How Do We Do This? Exploring Supervisor and Supervisee Perspectives in Navigating Ethical Challenges in Transnational Supervision

To identify and address ethical challenges in doctoral supervision within nursing and health sciences and propose strategies to overcome them. Following PRISMA guidelines, this mixed-method systematic review synthesises findings from quantitative, qualitative and mixed-methods studies published in English between 2014 and 2025. Studies were included if they examined ethical challenges in doctoral supervision and strategies to address them within nursing and health sciences. Exclusion criteria encompassed reviews, books, editorials, opinion papers, conference papers, studies unrelated to nursing or health sciences or published before 2014. A systematic search was conducted in CINAHL, Education Source, ERIC, PubMed, Scopus and Web of Science Core Collection, yielding 1100 citations. The methodological quality of included studies was assessed using the STROBE checklist for quantitative studies and the COREQ framework for qualitative studies. The findings were then synthesised and thematically organised. Eleven studies met the inclusion criteria: four quantitative, four qualitative and three mixed methods. Ethical challenges in doctoral supervision emerged at three levels: individual (e.g., misaligned expectations, inadequate feedback, student adjustment difficulties), institutional (e.g., high student-supervisor ratios, limited support structures), and cultural (e.g., differing norms around autonomy and academic authority). Supervisors also reported role conflicts. Strategies to address these challenges included improved communication, supervision agreements, institutional support and targeted training. Ethical challenges in supervision are shaped by individual, institutional and cultural factors. Addressing them requires multi-level strategies, including clear expectations, feedback mechanisms, structured training and culturally sensitive supervision practices. Applying ethical principles fosters a transparent and supportive academic environment that enhances doctoral outcomes. Universities should adopt multi-level strategies, including supervisor training, mentorship structures and culturally informed policies, to strengthen the ethical integrity and effectiveness of doctoral supervision. What problem did the study address?: This study synthesises ethical challenges in doctoral supervision within nursing and health sciences, focusing on communication barriers, institutional constraints and the transition from clinical practice to academia. What were the main Findings?: Misaligned expectations between supervisors and students, inadequate feedback and structural limitations, negatively impact the quality of supervision. Doctoral students struggle to adapt to academic expectations, while supervisors face challenges in balancing multiple roles. Effective communication, institutional support and targeted training programmes are essential for improving supervisory experience. Where and on whom will the research have an impact?: The research will inform universities and institutions offering doctoral education in nursing and health sciences. It will benefit doctoral students, supervisors and academic administrators by providing insights and strategies to enhance supervision quality and promote ethical practices. This systematic review follows the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. No patient or public involvement.

Recent studies on group supervision in social work and psychology have begun to build a systematic knowledge base on the benefits and challenges of group supervision from the perspective of students. Missing from the empirical data are supervisor perspectives on group supervision. In an attempt to address this gap, this qualitative exploratory study reports on the experiences of five field instructors who offered group supervision to 20 social work students. Although primarily focused on field instructors' perceptions, students' perspectives are also included especially when the two groups either strikingly paralleled or differed from one another. The study findings identified a number of related factors that affect the creation of a productive learning environment including: (1) extragroup factors such as students' previous histories with each other, and varying times for beginning the practicum, (2) managing difficult group member behaviours such as “the non-reflective students,” “the consultant, not learner,” and those students who cannot take risks, and (3) balancing the intersection of individual supervision and group supervision. From the analysis of the findings, the researchers propose practice principles and future research directions.

Doctoral supervision involves the analysis of situations and decision making, some of which include ethical perspectives. This research endeavoured to gain a better understanding of the nature of the ethical problems encountered by supervisors. We have interviewed fourteen supervisors in two disciplines: the natural sciences and the behavioural sciences. We have identified the ethical issues in light of five ethical principles, namely respect for autonomy, non maleficence, beneficence, justice, and fidelity. We have located the ethical issues within the supervisory activity in two locations: the dyadic supervisor-student relationship and the academic community. The study shows that supervisors encounter a plethora of ethical issues. Many of the supervisors were highly aware of the ethical challenges in supervision and actively worked to anticipate and prevent ethical problems. The supervisors described a number of sustainable solutions, but at the same time, ethical problems and malpractice were reported. This suggests that the complexities of ethics are not always evident to the actors themselves. We claim that in order to expose and scrutinize supervision practices, it is insufficient to analyse the ethical issues only on dyadic level. What appears to boil down to a dyadic relationship may in fact be indicative of the values, attitudes, norms, and practices of the community.

Much like psychotherapy, the conduct of clinical supervision is ripe for potential ethical dilemmas due to the power differences inherent in the roles of supervisor and trainee. This study investigated these ethical dilemmas from the perspective of the trainee using a focus group and individual interviews. A qualitative analysis was conducted utilizing the feminist ethical frameworks of Brown (1994) and the Feminist Therapy Institute (1990). Trainees presented ethical conflicts that fell into three main categories: case conceptualization, failures of respect and mutuality and misuses of power. Implications of these findings and suggestions for resolving such dilemmas are presented.

Diffi culties are common and inevitable in supervision and can be stressful and worrying for both the supervisee and supervisor. Some situations which challenge supervisors involve fi nding a balance between confl icting ethical principles. Others require a supervisor to address problematic aspects of a supervisee’s practice and to move from a benignly supportive role to a more challenging one. Nowhere is a relational approach to supervision more important than when such clinical and ethical challenges arise. This chapter shows how a CAT-based understanding of the relational processes of supervision can help supervisors and therapists fi nd a way through ethical and clinical diffi culties.

This volume offers the first comprehensive monographic analysis of online supervision in social work. Against the backdrop of ongoing digitalization, it examines how supervisory processes, relationships, and professional frameworks are transformed in digital and hybrid settings. Drawing on theoretical approaches and original empirical research, the book analyzes key ethical, relational, and methodological challenges of online supervision, its opportunities and limitations, and future development perspectives. A contribution from an international perspective adds a comparative dimension. The book is intended for researchers, supervisors, practitioners, and students in social work. With contributions by Rusudan Asatiani | Filip Bambúch | Peter Brnula | Katarína Čavojská | Nona Chachanidze | Alžbeta Brozmanová Gregorová | Martina Hrozenská | Eva Mydlíková | Shorena Sadzaglishvili | Erik Šatara | Michaela Šavrnochová | Ladislav Vaska | Jana Budoš Vrťová This title is also available as Open Access.