Historically, the population of doctoral candidates has been disproportionately male, young, from high-status social-economic backgrounds, members of majority ethnic and/or racial groups, without a disability, and heterosexual (see for example Gardner 2009a, 2009b, Garner and Holley 2011, Petersen 2014). Now, it is much more diverse in terms of gender, age, class, race or ethnicity, disability, and sexuality (see for example Ostrove et al 2011, Offerman 2011, Gardner 2013, Wakeling and Hampden-Thomson 2013, Collins 2015, Okahana et al 2016). Candidates from non-traditional backgrounds but may face challenges in undertaking doctoral studies. e.g. lack of confidence, isolation and discrimination.

While there is a long tradition of doctoral candidates studying in countries other than their own, over the past two decades or so there has been a huge increase in the numbers studying abroad (see UNESCO 2015). Such candidates may face the same challenges as non-traditional home candidates plus others including culture shock (see Manathunga 2014), different expectations of academic roles (Winchester-Seeto et al 2014), different styles of learning (Goode 2007), research experience and skills (McClure 2007), and conventions for verbal and written communication (Doyle et al 2017).

You might want to start your reflections by considering where your students are coming from, and what journey has led them here. What conversations have you had with your students about their experiences and their expectations of doctoral studies? What was your own journey like?

Candidates will usually start their doctoral careers with some assumptions about what will be required of them and what support their supervisor will be required to offer but there is no guarantee that these will be complete or accurate (see for example Dann 2008, Kelly 2009, McAlpine 2013, Jindal-Snape and Ingram 2013, Holbrook et al 2014, Sambrook 2017). The upshot is that there can be mismatches between the expectations of candidates and supervisors which can adversely affect their relationship, and supervisors may need to ensure that these are calibrated.

A good starting point for reflection is to have an open conversation with your students about expectations. What expectations do your students have of you as a supervisor? What expectations do you have of them? Make sure you are also familiar with the University PGR Code of Practice which outlines University expectations of both supervisors and students.

As numerous studies (see, for example, Pearson and Brew 2002, Davis 2004, Gatfield 2005, Grant 2005, Murphy et al 2007, Wright et al 2007, Deuchar 2008, Halse and Bansel 2012, Boehe 2014, Vehvilinen and Lofstrom 2014) have pointed out, supervisors may have preferred styles of supervision that embody different assumptions about the needs of candidates. As Malfoy and Webb (2000) have suggested, as long as there is a congruence between the supervisory style, the associated assumptions about the needs of candidates, and their actual needs, there should be no difficulties, problems can occur where there is discongruence.

Start by reflecting on the supervisory styles you have experienced. What worked or didn't work for you and why? Then reflect on what supervisory style you are embodying in your practice.

The relationship between the supervisor and the candidate is not a static one but should change over the course of the candidacy. Usually, at the start the candidate is heavily dependent upon the supervisor and then, as he or she grows and develops towards becoming a researcher in their own right, they should become less dependent and more autonomous (see McAlpine 2013, Benmore 2014, Bui 2014).

How do you recognize and support the growing independence of your students?

In the vast majority of cases, relationships with candidates proceed smoothly and they become friends for life, in a handful there may be serious problems; at the end of the day, supervisors and candidates are human beings who, for one reason or another, may fail to get on leading to serious problems in the relationship (see for example Gunnarsson et al 2013).

Make sure that both you and your student are aware of the University's and your department's processes for mediation or raising concerns and problems.

References

Benmore, A. (2014) Boundary management in doctoral supervision: how supervisors negotiate roles and role transitions through the supervisory journey. Studies in Higher Education, DOI: 10.1080/03075079.2014.967203. https://srhe.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/03075079.2014.967203#.XYt8tEa2mUk

Boehe, D. (2014) Supervisory styles: a contingency framework. Studies in Higher Education, DOI: 10.1080/03075079.2014.927853. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/03075079.2014.927853

Brown, G. and Atkins, M. (1988) Effective Teaching in Higher Education. London, Methuen.

Bui, T. (2014) Student-Supervisor Expectations in the Doctoral Supervision Process for Business and Management Students. Business and Management Education in Higher Education, 1: 12-27. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.11120/bmhe.2014.00006

Collins, B. (2015) Reflections on doctoral supervision: drawing from the experiences of students with additional learning needs in two universities. Teaching in Higher Education, 20(6): 587-600. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/13562517.2015.1045859

Dann, S. (2008) Applying services marketing principles to postgraduate supervision. Quality Assurance in Education, 16(4): 333-46.

Davis, G. (2004) Advising and Supervising Doctoral Students: Lessons I have Learned. http://misrc.umn.edu/workingpapers/fullpapers/2004/0412_052404.pdf

Deuchar, R. (2008) Facilitator, director, or critical friend? contradiction or congruence in doctoral supervision styles. Teaching in Higher Education, 13:4, 489-500. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/13562510802193905

Doyle, S., Manathunga, C., Prinsen, G., Rallon, R. and Cornforth, S. (2017) African international doctoral students: Englishes, doctoral writing, and intercultural supervision. Higher Education Research and Development DOI: 10.1080.07294360.2017.1339182.

Gardner, S. (2009a) The Development of Doctoral Students: Phases of Challenge and Support Josey-Bass, San Franciso CA.

Gardner, S.K. (2009b) Coming out of the Sexual Harassment Closet: One Woman’s Story of Politics and Change in Higher Education. National Womens’ Studies Association Journal, 21(2): 172-95.

Gardner, S. and Holley, K. (2011) “Those invisible barriers are real”: The Progression of First-Generation Students Through Doctoral Education. Equity and Excellence in Education, 44(1): 77-92. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10665684.2011.529791?scroll=top&needAccess=true&journalCode=ueee20

Gardner, S. (2013) The Challenges of First-Generation Doctoral Students. New Directions for Higher Education, 163: 43-54. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/he.20064

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): 311-25. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13600800500283585

Goode, J. (2007) Empowering or disempowering the international PhD student? Constructions of the dependent and independent learner. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 28(5): 589-603. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/01425690701505409

Grant, B. (2005) Fighting for space in supervision: fantasies, fairytales, fictions and fallacies. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 18(3): 337-54. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/09518390500082483

Gunnarsson, R, Jonasson, G. and Billhult, A. (2013) The experience of disagreement between students and supervisors in PhD education: a qualitative study. BMC Medical Education, 13: 134 https://bmcmededuc.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1472-6920-13-134

Gurr, G. (2001) Negotiating the “Rackety Bridge” – a Dynamic Model for Aligning Supervisory Style with Research Student Development. Higher Education Research and Development, 20(1): 81-92. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/07924360120043882

Halse, C. and Bansel, P. (2012) The learning alliance: ethics in doctoral supervision. Oxford Review of Education, 38(4): 377-92. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/03054985.2012.706219

Holbrook, A., Shaw, K., Scevak, J., Bourke, S., Cantwell. R. and Budd, J. (2014) PhD Candidate Expectations: Exploring Mismatch with Experience. International Journal of Doctoral Studies, 9: 329-346. http://ijds.org/Volume9/IJDSv9p329-346Holbrook0575.pdf

Jindal-Snape, D. and Ingram., R. (2013) Understanding and Supporting Triple Transitions of International Doctoral Students: ELT and SuReCom models. Journal of Perspectives in Applied Academic Practice, 1(1): 17-24. https://discovery.dundee.ac.uk/en/publications/understanding-and-supporting-triple-transitions-of-international-

Kelly, F. (2009) Supervision Satirized: Fictional narratives to student-supervisor relationships. Arts and Humanities in Higher Education, 8(3): 368-84. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1474022209339957

Manathunga. C. (2014) Intercultural Postgraduate Supervision: Reimagining Time, Place and Knowledge. London, Routledge. https://www.routledge.com/Intercultural-Postgraduate-Supervision-Reimagining-time-place-and-knowledge/Manathunga/p/book/9780415535991

Malfoy, J. and Webb, C. (2000) Congruent and incongruent views of postgraduate supervision. In M. Kiley & G. Mullins (eds.), Quality in Postgraduate Research: Making Ends Meet. Adelaide: Advisory Centre for University Education

McAlpine, L. (2013) Doctoral supervision: Not an individual but a collective institutional responsibility. Journal for the Study of Education and Development, 36(3): 259-80. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1174/021037013807533061

McClure, J.W. (2007) International graduates’ cross-cultural adjustment; experiences, coping strategies, and suggested programmatic responses. Teaching in Higher Education, 12(2); 199-217. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/13562510701191976

Murphy, N., Bain, J.D., Conrad, L. (2007) Orientations to research higher degree supervision. Higher Education, 53(2): 209-234. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10734-005-5608-9

Ostrove, J, Stewart, A. and Curtin, N. (2011) Social Class and Belonging: Implications for Graduate Students. The Journal of Higher Education, 82(6): 748-774. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00221546.2011.11777226

Offerman, M. (2011) Profile of the Nontraditional Doctoral Degree Student. New Directions in Adult and Continuing Education, 129: 21-30. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/ace.397

Okahana, H., Feaster, K. and Allum, J. (2016) Graduate Enrolment and Degrees 2005-15. Washington DC, Council of Graduate Schools. https://cgsnet.org/ckfinder/userfiles/files/Graduate%20Enrollment%20%20Degrees%20Fall%202015%20Final.pdf

Pearson, M. and Brew, A. (2002) Research Training and Supervision Development, Studies in Higher Education, 27(2): 138-43. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/03075070220119986c

Petersen, E. (2014) Re-signifying subjectivity? A narrative exploration of ‘non-traditional’ doctoral students’ lived experience of subject formation through two Australian cases. Studies in Higher Education, 39(5): 823-834. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/03075079.2012.745337

Sambrook, S. (2016) Managing the Psychological Contract within Doctoral Supervisory Relationships. In P. Blessinger and D. Stockley (eds.) Emerging Directions in Doctoral Education (Innovations in Higher Education Learning and Teaching, Volume 6). Bingley, UK: Emerald: 61-87. https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/S2055-364120160000006012/full/html

UNESCO (2015) Science Report: Towards 2030. Paris, UNESCO. http://en.unesco.org/node/252168

Vehvilainen, S. and Lofstrom, E. (2014) ‘I wish I had a crystal ball’: discourses and potential for developing academic supervising. Studies in Higher Education, DOI: 10.1080/03075079.2014.942272. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/03075079.2014.942272

Wakeling, P. and Hampden-Thomson, G. (2013) Transition to higher degrees across the UK: an analysis of national, institutional and individual differences. Higher Education Academy.

Wright, A., Murray, J.P., and Geale, P. (2007) A phenomenographic study of what it means to supervise doctoral students. Academy of Management Learning and Education, 6 (4): 458-74. https://journals.aom.org/doi/abs/10.5465/amle.2007.27694946