In recent years, conversations around doctoral supervision have begun to shift. No longer confined to issues of project management or academic development, there is growing attention to how deeper structural dynamics — particularly those shaped by histories of colonialism, race, power, and positionality — influence the supervisory relationship itself.
Discussions around decolonising doctoral supervision are gaining momentum, with scholars such as Guccione (2023), Hopwood and Frick (2023), and Hyatt and Hayes (2022) inviting supervisors to re-examine the assumptions, practices, and power dynamics that underpin our work. The idea of “decolonising” supervision is not a metaphor. It calls us to recognise that higher education systems, including doctoral education, have been shaped by Eurocentric epistemologies, institutional hierarchies, and asymmetries of voice and recognition. These dynamics do not disappear in the supervision process — they are often reproduced in subtle ways: in how we frame research questions, whose knowledge is cited, which methodologies are considered legitimate, and how authority is negotiated between student and supervisor.
Supervision, after all, is a relationship. It is embedded in structures of power, but it is also enacted through everyday practices: in conversations, silences, feedback, and institutional expectations. Decolonising this space means attending to who holds the right to speak, who is asked to adapt, and how “excellence” is defined and assessed.
Guccione (2023) frames this challenge with clarity. She reminds us that supervisory relationships are situated in broader academic cultures that often reproduce whiteness, northern epistemologies, and hierarchical models of expertise. For many PGRs — particularly those from the Global South, racialised minorities, or first-generation backgrounds — these dynamics are not abstract. They are lived experiences that affect belonging, agency, and voice in the doctoral process.
Hopwood and Frick (2023) expand this reflection by exploring the relational and dialogic aspects of supervision. They invite supervisors to move beyond notions of “best practice” that are presented as neutral and instead consider what it means to supervise in ways that are responsive to context, history, and power. Their work encourages a shift from supervision as control to supervision as ethical co-engagement — where both parties are learning, unlearning, and negotiating meaning together.
Hyatt and Hayes (2022) approach the topic from a policy and structural lens. They highlight the tension between efforts to diversify the doctoral population and the persistence of institutional models that continue to privilege Western knowledge systems and linear conceptions of research development. Their work calls on supervisors and institutions alike to reimagine doctoral education as a space that can hold epistemic plurality, critical reflexivity, and genuine co-production of knowledge.
For supervisors, engaging with these ideas is not always easy. It may surface discomfort, uncertainty, or resistance. But it also opens space for growth. It challenges us to reflect on our own training, the disciplinary norms we have inherited, and the ways we interpret difference — whether cultural, linguistic, methodological, or political. It asks us to become more conscious of the stories we value, the advice we give, and the assumptions we carry about what doctoral success looks like.
Decolonising supervision is not a checklist. It is an ongoing, relational practice. It means cultivating humility, listening deeply, and being willing to revise our frameworks in response to our students’ knowledge, experience, and critique. It may also involve advocating for institutional change — to assessment criteria, curriculum design, or funding structures — that enable more equitable doctoral journeys.
At its heart, this work is about creating spaces where PGRs are not simply “included” but are recognised as co-creators of knowledge. It is about building supervisory relationships rooted not in control, but in mutual respect, curiosity, and critical engagement.
As these discussions continue to evolve, they offer not only a challenge to the status quo, but an invitation: to rethink how we supervise, whom we centre, and what kind of academic community we want to create — one that is not only excellent, but just.
- Guccione, K.M. (2023) Transformative supervision workshops as a tool for decolonisation. [blog] Supervising PhDs, 24 April. Available at: https://supervisingphds.wordpress.com/2023/04/24/transformative-supervision-workshops-as-a-tool-for-decolonisation/ [Accessed 23 Mar. 2025].
- Hopwood, N. and Frick, L. (2023) Intercultural postgraduate supervision: Reimagining time, place, and knowledge. [online] Available at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/312888762_Intercultural_Postgraduate_ Supervision_Reimagining_time_place_and_knowledge [Accessed 23 Mar. 2025].
- Hyatt, D. and Hayes, C. (2022) Decolonising doctoral supervision: Rethinking power, positionality, and partnerships. [online] EduExe. Available at: https://eduexe.co.uk/decolonising-doctoral-supervision-rethinking-power-positionality-and-partnerships/ [Accessed 23 Mar. 2025].