ research is governed by regulation. This means that there are some things you must – and must not – do when supervising a PhD.  

• All the essential information is found in the UCL Code of Practice for Research Degrees .
• Full regulations in the UCL Academic Manual .  

All staff must complete the online course Introduction to Research Supervision at UCL  before beginning doctoral supervision.

Undergraduate and Masters supervision

There are also regulations around Master’s and undergraduate dissertations and projects. Check with the Programme Lead, your Department Graduate Tutor or Departmental Administrator for the latest regulations related to student supervision.

You should attend other training around research supervision. 

• Supervision training available through UCL Arena .

Doctoral (PhD) supervision: introducing your student to the university

For most doctoral students, you will often be their main point of contact at UCL and as such you are responsible for inducting them into the department and wider community.

Check that your student:

• knows their way around the department and about the facilities available to them locally (desk space, common room, support staff)
• has attended the Doctoral School induction and has received all relevant documents (including the Handbook and code of practice for graduate research degrees )
• has attended any departmental or faculty inductions and has a copy of the departmental handbook.

Make sure your student is aware of:

• key central services such as: Student Support and Wellbeing , UCL Students' Union (UCLU) and Careers
• opportunities to broaden their skills through UCL’s Doctoral Skills Development Programme
• the wider disciplinary culture, including relevant networks, websites and mailing lists.

The UCL Good Supervision Guide  (for PhD supervisors)

Establishing an effective relationship

The first few meetings you have with your student are critical and can help to set the tone for the whole supervisory experience for you and your student.

An early discussion about both of your expectations is essential:

• Find out your student’s motivations for undertaking the project, their aspirations, academic background and any personal matters they feel might be relevant.
• Discuss any gaps in their preparation and consider their individual training needs.
• Be clear about who will arrange meetings, how often you’ll meet, how quickly you’ll respond when the student contacts you, what kind of feedback they’ll get, and the norms and standards expected for academic writing.
• Set agendas and coordinate any follow-up actions. Minute meetings, perhaps taking it in turns with your student.
• For PhD students, hold a meeting with your student’s other supervisor(s) to clarify your expectations, roles, frequency of meetings and approaches.

Styles of supervision

Supervisory styles are often conceptualized on a spectrum from laissez-faire to more contractual or from managerial to supportive. Every supervisor will adopt different approaches to supervision depending on their own preferences, the individual relationship and the stage the student is at in the project.

Be aware of the positive and negative aspects of different approaches and styles.

Reflect on your personal style and what has prompted this – it may be that you are adopting the style of your own supervisor, or wanting to take a certain approach because it is the way that it would work for you.

No one style fits every situation: approaches change and adapt to accommodate the student and the stage of the project.

However, to ensure a smooth and effective supervision process, it is important to align your expectations from the very beginning. Discuss expectations in an early meeting and re-visit them periodically.

Checking the student’s progress

Make sure you help your student break down the work into manageable chunks, agreeing deadlines and asking them to show you work regularly.

Give your student helpful and constructive feedback on the work they submit (see the various assessment and feedback toolkits on the Teaching & Learning Portal ).

Check they are getting the relevant ethical clearance for research and/or risk assessments.

Ask your student for evidence that they are building a wider awareness of the research field.

Encourage your student to meet other research students and read each other’s work or present to each other.

Encourage your student to write early and often.

Checking your own performance

Regularly review progress with your student and any co-supervisors. Discuss any problems you might be having, and whether you need to revise the roles and expectations you agreed at the start.  

Make sure you know what students in your department are feeding back to the Student Consultative Committee or in surveys, such as the Postgraduate Research Experience Survey (PRES) . 

Responsibility for the student’s research project does not rest solely on you. If you need help, talk to someone more experienced in your department. Whatever the problem is you’re having, the chances are that someone will have experienced it before and will be able to advise you.

Continuing students can often provide the most effective form of support to new students. Supervisors and departments can foster this, for example through organising mentoring, coffee mornings or writing groups.

Be aware that supervision is about helping students carry out independent research – not necessarily about preparing them for a career in academia. In fact, very few PhD students go on to be academics.

Make sure you support your student’s personal and professional development, whatever direction this might take.

Every research supervision can be different – and equally rewarding.

Where to find help and support

Research supervision web pages from the UCL Arena Centre, including details of the compulsory Research Supervision online course. 

Appropriate Forms of Supervision Guide from the UCL Academic Manual

the PhD diaries

Good Supervision videos  (Requires UCL login)

The UCL Doctoral School

Handbook and code of practice for graduate research degrees

Doctoral Skills Development programme

Student skills support (including academic writing)

Student Support and Wellbeing

UCL Students' Union (UCLU)  

UCL Careers

External resources

Vitae: supervising a docorate

UK Council for Graduate Education

Higher Education Academy – supervising international students (pdf)

Becoming a Successful Early Career Researcher , Adrian Eley, Jerry Wellington, Stephanie Pitts and Catherine Biggs (Routledge, 2012) - book available on Amazon

This guide has been produced by the UCL Arena Centre for Research-based Education . You are welcome to use this guide if you are from another educational facility, but you must credit the UCL Arena Centre. 

Further information

More teaching toolkits  - back to the toolkits menu

Research supervision at UCL

UCL Education Strategy 2016–21  

Connected Curriculum: a framework for research-based education

The Laidlaw research and leadership programme (for undergraduates)

[email protected] : contact the UCL Arena Centre 

Download a printable copy of this guide  

Case studies : browse related stories from UCL staff and students.

Sign up to the monthly UCL education e-newsletter  to get the latest teaching news, events & resources.  

Education events

Funnelback feed: https://search2.ucl.ac.uk/s/search.json?collection=drupal-teaching-learn... Double click the feed URL above to edit

• Roles and responsibilities of supervisors

Introduction  

• Knowledge of regulations, policies and procedures
• Advice on program of study, research and professional development
• Meetings/consultation
• Financial assistance
• Intellectual property
• Publications
• Withdrawal of supervisory duties
• Accommodation

Introduction

Effective graduate student supervision requires complex interactions between graduate students and their supervisors. The role of a supervisor is threefold: to advise graduate students, monitor their academic progress, and act as a mentor. Supervisors not only provide guidance, instruction and encouragement in the research activities of their students, but also take part in the evaluation and examination of their students’ progress, performance and navigation through the requirements of their academic program with the goal to ensure that their students are successful.

Supervisors are responsible for fostering the intellectual and scholarly development of their students. They also play an important role in providing advice about professional development and both academic and non-academic career opportunities, as they are able, and based upon the student’s career interests. 

While these expectations apply to all graduate students, supervising PhD students reflects a longer-term, more substantive commitment.  The privilege to supervise PhD students requires that the supervisor hold Approved Doctoral Dissertation Supervisor (ADDS) status. The intent of ADDS policy is to ensure that faculty have the appropriate knowledge to facilitate excellence in PhD supervision.

return to top

  Knowledge of regulations, policies and procedures

Effective graduate student supervision requires a knowledge and understanding of the University’s requirements and expectations.  To this end, supervisors should:

2.1    Be knowledgeable and remain updated on department, Faculty and University regulations, policies and procedures, and have these protocols guide the supervisors’ decision-making and behaviour as they interact with graduate students. Supervisors are encouraged to take the necessary steps to be well-informed with those Policies identified in section 1.2 .

2.2    Be familiar with the support services available to students and faculty at the University including those articulated in section 1.2 . This information is normally available through department graduate co-ordinators, Faculty Graduate Studies Offices, Graduate Studies and Postdoctoral Affairs (GSPA), the Graduate Student Association (GSA) or the University Secretariat.

2.3   Be informed about University of Waterloo policies and procedures that inform academic integrity  (Office of Research).

2.4    Be aware of the University of Waterloo and Tri-Agency policies and procedures associated with the conduct of research.   Where appropriate, supervisors should be prepared to provide guidance to students on:

• The responsible conduct of research, with particular emphasis on the Tri-Agency Framework as defined in the Faculty Association of University of Waterloo (FAUW) /University of Waterloo memorandum of Agreement (Section 14).
• The ethical conduct of research  (Office of Research) involving animals, animal or human tissues, and human participants

2.5   Have knowledge of the policies and procedures that govern international travel and security that can be found at Waterloo International.

return to top  

  Advice on program of study, research and professional development

As noted above, supervisors are expected to serve as mentors to their graduate students.  To this end, supervisors should be prepared to provide well-informed advice on academics and professional development.  More specifically, supervisors should be prepared to advise students on:

2.6    An academic program that is challenging, at the appropriate level for the degree being sought, and that can be accomplished within commonly understood and desirable time and resource expectations of the student and the supervisor.

2.7    The choice of courses and seminars needed to fulfil the degree requirements.

2.8    The development and construct of a research topic and proposal.

2.9    The development of a communication plan with the supervisory/advisory committee as to how the student’s progress will be assessed (including during thesis writing and completion), and the role of advisory committee members in the assessment.

2.10    The availability of internships, practica, co-op or other experiential learning opportunities as part of the program.

2.11    The availability of professional development resources for Waterloo graduate students to help advance the students’ career objectives.

Meetings/consultation 

The establishment and communication of common expectations are critical elements to positive experiences for both graduate students and their supervisors.  Achieving these outcomes can be facilitated by regular meetings and/or consultation between students, their supervisors, and where appropriate advisory committees. Especially important is timely feedback on students’ written submissions. 

The University encourages supervisors to:

2.12    Ensure, especially important in the case of doctoral students, that the student has:

• An advisory committee as required.
• A program of study consistent with department and Faculty requirements that has been approved by the advisory committee as required.
• A research plan that is appropriate in breadth, depth and time to completion (see  Milestones in master's and doctoral programs ).

2.13    Arrange for regular (as agreed by the student and supervisor) meetings (which may involve the advisory committee) with students for consultation to ensure steady progress. The frequency of such meetings will depend on the discipline/field of study, type of program, and the student’s progress. At least two, preferably more, meetings should be arranged in each academic term. Supervisors should also be reasonably accessible for meetings requested by their students. The approach to these student meetings should be individualized to reflect the needs of the student. For example, some students may need more support while other may need less.

2.14    Communicate their evaluation of student progress to the department once a year or more often if required. The report should clearly indicate the status of the student’s progress (i.e., satisfactory or unsatisfactory).  In the latter case, the report must include a clearly articulated set of conditions that if satisfied will restore the student’s status to satisfactory. Where the supervisor feels that the student will have serious difficulties finishing the program, the supervisor, in consultation with the advisory committee as appropriate, will inform in writing, both the student and the graduate officer of the nature of the problem(s), suggested remedies and may recommend withdrawal from the program.  More information on assessing students’ progress can be found in the Graduate Studies Academic Calendar.

2.15    Thoroughly review and provide constructive feedback on all written materials relevant to the thesis or research paper submitted by their students. The supervisor and the student are encouraged to establish in writing expectations on what constitutes timely feedback; a timeframe of two to three weeks depending on the complexity of the document is commonly applied. However, this can vary depending on various circumstances such as travel or vacation.  These circumstances should be discussed between the supervisor and student.

2.16   Have knowledge of the guidelines for evaluating students’ progress in a research program  (Graduate Studies Academic Calendar).

2.17   Inform students about the broad spectrum of resources available  (Writing and Communication Centre) to facilitate development of oral communication and writing skills.

2.18    Be active and supportive in promoting students’ well-being.  This may include:

• Inquiring about a student’s well-being, as appropriate.
• Directing students to appropriate support services , including Mental Health and Wellness resources  (Campus Wellness).
• Displaying empathy towards the student.

2.19    Complete as appropriate the University requirements for Sexual violence awareness, referral and support training  (Human Rights, Equity and Inclusion Office) to understand how to respond to disclosures of sexual violence and refer students to the appropriate supports.

The University recognizes that supervisors will be away from the University for extended periods of time (e.g., sabbatical, satellite campus, visiting professorship).  Being physically away from the University does not preclude a supervisor from remaining engaged with their graduate students.  In cases where the supervisor will not be available either in person or via electronic communications, the supervisor should:

2.20    Inform students, prospective students and the department of any anticipated extended period where communication will not be occurring. In cases when the absence is for a period of two months or more, supervisors should arrange for suitable communication methods. Interim supervision also must be arranged, for example, using members of advisory committees. Supervisors must inform the student’s department (chair/graduate officer) of the arrangements made for the period of absence, including supervision of laboratory or field work where graduate students continue to work during the absence.

2.21    Ensure students know that in situations where a supervisor works away from campus for two months or more and where their students can accompany the supervisor, the decision to remain on campus or to follow the supervisor rests entirely with the student. Students shall face no pressure (explicit or implicit) or consequences when making this choice and are not required to provide any reason.

As with the departmental representatives, supervisors have responsibility to advance safety.  More specifically, supervisors should:

2.22    Ensure a safe working environment both on and off campus (working alone, field work) by assessing hazards and implementing appropriate controls. This must be in accordance with the Occupational Health and Safety Act, Policy 34  (Secretariat) and department and Faculty regulations.  All supervisors must complete mandatory health and safety supervisor awareness training  (Safety Office) and must ensure that graduate students complete both mandatory and work-specific safety training.  More information can be found on the Safety Office website.

2.23    Ensure that students obtain additional training when new safety risks arise and ensure training is kept up to date.

Inherent to graduate education are the dissemination of knowledge and the participation in scholarly activities away from the University campus.  Travel (domestic and international) can include fieldwork, conferences, course work and other work related to the thesis. Supervisors are encouraged to support students’ travel to accomplish these important objectives.  Supervisors should:

2.24    Follow or encourage students to follow Policy 31  (Secretariat) that governs University-sanctioned travel.

2.25    Categorize and report risk associated with travel. Low risk  (Safety Office) are activities for which it is expected that participants will encounter hazards that are no greater than what they encounter in their everyday lives. Examples of significant risk (e.g. industrial sites, remote regions etc.) are noted on the Safety Office website .  Travel or field work that involves significant risk must be documented using the Fieldwork Risk Management Form from the Safety Office .  For low risk activities off campus, supervisors should:

• Provide advice on preparation for pre-departure orientation and planning for any travel and including associated risk, as they are able;

2.26    Document the student(s) location and duration of travel, including personal and emergency contact information. Review the material provided by Waterloo International to understand how to best mitigate risk and ensure safety for international travel.

2.27    Encourage students to register using the Pre-departure Travel Form at Waterloo International .

2.28    Consult the Government of Canada Travel Advice and Advisories web page for the international destination and discuss the mitigation of risk with the students to the destination.

 Financial assistance

Supervisors regularly provide financial support for their graduate students.  Both the supervisor and the student benefit when a clear understanding exists of the value of funding, and the academic outcomes that should occur from the supported activities.  Specifically, supervisors should:

2.29    Be informed about the spectrum of funding opportunities available through the department, Faculty and Graduate Studies and Postdoctoral Affairs (GSPA) for students in financial need and to communicate these sources to student.

2.30   Communicate clearly and in writing to their students the terms (e.g., amounts, length of time, conditions) of the financial commitment being made when financial assistance is to be provided from research grants or contracts under the supervisor’s direction.

2.31    Support students’ understanding of their funding, including a consideration of student expenses (primarily tuition and housing) and taxation, if appropriate.  

Intellectual property 

Increasingly, students and supervisors enter into their academic relationships with previously established intellectual property (IP).  Moreover, students and supervisors may have an expectation that their collective work may produce new IP.  Best practices include the articulation of students’ and supervisors’ understanding of IP relationships at regular intervals throughout the students’ academic program.  More specifically, supervisors should: 

2.32    Discuss issues related to intellectual property such as patents, software, copyright, and income from sales and royalties, and inform students of University policies about intellectual property and the conduct of research. It should be recognized that, in accordance with Policy 73  (Secretariat), intellectual property normally is owned by the creators. However, the University retains a royalty-free right to use, for educational and research purposes, any intellectual property created by faculty, staff and students. Ideally, supervisors and students should enter into a written agreement that expresses IP owned by either party prior to beginning the research relationship and the default way in which IP created by the researchers’ joint activities will be owned.  A common example is an assumption in the absence of an explicit agreement of joint IP ownership, with each researcher owning an equal share.

2.33    Ensure that students are aware of implications and/or obligations regarding intellectual property of research conducted under contract. If appropriate, discuss with their students and any research partners the protection of intellectual property by patent or copyright. Any significant intellectual contribution by a student must be recognized in the form of co-authorship. Supervisors must convey to students, in advance of publication, whether they intend to recognize the student as co-author for work under contract.

Publications 

Academic outputs – in various forms – document and demonstrate ownership of creative research and other scholarly activities.  These outputs are important for advancing knowledge and catalyzing additional scholarly activity in these areas and should be encouraged.  When supervisors and graduate students work collectively on these academic works, it is important for both that their relative contributions are represented appropriately.  To achieve these goals, supervisors should:

2.34    Discuss with their students, at an early stage of their program, authorship practices within the discipline and University policies about publications ( Policy 73  on the Secretariat website). 

2.35    Discuss and reach agreement with students, well in advance of publication and ideally at the outset of collaboration, the way in which authorship will be shared, if appropriate, between the supervisor, the student and other contributors for work conducted under contract.

2.36    Encourage the dissemination of students’ research results by publication in scholarly and research journals, presentation at conferences (domestic or international) and seminars;

2.37    Motivate the dissemination of research through non-traditional or non-academic avenues (e.g. Open Access resources, public presentations, and popular media).

Withdrawal of supervisory duties 

In rare cases supervisors may determine that they are not prepared or able to continue in a supervisory capacity.  When this occurs, the supervisor is required to:

2.38    Follow the guidelines in the Graduate Studies Academic Calendar regarding University Responsibilities Regarding Supervisory Relationships that outlines the steps for dissolution of the supervisory relationship.

back to top  

Accommodation 

The University is eager to establish conditions that maximize graduate students’ likelihood of success.  To this end, supervisors:

2.39    Have a duty to engage in accommodations processes with AccessAbility Services , as requested, and to provide appropriate accommodation to the point of undue hardship.

2.40    Remain informed of their roles and responsibilities with respect to accommodations.

<< previous section : Roles and responsibilities of departments, graduate officers and graduate co-ordinators

>> next section : Roles and responsibilities of graduate students

Related links

• Home - Guide for Graduate Research and Supervision
• Introduction to the Guide for Graduate Research and Supervision
• Roles and responsibilities of departments, graduate officers and graduate co-ordinators
• Roles and responsibilities of graduate students
• Roles and responsibilities of advisory committees
• Key university policies and reference materials

Graduate Studies and Postdoctoral Affairs (GSPA)

Needles Hall, second floor, room 2201

Graduate Studies Academic Calendar

Website feedback

• Contact Waterloo
• Maps & Directions
• Accessibility

The University of Waterloo acknowledges that much of our work takes place on the traditional territory of the Neutral, Anishinaabeg and Haudenosaunee peoples. Our main campus is situated on the Haldimand Tract, the land granted to the Six Nations that includes six miles on each side of the Grand River. Our active work toward reconciliation takes place across our campuses through research, learning, teaching, and community building, and is co-ordinated within the Office of Indigenous Relations .

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• BMC Med Educ

Research supervisors’ views of barriers and enablers for research projects undertaken by medical students; a mixed methods evaluation of a post-graduate medical degree research project program

Joanne hart.

1 Sydney Medical School, Faculty of Medicine and Health, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW Australia

Jonathan Hakim

Rajneesh kaur, richmond jeremy, genevieve coorey.

2 School of Health Sciences, Faculty of Medicine and Health, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW Australia

Eszter Kalman

3 Office of the Deputy Vice Chancellor (Education), University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW Australia

Rebekah Jenkin

4 School of Medical Sciences, Faculty of Medicine and Health, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW Australia

David Bowen

Associated data.

The datasets generated and/or analysed during the current study are not publicly available, as per conditions of Ethics Committee approval, but are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Medical degree programs use scholarly activities to support development of basic research skills, critical evaluation of medical information and promotion of medical research. The University of Sydney Doctor of Medicine Program includes a compulsory research project. Medical student projects are supervised by academic staff and affiliates, including biomedical science researchers and clinician-academics. This study investigated research supervisors’ observations of the barriers to and enablers of successful medical student research projects.

Research supervisors ( n  = 130) completed an anonymous, online survey after the completion of the research project. Survey questions targeted the research supervisors’ perceptions of barriers to successful completion of projects and sources of support for their supervision of the student project. Data were analysed by descriptive statistics and using manifest content analysis. Further quantitative investigation was made by cross-tabulation according to prior research supervision experience.

Research supervisors reported that students needed both generic skills (75%) and research-based skills (71%) to successfully complete the project. The major barrier to successful research projects was the lack of protected time for research activities (61%). The assessment schedule with compulsory progress milestones enabled project completion (75%), and improved scientific presentation (90%) and writing (93%) skills. Supervisors requested further support for their students for statistics (75%), scientific writing (51%), and funding for projects (52%). Prior research supervision experience influenced the responses. Compared to novice supervisors, highly experienced supervisors were significantly more likely to want students to be allocated dedicated time for the project ( P  < 0.01) and reported higher rates of access to expert assistance in scientific writing, preparing ethics applications and research methodology. Novice supervisors reported higher rates of unexpected project delays and data acquisition problems ( P  < 0.05). Co-supervision was favoured by experienced supervisors but rejected by novice supervisors.

Conclusions

Both generic and research-related skills were important for medical student research project success. Overall, protected research time, financial and other academic support were identified as factors that would improve the research project program. Prior research supervision experience influences perceptions of program barriers and enablers. These findings will inform future support needs for projects and research supervisor training for the research supervision role.

Introduction

Medical education programs increasingly employ scholarly activities to support development of basic research skills, the ability to critically evaluate medical information and the practice of evidence-based medicine [ 1 ]. Furthermore, research activities undertaken by students can foster life-long interest in medical research [ 2 – 4 ]. This is crucial for the development of clinician-academics, who have key roles in clinical research and translational medicine [ 5 ]. There are declining numbers of clinician-academics in Australia [ 6 ] and globally [ 7 ], thus the importance of fostering interest in research in medical students is imperative.

The University of Sydney 4-year post-graduate Doctor of Medicine Degree (MD) is unique, enrolling students from a wide range of previous academic backgrounds and with various prior research and employment experiences. As an integral and compulsory component of the MD Program curriculum, the research project (MD Project) is delivered as 320 study hours over 2.5 years, from mid-Year 1 to the end of Year 3. Students receive 40 h of training in research methods, basic statistics and research ethics at the end of Year 1, shortly after they commence their projects. Students complete their research project on top of the overall MD program curriculum, without protected research time.

The pedagogical framework for the MD Project program employs active, experiential, project-based learning in a research context with individual projects being supervised by academic staff mentors or mentoring teams. The intended learning objectives of the MD Project are summarised in Table ​ Table1 1 .

MD Project Learning Objectives

In the course of the research project, students need to develop key research and generic skills, including self-motivation, time management and organisation, and building relationships in clinical and research laboratory environments. Students achieve these aims through hands-on experience in devising and conducting a project relevant to health or medicine, analysing the findings, and reporting the results. The scope of MD Projects is broad and includes clinical studies, projects in biomedical science, epidemiology and public health, medical education, bioinformatic and information technology and policy, law, and ethics. A series of compulsory milestone assessments are designed to facilitate progress of each project towards completion. These Milestone tasks include an early project outline, a full appraisal of the ethical implications of the project and verification that ethics approval has been obtained, a structured literature search strategy, and progress reports involving written and oral scientific presentations. The final assessment task is a 3000-word scientific report. Many students were encouraged to present at conferences or prepare manuscripts for peer-reviewed journals, however these were not requirements of the MD Project program. Students are supervised individually or in small groups (usually 2–5 students) by academic staff and affiliates, including basic research scientists, public health researchers and clinicians. The majority of supervisors are not directly employed Faculty members, but University affiliates, who are not specifically remunerated for their time. Supervisors were not required to have a PhD or any formal research supervision training. No Faculty funding was provided to support the project or its supervision. Supervisors were required to provide all project materials and expertise and would supervise up to 6 students at a time. Many supervisors were based in public hospitals and took on MD Project supervision in addition to their existing clinical and/or research workloads.

The research supervisor has a key role in the success of this traditional model of research project [ 8 ]; however, research supervision experience varies from very limited to extensive. Although research supervision training for supervisors of higher degree students is common worldwide and often mandatory, most academics learn to supervise research students “on-the-job” and by emulating their own research mentors [ 9 ]. Currently, there is no formal training provided for the supervisors of MD Projects, or for those supervising similar short-term research projects by undergraduates, including Honours degrees [ 10 ]. Whilst there is evaluation data available for similar research project programs from the students’ viewpoint [ 11 – 14 ], the perspective of the supervisors is under-reported. Given the key role of the supervisor in this research education model, their experiences are an important source of information to guide future program improvements.

This study sought the views of research supervisors on the MD Project program and their experiences of supervising medical student research projects, including:

• observations on the barriers to and enablers of successfully completing an MD Project,
• sources of support for their supervision of the project,
• extent of research supervision experience on attitudes to and overall experience of supervising the MD projects,
• requirements for professional development or other assistance.

Materials and methods

Study design.

This study is a mixed methods evaluation of the MD Project program from the perspective of the research supervisors.

Participants

MD Project research supervisors were invited by email to complete an anonymous online survey following the completion of the student projects in 2018 and 2020. Participants were University academic staff and appropriately qualified affiliates, including basic research scientists and clinicians. Participants had varying levels of previous research supervision experience, ranging from none to supervision of post-graduate research degree completions. Their areas of research expertise were broad though based in health and medical research. There were no exclusion criteria. Consent to participate was inferred if participants opted to complete and submit an online survey.

Survey tool

The survey tool was developed specifically for this program and was reviewed and refined by MD Program Faculty members, including some research supervisors, to optimise face and content validity. The survey consisted of 30 items, mostly on a 5-point Likert-type scale (with responses of not at all, slightly, moderately, very, extremely ), with optional text responses. Some items required selection of multiple responses from a given list. Survey domains included participant demographics and prior research supervision experience, their overall experience of supervising MD Projects, enablers for and barriers to successful completion of the project (at the MD Program, project, supervisor and student level) and resources and support needed for the supervision role. Participants were provided with a link to the survey within an email invitation to participate; responses were anonymous and aggregate data are shown. The survey tool is available upon request from the authors.

Data analysis

Descriptive analyses were used to explore the overall patterns of response, and qualitative content analysis was used to examine the responses to open ended questions. MD Project supervisors were divided into three categories of research supervision experience: novice (no prior research supervision), moderately experienced (supervised any one of: summer research projects of duration 6–10 weeks, undergraduate Honours projects of up to 6 months or post-graduate research degrees) and highly experienced, (all of the abovementioned supervision types) based on their responses to the survey. Descriptive analysis and Chi Square test including the Mantel–Haenszel test of trend were used to assess any differences in responses between the supervisor experience groups. P  < 0.05 was accepted as statistically significant. Quantitative analyses were carried out in SPSS V26 (IBM Corp, Armonk, NY). Responses from open ended questions were analysed through qualitative methods using manifest content analysis [ 15 ]. Initially deductive coding for explicit phrases was carried out. These codes were then contextualised with the research question of the study. This was followed by generation of homogenous categories from the codes. Conclusions were drawn through investigator triangulation.

Response rates and Faculty respondent demographics

Survey responses were collected from two cohorts of MD Project supervisors, following the completion of the project. From 463 MD Project supervisors’ invitations, 130 (28%) responded. Most respondents identified as clinical researchers, followed by public health academics and biomedical science researchers (Table ​ (Table2). 2 ). Others had expertise in medical education, bioinformatics, information technology and health-related policy, law, or medical ethics. Many identified multiple areas of expertise.

Faculty areas of research expertise and prior research supervision experience

a Multiple responses allowed

Faculty research supervision expertise

MD Project supervisors are required to be academic staff or affiliates of the University, however there are no other specific requirements to become a supervisor. Approximately 60% of the respondents were highly experienced research supervisors across a range of project types and duration. One third had moderate experience supervising either summer research project students, Honours Degree students or post-graduate research students. Ten percent of the supervisors had no previous research supervision experience (Table ​ (Table2 2 ).

Student-Supervisor relationship

About half (47%) of the supervisors felt their feedback on student performance was only moderately well received (Fig.  1 ), though the majority (73%) of supervisors felt the students were grateful for the opportunity to do research with their team (Fig.  1 ). Supervisors reported that students were organised and interested in their projects and were moderately proactive in communications. Overall, there was agreement amongst MD Project supervisors (86%) that their experience of supervision was very dependent on the individual student (Fig.  1 ).

Student-Supervisor relationship items. Supervisors responded to a number of items related to the student-supervisor relationship on a Likert scale from not at all to extremely. Percentage of responses are shown

Enablers for successful completion of the research project

Student skills needed to successfully complete the md project.

Respondents identified skills that students needed for successfully completing their MD Project, these are presented in Fig.  2 . These were often generic skills, including time management and organisation, independence and initiative and effective communication skills. The top research skills needed included literature searching, scientific writing, statistical skills and navigating the ethics review process (Fig.  2 ). Task-specific skills such as familiarity with information technology and databases were considered less critical, which may reflect the mix of projects undertaken.

Research supervisors’ perceptions of skills students needed for completing research projects. Percentage of supervisors ( n  = 130) who selected these items from a list of generic and research skills needed in the student research project

Assessment schedule

There were mixed views on the utility of the milestone assessment tasks, which are presented in Table ​ Table3. 3 . The majority of respondents reported that compulsory milestone assessment tasks helped students make progress on their project, though only half thought the tasks were necessary to maintain momentum or hold students accountable to the standards required. About one-third reported that milestones assured the supervisor that the student was progressing as expected. Novice supervisors generally rated the assessment tasks as more useful than the experienced supervisors (Table ​ (Table3). 3 ). The oral presentations were rated as very useful for student progress, helping them learn to accept and respond to feedback and develop their scientific presentation skills. Preparing a final scientific report was strongly viewed as a very useful activity (Table ​ (Table3 3 ).

Assessment tasks and whether they facilitated MD Project progress

a Not all participants answered all questions

b Novice supervisors had no research supervision experience prior to the MD Project

Barriers to successful completion of the research project

Potential impediments for MD project success fell into four broad groups: Program level, project level, supervisor-related and student-related (Fig.  3 ). The principal barriers were at program level, with lack of dedicated time for the project and competing academic demands on students of the overall MD Program being most frequently cited (Fig.  3 ). At project level, unexpected problems, such as delays in data acquisition and time taken for Ethics Committee review and approval were reported. Supervisor time constraints reflected clinical load and other demands. Lack of previous research experience, or lack of commitment to the project were student-related characteristics that were identified as important barriers.

Barriers to successful completion of MD Projects reported by supervisors. Percentage of supervisors ( n  = 130) that selected these items from a list of barriers to successfully completing the research project. These barriers were grouped in relation to the MD Program, the project, the supervisor or the student

Challenges described by MD Project supervisors in free text responses indicated a range of other concerns mostly related to student issues but also to their own role as supervisor. They report that a major challenge for the students was competing priorities for learning. The MD Project Milestone tasks therefore became extrinsic motivators and barriers to overcome instead of activities that meaningfully contributed to their learning. This was particularly evident in students competing milestones ‘just in time’ leaving little opportunity for meaningful feedback from supervisors. Other difficulties cited were students having no research or science background as reflected in the following quotes:

“The students struggle to maintain any momentum with their MD Projects as they prioritise other aspects of the MD Program and other deadlines (naturally), so the MD Project often is done all in a rush near the milestone deadlines which is then challenging for supervisors to find the time for a large number of students who need help.” (Experienced Supervisor, Epidemiologist) “Most (students) have a poor understanding of research and stats. This was especially the case with one student from a non-science background.” (Moderately Experienced Supervisor, Clinician)

Challenges cited for MD Project supervisors included the demands of completing other parts of the course and MD Project simultaneously, demanding or disengaged students, a large number of students to supervise, and a lack of time or competing priorities or deadlines. It was reported by some that this type of project supervision was not a good fit for a full-time researcher.

“Of the 11 students I have been involved with, even though all have done well many are very disengaged until the last week or two of the projects, then very demanding for input into their report.” (Experienced Supervisor, Clinician & Biomedical Researcher) “The students have so many competing demands that the MD Project is a real challenge for everyone. As a full-time researcher, fitting such students into my main program is not a good fit.” (Experienced Supervisor, Clinician)

Supervision support for MD projects

Only 11% of respondents said they had all the resources they needed to run the MD Project. The respondents indicated that more support was required for statistics, ethics applications, scientific writing, research methods, and funding both for the project costs and for students to attend conferences (Fig.  4 ).

Support and resources needed by MD Project supervisors. Percentage of supervisors ( n  = 130) that selected these items from a list of supports and resources needed for the MD Project

Effect of prior research supervision experience on responses

Prior research supervision experience did not affect the perception of the generic skills that supervisors felt students needed to successfully complete their MD Project. However, skills that were more highly regarded by novice supervisors included skills in literature searching (92%), database development (46%) and understanding the ethics review process (69%). Highly experienced supervisors were more likely to cite independence and initiative (75%) as a required skill than novice supervisors (47%). It is notable that novice supervisors recorded a higher agreement with the utility of the assessment tasks than the overall respondent data (Table ​ (Table3). 3 ). Regarding the student-supervisor relationship, there was no difference in responses by prior research supervision experience.

Interestingly, although overall the major barrier cited was a lack of dedicated time for the MD Project (Fig.  3 ), novice supervisors were significantly less likely to want a dedicated time for the project (23%) compared with highly experienced supervisors (69%, χ 2  = 10.351, P  = 0.005 Fig.  5 A). Lack of dedicated time for the MD Project was recognised as a barrier which increased with supervision experience (Mantel–Haenszel test of trend, P  = 0.002, Fig.  5 A). Further, highly experienced supervisors were significantly less likely to identify the student’s lack of previous research experience as a barrier (49%) compared to moderately experienced (72%) and novice supervisors and this trend was statistically significant (69.2%, χ 2  = 6.040, P  = 0.049). A significant trend of this being less of a barrier was noted with increasing supervision experience (Mantel–Haenszel test of trend, P  = 0.031, Fig.  5 D). Novice supervisors were significantly more likely to rate their students at the outset of the project as being familiar with research methods (χ 2  = 13.431, P  = 0.001). A significant trend was noted for this rating by supervision experience (Mantel–Haenszel test of trend, P  = 0.005, Fig.  5 B). Novice supervisors also felt that students were more confident in approaching their project than experienced supervisors and this trend was statistically significant (χ 2  = 6.348, P  = 0.042) and associated with supervision experience (Mantel–Haenszel test of trend, P  = 0.046, Fig.  5 C). No novice supervisors reported they had a lack of time for supervision, although novice supervisors identified their clinical load as a barrier (15%) more often than experienced supervisors (8%).

Novice supervisors’ appraisal of student research capabilities. A Novice supervisors were significantly less likely to want a dedicated time for the project, ( B ) were more likely to consider their students familiar with research methodology and ( C ) confident in approaching the project. D Highly experienced supervisors were significantly less likely to cite their student’s lack of previous research experience as a barrier compared to moderately experienced and novice supervisors. * P  < 0.05, ** P  < 0.01, χ 2 -test; # =  P  < 0.05, Mantel–Haenszel test of trend, by supervisor experience

Notably, compared to experienced supervisors, novice supervisors reported higher rates of project delays due to ethics committee review (χ 2  = 1.463, P  = 0.481, Fig.  6 A) where a trend by supervision experience is observed but does not reach statistical significance. They also report increased rate of data acquisition problems (χ 2  = 4.026, P  = 0.134, Fig. ​ Fig.6B), 6 B), and unexpected project problems (χ 2  = 4.359, P  = 0.113, Fig. ​ Fig.6C). 6 C). A significant trend was observed by supervision experience (Mantel–Haenszel test of trend,  P  = 0.047, Fig.  6 B,  P  = 0.038, Fig.  6 C). Highly experienced supervisors reported significantly higher rates of access to expert assistance particularly in scientific writing (novice 7.7% vs highly experienced 21.3%, χ 2  = 8.251, P  = 0.016), and there was a significant trend with supervision experience (Mantel–Haenszel test of trend, P  = 0.005). In addition, highly experienced supervisors reported twice the access to expertise for preparing ethics approval applications (novice 15.4% vs highly experienced 37.3%) and research methodology advice (novice 15.4% vs highly experienced 38.7%) compared to novice supervisors, though this does not reach statistical significance. Those with moderate prior supervision experience were significantly more likely to want orientation sessions for the MD Project (χ 2  = 8.519, P  = 0.014). None of the novice supervisors wanted co-supervision and few sought increased involvement of expert advisors (8%), whereas moderately and highly experienced supervisors were open to these options (16–20%).

Novice supervisors’ reported rates of project delays or problems. MD Project delays, due to ( A ) ethics approval, ( B ) data acquisition or ( C ) unexpected problems were more often reported with novice supervisors, with a decreasing trend in delays as supervision experience increased (# =  P  < 0.05, Mantel–Haenszel test of trend, by supervisor experience)

Content analysis of free text comments revealed differences in perceptions of the contributions of supervisors to the MD Project program. The more experienced supervisors felt they had a responsibility to participate in the MD project as supervisors, with specific reference to the need for experience to support the student cohort and the difficulty of the task. Novice supervisors noted that they were gaining professional skills as a result of supervising the students. Thus, experienced supervisors felt they were giving something to the program, whereas novice supervisors felt they themselves received a benefit from the program.

“For us who are experienced supervisors, we need to do this to help out the Faculty and the MD program. This is not for inexperienced supervisors.” (Experienced Supervisor, Clinician) “There are a large number of students and relatively few tutors with research experience, so I feel there is a responsibility to participate.” (Experienced Supervisor, Biomedical Scientist) “Rewarding yet challenging at the same time. Helps with ongoing education and professional development for myself.” (Novice Supervisor, Clinician)

This study examines a large post-graduate medical student research project program from the perspective of the research project supervisors. Supervisors reported that students needed both generic skills and research-based skills to successfully complete the project. Across 3 years of the program, the students are expected to spend 320 h dedicated to their research project. Supervisors reported that having no protected time for research activities was a significant barrier to the successful completion of the project. Further support was requested for statistics, scientific writing and funding for projects. Importantly, prior research supervision experience affected the responses, where novice supervisors reported higher rates of project delays due to ethics review, data acquisition problems and unexpected project problems compared to experienced supervisors. Inexperienced supervisors also reported less access to supports, suggesting further support and training of novice supervisors would be of benefit.

The supervisor workforce in this study was mostly clinician researchers, followed by public health and epidemiology researchers and biomedical scientists. A smaller proportion of the supervisors oversaw medical education, bioinformatics, information technology or medical policy law or ethics projects. Thus, the project scope and supervisor research expertise varied, and many indicated they had multiple areas of expertise. This is in line with most medical degree scholarly programs which offer a wide scope of project experiences [ 2 , 16 – 18 ]. Most of the respondents identified as being experienced supervisors, a third had supervised some project models, and some had no prior research supervision experience. This is common across student research programs, where the role of project supervisor often requires no qualification other than being a researcher or being available, though it is known that the supervision role requires support [ 16 ]. This study also provided some insight into the motivations of the research supervisors, where the experienced supervisors felt the need to contribute to teaching, whereas the novice supervisors wanted to gain supervision skills.

An important finding of this study is that supervisors report that both generic and research skills are important for successful completion of MD Projects. Indeed many of the generic skills needed are also required by medical professionals, and such skills are now routinely included in many medical program curricula [ 19 ]. These skills include time management and organisation skills, taking initiative and acting independently, and effective communication skills which all contribute to the development of professionalism [ 20 ].

The major barriers to student success identified by supervisors are similar to those previously published [ 21 ] comprising the trio of time, funding and the student-supervisor relationship. The delivery of the MD Project, within the already busy medical school curriculum, was cited as one of the major barriers for student success in their projects. A recent realist review also concluded that research experience for medical students required protected time and adequate supervision to achieve scholarly outcomes [ 4 ]. Interestingly, MD Project supervisors reported that students had time to complete their projects, although a lack of dedicated time to conduct the project manifested in students adopting a stop-start approach to their projects, as they navigated the rest of the medical program content. This was very clear in the respondent reports regarding student communication, which describe many students as being proactive only as milestone assessment tasks approached. The progressive assessment schedule for the MD Project was well received by the supervisors, who found it useful to progress projects, though only half thought milestone assessments were useful to maintain momentum of the projects or to determine how their students were tracking within the cohort (Table ​ (Table3). 3 ). Traditional scientific research project assessments were used, including written and oral progress reports and a final written scientific report, which were all considered very useful in project progress towards completion.

Only 11% of the supervisors said they had all the resources they needed to run their project; this is a clear area for improvement. The supervisory role was not remunerated, there was no backfill for time taken, no project funds available and nearly all supervisors had busy and demanding research and/or clinical roles. Thus, the volunteer nature of the supervisor cohort is quite important, especially given that some of the usual paybacks of supervising students to do research are uncommon in this setting, e.g., generating publications, piloting projects or advancing parts of larger projects. Supervisors reported that academic support for students in statistics, research methods, scientific writing and ethics were lacking and that central support for these services would be welcome. Thus, to sustainably run a research program like this at scale, further central support for these activities needs to be provided.

Participants were from a variety of specialty areas, both clinical and non-clinical, and with varying degrees of research supervision experience. Notably some survey responses were significantly different according to the respondent’s previous supervision experience. This is in line with a recent report [ 22 ] and trends with prior supervision experience were further explored. Novice supervisors were significantly more likely to rate their students at the outset as being familiar with research methods and confident in approaching their project. This likely reflects the supervisor’s inexperience and is consistent with previous reports that interpreting student understanding is difficult for novices [ 23 ]. They also may have different pre-existing expectations of the research project process than the experienced supervisors [ 22 ]. Novice supervisors were significantly less likely to report that a dedicated time was needed for students to work on the project, and this is contrary to consistent evidence that protected research time is required for the success of these projects [ 20 ]. A further finding is that highly experienced supervisors were significantly less likely to suggest that student’s lack of prior research experience was a barrier to project progress, possibly as they had better support structures in place for their students, and better understanding of how to guide students in their research activities.

Further, novice supervisors were more likely to report significant project delays, due to unexpected problems, ethics review, and data acquisition delays. In addition, there was a significant trend in these delays with prior supervision experience, suggesting that mentoring or further support for new supervisors would be useful to bridge the gap. Moreover, there was a significant trend showing that students of novice supervisors had less access to support for scientific writing, expertise in research methods and preparation of ethics review applications, further revealing areas where increased training and support would be useful for novice supervisors.

Quality research supervision involves expertise of the supervisor in the research area, and a willingness to guide the student through the research project process [ 24 ]. Different models of supervision are likely to be required for different students and different project types [ 25 ]. Further, studies show that the student-supervisor relationship is largely dependent on how reliant the student is on their supervisor; thus, students who are more dependent may need a different approach to supervision than those who are independent [ 26 ]. This is consistent with the current findings that supervisors felt that the overall supervision experience varied widely. The ideal research environment for medical students has been reported to involve individual supervision with continuous feedback [ 8 ]. Notably, many MD Project supervisors felt that their feedback on student performance was only moderately well received, but the reasons for this are not clear. Compiling and delivering feedback to assist student progress is a complex process with several considerations including the emotional impact of receiving or giving written feedback; written feedback in the supervisory power dynamic; communicating written feedback; and the content and structure of written feedback [ 27 ]. These proficiencies are a further area for future training considerations. In addition to this, improving the supervisor experience would likely cultivate future supervision capacity and retention of experienced supervisors, which is an important consideration for the sustainability of a large MD Project Program.

Many research supervisors are not specifically trained in the pedagogy associated with supervision. Although specific training programs have become standard for higher degree supervisors [ 9 , 28 ], this is not the case for research supervision at the undergraduate or post-graduate coursework level, as in this program. Higher degree supervisor training programs cover topics like managing the relationship between student and supervisor, keeping roles and expectations clear, managing milestones and project progress. Other important considerations may be handling breakdowns in relationships, authorship, and research ethics issues [ 9 , 29 ]. All of these are relevant to the MD project supervision. In this study, supervision experience ranged from none to extensive, but supervisors were not required to have any supervision qualifications. Notably, inexperienced supervisors were less inclined to have a second supervisor or expert content advisor involved in supervising their student’s project, whereas experienced supervisors were more open to this option. This finding is in accord with the supervisor professional identity dilemma previously reported for both novice and more experienced supervisors [ 23 ].

Limitations

This cross-sectional study has limitations in that it is subject to self-report bias and the timing of the survey which took place at the end of the 2.5-year project risking the introduction of recall bias. The relatively low response rate (28%) reflects the participant cohort which includes busy clinicians and researchers [ 30 ].

In conclusion, research supervisors reported that both generic and research-related skills were important for research project success. Overall, supervisors considered that the program delivered on its objectives, and that the assessment tasks enabled project progress and skill acquisition. Protected research time, funding, and academic support, particularly for research methods and ethics, would improve the research project program. Supervisor perceptions differed depending on prior research supervision experience and suggest a targeted training program could be beneficial. This should be further investigated to inform future support provisions.

Acknowledgements

The authors acknowledge Prof Michael Frommer and Prof David Tiller who were instrumental in the design, development, and implementation of the MD Project Program. Academic management for the MD Project team was provided by Clara Spencer, Anna Forte, Hannah Bath, Craig Purcell, Nicholas Olsen, Paniani Patu and Sally Middleton. The substantial support of research supervisors and coordinators of both the research project program and this survey is also acknowledged.

Authors’ contributions

Jonathan Hakim, Rebekah Jenkin, Eszter Kalman and David Bowen contributed to the study conception and design. Data collection was performed by Jonathan Hakim and Joanne Hart. Data analyses were performed by Joanne Hart, Genevieve Coorey and Rajneesh Kaur. The first draft of the manuscript was written by Joanne Hart and all authors commented on subsequent versions of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

No funding was received for this work.

Availability of data and materials

Declarations.

This research project was approved by the University of Sydney Human Research Ethics Committee, #2017/748. All methods were carried out in accordance with relevant guidelines and regulations. Informed consent was obtained from each participant. Participation was anonymous and submission of the online survey form was accepted as informed consent to be involved in the study.

Not applicable.

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supervisors’ emotion regulation in research supervision: navigating dilemmas in an accountability-based context

• Open access
• Published: 18 May 2024

Cite this article

You have full access to this open access article

• Jiying Han 1 ,
• Lei Jin 1 &
• Hongbiao Yin   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-5424-587X 2  

421 Accesses

Explore all metrics

Given the complexity and high demands of research supervision and the intricate emotional experiences of supervisors, there is a need to explore how they regulate their emotions, particularly across various disciplinary backgrounds. The current study explored the emotion regulation strategies employed by research supervisors during the process of supervising graduate students. Based on data collected through semi-structured interviews, observations, and documentation from six research supervisors in different institutions in China, seven emotion regulation strategies employed by research supervisors were identified and further categorized into two groups, that is, antecedent-focused (prevention, intervention, reinterpretation, reconcentration, and detachment) and response-focused (suppression and expression) emotion regulation strategies. The findings shed light on the dilemmas faced by supervisors and the paradox aroused from the context-dependent and non-standardized nature of research supervision within an accountability-based managerial context. The implications for supervisors’ emotion regulation in authentic supervisory situations are discussed, and insights for universities’ policy-making are offered.

Similar content being viewed by others

Dear Mental Health Practitioners, Take Care of Yourselves: a Literature Review on Self-Care

Is Empathy the Key to Effective Teaching? A Systematic Review of Its Association with Teacher-Student Interactions and Student Outcomes

Teacher stress and burnout in Australia: examining the role of intrapersonal and environmental factors

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

Introduction

Since the 1990s, educational research has undergone an “affective turn” as a result of the critique of the long-standing Cartesian dualism between emotionality and rationality (Zembylas, 2021 ). Over the following three decades, the dynamic and complex nature of teacher emotion has been explored from various perspectives and approaches (Agudo, 2018 ). Since emotion can significantly impact various stages of the teaching process, either facilitating or hindering it (Yin, 2016a , 2016b ), opportunities for emotion regulation can be identified in educational contexts at any time (Taxer & Gross, 2018 ). In higher education, although emotion regulation has been proven significant to teacher development and well-being (Xie, 2021 ), the majority of research has been conducted within the context of classroom instruction (Tao et al., 2022 ), leaving that of research supervision in graduate education unexplored.

In graduate education, emotion plays an important role in the supervisory process and relationship building which involves a series of emotional interactions essential for both supervisors and graduate students. The existing research has demonstrated an increasing need for supervisors to develop emotion regulation skills to cope with the challenges and provide emotional support in research supervision (Wollast et al., 2023 ). On the one hand, supervisors need to employ emotion regulation strategies in the challenging supervisory contexts, as accountability-based policies and the blurring of personal and academic relationships between supervisors and graduate students may trigger complex emotional experiences such as anxiety and worry for supervisors (Xu, 2021 ). On the other hand, the provision of support from supervisors is strongly linked to the emotional well-being and research success of graduate students (Janssen & Vuuren, 2021 ; Wollast et al., 2023 ). Specifically, supervisors’ emotion regulation plays a crucial role in providing emotional support to graduate students, which in turn has a positive impact on graduate students’ well-being and their belief about their further academic pursuits (Han & Xu, 2023 ; Wollast et al., 2023 ).

Of the limited research on emotion in graduate education, much has been conducted to investigate the influence of graduate students’ emotion regulation on their mental health and academic engagement (Saleem et al., 2022 ). However, there is a paucity of studies which have researched supervisors’ emotions and emotion regulation during the supervisory process. With the aim of unpacking how research supervisors employ emotion regulation strategies in real supervisory scenarios to effectively fulfill their roles, and to gain insights into the nature of research supervision, this qualitative study explores the emotion regulation strategies used by supervisors in the process of research supervision.

Literature review

Teacher emotion and emotion regulation.

Emotion, once considered inferior to cognition, has gained increasing attention in the social sciences, including in educational research (Han & Xu, 2023 ). The current recognition of the intricate interplay between emotion and cognition in teaching and learning highlights the importance of emphasizing teacher emotion in both teacher development and teacher well-being (Chen & Cheng, 2022 ). Emotion is complex and difficult to define (Chen & Cheng, 2022 ), and the connotation of emotion has shifted from an intrapersonal perspective to a relational one, emphasizing interactions between individuals and their environment during emotion generation (Campos et al., 2011 ).

Under the relational view of emotion, individuals can achieve social goals in most jobs involving interpersonal interactions through emotion regulation (Brotheridge & Grandey, 2002 ). Emotion regulation refers to “the processes by which individuals influence which emotions they have, when they have them, and how they experienced and expressed their emotions” (Gross, 1998 , p. 275). In the educational field, a growing interest of research in emotion regulation has emerged since the 1990s (Yin, 2016a , 2016b ; Zembylas, 2021 ), as teaching has been viewed as “an emotional practice” (Hargreaves, 1998 , p. 835). Due to the importance of emotion in teachers’ professional lives, it is crucial for teachers to regulate their emotions to achieve improved teaching and learning outcomes. Specifically, enhancing positive emotions can foster better teacher-student relationships, promote creativity in teaching, and strengthen students’ learning motivation; inappropriately managed negative emotions can have adverse effects on these aspects (Hargreaves, 1998 ). Although teachers’ emotion regulation has been widely examined (e.g., Taxer & Frenzel, 2015 ; Yin, 2015 , 2016a , 2016b ; Yin et al.,  2018 ) most studies, influenced by the concept of emotional labor, have mainly focused on two types of emotion regulation strategies: deep acting (the act of internalizing a desired emotion, matching expressed emotion with felt emotion) and surface acting (the act of altering emotional expression without regulating inner feelings) (Grandey, 2000 ; Hochschild, 1983 ). Comparatively, Gross’s ( 1998 ) process model of emotion regulation provides a more nuanced framework to examine teachers’ employment of a wider range of emotion regulation strategies. According to Gross ( 1998 , 2015 ), emotion regulation could be achieved through two main approaches: the antecedent-focused and response-focused approach. The former entails strategies that seek to avoid or regulate emotions by modifying the factors triggering emotion generation, which include situation selection, situation modification, attention deployment, and cognitive changes. The latter modifies an individual’s expressions and responses after the emotions have fully manifested, directly influencing physiological, experiential, or behavioral responses.

In recent years, the predominant focus of studies, guided by Gross’s ( 1998 ) process model, has been on investigating the motivations, strategies, and outcomes of teachers’ intrapersonal emotion regulation (e.g., Taxer & Gross, 2018 ; To & Yin, 2021 ; Xu, 2021 ). Teachers’ motivations for emotional regulation stem from their diverse teaching goals, including managing the impressions that various parties have of them, adapting to intensive educational reforms for survival, and enhancing students’ concentration levels (Hosotani, 2011 ; Xu, 2021 ). As for emotion regulation strategies, the existing literature has mainly been conducted under Gross’s ( 2015 ) model, and revealed a series of antecedent-focused (e.g., situation selection, attention deployment, and cognitive change) and response-focused strategies (e.g., suppression, relaxation, and avoidance) to cope with the ambivalent demands and enormous workload faced by teachers. Remarkably, certain strategies that reflect the unique nature of teachers’ work, such as genuine expression (Yin, 2015 ; Yin, 2016a , 2016b ) and interpersonal strategies (To & Yin, 2021 ), have been identified. Regarding outcomes of emotion regulation, genuine expression of emotion and cognitive appraisal strategies were found helpful to improve the effectiveness of classroom teaching and to maintain a balance between teachers’ professional and personal dimensions of their identities (Yin, 2016a , 2016b ). In contrast, suppressing, pretending, and restraining emotions may cause emotional dissonance and less received social support (Yin, 2015 ).

Emotion regulation and research supervision

In graduate education, supervisors’ emotional experiences are triggered by the complexity and high demands of research supervision (Han & Xu, 2023 ). The conflicting roles of taking responsibility for both supporter and supervisor simultaneously, the contradiction between supervisors’ high expectations of students’ learning autonomy and graduate students’ unsatisfactory performance, and the blurred boundaries between supervisory relationship and friendship (Han & Xu, 2023 ; Parker-Jenkins, 2018 ) are major challenges encountered by research supervisors. These challenges lead to various emotional experiences on the part of supervisors, including positive emotions, such as joy and love (Halse & Malfroy, 2010 ), and more prevalent negative emotions, such as anger, and disappointment (Sambrook et al., 2008 ). Given the diverse range of emotions that emerge during the supervision process, it is necessary for supervisors to employ various emotion regulation strategies to accomplish effective research supervision.

According to literature, emotion regulation is strongly associated with research supervision in three areas. First, effective research supervision requires a constructive and supportive supervisory relationship, which is facilitated by supervisors’ emotion regulation. As poorly managed supervision relationships contribute to low academic completion rates, supervisors are required to establish a respectful and caring relationship with their students (Halse & Malfroy, 2010 ). However, creating and maintaining such relationships can be challenging. Specifically, during the interactions with graduate students, supervisors are expected to offer emotional supports, including encouragement, motivation, and recognition based on students’ individual needs while ensuring that any critical feedback is delivered constructively (Lee, 2008 ). However, excessive emotional engagement or close relationships with students may hinder their ability to provide constructive criticism (Lee, 2008 ). As such, supervisors must strike a balance between offering emotional support and providing constructive feedback, thereby developing a successful educational partnership with their students.

Second, the emotional support provided by supervisors plays a positive role in facilitating graduate students’ research productivity and emotional well-being (Han & Wang, 2024 ; Wollast et al., 2023 ). In terms of research success, supervisors who encourage critical thinking and support constructive controversies tend to produce higher achievement and retention rates than those who adopt a directive and authoritarian approach (Johnson, 2001 ). Furthermore, emotional support from supervisors has been linked to higher levels of research self-efficacy and emotional well-being among graduate students (Diekman et al., 2011 ). Specifically, structure and autonomy support strongly influence graduate students’ feelings and expectations about their future academic success. Thus, in academic settings, supervisors should adopt effective emotion regulation strategies, offering constructive feedback, close guidance, and attentiveness to maintain graduate students’ motivation and mental well-being.

Third, effective emotion regulation is also critical for the well-being of research supervisors themselves. When faced with repeated frustrating events such as a lack of student progress and demanding requirements in accountability-based supervisory contexts, supervisors may experience feelings of exhaustion, particularly when they perceive their supportive efforts as being ineffective (Xu, 2021 ). Failing to regulate these negative emotions with effective strategies can lead to the accumulation and intensification of undesirable feelings, resulting in detrimental effects on supervisors’ well-being and job satisfaction, which may ultimately lead to their emotional burnout and disengagement (To & Yin, 2021 ).

So far, the very limited research on research supervisors’ emotion regulation in medical and scientific disciplines found that although supervisors use instructional strategy modification (e.g., directly pointing out students’ writing deficiencies), cognitive change (e.g., reappraising the relationship between students’ underachievement and their supervision), and response regulation (e.g., lowering their voice to calm themselves) to deal with negative emotions (Han & Xu, 2023 ), they still have difficulties in stepping out of negative emotions (Sambrook et al., 2008 ). Meanwhile, supervisors from different disciplines may use different emotion regulation strategies due to disciplinary differences in occupational challenges, societal expectations, and specific work environments (Veniger & Kočar, 2018 ). Therefore, it is necessary for researchers to investigate the emotion regulation of supervisors with different disciplinary backgrounds.

Based on the literature, underpinned by Gross’s ( 2015 ) process model, the present qualitative multi-case study aims to investigate the emotion regulation strategies employed by research supervisors from different disciplinary backgrounds. Specifically, the study seeks to answer this core research question: What strategies do research supervisors use to regulate their emotions during the supervision process?

As the in-depth understanding of supervisors’ emotion regulation strategies relies on the narratives of their journey of research supervision, we used narrative inquiry to explore supervisors’ lived experiences in supervising graduate students. Narrative inquiry emphasizes the co-construction of specific experiences by the researcher and participants (Friedensen et al., 2024 ; Riessman, 2008 ), which allows us to co-construct the meaning of emotion regulation with participants through qualitative data including interviews, observations, and documents.

Research context: Emphasizing the accountability of research supervision

The Chinese research supervision system has its roots in the nineteenth century, evolving alongside the development of graduate education (Xie & Zhu, 2008 ). Within this system, research supervisors play a crucial role in research-based master’s and doctoral education. In 1961, a supervisor accountability system was formalized, placing the responsibility on supervisors for overseeing students in research projects, journal publications, and dissertation completion. Under the guidance of supervisors, students engage in specialized courses, master the latest advancements in a specific field, and conduct research (Peng, 2015 ).

In recent years, with the rapid growth of graduate education in China, both supervisors and graduate students have expressed concerns about the quality of research supervision (Xu & Liu, 2023 ). Thus, national policies have been introduced to stipulate supervisors’ responsibilities and enhance the overall supervision quality, with a particular emphasis on the accountability of research supervisors. In 2020, the Accountability Measures for Educational Supervision, released by China’s Ministry of Education ( 2020 ), outlined a code of conduct for supervisors, emphasizing that supervisors bear the primary responsibility for cultivating postgraduate students. Specifically, supervisors are held accountable for various aspects of graduate students’ academic progress, including the quality of dissertations, academic conduct, and the appropriate utilization of research funds. Failure to fulfill these responsibilities may result in serious consequences, such as disqualification from supervising students or the revocation of teaching credentials.

Participants

To explore a wide range of emotional experiences and emotion regulation strategies that arise when supervising students at various stages of their academic journey, participants were purposively selected based on the following three criteria: (1) doctoral supervisors with the qualifications to oversee research-based master’s students and PhD candidates were considered, which allows us to gain insights into their emotions in supervising students at different academic stages; (2) supervisors with a minimum of 5 years of supervision were selected, as their long-term experience would provide a comprehensive understanding of the depth and evolution of emotion regulation strategies; (3) supervisors of both hard and soft disciplines were involved, as disciplinary features may significantly shape supervisors’ styles, potentially leading to their diverse emotions and emotion regulation strategies. Finally, six doctoral supervisors from four universities in China agreed to participate in the study voluntarily and were informed of the research purpose and ethical principles before the study. Table 1 provides a summary of the demographic information for all participants.

Data collection

The positionality statement is essential as the authors’ roles may influence the data collection process. Specifically, two authors are doctoral supervisors with rich experience in research supervision, and one author is a doctoral student. Participants for this study were recruited from the authors’ colleagues or recommendations from friends. In the spirit of self-reflexivity, we acknowledge our positions in research supervision and recognize that our relationships with participants may impact our collection and interpretations of the data. However, the authors had attempted to minimize the possible influence through continuous reflection, crosscheck, and discussions during the data analysis and interpretation.

To produce convincing qualitative accounts, collecting data from multiple sources including semi-structured interviews, observations, and documentation was employed in the current study from November 2022 to April 2023.

The primary source of data was individual interviews with each participant. To gather participants’ narratives of critical events in their research supervision, an interview protocol was designed according to our research purpose, but the interview questions were sufficiently flexible to enable the interviewer to adapt the content according to the specific interview situation. The interviews lasted between 120 and 150 min, during which the participants were asked to describe critical events in their research supervision, their emotional experiences, and whether and how they regulated their emotions. Follow-up questions were asked to gain a more profound understanding of their emotion regulation strategies when they provided surprising and ambiguous responses. Sample interview questions included “What emotions do you typically experience as a research supervisor?” and “Do you regulate your emotions induced by research supervision? If so, how?” All interview questions were presented in Chinese, the participants’ first language, and were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim.

Observation was used to complement the data obtained from interviews. Before the observation, all supervisors and their students were informed about the research purpose and ethical principles. Then non-participant observation during their group and individual meetings proceeded only with their voluntary participation. Supervisors’ supervisory methods, activities, meeting atmosphere, and emotions of meeting members were recorded to supplement and validate the data collected through the interview. A short follow-up interview was then conducted with supervisors, focusing on their reflections on emotional events that occurred during the observed group and individual meetings.

Documentation was also used as a supplementary method. With the consent of the participants and their students, supervisors’ annotations and feedback on graduate students’ manuscripts, unofficial posts about supervision on social media (e.g., WeChat moments sharing), and chat logs between supervisors and students were collected to obtain additional information about the participants’ emotional experiences and supervisory practices. Table 2 presents the interview durations, the total minutes recorded during observations, the length of follow-up interviews, and the specific number and types of documents reviewed by both supervisors and students.

Data analysis

The analysis involved a three-level coding process (Yin, 2016a , 2016b ). First, interview transcripts were repeatedly read to label data excerpts that addressed the research questions. Initial codes were based on participants’ original perspectives and then iteratively refined and combined. Second, the coding system was organized according to Gross’s ( 2015 ) process model of emotional regulation, which distinguishes between antecedent-focused and response-focused strategies. Meanwhile, the study also remained open to other emotion regulation strategies that were evident in the empirical data. Third, the coding system was distilled to capture the nature of the identified strategies, resulting in three types of emotion regulation strategies. During the analysis process, the data were classified and organized using the NVivo software.

To strengthen the credibility of the data analysis, the interview transcripts were carefully examined multiple times to ensure that the data were accurately reflected in the coding scheme. Moreover, the coding scheme was collaboratively developed by the authors, and any discrepancies in classification were thoroughly deliberated to achieve mutual agreement. The final coding system, along with sub-categories and patterns, is presented in Table 3 .

In sum, seven emotion regulation strategies in research supervision emerged from the empirical data, which can be grouped into two categories, namely, antecedent-focused strategies and response-focused strategies.

Antecedent-focused strategies

Supervisors used antecedent-focused strategies to regulate the external situation and their internal cognition before the emotions were generated.

Prevention involves the prediction and avoidance of situations that may lead to undesirable emotional experiences during supervision prior to the generation of emotions. Prevention strategies were frequently utilized in the graduate student recruitment process and early stages of supervision, as a means of avoiding undesirable situations. On the former occasion, supervisors identified multiple recruitment indicators, such as research experiences and GPA, to avoid supervisory situations that may lead to negative emotions. This is commonly related to their former supervisory experience: “It was frustrating to supervise a student who was not invested in her work, so I have to implement a rigorous recruitment process to prioritize candidates who are truly interested in research, rather than rashly recruiting students” (P1-interview).

Supervisors remain vigilant once a supervisory relationship was established, as they are required by accountability-based policies to be responsible for students’ research performance and safety. Many supervisors stressed the significance of “establishing rules and regulations” (P4-interview) in the early stages of supervision to avoid infuriation and disappointment with students’ academic misconduct. Therefore, establishing an academic code of conduct is an effective prevention strategy for supervisors: “I’m frustrated by academic misconduct among students, as discovering data falsification in student-published articles holds me accountable, risking serious consequences for my academic career. So I frequently emphasize the need for high academic honesty and integrity standards” (P2-interview, observation).

Another concern that worried supervisors, especially those of science and technology, is student safety: “Whenever I hear about a laboratory explosion that causes student injuries, it makes me very nervous” (P3-interview, documentation). It is crucial for the institutions and supervisors to establish comprehensive laboratory safety rules and educate students on safety protocols before conducting experiments: “I told my graduate students: Failure to obey laboratory rules and lack of safety awareness can lead to immediate accidents that not only affect yourself but also pose a risk to other students” (P3-interview).

Intervention

Intervention is the most commonly employed strategy by supervisors to enhance the effectiveness of their supervision once a supervisory relationship is established. They employed various intervention strategies to improve students’ academic attitude and develop their academic ability.

Specifically, supervisors improved their students’ engagement and altered procrastination either by scaffolding their research or enforcing discipline and prohibitions. On the one hand, our participants acknowledged the importance of instructional scaffolding in the supervisory process.

We need to cultivate students’ interest so that they can actively engage in research. For instance, I often demonstrate interesting phenomena between the English and Chinese languages to generate my students’ curiosity. Then I am delighted to see their willingness to immerse themselves in linguistic research. (P5-interview)

On the other hand, some supervisors emphasized the enforcement of discipline in supervision. One supervisor expressed disappointment and dissatisfaction with the lackadaisical research atmosphere within the entire research group. In response, she implemented strict discipline and prohibitions to restrict students from engaging in activities unrelated to research in the office (P2-observation).

Finding a student watching a movie in the office angered me as it may disturb other students trying to focus on their studies. So, activities like watching movies and listening to music are not allowed in our office. By rigorously enforcing these rules, our research group was able to collaborate more effectively and ultimately achieve satisfactory results. (P2-interview)

Furthermore, intervention strategies were also used to enhance graduate students’ academic competency. Modifying supervisory activities was considered as a useful method. One supervisor shared: “We used to read literature in our group meeting together, but it was not effective. I felt frustrated and decided to change our meeting activities this semester.” As a result, the supervisor organized students to provide feedback on each other’s manuscripts in weekly group meetings, because “it was very effective in improving their writing abilities” (P1-interview, observation).

Interestingly, some supervisors opted to micromanage students’ research processes when they were disappointed with their research performance

At first, I encouraged students to independently identify research topics, but I later realized with disappointment that it was challenging for them to identify gaps in the existing literature. To make things more efficient, I started assigning research projects directly to help them complete their dissertation and meet the graduation requirements. (P5-interview)

Reinterpretation

Reinterpretation refers to the process of cognitively reappraising a supervisory situation from different perspectives to change its emotional impact. Supervising a graduate student who lacks interest in research was described as a “prolonged and painful undertaking” (P4-interview). However, one supervisor noted that: “Dwelling on negative emotions can be unproductive as it does not necessarily solve problems. Despite the challenging experience, I have gained valuable insights and will be better equipped to handle such situation” (P4-interview).

In addition to explaining the meaning of the situations from supervisors’ viewpoints, they reconsidered the events from graduate students’ perspectives to rationalize their unsatisfactory performance and procrastination. For example, supervisors understood students’ time arrangements when they procrastinated: “I used to become annoyed when students failed to submit assignments punctually… Now I know that students need a balance between work and rest. They need adequate time for rest” (P5-interview).

On occasion, supervisors reappraised the connection between students’ misbehaviors and the effort they invested from the perspective of the teacher-student relationship.

I felt angry when things happened, but I wouldn’t let that emotion affect my life. I see myself as a supervisor to students, not a parent, so I don’t hold high expectations for them. If students choose not to follow my guidance, it’s not my concern anymore. (P6-interview)

Reconcentration

Reconcentration is the strategy by which supervisors focus on another aspect of supervision or divert attention away from supervision with the intent of changing emotional consequences. Specifically, during the supervisory process, supervisors prepared themselves to be optimistic by reminding themselves of their students’ strengths: “I was anxious about a student who always made slow progress in research. But when I later realized that his incremental results were consistently good, indicating that he was very meticulous, I felt much better” (P2-interview, observation).

Apart from diverting attention during supervision in working environments, the participants highlighted the importance of balancing personal and professional life to manage negative emotions that may arise during supervision.

After giving birth, I realized that caring for a child demands a considerable amount of time and energy. Then I redirected my attention from supervising students to my family. Thankfully, my family provides a supportive environment, and the pleasant moments shared with my family members helped me overcome negative emotions associated with work. (P4-interview)

Detachment refers to the act of separating from or terminating the supervisory relationship to disengage from negative emotions. This strategy was often employed when intervention, reinterpretation, and reconcentration strategies were ineffective. When supervisors found that various proactive measures failed to resolve the challenges in research supervision, they experienced enduring feelings of helplessness, confusion, and distress. One supervisor expressed deep frustration, stating, “I’ve exhausted all efforts—careful communication with her and her parents, and providing my support during her experiments. Yet, she continued to resist making progress with her experiments and dissertation. I felt lost in supervising this student” (P4-interview). As a result, they have to release themselves from the emotionally harmful supervisory relationships.

Some supervisors chose to disengage, meaning they no longer actively push the student: “Continuing to push a student who refused to participate in research despite all my efforts would only increase my frustration. I have decided to let him go and will no longer push him” (P5-interview).

In some extreme cases that evoke negative emotions, supervisors even terminated the supervisory relationship.

Supervising this student was a painful experience as his inaction negatively affected the entire research team. Other students started following his behavior and avoided conducting experiments. It made me feel suffocated. I had to terminate my supervision to avoid any further negative impact on the team and myself… I felt relieved after he left. (P3-interview)

Response-focused strategies

Response-focused emotion regulation involves the use of strategies after an emotion has already been generated.

Suppression

Suppression involves consciously attempting to inhibit behavioral and verbal emotional responses. Although supervisors experienced negative moods during research supervision, some refrained from expressing these emotions to students. Certain supervisors believed that criticism hinders problem-solving. One participant explained, “While interacting with students, I found some are genuinely fearful of supervisor authority. In such cases, venting emotions on students only heightens their fear, makes them hesitant to express themselves or their confusion in research, and ultimately hinders their progress” (P1-interview). In addition, some supervisors believed that expressing anger or disappointment toward students could harm their self-efficacy in research. One supervisor stated, “Obtaining a master’s degree is a challenging journey, especially for novice researchers. Confidence is crucial for their success. As a supervisor, I refrain from expressing negative emotions as it can hurt students’ feelings and even damage their confidence” (P3-interview).

As mentioned by the supervisors above, expressing anger and disappointment to graduate students may not resolve issues but damage their self-efficacy. In challenging situations where negative emotions were hard to suppress, supervisors opted to temporarily suspend supervision activities or introduce new tasks to regain composure: “Sometimes revising students’ manuscripts can be a painful task. To avoid the risk of expressing negative emotions to them, I often temporarily suspend the revision. Sometimes I take a walk until I feel calmer and more collected” (P1-interview).

In supervision, expressing emotion is another effective strategy for regulating supervisors’ emotions. Although supervisors were aware that expressing negative emotions may sometimes negatively affect students’ feelings, the importance of their own emotional well-being was emphasized, as “expressing feelings helped me recover from negative moods faster” (P6-interview). However, supervisors had different expressive styles when interacting with their students.

Some supervisors expressed their anger and dissatisfaction to their students directly, through behavioral or verbal emotional responses. A supervisor recounted an incident, “During a phone call with her, I lost my temper because of her terrible attitude, and ended up throwing my phone” (P4-interview).

Interestingly, given that “graduate students are all adults” (P6-interview), some supervisors expressed their emotions more tactfully, taking care not to lose their temper and cause distress to their students. One supervisor “felt angry with a student’s poor writing.” However, instead of scolding the student directly, he made a joke during a one-to-one meeting, saying “It’s not that you wrote poorly. It’s that I am not clever enough to comprehend your writing.” The student laughed, and then the supervision was conducted in a relaxed atmosphere. The supervisor explained: “I do not hide my emotions but prefer to avoid losing my temper and instead use humor to guide my students better” (P5-interview, observation).

This study contributes to the existing literature on emotion regulation by providing detailed insights into how emotion regulation strategies were utilized by research supervisors. It also sheds light on the dilemmas supervisors encounter and the paradox between the context-dependent nature of research supervision and the accountability-based managerial context.

Supervisors’ dilemmas in research supervision

Our study demonstrated supervisors’ capacity to proactively employ diverse emotion regulation strategies when coping with difficulties in research supervision. It also revealed some paradoxical phenomena within the supervisors’ utilization of these emotion regulation strategies, highlighting the dilemmas they encountered in the context of research supervision.

In general, supervisors in our study demonstrated a higher tendency to employ antecedent-focused strategies for emotion regulation rather than response-focused strategies, which can alleviate their emotional burnout and enhance their well-being. Specifically, participants utilized intervention strategies as antecedent-focused strategies to improve the effectiveness of research supervision, rather than seeking consolation to alleviate generated emotions. Previous research has indicated that antecedent-focused strategies were associated with increased life satisfaction (Feinberg et al., 2012 ). By intervening in the emotion generation process at an early stage, these strategies can potentially alter the emotional trajectory, contributing to improved well-being among supervisors (Gross & John, 2003 ).

While supervisors displayed a strong inclination to utilize diverse strategies to enhance the effectiveness of their supervision, our findings unveiled two paradoxical phenomena in their emotion regulation strategies, indicating the dilemmas that supervisors faced in authentic supervisory situations. First, in antecedent-focused strategies aimed at modifying situations that may trigger negative emotions, numerous interventions and detachments highlighted the conflicts supervisors encountered as they strived to balance adequate assistance and excessive interference. Specifically, while participants in our study “inspired students through scaffolding” or “encouraged students’ autonomous learning,” they also “micromanaged students’ research process” or “enforced discipline” to enhance supervision efficiency. This pedagogical paradox concerning the choice between intervening and non-intervening approaches has generated ongoing debate in existing research (Janssen & Vuuren, 2021 ). Both approaches have the potential to evoke negative emotional experiences for supervisors and graduate students. Research found that a highly intervening approach has negative implications for both supervisors and graduate students (Lee, 2020 ). Students who have encountered autonomy-exploitative behavior from their supervisors, such as being restricted to specific research topics and methodologies, have reported experiencing negative emotions (Cheng & Leung, 2022 ). For supervisors, the burden of an intervening approach, the dissonance between supervisors’ expectations and students’ actual research progress, as well as students deviating from conventional practices (Han & Xu, 2023 ), all contribute to feelings of frustration, sadness, and exhaustion. Nevertheless, non-intervening approaches do not always fulfill the expectations of both parties either. Supervisors who encouraged graduate students’ autonomous action acknowledged the value of promoting their independent thinking, which has been identified as a significant predictor of students’ research self-efficacy (Gruzdev et al., 2020 ). However, students who initially expected their supervisors to play a leadership role felt dissatisfied and disappointed when supervisors were reluctant to offer explicit guidance (Janssen & Vuuren, 2021 ). This misunderstanding of supervisors’ intentions can ultimately generate negative effects on supervisors’ emotional experiences (Xu, 2021 ).

Another evident paradoxical phenomenon arises in the response-focused strategies employed after emotions have already been triggered. Although supervisors opted to suppress their negative emotional expression to safeguard the confidence and self-esteem of mature learners, there were instances when they outpoured their disappointment and anger to students, aiming to swiftly step out of their negative moods. The act of expressing and suppressing emotions highlights the dilemma of cultivating a mutually beneficial relationship that promotes emotional well-being for both supervisors and students. On the one hand, the existing literature emphasizes the importance of supervisors being sensitive to students’ emotional experiences (Bastalich, 2017 ). The inherent power imbalance in supervisor-student relationships may create a sense of student dependency on their supervisors (Friedensen et al., 2024 ; Janssen & Vuuren, 2021 ). Excessive criticism from supervisors can potentially lead to feelings of loss, and alienation throughout students’ academic journey, which highlights supervisors’ responsibility to manage their emotional criticism in supervisory interactions (Parker-Jenkins, 2018 ). On the other hand, although pursuing a research degree is a challenging journey for graduate students, it is important to acknowledge the vulnerability of research supervisors and their need for support (Parker-Jenkins, 2018 ). Power dynamics within supervisory relationships, particularly when students challenge or disregard supervisors’ advice, can lead to repression and disengagement for supervisors if negative emotions are not effectively regulated (Xu, 2021 ). Thus, recognizing supervisors’ needs and allowing for emotional expressions are also essential in developing a relationship that is mutually beneficial and conducive to the well-being of both parties (Parker-Jenkins, 2018 ).

The conflicts between research supervision and institutional policies

The dilemmas present in supervisors’ emotion regulation strategies inherently illustrate the context-dependent and non-standardized nature of research supervision. However, as modern higher education institutions move toward implementing accountability-based policies that aim to standardize and quantify research supervision (Jedemark & Londos, 2021 ), conflicts between the nature of supervision and these institutional policies not only place an emotional burden on supervisors, but also endanger the quality of graduate education.

The dilemmas observed in supervisors’ emotion regulation strategies highlight the divergent understandings between supervisors and graduate students regarding their respective responsibilities and the boundaries of the supervisor-student relationship. This divergence is influenced by context-dependent factors in research supervision, including the beliefs, motivations, and initiatives of the individuals involved (Denis et al., 2018 ). Due to the difficulty in achieving a perfect agreement on these context-dependent factors, it becomes challenging to establish a standard for what constitutes an ideal beneficial research supervision (Bøgelund, 2015 ). In authentic supervisory situations, the relationships between supervisors and graduate students can range from formal and distant to informal and intimate in both academic and social interactions (Parker-Jenkins, 2018 ). Therefore, research supervision is a highly context-dependent and non-standardized practice that relies on the capabilities of supervisors and students, which are shaped by their individual experiences and personalities.

This nature of research supervision underscores the significance of avoiding standardization and a “one size fits all” approach. However, as higher education institutions move toward a corporate managerial mode, research supervision is increasingly perceived as a service provided within a provider-consumer framework, and the fundamental aspects of research supervision are being reshaped to align with a culture of performance measurement, control, and accountability (Taylor et al., 2018 ). In modern academia, universities and institutions have established specific guidelines and protocols for research supervision, which require supervisors to follow diligently and take accountability in the supervision process (Figueira et al., 2018 ).

The presence of extensive external scrutiny or accountability ignored the context-dependent and non-standardized nature of research supervision, leading to adverse effects on both supervisors and graduate students. On the one hand, supervisors face significant pressure within an accountability-based context. They are expected to serve as facilitators of structured knowledge transmission, which is enforced through the demanding requirements and time-consuming tasks associated with supervisory practices (Halse, 2011 ). However, the distinctive characteristics of various disciplines and the interdependent relationship between the supervisory context and graduate students’ learning process are neglected (Liang et al., 2021 ). Such a narrow focus on knowledge transmission may pose potential threats to supervisors’ autonomy and academic freedom, generating their feelings of self-questioning, helplessness, and demotivation (Halse, 2011 ). Supervisors in our study reported many examples of emotion regulation strategies utilized to cope with performative and accountability pressures in their workplace. Specifically, the responsibility to ensure timely doctoral completions, prioritize students’ safety, and maintain accountability for those experiencing delays or violating research codes evoked feelings of nervousness, pressure, and insecurity among supervisors.

On the other hand, interventionist supervision within accountability-driven supervisory contexts is perceived as detrimental to students’ academic innovation (Bastalich, 2017 ). The prevailing environment of heightened performativity and accountability alters supervisors’ attitudes toward academic risk-taking, thereby influencing their supervisory practices (Figueira et al., 2018 ). For example, participants in our study utilized prevention and intervention strategies to mitigate potential negative occurrences. This included adopting a directive approach to supervise students’ work and dissuading them from undertaking risky or time-consuming methods to ensure timely completion. However, such micromanagement may stifle innovation, thereby inhibiting doctoral students’ development as independent researchers (Gruzdev et al., 2020 ). Providing pre-packaged research projects or excessive support may hinder students’ acquisition of essential knowledge, skills, and expertise required for their future pursuits, potentially obstructing their progress toward independent thinking (Gruzdev et al., 2020 ).

The conflicts between the prevailing shift from autonomy to accountability in higher education and the context-dependent and non-standardized nature of research supervision highlight the necessity for practice-informed evaluations for research supervision. This finding resonates with previous studies on policy-making in graduate education (Taylor et al., 2018 ), which emphasized the challenges of establishing evidence-based institutional policies to capture the intricate realities of supervision in practice.

Limitations

This study contributes to the understanding of research supervisors’ work by examining their emotion regulation strategies in authentic supervisory situations. However, certain limitations should be addressed for future research. First, the small sample size is a significant limitation, as only six supervisors participated. Future studies may increase the sample size and enhance diversity within the sample. Second, as our study only involved perspectives from research supervisors, future studies may consider incorporating the perceptions of both supervisors and graduate students and analyzing the level of convergence and divergence between the obtained results to enhance the validity of data collection.

Implications for practice

Despite being situated in China’s supervisory accountability system, our study holds broader implications in the global context. As the shift toward corporatized management models in higher education worldwide reshapes research supervision to align with performance measurement and accountability culture (Jedemark & Londos, 2021 ), our results offer implications for research supervision and policy-making beyond the Chinese context.

First, for research supervisors and graduate students, the intricate and dynamic nature of research supervision revealed in our study makes it challenging to offer direct recommendations for optimal emotion regulation strategies. Instead, supervisors are encouraged to adaptively employ a range of emotion regulation strategies in different supervisory situations to enhance their emotional well-being. Additionally, recognizing the context-dependent nature of research supervision, both research supervisors and graduate students are urged to take into account factors such as each other’s beliefs, motivations, and initiatives in their research and daily interactions.

Second, in light of the discrepancy between the current standardized accountability measures in higher education and the context-dependent nature of research supervision, it is imperative for universities and institutions to develop practice-based policies that are tailored to supervisors’ and students’ academic development, avoiding generic and assumed approaches. To effectively address the distinctive requirements of research supervision, policy-makers are strongly encouraged to implement multi-dimensional, discipline-oriented evaluation systems for supervisors in the future.

Data Availability

Data from this study cannot be shared publicly because participants may still be identifiable despite efforts to anonymise the data. Therefore, data will only be made available for researchers who meet criteria for access to confidential data.

Agudo, J. D. M. (Ed.). (2018). Emotions in second language teaching: Theory, research and teacher education . Springer.

Google Scholar  

Bastalich, W. (2017). Content and context in knowledge production: A critical review of doctoral supervision literature. Studies in Higher Education, 42 (7), 1145–1157.

Article   Google Scholar  

Bøgelund, P. (2015). How supervisors perceive PhD supervision-and how they practice it. International Journal of Doctoral Studies, 10 , 39–55.

Brotheridge, C. M., & Grandey, A. A. (2002). Emotional labor and burnout: Comparing two perspectives of “people work.” Journal of Vocational Behavior, 60 (1), 17–39.

Campos, J. J., Walle, E. A., Dahl, A., & Main, A. (2011). Reconceptualizing emotion regulation. Emotion Review, 3 (1), 26–35.

Chen, J., & Cheng, T. (2022). Review of research on teacher emotion during 1985–2019: A descriptive quantitative analysis of knowledge production trends. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 37 (2), 417–438.

Cheng, M. W. T., & Leung, M. L. (2022). “I’m not the only victim...” Student perceptions of exploitative supervision relation in doctoral degree. Higher Education, 84 (3), 523–540.

Denis, C., Colet, N. R., & Lison, C. (2018). Doctoral supervision in North America: Perception and challenges of supervisor and supervisee. Higher Education Studies, 9 (1), 30–39.

Diekman, A. B., Clark, E. K., Johnston, A. M., Brown, E. R., & Steinberg, M. (2011). Malleability in communal goals and beliefs influences attraction to stem careers: Evidence for a goal congruity perspective. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101 (5), 902–918.

Feinberg, M., Willer, R., Antonenko, O., & John, O. P. (2012). Liberating reason from the passions: Overriding intuitionist moral judgments through emotion reappraisal. Psychological Science, 23 (7), 788–795.

Figueira, C., Theodorakopoulos, N., & Caselli, G. (2018). Unveiling faculty conceptions of academic risk taking: A phenomenographic study. Studies in Higher Education, 43 (8), 1307–1320.

Friedensen, R. E., Bettencourt, G. M., & Bartlett, M. L. (2024). Power-conscious ecosystems: Understanding how power dynamics in US doctoral advising shape students’ experiences. Higher Education, 87 (1), 149–164. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-023-00998-x

Grandey, A. A. (2000). Emotional regulation in the workplace: A new way to conceptualize emotional labor. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 5 (1), 95–110.

Gross, J. J. (1998). The emerging field of emotion regulation: An integrative review. Review of General Psychology, 2 , 271–299.

Gross, J. J. (2015). Emotion regulation: Current status and future prospects. Psychological Inquiry, 26 (1), 1–26.

Gross, J. J., & John, O. P. (2003). Individual differences in two emotion regulation processes: Implications for affect, relationships, and well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85 (2), 348.

Gruzdev, I., Terentev, E., & Dzhafarova, Z. (2020). Superhero or hands-off supervisor? An empirical categorization of PhD supervision styles and student satisfaction in Russian universities. Higher Education, 79 (5), 773–789.

Gu, J., Levin, J. S., & Luo, Y. (2018). Reproducing “academic successors” or cultivating “versatile experts”: Influences of doctoral training on career expectations of Chinese PhD students. Higher Education, 76 (3), 427–447.

Halse, C. (2011). ‘Becoming a supervisor’: The impact of doctoral supervision on supervisors’ learning. Studies in Higher Education, 36 (5), 557–570.

Halse, C., & Malfroy, J. (2010). Retheorizing doctoral supervision as professional work. Studies in Higher Education, 35 (1), 79–92.

Han, Y., & Xu, Y. (2023). Emotional support from the perspective of extrinsic emotion regulation: Insights of computer science. Teaching in Higher Education, 28 (7), 1725–1743.

Han, J., & Wang, T. (2024). Exploring graduate students’ research characteristics, emotional exhaustion, mastery approach, and research career commitment: insights from the JD-R theory. Studies in Higher Education, 1–15.

Hargreaves, A. (1998). The emotional practice of teaching. Teaching and Teacher Education, 14 (8), 835–854.

Hochschild, A. R. (1983). The managed heart: Commercialization of human feeling . University of California Press.

Hosotani, R. (2011). Emotional experience, expression, and regulation of high-quality Japanese elementary school teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education, 27 (6), 1039–1048.

Janssen, S., & Vuuren, M. (2021). Sensemaking in supervisor-doctoral student relationships: Revealing schemas on the fulfillment of basic psychological needs. Studies in Higher Education, 46 (12), 2738–2750.

Jedemark, M., & Londos, M. (2021). Four different assessment practices: How university teachers handle the field of tension between professional responsibility and professional accountability. Higher Education, 81 (6), 1293–1309.

Johnson, J. W. (2001). The relative importance of task and contextual performance dimensions to supervisor judgments of overall performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86 (5), 984–996.

Lee, A. (2008). How are doctoral students supervised? Concepts of doctoral research supervision. Studies in Higher Education, 33 (3), 267–281.

Lee, A. (2020). Successful research supervision: Advising students doing research (2nd ed.). Routledge.

Liang, W., Liu, S., & Zhao, C. (2021). Impact of student-supervisor relationship on postgraduate students’ subjective well-being: A study based on longitudinal data in China. Higher Education, 82 (2), 273–305.

Ministry of Education, PRC. (2020). The accountability measures for educational supervision [yanjiusheng zhidao xingwei zhunze].  http://www.moe.gov.cn/srcsite/A22/s7065/202011/t20201111_499442.html . Accessed 17 May 2024.

Parker-Jenkins, M. (2018). Mind the gap: Developing the roles, expectations and boundaries in the doctoral supervisor–supervisee relationship. Studies in Higher Education, 43 (1), 57–71.

Peng, H. (2015). Assessing the quality of research supervision in mainland Chinese higher education. Quality in Higher Education, 21 (1), 89–100.

Riessman, C. K. (2008). Narrative methods for the human sciences . Sage.

Saleem, M. S., Isha, A. S., Awan, M. I., Yusop, Y. B., & Naji, G. M. (2022). Fostering academic engagement in post-graduate students: Assessing the role of positive emotions, positive psychology, and stress. Frontiers in Psychology, 13 , 920395.

Sambrook, S., Stewart, J., & Roberts, C. (2008). Doctoral supervision... A view from above, below and the middle! Journal of Further and Higher Education, 32 (1), 71–84.

Tao, Y., Liu, X., Hou, W., Niu, H., Wang, S., Ma, Z., & Zhang, L. (2022). The mediating role of emotion regulation strategies in the relationship between big five personality traits and anxiety and depression among Chinese firefighters. Frontiers in Public Health, 10 , 901686.

Taxer, J. L., & Frenzel, A. C. (2015). Facets of teachers’ emotional lives: A quantitative investigation of teachers’ genuine, faked, and hidden emotions. Teaching and Teacher Education, 49 , 78–88.

Taxer, J. L., & Gross, J. J. (2018). Emotion regulation in teachers: The “why” and “how”. Teaching and Teacher Education, 74 , 180–189.

Taylor, S., Kiley, M., & Humphrey, R. (2018). A handbook for doctoral supervisors (2nd ed.). Routledge.

To, K. H., & Yin, H. (2021). Being the weather gauge of mood: Demystifying the emotion regulation of kindergarten principals. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 30 (4), 315–325.

Veniger, K. A., & Kočar, S. (2018). The impact of academic discipline on university teaching and pedagogical training courses. Croatian Journal of Education, 20 (4), 1261–1298.

Wollast, R., Aelenei, C., Chevalère, J., Van der Linden, N., Galand, B., Azzi, A., Frenay, M., & Klein, O. (2023). Facing the dropout crisis among PhD candidates: The role of supervisor support in emotional well-being and intended doctoral persistence among men and women. Studies in Higher Education, 48 (6), 813–828.

Xie, A. B., & Zhu, Y. (2008). Retrospect and prospect of Chinese degree and graduate education development in the past three decades. Degree and Graduate Education, 11 , 19–29.

Xie, F. (2021). A study on Chinese EFL teachers’ work engagement: The predictability power of emotion regulation and teacher resilience. Frontiers in Psychology, 12 , 735969.

Xu, Y. (2021). Unpacking the emotional dimension of doctoral supervision: Supervisors’ emotions and emotion regulation strategies. Frontiers in Psychology, 12 , 651859.

Xu, Y., & Liu, J. A. (2023). Exploring and understanding perceived relationships between doctoral students and their supervisors in China. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 10 (1), 1–10.

Yin, H. (2015). The effect of teachers’ emotional labour on teaching satisfaction: Moderation of emotional intelligence. Teachers and Teaching, 21 (7), 789–810.

Yin, H. (2016a). Knife-like mouth and tofu-like heart: Emotion regulation by Chinese teachers in classroom teaching. Social Psychology of Education, 19 (1), 1–22.

Yin, H., Huang, S., & Lv, L. (2018). A multilevel analysis of job characteristics, emotion regulation and teacher well-being: A job demands-resources model. Frontiers in Psychology, 9 , 2395.

Yin, R. K. (2016b). Qualitative research from start to finish (2nd ed.). Guilford Press.

Zembylas, M. (2021). The affective turn in educational theory. Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Education. https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190264093.013.1272 . Accessed 17 May 2024.

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank the participants who made this publication possible.

This work was supported by the Project of Outstanding Young and Middle-aged Scholars of Shandong University, Shandong University Program of Graduate Education and Reform (grant number XYJG2023037) and the General Research Fund of Hong Kong SAR (grant number CUHK 14608922).

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

School of Foreign Languages and Literature, Shandong University, Jinan, 250100, Shandong, China

Jiying Han & Lei Jin

Department of Curriculum and Instruction, Faculty of Education, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Shatin, N.T., Hong Kong, SAR, China

Hongbiao Yin

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

Jiying Han: writing—original draft preparation, writing—reviewing and editing; Lei Jin: writing—original draft preparation, formal analysis; Hongbiao Yin: conceptualization, validation, writing—reviewing and editing.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Hongbiao Yin .

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest.

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Han, J., Jin, L. & Yin, H. Supervisors’ emotion regulation in research supervision: navigating dilemmas in an accountability-based context. High Educ (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-024-01241-x

Download citation

Accepted : 13 May 2024

Published : 18 May 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-024-01241-x

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Emotion regulation
• Research supervision
• Accountability
• Graduate education
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

To read this content please select one of the options below:

Please note you do not have access to teaching notes, relationships between research supervisors and students from coursework-based master’s degrees: information usage under social media.

Information Discovery and Delivery

ISSN : 2398-6247

Article publication date: 8 March 2021

Issue publication date: 19 November 2021

Existing studies reflect that traditional teaching–learning relationships between supervisors and graduate students have become disjointed with actuality seriously. In particular, there are practical difficulties in handling many students from coursework-based postgraduate degrees under current university curricula. Therefore, this study aims to explore the relationship between research supervisors and graduate students on social media, which is popular among students.

Design/methodology/approach

This study surveyed 109 graduate students from two majors (population around 100 each) of a university in Hong Kong to explore their information usage for research on social media, related attitudes and their perceived supervisor relationships. The differences between the two majors were also compared.

The authors’ findings indicated that graduate students were active on social media, and social media has successfully provided effective alternate ways for students to communicate with their research supervisors. Social media could improve relationships between supervisors and research students and among fellow students. Besides education purposes, students also discussed their personal affairs on social media with supervisors, demonstrating enhanced trusted relationships. Graduate students also showed confidence in the further application of social media in higher education. Some differences between respondents from the two programs were also found in terms of communication contents, strengths, personal preferences and purposes for using social media.

Originality/value

Scant studies focus on the relationship between supervisors and graduate students under the current social media environment, especially for students from coursework-based postgraduate degrees. At a deeper level, for the widespread use of social media in the information age, this study explores the specific changes brought about by social media. Therefore, this study is of great theoretical and practical value to graduate education under the current social media environment.

• Social media
• Quantitative research
• Graduate students
• Research supervisor
• Teaching–learning relationship

Acknowledgements

This research is partially supported by the Faculty Research Fund, Faculty of Education, The University of Hong Kong.

Dong, G. , Chiu, D.K.W. , Huang, P.-S. , Ho, K.K.W. , Lung, M.M.-w. and Geng, Y. (2021), "Relationships between research supervisors and students from coursework-based master’s degrees: information usage under social media", Information Discovery and Delivery , Vol. 49 No. 4, pp. 319-327. https://doi.org/10.1108/IDD-08-2020-0100

Emerald Publishing Limited

Copyright © 2021, Emerald Publishing Limited

Related articles

We’re listening — tell us what you think, something didn’t work….

Report bugs here

All feedback is valuable

Please share your general feedback

Join us on our journey

Platform update page.

Visit emeraldpublishing.com/platformupdate to discover the latest news and updates

Questions & More Information

Answers to the most commonly asked questions here

Research and Development Supervisor

Research and Development Supervisor supervises activities in the research and development department. Oversees personnel who utilize established mathematical and scientific techniques to compile and analyze data and write technical reports detailing procedures, outcomes, and observations. Being a Research and Development Supervisor ensures proper procedure, and helps devise new development techniques. A level II supervisor has authority for personnel actions and oversees most day to day operations of group. Additionally, Research and Development Supervisor may require a bachelor's degree in in area of specialty. Typically reports to a manager or head of a unit/department. The Research and Development Supervisor supervises a small group of para-professional staff in an organization characterized by highly transactional or repetitive processes. Contributes to the development of processes and procedures. To be a Research and Development Supervisor typically requires 3 years experience in the related area as an individual contributor. Thorough knowledge of functional area under supervision.

Employers: Find Surveys For This Job

Employers: Job Description Management Tool

Employees: Get a Salary Increase

• Research and Development Manager
• Research and Development Director
• Research and Development Engineer
• Top Research & Development Executive
• Research and Development Associate I
• Research and Development Associate V
• Research and Development Associate II
• Research and Development Associate IV
• Research and Development Associate III
• Top Division Research & Development Executive
• Research and Development Supervisor Salaries with an Associate's Degree
• Research and Development Supervisor Salaries with a Bachelor's Degree
• Research and Development Supervisor Salaries with a Master's Degree or MBA
• Research and Development Supervisor Salaries with a JD, MD, PhD or Equivalent
• Pharmaceuticals
• Biotechnology
• Energy and Utilities
• Science and Research
• Aerospace & Defense
• Business Services
• Construction
• Edu., Gov't. & Nonprofit
• Energy & Utilities
• Financial Services
• Hospitality & Leisure
• MFG Durable
• MFG Nondurable
• Retail & Wholesale
• Software & Networking
• Transportation
• Wilmington, DE Research and Development Supervisor Salaries
• San Jose, CA Research and Development Supervisor Salaries
• Houston, TX Research and Development Supervisor Salaries
• San Diego, CA Research and Development Supervisor Salaries
• Boston, MA Research and Development Supervisor Salaries
• Trenton, NJ Research and Development Supervisor Salaries
• Minneapolis, MN Research and Development Supervisor Salaries
• Chicago, IL Research and Development Supervisor Salaries
• Philadelphia, PA Research and Development Supervisor Salaries
• Washington, DC Research and Development Supervisor Salaries

• Graduate School
• Prospective Students
• Research Supervisors

Canadian Immigration Updates

Applicants to Master’s and Doctoral degrees are not affected by the recently announced cap on study permits. Review more details

The supervisor is the key person in a thesis-based graduate degree program. The principal role of the supervisor is to help students achieve their scholastic potential and to chair the student’s Supervisory Committee. The Supervisor will provide reasonable commitment, accessibility, professionalism, stimulation, guidance, respect and consistent encouragement to the student. Learn more

Graduate programs have different expectations regarding prospective students contacting faculty members. Some require commitment of a faculty member as thesis supervisor prior to applying while others assign supervisors in the first year. Please review the requirements for each program in the degree listing under the heading "Admission Information & Requirements" in step 3 "Prepare Application" under "Thesis Supervision".

Advice on how to reach out to supervisors

Supervisor Directory

Other researcher directories.

• Engineering - Find an Engineering Expert
• School of Architecture and Landscape Architecture
• School of Nursing
• School of Community and Regional Planning
• Faculty of Arts
• Faculty of Dentistry
• Faculty of Education
• Faculty of Forestry
• Faculty of Land and Food Systems - Directory
• Faculty of Law
• Department of Anesthesiology, Pharmacology and Therapeutics
• Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology
• Department of Cellular and Physiological Sciences
• Department of Emergency Medicine
• Department of Medical Genetics
• Department of Medicine (Experimental Medicine, Dermatology and Skin Science)
• Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology
• Department of Occupational Science and Occupational Therapy
• Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine
• Department of Physical Therapy
• Department of Psychiatry
• School of Audiology and Speech Sciences
• School of Population and Public Health
• Faculty of Pharmaceutical Sciences - Researcher Search Tool
• Department of Botany - Research Faculty
• Department of Microbiology & Immunology
• Department of Chemistry
• Department of Physics & Astronomy
• Department of Computer Science
• Department of Statistics
• Department of Earth and Ocean Sciences
• Department of Zoology
• Department of Mathematics
• The UBC Calendar lists the names of faculty members in faculties, schools and departments.
• Sustainability Expert Finder

Reaching Out Tips

Complete these steps before you reach out to a faculty member.

• Familiarize yourself with program requirements. You want to learn as much as possible from the information available to you before you reach out to a faculty member. Be sure to visit the graduate degree program listing and program-specific websites.
• Check whether the program requires you to seek commitment from a supervisor prior to submitting an application. For some programs this is an essential step while others match successful applicants with faculty members within the first year of study. This is either indicated in the program profile under "Admission Information & Requirements" - "Prepare Application" - "Supervision" or on the program website.
• Identify specific faculty members who are conducting research in your specific area of interest.
• Read up on the faculty members in the program and the research being conducted in the department.
• Familiarize yourself with their work, read their recent publications and past theses/dissertations that they supervised. Be certain that their research is indeed what you are hoping to study.
• Do not send non-specific, mass emails to everyone in the department hoping for a match.
• Address the faculty members by name. Your contact should be genuine rather than generic.
• Include a brief outline of your academic background, why you are interested in working with the faculty member, and what experience you could bring to the department. The supervision enquiry form guides you with targeted questions. Ensure to craft compelling answers to these questions.
• Highlight your achievements and why you are a top student. Faculty members receive dozens of requests from prospective students and you may have less than 30 seconds to pique someone’s interest.
• Convey the specific ways you are a good fit for the program.
• Convey the specific ways the program/lab/faculty member is a good fit for the research you are interested in/already conducting.
• Be enthusiastic, but don’t overdo it.

G+PS regularly provides virtual sessions that focus on admission requirements and procedures and tips how to improve your application.

• Why Grad School at UBC?
• Graduate Degree Programs
• Application & Admission
• Info Sessions
• Research Projects
• Indigenous Students
• International Students
• Tuition, Fees & Cost of Living
• Newly Admitted
• Student Status & Classification
• Student Responsibilities
• Supervision & Advising
• Managing your Program
• Health, Wellbeing and Safety
• Professional Development
• Dissertation & Thesis Preparation
• Final Doctoral Exam
• Final Dissertation & Thesis Submission
• Life in Vancouver
• Vancouver Campus
• Graduate Student Spaces
• Graduate Life Centre
• Life as a Grad Student
• Graduate Student Ambassadors
• Meet our Students
• Award Opportunities
• Award Guidelines
• Minimum Funding Policy for PhD Students
• Killam Awards & Fellowships
• Policies & Procedures
• Information for Supervisors
• Dean's Message
• Leadership Team
• Strategic Plan & Priorities
• Vision & Mission
• Equity, Diversity & Inclusion
• Initiatives, Plans & Reports
• Graduate Education Analysis & Research
• Media Enquiries
• Newsletters
• Giving to Graduate Studies

Strategic Priorities

• Strategic Plan 2019-2024
• Improving Student Funding
• Promoting Excellence in Graduate Programs
• Enhancing Graduate Supervision
• Advancing Indigenous Inclusion
• Supporting Student Development and Success
• Reimagining Graduate Education
• Enriching the Student Experience

Initiatives

• Public Scholars Initiative
• 3 Minute Thesis (3MT)
• PhD Career Outcomes

• SUGGESTED TOPICS
• The Magazine
• Newsletters
• Managing Yourself
• Managing Teams
• Work-life Balance
• The Big Idea
• Data & Visuals
• Reading Lists
• Case Selections
• HBR Learning
• Topic Feeds
• Account Settings
• Email Preferences

Research: Negotiating Is Unlikely to Jeopardize Your Job Offer

• Einav Hart,
• Julia Bear,
• Zhiying (Bella) Ren

A series of seven studies found that candidates have more power than they assume.

Job seekers worry about negotiating an offer for many reasons, including the worst-case scenario that the offer will be rescinded. Across a series of seven studies, researchers found that these fears are consistently exaggerated: Candidates think they are much more likely to jeopardize a deal than managers report they are. This fear can lead candidates to avoid negotiating altogether. The authors explore two reasons driving this fear and offer research-backed advice on how anxious candidates can approach job negotiations.

Imagine that you just received a job offer for a position you are excited about. Now what? You might consider negotiating for a higher salary, job flexibility, or other benefits , but you’re apprehensive. You can’t help thinking: What if I don’t get what I ask for? Or, in the worst-case scenario, what if the hiring manager decides to withdraw the offer?

• Einav Hart is an assistant professor of management at George Mason University’s Costello College of Business, and a visiting scholar at the Wharton School. Her research interests include conflict management, negotiations, and organizational behavior.
• Julia Bear is a professor of organizational behavior at the College of Business at Stony Brook University (SUNY). Her research interests include the influence of gender on negotiation, as well as understanding gender gaps in organizations more broadly.
• Zhiying (Bella) Ren is a doctoral student at the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania. Her research focuses on conversational dynamics in organizations and negotiations.

Partner Center

Order my new book by 5/16 for exclusive bonuses. Click here .

This Is How To Be A Great Manager: 4 Powerful Secrets From Research

Before we commence with the festivities, I wanted to thank everyone for helping my first book become a Wall Street Journal bestseller. To check it out, click here .

And what was the thing that made all the difference? Good managers.

Now we’ve all had bad managers. Working for them is like being in a real-life version of “The Office,” but without the comfort of a camera crew to share your pain with. There’s no “I” in team, but there’s definitely one in “unpaid overtime.” You don’t leave their department; you escape it.

But what makes great managers different? Yeah, there are a million articles and books that claim to know the secrets but those are usually anecdotal and unscientific. Nobody’s ever spoken to a huge sample of the best managers in the world and systematically compared them to average ones…

So that’s exactly what Gallup did. And they didn’t just look for typical insights. They looked for the contradictions. What did average managers believe that the best ones strongly disagreed with? That’s where the gold is.

And what they found was counterintuitive – shocking, even. It goes against the grain of standard advice: Great managers don’t believe everyone has unlimited potential. They don’t help people fix their weaknesses. They insist on breaking the Golden Rule with every employee. And they strongly believe in playing favorites.

The book we’ll be looking at is “ First, Break All the Rules: What the World’s Greatest Managers Do Differently .”

Let’s get to it…

What Do Great Managers Do?

Gallup found the top tier believed the role of the manager was to select the right people, set the right expectations, motivate people and then develop them.

Employees often think managers have all the control. Not true. Managers don’t have more control; they have less control. They have to operate through others. This is the corporate equivalent of trying to drive a car from the back seat. They’re less puppet masters and more… puppet suggestion givers. The only way for them to get things done is through others.

Great managers define outcomes and then focus everyone on performance. But what they don’t do is tell people exactly how to achieve those outcomes. That’s micro-managing. And if you’re doing that, you’re screwing up. It’s inefficient. It’s demeaning. You’re not utilizing the abilities and experience of good workers. And it prevents people from learning.

Telling workers the “One Best Way” to do things doesn’t just kill high performance; it throws it off a cliff, watches it fall, and then goes down to poke it with a stick.

A manager’s job is to unleash people’s unique talents to increase performance. And the best managers select people based primarily on talent – not knowledge or skills.

So what does “talent” mean then? Well, the best managers gave a very different definition of the term…

Running a good team is lot like making a good movie – a big part of it is casting. Pick the right people. If you do, it makes everything else much easier. This can’t be overstated.

When managers don’t focus on casting for talent they end up having to create tons of rules to make sure people do things the “right” way. This smothers them with step-by-step tyranny. Adds a nice Dickensian vibe to the place.

They’re trying to perfect employees, sanding down all the interesting, quirky edges. “You’re good at thinking outside the box? Great, but have you tried getting back in the box and never leaving? It’s cozy in there.” These managers become the human equivalent of “Reply All” — necessary, but universally loathed. Great management isn’t about creating a squadron of Stepford Workers, all shiny and identical.

Consistent poor performance isn’t the result of stupidity or incompetence – it’s usually bad casting. This person doesn’t belong in this role . Turning talent into performance means putting people in roles where they are doing what they are naturally wired to do.

Great managers, contrary to the painfully optimistic propaganda of corporate handbooks, do not subscribe to the myth of unlimited potential. They understand that suggesting everyone can do anything is like saying every dog can win at Westminster; it’s not only unrealistic, it’s cruel.

They know the truth: people have unique talents, and forcing a square peg into a round hole is not only futile but is likely to result in a lot of splinters and a very disgruntled peg.

So what is talent? It’s not skills or knowledge. Great managers define a talent as “a recurring pattern of thought, feeling or behavior that can be productively applied.”

It’s an innate perspective. The mental filter people have on the world. Are you competitive or altruistic? Empathetic or strategic? Optimistic or cynical? These types of traits don’t change much and their unique combination gives people a perspective that can’t be taught. Talent is a way of thinking, a way of seeing the world that’s so ingrained in you it’s like trying to explain why you prefer a certain color.

Concretely: Dave is a whiz with computers but has the social skills of a hermit crab and the empathy of a parking ticket. Gonna put him in sales? No, try IT. He’s going to naturally develop well in that arena. But all the skills and knowledge in the world aren’t going to allow him to overcome his natural proclivities and reach the top tier of salespeople.

Now before the chorus of HR professionals starts warming up their vocal cords, nobody is suggesting only the top 1% are worth anything. This definition of talent as innate perspective has an interesting twist: it means talent isn’t rare. Everyone’s lens is useful – in a role that makes use of it.

Gallup interviewed housekeepers working at a major hotel chain. What made the great ones great? Again, it was talent – that unique perspective. They didn’t just clean better; they looked at the job differently . All of them emphasized how vital it was to really scrub that ceiling fan. Uhhhh, why?

It’s the first thing visitors see when they collapse on their backs in bed after a hard day. And cleaning up children’s toys? No, it’s not a matter of placing them together neatly. You take Pooh and Tigger and sit them at the table like they’re having tea. Great housekeepers don’t just have skills; they see the whole job differently.

And that uniqueness means talents are very, very hard to change. As a manager, if you hear yourself saying someone “needs a better attitude” – stop. That attitude is probably not going to change. They’re probably miscast. Being disagreeable doesn’t necessarily mean someone is awful; they just might be better as a litigator or an investigative journalist than as a customer service rep.

Great managers work hard to identify people’s talents and put them in the right role to utilize and develop them. And, yeah, that might mean transferring some people and getting other ones. A manager’s job isn’t to perfect people but to capitalize on their uniqueness. They’re trying to make people into more of who they already are.

Great managers understand that when people can be their authentic selves, they’re happier, vastly more productive, and less likely to steal all the good pens.

Yes, all your people are not going to be great. So you should spend time trying to bring the stragglers up to snuff, right? Wrong…

Spend The Most Time With Your Top People

The primary goal of time spent with employees is to turn talent into performance. That’s the job. So spend the most time with the people that produce the most results.

This may sound ruthless but time is always limited. We act like it’s not, but the issue of opportunity cost is always there: every minute you’re doing X is a minute you’re not doing Y. If you’re spending time trying to bring up the bottom, you’re not getting the most out of the top.

Spending more time with your best employees instead of the stragglers isn’t cruel; it’s just common sense, like not touching a hot stove or avoiding eye contact with the weird guy on the subway. Trying to motivate the “I’m just here for the health insurance” crowd is unlikely to produce gains while another hour with your best people moves the needle.

So double down on supporting your stars. Counterintuitive as it might sound, the employees who are already performing above average have the greatest room for growth.

And when you are spending time with people you should follow the Golden Rule, right? Wrong again…

Treat People Differently

The popular mantra is “Treat everyone the same.” This is great until you realize that Derek needs constant praise to function, while Susan interprets a friendly “good morning” as a sign of impending doom.

Do not treat others as you want to be treated. Great managers chuck this idea out the nearest window. Why? Because it assumes everyone wants to be treated like you . Treat everyone the way they want to be treated.

Great managers reject the one-size-fits-all approach in favor of a bespoke management style. They’re more like gardeners, expertly pruning the shrubs of workplace tension, gently nurturing each plant, understanding that the cactus doesn’t need the same care as the orchid, and that the office fern probably just wants to be left alone, thank you very much. Variety is the spice of life, and great managers are making curry.

Some will reply, “How can I know what each employee needs?” It’s simple: ask. You’re spending more time with your top people, right? Good. Now get to know them to provide the specific support they need. Some want minimal contact to execute at their best. Others need regular encouragement. “Great use of the stapler, Kevin. Stellar pressure on that downstroke.” Operating through others is what managers do and knowing how to best do that is key to the role.

So you want to make all of your people well-rounded, right? Nope…

Focus On Strength. Manage Around Weakness.

Strength is not the absence of weakness. A focus on fixing weaknesses leads to mediocrity. Strange as it may sound on the surface, excellence and weakness often have more in common than either do with “average.”

Managerial wizards focus on improving what workers are actually good at, rather than trying to fix what they’re hilariously bad at. You don’t help Usain Bolt improve his marathon performance; you try to make his sprinting even better. Otherwise, you end up with a team that is “pretty good” at everything vs a team where each person is an expert at something.

You succeed by finding ways to capitalize on who people are, not by trying to fix who they aren’t.

Some might worry this will lead to employees who are difficult to manage. And it absolutely will. Expect it. But Gallup found the best managers did better wrangling difficult A-players than dealing with nice team players… who can’t get the job done.

But what about when someone with “the gift” has glaring weaknesses? Address that with partnership. If your top salesperson outperforms everyone else by 400% but is a disorganized mess, you’re better off getting them an assistant than trying to change them into something they’re not or having them spend less time on sales to fill out TPS reports.

Unless someone has truly toxic issues, it’s smarter to partner them with someone who has what they lack than trying to make them “well-rounded.” Some of the greatest businesses have been created by partnerships: Walt and Roy Disney, William Hewlett and David Packard, Bill Gates and Paul Allen. They didn’t have redundant skillsets; they had abilities that complemented each other.

Okay, we’ve covered a lot. Let’s round it all up – and learn the #1 secret to finding those vital, “talented” people…

Here’s how to be a great manager:

• What Do Great Managers Do? : Being a manager is like being the parent of a very large, very dysfunctional family where everyone is going through puberty at the same time. But people are the job. A manager’s role is to unleash an employee’s unique talents to increase performance.
• Talent : Great managers select for talent: a personal perspective beyond knowledge and skills that makes someone a natural fit for their job. You will never turn the office sloth into a racehorse. You can’t teach a fish to climb a tree, and you can’t teach me to care about sports.
• Spend The Most Time With Your Top People : “What’s that, Sarah? You’ve streamlined the entire workflow process? That’s nice, but I have to go help Bob reset his password for the seventeenth time this week.” So Sarah, bewildered, nods politely while mentally drafting her resignation letter.
• Treat People Differently : Treating everyone the same is like giving everyone the same prescription glasses and wondering why they keep bumping into things. Get to know your employees and treat them how they want to be treated.
• Focus On Strength, Manage Around Weakness : Strength isn’t about not having weaknesses, it’s about ignoring those weaknesses so hard they develop abandonment issues. In your heist crew you don’t care if the safecracker is any good at driving the getaway car. Make each the best at their role.

So talent is vital and casting is key… but how the heck do you find great people?

Remember, talent is a lens on life. It’s not reflected in bullet points on a resume. You have to be able to spot it. And how do you do that?

You’re spending more of your time with your top performers, right? Great. Study them. Learn more about that perspective and those traits that make them great. Become as articulate about describing excellence as you are about describing failure.

Great salespeople all have perspective X. The best programmers all possess Y and Z. When you can fill in those blanks you’ll be able to spot diamonds in the rough. You’ll be better able to look past skills and knowledge and see potential. “That intern doesn’t have much experience and shows up 10 minutes late for everything — but she has the ability to size up what’s great about a product, generate ideas, and relentlessly execute. Those are the traits I’ve seen in all my best marketers. Make her an offer.”

When you can spot talent and cast well, everything gets easier. In this nirvana, employees glide through their tasks with ease, buoyed by the knowledge that their strengths are recognized and their quirks accommodated. That’s great leadership.

You may even find the office printer seems to jam less. It, too, is trying to live up to your expectations.

Subscribe to the newsletter

AgBioResearch

Msu hires new farm manager for plant pathology and entomology research centers.

Jack Falinski <[email protected]> - May 20, 2024

Jared Andrews will lead daily operations at both MSU AgBioResearch on-campus research centers.

EAST LANSING, Mich. — A new farm manager has been named to supervise the Michigan State University Plant Pathology and Entomology Research Centers.

Jared Andrews will direct operations and lead administrative duties at the two MSU AgBioResearch on-campus research centers, both located on the south side of campus.

The Plant Pathology Research Center is home to the university’s cutting-edge research into plant diseases, such as fire blight in apples and downy mildew in cucumbers and other cucurbits.

The Entomology Research Center houses novel projects focused on insect physiology, integrated pest management and pollination. Researchers study ways to protect crops from pests like spotted wing drosophila , a small invasive fly that harms soft-fleshed fruits, and ways to support beneficial insects like honeybees.

“The fruit, vegetable, ornamental and field crop research that’s being done at MSU is important in maintaining its status as the nation’s pioneer land-grant university,” Andrews said. “I’m really excited to be able to continue helping these different departments with their research as a facilitator and as a resource.”

Andrews started in his new role on April 1. Before beginning at the two centers, he served as assistant farm manager at the MSU Horticulture Teaching and Research Center . He helped prepare and maintain field plots for research, facilitate structural repairs to the center and train student employees, among other organizational responsibilities.

Overall, Andrews has worked full-time at MSU for 13 years after graduating from the university in 2011 with a bachelor’s degree in crop and soil sciences, with a specialization in sustainable agriculture and food systems.

In addition to holding the assistant farm manager position — as well as equipment and facility coordinator earlier in his career — at the Horticulture Teaching and Research Center, Andrews also worked in the MSU Office of Environmental Health and Safety as an industrial hygienist. In these roles, Andrews managed equipment and assisted with facility repairs at the center, and he conducted safety inspections at laboratories and research stations across campus.

“I’m a third-generation Spartan,” Andrews said. “My grandmother went here. My father works here, and now I’m here. I’m excited to continue my work here and to remain a resource to everyone who’s using these facilities.”

James Averill , the assistant director of MSU AgBioResearch who oversees its on- and off-campus research centers , said the vast experience Andrews has collected throughout his career at MSU will ensure that both centers are cared for and the important research and education done there can continue.

“The MSU Plant Pathology and Entomology Research Centers will greatly benefit from Jared’s background in helping run the MSU Horticulture Teaching and Research Center, along with the insight he gained in safety management from the MSU Office of Environmental Health and Safety,” Averill said. “We’re excited to have him and look forward to his contributions toward the impactful research and education happening at the centers.”

Andrews said one of his first priorities as farm manager will be to collaborate with other on-campus farm managers to share information and equipment. In the future, he said he’d like to help build out a cloud-based farm management system that research centers can use to engage faculty, staff and administrators.

“In the past, all of these centers were departmental facilities, and now having them under MSU AgBioResearch is helping us streamline our services,” Andrews said. “Each center used to have their own pieces of equipment for everything, which wasn’t great in terms of finances, maintenance and storage.

“One of the goals on-campus farm managers are working on is to centralize our equipment to reduce that duplicity. If we do that, we can combine our financial power to get newer and more modern equipment for researchers to have available and for us to share across the board.”

Michigan State University AgBioResearch scientists discover dynamic solutions for food systems and the environment. More than 300 MSU faculty conduct leading-edge research on a variety of topics, from health and climate to agriculture and natural resources. Originally formed in 1888 as the Michigan Agricultural Experiment Station, MSU AgBioResearch oversees numerous on-campus research facilities, as well as 15 outlying centers throughout Michigan. To learn more, visit agbioresearch.msu.edu .

Did you find this article useful?

Check out the Crop & Soil Sciences B.S. program!

new - method size: 3 - Random key: 1, method: tagSpecific - key: 1

You Might Also Be Interested In

Bringing you the Michigan cherry on top

Published on June 14, 2019

Natural Resources

Published on February 1, 2021

Precision Farming

Published on August 12, 2019

Plant Health. Healthier Planet.

Published on July 1, 2020

2011-2012 Legislative Report

Published on January 1, 2012

2006 Annual Report

Published on June 3, 2006

• agbioresearch
• agbioresearch centers
• department of entomology
• department of plant soil and microbial sciences
• featured news
• plant agriculture
• plant pathology
• plant science
• agbioresearch,
• agbioresearch centers,
• department of entomology,
• department of plant soil and microbial sciences,
• entomology,
• featured news,
• plant agriculture,
• plant pathology,
• plant science,
• Project GREEEN
• Michigan Alliance for Animal Agriculture
• Partnership for Ecosystem Research and Management
• Institute of Water Research

Researcher Resources

• Commodity Group RFPs
• Research Projects - REEport Forms
• Commodity Groups Granted Waiver of Indirect Costs
• Policies, Procedures and Guidelines
• Animal Agriculture Priorities
• Plant Agriculture Priorities

Office of Research Support

• Funding Opportunities

News & Publications

• MSU AgBioResearch & MSU Extension Legislative Report

Search for Arboretum Director Narrows

The search for the next director of the Arboretum is underway.

A pair of sandhill cranes stand in front of the Arboretum Visitor Center. (Photo by Althea Dotzour / UW–Madison)

The search and screen committee, led by Florence Hsia, UW–Madison associate vice chancellor for research in the arts and humanities, has selected four finalists.  The PVL for the position is here: UW–Madison Arboretum Director PVL

The Arboretum is a global source of knowledge of and a model for restoring ecologically sustainable relationships between people and the land through integrative, innovative, and collaborative approaches in science, stewardship, education, and public engagement.

Finalist Public Presentations

Finalists will give their public presentations on the dates and times listed below. The presentations will be hybrid with an in person option to attend, as well as a Zoom option . The presentations will be video-recorded and made available here after the presentations for review and feedback.  If you have trouble viewing the recordings, we recommend trying a different browser.

To provide feedback on one or more of the candidates, please complete this Form by June 24, 2024.

Candidate 1: Teresa Schueller, associate professor of biology, ecology and environmental science, UW–Milwaukee, and director, Waukesha Field Station

9-10 a.m. Thursday, May 30 at Union South (see Today in the Union listing at the union for the room. Please note that this event might be moved to the Memorial Union. Watch this site for updates and check to confirm the location before the presentation.)

Link to Zoom option

Teresa Schueller Bio

Teresa Schueller CV

Candidate 2: Bradley Herrick, ecologist and research program manager, UW–Madison Arboretum

10-11 a.m. Tuesday, June 11 at the Biotechnology Center Auditorium

Brad Herrick Bio

Bradley Herrick CV

Candidate 3: Patrick Bohlen, professor of biology, University of Central Florida

9-10 a.m. Friday, June 14 at the Biotechnology Center Auditorium

Patrick Bohlen Bio

Patrick Bohlen CV

Candidate 4: Andrew Hipp, director of the herbarium and senior scientist, The Morton Arboretum, and lecturer, The University of Chicago

1:30-2:30 p.m. Monday, June 17 at Union South (see Today in the Union listing at the union for the room. Please note that this event might be moved to the Memorial Union. Watch this site for updates and check to confirm the location before the presentation.)

Andrew Hipp Bio

Andrew Hipp CV