Abstract
The paper examines the dynamics and complex dimensions in doctoral supervision in different disciplinary contexts in higher education institutions (HEIs), given that institutional success and reputation depends on ‘research output,’ which creates visibility and competitive advantage. However, traditional doctoral supervision, which frequently results in research output, has remained contradictory and complex due to its multi-layered, challenging, and conflicting tasks. The authors contend that while doctoral supervision necessitates a high caliber pool of trained academics and professionals, with reasonable accommodation and respect for one another, strong ethical values, cordial relationships, and professionalism, institutions continue to face unprecedented challenges in not only finding all of the attributes in a single supervisor, but also finding the best supervision model to employ. The paper concludes that, because supervisors are appointed based on their methodological, experience, and content expertise, the other essential attributes for effective supervision should be incorporated into policies. As a result, in order to resolve supervision nuances, institutions should implement flawless doctoral supervision guidelines and provide healthy supervision environments. Key words: Co-supervision, doctoral committees, doctoral supervision, doctoral education, team supervision, dyadic supervision.
Highlights
We begin by debating supervision fallacies: (1) that having a doctorate allows one to effectively supervise doctoral candidates; (2) that having two or more supervisors is better than single supervision; (3) that there is always collegial cooperation in cosupervision; (4) that everyone in team supervision will contribute maximally to the student‘s benefit, and (5) that the existing regulatory frameworks for doctoral programs have resolved dynamics in doctoral supervision
Like Bitzer and Albertyn (2011), we discovered that effective use ofpeer supervision‘ reduced dependence on supervisors and increased the students‘ sense of self; creates a sense of a community of researchers, and assists novice researchers in establishing their research identity while simultaneously focusing on skill development; assisted students in producing higher quality dissertations; assisted students in gaining insights during contributions and interaction, which encourages students to think behind actions (Bitzer and Albertyn, 2011)
The scarcity of qualified doctoral supervisors was exacerbated by the slow promotion of the most deserving academics
Summary
We begin by debating supervision fallacies: (1) that having a doctorate allows one to effectively supervise doctoral candidates; (2) that having two or more supervisors is better than single (dyadic) supervision; (3) that there is always collegial cooperation in cosupervision; (4) that everyone in team supervision will contribute maximally to the student‘s benefit, and (5) that the existing regulatory frameworks for doctoral programs have resolved dynamics in doctoral supervision. Wisker and Robinson (2013) and McCulloch et al (2016) argue that the success of supervision may be determined by factors other than the supervision model used, such as personality, environment, culture etc They explain how each supervisor and candidate differ significantly, and how these differences result in supervision idiosyncrasies. Together – each one bringing excellent perspectives - and necessitate different approaches, models, and styles of the doctoral student learns that there are multiple points supervision – depending on the rigor required (Akerlind of views and that academic discourse promotes the and McAlpine, 2017; Cousin, 2009; Fenge, 2012; Guerin development of research rigor (Fell et al, 2011). That some supervision styles varied across countries, institutions, and disciplines, allowing supervisors from different countries and institutions to be paired
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
