https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0338-2414
ABSTRACT
High-quality PhD supervision and researcher community integration are key determinants of PhD candidates’ study progress and study wellbeing. Although it can be assumed that the quality of the supervisory relationship is related to supervisors’ occupational wellbeing, the empirical evidence on supervisors’ wellbeing and factors related to it is scarce. In this study, we address the gap in the literature by exploring the variations in supervisors’ occupational wellbeing and the associations between supervisors’ experiences of professional support, competencies and the quality of supervisory interaction, and doctoral supervisors’ occupational wellbeing. A total of 561 doctoral supervisors from a large, research-intensive, multidisciplinary university participated in the study. The survey data were analysed using descriptive analyses and structural equation modelling. Differences in supervisors’ occupational wellbeing based on supervisor’s gender, position, discipline, and supervisee’s research group status (conducting PhD research in a research group cf. alone) were detected. Moreover, supervisors’ perceptions of their supervisory competencies, and professional support from the scholarly community were related to better occupational wellbeing, while supervisory interaction was not. The findings imply that supervisors’ occupational wellbeing is highly embedded in scholarly community interactions and individual–structural interactions regarding doctoral supervision.
Introduction
Research on doctoral education has shown that high-quality supervision is one of the keys to successful PhD completion and doctoral candidates’ study wellbeing (e.g. Cornér, Löfström, and Pyhältö Citation2017; Dobrowolska et al. Citation2021; Hish et al. Citation2019; Levecque et al. Citation2017; Mackie and Bates Citation2019; Maher, Ford, and Thompson Citation2004; McCray and Joseph-Richard Citation2020; Spaulding and Rockinson-Szapkiw Citation2012). However, research on how supervisory experience and the professional support the supervisors receive are related to supervisors’ wellbeing is scarce. Results of the few prior studies that have been conducted indicate that the supervisory relationship plays a significant role not only in PhD candidates’ wellbeing, but also in that of supervisors. For instance, in their small-scale qualitative study, Wisker and Robinson (Citation2016) found out that supervisory stress was related to quite fundamental questioning of their ability to support and enable students to achieve their potential and to finish a doctorate. Similarly, a recent large-scale national survey on UK research supervisors showed that a third of them had experienced stress that had kept them awake at night over the last 12 months, caused by concerns related to supervision (UK-Council-for-Graduate-Education Citation2021). There is some evidence that the COVID-19 pandemic may have further added to the challenge. For example, it was recently shown that the level of PhD supervisors’ occupational wellbeing was reduced by the pandemic via having a negative effect on the supervisees (Pyhältö, Tikkanen, and Anttila Citation2022b). However, functional supervisory relationship might provide a source of work engagement for both the supervisor and supervisee. Moreover, professional support from colleagues may provide a buffer against the risk of burnout caused by challenges in supervisory relationships. However, the association between the quality of doctoral supervision and supervisors’ occupational wellbeing has remained largely unexplored (Wisker and Robinson Citation2016). Hence, we do not know what kinds of variations there are in supervisors’ occupational wellbeing and what interrelationship there is between supervisors’ occupational wellbeing and their perceptions of supervisory competencies, supervisory interaction and professional support from research community.
Doctoral supervisor’s occupational wellbeing
In general, it has been suggested that supervisors’ occupational wellbeing is at quite a good level (Bentley et al. Citation2013; Teichler, Arimoto, and Cummings Citation2013). For example, senior academics have reported being satisfied and passionate about their work (Boas and Morin Citation2013; Converso et al. Citation2019; Rile et al. Citation2015). However, some studies suggest that supervisors’ occupational wellbeing might be declining due to a deterioration in the academic work environment resulting in reduced autonomy and considerable increase in workload (Fredman and Doughney Citation2012; Shin and Jung Citation2014). So far, a significant portion of the literature on wellbeing has focused on job satisfaction (e.g. Boas and Morin Citation2013; Converso et al. Citation2019), although occupational wellbeing is a multidimensional and dynamic construct. A doctoral supervisor’s wellbeing can be defined as a combination of positive mental states, such as work engagement and satisfaction, and an absence of the negative ones, such as extensive work stress and burnout symptoms, that contribute to their ability to work effectively (see Saaranen et al. Citation2006; Wisker and Robinson Citation2016). For this study, we explored doctoral supervisors’ occupational wellbeing in terms of work engagement and the burnout symptoms that they experienced. Work engagement is a positive, work-related state of mind, characterised by vigour, dedication, and absorption (Bakker et al. Citation2008; Schaufeli et al. Citation2002). Supervisors’ work engagement is reflected in their willingness to invest effort in their work, persistence in facing difficulties, and high levels of energy while working (see Hakanen, Bakker, and Schaufeli Citation2006). In turn, prolonged, extensive work-related stress can result in burnout syndrome, the core symptoms of which are exhaustion and cynicism (Bakker, Demerouti, and Verbeke Citation2004; Elo, Leppänen, and Jahkola Citation2003; Maslach, Schaufeli, and Leiter Citation2001; Shirom Citation1989). Exhaustion means depletion of emotional energy and chronic fatigue, and cynicism refers to negative, detached attitudes about work and colleagues, and perceiving work meaningless (Maslach and Jackson, Citation1981; Maslach and Leiter Citation2008).
Burnout can have severe consequences for the doctoral supervisors and their work environment. For example, it has been shown that burnout is related to an increased risk of psychological diseases including depression and anxiety, poor physical health, sleep disturbances, and career turnover (see Ahola et al. Citation2005; Capone, Joshanloo, and Park Citation2019; Converso et al. Citation2019; Kim, Ji, and Kao Citation2011). In turn, work engagement has been shown to promote individuals’ performance in terms of helping colleagues and being creative and innovative and open to new experiences (Christian, Garza, and Slaughter Citation2011; Orth and Volmer Citation2017; Tims et al. Citation2013). The supervisors who experience high levels of work engagement also have fewer intentions to leave their job in academia (Converso et al. Citation2019). Both work engagement and burnout can cross over in professional communities (e.g. Bakker, van Emmerik, and Euwema Citation2006). This means that supervisors’ burnout symptoms can become contagious in their research communities and in supervisory relationships via insufficient support from colleagues or malfunctional supervisory interaction. In turn, work engagement may also cross over in supervisory relationships or/and among colleagues contributing to progress, productivity, and positive doctoral experience.
Previous research implies that differences in supervisors’ occupational wellbeing based on various individual, structural, and contextual factors exist (see Blitzer et al. Citation2014; Boas and Morin Citation2013; Cornér, Pyhältö, and Löfström Citation2019). For example, it has been shown that women typically experience academia as a more challenging working environment than men (Boas and Morin Citation2013; Kinman Citation2016; Rile et al. Citation2015), and that senior academics experience less stress than their junior colleagues (Safaria, Othman, and Wahab Citation2012). Furthermore, the contextual factors, such as discipline and the ways in which the supervision has been orchestrated (e.g. supervisees’ study status (full-time/part-time) and research group status (supervisee working mainly alone/in a group)) are likely to play a role in supervisors’ occupational wellbeing (see e.g. Cornér, Pyhältö, and Löfström Citation2019; Pyhältö, Tikkanen, and Anttila Citation2022b). The supervisor’s occupational wellbeing is also influenced by their workload in general (e.g. Strandler et al. Citation2014; Wisker and Robinson Citation2016), and supervisory workload specifically, i.e. whether they perceive their workload as being appropriate in terms of number of supervisees and the amount of work regarding supervision. If the number of supervisees and amount of work is too high this is likely to reflect negatively on both the quality of supervisory relationship (see Blitzer et al. Citation2014) as well as on supervisor’s wellbeing. Also, if a supervisor perceives the number of supervisees as being too low, it may have a negative effect on their professional development (see Amundsen and McAlpine Citation2009; Fulgence Citation2019) and further, having less experiences of work engagement.
Previous studies have shown that typical demands that challenge supervisors’ occupational wellbeing include problems in supervisory relationships, changes in supervision arrangements, and lack of supervisees’ progress and challenges in supervisees’ wellbeing (Han and Xu Citation2021; Pyhältö, Tikkanen, and Anttila Citation2022b; Wisker and Robinson Citation2016). The results of a recent study showed that the challenges caused by the pandemic for the PhD candidates were reflected both in PhD candidates’ and in their supervisors’ wellbeing, implying that supervisor’s occupational wellbeing is likely to be influenced by and reflect on their supervisory practices, and the perceptions of the quality of supervisory relationship are likely to have impact on supervisor’s occupational wellbeing (Pyhältö, Tikkanen, and Anttila Citation2022b). On the other hand, supervisory competencies and positive interaction with colleagues and supervisees can act as buffers against the negative impact of the stressors and cultivate positive mental states. Taken together, the results imply that supervisors’ occupational wellbeing is likely to be affected by their supervisory experience, including their supervisory competencies, supervisory interaction, and support from colleagues.
Supervisory experience
Supervisory experience constitutes several complementary elements of a supervisor’s work. We claim that at the core of supervisory experience are supervisory competencies, interactions with supervisee(s), and support from colleagues. Providing well-fitted, timely, and functional support requires the supervisors to be sufficiently competent to supervise the candidates. The supervisor’s competencies comprise knowledge, skills, and attitudes enabling supervisory behaviours (Korthagen Citation2004; Westera Citation2001). The competencies enable a supervisor to act in complicated and evolving supervisory situations and find solutions to them (Pyhältö, Tikkanen, and Anttila Citation2022a; Westera Citation2001). Typically, high-quality supervision has been characterised by frequent supervisory meetings (at least monthly) (Li and Seale Citation2007; Seeber and Horta Citation2021; Shin et al. Citation2018), provision of constructive feedback, writing support and pastoral care and engaging supervisees in co-writing (Anttila, Pyhältö, and Tikkanen Citation2023; Castelló, McAlpine, and Pyhältö Citation2017; Kamler Citation2008), building shared expectations with a supervisee, and agreeing on supervisory practices (Pyhältö, Vekkaila (o.s. Tuomainen), and Keskinen Citation2015; Moxham, Dwyer, and Reid-Searl Citation2013; Ives and Rowley Citation2005) as well as promoting the candidates’ integration and networking in a research community (Lee Citation2018; Wisker, Robinson, and Bengtsen Citation2017). Accordingly, to provide sufficient support to their supervisees, supervisors need a wide range of discipline knowledge, research skills, transferrable skills, and appropriate attitudes to support the progress of doctoral research (Fulgence Citation2019). In turn, lacking supervisory competence may result in problems in the supervisory relationship and further increase supervisors’ risk of suffering from stress and burnout. Furthermore, a supervisor’s competencies influence the quality of supervisory interactions, and hence, both on supervisors’ and supervisees’ experience of it.
Moreover, it is important to recall that high-quality supervision does not take place in a vacuum but is highly embedded in the scholarly community interactions. The scholarly community – the colleagues within academia – provides the primary arena for supervisory development and is an important source of professional support (e.g. Amundsen and McAlpine Citation2009; Fulgence Citation2019; Pyhältö, Tikkanen, and Anttila Citation2022a; Vehviläinen and Löfström Citation2016). Such support is characterised by a positive climate and opportunities to receive encouragement, support, and appreciation from colleagues (Hoy and Spero Citation2005; Spiller, Byrnes, and Ferguson Citation2013). It was recently shown that professional support from colleagues was related to positive evaluation of one’s supervisory competence (Pyhältö, Tikkanen, and Anttila Citation2022a). Professional support from colleagues may also reduce supervisor’s risk of suffering from burnout symptoms and increase their work engagement. This may occur through two routes: First, support received from colleagues is likely to cultivate supervisory competency allowing functional supervisory behaviours and overcoming problems related to supervision, reducing supervisory stress. Second, having colleagues who appreciate your work and from whom to ask support is likely to provide a source of work engagement.
Taken together, there is tentative evidence showing that PhD supervisors’ occupational wellbeing in terms of work engagement and burnout symptoms is affected by supervisory experience (Pyhältö, Tikkanen, and Anttila Citation2022b; UK-Council-for-Graduate-Education Citation2021; Wisker and Robinson Citation2016). Furthermore, we assumed that there are variations in doctoral supervisors’ occupational wellbeing based on individual factors such as gender (see Boas and Morin Citation2013; Kinman Citation2016; Rile et al. Citation2015) and structural and contextual ones such as supervisory workload, academic rank, discipline, supervisees’ study status (full-time/part-time) and research group status (supervisee working mainly alone/in a group) (about structural and contextual factors, see e.g. Cornér, Pyhältö, and Löfström Citation2019; Pyhältö, Tikkanen, and Anttila Citation2022b).
Aim
The aim of this study is two-fold. First, we aimed to gain a better understanding of the level and the differences in doctoral supervisors’ occupational wellbeing. To reach this aim, the following research questions were addressed:
To what extent do doctoral supervisors experience work engagement and burnout symptoms in their work?
Are there differences in the work engagement and burnout symptoms experienced, including exhaustion and cynicism, between
supervisors from different disciplines,
women and men,
supervisors with various academic ranks (i.e. institutional position),
those mainly supervising candidates working full-time cf. those working part-time, and
those mainly supervising candidates working in a research team cf. those working mainly on their own?
supervisory workload in terms of appropriateness of number of supervisees?
Second, we aimed to understand whether the doctoral supervisors’ occupational wellbeing is related to the support they received from the scholarly community, or their supervisory experience in terms of supervisory competencies, supervisory interaction. For this purpose, following hypotheses were tested (see ):
H1. Social support provided by the research community (SUP) is related to higher levels of supervisory competence (COM), higher quality supervisory interaction (INT), higher levels of work engagement (ENG) as well as lower levels of exhaustion (EXH) and cynicism (CYN).
H2. Supervisory competence (COM) is positively related to supervisory interaction (INT), and work engagement (ENG), and negatively to burnout (EXH, CYN).
H3. Supervisory interaction (INT) is related to higher levels of work engagement (ENG) and lower levels of burnout (EXH, CYN).
Figure 1. The hypothesised model of the associations between supervisor’s perceptions of support from scholarly community (SUP), supervisory competencies (COM) and interaction (INT) and their occupational wellbeing (i.e. work engagement (ENG), exhaustion (EXH) and cynicism (CYN)).
Method
Doctoral education in Finland
The study was conducted at a research-intensive, international, multidisciplinary university in Finland. The university is the largest and oldest university among the 13 universities in Finland. Approximately five to six hundred PhDs graduate annually, constituting about a third of all PhD graduates in Finland every year. There are 11 faculties and about 4900 PhD candidates in the university. In the case university, each of the PhD candidates belongs to a doctoral school, and to one of the university’s doctoral programmes. Doctoral degree (total 240 ECTSs) entails conducting doctoral research (200 ECTSs), and complementary coursework (40 ECTSs) that are based on an individual study plan. Eligibility criteria for applying to undertake doctoral study include a Finnish second-cycle master’s degree or a comparable foreign degree and academic language proficiency in Finnish, Swedish, or English. The application comprises a research proposal, a study plan, and supervisory commitment. A PhD dissertation can be written either as an article-based dissertation, or as a monograph. In the university, most PhD candidates (over 70%) undertake article-based dissertations (Pyhältö, Tikkanen, and Anttila Citation2022c). PhD candidates have typically at least two supervisors, the main supervisor typically being a full professor with a permanent position at the university. To be eligible to supervise doctoral dissertations as the first supervisor, the supervisor must hold the title of a docent.Footnote1 Supervisor training is available, but it is not mandatory. The supervisors have autonomy to select their supervisees. The thesis examination proceeds in three stages: the pre-examination is conducted by two external examiners appointed by the faculty followed by a public defence. Finally, the faculty grants the PhD degree. Although the target time for doctoral completion is four years of studying full-time, the average time for degree completion is 5.8 years (Pyhältö, Tikkanen, and Anttila Citation2022c). There are no tuition fees, but the funding for covering living expenses is not automatically provided either.
Participants
A total of 561 doctoral supervisors from the university completed the survey. The response rate was 16%. The distribution of men and women represented well the gender distribution of doctoral supervisors at the university. The supervisors were from all 11 faculties of the university, four doctoral schools and represented varied academic ranks at the university (see .). Most supervisors were professors or research directors (44%) and half of the supervisors (51%) had been supervising doctoral students for more than 12 years (mean 15 years; SD = 9.7 years). According to the reports, the average number of doctoral candidates under supervision at the time of the survey was four, while the number of doctoral degrees supervised to completion was seven. Yet, considerable variation between the supervisors occurred. The supervisors reported that their supervisees typically wrote article-based dissertation (82%). Most of the supervisors (68%) reported supervising primarily full-time doctoral candidates.
Table 1. Demographical information of the participants.
Data
The survey data were collected online between August and September 2021. During the data collection, working on campuses was restricted due to the COVID-19 pandemic: permission was required to work on site, and most staff worked remotely. Teaching and supervision were carried out mainly remotely. The data were collected by using a modified version of a supervisory experience survey validated in previous studies (Pyhältö, Vekkaila (o.s. Tuomainen), and Keskinen Citation2015). Participation in the study was voluntary. Information about the research and the link to the supervisory experience survey were sent via e-mail to the participants by using the Doctoral Schools’ supervisor mailing lists. No identifying information was collected. No incentives were offered. For the present study, the following measures were used: The work engagement scale (9 items) (Schaufeli, Bakker, and Salanova Citation2006), burnout scale (Pyhältö et al. Citation2018; see seminal work on the measure by Maslach, Jackson, and Leiter Citation1997), including exhaustion (five items), and cynicism (three items), the supervisory competence scale (six items) (adapted from the UK Research Supervision survey 2021), the supervisory interaction scale (five items) (Roumell and Bolliger Citation2017) and the professional support from the research community scale (modified from Pietarinen et al. Citation2013) (five items) was measured on a 7-point Likert scale. The other scales were measured with (1 = strongly disagree … 7 = fully agree). In addition, the discipline (Environmental, food, and biological sciences, Health sciences, Humanities and social sciences, and Natural sciences), gender (women/ men/ other), academic rank, the typical study status of their supervisees (full-time cf. part-time), and the research group status of their supervisees (studying in a research team/ alone/both alone and in a team), were addressed. The supervisory workload in terms of the number of supervisees was measured with a multiple-choice question: In my opinion, the number of students under my supervision is: (suitable/too high/too low).
In Finland, an ethics review is required when research involves intervention in the physical integrity of research participants; deviates from the principle of informed consent; involves participants under the age of 15 being studied without parental consent; exposes participants to exceptionally strong stimuli; risks causing long-term mental harm beyond that encountered in normal life; or signifies a security risk to subjects (Finnish National Board on Research Integrity Citation2019). None of these conditions was encountered in this study.
Analysis
In the first phase, the descriptive analyses were conducted using the IBM SPSS Statistics 28 programme. Means and standard deviations were calculated to get the overall view of the supervisors’ experiences of work engagement, burnout, and their perceptions of the quality of the supervisory relationship, supervisory competence, and professional support. One-way analysis of variances (ANOVA) was used to analyse the disciplinary differences in work engagement and burnout symptoms and differences based on fit in terms of number of supervisees and academic ranks, while independent samples t-tests were used to analyse the differences between men and women, those supervising mainly candidates working full-time cf. those working part-time, and those supervising mainly candidates working in a research team cf. those working mainly on their own. In post-hoc comparisons for the ANOVA results, we used Games–Howell and Tukey HSD tests.
In the second phase, the associations between the study variables were analysed using structural equation modelling (SEM) (Byrne Citation2012; Muthén and Muthén Citation1998-Citation2017). Before conducting SEM, all the factor structures of each scale were tested separately using confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). MLR (maximum likelihood estimation with robust standard errors) procedure was used in the analyses. As a missing data procedure, the full information maximum likelihood (FIML) method was used. To determine the extent to which the hypothesised model was consistent with the data, we used a Chi-Square test, Comparative fit index (CFI), Tucker–Lewin Index (TLI), Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA), and Standardized Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (SRMR). The SEM was conducted with Mplus version 8.6 (Muthén and Muthén Citation1998-Citation2017).
Results
Doctoral supervisors’ work engagement, stress, and burnout symptoms
On average, the doctoral supervisors reported experiencing high levels of work engagement (see ). In other words, they reported feeling vigorous, inspired by their work, and feeling happy when working intensely. Of the burnout symptoms, the supervisors reported experiencing moderate levels of exhaustion and low levels of cynicism. For example, they did not often have difficulties in finding meaning in their work or nor did they sleep badly because of the matters related to work. However, there were significant deviations between the supervisors in their experiences of burnout symptoms.
Table 2. Descriptive statistics of the study variables.
Differences in doctoral supervisors’ work engagement, and burnout symptoms
Disciplinary differences in supervisors’ work engagement were detected (F(3, 463) = 3.34, p < .05). More specifically, the supervisors in health sciences reported higher levels of work engagement than supervisors in humanities and social sciences. Disciplinary differences were also detected in cynicism (F(3, 458) = 4.68, p < .01): the supervisors in environmental, food, and biological sciences and in humanities and social sciences reported higher levels of cynicism than supervisors in health sciences. The means and standard deviations are shown in .
Table 3. Differences in supervisors experiences of work engagement, and burnout symptoms.
There were also differences in work engagement (F(3, 480) = 6.62, p < .001), stress (F(3, 478) = 6.30, p < .001), exhaustion (F(3, 478) = 4.83, p < .01), and cynicism (F(3, 478) = 6.18, p < .001) between the supervisors in various positions at the university. Tenure track professors reported experiencing higher levels of exhaustion than professors/research directors. Professors/research directors reported higher levels of work engagement than university researchers/lecturers and postdocs/university instructors. Professors/research directors also reported lower levels of cynicism than university researchers/lecturers.
Women reported higher levels of exhaustion (t(529) = 2.59, p < .05) than men, while no gendered differences were detected in cynicism (t(530) = 1.11, p = .27) or work engagement (t(535) = .36, p = .72). No differences based on supervisees’ study status (full-time cf. part-time) were found in supervisors’ work engagement (t(545) = −.71, p = .48), exhaustion (t(539) = 1.81, p = .07), or cynicism (t(539) = 1.38, p = .17). The supervisors who reported that their supervisees’ were engaged in a research group experienced higher levels of work engagement (t(166) = −2.63, p < .01) and lower levels of cynicism (t(539) = 2.28, p < .05) than supervisors, whose supervisees were conducting their doctoral study mainly alone, but no differences based on supervisees’ research group status were detected in supervisors’ exhaustion (t(539) = 1.75, p = .08).
The supervisors who perceived the number of supervisees as being suitable reported higher levels of work engagement (F(2,536) = 3.56, p < .05) and lower levels of cynicism (F(2, 530) = 4.81, p < .01) than the supervisors who perceived the number of supervisees as being too small (for the means and standard deviations, see ). The supervisors, who perceived the number of supervisees as being suitable reported significantly lower levels of exhaustion (F(2, 530) = 4.01, p < .05) than supervisors, who reported the number of supervisees as being too high. The supervisors who reported the number of supervisees as being too low or too high did not differ from each other in work engagement and burnout symptoms.
The associations between supervisors’ occupational wellbeing, and support from scholarly community, supervisory experience
The hypothesised model () fits the data (χ2 = 1011.22, df = 381, p < .001; RMSEA = .055 (90% C.I. = .050-.059), CFI/TLI = .918/.906; SRMR = .063). The results supported the hypothesis 1 partially by showing that the supervisors’ perceptions of the research community were directly related to the confidence with the supervisory competencies (see ). In other words, the more the supervisors perceived that their colleagues encouraged them and that they had good atmosphere in their research community, the more confident they were with their skills in supervising candidates from diverse backgrounds, and the better they knew how to enact the policies and procedures surrounding doctoral supervision. Furthermore, the more the supervisors felt that they received adequate support from the scholarly community the less they had experiences of being exhausted and cynical and the more they experienced work engagement. However, receiving support from the scholarly community did not contribute to supervisors’ perceptions of supervisory interaction.
Figure 2. The standardised model (χ2 = 1011.22, df = 381, p < .001; RMSEA = .055 (90% C.I. = .050–.059), CFI/TLI = .918/.906; SRMR = .063).
As was hypothesised (H2), the supervisory competencies were related to a better quality of supervisory interaction, that is, the more confident the supervisors felt about their supervisory competencies, the more they experienced that they had good working relationships with the supervisees and that the candidates understood the expectations they had on them. Moreover, the supervisory competencies were also related to increased levels of work engagement and decreased levels of burnout symptoms. However, the results did not provide support for hypothesis 3. Accordingly, the supervisors’ perceptions of the quality of supervisory interaction did not contribute to work engagement or burnout.
Discussion
The findings in the light of previous literature
The aim of this study was two-fold. First, we aimed to understand the differences in supervisors’ occupational wellbeing between men/women, supervisors in various positions and in various disciplinary fields and differences based on supervisory workload and supervisees’ study status and research group status. Second, the aim was to gain a better understanding of the association between supervisors’ perceptions of professional support from the research community, supervisory competencies, and supervisory interaction, and their supervisors’ occupational wellbeing. The results showed that there are significant differences in supervisors’ occupational wellbeing and that the scholarly community interactions play a central role in the experiences of work engagement and burnout as well as supervisors’ perceptions of their supervisory competencies.
In general, our results showed that supervisors experienced high levels of work engagement, moderate levels of exhaustion, and low levels of cynicism. The findings are in line with previous research on academics’ wellbeing suggesting that doctoral supervisors are typically satisfied with their work (Bentley et al. Citation2013; Halse Citation2011; Teichler, Arimoto, and Cummings Citation2013). Supervisors also reported being satisfied with supervisory interaction and their supervisory competencies. In addition, they reported that professional support within the research community was adequate.
Our results further showed that a supervisor’s experiences of occupational wellbeing varied depending on individual and contextual factors including workload, discipline, supervisor’s institutional position, and gender. More specifically, the supervisors who perceived the supervisory workload in terms of the number of supervisees as suitable reported higher levels of work engagement, and lower levels of burnout compared to supervisors who felt that the number of supervisees either was either too low or too high. This indicates that a supervisor’s wellbeing is influenced more by their perceptions of fit in terms of the number of supervisees than the number itself. It is also important to note that having too few PhD candidates to supervise can also have a negative influence on a supervisor’s wellbeing. Also, disciplinary differences in experienced wellbeing were detected. The supervisors in health sciences reported higher levels of work engagement than supervisors in humanities and social sciences and lower levels of cynicism than the supervisors in environmental, food, and biological sciences. A reason for this might be that due to the COVID-19 pandemic, during which the data were collected, the supervisors in health sciences had an exceptional position compared to those in the other fields; the resources in medical research were increased, and many of the supervisors in health sciences made tangible efforts to find research-based solutions to the pandemic, which may have resulted in greater work engagement and reduced levels of cynicism. The supervisor’s position at the university also seemed to play a role in their occupational wellbeing: professors/research directors reported higher levels of work engagement than the supervisors in lower positions did. This might result from a combination of having more experience and being more competent in supervising PhD candidates (Pyhältö, Tikkanen, and Anttila Citation2022a) and having a more established permanent position within the academia. The result is in line with the prior literature suggesting and senior academics experienced less stress than their junior colleagues (Safaria, Othman, and Wahab Citation2012). Moreover, gendered differences in experiencing occupational wellbeing were detected. Women were more likely to experience exhaustion than men, confirming previous findings indicating that women experience academia as being a more challenging working environment than men (Boas and Morin Citation2013; Kinman Citation2016; Rile et al. Citation2015).
The results also showed that structural factors, such as supervisees’ study status and research group status, played a role in supervisors’ occupational wellbeing. The supervisors whose supervisees were working in a research group, seemed to experience higher levels of work engagement and less cynicism compared to supervisors whose supervisees were working alone. One reason for the finding might be that a research group provides a support network both for the supervisor and supervisee, which helps to overcome challenges and resources to boost the work engagement experiences (e.g. Cornér, Pyhältö, and Löfström Citation2019). In turn, the supervisees’ study status seemed not to play a role in supervisor’s wellbeing. Overall, the variations in experiences of work engagement and burnout symptoms imply that supervisors are a heterogeneous group in terms of occupational wellbeing.
The results showed that the extent to which supervisors reported receiving support from the scholarly community was positively related to their perceptions of supervisory competencies, which further seemed to contribute to higher-quality interaction with the supervisees. Moreover, the results indicated that the more the supervisors perceived receiving support from the scholarly community and the better they estimated their supervisory competencies to be, the better they seemed to do in terms of occupational wellbeing. In other words, the results suggest that both the quality of supervision and the occupational wellbeing of the supervisors are strongly embedded in the interaction within the scholarly community (e.g. Halse Citation2011; Pyhältö, Tikkanen, and Anttila Citation2022a). Hence, the results imply that professional support from colleagues and well-developed supervisory competencies can act as a buffer against burnout symptoms and as a source of a supervisor’s work engagement (Cornér, Pyhältö, and Löfström Citation2019; Wisker and Robinson Citation2016).
Methodological limitations
In this study, a cross-sectional design was applied in studying the associations between supervision and supervisors’ occupational wellbeing. The most prominent limitations arise because of the cross-sectional design of the study and because the study was carried out at a single university. Hence, we cannot draw causal conclusions concerning whether supervision influences a supervisor’s wellbeing or vice versa – or whether the relationship is reciprocal. In addition, as the study was limited to one socio-cultural context, caution is needed when generalising the results across doctoral education systems and countries. It is also important to note that regardless of the representativeness of the sample in terms of gender and disciplinary distribution, the response rate was low. The survey data were collected during the COVID-19 pandemic (August–September 2021). The restrictions related to the pandemic might have affected the response rate and the results, such as the levels of the supervisors’ experiences of occupational wellbeing. For example, it was shown in a previous study that the pandemic had a negative influence on PhD candidates, which further was reflected in reduced levels of wellbeing among the supervisors’ (Löfström et al. Citation2024).
Conclusions
The results showed that factors related to better occupational wellbeing among supervisors are: (a) male gender, (b) working in health sciences (cf. humanities and social sciences or environmental, food, and biological sciences), (c) position of a professor/research director, (d) perceiving the number of supervisees as suitable, (e) supervising candidates working in a research group, (d) receiving sufficient professional support from the research community, (f) being confident with one’s supervisory competencies. This means that supervisors’ wellbeing is affected by multiple individual, contextual, and structural factors, for example, by how the supervision is orchestrated at the institutional level.
Implications and recommendations for enhancing supervisors’ occupational wellbeing
The results of the study provide practical suggestions for enhancing supervisors’ occupational wellbeing. First, based on the results, investing in the development of professional support practices within the research community, and supervisors’ competencies is likely to enhance supervisors’ wellbeing and supervisory interactions. Hence, the measures taken to promote supervisors’ occupational wellbeing are not disconnected from the measures aimed at promoting PhD candidates’ progress and wellbeing. For example, it seems that providing opportunities for PhD supervisors to discuss their supervisory practices with colleagues, ask for help and support and share good practices with other supervisors contributes to better supervisory experience (see Amundsen and McAlpine Citation2009; Fulgence Citation2019; Pyhältö, Tikkanen, and Anttila Citation2022a; Spiller, Byrnes, and Ferguson Citation2013) and their occupational wellbeing, and further to better doctoral experience for the PhD candidates (e.g. Hunter and Devine Citation2016; Ives and Rowley Citation2005). Second, as the early career supervisors had a higher risk of experiencing challenges in their wellbeing than full professors, it might be worthwhile to provide targeted support for early career supervisors. For example, having an opportunity to co-supervise with more experienced supervisor(s) or having a mentor with more supervision experience might promote their supervisory competencies and help in building professional support networks. Finally, the results suggest that the optimal number of supervisees matters in terms of whether a supervisor perceives the number of supervisees as being suitable and moderating the suitability of supervisory workload instead of setting limits on the number of supervisees. This is because the optimal number of supervisees might vary depending on the supervisor’s career stage and how the supervision is organised, for example, co-supervision.
Peer_Review_Report_3
Download PDF (172.4 KB)Peer_Review_Report_2
Download PDF (178.2 KB)Peer_Review_Report_1
Download PDF (164.5 KB)Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s). This article has been published under the Journal's transparent peer review policy. Anonymised peer review reports of the submitted manuscript can be accessed under supplemental material online at https://doi.org/10.1080/21568235.2024.2314470.
Additional information
Notes on contributors
Lotta Tikkanen
Lotta Tikkanen, PhD, is a university lecturer in university pedagogy at the Centre for University Teaching and Learning (HYPE), Faculty of Educational Sciences, University of Helsinki, Finland. Her research interests include teachers’ and students’ wellbeing and learning in various educational settings ranging from primary school to doctoral education.
Henrika Anttila
Henrika Anttila, PhD, is a university lecturer in university pedagogy at the Centre for University Teaching and Learning (HYPE), Faculty of Educational Sciences, University of Helsinki, Finland. Her research interests include doctoral students’ academic emotions, learning, and wellbeing.
Kirsi Pyhältö
Kirsi Pyhältö, PhD, is a professor of higher education in the Faculty of Educational Sciences, University of Helsinki. She is also an extraordinary professor at the Department of Curriculum Studies, University of Stellenbosch, South-Africa. She is an expert in the field of researcher education and careers. Her research interests include doctoral education, supervision, researcher communities, and postdoctoral careers.
Notes
1 The title of docent is an academic title, which can be granted to an applicant who has extensive knowledge in their own field and the ability to conduct independent research as demonstrated by publications or other means, as well as good teaching skills.
References
- Ahola, K., T. Honkonen, E. Isometsä, E. Kalimo, E. Nykyri, A. Aromaa, and J. Lönnqvist. 2005. “The Relationship Between Job-related Burnout and Depressive Disorders – Results from the Finnish Health 2000 Study.” Journal of Affective Disorders 88 (1): 55–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2005.06.004.
- Amundsen, C., and L. McAlpine. 2009. “‘Learning Supervision’: Trial by Fire.” Innovations in Education and Teaching International 46 (3): 331–342. https://doi.org/10.1080/14703290903068805.
- Anttila, H., K. Pyhältö, and L. Tikkanen. 2023. “Doctoral Supervisors’ and Supervisees’ Perceptions on Supervisory Support and Frequency of Supervision – Do They Match?” Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1080/14703297.2023.2238673.
- Bakker, A. B., E. Demerouti, and W. Verbeke. 2004. “Using the job Demands-Resources Model to Predict Burnout and Performance.” Human Resource Management 43 (1): 83–104. https://doi.org/10.1002/hrm.20004.
- Bakker, A. B., W. B. Schaufeli, M. P. Leiter, and T. W. Taris. 2008. “Work Engagement: An Emerging Concept in Occupational Health Psychology.” Work & Stress 22 (3): 187–200. https://doi.org/10.1080/02678370802393649.
- Bakker, A. B., H. van Emmerik, and M. Euwema. 2006. “Crossover of Burnout and Engagement in Work Teams.” Work and Occupations 33 (4): 464–489. https://doi.org/10.1177/0730888406291310.
- Bentley, P. J., H. Coates, I. R. Dobson, L. Goedegebuure, and V. L. Meek. 2013. “Introduction: Satisfaction Around the World?” In Job Satisfaction Around the Academic World, edited by P. Bentley, H. Coates, I. Dobson, L. Goedegebuure, and V. Meek, 1–11. Dordrecht: Springer.
- Blitzer, E., R. Albertyn, L. Frick, B. Grant, and F. Kelly. 2014. Pushing Boundaries in Postgraduate Supervision. Stellenbosch: SUN PRESS. https://doi.org/10.18820/9781920689162.
- Boas, A. A. V., and E. M. Morin. 2013. “Quality of Working Life in Public Higher Education Institutions: The Perception of Brazilian and Canadian Professors.” International Journal of Business and Social Science 4 (12): 67–77.
- Byrne, B. M. 2012. Structural Equation Modeling with Mplus: Basic Concepts, Applications, and Programming. London: Routledge.
- Capone, V., M. Joshanloo, and M. S. A. Park. 2019. “Burnout, Depression, Efficacy Beliefs, and Work-Related Variables among School Teachers.” International Journal of Educational Research 95: 97–108. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2019.02.001.
- Castelló, M., L. McAlpine, and K. Pyhältö. 2017. “Spanish and UK Post-PhD Researchers: Writing Perceptions, Well-Being and Productivity.” Higher Education Research & Development 36 (6): 1108–1122. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2017.1296412.
- Christian, M. S., A. S. Garza, and J. E. Slaughter. 2011. “Work Engagement: A Quantitative Review a Test of its Relations with Task and Contextual Performance.” Personnel Psychology 64 (1): 89–136. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2010.01203.x.
- Converso, D., I. Sottimano, G. Molinengo, and B. Loera. 2019. “The Unbearable Lightness of the Academic Work: The Positive and Negative Sides of Heavy Work Investment in a Sample of Italian University Professors and Researchers.” Sustainability 11 (8): 2439. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11082439.
- Cornér, S., E. Löfström, and K. Pyhältö. 2017. “The Relationships Between Doctoral Students’ Perceptions of Supervision and Burnout.” International Journal of Doctoral Studies 12: 091–106. https://doi.org/10.28945/3754.
- Cornér, S., K. Pyhältö, and E. Löfström. 2019. “Supervisors’ Perceptions of Resources and Challenges of the Doctoral Journey.” International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education 31 (3): 365–377.
- Dobrowolska, B., P. Chruściel, A. Pilewska-Kozak, V. Mianowana, M. Monist, and A. Palese. 2021. “Doctoral Programmes in the Nursing Discipline: A Scoping Review.” BMC Nursing 20 (1): 28. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12912-021-00753-6.
- Elo, A. L., A. Leppänen, and A. Jahkola. 2003. “Validity of a Single-Item Measure of Stress Symptoms.” Scandinavian Journal of Work, Environment & Health 29 (6): 444–451. https://doi.org/10.5271/sjweh.752.
- Finnish National Board on Research Integrity. 2019. The Ethical Principles of Research with Human Participants and Ethical Review in the Human Sciences in Finland. Accessed May 3, 2023. https://tenk.fi/en/ethical-review.
- Fredman, N., and J. Doughney. 2012. “Academic Dissatisfaction, Managerial Change and neo-Liberalism.” Higher Education 64 (1): 41–58. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-011-9479-y.
- Fulgence, K. 2019. “A Theoretical Perspective on how Doctoral Supervisors Develop Supervision Skills.” International Journal of Doctoral Studies 14: 721–739. https://doi.org/10.28945/4446.
- Hakanen, J., A. B. Bakker, and W. B. Schaufeli. 2006. “Burnout and Work Engagement among Teachers.” Journal of School Psychology 43 (6): 495–513. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2005.11.001.
- Halse, C. 2011. “‘Becoming a Supervisor’: The Impact of Doctoral Supervision on Supervisors’ Learning.” Studies in higher education 36 (5): 557–570. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2011.594593.
- Han, Ye, and Yueting Xu. 2021. “Unpacking the Emotional Dimension of Doctoral Supervision: Supervisors' Emotions and Emotion Regulation Strategies.” Frontiers in Psychology 12: 1686. http://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.651859.
- Hish, A. J., G. A. Nagy, C. M. Fang, L. Kelley, C. V. Nicchitta, K. Dzirasa, and M. Z. Rosenthal. 2019. “Applying the Stress Process Model to Stress–Burnout and Stress–Depression Relationships in Biomedical Doctoral Students: A Cross-Sectional Pilot Study.” CBE—Life Sciences Education 18: ar51. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.19-03-0060.
- Hoy, A. W., and R. B. Spero. 2005. “Changes in Teacher Efficacy During the Early Years of Teaching: A Comparison of Four Measures.” Teaching and teacher education 21 (4): 343–356. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2005.01.007.
- Hunter, K. H., and K. Devine. 2016. “Doctoral Students’ Emotional Exhaustion and Intentions to Leave Academia.” International Journal of Doctoral Studies 11: 035–061. https://doi.org/10.28945/3396.
- Ives, G., and G. Rowley. 2005. “Supervisor Selection or Allocation and Continuity of Supervision: Ph.D. Students’ Progress and Outcomes.” Studies in Higher Education 30 (5): 535–555. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075070500249161.
- Kamler, B. 2008. “Rethinking Doctoral Publication Practices: Writing from and Beyond the Thesis.” Studies in higher education 33 (3): 283–294. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075070802049236.
- Kim, H., J. Ji, and D. Kao. 2011. “Burnout and Physical Health among Social Workers: A Three-Year Longitudinal Study.” Social Work 56 (3): 258–268. https://doi.org/10.1093/sw/56.3.258.
- Kinman, G. 2016. “Managing the Work-Home Interface: The Experience of Women Academics.” In Exploring Resources, Life-balance and Well-being of Women Who Work in a Global Context, edited by R. L. Gervais and P. M. Millear, 127–144. Dordrecht: Springer International Publishing/Springer Nature. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-31736-6_8.
- Korthagen, F. A. J. 2004. “In Search of the Essence of a Good Teacher: Towards a More Holistic Approach in Teacher Education.” Teaching and Teacher Education 20 (1): 77–97. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2003.10.002.
- Lee, A. 2018. “How Can We Develop Supervisors for the Modern Doctorate?” Studies in Higher Education 43 (5): 878–890. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2018.1438116.
- Levecque, K., F. Anseel, A. De Beuckelaer, J. Van der Heyden, and L. Gisle. 2017. “Work Organization and Mental Health Problems in PhD Students.” Research Policy 46 (4): 868–879. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2017.02.008.
- Li, S., and C. Seale. 2007. “Managing Criticism in Ph.D. Supervision: A Qualitative Case Study.” Studies in Higher Education 32 (4): 511–526. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075070701476225.
- Löfström, E., L. Tikkanen, H. Anttila, and K. Pyhältö. 2024. “Supervisors’ Experiences of Doctoral Supervision in Times of Change.” Studies in Graduate and Postdoctoral Education 15 (1): 34–48. https://doi.org/10.1108/SGPE-01-2023-0004.
- Mackie, S. A., and G. W. Bates. 2019. “Contribution of the Doctoral Education Environment to PhD Candidates’ Mental Health Problems: A Scoping Review.” Higher Education Research & Development 38 (3): 565–578. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2018.1556620.
- Maher, M. A., M. E. Ford, and C. M. Thompson. 2004. “Degree Progress of Women Doctoral Students: Factors That Constrain, Facilitate, and Differentiate.” The Review of Higher Education 27 (3): 385–408. https://doi.org/10.1353/rhe.2004.0003.
- Maslach, C., and S. E. Jackson. 1981. “The Measurement of Experienced Burnout.” Journal of Organizational Behavior 2 (2): 99–113. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.4030020205.
- Maslach, C., S. E. Jackson, and M. P. Leiter. 1997. “Maslach Burnout Inventory: Third Edition.” In Evaluating Stress: A Book of Resources, edited by C. P. Zalaquett and R. J. Wood, 191–218. New York: Scarecrow Education.
- Maslach, C., and M. P. Leiter. 2008. “Early Predictors of Job Burnout and Engagement.” Journal of Applied Psychology 93 (3): 498–512. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.93.3.498.
- Maslach, C., W. B. Schaufeli, and M. P. Leiter. 2001. “Job Burnout.” Annual Review of Psychology 52 (1): 397–422. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.52.1.397.
- McCray, J., and P. Joseph-Richard. 2020. “Towards a Model of Resilience Protection: Factors Influencing Doctoral Completion.” Higher Education 80 (4): 679–699. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-020-00507-4.
- Moxham, L., T. Dwyer, and K. Reid-Searl. 2013. “Articulating Expectations for PhD Candidature upon Commencement: Ensuring Supervisor/Student ‘Best Fit’.” Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management 35 (4): 345–354. https://doi.org/10.1080/1360080X.2013.812030.
- Muthén, L. K., and B. O. Muthén. 1998–2017. Mplus User’s Guide. Eighth ed. Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén.
- Orth, M., and J. Volmer. 2017. “Daily Within-Person Effects of Job Autonomy and Work Engagement on Innovative Behaviour: The Cross-level Moderating Role of Creative Self-Efficacy.” European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology 26 (4): 601–612. https://doi.org/10.1080/1359432X.2017.1332042.
- Pietarinen, J., K. Pyhältö, T. Soini, and K. Salmela-Aro. 2013. “Reducing Teacher Burnout: A Socio-Contextual Approach.” Teaching and Teacher Education 35: 62–72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2013.05.003.
- Pyhältö, K., M. Castello, L. McAlpine, and J. Peltonen. 2018. The Cross-country Doctora Experience Survey (C-DES). User’s Manual. Manual Version 2018.
- Pyhältö, K., L. Tikkanen, and H. Anttila. 2022a. “Relationship Between Doctoral Supervisors’ Competencies, Engagement in Supervisory Development and Experienced Support from Research Community.” Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1080/14703297.2022.2160369.
- Pyhältö, K., L. Tikkanen, and H. Anttila. 2022b. “Is There a Fit Between PhD Candidates’ and Their Supervisors’ Perceptions on the Impact of COVID-19 on Doctoral Education?” Studies in Graduate and Postdoctoral Education 14 (2): 134–150. https://doi.org/10.1108/SGPE-05-2022-0035.
- Pyhältö, K., L. Tikkanen, and H. Anttila. 2022c. Summary Report on Doctoral and Supervisory Experience at University of Helsinki. (University of Helsinki Administrative Publications; No. 95). University of Helsinki. http://hdl.handle.net/10138/338695.
- Pyhältö, K., J. Vekkaila (o.s. Tuomainen), and J. Keskinen. 2015. “Fit Matters in the Supervisory Relationship: Doctoral Students and Supervisors Perceptions About the Supervisory Activities.” Innovations in Education and Teaching International 52: 4–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/14703297.2014.981836.
- Rile, L. G., N. L. Tan, N. J. Salazar, and A. G. O. Perez. 2015. ““Expat University Professors State of Psychological Well-being and Academic Optimism Toward University Task in UAE.” Systemics, Cybernetics and Informatics 13 (3): 28–33.
- Roumell, E. A. L., and D. U. Bolliger. 2017. “Experiences of Faculty with Doctoral Student Supervision in Programs Delivered via Distance.” The Journal of Continuing Higher Education 65 (2): 82–93. https://doi.org/10.1080/07377363.2017.1320179.
- Saaranen, T., K. Tossavainen, H. Turunen, and H. Vertio. 2006. “Occupational Wellbeing in a School Community – Staff's and Occupational Health Nurses’ Evaluations.” Teaching and Teacher Education 22 (6): 740–752. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2006.03.009.
- Safaria, T., A. Othman, and M. N. A. Wahab. 2012. “Gender, Academic Rank, Employment Status, University Type and Job Stress among University Academic Staff: A Comparison Between Malaysia and Indonesia Context.” International Journal of Humanities and Social Science 1 (18): 250–261.
- Schaufeli, W. B., A. B. Bakker, and M. Salanova. 2006. “The Measurement of Work Engagement with a Short Questionnaire: A Cross-National Study.” Educational and Psychological Measurement 66 (4): 701–716. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164405282471.
- Schaufeli, W. B., M. Salanova, V. Gonzalez-Roma, and A. B. Bakker. 2002. “The Measurement of Engagement and Burnout: A Two Sample Confirmatory Factor Analytic Approach.” Journal of Happiness Studies 3 (1): 71–92. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1015630930326.
- Seeber, M., and H. Horta. 2021. “No Road is Long with Good Company. What Factors Affect Ph.D. Student’s Satisfaction with Their Supervisor?” Higher Education Evaluation and Development 15 (1): 2–18. https://doi.org/10.1108/HEED-10-2020-0044.
- Shin, J. C., and J. Jung. 2014. “Academics job Satisfaction and Job Stress Across Countries in the Changing Academic Environments.” Higher Education 67 (5): 603–620. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-013-9668-y.
- Shin, J., S. Kim, E. Kim, and H. Lim. 2018. “Doctoral Students’ Satisfaction in a Research-focused Korean University: Socio-Environmental and Motivational Factors.” Asia Pacific Education Review 19 (2): 159–168. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12564-018-9528-7.
- Shirom, A. 1989. ““Burnout in Work Organizations.” In International Review of Industrial and Organizational Psychology 1989, edited by C. L. Cooper and I. T. Robertson, 25–48. New York: John Wiley.
- Spaulding, L. S., and A. Rockinson-Szapkiw. 2012. “Hearing Their Voices: Factors Doctoral Candidates Attribute to Their Persistence.” International Journal of Doctoral Studies 7, 199–219. https://doi.org/10.28945/1589.
- Spiller, D., G. Byrnes, and P. B. Ferguson. 2013. “Enhancing Postgraduate Supervision Through a Process of Conversational Inquiry.” Higher Education Research & Development 32 (5): 833–845. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2013.776519.
- Strandler, O., T. Johansson, G. Wisker, and S. Claesson. 2014. “Supervisor or Counsellor? – Emotional Boundary Work in Supervision.” International Journal for Researcher Development 5 (2): 70–82. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJRD-03-2014-0002.
- Teichler, U., A. Arimoto, and W. K. Cummings. 2013. The Changing Academic Profession. Dordrecht: Springer.
- Tims, M., A. B. Bakker, D. Derks, and W. Van Rhenen. 2013. “Job Crafting at the Team and Individual Level: Implications for Work Engagement and Performance.” Group & Organization Management 38 (4): 427–454. https://doi.org/10.1177/1059601113492421.
- UK Council for Graduate Education. 2021. UK Research Supervision Survey 2021 Report, Accessed 13 May, 2022. https://ukcge.ac.uk/assets/resources/UK-Research-Supervision-Survey-2021-UK-Council-for-Graduate-Education.pdf.
- Vehviläinen, S., and E. Löfström. 2016. “‘I Wish I Had a Crystal Ball’: Discourses and Potentials for Developing Academic Supervising.” Studies in Higher Education 41 (3): 508–524. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2014.942272.
- Westera, W. 2001. “Competences in Education: A Confusion of Tongues.” Journal of Curriculum Studies 33 (1): 75–88. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220270120625.
- Wisker, G., and G. Robinson. 2016. “Supervisor Wellbeing and Identity: Challenges and Strategies.” International Journal for Researcher Development 7 (2): 123–140. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJRD-03-2016-0006.
- Wisker, G., G. Robinson, and S. Bengtsen. 2017. “Penumbra: Doctoral Support as Drama: From the ‘Lightside’ to the ‘Darkside’. From Front of House to Trapdoors and Recesses.” Innovations in Education and Teaching International 54 (6): 527–538. https://doi.org/10.1080/14703297.2017.1371057.