Assessing the Quality of Supervision Experiences in the Different Research Stages at Postgraduate Level

Tooba Saleem, Nasir Mahmood


The nature of supervisory relationship is dynamic that changes over the course of candidacy. Subsequently, the supervision demands of supervisees also change to help them in performing certain tasks at specific research stages. In this context, this research is proposed to investigate the supervision experiences of supervisees in four different research stages (i.e. Stage 1: developing synopsis, Stage 2: collecting data, Stage 3: writing thesis and Stage 4: submitted thesis). In the light of six supervision aspects (i.e. Project management, Intellectual support, pertinent research skills, Inter-personal communication skills, Workload management and Supportive skills) the quality of supervision was assessed from supervisees’ perspective. Cross-sectional survey design was used to assess the supervision experiences of (N=422) supervisees in four distinct stages of research supervision. The data were collected from 12 public and private universities of the Punjab. For this study, a multi-sectioned, self-constructed Supervisor-Supervisee Relationship Questionnaire (Saleem, 2014) was used. The findings of the study highlighted the need to train the supervisors to manage their time not just in terms of teaching and supervision of research students, but also keeping the stages of their research in mind. By addressing the stage specific needs of supervisees the quality of supervision could be improved.

Keywords: quality of supervision, research stages, supervision dynamics, supervision experiences


Supervision Experiences, Research Stages, Supervisor-Supervisee Relationship, Supervision dynamics, Quality of supervision

Full Text:



Armstrong, S. J. (2004). The impact of supervisors' cognitive styles on the quality of research supervision in management education. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 74(4), 18.

Baptista, A. V., Hue, I., Costa, N., & Jenkins, A. (2011). Enhancing the scholarship of teaching, learning and supervision through undergraduate research projects. In The London Scholarship of Teaching and Learning 8thInternational Conference (p. 27).

Boehe, D. M. (2016). Supervisory styles: A contingency framework. Studies in Higher Education, 41(3), 399-414.

Eley, A., & Jennings, R. (2005). Effective postgraduate supervision: Improving the student/supervisor relationship. London: McGraw-Hill International.

Gatfield, T. (2005). An investigation into PhD supervisory management styles: Development of a dynamic conceptual model and its managerial implications. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 27(3), 311-325.

Gurr, G. (2001). Negotiating the ‘rickety bridge’: A dynamic model for aligning supervisory style with research student development. Higher Education Research and Development, 20(1), 81-92.

Ismail, H. M., Majid, F. A., & Ismail, I. S. (2013). “It's complicated” relationship: Research students’ perspective on doctoral supervision. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 90, 165-170.

Ives, G., & Rowley, G. (2005). Supervisor selection or allocation and continuity of supervision: Ph.D students’ progress and outcomes. Studies in Higher Education, 30(5), 535-555.

Lessing, A. C., & Schulze, S. (2002). Graduate supervision and academic support: Students’ perceptions. South African Journal of Higher Education, 16(2), 139-149.

Lodico, M. G., Spaulding, D., & Voegtle, K. H. (2010). Methods in educational research: from theory to practice. San Francisco: John Wiley & Sons.

Kam, B. H. (1997). Style and quality in research supervision. Higher Education, 34(1), 81-103.

Lynch, S. (2008). Happy days: Why PhD students need a helping hand from their supervisors. Retrieved from


Mainhard, T., Rijst, R.V. D., Tartwijk, J.V., & Wubbles, T. (2009). A model for the supervisor-doctoral student relationship. High Education, 58, 359-373.

McAlpine, L., & McKinnon, M. (2013). Supervision–the most variable of variables: Student perspectives. Studies in Continuing Education, 35(3), 265-280.

Moses, I. (1992). Good supervisory practice. In Holdaway, E., (Eds.) (1995). Supervision of graduate students. The Canadian Journal of Higher Education, 25(3), 1-29.

Pearson, M., & Kayrooz, C. (2004). Enabling critical reflection on research supervisory practice. International Journal for Academic Development, 9(1), 99-116.

Piccinin, S. J. (2000). Graduate student supervision: Resources for supervisors and students. Triannual Newsletter, Centre for Development of Teaching and Learning (CDTL). CDTLink: University of Ottawa, Canada.

Saleem, T. (2014). Impact of supervisor-supervisee relationship on the quality of supervision at postgraduate level. Unpublished MPhil thesis, submitted at the Institute of Education and Research, University of the Punjab, Lahore.

Saleem, T., & Mahmood, N. (2017). Influence of the supervision related background variables on the supervisees’ supervision experiences at postgraduate level. Pakistan Journal of Education, 34(2), 73-99.

Salmon, P. (1992). Achieving a PhD: Ten student’s experience. Staffordshire: Trentham Books Limited.

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.

Shultz, S.K., & Whitney, D.J. (2005). Measurement theory in action. London: Sage Publication.

Stubb, J., Pyhältö, K., & Lonka, K. (2014). Conceptions of research: the doctoral student experience in three domains. Studies in Higher Education, 39(2), 251-264.

Styles, I., & Radloff, A. (2001). The synergistic thesis: Student and supervisor perspectives. Journal of Further & Higher Education, 25(1), 97-106.

Taylor, S., and Beasley, N. (2005). A handbook for doctoral supervisors. New York: Routledge.

Wellington, J. J. (2010). Making supervision work for you: A student's guide. USA: Sage.

Zhao, C.-M., Golde, C. M., & McCormick, A. C. (2007). More than a signature: How advisor choice and advisor behaviour affect doctoral student satisfaction. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 31(3), 263-281.



  • There are currently no refbacks.

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License