A review of the literature on professional doctorate supervisory styles

Abstract

At the core of doctoral education is the importance of the quality of the supervisor and student relationship. Research has shown that this relationship is directly linked to completion rates, and impacts the quality of the doctorate and its ultimate success or failure (Gill and Burnard, 2008). One influence on the supervisory relationship is the supervisory management style. The doctoral supervisory relationship rests on a variety of factors, but what seemed to emerge from the literature is the unique styles of the supervisor. The purpose of the article is to review the literature to explore the elements of supervisory styles for further discussion, drawing on 83 previous studies relating to research degrees, including professional doctorates. Numerous factors were identified in the literature that influence the supervisory relationship. One key influence in the supervision pedagogy is supervisory style. Adaptation of styles such as the ‘laissez faire type, the pastoral type, the contractual style and the directorial type’ influence the supervisory relationship (Gatfield, 2005). It is important to note that a systematic review was not conducted for this article, but rather the 83 articles are a part of a systematic review that was conducted to retrieve a parent study on professional doctorates.

Keywords

doctoral studies professional doctorate supervision supervisory management styles supervisory styles

Introduction

The purpose of this literature review was to look at how the supervisory style influences the supervisor and doctoral student relationship towards the completion and success of the professional doctorate. A critical element for successful doctoral supervision interface – and one of the integral components – is the management style adapted by the supervisor. The UK doctorate has evolved over the past 100 years, and continues to evolve in reaction to factors which are often idiosyncratic and amorphous. Higher Education bodies, HEFCE, Research Councils and the QAA have looked closely at the factors affecting postgraduate research completions, and all agree that a critical factor for completion is the impact of the doctoral supervisor and student relationship. The doctoral curriculum, core mechanisms, taught elements, tracking and other critical factors in achieving PhDs have changed significantly since 1917 – even to the extent of the emergence of alternate routes such as the professional or practice-based doctorates – an alternative to the 80,000–100,000-word thesis (Freeman and Tolmie, 2012). In essence, the doctorate has changed in response to regulatory change, proportionate growth of postgraduate students, internalization and quality assurance. The growing policy-maker interest in professional doctorates in the UK and rapidly growing doctoral provisions are also indicators of the major changes in doctoral education (Hawkes, 2016). In light of the 100th anniversary of the UK doctorate, this article examines the doctoral supervisory relationship with a focus on the leadership style of the supervisor.

Literature review

Growth in doctoral research students

The literature review on doctoral research students shows a substantive increase in the number of research students. Research revealed common themes attributing to the increase in doctoral research students, such as the impact of external regulators and the significant changes over the last few decades. Research has shown significant changes since the 1990s in the various components of the doctoral studies, including the development of a code of practice, the introduction of research training, growing policy-maker interest, and selective funding of university research degrees (QAA, 2008, 2012, 2016). External bodies such as the UK’s Quality Assurance Agency in Higher Education (QAA), the Higher Education Funding Council in England (HEFCE), and the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) have contributed to the increasing recognition of supervisory practice (ESRC, 1991, 2000a, b; HEFCE, 2002, 2004). Emery and Metcalfe (2009) discuss the 2008 survey conducted on behalf of Universities UK that indicated that ‘supervisory support and guidance was seen as the most important item for successful completion’. In the UK, by 2006, over 94,180 doctoral researchers were registered in over 120 institutions (Emery and Metcalfe, 2009). The increase in professional doctorates in UK higher education has increased significantly since the 1990s. Data from the UK Council for Graduate Education report that the increase in professional doctorate programmes has ‘increased exponentially from 109 in 1998; to 191 in 2005; and to 308 in 2009’ (Hawkes, 2016). Out of the 308, 38 included professional doctorates in education. With this growth, Deuchar (2008) suggests in part that Higher Education’s consumer- and market-driven ethics has impacted ‘on the style of research supervision that academics adopt for a new knowledge economy’. A common ground focus in higher education government entities, funding bodies, and quality assurance agencies is that ‘each include reference to the crucial role of the supervisor in the process’ (Denicolo, 2004).

The supervisory relationship

The doctoral studies landscape has changed over time with the emergence of the professional doctorate, for example. At the core of doctoral study is the consensus of the importance of the supervisor and student relationship. Many studies have drawn on theoretical frameworks for supervision, which has been directly linked to completion rates. In fact, the literature indicates that effective supervision influences the quality of the PhD and its ultimate success or failure (Gill and Burnard, 2008). Indeed, a critical element in doctoral completion at its core is the focal point of the supervisory relationship. A variety of factors influences this relationship, such as the characteristics of the individuals, institutional environment, roles and responsibilities, and the supervisory style (Orellana et al., 2016). The multifaceted practice centring on this relationship has many layers, including the interpersonal relationship of the parties, the institutional framework, and external governing policies underpinning doctoral education.

Throughout the literature, a common theme emerged that at the centre of doctoral education is the supervisory relationship. This article draws attention to evidence derived from the literature about the management of that relationship with a focus on doctoral supervisory styles. Many of the qualitative studies include sections on the supervisory management style. This common theme demonstrates just how important that relationship is. The complexity of doctoral supervision and student success is a major factor tied to the supervisory relationship (Sambrook et al., 2008; Winchester-Seeto et al., 2014). The supervisory relationship is ‘pivotal’ to successful completion (Buttery et al., 2005; Yarwood-Ross and Haigh, 2014). Lee (2007) similarly notes the crucial role of the supervisor. Deuchar (2008) suggests that the success of the supervisory relationship depends on the alignment of two key factors which he refers to as two dimensions, namely the supervisory style and student status.

Supervisory styles

Research of the literature shows that the supervisory interpersonal style is viewed as a critical element of the supervisory relationship in doctoral education (Gatfield, 2005; Lee, 2008; Mainhard et al., 2009; van der Watt, 2016), and is thought to either make or break the success of doctoral completion. Gatfield (2005) designed a business-styled four-quadrant supervisory styles model framework based on 80 variables from the supervisory styles literature. This framework was built on the Blake and Moulton (1964) Managerial Grid two-axis model. Blake and Moulton’s (1964) management styles model was developed in the 1960s where the two key aspects of the model include the ‘concern for people’ dimension and the ‘concern for results’ behaviours. Gatfield (2005) identified specific characteristics of supervision styles as influencing the relationship. Gatfield (2005) suggested over time during the doctoral process that the supervisory style adapted by the supervisor may change during the various stages of research. Four distinct supervisory styles emerged from his research, and other scholars identified as the ‘laissez-faire type, the pastoral type, the contractual style and the directorial type’ (Gatfield, 2005):

the laissez-faire style, with a low structure support;

the pastoral style, with a low structure support, but requiring a highly supportive supervisor, but not necessarily task-oriented;

the directorial style, interactive relationship but not task-oriented; and

the contractual style, with a high structure but low support.

Deuchar (2008) also notes the emergence of ‘four paradigms of supervision styles in relation to the supervisor’s perceived roles in the support of the research project’. The ‘laissez-faire’ supervisory style draws on the supposition of students’ own capability of research project self-management. The ‘pastoral’ assumption lies in the student’s ability of research project management, but with the necessity of personal support. The ‘directorial’ style assumes that the student requires support in project management but not necessarily in the area of personal support. The ‘contractual’ supervisory style has the view that both the supervisor and student have negotiations to determine the level of research project and personal support.

Many of the studies identified in the review of the literature focus on the interpersonal style and role of the supervisor as a main component of doctoral students’ success (Deuchar, 2008; Holligan, 2005; Lee, 2008; Mainhard et al., 2009; Watts, 2010). Within the context of supervisory styles in applying this model to higher education, questions may be explored as to what is more important – the human or the results-driven aspects. Little is written about the humanistic value a supervisor brings the doctoral student. The model suggests that the humanistic component has significant value. Going forward, we may ask if we can take a business management model and effectively apply it to the supervisory relationship.

The issue of supervisory management styles characterized in relationships between doctoral supervisors and students in the broader doctoral education pedagogies has been widely discussed in terms of the supervisory relationship. Hockey (1996) reports that successful supervision is not only about academic match and experience of the supervisory relationship, but also relies on the style of the supervision shown by qualities such as adaptability, flexibility and sensitivity to fulfil the doctoral students’ full potential.

Methodology

Our search for parent study involved a systematic review of studies of professional doctorates. Similar to earlier studies on meta-analysis by (Yerrabati and Hawkes 2014, 2015), the review stages used in the parent study were informed by the guidelines set by three sources: Campbell and Cochrane Collaboration guidelines on systematic reviews in healthcare and social policy (Higgins and Green, 2011); Centre for Reviews and Dissemination (CRD, 2009) of the University of York guidelines; and Evidence for Policy and Practice Information and Co-ordinating Centre (EPPI-Centre, 2010) at the Institute of Education. We started our search by using pre-established search criteria to identify all studies in the English language on the professional doctorate. We did this in two stages: the first stage involved identifying relevant databases to uncover both published and unpublished studies. The second stage involved listing out keywords for the search, such as Professional Doctorate, Doctorate, EdD and Education Doctorate.

For published studies, databases such as EBSCOhost, Web of Knowledge, International Bibliography of the Social Sciences, Science Direct and JSTOR, were used. In addition to these, for unpublished studies, Google Scholar was used. In the above databases, using a predefined list of keywords for professional doctorates, ‘title’, ‘abstract’, ‘text’ and ‘keywords’ were searched. While the time of the search was left open, only studies published in the English language were included in our study. In total, 61,836 studies were obtained from various databases as follows: Google Scholar (94), EBSCOhost (1489), Science Direct (8346), Web of Science (1083), Emerald (93), SAGE (738), Taylor & Francis (49,554) and Wiley Online (385). After reading the title and abstract of the studies, 83 studies that focused on various aspects of the supervision were identified.

Owing to the diversity of the articles, we were unable to conduct a full meta-analysis of results. Consequently, this was presented as a narrative literature review, meaning that in our search we did not use any keywords for supervision. Instead, the studies are a part of the systematic review that was conducted on the results of a parent study as described above. Had we conducted a systematic review to retrieve studies on supervision, we would have had a larger number of articles.

The majority of the articles examined doctoral education, including professional doctorates. We applied descriptive codes and key wording to each of the studies included in our review based on various characteristics. Some of the key themes were related to management styles, supervision, doctoral programs, doctoral pedagogy, supervisory models and guidance to satisfaction. For the purposes of this review of the literature, doctoral studies encompass doctoral education, the traditional PhD and professional doctorate.

This review was broader in scope, where the articles were not limited to the UK, but were wide in geographical reach to include not only the UK but also other regions, including the USA, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Sweden, the Netherlands, South Africa, Kenya, Denmark, Finland, Spain, Norway, Iran and open. All of the articles to a certain extent included studies that were qualitative in nature, with methods ranging from interviews, mixed (i.e. interviews and questionnaires), case studies, authors’ view, questionnaires, group discussions, participant observations and reflections.

Within this narrative literature review, and to a limited extent given the above, we followed the approach of Gough et al. (2012) in order to review the articles. The contextual feature of the studies addressing key concepts revealed specific categories, in particular the supervisory role. As this is not a full systematic review, some aspects may be limited. Gough et al. (2012) clarify the differences in review designs, where some, as in this case, are more appropriately ‘characterized as a non-systematic scoping than as a systematic review’. As such, because of the inability to do a full systematic review from the results of the parental study, we deemed it more appropriate to carry out a narrative literature review to frame the discussion of supervisory management styles within the context of the broader literature. Snilstveit et al. (2012) suggest that ‘narrative synthesis is used in different ways’ and ‘to synthesise both quantitative and qualitative studies and ha[s] been used when the experimental and quasi-experimental studies included in a systematic review are not sufficiently similar for a meta-analysis to be appropriate’.

Discussion

Within the context of the current review, much of the literature was focused on the supervisory process in doctoral education, including professional doctorates. Although many of the articles also address PhDs, the general provision of research about the supervisory relationship was applicable to professional doctorates. For the purposes of this review, we have also categorized the separate studies specifically applicable to professional doctorates below. The literature was directed both with a focus on the student’s supervisory experiences, and with material clearly from a supervisor’s perspective. Some studies focused on the joint perspectives of both the student and the supervisor.

A majority of these studies are based on interview data, such as Åkerlind and McAlpine’s (2017), where data were collected from doctoral supervisors’ own views on the purpose and pedagogy of the doctorate; managing boundaries between doctoral supervisor and student (Benmore, 2016); and supervisors exploring the process and issues students and supervisors face (Lee, 2008). In three instances, the methodologies are case studies (Croussard, 2008; Harbon, 2006; van der Watt, 2016). In the case of Croussard (2008), case study methodology was by in-depth interviews of students and centred on professional doctorates in education, whereas van der Watt’s (2016) case study focused on applying supervision principles, models, metaphors and supervisory styles in DPsych supervision. In the context of this review, van der Watt’s (2016) observations of flexibility in supervisory styles was a ‘prerequisite for strengthening doctoral supervision’. In Harbon’s (2006) case study, she reported the power relationships and the necessity for ‘open, honest and trusting communication’ between doctoral supervisors and students.

Of the articles that utilized interview methodology, the interviews can be broken down by three categories: fourteen of the studies that interviewed supervisors, twelve studies that interviewed of doctoral students, and nine studies that interviewed both supervisors and doctoral students. From all of these studies, authors have noted that supervisors use a variety of styles. In one study, Mainhard et al. (2009) used a QSDI questionnaire from the students’ perspective on the supervisor and student interaction, where their findings suggest that the supervisor–doctoral student interpersonal relationship is important for the success of doctoral research. This is consistent with other findings.

A review of the aforementioned literature and studies examining that supervisory relationship indicate the importance adopted by the supervisor. Many styles arose from the study focusing on the relationship. Pyhältö et al. (2015) sum up the sometimes complex relationship in the title of their article: ‘Fit matters in the supervisory relationship: doctoral students and supervisors [sic] perceptions about the supervisory activities’ (Pyhältö et al., 2015). Indeed, in its most simplistic form, the supervisor and student ‘fit’ matters. Commonality of research field, expertise and topic may not be enough to sustain a supervisory relationship if the fit is not there.

Conclusions: Implications for management and leadership

This literature narrative shows a vast array of supervisory styles adopted by supervisors to benefit doctoral research students. As described above, the results of this literature review are limited in that a complete systematic review was not conducted. However, based on the results of the studies that were examined, including qualitative studies, interviews and questionnaires, an emerging theme suggests that the supervisory relationship is all-important and is at the core of the success or failure. Whereas many of the articles’ focus was on the origins of the professional doctorate in the UK, and a comparison to different modes of doctoral education, many authors did not fully examine/discuss the supervisory relationship in terms of the leadership style adopted by the supervisor within the ‘professional doctorate’ relationship. The research supervisory relationship is a complicated area but has implications for management and leadership in that it is a critical element in cultivating intellectual and scholarly leadership. The broad results derived from the literature focusing on supervisory styles may provide a conducive context for supervisors in education towards understanding the essence of successful supervision in the context of doctoral studies.

Undoubtedly from a review of this literature the supervisory style adopted by a supervisor is important in the success of that relationship. The literature specifically on the professional doctorate in terms of the supervisor leadership (or management) style is somewhat sparse. Taking it a step further, it seems an essential component in the relationship towards fulfilling the needs of doctoral students, yet we found little on that particular aspect of the relationship specifically as it relates solely to professional doctorates. As such, perhaps another implication is that further review of those elements within the supervisory relationship styles is required.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

References

Åkerlind

McAlpine

(2017) Supervising doctoral students: Variation in purpose and pedagogy. Studies in Higher Education 42(9):1686–1698.

Benmore

(2016) Boundary management in doctoral supervision: How supervisors negotiate roles and role transitions throughout the supervisory journey. Studies in Higher Education 41(7):1251–1264.

Blake

Mouton

(1964) The Managerial Grid: The Key to Leadership Excellence. Houston: Gulf Publishing Co.

Buttery

Richter

Leal Filho

(2005) An overview of the elements that influence efficiency in postgraduate supervisory practice arrangements. International Journal of Educational Management 19(1):7–26.

Centre for Reviews and Dissemination (CRD) (2009) Systematic Reviews: CRD’s Guidance for Undertaking Reviews in Health Care. York, UK: CRD Publishing Services.

Croussard

(2008) Developing alternative models of doctoral supervision with online formative assessment. Studies in Continuing Education 30(1):51–67.

Denicolo

(2004) Doctoral supervision of colleagues: Peeling off the veneer of satisfaction and competence. Studies in Higher Education 29(6):693–707.

Deuchar

(2008) Facilitator, director or critical friend? Contradiction and congruence in doctoral supervision styles. Teaching in Higher Education 13(4):489–500.

Economic and Social Research Council (1991) Postgraduate training guidelines. ESRC, Swindon.

10.

Economic and Social Research Council (2000a) Postgraduate training guidelines. ESRC, Swindon.

11.

Economic and Social Research Council (2000b) Annual Report 1999–2000. ESRC, Swindon.

12.

Emery

Metcalfe

(2009) Promoting the UK doctorate: Opportunities and challenges. Research report. London: Universities UK. Available at: http://www.universitiesuk.ac.uk/policy-and-analysis/reports/Documents/2009/promoting-the-uk-doctorate-challenges-and-opportunities.pdf (accessed 18 January 2017).

13.

EPPI-Centre (2010) EPPI-Centre methods for conducting systematic reviews. Evidence for Policy and Practice Information and Co-ordinating Centre, Institute of Education, University of London.

14.

Freeman

Tolmie

(2012) The role of doctoral and graduate schools. In: The SAGE Handbook of Digital Dissertations and Theses. London: SAGE, 47–62.

15.

Gatfield

(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.

16.

Gill

Burnard

(2008) The student–supervisor relationship in the PhD/doctoral process. British Journal of Nursing 17(10):668–671.

17.

Gough

Thomas

Oliver

(2012) Clarifying differences between review designs and methods. Systematic Reviews 9(1):1–28.

18.

Harbon

(2006) Balance and trust: Issues in the supervisor—student relationship. Development program for research. The University of New South Wales.

19.

Hawkes

(2016) Why do a professional doctorate? Evidence from prospective EdD students. International Journal of Continuing Education & Lifelong Learning 8(2):34–46.

20.

HEFCE (2002) Improving Standards in Postgraduate Degree Programmes. www.hefce.ac.uk/pubs/rdreports/2002/rd11_02 (accessed 13 January 2017).

21.

HEFCE (2004) Postgraduate research degree programmes: Minimum standards and funding www.hefce.ac.uk/pubs/circlets/2004/cl18_04 (accessed 18 January 2017 ).

22.

Higgins

JPT

Green

(eds) (2011) Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions 5.1.0. Available at: http://handbook.cochrane.org/ (accessed 27 September 2012).

23.

Hockey

(1996) Motives and meaning amongst PhD supervisors in the social sciences. British Journal of Sociology of Education 17(4):489–506.

24.

Holligan

(2005) Fact and fiction: A case history of doctoral supervision. Educational Research 47(3):267–278.

25.

Lee

(2008) How are doctoral students supervised? Concepts of doctoral research supervision. Studies in Higher Education 33(3):267–281.

26.

Lee

(2007) Developing effective supervisors: Concepts of research supervision. South African Journal of Higher Education 21(4):680–693.

27.

Mainhard

van der Rijst

van Tartwijk

Wubbels

(2009) A model for the supervisor–doctoral student relationship. Higher Education 58(3):359–373.

28.

Orellana

Darder

Pérez

Salinas

(2016) Improving doctoral success by matching PhD students with supervisors. International Journal of Doctoral Studies 11:87–103.

29.

Pyhältö

Vekkaila

Keskinen

(2015) Fit matters in the supervisory relationship: Doctoral students and supervisors perceptions about the supervisory activities. Innovations in Education and Teaching International 52(1):4–16.

30.

Sambrook

Stewart

Roberts

(2008) Doctoral supervision…a view from above, below and the middle! Journal of Further and Higher Education 32(1):71–84.

31.

Quality Assurance Agency in Higher Education (2008) The framework for higher education qualifications in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. Gloucester: The Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education.

32.

Quality Assurance Agency in Higher Education (2012) UK Quality Code for Higher Education. Chapter B11: Research degrees. Gloucester: The Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education.

33.

Quality Assurance Agency in Higher Education (2016) Code of Practice for the Assurance of Academic Quality and Standards in Higher Education: Postgraduate research programmes. Gloucester: The Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education.

34.

Snilstveit

Oliver

Vojtkova

(2012) Narrative approaches to systematic review and synthesis of evidence for international development policy and practice. Journal of Development Effectiveness 4(3):409–429.

35.

van der Watt

(2016) Strengthening doctoral supervision in a Doctor of Psychology (DPsych): Specialisation in child and adolescent psychology. Journal of Psychology in Africa 26(1):84–91.

36.

Watts

(2010) Team supervision of the doctorate: Managing roles, relationships and contradictions. Teaching in Higher Education 15(3):335–339.

37.

Winchester-Seeto

Homewood

Thogersen

Holbrook

(2014) Doctoral supervision in a cross-cultural context: Issues affecting supervisors and candidates. Higher Education Research & Development 33(3):610–626.

38.

Yarwood-Ross

Haigh

(2014) As others see us: What PhD students say about supervisors. Nurse Researcher 22(1):38–43.

39.

Yerrabati

Hawkes

(2014) Foreign direct investment and economic growth in South and East Asia Pacific Region: Evidence from systematic literature reviews and meta-analysis. Oxford Journal: An International Journal of Business & Economics (OJ) 9(2):97–135.

40.

Yerrabati

Hawkes

(2015) Economic governance and economic growth in South and East Asia Pacific Region: Evidence from systematic literature reviews and meta-analysis. Advances in Economics and Business 3(1):1–21.