Doctoral supervision is a cornerstone of academic life — intellectually rich, deeply relational, and consequential for the next generation of scholars and practitioners. Yet, unlike other areas of academic responsibility, it remains one of the least formalised in terms of required qualifications or professional development.
In many institutions, academics begin supervising doctoral candidates based on research expertise or disciplinary seniority, with little or no structured preparation for the complexities of the role. While this may have sufficed in earlier eras of more homogeneous doctoral cohorts and apprenticeship-style supervision, it is increasingly inadequate in the context of today’s diverse, interdisciplinary, and often transnational doctoral landscapes.
Professional development in supervision is not about policing academic autonomy, nor is it a critique of scholarly capacity. Rather, it reflects a recognition that doctoral supervision involves a distinct set of pedagogical, interpersonal, and procedural skills. These include, among others: managing power asymmetries, fostering intellectual independence, navigating co-supervision dynamics, and responding ethically and sensitively to student wellbeing concerns.
Many of us have, over time, developed informal strategies to meet these challenges. But learning through experience alone — or relying solely on one’s own experience of being supervised — risks normalising outdated or ineffective practices. It also leaves supervisors under-supported when faced with complex situations, such as supporting students with mental health conditions, managing authorship disputes, or responding to allegations of misconduct.
Training and formal qualifications, whether through institutional workshops, postgraduate certificates, or sector-wide frameworks such as the UKCGE’s Good Supervisory Practice Guidelines, provide valuable spaces for reflection, shared learning, and critical engagement with supervision as a professional practice. They can also foster a sense of community among supervisors, breaking the isolation that often characterises the role.
Importantly, professional development in supervision also signals to students that their institutions take the quality of supervision seriously. It helps establish a culture of accountability and care — one in which supervision is not left to chance, but thoughtfully developed and institutionally supported.
“Ultimately, investing in our own development as supervisors is not simply a matter of institutional compliance — it is a commitment to the integrity and vitality of doctoral education.”
Some colleagues express concern that formalising supervisory preparation risks reducing supervision to a box-ticking exercise. This is a legitimate worry, particularly where training becomes overly generic or compliance-driven. However, well-designed programmes — especially those that are discipline-sensitive and discussion-based — can enhance rather than constrain supervisory practice. They provide language and conceptual tools to articulate the often tacit dimensions of supervision, enabling us to be more intentional and reflective in how we support our students.
In some systems, supervisor training is now linked to eligibility to supervise, doctoral programme accreditation, or research degree awarding powers. While such policies may be seen as regulatory, they also offer an opportunity: to position supervision not as a hidden or assumed skill, but as a dynamic and evolving area of academic expertise.
Ultimately, investing in our own development as supervisors is not simply a matter of institutional compliance — it is a commitment to the integrity and vitality of doctoral education. Just as we expect our students to develop as researchers, we must also be willing to grow as supervisors: learning from each other, from our students, and from the rich body of research and practice that now informs this vital area of academic work.
Click me!