role of supervisor in dissertation

Academic & Employability Skills

Subscribe to academic & employability skills.

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 397 other subscribers.

Email Address

Writing your dissertation - working with your supervisor

Posted in: dissertations

Your supervisor

Before you begin your dissertation, it is highly likely you will be assigned a supervisor to oversee your progress from first steps to completion. Your supervisor will help you formulate ideas and give you guidance on how best to develop your research topic and course of action. But you need to always remember that this is your project, and your supervisor will not provide you with content or additional lessons on a particular topic. Their role is to help you work out your own pathways to success.

Get organised

Lecturers are very busy people, and your dissertation is only a small part of the duties and responsibilities they have to carry out during the summer months. So in order to get the most out of your supervisor and maintain a positive and productive professional relationship with them, you need to get organised.

Here are some important guidelines to follow:

• Agree a timetable of meetings at the start of your project and stick to it.
• Ensure that each meeting has a focus e.g. “setting a research problem”, “analysing the data”, with a clear set of questions to ask.
• your research plan
• early results of your data collection
• draft chapters.
• Arrive on time to each meeting you have arranged. At the end of each supervision meeting agree some action points for you to focus on before the next time you meet.
• Keep a record of what you decide in supervision sessions.
• Don't bug your supervisor with emails in between your meetings. Save up your questions for your next scheduled appointment.

If you are not happy with an aspect of your supervision, discuss this with your supervisor. If this is too difficult or awkward, your personal tutor may also be able to offer advice.

See also Communicating with your tutor

Share this:

• Click to print (Opens in new window)
• Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on WhatsApp (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)

Click here to cancel reply.

• Email * (we won't publish this)

Write a response

Navigating the dissertation process: my tips for final years

Imagine for a moment... After months of hard work and research on a topic you're passionate about, the time has finally come to click the 'Submit' button on your dissertation. You've just completed your longest project to date as part...

8 ways to beat procrastination

Whether you’re writing an assignment or revising for exams, getting started can be hard. Fortunately, there’s lots you can do to turn procrastination into action.

My takeaways on how to write a scientific report

If you’re in your dissertation writing stage or your course includes writing a lot of scientific reports, but you don’t quite know where and how to start, the Skills Centre can help you get started. I recently attended their ‘How...

Supervising Dissertations

• First Online: 13 January 2024

Cite this chapter

• Katharina Rietig 2  

39 Accesses

This chapter discusses central elements and steps in the research supervision process. The chapter proceeds to explore the key steps in the supervision process such as finding and specifying/narrowing down the topic, identifying the research question and contribution, discussing the research strategy and methods, the literature review and finding the path through the literature forest, identifying and selecting theoretical frameworks and theories, and subsequently proceeding to the case study/empirical part of the dissertation. It discusses the difference between primary/secondary literature-based dissertations (e.g., in philosophy or history) and case study-based dissertations that include the collection and/or analysis of primary/secondary empirical data. It reflects on different approaches and strategies around primary data collection through interviews, field work, and participant observation, as well as complying with risk assessment and research ethics in the process, and then proceeds to the analysis of quantitative/qualitative data. It closes with key considerations around writing the central discussion chapter that links the theoretical framework/theory to the empirical findings and discusses how they fit within the broader academic literature on the topic, before moving to the conclusion chapter that summarizes the contribution and offers broader implications for theory and policy/practice.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

• Available as PDF
• Read on any device
• Instant download
• Own it forever
• Available as EPUB and PDF
• Durable hardcover edition
• Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
• Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

The reflections offered in this chapter are based on supervising over 50 undergraduate and Master dissertations across environmental studies, political science, and international relations with a focus on empirical or case-study based dissertations.

Clementino, E., & Perkins, R. (2021). How Do Companies Respond to Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) Ratings? Evidence from Italy. Journal of Business Ethics, 171 , 379–397.

Article   Google Scholar  

Corner, P. D., & Pio, E. (2017). Supervising International Students’ Theses and Dissertations. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 16 (1), 23–38.

Dweck, C. (2017). Mindset. Changing the Way You Think to Fulfil Your Potential . Random House.

Google Scholar  

Evans, K. (2013). Pathways Through Writing Blocks in the Academic Environment . Birkhäuser Boston.

Book   Google Scholar  

Fernando, D. M., & Hulse-Killacky, D. (2006). Getting to the Point: Using Research Meetings and the Inverted Triangle Visual to Develop a Dissertation Research Question. Counselor Education and Supervision, 46 (2), 103–115.

Fleming, R. S., & Kowalsky, M. (2021). Survival Skills for Thesis and Dissertation Candidates (1st ed.). Springer.

Ginn, F. (2014). “Being like a Researcher”: Supervising Masters Dissertations in a Neoliberalizing University. Journal of Geography in Higher Education, 38 (1), 106–118.

Macfadyen, A., English, C., Kelleher, M., Coates, M., Cameron, C., & Gibson, V. (2019). ‘Am I Doing It Right?’ Conceptualising the Practice of Supervising Master’s Dissertation Students. Higher Education Research and Development, 38 (5), 985–1000.

O’Connor, J. (2017). Inhibition in the Dissertation Writing Process: Barrier, Block, and Impasse. Psychoanalytic Psychology, 34 (4), 516–523.

Reguant, M., Martínez-Olmo, F., & Contreras-Higuera, W. (2018). Supervisors’ Perceptions of Research Competencies in the Final-Year Project. Educational Research, 60 (1), 113–129.

Rietig, K. (2014). ‘Neutral’ Experts? How Input of Scientific Expertise Matters in International Environmental Negotiations. Policy Sciences, 47 (2), 141–160.

Sharman, A., & Holmes, J. (2010). Evidence-Based Policy or Policy-Based Evidence Gathering? Biofuels, the EU and the 10% Target. Environmental Policy and Governance, 20 , 309–321.

Todd, M. J., & Smith, K. (2020). Supervising Undergraduate Dissertations. In A Handbook for Teaching and Learning in Higher Education (5th ed., pp. 135–144). Routledge.

Todd, M. J., Smith, K., & Bannister, P. (2006). Supervising a Social Science Undergraduate Dissertation: Staff Experiences and Perceptions. Teaching in Higher Education, 11 (2), 161–173.

Woolhouse, M. (2002). Supervising Dissertation Projects: Expectations of Supervisors and Students. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 39 (2), 137–144.

Yin, R. K. (2009). Case Study Research: Design and Methods (4th ed.). Sage.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

School of Geography, Politics and Sociology, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK

Katharina Rietig

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2023 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Rietig, K. (2023). Supervising Dissertations. In: Innovative Social Sciences Teaching and Learning. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-41452-7_8

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-41452-7_8

Published : 13 January 2024

Publisher Name : Palgrave Macmillan, Cham

Print ISBN : 978-3-031-41451-0

Online ISBN : 978-3-031-41452-7

eBook Packages : Education Education (R0)

Share this chapter

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

• Research article
• Open access
• Published: 22 August 2019

The journey of thesis supervisors from novice to expert: a grounded theory study

• Leila Bazrafkan 1 ,
• Alireza Yousefy 2 ,
• Mitra Amini 1 &
• Nikoo Yamani 2  

BMC Medical Education volume  19 , Article number:  320 ( 2019 ) Cite this article

9509 Accesses

6 Citations

1 Altmetric

Metrics details

Supervision is a well-defined interpersonal relationship between the thesis supervisors and their students. The purpose of this study was to identify the patterns which can explain the process of expertise attainment by thesis supervisors. We aimed at developing a conceptual framework/model to explain this development based on the experience of both students and supervisors.

We have conducted a qualitative grounded theory study in 20 universities of medical sciences in Iran since 2017 by using purposive, snowball sampling, and theoretical sampling and enrolled 84 participants. The data were gathered through semi-structured interviews. Based on the encoding approach of Strauss and Corbin (1998), the data underwent open, axial, and selective coding by constant comparative analysis. Then, the core variables were selected, and a model was developed.

We could obtain three themes and seven related subthemes, the central variable, which explains the process of expertise as the phenomenon of concentration and makes an association among the subthemes, was interactive accountability. The key dimensions during expertise process which generated the supervisors’ competence development in research supervision consisted maturation; also, seven subthemes as curious observation, evaluation of the reality, poorly structured rules, lack of time, reflection in action, reflection on action, and interactive accountability emerged which explain the process of expertise attainment by thesis supervisors.

Conclusions

As the core variable in the expertise process, accountability must be considered in expertise development program planning and decision- making. In other words, efforts must be made to improve responsibility and responsiveness.

Peer Review reports

Supervision is a well-defined term in the interpersonal relationship between thesis supervisors and students. A supervisor is designated to assist the student’s development in terms of their research project [ 1 , 2 , 3 ]. Faculty members supervise the students because qualified supervision leads to success on the part of the student, and it has moral, reputational, and financial outcomes for the institution. Supervisors are expected to train students to gain competence in areas such as specialist skills, generalist skills, self-reliance skills, and group/team skills [ 4 ]. Expertise is derived from the three essential elements of knowledge, experience, and the ability to solve problems in society [ 5 , 6 , 7 ]. .According to Dreyfus, acquisition of expertise or practical wisdom represents a higher level of “self-actualization.” At this point, one reaches a level in which they can flourish in their talents and abilities. This enables the teachers to function in scientific communities and multicultural environments [ 7 ].

Wiscer has identified three stages in the thesis supervision process and describes the duties of the supervisors in each of them [ 8 ]. Pearson and Brew state that maturation in specialist skills, generalist skills, self-reliance skills, and group/team skills are the major areas that need to be promoted in the student. Moreover, these are the generic processes in which the supervisors should be involved for efficacious supervision if they aim to help the students develop in various institutional, disciplinary and professional settings; acquire appropriate expertise and features needed for employment; and make an outline of what might form a flexible professional development program for supervisors in this setting [ 3 ]. Vereijken et al. emphasized novice supervisors’ approaches to reach expertise in supervision and explained the relationship between practice and dilemmas among novice supervisors [ 9 ].

.Despite the importance of expertise in higher education and particularly research supervision, research abilities are not considered as one of the priorities in the employment of the academic staff. Furthermore, the newly employed faculty members are often involved in teaching, administrative tasks, and services in health care; this inhibits them from expertise attainment in other aspects such as research supervision [ 10 , 11 , 12 ]. In this regard, Malekafzali believes that in the area of research activities, the faculty members have serious weaknesses in defining the problem, choosing the appropriate method for research, analyzing the data, interpreting the results, and publishing scientific articles. Besides, there is a lack of coherent and compiled training programs which can enhance their research capabilities [ 13 ].

One of the most important factors contributing to the thesis and research quality is the process of developing expertise in supervisors’ research supervision. Most studies in our country have focused on research abilities during the research, and fewer studies have focused on the process of expertise acquisition in thesis supervision, and no actual model has been proposed for this [ 11 , 12 , 13 ]. The quantitative researches could not explain exactly how and through which process the faculty members, as thesis supervisors, become experts in thesis supervision since the expertise process is multi-factorial and has many unknown aspects. Considering the effective role of qualitative research in clarifying ambiguous and unknown aspects, we chose the grounded theory approach for this study [ 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 ]. This theory will be used when the investigator intends to determine the patterns of actions and social interactions needed for the development of expertise by specific groups of people in a specific setting [ 17 , 18 ].

In this study, we aimed to identify the themes that explain the expertise development process among thesis supervisors in Iran, and also to develop a conceptual framework/model to explain this development based on the experience of both students and supervisors.

This study was carried out in 20 universities of medical sciences with different ranks in Iran because universities are the places where supervisors and students interact purposefully to discourse the needs of experts on specific occasions and in specific conditions. In these universities, different students study with various disciplines. There are three types of universities in Iran. Type 1 universities are the ones with the most facilities, faculties, research presentations, international collaborations, and scientific outcomes. The second rank belongs to type 2, and the one with the least mentioned qualities is type 3 universities. All three types of universities were included in this study. In all these courses, writing a thesis is one of the requirements with the same role and regulation. The majority of the students in this research project were in the late stages of both undergraduate and postgraduate educational programs within the same function and regulation.

Study design

We conducted this qualitative study based on a grounded theory approach in a systematic form [ 17 , 18 ]. Grounded theory is a symbolic interaction which is derived from systematic data collection during the research process. In this strategy, collecting and analyzing data and the theory derived from the data have a close association [ 17 , 19 ]. The investigator’s purpose in using grounded theory is to describe and clarify a phenomenon in the social condition and to identify the essential processes working within [ 17 ].

Participants

In this study, 84 subjects including 56 faculty members of medical sciences, 20 undergraduate and postgraduate students (medical students, MS of Science, Ph.D. and residents), and eight managers in the field of research supervision participated. Using purposive sampling, snowball sampling with maximum variation, we selected the participants from a variety of academic ranks with different work experiences, as the key informants in thesis supervisors. Then, to continue the sampling, we used theoretical sampling and data saturation. The inclusion criterion was 5 years of work experience in thesis supervision, and the exclusion criterion was the unwillingness to participate in the study. Firstly, we collected data in Shiraz University with the help of a research supervisor who is known for his high quality of supervision and then data gathering was initiated in the university of Isfahan. There were 34 key informants from the two universities and 22 individuals from other universities. Students were selected based on their willingness to participate.

Theoretical sampling was used next to develop the tentative theory. The basis for theoretical sampling was the queries that emerged during data analysis. At this stage, the researcher interviewed the supervisor, administrators, and students. Theoretical sampling facilitated in verifying the supervisors’ responses and credibility of categories and resulted in more conceptual density. Data saturation was obtained when no new data emerged in the last five interviews. Therefore, data gathering by interviews was terminated.

Data collection

We collected the data primarily by semi-structured interviews from September 2017 to September 2018. The participants were recognized with unknown codes based on their field of work and setting, and each participant was interviewed in one or two sessions. Having obtained the participants’ informed consent, we recorded the interviews and they were transcribed verbatim immediately. The interviews began with open-ended general questions such as, “What did you experience during research supervision?” and then the participants were asked to describe their perceptions regarding their expertise process. Leading questions were also used to deeply explore the conditions, processes, and other factors that participants recognized as significant issues. The interview was based mostly on the questions which came up during the interview. On average, each interview lasted for an hour, during which field notes and memos were taken. At the end of each session, the participants were asked to give an opinion on other important topics which did not come up during the interview, followed by data collection and analysis which are simultaneously done in grounded theory; analytic thought and queries that arose from one interview were carried to the next one [ 20 ].

The data were also collected by unstructured observations of the educational atmosphere in the laboratory, and the faculty member and students’ counseling offices. These observations lasted 5 weeks, during which the faculties and students’ interactions and the manner of supervision were closely monitored. The observation was arranged to sample the maximum variety of research supervisor activity for some faculty member who is known to be a good or poor supervisor and detailed organized field notes were kept.

Also, we used the field notes to reflect emergent analytic concepts as a source of three angulations of data, frequently reconsidering the data, and referring to field notes in the context of each participant’s explanation. Analysis of the field notes facilitated in shaping contextual conditions and clarifying variations in the supervisors’ responses in each context. This led to the arrangement of several assumptions in the effect of contexts.

Data analysis

We simultaneously performed data collection and analysis. We read the scripts carefully several times and then entered them into MAXQDA (version10). We collected and analyzed the data practically and simultaneously by using a constant comparative method. Data were analyzed based on the 3-stage coding approach, including open, axial, and selective coding by Strauss and Corbin In the open coding stage, we extracted the basic concepts or meaning units from the gathered information. Then, more general concepts were formed by grouping similar concepts into one theme. The themes became clearer throughout the interviews. Then, the constructs of them were compared with each other to form tentative categories. After that, we conducted axial coding by using the guidelines given in Corbin and Strauss’s (2008) Paradigm Model [ 21 ]. The extracted themes (codes) in the previous (open coding) stage were summarized in 3 main themes during the axial coding stage, and then the core variables were selected in the selective coding stage [ 20 ]. To generate a reasonable theory to the community, a grounded theorist needs to condense the studied happenings a the precise sequence. To check the data against categories, the researcher asks questions related to certain categories and returns to the data to seek evidence. After developing a theory, the researcher is required to confirm the theory by comparing it with existing theories found in the recently available research [ 21 ]. We finalized the model after 5 days; during this time, we explained the relations between subcategories and the core category for realizing theoretical saturation and clarifying the theoretical power of the analysis explained about work as narration.

In terms of accuracy improvement, we used the Lincoln and Guba’s criteria, including credibility, dependability, conformability, and transferability [ 22 , 23 ].

To increase credibility, we collected data from different universities in Iran, and their credibility was also confirmed by three reviewers and experts in qualitative research. Also, some of the participants rechecked the data and the investigators’ description and interpretation of their experiences carefully. Prolonged engagement and tenacious observation facilitated the data credibility. In this way, the process of data collection and analysis took 12 months. Data triangulation and method triangulation also confirmed credibility [ 20 ]. The use of the maximum variation sampling method contributed to the dependability and conformability of data. Furthermore, once the explanation of the phenomenon was full, it was returned for confirmation to 3 participants of each university, and they validated the descriptions. Finally, to attain transferability, we adequately described the data in this article, so that a judgment of transferability can be made by readers.

Ethical considerations

This study was approved by the Ethics Committee of Isfahan University of Medical Sciences (92–6746). The participants were informed about the research aim and interviews. Informed consent for conducting and recording the interview was obtained. The confidentiality of the participants’ information was maintained throughout the study.

In this study, the mean age of the faculty members and students was 44.34 ± 14.60 and 28.54 ± 2.38 years, respectively. All the faculty members and most of the students were married. Only three students were single. Three themes and seven interrelated sub-themes emerged from the data (Table  1 ). The main variable, which explains the process of expertise as the phenomenon of concentration and makes an association among the categories, was interactive accountability. The key dimensions of the expertise process are displayed in a model (Fig.  1 ).

The process of expertise attainment in research supervisor model

Theme 1: engagement

In this theme, the initial phase of expertise, the supervisor starts to observe the others’ behavior in the students’ supervision and guidance based on the practical and cognitive skills previously acquired. They attempt to recognize the different needs based on the amount of their motivation and previous competence so that the models become important for them, and they recognize the scope of the needs based on their importance. Then, they try to understand the needs and values of real thesis supervision in this context. In this theme, two sub-themes, curious observation, and evaluation with reality emerged.

Curious observation

In this sub-theme, several concepts such as personal interest, self-awareness, ability to meet the students’ needs, ability to detect weaknesses in research skills, and observation of role models in this area act as the impellent factors in expertise attainment in research supervision.

Regarding personal interest, a successful faculty member in the area of research supervision said:

“…In my experience, faculties must be selected from those who have curious personalities as well as being good observers, first of all. In this way, they will have the appropriate intrinsic character to acquire knowledge in guidance and supervision)…” (Faculty member N0.3)

According to our participants, the most important intrinsic motivation is the desire to update the content knowledge and skills in research supervision. An experienced professor said:

“ … The knowledge gap between the new and old generations of faculty members is what forced me to update my knowledge...and it has been detected by myself…” (Faculty member N0.3).

Another important intrinsic motivation is the ability to meet the educational and research needs of students. However, usually these needs are combined; one of the faculty members put it:

“…I would like to be an expert in this process (thesis supervision) to meet my students’ needs. Because I have seen and felt this need many times before…” (Faculty member N0.12).

Since the publication of research directly affects the promotion of a faculty, some professors seek skills that are practical in article publication such as several statistical and basic skills for thesis writing. The participants considered the self-awareness and consciousness elements as very important. Through consciousness, one can better understand their needs.

Evaluation with reality

In this sub-theme, in the initial phase maintaining academic dignity and competition motivates the faculty members to obtain expertise in research supervision. At this point, the supervisor evaluates themself and their potentialities considering more precise features and acquired information (or data), so that they can find the distance between the optimal state and the existing conditions. They also evaluate the others’ potentialities in this field realistically and compete. Good supervision is then highlighted for them. Based on the supervisors’ experience, at this stage, they are seriously engaged in evaluation and competition.

Another motivation was obtaining academic and social promotion. Although the number of theses supervised by them can affect the academic promotion of supervisors, this effect is insignificant. The real motivation is maintaining academic dignity and competition amongst peers. A member of the clinical faculties stated:

“ … To enhance academic dignity, a faculty member should master various skills such as patient care, teaching, educational skills, and last but not least, research supervision. I got involved in research and thesis supervision because I felt I should not be left behind…” ( Faculty member N0.17).

At this stage, the junior supervisor tries to increase the cognitive knowledge in research supervision such as increasing specific knowledge of the discipline, planning, directing of a project effectively, and developing good interpersonal skills presented in research supervision.

Theme 2: supervision climate

In this theme, we describe the contextual factor which changes the process of expertise attainment in thesis supervisors. The result of the study reflects some concerns about the relationship between individuals in the context in that they interact purposefully but with barriers. The supervision climate in the thesis supervision process in this theme led to the emergence of two sub-themes, challenging shortcomings and role ambiguity. These challenges include poorly structured rules and regulations which, in turn, can cause confusion and role ambiguity.

Challenging shortcomings

This report shows that contextual factor plays a significant role in promoting the quality of a thesis in a university, but the process is faced with altered challenges such as inadequate resources, inadequate time, and ineffective evaluation and rule and regulation deficit. These challenges include the following. Most faculty members and students have experienced these shortcomings.

Various inadequate resources, such as access to new and online journals, laboratory equipment were one of the challenges for supervisors in certain aspects which required more competency, and the constraints on communication with the other academic centers worldwide undermine the sense of competition and hinder the effort put in to become an expert. One of the students said: “… I see how difficult it is to gain access to a good article or laboratory materials in this situation …we try, but it just isn’t possible...” (Faculty member N0.17).

Based on our results, the sudden changes in personal life, work position, and organizational change can affect the path to expertise. These changes such as marriage, work overload, admission of students over the capacity, new rules and regulation of scholar citizenship, promotion and so on can have both positive and negative impacts, depending on whether they facilitate or restrict the professional development of faculties as supervisors. For instance, an increase in student admission causes work overload, which results in neglecting self-improvement.

“…As you know, we are over- loaded with students (they have increased the number of admissions), which is beyond our capacity. This means that most of our time will be dedicated to teaching. Self-improvement is difficult due to lack of time…” (Faculty member N0.6).

Role ambiguity

Poorly structured supervision can occur where there is an ambiguous context of supervision structure, supervisors and students’ roles. Most participants, as faculty members, managers, and students have experienced some difficulties in this regard, due to poorly structured rules(EDITORS NOTE; do you mean ‘rules and regulations ‘here) and regulations and its impact on the thesis supervision. It is not only the rules themselves but also the way they are implemented. One of the faculty members expressed confusion over the rules related to the dissertation as follows:

“…It should be made clear what I must do exactly. It is obvious regarding supervision on the work of students; there are not the same expectations from an Assistant Professor, Associate Professor, and a professor. Most problems occur as a result of the gap in legislation; For example, the rules imply a full Professor does not need a statistical consult, while many supervisors like me do not have enough knowledge and skills in statistical analysis...” (Faculty member N0.1).

Failure to implement the rules also increases the sense of this ambiguity, and there are no specific rules for verifying capability and audits to determine inadequate experts in thesis supervision. The role ambiguity or unclear roles and responsibilities of the supervisor and student in the thesis process were other limitations that were emphasized by the majority of participants. A faculty member stated:

“… Supervisors have different roles during the thesis process. To enhance this process, one must exactly know one’s responsibilities. For instance, in the beginning, the supervisor should guide the students through the process of finding a suitable research topic, but if the teacher's role is unclear, then instead of guiding they may actually choose the topic, and if so, the students will be prevented from exploring, using their creative thinking, and improving their problem-solving abilities…” (Faculty member N0.1).

Various performance

Based on the participants’ experiences, in this situation in which there are inadequate resources and organizational and social problems, some faculty members are well-trained in the field of supervision. One of the senior faculty members said: “It is my honor to mention that despite the existence of many obstacles, I have been able to train well-educated students, who have become researchers and contribute to the development of science in my country.”

One of the most important causes of poor performance is ineffective evaluation. Based on the participants experiences, two main problems can result in ineffective evaluation. First of all is the inadequate feedback from the supervisor which leads to unmotivated learners and the second one is lack of feedback from the stakeholders and educational institutes which in turn diminishes the supervisor’s efforts toward self-improvement. These can lead to poor performance both in students and supervisors.

In one of the Ph.D. student’s words:

“…In this system, there is no supervision on the supervisors; there is no control or evaluation of their work. Also, the supervisors don't get feedback from their students during the research process, and there is no third person who investigates whether the report is real or not…” (student N0. 7).

Evidence from data suggests that an unfair judgment and evaluation of academic theses are other problems in the process of acquiring the merit of teachers. If there isn’t proper evaluation, students and supervisors would not have the right standards to correct their performance.

The professors do not always consider the lack of expertise to be the only cause of poor performance. Many believe that inadequate monitoring can also reduce the motivation for quality performance. This means that supervisors may obtain the necessary expertise, but they are not motivated to enhance their performance since they are not expected to do this. One student had experienced:

“…I was so thrilled that my thesis supervisor was an experienced, older and well-known professor, but unfortunately, I soon found out that not only was his scientific knowledge outdated, but also he lacked the necessary supervision skills, so he let the students do all the work unsupervised. He did not take any responsibility during the process…” (Student N0.4).

Another point which leads to poor performance is the fact that some faculty members do not comprehend the main purpose of the thesis writing process; actually, they do not know the difference between teaching and guiding in the project or thesis supervision. One of the basic science supervisors said: “… Some faculties consider a thesis as research work and not a lesson in which research methodology should be taught...” (Faculty member N0.5).

Performing poorly along with ignoring professional ethics can also lead to increased tension and stress in student-teacher relationships. This can result in despondency and frustration in both students and teachers and create a vicious cycle of inefficient supervisors who will train inefficient students or future supervisors.

One of the students put it this way:

“...I feel the absence of a supervisor in my research; I would have been more successful, and my results would have been better if I had had more guidance.” (Student N0.6).

Theme 3: maturation

In this theme, the secondary phase of expertise, the individual is emotionally involved and feels that success or failure is important. This is a stage in which the learner needs an integrated schedule to be competent, and as a result, success or failure will follow. The supervisors frequently think about personal promotion and takes action in this way. They try out different approaches, and sometimes due to disappointment and embarrassment they fail. Some individuals quit at this stage and never reach competence, or they have what may be called an artificial competence. And this does not mean that they are not considered to be well-known supervisors; rather, they know, as do the students, that they are not competent. At this stage, the supervisor attempts to acquire the identity of a researcher and tries to enhance his availability, and be dutiful, knowledgeable, and enthusiastic in research supervision. Along the lines of this theme, three sub-themes of Reflection in action, Reflection on action, and Interactive accountability emerged.

Reflection in action

In this sub-theme, the patterns of expertise development begin, and self-directed learning, participatory teaching and learning strategies through a hidden curriculum are considered. At this stage, the supervisor tries to follow self-directed learning, and the amount of time allocated to expertise acquirement seems to be one of the most important factors. In this regard, one stated:

“…My success in this case (research supervision) is, first of all, due to self-evaluation and self-effort. For instance, to be in control and take full responsibility, I think about everything related to the guidance of the students, and I felt the need to master every aspect of research, even the statistical skills needed for analysis…” (Faculty member N0.8).

The supervisors’ activities were divided into two groups: self-directed –learning strategy and gaining experience through individual effort. Expertise requires continuous interaction and experience. They evaluate their learning, and by this, they experience the manner of managing and allocating time for effective supervision. According to participants, the amount of time allocation for expertise seems to be one of the most important factors for self-directed learning and expertise acquirement.

The formal training workshops provided an opportunity for supervisors with similar terms and the same problems in terms of learning experiences, environmental features, students, and educational problems to come together in one place. Participants also considered the formal participatory teaching necessary since it can provide an opportunity for the peers to get together and exchange their experiences. As a clinical faculty member put it:

“…Collaborative strategies can be beneficial in many ways. One of them is the facilitation of experience exchanges amongst teachers, peers, and colleagues and modeling the behavior of teachers and teaching workshops that emphasize the importance of their expertise in research supervision…” (Faculty member N0.1).

In our participants’ experience, this self-directed learning is effective if, and only if, it is done accompanied by proper training and participatory teaching. Otherwise, it is a waste of time. As an example, one of the students in this field said:

“…my supervisor was a great teacher and put in a lot of time and effort on my thesis supervision; however, due to his lack of research skills, I had to change my thesis proposal three times. However, after he participated in a training course at the University of Oxford, his progress was unbelievable and impressive…and I saw his expertise…” (Student N0.11).

One of the faculty members also quoted:

“…When the teachers feel a gap in their knowledge or skill, the university must provide a comfortable, appropriate, and easy way for learning them …” (Faculty member N0.10).

Regarding this subject, one of the Managers in this field stated:

“…Another improvement strategy is the use of interpersonal interactions among faculty members, these instructive interpersonal interactions among the faculty members in similar conditions make it possible to benefit from peers’ feedback …” (Manager N0.1).

A hidden curriculum strategy, like learning through trial and error can also affect the expertise process. One of the professors expressed:

“… Learning through trial and error is very effective; through the supervision of each thesis, we learn some of our mistakes and try not to remake them in the next one …” (Faculty member N0.3).

The professors do not always consider the lack of expertise to be the only cause of poor performance. Many believe that inadequate monitoring can also reduce the motivation for quality performance. This means that supervisors may obtain the necessary expertise, but they are not motivated to enhance their performance since they are not expected to do this. One student’s experience:

Reflection on action

The learner provides an integrated schedule for their competence and uses all the facilitators and facilities around them for further efficiency and promotion. This stage is named Conditional Self-efficacy by expertise experience. At this stage, the supervisor is considered a competent individual who can guide the students based on the experiences of specialized and non-specialized faculty members.

In this regard, one of the students said:

“…I can acknowledge that my supervisor functioned very impressively in this thesis, but guidance and supervision are not static; rather, it is an active process. To be a good supervisor, the faculty members should try to keep up to date and revise their attitudes, duties, and their specialty and knowledge. …” (Student N0.3).

According to the participants, at this stage the supervisors have achieved meta-competence and general characteristics or professional value; are able to guide the students and others; and develop characteristics such as acquiring specific knowledge of the discipline, especially well-organized knowledge, planning, directing of a project effectively, having good interpersonal skills, and being dutiful, knowledgeable and enthusiastic in research.

One of the PhD students states: “… My supervisor is typical of an expert. His ingenious inquiries, extraordinary attention to science and his personality have always been admired and he has been a role model for me…” (Student N0.6).

For example, the supervisors attend educational programs on scientific writing and thesis evaluation as well as ethics in research and apply them in team work. Gradually, their competency can enable them to function as a good supervisor for their students. At this stage, the supervisor develops so that they can respond due to discovery and intuition. These responses replace their dubious and unskilled reactions. The supervisor now reflects various stages of supervision and guidance. They take action, and in fact, a part of their reactions are achieved through observation and recognition. In this stage, they not only recognize what should be done but also distinguish how to achieve it with more precise discretion. A competent person does the appropriate task in the most appropriate time using the right platform.

The time period required for training or acquiring expertise varies from one person to another. Some individuals become experts very soon, whilst it takes others longer.. As one of the professors said:

“…In the beginning, I was too concerned with my responsibility as a thesis supervisor and was not sure what I should do. However, after ten years of experience, I have gained a sense of awareness which makes supervision easier for me. Of course, up to date knowledge and skill as to managing a thesis are always necessary. It took me about 12 years to reach where I am today. Furthermore, an individual who is expert at present, will not be so in two years, so I want to say that the expertise in thesis supervision in a continuum, which depends on the supervisor’s reflections on work and activity …” (Faculty member N0.15).

The continuous path of expertise in supervision can be affected by various factors. This has resulted in a range of expertise and performance in supervisors. This range and continuum is a theme that most of our participants agreed with. One of the managers revealed:

“…There is surely a continuum of expertise. We cannot deny the expert supervisors; however, the existence of those with poor supervising skills must also be acknowledged (in thesis supervision). There are those on whose ethics, honesty, and knowledge we can rely on. On the other hand, there are a few who are not as trustworthy as needed.” (Manager N0.1).

The core variable: interactive accountability

As shown in Fig. 1 , through this survey, we found that the core variable in thesis supervision process is the interactive accountability shaped by interactions of supervisors and students in an academic setting, so to enhance the accountability, each group must take responsibility and do his or her job. In this regard, one of the managers claimed:

“…When supervisors find themselves responsible, and the university officials recognize this responsibility, the supervisors are motivated to seek expertise and try to enhance their competencies and acquire learning strategies because of being accountable…” (Manager N0.2)

This means that teachers must be responsive to the needs of students, university and community. Accountability is a mutual interaction between the students and their supervisor, in other words, if the student is responsive to his duties, he creates motivation in his supervisor. One of the participants commented;

“…I've always tried to be a competent thesis supervisor, so that I have the ability to meet the needs of the community and university as well as students. I say to myself when I accept the supervision of a thesis, I should be well accountable for its results…” (Faculty member N0.32)

This study aimed at exploring the processes of expertise among thesis supervisors based on the experience of faculty members, students, and managers of Iranian universities of medical sciences. The section concludes with an explanation of how these themes are a cohesive relationship, which enables the expertise development of supervisors. It seems that the core variable in the expertise process is the concept of interactive accountability and efforts to acquire the capacity to respond to the students and academic needs. This will help them to promote their professional behavior in research supervision. The importance of accountability and various types of ability in thesis supervision has also been emphasized by other studies [ 24 , 25 , 26 ]. It was also mentioned as the major feature of the supervisor in other studies [ 26 , 27 ].

In this study, “accountability” emerged as the behavioral pattern through which the supervisors resolved their main concern of being an expert in being responsive to academic and students’ needs. Supervision training is complex since academic choices in the real world can depend on supervisor characteristics. The results of this study revealed that in the initial phase of supervision, observation, evaluation, and reflection in action and maturation stage in the secondary phase were the major themes that emerged. This result compared with Bandura’s social learning and self-efficacy theory was significant in similarity and difference. Bandura believes that achieving self-efficacy is one of the most important contributors to competence. In his model, he suggested four sources of self-efficacy, including previous accomplishments, vicarious experiences such as having a role model, verbal persuasion such as coaching and evaluative feedback, and emotional arousal [ 28 , 29 ]. Likewise, in this study, we found that the emotional arousals such as personal interest in cooperative learning, peer competition, meeting the needs of students, self-awareness and the need for upgrading are the significant factors for the faculties’ expertise. Also, our participants found that the utilization of previous experiences is the most effective method of achieving personal competence. However, this study indicates conditional expertise, which means if an expert’s information is not up to date and they do not make any effort in this regard, being an expert and having expertise is not a permanent condition.

This study also revealed that self-effort, workshops, and role models, as part of a hidden curriculum, are influential methods of teacher empowerment which agrees with the results of some studies such as those of Britzman et al. and Patel et al. Patel et al. have also suggested the importance of role modeling; they believe that modeling and observing other faculty members behavior is an effective tool for promoting and strengthening the sense of efficacy in learners [ 30 , 31 ].

Based on our study results, among the learning methods used in Iran, the collaborative education and problem-based learning is the widely accepted method which is preferred by most faculties. Therefore, cooperative and collaborative learning strategies can be used in educating the faculty members towards expertise in supervision, as revealed in other studies [ 32 , 33 ].

Lack of time is reported by supervisors to be one of the most common barriers in trying to become an expert and carry out respectable worthy supervision, and taking one’s time is acknowledged as a motivating factor for putting in more effort in thesis supervision [ 34 , 35 , 36 ].

The effect of contextual factors is studied in several surveys [ 36 , 37 , 38 ]. Gillet et al. state that contextual and organizational factors play a key role in the competence of teachers in research supervision [ 36 ]. This study also showed that faculty expertise in thesis supervision was significantly affected by the impact of contextual interventional factors such as sudden changes, structural shortcomings, and educational environment. Based on our and other studies’ results, among the sudden changes, increased workload due to the increase in the student population has greatly affected expertise. Moreover, while an increase in the workload can lead to more experienced faculty members, it is very time-consuming and, therefore, reduces the chance to obtain new information and skills in thesis supervision [ 33 , 37 ].

Similar to our study, other studies such as those of Al-Naggar et al. and Yousefi et al. have also found insufficient monitoring and lack of formative evaluations to be one of the main obstacles in the thesis supervision process. Studies have indicated that to improve the supervision process, careful planning and incentive rules must be applied [ 5 , 34 ]. Similarly, our participants mentioned that rules and regulations which have resulted in the positive effect of research on scholarship and promotion had truly motivated them. Like our study, other studies in Iran have also found that the amount of time allocated to learning is one of the influential factors affecting the faculty members’ expertise [ 13 , 38 ]. A malfunctioning relationship between the student and supervisors can affect both of them negatively; that is, it can compel the students to misbehave and also reduce the teachers’ motivation to develop better skills. This malfunction may be due to the lack of constructive interactions or paternalism leadership in research supervision [ 39 , 40 ]. As shown in Fig. 1 , this study provided a conceptual framework that can be used in policy making and studies of expertise development in research supervision. This framework is based on the perception and experience of the majority of those involved in the thesis process. It also provides teachers with an opportunity to compare and share their experiences.

This model has three fields of experience, which yields a comprehensive gradient of the factors used for the development and progress of thesis supervision quality. In other words, it is a rational structure that makes an effort to cover a comprehensible number of stages, of concept, achievement, and impact or consequence. In other words, this model is a combination of a great number of items that help to recognize the present and future processes of expertise in thesis supervision, and future challenges in this area which predict results and impacts of supervisor’s knowledge, attitude and research supervision. Table one offers the categories and clarifications [ 17 ].

This study is based on our overall model of expertise attainment. This model reveals that specific personal efforts such as observation of prior knowledge, evaluation or self-assessments alongside the university contextual dynamics help to figure out how supervisors select their approaches and engagements, and respond carefully to their task, which in turn impacts the supervisors’ level of expertise and, finally, outcomes such as work and perseverance, which then help them to become an expert. Similar to the social learning theory of Bandura, this model also states that there is a mutual relationship between different parts that can mutually affect one another. For instance, faculty members have shown in various studies how one’s previous academic success and failure can affect the future levels of involvement and motivation. Based on the study aims, we focused on only three of the components of the model: observation, evaluation, and self-efficacy; in terms of motivational processes, we focused on four motivational components. The first is self-efficacy, defined as students’ judgments of supervisor abilities to carry out a task, and their beliefs about their ability to do so show the highest levels of academic achievement and also engagement in academic behaviors promoting learning.

Through the use of this grounded theory, we can begin to understand the supervisors’ challenges and why it may be difficult to become an expert in research supervision in practice. The junior supervisors curiously observe and evaluate their environment by reflection and in action and do their best to attain knowledge and skills in the supervision of the theses, so that they can reach maturation. They are mainly supported by prior knowledge of the research supervision, which they had acquired when they were students. The concept of “interactive accountability” refers to the fact that if the supervisor is responsive to the students’ needs, they can be an expert in supervision. If they cannot overcome the barriers and shortcomings such as lack of time, they will not attain expertise in thesis supervision.

Strengths and limitations of the study

This grounded theory study describes the main dimensions of expertise in research supervision from straight reports of a large qualitative sample ( n  = 84) which consists of thesis supervisors, from all Iranian universities in three different data collection phases. Like other qualitative research, the results of this study cannot be generalized; therefore, it is recommended that the researchers conduct further qualitative research in other contexts to support these findings.

Despite the above limitations, we believe that this model can be useful for supervisors in the thesis supervision area, not only in analyzing the supervisors’ experience of supervision and being an expert but also in recognizing the areas of intervention or development of teacher training.

Implications of the study

The findings of the present study will help administrators to choose the supervisor with definite criteria in medical sciences institutes and facilitate the expertise in the supervision process through elimination of the shortcomings and improvement of the educational climate. The supervisor’s interest, talent, and capabilities should be assessed at the beginning of their employment as academic staff. Supervisors should attend educational workshops for updating their knowledge about supervision. It is recommended that collaborative strategies and methods should be used, so that we can contribute to the process of becoming an expert. The assessment of supervisors’ functioning in supervising and provision of feedback can contribute to the process of expertise. Feedback received from students about their supervisors will improve the supervisor’s further expertise and capabilities. For future studies survey on the impact of successful models in thesis supervision, disclosure analysis studies about student and supervisor are recommended.

In this study, we aimed to find out how thesis supervisors achieve expertise in supervision. The results of our study indicated that thesis supervisors achieve expertise in supervision in two stages of engagement and maturation. The emotional need to be responsive towards peers and students is the main motivation for the acquisition of competency at observation and evaluation phase of engagement. Through the evaluation and observation phase, the supervisors reach cognitive competence, such as research skills. Also, in the maturation phases, they reach meta-competence in research supervision such as problem-solving and resolving dilemmas by reflection in and when exposed to dilemmas. Meanwhile, the effects of supervision climate include shortcomings and role ambiguities which should be taken into account. According to this model, when supervisors are exposed to such problems, they apply multiple strategies, such as self-directed and collaborative learning; and learning by trial and error and from the role models. This will help them to promote their professional behavior in research supervision. This study indicated that interactive accountability, as the core variable, can be guaranteed in thesis supervisors by making the role clear, creating a supportive context, and improving the academic competencies of staff in an ongoing fashion. Therefore, this can promote constructive expertise in supervisors and foster a deeper understanding of the supervisor’s expertise in thesis supervision.

Availability of data and materials

The datasets produced and analyzed during the present study are not publicly accessible due to participant confidentiality, but are obtainable from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Harwood N, Petrić B. Adaptive master’s dissertation supervision: a longitudinal case study. Teach High Educ. 2018; https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2018.1541881 .

Hal de Kleijn RA, Meijer PC, Brekelmans M, Pilot A. Adaptive research supervision: exploring expert thesis supervisors’ practical knowledge. High Educ Res Dev. 2015;34(1):117–30.

Article   Google Scholar  

Pearson M, Brew A. Research training and supervision development. Stud High Educ. 2002;27(2):135–50.

Light, G, Cox R, Calkins S. Learning and teaching in higher education: the reflective professional. 2nd ed. London: Paul Chapman; 2009.

Youseffi A, Bazrafkan L, Yamani N. A qualitative inquiry into the challenges and complexities of research supervision: viewpoints of postgraduate students and faculty members. J Adv Med Educ Prof. 2015;3(3):91.

Google Scholar  

Lee AM. Developing effective supervisors: concepts of research supervision. South Afr J High Educ. 2007;21(4):680–93.

Hall-Ellis SD, Grealy DS. The Dreyfus model of skill acquisition: a career development framework for succession planning and management in academic libraries. Coll Res Libr. 2013;74(6):587–603.

Wisker G. The good supervisor: Supervising postgraduate and undergraduate research for doctoral theses and dissertations. 2nd ed. Palgrave Macmillan; 2012.

Vereijken MW, van der Rijst RM, van Driel JH, Dekker FW. Novice supervisors’ practices and dilemmatic space in supervision of student research projects. Teach High Educ. 2018;23(4):522–42.

Haghdoost AA, Ghazi M, Rafiee Z, Afshari M. The trend of governmental support from post-graduated Iranian students in medical fields to study abroad. Iran J Public Health. 2013;42(Suppl 1):141–6.

Malekzadeh R, Mokri A, & , Azarmina P. Medical science and research in Iran. Arch Iran Med (2001)4(1):27–39.

Samari A, Sorkhabi E, Omran S, Geraeenejed. Research and identify the factors contributing to the process of “academic development”. Iran Univ Stud Educ Plann. 2014;2(4):67–100.

Malekafzali H, Majdzadeh S, Fotouhi A, Tavakoli S. Applied research methodology in medical sciences. Tehran: Tehran University of Medical Sciences; 2004.

Creswell JW. Qualitative inquiry and research design: choosing among five approaches. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publication; 2012.

Strauss AJC. Basic of qualitative research: techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. London: Sage Co; 1998.

Jeon Y-H. The application of grounded theory and symbolic interactionism. Scand J Caring Sci. 2004;18(3):249–56.

Denzin NK. The research act: A theoretical introduction to sociological methods. 2nd edition. Routledge: Taylor and Francis group; 2017.

Book   Google Scholar  

Dilley P. Interviews and the philosophy of qualitative research. J High Educ. 2004;75(1):127–32.

Strauss AJC. Basic of qualitative research: techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. London: Sage Co; 2008.

Cho JY, Lee E-H. Reducing confusion about grounded theory and qualitative content analysis: similarities and differences. Qual Rep. 2014;19(32):1–20.

Gioia DACK, Hamilton AL. Seeking qualitative rigor in inductive research notes on the Gioia methodology. Organ Res Methods. 2013;16(1):15–31.

Skeith L, Ridinger H, Srinivasan S, Givi B, Youssef N, Harris I. Exploring the thesis experience of master of health professions education graduates: a qualitative study. Int J Med Educ. 2018;9:113.

Yeatman A. Making supervision relationships accountable: graduate student logs. Aust Univ Rev. 1995;38(2):9–11.

Saaban A, Abu B, Jiar YK. Students and supervisors’ roles and responsibilities in doctoral research supervision. Adv Sci Lett. 2018;24(1):66–8.

Carter S, Laurs D, Chant L, Wolfgramm-Foliaki E. Indigenous knowledges and supervision: changing the lens. Innov Educ Teach Int. 2018;55(3):384–93.

Boston P. The three faces of supervision: Individual learning, group learning, and supervisor accountability. In C. Burck and G. Daniel (2010) (Eds.) Mirrors and Reflections Processes of Systemic Supervision. Routledge, Taylor, and Francis; 2010:27–48.

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Manathunga C. The development of research supervision: “turning the light on a private space”. Int J Acad Dev. 2005;10(1):17–30.

Bandura A. On the functional properties of perceived self-efficacy revisited. J Manag. 2012;38(1):9–44.

Bandura A. On deconstructing commentaries regarding alternative theories of self-regulation. J Manag. 2015;41(4):1025–44.

Britzman DP. Practice makes practice: A critical study of learning to teach. -State University of New York Press; 2003.

Patel M, Reed D, Smith C, Arora V. Role-modeling cost-conscious care—a national evaluation of perceptions of faculty at teaching hospitals in the United States. J Gen Intern Med. 2015;30(9):1294–8.

Howard M, Steensma HK, Lyles M, Dhanaraj C. Learning to collaborate through collaboration: how allying with expert firms influences collaborative innovation within novice firms. Strateg Manag J. 2015:n/a.

Steinert Y. Faculty development: core concepts and principles. Steinert Y, editor. Faculty development in the health professions. Innovation and change in professional education. 11: Springer Netherlands; 2014. 3–25.

Al-Naggar R, et al. Doctorate international students’ satisfaction and stress on academic supervision in a Malaysian University: a qualitative approach. Educ Res. 2012;3(3):264–9.

Gillet N, Gagné M, Sauvagère S, Fouquereau E. The role of supervisor autonomy support, organizational support, and autonomous and controlled motivation in predicting employees’ satisfaction and turnover intentions. Eur J Work Organ Psy. 2012;22(4):450–60.

Harden RM. AMEE guide no. 14: outcome-based education: part 1-an introduction to outcome-based education. Med Teach. 1999;21(1):7–14.

Bazrafkan L, Shokrpour N, Yousefi A, Yamani N. Management of stress and anxiety among phd students during thesis writing: a qualitative study. Health Care Manag. 2016;35(3):231–40.

Ghadirian L, Sayarifard A, Majdzadeh R, Rajabi F, Yunesian M. Challenges for better thesis supervision. Med J Islam Repub Iran. 2014;28:32.

Vehviläinen S, Löfström E. ‘I wish I had a crystal ball’: discourses and potentials for developing academic supervising. Stud High Educ. 2016;41(3):508–24.

Grossman ES. ‘My supervisor is so busy...’ informal spaces for postgraduate learning in the health sciences. South Afr J High Educ. 2016;30(2):94–109.

Download references

Acknowledgments

The researchers would like to thank all research participants of Medical Sciences Universities (faculty, student, and managers) who contributed to the study. The authors would also like to thank the Education Development Center of Shiraz University of Medical Sciences for cooperation in this study and special thanks to Professor Shokrpoour for her editing.

The present article was extracted from the thesis written by Leila Bazrafkan. The design and implementation of the project was financially supported by Esfahan University of Medical Sciences (Grant No. 92–6746).

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Clinical Education Research Center, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, Shiraz, Iran

Leila Bazrafkan & Mitra Amini

Department of Medical Education, Medical Education Research Center, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran

Alireza Yousefy & Nikoo Yamani

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

LB developed the study design, conducted the interviews and analysis, ensured trustworthiness, and drafted the manuscript. AY, as the supervisor participated in the study design, supervised the codes and data analysis process, and revised the manuscripts. NY as research advisor participated in the study and provided guidance during the study and MA revised the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Authors’ information

LB is an assistant professor of medical education in Medical Education Research Center, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences,

AY is Professor of Medical Education Dept., Medical Education Research Center, University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan

MA is Professor of Medical Education in the Medical Education Research Center, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences,

NY Associate Professor of Medical Education Dept., Medical Education Research Center, University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Nikoo Yamani .

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate.

This study was approved by the Ethics Committee of Isfahan University of Medical Sciences (92–6746). The participants were justified about the research aim and interviews. Informed consent for conducting and recording the interview was obtained. The confidentiality of the participants’ information was maintained throughout the study.

Consent for publication

Participants gave printed informed consent for the use of passages for publication.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ ), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Bazrafkan, L., Yousefy, A., Amini, M. et al. The journey of thesis supervisors from novice to expert: a grounded theory study. BMC Med Educ 19 , 320 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-019-1739-z

Download citation

Received : 07 February 2019

Accepted : 29 July 2019

Published : 22 August 2019

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-019-1739-z

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Qualitative research
• Medical sciences faculty
• Grounded theory
• Thesis supervision

BMC Medical Education

ISSN: 1472-6920

• Submission enquiries: [email protected]
• General enquiries: [email protected]

• Roles and responsibilities of supervisors

Introduction  

• Knowledge of regulations, policies and procedures
• Advice on program of study, research and professional development
• Meetings/consultation
• Financial assistance
• Intellectual property
• Publications
• Withdrawal of supervisory duties
• Accommodation

Introduction

Effective graduate student supervision requires complex interactions between graduate students and their supervisors. The role of a supervisor is threefold: to advise graduate students, monitor their academic progress, and act as a mentor. Supervisors not only provide guidance, instruction and encouragement in the research activities of their students, but also take part in the evaluation and examination of their students’ progress, performance and navigation through the requirements of their academic program with the goal to ensure that their students are successful.

Supervisors are responsible for fostering the intellectual and scholarly development of their students. They also play an important role in providing advice about professional development and both academic and non-academic career opportunities, as they are able, and based upon the student’s career interests. 

While these expectations apply to all graduate students, supervising PhD students reflects a longer-term, more substantive commitment.  The privilege to supervise PhD students requires that the supervisor hold Approved Doctoral Dissertation Supervisor (ADDS) status. The intent of ADDS policy is to ensure that faculty have the appropriate knowledge to facilitate excellence in PhD supervision.

return to top

  Knowledge of regulations, policies and procedures

Effective graduate student supervision requires a knowledge and understanding of the University’s requirements and expectations.  To this end, supervisors should:

2.1    Be knowledgeable and remain updated on department, Faculty and University regulations, policies and procedures, and have these protocols guide the supervisors’ decision-making and behaviour as they interact with graduate students. Supervisors are encouraged to take the necessary steps to be well-informed with those Policies identified in section 1.2 .

2.2    Be familiar with the support services available to students and faculty at the University including those articulated in section 1.2 . This information is normally available through department graduate co-ordinators, Faculty Graduate Studies Offices, Graduate Studies and Postdoctoral Affairs (GSPA), the Graduate Student Association (GSA) or the University Secretariat.

2.3   Be informed about University of Waterloo policies and procedures that inform academic integrity  (Office of Research).

2.4    Be aware of the University of Waterloo and Tri-Agency policies and procedures associated with the conduct of research.   Where appropriate, supervisors should be prepared to provide guidance to students on:

• The responsible conduct of research, with particular emphasis on the Tri-Agency Framework as defined in the Faculty Association of University of Waterloo (FAUW) /University of Waterloo memorandum of Agreement (Section 14).
• The ethical conduct of research  (Office of Research) involving animals, animal or human tissues, and human participants

2.5   Have knowledge of the policies and procedures that govern international travel and security that can be found at Waterloo International.

return to top  

  Advice on program of study, research and professional development

As noted above, supervisors are expected to serve as mentors to their graduate students.  To this end, supervisors should be prepared to provide well-informed advice on academics and professional development.  More specifically, supervisors should be prepared to advise students on:

2.6    An academic program that is challenging, at the appropriate level for the degree being sought, and that can be accomplished within commonly understood and desirable time and resource expectations of the student and the supervisor.

2.7    The choice of courses and seminars needed to fulfil the degree requirements.

2.8    The development and construct of a research topic and proposal.

2.9    The development of a communication plan with the supervisory/advisory committee as to how the student’s progress will be assessed (including during thesis writing and completion), and the role of advisory committee members in the assessment.

2.10    The availability of internships, practica, co-op or other experiential learning opportunities as part of the program.

2.11    The availability of professional development resources for Waterloo graduate students to help advance the students’ career objectives.

Meetings/consultation 

The establishment and communication of common expectations are critical elements to positive experiences for both graduate students and their supervisors.  Achieving these outcomes can be facilitated by regular meetings and/or consultation between students, their supervisors, and where appropriate advisory committees. Especially important is timely feedback on students’ written submissions. 

The University encourages supervisors to:

2.12    Ensure, especially important in the case of doctoral students, that the student has:

• An advisory committee as required.
• A program of study consistent with department and Faculty requirements that has been approved by the advisory committee as required.
• A research plan that is appropriate in breadth, depth and time to completion (see  Milestones in master's and doctoral programs ).

2.13    Arrange for regular (as agreed by the student and supervisor) meetings (which may involve the advisory committee) with students for consultation to ensure steady progress. The frequency of such meetings will depend on the discipline/field of study, type of program, and the student’s progress. At least two, preferably more, meetings should be arranged in each academic term. Supervisors should also be reasonably accessible for meetings requested by their students. The approach to these student meetings should be individualized to reflect the needs of the student. For example, some students may need more support while other may need less.

2.14    Communicate their evaluation of student progress to the department once a year or more often if required. The report should clearly indicate the status of the student’s progress (i.e., satisfactory or unsatisfactory).  In the latter case, the report must include a clearly articulated set of conditions that if satisfied will restore the student’s status to satisfactory. Where the supervisor feels that the student will have serious difficulties finishing the program, the supervisor, in consultation with the advisory committee as appropriate, will inform in writing, both the student and the graduate officer of the nature of the problem(s), suggested remedies and may recommend withdrawal from the program.  More information on assessing students’ progress can be found in the Graduate Studies Academic Calendar.

2.15    Thoroughly review and provide constructive feedback on all written materials relevant to the thesis or research paper submitted by their students. The supervisor and the student are encouraged to establish in writing expectations on what constitutes timely feedback; a timeframe of two to three weeks depending on the complexity of the document is commonly applied. However, this can vary depending on various circumstances such as travel or vacation.  These circumstances should be discussed between the supervisor and student.

2.16   Have knowledge of the guidelines for evaluating students’ progress in a research program  (Graduate Studies Academic Calendar).

2.17   Inform students about the broad spectrum of resources available  (Writing and Communication Centre) to facilitate development of oral communication and writing skills.

2.18    Be active and supportive in promoting students’ well-being.  This may include:

• Inquiring about a student’s well-being, as appropriate.
• Directing students to appropriate support services , including Mental Health and Wellness resources  (Campus Wellness).
• Displaying empathy towards the student.

2.19    Complete as appropriate the University requirements for Sexual violence awareness, referral and support training  (Human Rights, Equity and Inclusion Office) to understand how to respond to disclosures of sexual violence and refer students to the appropriate supports.

The University recognizes that supervisors will be away from the University for extended periods of time (e.g., sabbatical, satellite campus, visiting professorship).  Being physically away from the University does not preclude a supervisor from remaining engaged with their graduate students.  In cases where the supervisor will not be available either in person or via electronic communications, the supervisor should:

2.20    Inform students, prospective students and the department of any anticipated extended period where communication will not be occurring. In cases when the absence is for a period of two months or more, supervisors should arrange for suitable communication methods. Interim supervision also must be arranged, for example, using members of advisory committees. Supervisors must inform the student’s department (chair/graduate officer) of the arrangements made for the period of absence, including supervision of laboratory or field work where graduate students continue to work during the absence.

2.21    Ensure students know that in situations where a supervisor works away from campus for two months or more and where their students can accompany the supervisor, the decision to remain on campus or to follow the supervisor rests entirely with the student. Students shall face no pressure (explicit or implicit) or consequences when making this choice and are not required to provide any reason.

As with the departmental representatives, supervisors have responsibility to advance safety.  More specifically, supervisors should:

2.22    Ensure a safe working environment both on and off campus (working alone, field work) by assessing hazards and implementing appropriate controls. This must be in accordance with the Occupational Health and Safety Act, Policy 34  (Secretariat) and department and Faculty regulations.  All supervisors must complete mandatory health and safety supervisor awareness training  (Safety Office) and must ensure that graduate students complete both mandatory and work-specific safety training.  More information can be found on the Safety Office website.

2.23    Ensure that students obtain additional training when new safety risks arise and ensure training is kept up to date.

Inherent to graduate education are the dissemination of knowledge and the participation in scholarly activities away from the University campus.  Travel (domestic and international) can include fieldwork, conferences, course work and other work related to the thesis. Supervisors are encouraged to support students’ travel to accomplish these important objectives.  Supervisors should:

2.24    Follow or encourage students to follow Policy 31  (Secretariat) that governs University-sanctioned travel.

2.25    Categorize and report risk associated with travel. Low risk  (Safety Office) are activities for which it is expected that participants will encounter hazards that are no greater than what they encounter in their everyday lives. Examples of significant risk (e.g. industrial sites, remote regions etc.) are noted on the Safety Office website .  Travel or field work that involves significant risk must be documented using the Fieldwork Risk Management Form from the Safety Office .  For low risk activities off campus, supervisors should:

• Provide advice on preparation for pre-departure orientation and planning for any travel and including associated risk, as they are able;

2.26    Document the student(s) location and duration of travel, including personal and emergency contact information. Review the material provided by Waterloo International to understand how to best mitigate risk and ensure safety for international travel.

2.27    Encourage students to register using the Pre-departure Travel Form at Waterloo International .

2.28    Consult the Government of Canada Travel Advice and Advisories web page for the international destination and discuss the mitigation of risk with the students to the destination.

 Financial assistance

Supervisors regularly provide financial support for their graduate students.  Both the supervisor and the student benefit when a clear understanding exists of the value of funding, and the academic outcomes that should occur from the supported activities.  Specifically, supervisors should:

2.29    Be informed about the spectrum of funding opportunities available through the department, Faculty and Graduate Studies and Postdoctoral Affairs (GSPA) for students in financial need and to communicate these sources to student.

2.30   Communicate clearly and in writing to their students the terms (e.g., amounts, length of time, conditions) of the financial commitment being made when financial assistance is to be provided from research grants or contracts under the supervisor’s direction.

2.31    Support students’ understanding of their funding, including a consideration of student expenses (primarily tuition and housing) and taxation, if appropriate.  

Intellectual property 

Increasingly, students and supervisors enter into their academic relationships with previously established intellectual property (IP).  Moreover, students and supervisors may have an expectation that their collective work may produce new IP.  Best practices include the articulation of students’ and supervisors’ understanding of IP relationships at regular intervals throughout the students’ academic program.  More specifically, supervisors should: 

2.32    Discuss issues related to intellectual property such as patents, software, copyright, and income from sales and royalties, and inform students of University policies about intellectual property and the conduct of research. It should be recognized that, in accordance with Policy 73  (Secretariat), intellectual property normally is owned by the creators. However, the University retains a royalty-free right to use, for educational and research purposes, any intellectual property created by faculty, staff and students. Ideally, supervisors and students should enter into a written agreement that expresses IP owned by either party prior to beginning the research relationship and the default way in which IP created by the researchers’ joint activities will be owned.  A common example is an assumption in the absence of an explicit agreement of joint IP ownership, with each researcher owning an equal share.

2.33    Ensure that students are aware of implications and/or obligations regarding intellectual property of research conducted under contract. If appropriate, discuss with their students and any research partners the protection of intellectual property by patent or copyright. Any significant intellectual contribution by a student must be recognized in the form of co-authorship. Supervisors must convey to students, in advance of publication, whether they intend to recognize the student as co-author for work under contract.

Publications 

Academic outputs – in various forms – document and demonstrate ownership of creative research and other scholarly activities.  These outputs are important for advancing knowledge and catalyzing additional scholarly activity in these areas and should be encouraged.  When supervisors and graduate students work collectively on these academic works, it is important for both that their relative contributions are represented appropriately.  To achieve these goals, supervisors should:

2.34    Discuss with their students, at an early stage of their program, authorship practices within the discipline and University policies about publications ( Policy 73  on the Secretariat website). 

2.35    Discuss and reach agreement with students, well in advance of publication and ideally at the outset of collaboration, the way in which authorship will be shared, if appropriate, between the supervisor, the student and other contributors for work conducted under contract.

2.36    Encourage the dissemination of students’ research results by publication in scholarly and research journals, presentation at conferences (domestic or international) and seminars;

2.37    Motivate the dissemination of research through non-traditional or non-academic avenues (e.g. Open Access resources, public presentations, and popular media).

Withdrawal of supervisory duties 

In rare cases supervisors may determine that they are not prepared or able to continue in a supervisory capacity.  When this occurs, the supervisor is required to:

2.38    Follow the guidelines in the Graduate Studies Academic Calendar regarding University Responsibilities Regarding Supervisory Relationships that outlines the steps for dissolution of the supervisory relationship.

back to top  

Accommodation 

The University is eager to establish conditions that maximize graduate students’ likelihood of success.  To this end, supervisors:

2.39    Have a duty to engage in accommodations processes with AccessAbility Services , as requested, and to provide appropriate accommodation to the point of undue hardship.

2.40    Remain informed of their roles and responsibilities with respect to accommodations.

<< previous section : Roles and responsibilities of departments, graduate officers and graduate co-ordinators

>> next section : Roles and responsibilities of graduate students

Related links

• Home - Guide for Graduate Research and Supervision
• Introduction to the Guide for Graduate Research and Supervision
• Roles and responsibilities of departments, graduate officers and graduate co-ordinators
• Roles and responsibilities of graduate students
• Roles and responsibilities of advisory committees
• Key university policies and reference materials

Graduate Studies and Postdoctoral Affairs (GSPA)

Needles Hall, second floor, room 2201

Graduate Studies Academic Calendar

Website feedback

• Contact Waterloo
• Maps & Directions
• Accessibility

The University of Waterloo acknowledges that much of our work takes place on the traditional territory of the Neutral, Anishinaabeg and Haudenosaunee peoples. Our main campus is situated on the Haldimand Tract, the land granted to the Six Nations that includes six miles on each side of the Grand River. Our active work toward reconciliation takes place across our campuses through research, learning, teaching, and community building, and is co-ordinated within the Office of Indigenous Relations .

Dissertation Advisor 101

How to get the most from the student-supervisor relationship

By: Derek Jansen (MBA) | Expert Reviewer: Dr Eunice Rautenbach | January 2024

Many students feel a little intimidated by the idea of having to work with a research advisor (or supervisor) to complete their dissertation or thesis. Similarly, many students struggle to “connect” with their advisor and feel that the relationship is somewhat strained or awkward. But this doesn’t need to be the case!

In this post, we’ll share five tried and tested tips to help you get the most from this relationship and pave the way for a smoother dissertation writing process.

Overview: Working With Your Advisor

• Clarify everyone’s roles on day one
• Establish (and stick to) a regular communication cycle
• Develop a clear project plan upfront
• Be proactive in engaging with problems
• Navigate conflict like a diplomat

1. Clarify roles on day one

Each university will have slightly different expectations, rules and norms in terms of the research advisor’s role. Similarly, each advisor will have their own unique way of doing things. So, it’s always a good idea to begin the engagement process by clearly defining the roles and expectations in your relationship.

In practical terms, we suggest that you initiate a conversation at the very start of the engagement to discuss your goals, their expectations, and how they would like to work with you. Of course, you might not like what you hear in this conversation. However, this sort of candid conversation will help you get on the same page as early as possible and set the stage for a successful partnership.

To help you get started, here are some questions that you might consider asking in your initial conversation:

• How often would you like to meet and for how long?
• What should I do to prepare for each meeting?
• What aspects of my work will you comment on (and what won’t you cover)?
• Which key decisions should I seek your approval for beforehand?
• What common mistakes should I try to avoid from the outset?
• How can I help make this partnership as effective as possible?
• My academic goals are… Do you have any suggestions at this stage to help me achieve this?

As you can see, these types of questions help you get a clear idea of how you’ll work together and how to get the most from the relatively limited face time you’ll have.

Need a helping hand?

2. Establish a regular communication cycle

Just like in any relationship, effective communication is crucial to making the student-supervisor relationship work. So, you should aim to establish a regular meeting schedule and stick to it. Don’t cancel or reschedule appointments with your advisor at short notice, or do anything that suggests you don’t value their time. Fragile egos are not uncommon in the academic world, so it’s important to clearly demonstrate that you value and respect your supervisor’s time and effort .

Practically speaking, be sure to prepare for each meeting with a clear agenda , including your progress, challenges, and any questions you have. Be open and honest in your communication, but most importantly, be receptive to your supervisor’s feedback . Ultimately, part of their role is to tell you when you’re missing the mark. So, don’t become upset or defensive when they criticise a specific aspect of your work.

Always remember that your research advisor is criticising your work, not you personally . It’s never easy to take negative feedback, but this is all part of the learning journey that takes place alongside the research journey.

3. Have a clear project plan

Few things will impress your supervisor more than a well-articulated, realistic plan of action (aka, a project plan). Investing the time to develop this shows that you take your project (and by extension, the relationship) seriously. It also helps your supervisor understand your intended timeline, which allows the two of you to better align your schedules .

In practical terms, you need to develop a project plan with achievable goals . A detailed Gantt chart can be a great way to do this. Importantly, you’ll need to break down your thesis or dissertation into a collection of practical, manageable steps , and set clear timelines and milestones for each. Once you’ve done that, you should regularly review and adjust this plan with your supervisor to ensure that you remain on track.

Of course, it’s unlikely that you’ll stick to your plan 100% of the time (there are always unexpected twists and turns in a research project. However, this plan will lay a foundation for effective collaboration between yourself and your supervisor. An imperfect plan beats no plan at all.

4. Engage with problems proactively

One surefire way to quickly annoy your advisor is to pester them every time you run into a problem in your dissertation or thesis. Unexpected challenges are par for the course when it comes to research – how you deal with them is what makes the difference.

When you encounter a problem, resist the urge to immediately send a panicked email to your supervisor – no matter how massive the issue may seem (at the time). Instead, take a step back and assess the situation as holistically as possible. Force yourself to sit with the issue for at least a few hours to ensure that you have a clear, accurate assessment of the issue at hand. In most cases, a little time, distance and deep breathing will reveal that the problem is not the existential threat it initially seemed to be.

When contacting your supervisor, you should ideally present both the problem and one or two potential solutions . The latter is the most important part here. In other words, you need to show that you’ve engaged with the issue and applied your mind to finding potential solutions. Granted, your solutions may miss the mark. However, providing some sort of solution beats impulsively throwing the problem at your supervisor and hoping that they’ll save the day.

Simply put, mishaps and mini-crises in your research journey present an opportunity to demonstrate your initiative and problem-solving skills – not a reason to lose your cool and outsource the problem to your supervisor.

5. Navigate conflict like a diplomat 

As with any partnership, there’s always the possibility of some level of disagreement or conflict arising within the student-supervisor relationship. Of course, you can drastically reduce the likelihood of this happening by implementing some of the points we mentioned earlier. Neverthless, if a serious disagreement does arise between you and your supervisor, it’s absolutely essential that you approach it with professionalism and respect . Never let it escalate into a shouting contest.

In practical terms, it’s important to communicate your concerns as they arise (don’t let things simmer for too long). Simultaneously, it’s essential that you remain open to understanding your supervisor’s perspective – don’t become entrenched in your position. After all, you are the less experienced researcher within this duo.

Keep in mind that a lot of context is lost in text-based communication , so it can often be a good idea to schedule a short call to discuss your concerns or points of contention, rather than sending a 3000-word email essay. When going this route, be sure to take the time to prepare a clear, cohesive argument beforehand – don’t just “thought vomit” on your supervisor.

In the event that you do have a significant disagreement with your advisor, remember that the goal is to find a solution that serves your project (not your ego). This often requires compromise and flexibility. A “win at all costs” mindset is definitely not suitable here. Ultimately, you need to solve the problem, while still maintaining the relationship .

If you feel that you have already exhausted all possible avenues and still can’t find an acceptable middle ground, you can of course reach out to your university to ask for their assistance. However, this should be the very last resort . Running to your university every time there’s a small disagreement will not serve you well.

Recap: Key Takeaways

To sum up, a fruitful student-supervisor relationship hinges on clear role definition , effective and regular communication , strategic planning , proactive engagement , and professional conflict resolution .

Remember, your dissertation supervisor is there to help you, but you still need to put in the work . In many cases, they’ll also be the first marker of your work, so it really pays to put in the effort and build a strong, functional relationship with them.

Psst... there’s more!

This post was based on one of our popular Research Bootcamps . If you're working on a research project, you'll definitely want to check this out ...

You Might Also Like:

Submit a Comment Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

• Print Friendly

Becoming a dissertation supervisor

The instruction belongs to the following themes.

• Supervising, examining and evaluating doctoral theses

Search for degree programme

Open university programmes.

• Open university Flag this item

Bachelor's Programmes

• Bachelor's Programme for Teachers of Mathematics, Physics and Chemistry Flag this item
• Bachelor's Programme in Agricultural Sciences Flag this item
• Bachelor's Programme in Applied Psychology Flag this item
• Bachelor's Programme in Art Studies Flag this item
• Bachelor's Programme in Biology Flag this item
• Bachelor's Programme in Chemistry Flag this item
• Bachelor's Programme in Computer Science (TKT) Flag this item
• Bachelor's Programme in Cultural Studies Flag this item
• Bachelor's Programme in Economics Flag this item
• Bachelor's Programme in Education: Class Teacher (KLU, in Swedish) Flag this item
• Bachelor's Programme in Education: Class Teacher, Education (LO-KT) Flag this item
• Bachelor's Programme in Education: Class Teacher, Educational Psychology (LO-KP) Flag this item
• Bachelor's Programme in Education: Craft Teacher Education (KÄ) Flag this item
• Bachelor's Programme in Education: Early Education Teacher (SBP) Flag this item
• Bachelor's Programme in Education: Early Education Teacher (VO) Flag this item
• Bachelor's Programme in Education: General and Adult Education (PED, in Swedish) Flag this item
• Bachelor's Programme in Education: General and Adult Education (YL and AKT) Flag this item
• Bachelor's Programme in Education: Home Economics Teacher (KO) Flag this item
• Bachelor's Programme in Education: Special Education (EP) Flag this item
• Bachelor's Programme in Environmental and Food Economics Flag this item
• Bachelor's Programme in Environmental Sciences Flag this item
• Bachelor's Programme in Food Sciences Flag this item
• Bachelor's Programme in Forest Sciences Flag this item
• Bachelor's Programme in Geography Flag this item
• Bachelor's Programme in Geosciences Flag this item
• Bachelor's Programme in History Flag this item
• Bachelor's Programme in Languages Flag this item
• Bachelor's Programme in Law Flag this item
• Bachelor's Programme in Logopedics Flag this item
• Bachelor's Programme in Mathematical Sciences Flag this item
• Bachelor's Programme in Molecular Biosciences Flag this item
• Bachelor's Programme in Pharmacy Flag this item
• Bachelor's Programme in Philosophy Flag this item
• Bachelor's Programme in Physical Sciences Flag this item
• Bachelor's Programme in Politics, Media and Communication Flag this item
• Bachelor's Programme in Psychology Flag this item
• Bachelor's Programme in Science (BSC) Flag this item
• Bachelor's Programme in Social Research Flag this item
• Bachelor's Programme in Social Sciences Flag this item
• Bachelor's Programme in Society and Change Flag this item
• Bachelor's Programme in the Languages and Literatures of Finland Flag this item
• Bachelor's Programme in Theology and Religious Studies Flag this item
• Bachelor's Programme in Veterinary Medicine Flag this item

Master's and Licentiate's Programmes

• Degree Programme in Dentistry Flag this item
• Degree Programme in Medicine Flag this item
• Degree Programme in Veterinary Medicine Flag this item
• International Masters in Economy, State & Society   Flag this item
• Master ́s Programme in Development of health care services Flag this item
• Master's Programme for Teachers of Mathematics, Physics and Chemistry Flag this item
• Master's Programme in Agricultural Sciences Flag this item
• Master's Programme in Agricultural, Environmental and Resource Economics Flag this item
• Master's Programme in Area and Cultural Studies Flag this item
• Master's Programme in Art Studies Flag this item
• Master's Programme in Atmospheric Sciences (ATM) Flag this item
• Master's Programme in Changing Education Flag this item
• Master's Programme in Chemistry and Molecular Sciences Flag this item
• Master's Programme in Computer Science (CSM) Flag this item
• Master's Programme in Contemporary Societies Flag this item
• Master's Programme in Cultural Heritage Flag this item
• Master's Programme in Culture and Communication (in Swedish) Flag this item
• Master's Programme in Data Science Flag this item
• Master's Programme in Ecology and Evolutionary Biology Flag this item
• Master's Programme in Economics Flag this item
• Master's Programme in Education: Class Teacher (KLU, in Swedish) Flag this item
• Master's Programme in Education: Class Teacher, Education (LO-KT) Flag this item
• Master's Programme in Education: Class Teacher, Educational Psychology (LO-KP) Flag this item
• Master's Programme in Education: Craft Teacher Education (KÄ) Flag this item
• Master's Programme in Education: Early Education (VAKA) Flag this item
• Master's Programme in Education: General and Adult Education (PED, in Swedish) Flag this item
• Master's Programme in Education: General and Adult Education (YL and AKT) Flag this item
• Master's Programme in Education: Home Economics Teacher (KO) Flag this item
• Master's Programme in Education: Special Education (EP) Flag this item
• Master's Programme in English Studies Flag this item
• Master's Programme in Environmental Change and Global Sustainability Flag this item
• Master's Programme in European and Nordic Studies Flag this item
• Master's Programme in Finnish and Finno-Ugrian Languages and Cultures Flag this item
• Master's Programme in Food Economy and Consumption Flag this item
• Master's Programme in Food Sciences Flag this item
• Master's Programme in Forest Sciences Flag this item
• Master's Programme in Gender Studies Flag this item
• Master's Programme in Genetics and Molecular Biosciences Flag this item
• Master's Programme in Geography Flag this item
• Master's Programme in Geology and Geophysics Flag this item
• Master's Programme in Global Politics and Communication Flag this item
• Master's Programme in History Flag this item
• Master's Programme in Human Nutrition and Food-Related Behaviour Flag this item
• Master's Programme in Integrative Plant Sciences Flag this item
• Master's Programme in Intercultural Encounters Flag this item
• Master's Programme in International Business Law Flag this item
• Master's Programme in Languages Flag this item
• Master's Programme in Law Flag this item
• Master's Programme in Life Science Informatics (LSI) Flag this item
• Master's programme in Linguistic Diversity and Digital Humanities Flag this item
• Master's Programme in Literary Studies Flag this item
• Master's Programme in Logopedics Flag this item
• Master's Programme in Materials Research (MATRES) Flag this item
• Master's Programme in Mathematics and Statistics (MAST) Flag this item
• Master's Programme in Microbiology and Microbial Biotechnology Flag this item
• Master's Programme in Neuroscience Flag this item
• Master's Programme in Particle Physics and Astrophysical Sciences (PARAS) Flag this item
• Master's programme in Pharmaceutical Research, Development and Safety Flag this item
• Master's Programme in Pharmacy Flag this item
• Master's Programme in Philosophy Flag this item
• Master's Programme in Politics, Media and Communication Flag this item
• Master's Programme in Psychology Flag this item
• Master's Programme in Russian, Eurasian and Eastern European Studies Flag this item
• Master's Programme in Scandinavian Languages and Literature Flag this item
• Master's Programme in Social and Health Research and Management Flag this item
• Master's Programme in Social Research Flag this item
• Master's Programme in Social Sciences (in Swedish) Flag this item
• Master's Programme in Society and Change Flag this item
• Master's Programme in Theology and Religious Studies Flag this item
• Master's Programme in Theoretical and Computational Methods (TCM) Flag this item
• Master's Programme in Translation and Interpreting Flag this item
• Master's Programme in Translational Medicine Flag this item
• Master's Programme in Urban Studies and Planning (USP) Flag this item
• Master’s Programme in Global Governance Law Flag this item
• Nordic Master Programme in Environmental Changes at Higher Latitudes (ENCHIL) Flag this item

Doctoral Programmes

• Doctoral Programme Brain and Mind Flag this item
• Doctoral Programme in Atmospheric Sciences (ATM-DP) Flag this item
• Doctoral Programme in Biomedicine (DPBM) Flag this item
• Doctoral Programme in Chemistry and Molecular Sciences (CHEMS) Flag this item
• Doctoral Programme in Clinical Research (KLTO) Flag this item
• Doctoral Programme in Clinical Veterinary Medicine (CVM) Flag this item
• Doctoral Programme in Cognition, Learning, Instruction and Communication (CLIC) Flag this item
• Doctoral Programme in Computer Science (DoCS) Flag this item
• Doctoral Programme in Drug Research (DPDR) Flag this item
• Doctoral Programme in Economics Flag this item
• Doctoral Programme in Food Chain and Health Flag this item
• Doctoral Programme in Gender, Culture and Society (SKY) Flag this item
• Doctoral Programme in Geosciences (GeoDoc) Flag this item
• Doctoral Programme in History and Cultural Heritage Flag this item
• Doctoral Programme in Human Behaviour (DPHuB) Flag this item
• Doctoral Programme in Integrative Life Science (ILS) Flag this item
• Doctoral Programme in Interdisciplinary Environmental Sciences (DENVI) Flag this item
• Doctoral Programme in Language Studies (HELSLANG) Flag this item
• Doctoral Programme in Law Flag this item
• Doctoral Programme in Materials Research and Nanoscience (MATRENA) Flag this item
• Doctoral Programme in Mathematics and Statistics (Domast) Flag this item
• Doctoral Programme in Microbiology and Biotechnology Flag this item
• Doctoral Programme in Oral Sciences (FINDOS) Flag this item
• Doctoral Programme in Particle Physics and Universe Sciences (PAPU) Flag this item
• Doctoral Programme in Philosophy, Arts and Society Flag this item
• Doctoral Programme in Plant Sciences (DPPS) Flag this item
• Doctoral Programme in Political, Societal and Regional Changes (PYAM) Flag this item
• Doctoral Programme in Population Health (DOCPOP) Flag this item
• Doctoral Programme in School, Education, Society and Culture Flag this item
• Doctoral Programme in Social Sciences Flag this item
• Doctoral Programme in Sustainable Use of Renewable Natural Resources (AGFOREE) Flag this item
• Doctoral Programme in Theology and Religious Studies Flag this item
• Doctoral Programme in Wildlife Biology (LUOVA) Flag this item

Specialist training programmes

• Multidisciplinary studies for class teachers (teaching in Finnish) Flag this item
• Multidisciplinary studies for class teachers (teaching in Swedish) Flag this item
• Non-degree studies for special education teachers (ELO) Flag this item
• Non-degree studies for special education teachers (LEO) Flag this item
• Non-degree studies for special education teachers (VEO) Flag this item
• Non-degree studies in subject teacher education Flag this item
• Spe­cific Train­ing in Gen­eral Med­ical Prac­tice Flag this item
• Specialisation Programme in Clinical Mental Health Psychology Flag this item
• Specialisation Programme in Neuropsychology Flag this item
• Specialisation Programme in Veterinary Medicine, Environmental Health and Food Control (old) Flag this item
• Specialisation Programme in Veterinary Medicine, Equine Medicine (old) Flag this item
• Specialisation Programme in Veterinary Medicine, Food Production Hygiene Flag this item
• Specialisation Programme in Veterinary Medicine, Infectious Animal Diseases (new) Flag this item
• Specialisation Programme in Veterinary Medicine, Production Animal Medicine (old) Flag this item
• Specialisation Programme in Veterinary Medicine, Small Animal Medicine (old) Flag this item
• Specialisation Studies in Community and Hospital Pharmacy (for B.Sc.Pharm.) Flag this item
• Specialisation Studies in Community and Hospital Pharmacy (for M.Sc.Pharm.) Flag this item
• Specialisation Studies in Industrial Pharmacy (for B.Sc.Pharm.) Flag this item
• Specialisation Studies in Industrial Pharmacy (for M.Sc.Pharm.) Flag this item
• Specialist Training in Dentistry Flag this item
• Specialist Training in Hospital Chemistry Flag this item
• Specialist Training in Hospital Microbiology Flag this item
• Specialist Training in Medicine, 5-year training Flag this item
• Specialist Training in Medicine, 6-year training Flag this item
• Specialist's Programme in Veterinary Medicine, Environmental Health and Food Control Flag this item
• Specialist's Programme in Veterinary Medicine, Equine Medicine (new) Flag this item
• Specialist's Programme in Veterinary Medicine, general veterinary medicine Flag this item
• Specialist's Programme in Veterinary Medicine, Infectious Animal Diseases (new) Flag this item
• Specialist's Programme in Veterinary Medicine, Production Animal Medicine (new) Flag this item
• Specialist's Programme in Veterinary Medicine, Small Animal Medicine (new) Flag this item
• Trainer Training Programme in Integrative Psychotherapy Flag this item
• Training Programme for Psychotherapists Flag this item
• Language Centre
• Open University

In many ways, the supervisor is the most important support person for a doctoral researcher. The supervisor supervises the dissertation research and acts as a mentor for the doctoral researcher. The supervisor must commit to a research process that may continue for several years as the journey towards a doctorate may sometimes be unexpectedly delayed. When you are considering becoming a supervisor, you should think about whether you will also have the time and resources in the coming years, not just the current one.

Despite the difficulties, supervising a doctoral reseacher can be very rewarding. Some supervisors may be tempted to take on the supervision of as many doctoral researchers as possible. However, many doctoral programmes have quotas for the maximum number of doctoral researchers that can be supervised by one person in order to keep the workload of individual supervisors under control and ensure that the supervisor has time for all the students.

On this page

Supervision arrangements.

Supervisors can have many roles in a supervision relationship, and the responsibilities and requirements may vary. One dissertation is usually supervised by several supervisors. It is important that the roles and duties of the supervisors are clarified in advance and recorded in the supervision plan prepared early on in the dissertation process. The roles of the supervisors may vary in terms of, for example, responsibility and the level of expertise and/or experience.

If you are interested in supervising a doctoral researcher, it may be a good idea to start as a partner to a more experienced supervisor or participate in a more limited role. It is possible to become a supervisor quite soon after you have finished your own doctorate. This will allow you to gather experience of supervising a dissertation study before you become the principal supervisor for a whole dissertation study. The minimum requirements set for supervisory arrangements in each doctoral programme are described in more detail in the admission criteria for the doctoral programmes, which are available  on the separate doctoral programme website , under the selection criteria for doctoral study rights.

What kind of expertise is required?

The supervisor’s expertise may be related to the research topic or the study’s theoretical or methodological starting points, but it may also concern supervision and project management. Some dissertation projects require special expertise for supervising multidisciplinary and cross-sectoral research. 

In a good supervisory relationship, the student should get sufficient support for planning their studies and their funding, learning the rules of academic work, integrating into the scientific community and planning their career.  Click here for more information on the practices of dissertation supervision.

In addition to the expertise related to the dissertation study, new supervisors should get to know the degree requirements of the student’s doctoral programme. These are available in the doctoral programme’s course catalogue in Instructions for students website . One of the supervisor’s duties is to support the doctoral researcher as they are planning their studies, so it is important for the supervisor to know the study requirements set by the doctoral researcher’s doctoral programme.

Where can a supervisor find help?

The doctoral programme’s management team is responsible for the programme’s supervisory arrangements, so when you need help, you can turn to the director of your doctoral programme, a member of the management team or the programme’s education planning officer. 

The other supervisors, your colleagues in the programme, may offer valuable peer support. You can met them at the events organised by your doctoral programme, your doctoral school and the university. 

The Centre for University Teaching and Learning (HYPE) organises training and studies in university pedagogy for supervisors as part of the staff training organised by the University of Helsinki for its teachers and researchers. Additional information:  [email protected]

See also the Instructions for Students

You will find related content for students in the Studies Service.

Planning your doctoral studies

• Instructions for students
• Notifications for students

Teaching & Learning

• Education Excellence
• Professional development
• Case studies
• Teaching toolkits
• MicroCPD-UCL
• Assessment resources
• Student partnership
• Generative AI Hub
• Community Engaged Learning
• UCL Student Success

Research and project supervision (all levels): an introduction  

Supervising projects, dissertations and research at UCL from undergraduate to PhD.

1 August 2019

Many academics say supervision is one of their favourite, most challenging and most fulfilling parts of their job.

Supervision can play a vital role in enabling students to fulfil their potential. Helping a student to become an independent researcher is a significant achievement – and can enhance your own teaching and research.

Supervision is also a critical element in achieving UCL’s strategic aim of integrating research and education. As a research-intensive university, we want all students, not just those working towards a PhD, to engage in research.

Successful research needs good supervision.

This guide provides guidance and recommendations on supervising students in their research. It offers general principles and tips for those new to supervision, at PhD, Master’s or undergraduate level and directs you to further support available at UCL.

What supervision means

Typically, a supervisor acts as a guide, mentor, source of information and facilitator to the student as they progress through a research project.

Every supervision will be unique. It will vary depending on the circumstances of the student, the research they plan to do, and the relationship between you and the student. You will have to deal with a range of situations using a sensitive and informed approach.

As a supervisor at UCL, you’ll help create an intellectually challenging and fulfilling learning experience for your students.

This could include helping students to:

• formulate their research project and question
• decide what methods of research to use
• become familiar with the wider research community in their chosen field
• evaluate the results of their research
• ensure their work meets the necessary standards expected by UCL
• keep to deadlines
• use feedback to enhance their work
• overcome any problems they might have
• present their work to other students, academics or interested parties
• prepare for the next steps in their career or further study.

At UCL, doctoral students always have at least two supervisors. Some faculties and departments operate a model of thesis committees, which can include people from industry, as well as UCL staff.

Rules and regulations

Phd supervision.

The supervision of doctoral students’ research is governed by regulation. This means that there are some things you must – and must not – do when supervising a PhD.  

• All the essential information is found in the UCL Code of Practice for Research Degrees .
• Full regulations in the UCL Academic Manual .  

All staff must complete the online course Introduction to Research Supervision at UCL  before beginning doctoral supervision.

Undergraduate and Masters supervision

There are also regulations around Master’s and undergraduate dissertations and projects. Check with the Programme Lead, your Department Graduate Tutor or Departmental Administrator for the latest regulations related to student supervision.

You should attend other training around research supervision. 

• Supervision training available through UCL Arena .

Doctoral (PhD) supervision: introducing your student to the university

For most doctoral students, you will often be their main point of contact at UCL and as such you are responsible for inducting them into the department and wider community.

Check that your student:

• knows their way around the department and about the facilities available to them locally (desk space, common room, support staff)
• has attended the Doctoral School induction and has received all relevant documents (including the Handbook and code of practice for graduate research degrees )
• has attended any departmental or faculty inductions and has a copy of the departmental handbook.

Make sure your student is aware of:

• key central services such as: Student Support and Wellbeing , UCL Students' Union (UCLU) and Careers
• opportunities to broaden their skills through UCL’s Doctoral Skills Development Programme
• the wider disciplinary culture, including relevant networks, websites and mailing lists.

The UCL Good Supervision Guide  (for PhD supervisors)

Establishing an effective relationship

The first few meetings you have with your student are critical and can help to set the tone for the whole supervisory experience for you and your student.

An early discussion about both of your expectations is essential:

• Find out your student’s motivations for undertaking the project, their aspirations, academic background and any personal matters they feel might be relevant.
• Discuss any gaps in their preparation and consider their individual training needs.
• Be clear about who will arrange meetings, how often you’ll meet, how quickly you’ll respond when the student contacts you, what kind of feedback they’ll get, and the norms and standards expected for academic writing.
• Set agendas and coordinate any follow-up actions. Minute meetings, perhaps taking it in turns with your student.
• For PhD students, hold a meeting with your student’s other supervisor(s) to clarify your expectations, roles, frequency of meetings and approaches.

Styles of supervision

Supervisory styles are often conceptualized on a spectrum from laissez-faire to more contractual or from managerial to supportive. Every supervisor will adopt different approaches to supervision depending on their own preferences, the individual relationship and the stage the student is at in the project.

Be aware of the positive and negative aspects of different approaches and styles.

Reflect on your personal style and what has prompted this – it may be that you are adopting the style of your own supervisor, or wanting to take a certain approach because it is the way that it would work for you.

No one style fits every situation: approaches change and adapt to accommodate the student and the stage of the project.

However, to ensure a smooth and effective supervision process, it is important to align your expectations from the very beginning. Discuss expectations in an early meeting and re-visit them periodically.

Checking the student’s progress

Make sure you help your student break down the work into manageable chunks, agreeing deadlines and asking them to show you work regularly.

Give your student helpful and constructive feedback on the work they submit (see the various assessment and feedback toolkits on the Teaching & Learning Portal ).

Check they are getting the relevant ethical clearance for research and/or risk assessments.

Ask your student for evidence that they are building a wider awareness of the research field.

Encourage your student to meet other research students and read each other’s work or present to each other.

Encourage your student to write early and often.

Checking your own performance

Regularly review progress with your student and any co-supervisors. Discuss any problems you might be having, and whether you need to revise the roles and expectations you agreed at the start.  

Make sure you know what students in your department are feeding back to the Student Consultative Committee or in surveys, such as the Postgraduate Research Experience Survey (PRES) . 

Responsibility for the student’s research project does not rest solely on you. If you need help, talk to someone more experienced in your department. Whatever the problem is you’re having, the chances are that someone will have experienced it before and will be able to advise you.

Continuing students can often provide the most effective form of support to new students. Supervisors and departments can foster this, for example through organising mentoring, coffee mornings or writing groups.

Be aware that supervision is about helping students carry out independent research – not necessarily about preparing them for a career in academia. In fact, very few PhD students go on to be academics.

Make sure you support your student’s personal and professional development, whatever direction this might take.

Every research supervision can be different – and equally rewarding.

Where to find help and support

Research supervision web pages from the UCL Arena Centre, including details of the compulsory Research Supervision online course. 

Appropriate Forms of Supervision Guide from the UCL Academic Manual

the PhD diaries

Good Supervision videos  (Requires UCL login)

The UCL Doctoral School

Handbook and code of practice for graduate research degrees

Doctoral Skills Development programme

Student skills support (including academic writing)

Student Support and Wellbeing

UCL Students' Union (UCLU)  

UCL Careers

External resources

Vitae: supervising a docorate

UK Council for Graduate Education

Higher Education Academy – supervising international students (pdf)

Becoming a Successful Early Career Researcher , Adrian Eley, Jerry Wellington, Stephanie Pitts and Catherine Biggs (Routledge, 2012) - book available on Amazon

This guide has been produced by the UCL Arena Centre for Research-based Education . You are welcome to use this guide if you are from another educational facility, but you must credit the UCL Arena Centre. 

Further information

More teaching toolkits  - back to the toolkits menu

Research supervision at UCL

UCL Education Strategy 2016–21  

Connected Curriculum: a framework for research-based education

The Laidlaw research and leadership programme (for undergraduates)

[email protected] : contact the UCL Arena Centre 

Download a printable copy of this guide  

Case studies : browse related stories from UCL staff and students.

Sign up to the monthly UCL education e-newsletter  to get the latest teaching news, events & resources.  

Education events

Funnelback feed: https://search2.ucl.ac.uk/s/search.json?collection=drupal-teaching-learn... Double click the feed URL above to edit

National Teaching Fellow 2017

Dissertation supervision.

A dissertation supervisor provides regular guidance and support to a student undertaking a dissertation.

The supervisory relationship is built on clear communication and mutually agreed expectation in terms of progress. Working in partnership with the student a supervisor assists in the definition of a research topic the design of a programme of study and the implementation of this. They also provide expertise at the writing stage and support in the face of deadlines.

The materials published on this page were originally created by the Higher Education Academy.

©Advance HE 2020. Company limited by guarantee registered in England and Wales no. 04931031 | Company limited by guarantee registered in Ireland no. 703150 | Registered charity, England and Wales 1101607 | Registered charity, Scotland SC043946 | VAT Registered number GB 152 1219 50. Registered UK Address: Advance HE, Innovation Way, York Science Park, Heslington, York, YO10 5BR, United Kingdom | Registered Ireland Address: Advance HE, First Floor, Penrose 1, Penrose Dock, Cork, T23 Kw81, Ireland.

Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.

To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to  upgrade your browser .

Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link.

• We're Hiring!
• Help Center

A Supervisor's Roles for Successful Thesis and Dissertation

2013, Online Submission

Related Papers

Acta Commercii

Ansie Lessing

South African higher institutions of learning are engaged in rapid transformation processes. Some of the consequences are that an increasing proportion of the postgraduate student body is from previously disadvantaged backgrounds and that the body of academic staff has also been transformed. In general, students have limited experience of independent research work as well as using library and other research facilities. However, quality research needs to be maintained. It is of great importance that academics should have the knowledge and skills to supervise research. However, preliminary research indicates that very little is done to equip academic staff in the skills of supervising research. A literature study is done to determine the nature of postgraduate supervision as well as the role of the supervisor and the student. From this investigation an interview schedule, consisting of open-ended questions, was composed to use in focus group interviews with academics from various loca...

European Journal of Education Studies

Lam Thi Ngoc Trang B1909431

In Vietnam, scientific research is no longer just the work of scientists, graduate students, scholars, or lecturers; tertiary students are also encouraged to conduct scientific research. Therefore, the scientific research work of students receives more attention from educators. The research on carrying out scientific research of students is also therefore increasing. However, researchers do not seem to have paid enough attention to the role of supervisors during the supervision process. The evidence is that there are few studies on supervisors in Vietnam. Therefore, this study was conducted to learn about the role of supervisors from the student&#39;s perspective and expectations. Specifically, this study was conducted quantitatively with the use of a questionnaire consisting of 49 questions with a 5-point Likert scale. A total of 100 English-major students at a university in Southwest Vietnam participated in this study by answering the questionnaire. The results from the questionna...

School of Education, Faculty of Social Science and Humanities, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia

Hassan Aliyu

In 2010, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia (UTM) has become one of the Research University in Malaysia. Since then, UTM becomes a graduate-focused university with more innovative research-based postgraduate programmes offered. Undeniably, the role of the supervisor is critical in guiding graduate students to finish their study. Effective supervision is essential for supporting graduate research students towards the completion of their thesis. However, a previous study has found a high proportion of PhD students who fail to complete their studies in Malaysia. This study addresses the following research question: (1) What are the issue arises among postgraduate students during supervision? (2) What are the factors affecting a relationship between supervisor and postgraduate students? This study aims to identify the best practice relevant to effective supervision of graduate research students at Universiti Teknologi Malaysia. A meta-analys is research synthesis method was used in this study. Findings from this study provide critical data between postgraduate students and their supervisor during supervision. This study concludes that, academic incompetence, language, Malaysian culture, topic selection, monitoring progress, time management, scientific writing skills, emotional support and stress by supervisory system are the graduate students’ problems that usually delay their study or prevent them to completing. A few suggestions were also submitted to assist the graduate and supervisor in managing their affiliation and also on the improvement for future research.

BMC Medical Education

Nikoo Yamani

Innovative Higher Education

tricia vilkinas

Rebeca E Tapia

Creative Education

Kazım Çelik

In this study, it was aimed to analyze supervisor-student relationship in the doctoral education based on views of students. For this reason, research assistants having completed doctoral education and got PhD title were asked what the contributions of their supervisors were and what kind of problems they experienced in doctoral education. Considering academic advising process, it was intended to shed a light on both formal and information sides of supervisor-student relationship. As a design of the study, qualitative case study method was used. In the light of the aim of the study, “semi-structured data collection form”, one of the qualitative data collection tools, was used to collect the data. The data gained from 19 research assistants having completed their PhD degrees in the past 36 months were analyzed with content analysis. The past/ongoing contribution of supervisors to their students’ education were classified under the themes of contribution to their personal development, contribution to academic development, contribution to professional development, and contribution to intellectual development. The students, being in intimate relationship with their supervisors, emphasize positive contributions of supervisors. However, the students, not being in an intimate relationship, underline the negative characteristics of their supervisors. Few of the participants utter ongoing contribution of supervisors. This study analyzes dimensions for the contribution of supervisors to students in doctoral education, and the experiences of students in these dimensions. In this regard, academicians who are supervisors or will be supervisors are expected to benefit from the study.

Peace Kiguwa

The doctoral thesis constitutes both a negotiation of the supervision relationship as well as mastery and skill in participating in a specific community of practice. Two models of supervision are discussed: the technical rationality model with its emphasis on technical aspects of supervision, and the negotiated order model with an emphasis on negotiation of the supervision process. We discuss some of the challenges and experiences that we experienced as doctoral candidates, and the significance of these experiences for cultivating professional selfhood. More significantly, we discuss these processes in relation to the even more subtle and crucial process of mastering one’s discursive community of practice. This mastery of one’s community of practice constitutes a part of a broader process of ‘enculturation’ signalling the beginning (and not the end) of active participation in the broader discursive community.

Steven Krauss

Despite the plethora of studies that have been conducted on PhD supervision, little qualitative investigation has been conducted with a diverse, non-Western sample of doctoral students in an attempt to understand how the supervisory relationship is experienced. In response, eighteen students from diverse, non-Western backgrounds studying at one Malaysian research university were interviewed. Results illuminated the theme of “management” of the supervisory experience and included two streams:(a) acceptance of the situation, and (b) response to the situation so as to optimize their experience. The two major themes further included four sub-themes that included managing personal relations, time and accessibility constraints, academic compatibility, and expectations. Implications for the development of international research universities where PhD supervision of a diverse student body is a critical factor for university success and development are discussed.

sahil agnihotri

RELATED PAPERS

Haris Khatami

TEKNOBOGA KITCHEN

JUAL KEJU BUBUK CHEESE POWDER SAUS KEJU CHEESE CREAM SAUCE HARGA MURAH DISTRIBUTOR | 0813-1435-1985

Ramón D'Aubeterre

The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners

Amanda Burls

Cesar Llorente

Ljerka Marjanac

arturo lozano

Dr. Youssra Al-Hilaly

G.M. ten Hoopen

Advanced Materials

sara zarghami

Nguyễn Bảo Dân Dụng

Empirical Musicology Review

J. Harry Whalley

Nederlands Tijdschrift voor Diabetologie

Edith Heintjes

Journal of Applied Physics

Viacheslav Kochelap

Nursing Forum

Neltjie Van Wyk

gghj yttrrt

Current Developments in Nutrition

sebastien farnaud

Oncology Reports

Verena Jendrossek

Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section B: Beam Interactions with Materials and Atoms

Giovanni Marletta

Revista Argentina de Cardiología

HERNAN CLAUDIO DOVAL

Research in Social and Administrative Pharmacy

Dominique Somme

Yustina Chrismardani

Myrtia Revista De Filologia Clasica

García Ana Rosa

Journal of Theoretical Biology

Michele Di Mascio

Ciencia &amp; Investigación Forestal

Mario Pastorino

RELATED TOPICS

•   We're Hiring!
•   Help Center
• Find new research papers in:
• Health Sciences
• Earth Sciences
• Cognitive Science
• Mathematics
• Computer Science
• Academia ©2024

The Supervisor of Undergraduate Dissertations in a Web-Based Context: How Much Support and How to Give it?

• Najib Bouhout Sidi Mohamed Ben Abdellah University, Fes, Morocco https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8638-2534
• Aziz Askitou Multidisciplinary Faculty of Nador, Nador, Morocco

The provision of support has always been central to the role of the undergraduate dissertation (UD) supervisor, but little research has been done on its contextual determinants in web-facilitated contexts. Beyond the general recognition of the importance of institutional support for the development of supervisors’ technological and pedagogical knowledge and the importance of technology and pedagogy in maximizing the impact of supervisors’ support for students, the effect of technology tools and students’ prior skills on the type and level of supervisors’ support is not well understood. Drawing partially on the Technological Pedagogical and Content Knowledge (TPACK) framework, the present work uses Partial-Least Square Structural Equation Modelling to examine the effect of supervisors’ Technological Pedagogical Knowledge (TPK), their perception of students’ soft skills, and the technology tools they use (face-to-face, social media or a learning management system) on the level of educational and motivational support they provide. The results indicate that institutional support to UD supervisors positively affects their TPK, which in turn positively affects their educational and motivational support to students. However, supervisors’ educational and motivational support is inversely related to their perception of students’ soft skills and is also affected by the technological tools used. In short, supervision styles are not static since different contextual factors affect the management of the process of supervision. The implications for UD supervision are discussed, and some recommendations are proposed in the article.

Author Biographies

Najib bouhout, sidi mohamed ben abdellah university, fes, morocco, aziz askitou, multidisciplinary faculty of nador, nador, morocco.

Akyol, Z., & Garrison, R. (2008). The development of a community of inquiry over time in an online course: understanding the progression and integration of social, cognitive and teaching presence. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 12(3), 3–22.

Al-Busaidi, K. A., & Al-Shihi, H. (2012). Key factors to instructors’ satisfaction of learning management systems in blended learning. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 24(1), 18–39. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12528-011-9051-x

Alkhawaja, M. I., Halim, M. S. A., & Afthanorhan, A. (2021). Technology anxiety and its impact on e-Learning system actual use in Jordan public universities during the coronavirus disease pandemic. European Journal of Educational Research, 10(4), 1639-1647. https://doi.org/10.12973/eu-jer.10.4.1639

Augustsson, G., & Jaldemark, J. (2014). Online supervision: A theory of supervisors’ strategic communicative influence on student dissertations. Higher Education, 67(1), 19–33. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-013-9638-4

Bouziane, A., & Elaasri, R. (2019). Morocco e-readiness assessment: University contribution. English Studies at NBU, 5(2), 203–219. https://doi.org/10.33919/esnbu.19.2.2

Chamorro‐Premuzic, T., Arteche, A., Bremner, A. J., Greven, C., & Furnham, A. (2010). Soft skills in higher education: Importance and improvement ratings as a function of individual differences and academic performance. Educational Psychology, 30(2), 221–241. https://doi.org/10.1080/01443410903560278

Cox, S. (2008). A Conceptual analysis of technological pedagogical content knowledge. Theses and Dissertations. https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/etd/1482

CSEFRS. (2018). L’enseignement supérieur au Maroc: Efficacité et efficience du système universitaire à accès ouvert [Sectoral report]. Instance Nationale d’Évaluation auprès du Conseil Supérieur de l’Éducation, de la Formation et de la Recherche Scientifique. https://www.csefrs.ma/publications/lenseignement-superieur-au-maroc/?lang=fr

Del Río, M. L., Díaz-Vázquez, R., & Maside Sanfiz, J. M. (2018). Satisfaction with the supervision of undergraduate dissertations. Active Learning in Higher Education, 19(2), 159–172. https://doi.org/10.1177/1469787417721365

Deuchar, R. (2008). Facilitator, director or critical friend?: Contradiction and congruence in doctoral supervision styles. Teaching in Higher Education, 13(4), 489–500. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562510802193905

dos Santos, H. L., & Cechinel, C. (2019). The final year project supervision in online distance learning: Assessing students and faculty perceptions about communication tools. Behaviour and Information Technology, 38(1), 65–84. https://doi.org/10.1080/0144929X.2018.1514423

Elmouhtarim, S. (2018). Integrating critical thinking skills in reading courses at the university level: the case of faculty of letters and humanities, Beni-Mellal, Morocco. Arab World English Journal, 9(3), 331–344. https://doi.org/10.24093/awej/vol9no3.22

Feather, D., Anchor, J. R., & Cowton, C. J. (2014). Supervisors’ perceptions of the value of the undergraduate dissertation. International Journal of Management Education, 12(1), 14–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijme.2013.06.002

Gibb, S. (2014). Soft skills assessment: Theory development and the research agenda. International Journal of Lifelong Education, 33(4), 455–471. https://doi.org/10.1080/02601370.2013.867546

Gray, M. A., & Crosta, L. (2018). New perspectives in online doctoral supervision: A systematic literature review. Studies in Continuing Education, 41(2), 173–190. https://doi.org/10.1080/0158037X.2018.1532405

Hair, J., Hult, T., Ringle, C., & Sarstedt, M. (2017). A primer on partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) (Second edition). Sage.

Hénard, F. (2010). Learning our lesson: Review of quality teaching in higher education. OECD Publications.

Hénard, F., & Roseveare, D. (2012). Fostering quality teaching in higher education: Policies and Practices. OECD. www.oecd.org/edu/imhe

Jaldemark, J., & Lindberg, J. O. (2013). Technology-mediated supervision of undergraduate students’ dissertations. Studies in Higher Education, 38(9), 1382–1392. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2011.626851

Jamieson, S., & Gray, C. (2006). The supervision of undergraduate research students: Expectations of student and supervisor. Practice and Evidence of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 1(1), 37–59.

Kechagias, K. (Ed.). (2011). Teaching and assessing soft skills. Thessaloniki. http://research.education.nmsu.edu/files/2014/01/396_MASS-wp4-final-report-part-1.pdf

Kyllonen, P. C. (2013). Soft skills for the workplace. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 45(6), 16–23. https://doi.org/10.1080/00091383.2013.841516

Macqual, S. M., Mohd Salleh, U. K., & Zulnaidi, H. (2021). Assessing prospective teachers’ soft skills curriculum implementation: Effects on teaching practicum success. South African Journal of Education, 41(3), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.15700/saje.v41n3a1915

Maor, D. (2017). Using TPACK to develop digital pedagogues: A higher education experience. Journal of Computers in Education, 4(1), 71–86. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40692-016-0055-4

Mårtensson, K., Roxå, T., & Olsson, T. (2011). Developing a quality culture through the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning. Higher Education Research & Development, 30(1), 51–62. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2011.536972

McMichael, P. (1992). Tales of the unexpected: Supervisors’ and students’ perspectives on short‐term projects and dissertations. Educational Studies, 18(3), 299–310. https://doi.org/10.1080/0305569920180304

MESRSI. (2022). Le plan d’accélération de la transformation de l’écosystème d’enseignement supérieur, de la recherche scientifique et de l’innovation (PACTE ESRI 2030). https://pactesri.enssup.gov.ma/

Ouajdouni, A., Chafik, K., & Boubker, O. (2021). Measuring e-learning systems success: Data from students of higher education institutions in Morocco. Data in Brief, 35, 106807. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dib.2021.106807

Ouyang, F., & Scharber, C. (2018). Adapting the TPACK framework for online teaching within higher education: International Journal of Online Pedagogy and Course Design, 8(1), 42–59. https://doi.org/10.4018/IJOPCD.2018010104

Pedro, N. S., & Kumar, S. (2020). Institutional support for online teaching in quality assurance frameworks. Online Learning, 24(3). https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v24i3.2309

Pituch, K. A., & Stevens, J. (2016). Applied multivariate statistics for the social sciences: Analyses with SAS and IBM’s SPSS (6th edition). Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group.

Roberts, L. D., & Seaman, K. (2018). Good undergraduate dissertation supervision: Perspectives of supervisors and dissertation coordinators. International Journal for Academic Development, 23(1), 28–40. https://doi.org/10.1080/1360144X.2017.1412971

Scagnoli, N. I., Buki, L. P., & Johnson, S. D. (2019). The influence of online teaching on face-to-face teaching practices. Online Learning, 13(2). https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v13i2.1671

Schmidt, D. A., Baran, E., Thompson, A. D., Mishra, P., Koehler, M. J., & Shin, T. S. (2009). Technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK): The development and validation of an assessment instrument for preservice teachers. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 42(2), 123–149. https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2009.10782544

Simon, E. (2012). The impact of online teaching on higher education faculty’s professional identity and the role of technology: The coming of age of the virtual teacher [PhD, ATLAS Institute]. https://www.colorado.edu/atlas/sites/default/files/attached-files/the_impact_of_online_teaching_on_higher_education_faculty.pdf

Sloan, D., Porter, E., Robins, K., & McCourt, K. (2014). Using e-learning to support international students’ dissertation preparation. Education and Training, 56(2), 122–140. https://doi.org/10.1108/ET-10-2012-0103

Smith, K., Todd, M., & Waldman, J. (2009). Doing your undergraduate social science dissertation. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203881262

Strebel, F., Gürtler, S., Hulliger, B., & Lindeque, J. (2019). Laissez-faire or guidance? Effective supervision of bachelor theses. Studies in Higher Education, 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2019.1659762

Sun, Z., Lin, C., Wu, M., Zhou, J., & Luo, L. (2018). A tale of two communication tools: Discussion-forum and mobile instant-messaging apps in collaborative learning. Br. J. Educ. Technol. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12571

Tai, H.-C., Pan, M.-Y., & Lee, B.-O. (2015). Applying technological pedagogical and content knowledge (TPACK) model to develop an online English writing course for nursing students. Nurse Education

Today, 35(6), 782–788. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nedt.2015.02.016

Tang, Y., & Hew, K. F. (2020). Does mobile instant messaging facilitate social presence in online communication? A two-stage study of higher education students. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 17(1), 15. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-020-00188-0

Tseng, H., Yi, X., & Yeh, H.-T. (2019). Learning-related soft skills among online business students in higher education: Grade level and managerial role differences in self-regulation, motivation, and social skill. Computers in Human Behavior, 95, 179–186. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2018.11.035

Vehviläinen, S., & Löfström, E. (2016). ‘I wish I had a crystal ball’: Discourses and potentials for developing academic supervising. Studies in Higher Education, 41(3), 508–524. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2014.942272

Vera, J., & Briones, E. (2015). Students’ perspectives on the processes of supervision and assessment of undergraduate dissertations. Cultura y Educacion, 27(4), 726–765. https://doi.org/10.1080/11356405.2015.1089391

Vermunt, J. D., & Verloop, N. (1999). Congruence and friction between learning and teaching. Learning and Instruction, 9(3), 257–280. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0959-4752(98)00028-0

Zeddari, I. (2018). The end-of-study project in english department in Morocco: The supervisor’s perspective. Journal of Applied Language and Culture Studies, 1, 81–103.

Zuvic-Butorac, M., & Nebic, Z. (2009). Institutional support for e-learning implementation in higher education practice: A case report of University of Rijeka, Croatia. Proceedings of the ITI 2009 31st International Conference on Information Technology Interfaces, 479–484. https://doi.org/10.1109/ITI.2009.5196130

Copyright (c) 2023 Najib Bouhout, Aziz Askitou

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License .

As a condition of publication, the author agrees to apply the Creative Commons – Attribution International 4.0 (CC-BY) License to OLJ articles. See: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

This licence allows anyone to reproduce OLJ articles at no cost and without further permission as long as they attribute the author and the journal. This permission includes printing, sharing and other forms of distribution.

Author(s) hold copyright in their work, and retain publishing rights without restrictions

The DOAJ Seal is awarded to journals that demonstrate best practice in open access publishing

OLC Membership

OLC Research Center

Information

• For Readers
• For Authors
• For Librarians

ARJESS JOURNAL

African Research Journal of Education and Social Sciences

A Review of the Roles of Dissertation Supervisors as Mentors

Authors: Betty. M. Macharia

Department of Research and Evaluation Faculty of Education The Catholic University of Eastern Africa P. O. Box 62157, Nairobi, Kenya Corresponding Author Email: [email protected]

This paper is a review of the roles of dissertation supervisors as mentors. Primarily, research and enquiry skills are important for doctoral students. Doctoral supervisors should therefore become mentors to assist their students in developing a theory-driven and a research-based approach. The model that dissertation supervisors embed in their students encompasses different approaches that encourage doctoral students to participate in functional thinking, critical thinking, relationship development and emancipation. Effectively, dissertation supervisors should pursue mentorship strategies that will provide their students with a framework for writing to integrate different research approaches in reviewing relevant research and literature in the completion of their doctoral projects. The benefit of mentorship for doctoral students is that it creates an opportunity to develop requisite skills for academic development to conduct an enquiry based learning process. The review content is divided into subsections which explore the relationship between dissertation mentors and doctoral students with a view of assessing whether the involvement of dissertation supervisors as mentors can lower doctoral attrition rates and increase dissertation completion times. The implication and the conclusion of the paper is to urge postgraduate faculties to create a framework where dissertation supervisors act as student mentors.

Keywords: Dissertation supervisors, doctoral students, dissertation mentors, doctoral projects supervision, mentorship strategies, doctoral attrition rates, doctoral student mentors, doctoral student supervision, doctoral student mentorship

Introduction

Taylor, Kiley & Humphrey (2017) argue that numerous studies have been conducted to demonstrate the importance of dissertation supervisors in playing a mentorship role. In spite of the view that doctoral research students exercise a sense of independence, there is need for mentorship from dissertation supervisors. Taylor et. al. (2017) reiterate that the focus of supervision and mentorship is to instruct students in appropriate learning methodology and proper research methods. These may include various activities of mentorship such as sponsoring, coaching and assisting students in developing reflective practices in the research process. Kamler & Thomson, (2014) observe that supervisors who oversee the work of doctoral students could develop a research framework to assist students in improving their academic research skills. Orellana, Darder, Pérez, & Salinas, (2016) outline that effective mentorship by dissertation supervisors lies in proofreading and guiding students on the research methods that are appropriate in the doctoral research process.

Dissertation supervision is essential since it assists students in understanding how they should approach the writing process at every stage of their research work. Dissertation supervisors who act as mentors can help doctoral students to fill grant application forms. The supervisors could also assist doctoral students in upgrading their papers by providing feedback on the selected thesis for the writing process. Erichsen, Bolliger, & Halupa, (2014) argue that dissertation supervisors who act as mentors resolve problems associated with conceptual thinking which teaches the process of synthesising research material to assist doctoral students in completing their projects in good time. Granted, mentorship by dissertation supervisors is an integral part of the learning process as it enables doctoral students to complete their projects within the scheduled time. Bitchener, (2016) posits that mentorship in doctoral writing is crucial as it creates a supervisory framework to implement different approaches designed to assist students in completing their research projects. Therefore, the study is intended to determine the role of dissertation supervisors as mentors to explore the benefits to students when dissertation supervisors become mentors. Furthermore, the study will seek to establish the relationship between dissertation mentors and doctoral students with a view of assessing whether the involvement of dissertation supervisors as mentors can lower doctoral attrition rates and increase dissertation completion times.

The Role of Dissertation Supervisors as Mentors

  Basturkmen, East, & Bitchener, (2014) observe that dissertation supervisors should adopt the role of mentors to assist doctoral students pursuing various disciplines. Dissertation supervisors have several roles in supporting doctoral students in completing their research projects. One of the principal roles that dissertation supervisors perform is a functional role where they help students in managing their projects. Pyhältö, Vekkaila, & Keskinen, (2015) have demonstrated that dissertation supervisors perform the role of assisting students to be critical thinkers where they assist students in analyzing their work critically. Dissertation supervisors should strive to develop an interpersonal relationship with students. As a matter of fact, supervisors perform the role of emancipation where they challenge students to question their knowledge base and to review it before they present a full review. Holloway & Brown, (2016) demonstrate that mentorship is essential to assess the abilities of doctoral students to be inspired to perform an elaborate research process and to complete the project. Dissertation supervisors are also preferred since they are more acceptable to students and they assist them in understanding how they should conduct the research process.

Hakkarainen, Hytönen, Makkonen, & Lehtinen, (2016) argue that writing tasks are considered to be a significant part of the completion of the doctoral project. Dissertation supervisors who are mentors assist doctoral students in completing their research projects and in assessing the root cause of their research problems that they are writing about. Rogers, Zawacki, & Baker, (2016) argue that mentors should also encourage doctoral students to attend seminars and workshops to assist them in the research process. Devos, Boudrenghien, Van der Linden, Azzi, Frenay, Galand, & Klein, (2017) make the case that the process of mentorship is essential to assist students to develop writing skills in the project completion process. Accordingly, mentors are important as they assist students in understanding the different purposes of writing that exist with the intention of helping them in formulating ideas and in developing their research projects. The establishment of a research framework is necessary to demonstrate how effective writing strategies should be improved. Lim, Loi, Hashim, & Liu, (2015) demonstrate that dissertation supervisors who play the role of mentors play a critical role in assisting doctoral students in developing a conceptual approach which facilitates the process of collecting information from different sources to complete their research projects. Parker-Jenkins, (2018) highlights that mentorship for doctoral students is important as it enables them to focus on different academic approaches instead of working on a limited scope of the research.

Tangen & Borders, (2016) observe that the experiences dissertation supervisors posses enable them to act as mentors to doctoral students through an efficient system of self-assessment. To a large extent, doctoral supervisors play a pivotal role in assisting their students in developing their writing skills and in facilitating the creation of joint learning support groups that provide a framework to assist students in receiving the writing support that they require. According to Aitchison (2015), dissertation supervisors can also assist doctoral students in focussing on areas where they formulate practical solutions to improve on their areas of weakness. The success of dissertation supervisors is increased by mentoring doctoral students and assisting them in brainstorming, drafting and editing their research projects. Lepp, Remmik, Leijen, & Leijen, (2016)  argue that academic mentors should assist students in developing a conceptual understanding of how each stage of research should be tackled with a goal of completing the project according to preset schedules and according to set requirements (Aitchison, 2015). At any rate, dissertation supervisors should assist doctoral students in performing research which is holistic and integrates core research ideas.

The Benefits of Dissertation Supervisors Becoming Mentors

Taylor et al. (2017) outline that dissertation supervisors should also act as mentors to doctoral students to provide psychosocial mentorship where students are assisted in articulating their research ideas. Alternatively, dissertation supervisors could also be career mentors who assist the doctoral students in developing appropriate research channels. Pakdaman, Shafranske, & Falender, (2015) have shown that elements of role modelling, friendship and counselling should be adopted in the mentorship process. A review of the relationship between doctoral students and faculty members should be improved through mentorship and academic supervision. Mehr, Ladany, & Caskie, (2015) state that dissertation supervisors who take the role of mentors enhance their effectiveness by instructing students on the most effective research methodology to improve the quality of doctoral education that is offered. Kyiv & Thune, (2015) suggest that mentorship is important as it provides doctoral students with an opportunity of receiving helpful academic advice. It is crucial for dissertation supervisors to mentor doctoral students. Taylor et al. (2017) further demonstrate that mentorship creates a positive environment in the academic faculty thereby leading to successful socialisation between the department and students pursuing doctoral programs. Blessinger & Stockley, (2016) reiterate that doctoral mentorship is critical in promoting psychological health and propagating student development to assist doctoral students to complete their degree programs on a timely basis. Dissertation supervisors should also act as mentors to guarantee professional development, productivity and identity development immediately after graduation.

The relationship between dissertation supervisors and doctoral students should transition from being a primary academic mentorship role of providing supervision to a new role in providing mentorship (Taylor et. al, 2017). Another objective of mentorship is to assist students in identifying job opportunities in the market and available research opportunities in the field. Carter-Veale, Tull, Rutledge, & Joseph (2016) suggest that mentors could also perform the role of advising students on upcoming conferences and give them advice on how they should balance their personal and academic life. Academic mentors who are dissertation supervisors have also assisted their students in writing grant proposals, preparing presentations and publications and assisting them in accessing research resources. Carter & Kumar, (2017) attest to the fact that dissertation supervisors should be relied upon as mentors to help doctoral students to attain requisite skills and to assist them in executing administrative tasks in their professional life. Mehr, Ladany and Caskie (2015), on the other hand state that academic mentors who are dissertation supervisors can integrate reflective teaching methods in a manner that encourages academic modelling and the coaching of doctoral students. Woo, Jang, & Henfield, (2015) argue that doctoral students who are under mentorship can improve their communication skills as they engage with their fellow students and other members of the academia to receive assistance in completing their research projects.

One of the significant challenges that have affected doctoral students is a lack of sufficient pedagogical preparation (Nethsinghe & Southcott, 2015). Dissertation supervisors who act as mentors have a supervisory role that includes educational mentoring activities which enable students to prepare for a teaching career that they may choose to pursue after completing their research projects. Ghosh, Chauhan, & Rai, (2015) insist that apprenticeship is considered to be critical in assisting students in seeking relevant courses to encourage doctoral students to liaise with their advisors to pursue a teaching career. Dissertation supervisors who act as mentors facilitate their students to gain pedagogical skills by observing them, teaching them and advising them. Berman & Smyth, (2015) conclusively state that the intention of teaching mentorship is to assist doctoral students in satisfying the academic requirements set by institutions.

The Relationship between Dissertation Mentors and Doctoral Students

The role of a dissertation supervisor who becomes a mentor is to create an environment for career preparation suitable for doctoral students. Academic mentors have the responsibility of preparing PhD students to become skilled researchers in their field of study. According to Tribe & Tunariu, (2016) mentorship can be achieved by ensuring that students receive appropriate training which ensures that they can function according to the regulations set by the academic faculty. Kumar & Coe, (2017) note that a good mentorship program provides an opportunity for socialisation by instructing doctoral students on the intricacies of academic life. In this manner, doctoral students work within a framework which enables them to understand research theories and the teaching methodology that is employed in academia as well as the functioning of different universities. Anderson, (2017) outlines that the dissertation supervisor who is perceived as a mentor guides students to achieve their academic objectives.

The creation of formalised mentoring structures is essential to facilitate idea sharing and to allow students to experiment with their ideas to gain confidence before presenting in public forums. The primary focus of mentorship should be on research and career preparation. Stockman, (2015) has shown that students who associate with the career path of their mentors are also provided with an opportunity to emulate the personalised elements of their mentors. The career path of the mentor could also create a framework which doctoral students can follow and relate to. Mehr et al. (2015) demonstrate that the desire to emulate a mentor’s career path is a critical objective in promoting career advancement and in ensuring that the competence of doctoral students is considerably improved. Mentorship relationships between dissertation supervisors and doctoral students are also considered to be critical in assisting doctoral students in achieving capability and in carving out their identity in the academic sphere Aitchison, (2015) has shown that doctoral mentors can assist doctoral students in presenting their ideas coherently.

Dissertation supervisors who become mentors play a critical role in assisting students in achieving academic competence. Dissertation mentorship is made possible through asynchronous communication where feedback is provided, and doctoral students can integrate the feedback received in completing their research projects. Taylor et al. (2017) demonstrate that mutually beneficial relationships that exist between mentors and their doctoral students are considered to be beneficial and motivating than the one-sided relationships that exist between dissertation supervisors and doctoral students. Pakdaman et al. (2015) suggest that doctoral students who benefit from mentorship programs can improve their managerial, social, cognitive and communication competences.

The Involvement of Dissertation Supervisors as Mentors to Lower Doctoral Attrition Rates and Increase Dissertation Completion Times

  In doctoral mentorship, students are presented with opportunities that positively engage them in using alternative research methodologies to develop their research projects even as they use appropriate research methods to complete their projects. Pakdaman et al. (2015) posit that mentorship is critical for doctoral students as it ensures that a dissertation supervisor assists doctoral students in achieving research competence and in increasing their skills and knowledge levels. Cognitive capability in the completion of doctoral projects is also considered to be critical as it is necessary for providing doctoral students with expert knowledge which they can use in disseminating knowledge.  Stockman (2015) exemplifies the fact that the benefits of a mentor relationship are assessed by measuring the satisfaction level, the competence level and the academic opinions of the learner.

Taylor et al. (2017) point out to the fact that dissertation supervision and mentorship is necessary to reduce the level of doctoral student attrition which is considered to be a severe problem among students in pursuing doctoral programs. By using mentors in academic research, it is possible for the competence of doctoral students to be enhanced as they will be able to attain self-efficacy in research and expertise in their fields of study. Pakdaman et al. (2015) reiterate that mentorship is critical to encourage doctoral students to get involved in professional organisations and to increase their contribution to academic research processes. In further analysis, Taylor et al. (2017) designate that mentorship also assists doctoral dissertation students to exhibit a high level of commitment, personal responsibility and motivation. As a matter of fact, effective mentorship can help doctoral students in undertaking complex tasks and in ensuring that they have access to professional guidance. Mehr et al. (2015) have shown that when students are demotivated due to the challenges they face, mentorship at the doctoral stage can assist them in regaining their motivational levels and in developing a system of self-regulation. Additionally the role of a doctoral mentor lies in assisting learners to set their goals, analyse their tasks and to monitor the development of projects in completing their dissertation.

Institutions of higher learning are required to create elaborate mechanisms to support doctoral students to complete their research projects. There should be more mentorship programs for doctoral students to establish systems to develop their cognitive abilities, their research skills and their presentation skills. The creation of mentorship programs and the role of dissertation supervisors as mentors remain critical as it enables doctoral students to acquire pedagogical skills to prepare them to teach undergraduate and graduate courses. Further research should be done to evaluate how mentors can assist doctoral students in completing their projects within the scheduled time to achieve their research objectives.

In the increasingly complex academic environment within which doctoral students operate, it is necessary for dissertation supervisors to become mentors. This is an objective that is achievable if academic supervisors adopt a holistic approach to assist doctoral students by providing them with critical support in the research process. By utilizing the role of a mentor, doctoral supervisors assist students in presenting their research in a timely fashion. Dissertation supervisors who act as mentors also create a supervisory framework to assist students in writing papers which are holistic and conceptually sound. The use of a mentorship approach is helpful to a doctoral student who faces difficulties to complete their research projects by using integrated and varied approaches. Dissertation supervisors who act as mentors are also relevant as they assist students in completing their research projects. There is a need for further research to be conducted to establish critical factors which prevent doctoral students from completing their PhD dissertations. New research is required to determine how dissertation supervisors can become mentors to assist students in achieving their PhD programs according to pre-agreed time frames.

Going forward, there is a need to review the current set up where most dissertation supervisors are not mentors to doctoral students. This review intends to increase doctoral completion rates to ensure that doctoral students complete their dissertations rates within the scheduled time. Since doctoral programs have a high workload, dissertation supervisors who act as mentors guide doctoral students to ensure that they have the requisite skills to complete their dissertations according to preset research methodologies to meet set research objectives. It is also essential for dissertation supervisors to act as mentors to reduce doctoral students’ attrition rates.

Aitchison, C. (2015). Writing the practice/practise the writing: Writing challenges and pedagogies for creative practice supervisors and researchers. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 47(12), 1291-1303.

Anderson, T. (2017). The doctoral gaze: Foreign PhD students’ internal and external academic discourse socialization. Linguistics and Education , 37 , 1-10.

Basturkmen, H., East, M., & Bitchener, J. (2014). Supervisors’ on-script feedback comments on drafts of dissertations: socialising students into the academic discourse community. Teaching in Higher Education , 19 (4), 432-445.

Berman, J., & Smyth, R. (2015). Conceptual frameworks in the doctoral research process: a pedagogical model. Innovations in Education and Teaching International , 52 (2), 125-136.

Bitchener, J. (2016). The content feedback practices of Applied Linguistics doctoral supervisors in New Zealand and Australian universities. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics , 39 (2), 105-121.

Blessinger, P., & Stockley, D. (Eds.). (2016). Emerging directions in doctoral education. Emerald Group Publishing.

Carter, S., & Kumar, V. (2017). ‘Ignoring me is part of learning’: Supervisory feedback on doctoral writing. Innovations in Education and Teaching International , 54 (1), 68-75.

Carter-Veale, W. Y., Tull, R. G., Rutledge, J. C., & Joseph, L. N. (2016). The dissertation house model: Doctoral student experiences coping and writing in a shared knowledge community. CBE—Life Sciences Education , 15 (3), ar34.

Devos, C., Boudrenghien, G., Van der Linden, N., Azzi, A., Frenay, M., Galand, B., & Klein, O. (2017). Doctoral students’ experiences leading to completion or attrition: a matter of sense, progress and distress. European journal of psychology of education , 32 (1), 61-77.

Emmioglu, E., McAlpine, L., & Amundsen, C. (2017). Doctoral students’ experiences of feeling (or not) like an academic. International Journal of Doctoral Studies , 12 , 73-91.

Erichsen, E. A., Bolliger, D. U., & Halupa, C. (2014). Student satisfaction with graduate supervision in doctoral programs primarily delivered in distance education settings. Studies in Higher education , 39 (2), 321-338.

Ghosh, P., Chauhan, R., & Rai, A. (2015). Supervisor support in transfer of training: Looking back at past research. Industrial and Commercial Training , 47 (4), 201-207.

Hakkarainen, K., Hytönen, K., Makkonen, J., & Lehtinen, E. (2016). Extending collective practices of doctoral education from natural to educational sciences. Studies in Higher Education , 41 (1), 63-78.

Holloway, I., & Brown, L. (2016). Essentials of a qualitative doctorate . Routledge.

Kamler, B., & Thomson, P. (2014). Helping doctoral students write: Pedagogies for supervision . Routledge.

Kumar, S., & Coe, C. (2017). Mentoring and student support in online doctoral programs. American Journal of Distance Education , 31 (2), 128-142.

Kyvik, S., & Thune, T. (2015). Assessing the quality of PhD dissertations. A survey of external committee members. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education , 40 (5), 768-782.

Lepp, L., Remmik, M., Leijen, Ä., & Leijen, D. A. (2016). Doctoral students’ research stall: Supervisors’ perceptions and intervention strategies. SAGE Open , 6 (3), 2158244016659116.

Lim, J. M. H., Loi, C. K., Hashim, A., & Liu, M. S. M. (2015). Purpose statements in experimental doctoral dissertations submitted to US universities: An inquiry into doctoral students’ communicative resources in language education. Journal of English for Academic Purposes , 20 , 69-89.

Mehr, K. E., Ladany, N., & Caskie, G. I. (2015). Factors influencing trainee willingness to disclose in supervision. Training and Education in Professional Psychology , 9 (1), 44.

Nethsinghe, R., & Southcott, J. (2015). A juggling act: Supervisor/candidate partnership in a doctoral thesis by publication. International Journal of Doctoral Studies , 10 , 167-185.

Orellana, M. L., Darder, A., Pérez, A., & Salinas, J. (2016). Improving doctoral success by matching PhD students with supervisors. International Journal of Doctoral Studies , 11 , 87-103.

Pakdaman, S., Shafranske, E., & Falender, C. (2015). Ethics in supervision: Consideration of the supervisory alliance and countertransference management of psychology doctoral students. Ethics & Behavior , 25 (5), 427-441.

Parker-Jenkins, M. (2018). Mind the gap: developing the roles, expectations and boundaries in the doctoral supervisor–supervisee relationship. Studies in Higher Education , 43 (1), 57-71.

Pyhältö, K., Vekkaila, J., & Keskinen, J. (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.

Rogers, P., Zawacki, T., & Baker, S. (2016). Uncovering challenges and pedagogical complications in dissertation writing and supervisory practices: A multi-method study of doctoral student advisors. Supporting graduate student writers: Research, curriculum, and program design, 52-77.

Stockman, C. (2015). Achieving a doctorate through mixed methods research. Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods , 13 (2), 74.

Tangen, J. L., & Borders, D. (2016). The supervisory relationship: A conceptual and psychometric review of measures. Counselor Education and Supervision , 55 (3), 159-181.

Taylor, S., Kiley, M., & Humphrey, R. (2017). A handbook for doctoral supervisors . Routledge.

Tribe, R., & Tunariu, A. (2016). Turning your dissertation into a publishable journal article. Counselling Psychology Review , 31 (1), 50-58.

Woo, H., Jang, Y. J., & Henfield, M. S. (2015). International doctoral students in counselor education: coping strategies in supervision training . Journal of Multicultural Counseling and Development , 43 (4), 288-304.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

ORIGINAL RESEARCH article

A study on the positive and negative effects of different supervisor monitoring in remote workplaces.

• 1 College of Economics and Management, Mianyang Teachers’ college, Mianyang, China
• 2 School of Business Administration, Southwestern University of Finance and Economics, Chengdu, Sichuan, China

The current academic research on whether and how the different supervisor monitoring effect in remote workplace is relatively scarce. Based on the Job demand-resource (JD-R) Model, this study proposes that as a kind of work resource, interactional monitoring will enhance employees’ self-efficacy, further enhance remote employees’ work engagement and reduce their deviant behaviors. While as a kind of work requirement, electronic monitoring will decrease employees’ self-efficacy, further reduce remote employee’s work engagement and increase their deviant behaviors. This study gets the empirical date of 299 employees who experienced remote work. Amos 23.0, SPSS 23.0 software and process plug-in were used to do the hierarchical regression, bootstrap and simple slope analysis, so that to test the hypothesis. This study broadens the research situation and mechanism of different supervisor monitoring, so as to enrich the comprehensive understanding of the effect of them, and also to provide some inspiration and reference for relevant management practices.

Introduction

Remote work was proposed in the 1970s ( Golden and Eddleston, 2020 ), and the global remote work practice was intensified by COVID-19 in 2020 ( O’Brien and Yazdani Aliabadi, 2020 ). More than 3 years since the outbreak of COVID-19, the proportion of remote work has significantly increased in Europe, America, and Asia ( Huo et al., 2022 ). Data shows that in May 2020, more than 65% of people in the United States worked remotely at home ( Gallup, 2020 ). In China, according to the “China Remote Work at Home Development Report” released by Zhaopin and Beijing National Development Research Institute in 2022 (referred to as the development report), the number of remote work at home job postings in 2021 after COVID-19 was 3–5 times than before it. The development report also predicts that remote work has shown advantages and prospects independent of the impact of COVID-19 from the perspectives of the macroeconomy, enterprises, employees, and countries and governments. Under this background, it is necessary to pay attention to the impact of remote work on enterprises and employees.

The most crucial feature of remote work is spatial isolation from the organization ( Xiao, 2019 ), resulting in invisibility between superiors and subordinates. Therefore, superiors will worry about whether remote employees are working hard. Previous studies have found that in remote workplaces, many employees have difficulty maintaining focus due to the lack of direct supervision from superiors ( Bloom et al., 2015 ), which may reduce work efficiency ( Leslie et al., 2012 ). Therefore, due to concerns about the work status of remote employees, even if they cannot meet face-to-face, leaders will take feasible measures to achieve adequate supervision. The more common ones are electronic supervision (from completely non-interactive camera surveillance and wearable devices with GPS tracking systems to interactive supervision) and interaction supervision, such as regular meetings and informal communication on social platforms ( Wu et al., 2020 ). So, this article focuses on whether and how different supervision methods of superiors produce effects in the remote workplace.

The current research on the effect of supervisors’ monitoring is mainly based on traditional offline workplaces. The study finds that different monitoring methods have different effects, and relevant research mainly explains this from the perspectives of social exchange theory ( Liao and Chun, 2016 ; Son et al., 2017 ) and self-determination theory ( Zhou, 2003 ; Mishra and Ghosh, 2020 ). Regarding social exchange theory, Son et al. (2017) treats monitoring as a whole and believe it will destroy the exchange between leaders and members, further hindering employees’ creativity and knowledge-sharing behavior. However, Liao and Chun (2016) distinguish supervisors’ monitoring as interactive and observational. The former can show subordinates that supervisors are willing to listen to their ideas and concerns through personal interactions initiated by supervisors with subordinates, which can positively impact subordinates’ performance. The latter evaluates and observes subordinates without seeking their opinions, and observational monitoring may cause subordinates to lose focus on work tasks and lead to negative attitudes, thus hurting subordinates’ performance. However, empirical research has found that these two monitoring forms are different but not opposite. Regarding self-determination theory, Mishra and Ghosh (2020) found that subordinates who report to supervisors who demonstrate an interactive monitor style may feel that the relationship with their supervisors can meet their basic needs for autonomy, competence, and relatedness, thus enhancing their satisfaction. Conversely, subordinates who report to supervisors using an observational monitor style may not meet their basic psychological needs in the supervisor-subordinate relationship, leading to job dissatisfaction. This study sorts out the characteristics of interactive and electronic monitoring and finds that interactive monitoring can be regarded as support from the organization and supervisors ( Mishra and Ghosh, 2020 ), a work resource ( Bedi, 2021 ), while electronic monitor brings pressure to perform work tasks through requirements, a work demand ( Zhou, 2003 ). Therefore, this study uses the Job Demands-Resources (JD-R) model as a theoretical perspective to explore the differential impact of two remote workplace monitoring forms- interactive and electronic monitoring - on employees’ work engagement and deviant behavior in remote work.

In addition, existing research has demonstrated that self-efficacy can mediate between external environmental factors and individual states ( Huang and Chen, 2012 ). Therefore, when facing the new working environment of remote work, it is worth further exploring whether external monitoring can affect individual employees through self-efficacy as a mediator. Secondly, under the guidance of the Job Demands-Control Model, existing research has also confirmed the differential effects of job demands and job control on self-efficacy ( Huang and Chen, 2012 ). Based on this, this study must explore whether the differential effects of interactive monitoring (work resources) and electronic monitoring (work demand) on self-efficacy exist in remote work. Finally, the most essential reason for introducing self-efficacy is determined by the Job Demands-Resources Model selected in this study. The Job Demands-Resources Model explains job burnout and psychological capital, including self-efficacy dimensions. In summary, this study introduces self-efficacy as an individual resource as a mediator to further explore whether and how the two forms of monitoring in remote workplaces – interactive and electronic – have differential impacts on employee work engagement and deviant behavior.

This study aims to supplement and contribute to existing relevant research in the following aspects: Firstly, this study enriches the research on leadership and employee behavior in remote workplaces. Secondly, this study extends the research context of supervisor monitoring. Finally, under the guidance of the Job Demands-Resources Model (JD-R), introducing self-efficacy as a mediating mechanism is unique in research perspective. Besides, it further distinguishes the effects of interactive and electronic monitoring from different research contexts and perspectives to enrich the comprehensive understanding of them and their effects. The research results also provide some insights and references for relevant management practices (how to increase work engagement and reduce deviant behavior in remote workplaces). The research model is shown in Figure 1 .

Figure 1 . Proposed theoretical model.

Theory and hypotheses

The academic concept of Supervisor Monitor has a long history, and there are mainly three views: the first is from the perspective of control, which believes that Supervisor Monitor is a way of controlling individual and organizational performance. The second is from the perspective of situational leadership theory, which considers monitoring an essential task of leadership. The third is from the perspective of information, which believes that supervisor monitoring is mainly the behavior of supervisors to collect information about subordinate work progress and effectiveness ( Khan et al., 2020 ). The third concept is the most commonly used, which means that monitoring is about collecting work-related information ( Holt et al., 2017 ). Through information collection, on the one hand, supervisors can ensure that employees follow instructions, perform tasks in the expected way, and refrain from doing anything that supervisors might disapprove of, thus aligning employee behavior with organizational goals ( Zhou, 2003 ; Khan et al., 2020 ). On the other hand, it is also for performance evaluation ( Khan et al., 2020 ). Therefore, similar concepts include neutral performance monitoring (Performance Monitor) and negative close monitoring (Close monitoring). Based on various characteristics, scholars distinguish monitor types based on supervisors’ methods of collecting subordinate information. Among them, the behavior of collecting subordinate work progress and results in information without direct input from subordinates is called observational monitoring, a top-down monitoring method ( Liao and Chun, 2016 ). In remote work, it is impossible to observe face-to-face directly, but by electronic information technology, so it is also called an electronic monitor ( Tomczak et al., 2018 ). The monitoring method of obtaining information directly from subordinates is interactive monitoring, such as holding meetings with subordinates to understand their expectations, opinions, and feedback on work arrangements and other related issues ( Liao and Chun, 2016 ). Especially, the study considers interactive monitoring during the purely remote work periods; the forms include communicating work matters to collect information in the remote workplaces (such as online meetings, telephone meetings, instant chatting, and so on) but do not include any face-to-face communication. In remote work, the physical isolation of the workplace may cause supervisors to doubt their subordinates’ work performance, so they will try to implement monitoring to evaluate employees’ constructive and destructive behaviors ( Ahmed et al., 2022 ). In this context, supervisors generally use two forms of information collection: electronic and interactive monitors. Whether and how these two monitoring forms affect remote employees’ constructive and destructive behaviors requires theoretical and empirical exploration.

In the traditional face-to-face workplace, research on the role and outcomes of supervisor monitor has yielded inconsistent conclusions, with both positive and negative effects. From a positive perspective, Larson and Callahan (1990) found through experimental research that when task execution is monitored (compared to when it is not monitored), the amount of work completed on the experimental task significantly increases. This is because monitoring increases employees’ perceived importance of tasks, thereby enhancing productivity. Rietzschel and Slijkhuis (2014) found that close monitoring improves employees’ role clarity, positively impacting job satisfaction, work motivation, and job performance. From a negative perspective, numerous studies have suggested that supervisor monitoring decreases employees’ perceived autonomy and leader-member relationships, leading to negative outcomes such as decreased job satisfaction, work motivation and attitude, job performance, creativity, work effort, and knowledge sharing ( Niehoff and Moorman, 1993 ; Rietzschel and Slijkhuis, 2014 ; Son et al., 2017 ; Kim, 2020 ). Furthermore, when classifying interactive and electronic monitors, the positive effects of interactive monitors have generally been consistent in the context of a traditional face-to-face workplace. Liao and Chun (2016) suggest that interactive monitoring is constructive supervision that promotes trust in leadership, enhances leader-member exchange, and fosters positive feedback-seeking behavior, further promoting employee innovation. Wu et al. (2020) found that interactive monitoring enhances employees’ psychological safety, ultimately promoting their trust in management. Khan et al. (2020) studied sales personnel and found that interactive monitoring enhances their work engagement, promoting job performance. Mishra and Ghosh (2020) found that interactive monitoring demonstrates supervisor support for subordinates, promoting job satisfaction. However, there are inconsistent conclusions regarding the role of electronic monitors. On the one hand, some studies have confirmed the positive effects of electronic monitors from different perspectives. For example, electronic monitoring can encourage employees to follow regulations and improve their behavior, preventing counterproductive work behaviors ( Pierce et al., 2015 ; Tomczak et al., 2018 ). On the other hand, the negative effects of electronic monitors have also received attention. For example, the electronic monitor sends employees the message that they are performing poorly, lack commitment, or are untrustworthy, which in turn leads them to engage in deviant or counterproductive behaviors, reducing entrepreneurial enthusiasm and inhibiting innovation ( Holland et al., 2015 ; Liao and Chun, 2016 ; Martin et al., 2016 ; Wu et al., 2021 ). Holt et al. (2017) studied the perspectives of privacy and ethics and found that electronic monitoring can reduce work acceptability, moral perception, and job satisfaction. In addition, scholars have also found that employees’ perceptions of electronic monitoring can lead to different outcomes. For example, through research, Haley et al. (2012) found that employees’ positive intentions toward electronic monitoring strengthen organizational communication and reduce turnover rates. Conversely, negative views of monitoring weaken communication with the organization and increase turnover rates. Samaranayake and Gamage (2012) studied software industry employees and found that perceived relevance to work and personal judgments of effectiveness are two variables measuring electronic monitor perception. These variables are positively related to job satisfaction, meaning that software employees who are satisfied with their work believe that electronic monitoring is relevant and improves their work quality. However, perceived privacy infringement from electronic monitors is negatively related to job satisfaction. A further review of the literature on the research context of supervisor monitors found very little research on the role and outcomes of supervisor monitors in remote work settings. However, in practice, supervisor monitoring in remote workplaces is quite common. For example, instant messaging tools are commonly used for communication to monitor (some interviewees reported that they feel that supervisors are more frequently tagging people in groups). Therefore, it is necessary to conduct more empirical research to explore whether interactive and electronic monitoring can achieve positive outcomes for employees in remote workplaces while mitigating negative outcomes. In remote workplaces, supervisors’ most intuitive concerns are whether employees work diligently and engage in behaviors that damage organizational interests, such as “gaming the system.” Therefore, this article aims to explore how supervisor interaction and electronic monitoring impact employee work engagement and deviant behavior in remote workplaces within the context of existing literature and management practices.

Supervisor interaction monitoring and work engagement, deviant behavior in remote workplace

Interactive monitoring is a way to collect information about subordinates’ work by holding regular meetings with them or inviting individual subordinates to participate in discussions ( Liao and Chun, 2016 ). In the context of remote work, as it is not visible like traditional face-to-face work, employees cannot participate in organizational activities and communicate in the typical organizational behavior, leading to a decrease in direct interactive contact with colleagues and managers ( Xiao, 2019 ), which further increases leaders’ concerns about employees’ work conditions. For example, some studies have found that in remote work, lower visibility may cause superiors to perceive and feel that remote workers are “slacking off” ( DeRosa et al., 2004 ). However, with the development of modern communication technology, leaders have become very convenient and frequent in their interactions with remote employees ( Barsness et al., 2005 ). Compared with face-to-face work, organizations and superiors have more constraints and norms on remote employees. For example, keeping connected anytime and anywhere has become a fundamental norm of remote work ( Derks et al., 2015 ), using interactive monitoring to compensate for the decrease in face-to-face supervision norms. Therefore, interactive monitoring is a necessity and feasible in the context of remote work. As in traditional face-to-face workplaces, interactive monitoring in remote workplaces can even more conveniently provide employees with the following opportunities: (i) to understand the expectations and needs of supervisors; (ii) to explain errors or unsatisfactory performance to supervisors and inform them of their achievements that have not been reported or may be overlooked; (iii) to express personal opinions, concerns, and dissatisfaction ( Liao and Chun, 2016 ). Therefore, through interactive monitoring, supervisors can provide subordinates with specific work resources. On the one hand, through communication and feedback, employees can be provided with resources to solve problems. On the other hand, participating in public discussions can convey good intentions, strengthen constructive working relationships with subordinates, and enhance their emotional resources ( Tjosvold, 2008 ). In the context of organizational isolation of remote work, strengthening interactions with subordinates through interactive monitoring can enhance their psychological resources ( Xiao, 2019 ).

Therefore, in the context of long-term remote work (especially when forced to work remotely), how alleviating employee fatigue and distractions, enhancing work engagement, strengthening identification, and making employees more focused, more energetic, and more willing to contribute is a problem that deserves management attention ( Hu and Zhang, 2022 ). Many studies have confirmed that work resources, including emotional and psychological resources, are the prerequisite for enhancing work engagement ( Schaufeli and Bakker, 2004 ; Bakker et al., 2008 ; Halbesleben et al., 2014 ; Rahmadani et al., 2020 ; Liu and Wen, 2022 ; Zhan et al., 2022 ; Zheng et al., 2022 ). Therefore, this study hypothesizes that the interactive monitoring of superiors to increase subordinates’ work resources in remote work can promote employees’ work engagement.

H1a : In remote workplaces, supervisor interactive monitoring will increase subordinates’ work engagement.

Workplace deviant behavior is voluntary behavior that violates important organizational norms, either threatening the organization or its members or causing harm to both ( Robinson and Bennett, 1995 ). Its harmful impact on the organization is very concerning, as most employees engage in some level of deviance, causing billions of dollars in productivity and other costs to the organization each year ( Mackey et al., 2021 ). Therefore, it is essential to understand the reasons for deviance and minimize and address it. Previous research has found that in remote workplaces, supervisors cannot intervene in employees’ remote work behavior due to the lack of direct monitoring, which may lead to an increase in employee deviance and a failure to ensure work efficiency ( Leslie et al., 2012 ). Therefore, whether interactive monitoring by supervisors can reduce deviance needs further exploration. Previous research has explained why employees engage in workplace deviance from multiple perspectives, such as emotional event theory ( Bordia et al., 2008 ), stress transaction theory ( Mawritz et al., 2014 ), social learning theory ( Mawritz et al., 2012 ), and personality theory ( Meyer et al., 2014 ). However, scholars have found that these studies have certain consistencies. Furthermore, through meta-analysis, it has been found that the consistencies are reflected in the dominance of social psychology and resource-based theories in exploring the causes of deviance ( Mackey et al., 2021 ). From a resource perspective, it has been found that general work resources hurt employee deviance ( Wilson et al., 2015 ), which means that increasing employees’ work resources can help reduce their deviance. Therefore, this study hypothesizes that interactive monitoring by supervisors in remote workplaces to increase subordinates’ work resources can reduce employee deviance. Therefore, the following hypothesis is proposed:

H1b : Supervisor interactive monitoring in remote workplaces will reduce subordinates’ deviant behavior.

Supervisor electronic monitoring and work engagement, deviant behavior in remote workplace

Electronic monitoring refers to a form of supervision that utilizes modern computer technology to continuously collect data or information on employees, which may involve the use of surveillance cameras, computer, and telephone email monitoring systems, as well as wearable devices or mobile phone applications with global positioning system (GPS) tracking applications (APPs) (such as DingTalk) ( Holt et al., 2017 ). Electronic monitoring occurs without direct input from the subordinate during information collection; it is a typical form of observation monitoring ( Tomczak et al., 2018 ), the only observation monitoring that can be achieved in remote workplaces. Regarding electronic monitoring, researchers believe it is like a work discipline, where the supervised person feels the constant authority of supervision and manages their behavior. Whether electronic monitoring is overt or covert, the mere feeling that an individual may be monitored, even if it does not occur, can be a powerful management tool and potentially have profound implications for individuals ( Holland et al., 2015 ). Therefore, electronic monitoring puts pressure to perform work tasks as required, which is a job demand ( Zhou, 2003 ).

From the perspective of employees’ work engagement, research on the impact of job demands on reducing employees’ work engagement is relatively mature. Specifically, by studying different occupational groups, it has been found that job demands significantly negatively impact work engagement. For example, Liu and Wen (2022) studied primary and secondary school teachers and found that job demands significantly inhibited their work engagement. Chen et al. (2019) studied nurses and found that the higher the job demands of nurses, the less satisfactory their work engagement. Chen and Fellenz (2020) surveyed service industry employees and confirmed that personal job demands reduce employees’ work engagement. Therefore, this study inferred that electronic monitoring would give employees a certain pressure and requirement as an observation supervision form for employees in remote workplaces, thereby reducing remote employees’ work engagement. In summary, this study proposes the following hypothesis:

H2a : Supervisor electronic monitoring in remote workplaces will reduce subordinates’ work engagement.

From the perspective of employees’ deviant behavior, previous studies have confirmed that the pressure caused by job demands can lead to deviant behavior ( Roberts, 2012 ; Mawritz et al., 2014 ; Bazzy and Woehr, 2017 ). As face-to-face supervision is impossible in remote workplaces, electronic monitoring is mainly limited to the “cyber” level. Therefore, it may reduce employees’ cyber-deviant behavior, but the increased sense of pressure caused by job demands makes employees engage in deviant behavior to recover ( Fan et al., 2021 ). Furthermore, previous studies have found that continuously increasing job demands can impose significant psychological pressure on employees, and employees’ deviant behavior results from the complex interaction of environmental stressors ( Cui et al., 2021 ). Specifically, as electronic monitoring in remote work is a type of pressure that requires tasks to be performed, it can affect employees’ evaluation of environmental cognition ( Cui et al., 2021 ), leading to deviant behavior. Therefore, this study hypothesizes that electronic monitoring will lead to more pronounced traditional deviant behavior. Thus, this study proposes the following hypothesis:

H2b : Supervisor electronic monitoring in remote workplaces will increase subordinates’ deviant behavior.

Mediating role of self-efficacy

Self-efficacy refers to an individual’s belief in their ability to organize and execute specific achievements, and an individual’s self-efficacy in a particular domain can generalize to other domains. It is the overall self-confidence and sense of competence that individuals face environmental demands or new environments ( Schwarzer et al., 1997 ), and it is also a personal resource ( An et al., 2021 ). Previous studies have shown that self-efficacy can mediate between external environmental factors and individual status ( Huang and Chen, 2012 ). Therefore, when facing the new working environment of remote work, it is worth further exploring whether external monitoring can affect individual employees through the mediating role of self-efficacy.

The mediating role of self-efficacy in the relationship between supervisors’ interactive monitoring and employee engagement and deviant behavior in remote workplaces.

In remote workplaces, because they are invisible, employees may worry that their leaders do not know their performance and doubt whether they will be fairly evaluated ( Niehoff and Moorman, 1993 ). Supervisors interactively monitor their subordinates and obtain information by communicating with them. In this case, on the one hand, employees have a fair opportunity to introduce the details of their work progress ( Mishra and Ghosh, 2020 ). On the other hand, employees can express their concerns and opinions, making them more likely to feel that they are being treated fairly ( Wu and Wang, 2020 ). This sense of fairness from interactive monitoring helps to enhance employees’ self-efficacy ( Fang, 2014 ). At the same time, interactive monitoring can help remote employees overcome and control environmental influences and feel capable during interactions ( Khan et al., 2020 ). Additionally, in interactive monitoring, on the one hand, subordinates feel that their work is being observed by their superiors, which promotes their sense of competence. On the other hand, regular interactive discussions as a monitoring method provide subordinates with constructive problem-solving channels from their leaders, enhancing their ability to complete tasks ( Mishra and Ghosh, 2020 ). In summary, supervisors’ interactive monitoring in remote workplaces serves as a work resource that helps to enhance employees’ self-efficacy, an individual psychological resource. Employees with high self-efficacy exhibit more positive states and fewer adverse behaviors ( Kim and Beehr, 2017 ). Therefore, this study hypothesizes that self-efficacy can mediate between supervisors’ interactive monitoring and employee engagement and deviant behavior in remote workplaces.

The role of self-efficacy in work engagement has been well-validated, and research confirms that work-related self-efficacy is a characteristic of employees who maintain a high level of work engagement during remote work ( Mäkikangas et al., 2022 ). Furthermore, studies have shown that psychological resources such as self-efficacy ( Xanthopoulou et al., 2007 ) and psychological capital ( Grover et al., 2018 ) mediate the positive effect of work resources on work engagement. Therefore, this study hypothesizes that self-efficacy mediates between supervisors’ interactive monitoring and employee work engagement in remote workplaces. Specifically, supervisors’ interactive monitoring in remote workplaces can provide resources such as interactive guidance and encouraging feedback to promote employees’ self-efficacy as a psychological resource ( Mäkikangas et al., 2022 ). This further promotes employees’ work engagement in remote work. Therefore, this study proposes the following hypothesis:

H3a : Self-efficacy mediates the relationship between supervisors’ interactive monitoring and work engagement in remote workplaces. Specifically, supervisors’ interactive monitoring in remote workplaces enhances employees’ self-efficacy, further improving their work engagement.

Previous studies have confirmed that self-efficacy can reduce employees’ deviant behavior ( Kim and Beehr, 2017 ; Iqbal et al., 2021 ). In remote work, supervisors’ interactive monitoring can provide employees with necessary resource support, stimulating their self-efficacy ( Kim and Beehr, 2017 ). This further reduces employees’ engagement in behaviors that harm their self-evaluation, such as deviant behavior ( Huck et al., 2017 ). Therefore, this study proposes the following hypothesis:

H3b : Self-efficacy mediates the relationship between supervisors’ interactive monitoring and deviant behavior in remote workplaces. Specifically, supervisors’ interactive monitoring in remote workplaces enhances employees’ self-efficacy, reducing their deviant behavior.

The mediating role of self-efficacy in the relationship between supervisors’ electronic monitoring and employee engagement and deviant behavior in remote workplaces.

As a form of observational monitoring, electronic monitoring in remote workplaces can make employees feel constantly supervised, leading to pressure to perform tasks in a required manner and reducing their self-efficacy ( Huang and Chen, 2012 ). Unlike interactive monitoring, electronic monitoring collects information about employees’ performance without participation, reducing their confidence in completing tasks and assessing their performance. This is demonstrated in two ways: (1) subordinates do not have a say in matters related to their performance, weakening their control over outcomes such as performance evaluations; (2) the lack of attention and effort to investigate subordinates’ information deprives them of valuable growth opportunities and may reduce their sense of competence ( Mishra and Ghosh, 2020 ). Specifically, ubiquitous electronic monitoring can reduce employees’ autonomy and sense of self-responsibility, making them unable to arrange and manage their own behavior freely ( Niehoff and Moorman, 1993 ), lowering self-efficacy. The level of self-efficacy affects the degree of effort employees are willing to exert and the duration of their persistence when faced with obstacles. The higher employees’ self-efficacy, the more actively they will respond to obstacles, and vice versa ( Yu and Du, 2023 ). Therefore, electronic monitoring reduces employees’ self-efficacy and further leads to reduced work effort (such as reduced job engagement) and adverse work behaviors (such as deviant behavior) in areas where electronic monitoring is “invisible” ( Niehoff and Moorman, 1993 ). In summary, it is hypothesized that:

H4a : Self-efficacy mediates the relationship between supervisors’ electronic monitoring and work engagement in remote workplaces. Specifically, supervisors’ electronic monitoring in remote workplaces reduces employees’ self-efficacy, further reducing their work engagement.

H4b : Self-efficacy mediates the relationship between supervisors’ electronic monitoring and deviant behavior in remote workplaces. Specifically, supervisors’ electronic monitoring in remote workplaces reduces employees’ self-efficacy, further increasing their deviant behavior.

Sample and process

The remote work driven by COVID-19 has become the norm for many enterprises, and this study is not limited by factors such as industry and culture; the selection method for research subjects is to find 40 familiar friends and ask them to help find their acquaintances for a questionnaire filling. Referring to existing practices, to ensure the questionnaire’s validity, they must refrain from distributing it in their own company, and only one subject can be found in each enterprise ( Luo et al., 2018 ). With the subjects’ permission, researchers directly contact them through email to collect and distribute the questionnaire. To ensure anonymity, researchers get the unique ID (The last four digits of the phone number + the last four digits of the ID number) and the subjects’ email addresses, but no other information (such as name).

This study collected questionnaire data in two periods to minimize the common method bias. Demographics, supervisor interactions, and electronic monitoring information in remote workplaces were collected in the first stage. This stage involved 40 acquaintances, each recommending 10 subjects, resulting in 400 questionnaires being distributed and 386 valid questionnaires being returned. After 2 months, self-efficacy, work engagement, and deviant behavior questionnaires were completed in the second stage. We distributed it to the 386 valid subjects from the first stage, returning 353 valid questionnaires. As the research context is remote work, all subjects must have had remote work experience. Questionnaires from subjects with no or minimal remote work experience were excluded, and finally, this study collected 299 valid questionnaires with a total effective recovery rate of 74.75%.

Regarding demographic information, there were 164 women, accounting for 54.8% of the total, and 135 men, accounting for 45.2%. The average age was 32.58 years. A total of 245 people had bachelor’s or higher degrees, accounting for 81.9%. The average number of working years in the current enterprise is 6.83 years. Regarding the nature of the enterprise, state-owned enterprises accounted for 54.5%, private enterprises accounted for 33.8%, foreign enterprises accounted for 0.3%, public institutions accounted for 5.4%, and others accounted for 6%.

We adopted established scales in English to gather data, which were adapted through Back-translation ( Richard, 1970 ) to ensure the validity of it for Chinese interviewees. In addition, we also invited research experts and corporate employees in related fields to conduct testing, and discuss any areas of disagreement until consensus was reached ( Cheng et al., 2021 ). Except for demographic information, a five-point Likert response anchors ranging from 1(strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree) were applied. In particular, this study added a question after the demographic variables: “Have you ever experienced remote work?” to determine if the subject is in line with the research context of this study.

Interactive monitoring

We applied 5 items established by Liao and Chun (2016) . In reference to the practices of other scholars, we added remote workplaces to all items ( Zhao and Yang, 2020 ). A sample item is “In remote workplaces, my superior often arranges online meetings with me to discuss my work progress.” (Cronbach’s α  = 0.899).

Electronic monitoring

We applied 4 items established by Holland et al. (2015) . In reference to the practices of other scholars, we added remote workplaces to all items ( Zhao and Yang, 2020 ). A sample item is “In remote work, my company uses relevant software to monitor our work (such as taking screenshots every 5 min, etc.).” (Cronbach’s α = 0.865).

Work engagement

We applied 3 items established by Schaufeli et al. (2019) . In reference to the practices of other scholars, we added remote workplaces to all items ( Zhao and Yang, 2020 ). A sample item is “In remote workplaces, I feel full of energy for my work.” (Cronbach’s α  = 0.928).

Deviant behavior

We applied 12 items established by Stewart et al. (2009) . In reference to the practices of other scholars, we added remote workplaces to all items ( Zhao and Yang, 2020 ). A sample item is “In remote workplaces, I deliberately slow down my work speed.” (Cronbach’s α  = 0.953).

Self-efficacy

We applied 10 items established by Schwarzer et al. (1997) . A sample item is “I can face difficulties calmly because I believe in my ability to solve problems.” (Cronbach’s α  = 0.922).

Control variables

By referring to existing studies, we selected gender, age, education background and tenures as control variables, which can influence employees’ work engagement and deviant behavior.

Common method variance test

Although we carried out a two-wave data collection within 2 months in this study, and tried to dispel the misgivings of the respondents during the survey, yet, there might be a common method variance given that all the data came from respondents’ self-evaluation. Therefore, we employed Harman single-factor method ( Harman, 1976 ) to test whether this variance exists. Thirty-four items from exploratory factor analysis (EFA) were utilized in the test. The results showed that only 6 factors’ eigenvalues exceeded 1 with the first factor referring to autonomy explained 31.41%, which was much lower than 50%. These results clearly demonstrates that common-method variance is not a serious problem in this study ( Podsakoff et al., 2003 ; Malhotra et al., 2006 ).

Validity test

Prior to examining the research hypotheses proposed in our model, a multi-level confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) widely adopted and validated by previous literature was carried out to confirm whether our study variables (interactive monitoring, electronic monitoring, self-efficacy, work engagement and deviant behavior) have good discriminant validity. Analysis with AMOS 23 showed that our five-factor model produced a reasonably good fit ( χ 2 d f =1.874, TLI = 0.940, CFI = 0.946, RMSEA = 0.054), and fits better than alternative parsimonious models ( Table 1 ). These results not only suggested that the latent constructs used in this study have acceptable discriminant validity, but also further certified that common-method variance is not a serious problem in our study.

Table 1 . Results for confirmatory factor analysis.

Descriptive statistics

Table 2 presents the means, standard deviations, and correlations of the study variables, which were run by SPSS 23. The results suggest a positive correlation between interactive monitoring and self-efficacy ( r  = 0.275, p  < 0.01), a positive correlation between interactive monitoring and work engagement ( r  = 0.434, p  < 0.01), a negative correlation between electronic monitoring and self-efficacy ( r  = −0.174, p  < 0.01), a positive correlation between electronic monitoring and deviant behavior ( r  = 0.462, p  < 0.01), a positive correlation between self-efficacy and work engagement ( r  = 0.490, p  < 0.01), a negative correlation between self-efficacy and deviant behavior ( r  = −0.244, p  < 0.01), which provides preliminary evidence for subsequent hypothesis testing.

Table 2 . Means, standard deviations and correlation coefficients of variables.

Hypothesis tests

We tested the hypotheses H1a, H1b, H2a, and H2b, meanwhile preliminarily examined the mediating effect via hierarchical regression using SPSS 23. The results are presented in Table 3 . Further, referring to the suggestion of Edwards and Lambert (2007) , we applied Bootstrap (5,000 times) to verify the mediating effect (H3a, H3b, H4a, and H4b).

Table 3 . Results for hierarchical regression analysis.

Hypothesis 1a proposes that interactive monitoring is positively associated with work engagement. As anticipated, results from Table 3 reports that Hypothesis 1a is supported ( β = 0.398, p  < 0.01, Model 2).

Hypothesis 1b proposes that interactive monitoring is negatively associated with deviant behavior. As predicted, results from Table 3 reports that Hypothesis 1b is supported( β = –0.104, p  < 0.01, Model 5).

Hypothesis 2a proposes that electronic monitoring is negatively associated with work engagement. The results in Table 3 reports that H2a is not supported( β = 0.007, n.s. , Model 2).

Hypothesis 2b proposes that electronic monitoring is positively associated with deviant behavior. As anticipated, results from Table 3 reports that Hypothesis 2b is supported ( β = 0.382, p  < 0.01, Model 5).

Hypothesis 3a proposes that interactive monitoring indirectly affects work engagement via self-efficacy. To compare Model 3 and Model 4, we add monitoring in Model 4 based on Model 3, which still suggests a positive association between self-efficacy and work engagement ( β = 0.598, p < 0.01, Model4). Although the effect turns weaker, it’s still significant. Furthermore, to compare Model 2 and Model 4, we add self-efficacy in Model 4 based on Model 2, which still suggests a positive association between interactive monitoring and work engagement( β = 0.296, p < 0.01, Model 4). The effect is still significant indicating a partial mediation. H3a is supported.

Referring to the suggestions of Edwards and Lambert (2007) , Bootstrap (5,000 times) is applied in this study to further verify the indirect effect of self-efficacy in the model. The results are shown in Table 4 , demonstrating that this indirect effect as hypothesized is pronounced (estimate = 0.097, 95%CI =0.044, 0.168), which confirms that interactive monitoring indicates a significant mediating effect on work engagement through self-efficacy. And the direct estimate is significant (estimate = 0.284, 95%CI = 0.199,0.369), so self-efficacy partially mediates the relationship between interactive monitoring and work engagement. The above results provide support for hypothesis 3a.

Table 4 . Bootstrap test results for direct effect and indirect effect of self-efficacy in interaction supervisor and work engagement.

Hypothesis 3b proposes that interactive monitoring indirectly affects deviant behavior via self-efficacy. To compare Model 6 and Model 7, we add monitoring in Model 7 based on Model 6, which still suggests negative association between self-efficacy and deviant behavior( β = –0.196, p < 0.01, Model7). Although the effect turns weaker, it’s still significant. Furthermore, to compare Model 5 and Model 7, we add self-efficacy in Model 7 based on Model 5, which suggests the negative association between interactive monitoring and deviant behavior is not significant( β = –0.070, n.s. , Model 7). So the mediating role of self-efficacy is not significant.

Hypothesis 4a proposes that electronic monitoring indirectly affects work engagement via self-efficacy. Because the direct effect between electronic monitoring and work engagement is not significant (Model 2), it’s unnecessary to confirm the indirect effect. H4a is not supported.

Hypothesis 4a proposes that electronic monitoring indirectly affects deviant behavior via self-efficacy. To compare Model 6 and Model 7, we add monitoring in Model 7 based on Model 6, which still suggests a negative association between self-efficacy and deviant behavior ( β = –0.196, p < 0.01, Model 7). Although the effect turns weaker, it’s still significant. Furthermore, to compare Model 5 and Model 7, we add self-efficacy in Model 7 based on Model 5, which still suggests a positive association between electronic monitoring and deviant behavior( β = 0.359, p < 0.01, Model 7). The effect is still significant indicating a partial mediation. H4b is supported.

Referring to the suggestions of Edwards and Lambert (2007) , Bootstrap (5,000 times) is applied in this study to further verify the indirect effect of self-efficacy in the model. The results are shown in Table 5 , demonstrating that this indirect effect as hypothesized is pronounced (estimate = 0.026, 95%CI = 0.006, 0.054), which confirms that electronic monitoring indicates a significant mediating effect on deviant behavior through self-efficacy. And the direct estimate is significant (estimate = 0.377, 95%CI = 0.289, 0.465), so self-efficacy partially mediates the relationship between electronic monitoring and deviant behavior. The above results provide support for hypothesis 4b.

Table 5 . Bootstrap test results for direct effect and indirect effect of self-efficacy in monitor supervisor and deviant behavior.

After the hypothesis tests, the final validated research model is presented in Figure 2 .

Figure 2 . Final validated research model.

This study focuses on supervisor monitoring in remote workplaces based on the Job Demands-Resources (JD-R) model. It examines the impact of different monitoring methods on remote employees’ work engagement and deviance via the mediating effect of self-efficacy. Based on 299 valid data collected in two periods, the following research findings are as follows.

The interactive monitoring in remote workplaces has a significant positive impact on employees’ work engagement (H1a is supported), and a significant negative impact on employees’ deviance (H1b is supported). Self-efficacy plays a mediating role between interactive monitoring and work engagement (H3a is supported), but it does not mediate the relationship between interactive monitoring and deviant behavior (H3b is not supported). Electronic monitoring by superiors in remote workplaces has a significant positive impact on employees’ deviant behavior (H2b is supported), but it does not have a significant impact on employees’ work engagement (H2a and H4a are not supported). Self-efficacy mediates the relationship between electronic monitoring and deviant behavior (H4b is supported).

Although some hypotheses in this study were not supported, the results are consistent with existing research. Schaufeli and Bakker, (2004) found that job resources can increase work engagement but not necessarily reduce deviance, while job demands can increase deviance but not necessarily reduce work engagement. Interactive monitoring by superiors in remote workplaces is a type of job resource that enhances work engagement by promoting personal resources such as self-efficacy, but it does not reduce deviance. Electronic monitoring in remote workplaces is a type of job demand that increases employee deviance by depleting personal resources such as self-efficacy, but it does not reduce work engagement.

Theoretical implications

First and foremost, this study contributes to the research on leadership and employee behavior in remote workplaces. With remote work becoming increasingly popular and expected to gain further prevalence, there is a need for more research on how to improve employee engagement and reduce deviant behavior ( Huo et al., 2022 ). This study enhances the understanding of relevant research by examining the impact of different monitoring approaches by superiors on improving employee engagement and reducing deviant behavior in remote workplaces.

Secondly, this study expands the research context of supervisor monitoring. The current research on the effect of supervisors’ monitoring is mainly based on traditional offline workplaces ( Zhou, 2003 ; Liao and Chun, 2016 ; Son et al., 2017 ; Mishra and Ghosh, 2020 ). However, by limiting the research context to remote workplaces, including subjects with remote work experience within the scope of valid data, and specifying remote work scenarios in the survey questions, this study provides strong evidence for the effectiveness of supervisor monitoring in remote workplaces.

Once again, this study enhances the theoretical perspective of the influence mechanism of supervisor monitoring. The current research on the effect of supervisors’ monitoring mainly depended on the perspectives of social exchange theory ( Liao and Chun, 2016 ; Son et al., 2017 ) and self-determination theory ( Zhou, 2003 ; Mishra and Ghosh, 2020 ). However, by distinguishing the different effects of interactive and electronic monitoring from supervisors through the lens of job demands-resources, this study highlights that supervisor monitoring in remote workplaces can serve as both a job resource and a job demand, depending on the specific monitoring approach. This further complements the research on the differentiated effects of interactive and observational monitoring by superiors. Additionally, it echoes the varying degrees of influence of job resources and job demands on positive and negative outcomes, as suggested by Schaufeli and Bakker, (2004) , where job resources increase work engagement but do not necessarily reduce deviance, while job demands increase deviance but do not necessarily reduce work engagement.

Practical implications

This study focuses on the effectiveness of supervisor monitoring in remote workplaces, which aligns with current management practice requirements. The research findings can provide the following insights to remote work managers.

When managing remote work, supervisors can adopt more interactive monitoring, such as regularly communicating and exchanging with employees, holding online meetings periodically, listening to employees’ self-reported work performance and problems, and providing timely interactive feedback and assistance to address employees’ deficiencies in remote workplaces. This approach can help remote employees increase their work engagement and, to some extent, prevent a decrease in organizational identity caused by organizational isolation in remote work ( Xiao, 2019 ).

It is recommended that organizations reduce the use of electronic monitoring in remote workplaces, as this can further increase employees’ work stress and sense of intrusion in remote workplaces, thereby enhancing their deviant behavior and hindering work efficiency.

Self-efficacy is a positive individual resource for remote work employees. Organizations should focus more on developing employees’ psychological capital and consider enhancing their self-efficacy as an essential construction means. This can increase remote work employees’ engagement and reduce their deviant behavior.

Limitations and directions of future research

First, although we carried out a two-wave data collection within 2 months in this study, yet there might still be a common method variance given that all the data came from respondents’ self-report. Therefore, future researchers are strongly encouraged to adopt a multi-stage and a multi-source (e.g., employees, leaders, team members, etc.) questionnaire design, in order to obtain more scientific and effective research results.

Second, many studies have confirmed that employees’ work engagement fluctuates significantly daily, so it is recommended to consider using a diary method to measure relevant variables to obtain more effective research data.

Third, this study just tests work engagement and deviant behavior as the results of supervisor monitoring in remote workplaces, not test performance, which is most important to organizations. So, in future research, it is necessary to verify the impact of different leadership supervision methods on employee work performance in remote work situations.

Fourth, regarding the research context, this study only treated remote work as an overall variable measurement context. Future research can make more detailed distinctions. On the one hand, a comparative analysis can examine the effectiveness of supervisor monitoring in remote workplaces and traditional face-to-face workplaces for the same participants. On the other hand, the intensity of remote work can be controlled during the study to enable more effective analysis.

Regarding boundary conditions, as this study primarily aims to discuss the effectiveness of remote workplaces, moderators were not selected for boundary condition verification. Future research can explore factors such as different individual characteristics (e.g., proactiveness, responsibility) or work characteristics (e.g., result-oriented work) for further exploration.

Data availability statement

The raw data supporting the conclusions of this article will be made available by the authors, without undue reservation.

Ethics statement

Ethical review and approval was not required for the study on human participants in accordance with the local legislation and institutional requirements. Written informed consent from the patients/participants or patients/participants legal guardian/next of kin was not required to participate in this study in accordance with the national legislation and the institutional requirements.

Author contributions

SL: Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Funding acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Project administration, Resources, Software, Supervision, Validation, Visualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. YW: Funding acquisition, Methodology, Supervision, Writing – review & editing.

The author(s) declare financial support was received for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article. National Natural Science Foundation of China Youth Science Fund (72202183): Health management of dirty work: content, measurement, and implementation.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Publisher’s note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

Ahmed, F., Soomro, S. A., Tunio, F. H., Ding, Y., and Qureshi, N. A. (2022). Performance monitoring, subordinate’s felt trust and ambidextrous behavior; toward a conceptual research framework. Front. Psychol. 13:758123. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.758123

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

An, Y. R., Yang, D. T., and Liu, Y. (2021). Turn pressure into innovation: the moderating effect of supervisor developmental feedback and creative self-efficacy. Sci. Technol. Process 38, 139–146. doi: 10.6049/kjjbydc.2019090590

Bakker, A. B., Van Emmerik, H., and Van Riet, P. (2008). How job demands, resources, and burnout predict objective performance: a constructive replication. Anxiety Stress Coping 21, 309–324. doi: 10.1080/10615800801958637

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Barsness, Z. I., Diekmann, K. A., and Seidel, M.-D. L. (2005). Motivation and opportunity: the role of remote work, demographic dissimilarity, and social network centrality in impression management. Acad. Manag. J. 48, 401–419. doi: 10.5465/amj.2005.17407906

Bazzy, J. D., and Woehr, D. J. (2017). Integrity, ego depletion, and the interactive impact on counterproductive behavior. Personal. Individ. Differ. 105, 124–128. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2016.09.037

Bedi, A. (2021). No herd for black sheep: a Meta-analytic review of the predictors and outcomes of workplace ostracism. Appl. Psychol. 70, 861–904. doi: 10.1111/apps.12238

Bloom, N., Liang, J., Roberts, J., and Ying, Z. J. (2015). Does working from home work? Evidence from a Chinese experiment. Q. J. Econ. 130, 165–218. doi: 10.1093/qje/qju032

Bordia, P., Restubog, S. L. D., and Tang, R. L. (2008). When employees strike back: investigating mediating mechanisms between psychological contract breach and workplace deviance. J. Appl. Psychol. 93, 1104–1117. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.93.5.1104

Chen, I.-S., and Fellenz, M. R. (2020). Personal resources and personal demands for work engagement: evidence from employees in the service industry. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 90:102600. doi: 10.1016/j.ijhm.2020.102600

Chen, M. G., Zhang, J., Bu, Q. Y., Hao, Z., and Jiang, Y. L. (2019). Relationships among job demands, recovery experience and work engagement of nurses. J. Nurs. Sci. 34, 48–51. doi: 10.3870/j.issn.1001-4152.2019.16.048

Cheng, B., Zhou, X., and Guo, G. X. (2021). Effects of perceived overqualification on proactive customer service performance. J. Manag. Sci. 34, 101–112. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1672−0334.2021.06.011

Cui, D. X., Xi, Y. H., Cheng, Y. Y., and Yu, C. (2021). The mechanism of instant messaging over load in the workplace affecting employees' deviant behavior from the perspective of self-control resources. Chin. J. Manag. 18, 362–370. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1672–884x.2021.03.006

Derks, D., van Duin, D., Tims, M., and Bakker, A. B. (2015). Smartphone use and work-home interference: the moderating role of social norms and employee work engagement. J. Occup. Organ. Psychol. 88, 155–177. doi: 10.1111/joop.12083

DeRosa, D. M., Hantula, D. A., Kock, N., and D’Arcy, J. (2004). Trust and leadership in virtual teamwork: a media naturalness perspective. Hum. Resour. Manag. 43, 219–232. doi: 10.1002/hrm.20016

Edwards, J. R., and Lambert, L. S. (2007). Methods for integrating moderation and mediation: a general analytical framework using moderated path analysis. Psychol. Methods 12, 1–22. doi: 10.1037/1082-989X.12.1.1

Fan, J., Zhang, M., Wei, X., Gursoy, D., and Zhang, X. (2021). The bright side of work-related deviant behavior for hotel employees themselves: impacts on recovery level and work engagement. Tour. Manag. 87:104375. doi: 10.1016/j.tourman.2021.104375

Fang, Y. C. (2014). The effect of inclusive leadership on team performance: based on the mediating effect of self-efficacy. Sci. Res. Manag. 35, 152–160. doi: 10.19571/j.cnki.1000-2995.2014.05.018

Gallup. (2020). COVID-19: a leader’s guide to developing a work-from-home strategy.

Google Scholar

Golden, T. D., and Eddleston, K. A. (2020). Is there a price telecommuters pay? Examining the relationship between telecommuting and objective career success. J. Vocat. Behav. 116:103348. doi: 10.1016/j.jvb.2019.103348

Grover, S. L., Teo, S. T. T., Pick, D., Roche, M., and Newton, C. J. (2018). Psychological capital as a personal resource in the JD-R model. Pers. Rev. 47, 968–984. doi: 10.1108/PR-08-2016-0213

Halbesleben, J. R. B., Neveu, J.-P., Paustian-Underdahl, S. C., and Westman, M. (2014). Getting to the “COR”: understanding the role of resources in conservation of resources theory. J. Manag. 40, 1334–1364. doi: 10.1177/0149206314527130

Haley, L. M., Flint, D., and McNally, J. J. (2012). The effects of employee perceptions of monitoring procedures on turnover. Probl. Perspect. Manag. 10:9.

Harman, H. H. (1976). Modern factor-analysis. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Holland, P. J., Cooper, B., and Hecker, R. (2015). Electronic monitoring and surveillance in the workplace. Pers. Rev. 44, 161–175. doi: 10.1108/PR-11-2013-0211

Holt, M., Lang, B., and Sutton, S. G. (2017). Potential employees’ ethical perceptions of active monitoring: the dark side of data analytics. J. Inf. Syst. 31, 107–124. doi: 10.2308/isys-51580

Hu, T. W., and Zhang, L. L. (2022). The impact of leader - follower congruence in mindfulness trait on followers' work engagement: the destructive role of surface acting. Hum. Resour. Develop. China 39, 52–66. doi: 10.16471/j.cnki.11-2822/c.2022.6.004

Huang, L., and Chen, W. Z. (2012). Job demand-control, self-efficacy and work alienation. Chin. J. Appl. Psychol. 18, 358–364.

Huck, J. L., Spraitz, J. D., Bowers, J. H., and Morris, C. S. (2017). Connecting opportunity and strain to understand deviant behavior: a test of general strain theory. Deviant Behav. 38, 1009–1026. doi: 10.1080/01639625.2016.1237827

Huo, W., Gong, J., Xing, L., Tam, K. L., and Kuai, H. (2022). Voluntary versus involuntary telecommuting and employee innovative behaviour: a daily diary study. Int. J. Hum. Resour. Manag. , 1–25. doi: 10.1080/09585192.2022.2078992

Iqbal, A., Ahmad, I., and Latif, K. F. (2021). Servant leadership and organizational deviant behaviour: interpreting some contradictory results from public sector of Pakistan. Leaders. Organ. Develop. J. 42, 1136–1152. doi: 10.1108/LODJ-07-2020-0305

Khan, F. A., Shafi, K., and Rajput, A. (2020). Heeding a missing link between Feld managers’ monitoring styles and salespersons’ performance in pharmaceutical selling context. Int. J. Pharm. Healthc. Mark. 14, 425–443. doi: 10.1108/IJPHM-11-2017-0071

Kim, S. L. (2020). The interaction effects of proactive personality and empowering leadership and close monitoring behaviour on creativity. Creat. Innov. Manag. 28, 230–239. doi: 10.1111/caim.12304

Kim, M., and Beehr, T. A. (2017). Self-efficacy and psychological ownership mediate the effects of empowering leadership on both good and bad employee behaviors. J. Leaders. Organ. Stud. 24, 466–478. doi: 10.1177/1548051817702078

Larson, J. R., and Callahan, C. (1990). Performance monitoring: how it affects work productivity. J. Appl. Psychol. 75, 530–538. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.75.5.530

Leslie, L. M., Manchester, C. F., Park, T.-Y., and Mehng, S. A. (2012). Flexible work practices: a source of career premiums or penalties? Acad. Manag. J. 55, 1407–1428. doi: 10.5465/amj.2010.0651

Liao, E. Y., and Chun, H. (2016). Supervisor monitoring and subordinate innovation: supervisor monitoring. J. Organ. Behav. 37, 168–192. doi: 10.1002/job.2035

Liu, Y. J., and Wen, X. (2022). How do “job demands” and “job resources” affect the work engagement and teaching performance of primary and middle school teachers? J. Educ. Sci. Hun. Norm. Univ. 43, 202–208. doi: 10.19571/j.cnki.1000-2995.2022.06.022

Luo, J. L., Yi, M., and Zhong, J. (2018). Effects of ambidextrous leadership on prosocial silence. J. Manag. Sci. 31, 105–119. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1672.0334.2018.02.009

Mackey, J. D., McAllister, C. P., Ellen, B. P., and Carson, J. E. (2021). A Meta-analysis of interpersonal and organizational workplace deviance research. J. Manag. 47, 597–622. doi: 10.1177/0149206319862612

Mäkikangas, A., Juutinen, S., Mäkiniemi, J.-P., Sjöblom, K., and Oksanen, A. (2022). Work engagement and its antecedents in remote work: a person-centered view. Work Stress , 1–25. doi: 10.1080/02678373.2022.2080777

Malhotra, N. K., Kim, S. S., and Patil, A. (2006). Common method variance in IS research: a comparison of alternative approaches and a reanalysis of past research. Manag. Sci. 52, 1865–1883. doi: 10.1287/mnsc.1060.0597

Martin, A. J., Wellen, J. M., and Grimmer, M. R. (2016). An eye on your work: how empowerment affects the relationship between electronic surveillance and counterproductive work behaviours. Int. J. Hum. Resour. Manag. 27, 2635–2651. doi: 10.1080/09585192.2016.1225313

Mawritz, M. B., Dust, S. B., and Resick, C. J. (2014). Hostile climate, abusive supervision, and employee coping: does conscientiousness matter? J. Appl. Psychol. 99, 737–747. doi: 10.1037/a0035863

Mawritz, M. B., Mayer, D. M., Hoobler, J. M., Wayne, S. J., and Marinova, S. V. (2012). A trickledown model of abusive supervision. Pers. Psychol. 161, 325–357.

Meyer, R. D., Dalal, R. S., José, I. J., Hermida, R., Chen, T. R., Vega, R. P., et al. (2014). Measuring job-related situational strength and assessing its interactive effects with personality on voluntary work behavior. J. Manag. 40, 1010–1041. doi: 10.1177/0149206311425613

Mishra, M., and Ghosh, K. (2020). Supervisor monitoring and subordinate work attitudes: a need satisfaction and supervisory support perspective. Leaders. Organ. Develop. J. 41, 1089–1105. doi: 10.1108/LODJ-05-2019-0204

Niehoff, B. P., and Moorman, R. H. (1993). Justice as a mediator of the relationship between methods of monitoring and organizational citizenship behavior. Acad. Manag. J. 36, 527–556. doi: 10.2307/256591

O’Brien, W., and Yazdani Aliabadi, F. (2020). Does telecommuting save energy? A critical review of quantitative studies and their research methods. Energ. Buildings 225:110298. doi: 10.1016/j.enbuild.2020.110298

Pierce, L., Snow, D. C., and McAfee, A. (2015). Cleaning house: the impact of information technology monitoring on employee theft and productivity. Manag. Sci. 61, 2299–2319. doi: 10.1287/mnsc.2014.2103

Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J.-Y., and Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. J. Appl. Psychol. 88, 879–903. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879

Rahmadani, V. G., Schaufeli, W. B., and Stouten, J. (2020). How engaging leaders foster employees’ work engagement. Leaders. Organ. Develop. J. 41, 1155–1169. doi: 10.1108/LODJ-01-2020-0014

Richard, W. B. (1970). Back-translation for cross-cultural research. J. Cross-Cult. Psychol. 1, 185–216.

Rietzschel, E. F., and Slijkhuis, M. (2014). Close monitoring as a contextual stimulator: how need for structure affects the relation between close monitoring and work outcomes. Eur. J. Work Organ. Psy. 23, 393–404. doi: 10.1080/1359432X.2012.752897

Roberts, S. J. (2012). Application of the stressor-emotion model of counterproductive work behavior to incivility. Ph.D, University of Nebraska at Omaha.

Robinson, S. L., and Bennett, R. J. (1995). A typology of deviant workplace behaviors: a multidimensional scaling study. Acad. Manag. J. 38, 555–572. doi: 10.2307/256693

Samaranayake, V., and Gamage, C. (2012). Employee perception towards electronic monitoring at work place and its impact on job satisfaction of software professionals in Sri Lanka. Telematics Inform. 29, 233–244. doi: 10.1016/j.tele.2011.08.003

Schaufeli, W. B., and Bakker, A. B. (2004). Job demands, job resources, and their relationship with burnout and engagement: a multi-sample study. J. Organ. Behav. 25, 293–315. doi: 10.1002/job.248

Schaufeli, W. B., Shimazu, A., Hakanen, J., Salanova, M., and Witte, H. D. (2019). An ultra-short measure for work: The UWES-3. Validation across five countries. Europ. J. Psychol. Assess. 35, 577–591.

PubMed Abstract | Google Scholar

Schwarzer, R., Bäßler, J., Kwiatek, P., Schröder, K., and Zhang, J. X. (1997). The assessment of optimistic self-beliefs: comparison of the German, Spanish, and Chinese versions of the general self-efficacy scale. Appl. Psychol. 46, 69–88. doi: 10.1111/j.1464-0597.1997.tb01096.x

Son, S. Y., Cho, D. H., and Kang, S.-W. (2017). The impact of close monitoring on creativity and knowledge sharing: the mediating role of leader-member exchange. Creat. Innov. Manag. 26, 256–265. doi: 10.1111/caim.12219

Stewart, S. M., Bing, M. N., Davison, H. K., Woehr, D. J., and McIntyre, M. D. (2009). In the eyes of the beholder: a non-self-report measure of workplace deviance. J. Appl. Psychol. 94, 207–215. doi: 10.1037/a0012605

Tjosvold, D. (2008). The conflict-positive organization: it depends upon us. J. Organ. Behav. 29, 19–28. doi: 10.1002/job.473

Tomczak, D. L., Lanzo, L. A., and Aguinis, H. (2018). Evidence-based recommendations for employee performance monitoring. Bus. Horiz. 61, 251–259. doi: 10.1016/j.bushor.2017.11.006

Wilson, R. A., Perry, S. J., Witt, L. A., and Griffeth, R. W. (2015). Z-the exhausted short-timer-leveraging autonomy to engage in production deviance. Hum. Relat. 68, 1693–1711. doi: 10.1177/0018726714565703

Wu, D., Lin, H., and Wang, Z. (2021). Dampening entrepreneurial passion: the effect of observational monitoring on startup venture employees. Soc. Behav. Personal. Int. J. 49, 1–14. doi: 10.2224/sbp.9836

Wu, D., and Wang, Z. (2020). Be careful how you do it: the distinct effects of observational monitoring and interactional monitoring on employee trust. Sustain. For. 12:10. doi: 10.3390/su12156092

Wu, M. D., Yang, Y. N., and Wang, X. H. (2020). Effects of flexible work arrangements on employees' attitudes and behavior: a meta-analytic examination. Bus. Manag. J. 42, 126–140. doi: 10.19616/j.cnki.bmj.2020.07.008

Xanthopoulou, D., Bakker, A. B., Demerouti, E., and Schaufeli, W. B. (2007). The role of personal resources in the job demands-resources model. Int. J. Stress. Manag. 14, 121–141. doi: 10.1037/1072-5245.14.2.121

Xiao, Z. M. (2019). Work in the Cao camp, but heart in the Han camp? —research on the organizational identification among remote employees under organizational isolation. East China Econ. Manag. 33, 178–184. doi: 10.19629/j.cnki.34-1014/f.180908014

Yu, G. L., and Du, N. Q. (2023). The influence of employees' informal status on voice behavior: the chain mediating effect of competence trust and self-efficacy. J. Northeast Norm. Univ. 3, 130–140. doi: 10.16164/j.cnki.22-1062/c.2023.03.017

Zhan, Y. F., Long, L. R., Zhou, J. Y., and Wang, J. Q. (2022). Resource gain or loss? A dual- path mechanism of positive and negative influences of emotional and instrumental help. Manag. Rev. 34, 1–10. doi: 10.14120/j.cnki.cn11-5057/f.20220426.002

Zhao, B., and Yang, W. F. (2020). Research on the effect of work stress on employees’ innovation behavior from the perspective of impression management motivation. J. Indust. Engin. 34, 1–10. doi: 10.13587/j.cnki.jieem.2020.04.001

Zheng, X. M., Yu, Y., and Liu, X. (2022). The effect of spouse emotional intelligence on employee work engagement: the mediating role of employee life well-being and the moderating role of gender. Acta Psychol. Sin. 54, 646–664. doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1041.2022.00646

Zhou, J. (2003). When the presence of creative coworkers is related to creativity: role of supervisor close monitoring, developmental feedback, and creative personality. J. Appl. Psychol. 88, 413–422. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.88.3.413

Keywords: remote work, interactional monitoring, electronic monitoring, work engagement, deviant behavior, self-efficacy, job demand-resource(JD-R) model

Citation: Li S and Wang Y (2024) A study on the positive and negative effects of different supervisor monitoring in remote workplaces. Front. Psychol . 15:1383207. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1383207

Received: 07 February 2024; Accepted: 01 April 2024; Published: 18 April 2024.

Reviewed by:

Copyright © 2024 Li and Wang. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY) . The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

*Correspondence: Yumei Wang, [email protected]

Disclaimer: All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

Major new roles for local officials change landscape for 2024 Manatee County elections

The naming of Rep. Tommy Gregory as president of State College of Florida and the appointment of now-former Manatee County Commissioner James Satcher to the Manatee County Supervisor of Elections seat already had a ripple on the 2024 election cycle.

Both political figures have not officially withdrawn from their re-election bids, but their assumption of new roles has opened the door for new candidates. Meanwhile, candidates for other Manatee County seats continue to amass funding for their races.

District 72 State Representative

Incumbent State Rep. Tommy Gregory filed to run for re-election to the District 72 state representative seat on Jan. 26, 2023. He raised $97,256 and spent $34,451. Then on April 5, he was named president of State College of Florida, Manatee-Sarasota . The college indicated in a news release that contract negotiations are ongoing, with the goal of Gregory assuming the role on July 1.

More: State College of Florida, Manatee-Sarasota picks legislator to become new president

School Board of Manatee County member Rich Tatem filed to succeed Gregory as the District 72 state representative on April 9. He has not yet filed any campaign finance reports.

Kimley-Horn and Associates Vice President and former Manatee County Planning Commission board member William Conerly filed to challenge for the District 72 seat on April 12. He has not yet filed any campaign finance reports.

District 71 State Representative

State Rep. Will Robinson filed to run for re-election to the District 71 seat on July 15, 2022. He has raised $147,245 and received $1,000 worth of in-kind contributions. He has spent $15,293.

Manatee County District 1 Commissioner

Satcher filed to run for re-election to the District 1 seat on April 14, 2021. He raised $70,500 and spent $9,428. However, he is now expected to run for election to the Supervisor of Elections seat instead since he has been appointed as supervisor of elections by Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis. However, he has not yet filed to do so, records show.

Republican Keith Green filed to run for the District 1 seat on April 15. Green was previously in the running for the county's District 7 at-large seat but withdrew from that race. He has not raised any funds in the race, however, he did raise $10,787 and received $778.68 of in-kind contributions for his District 7 bid. He spent $9,296 in funds for that race but can contact donors to gain permission to use the remaining funds for his District 1 race instead.

Republican Carol Ann Felts filed to run for the District 1 seat on Sept. 5, 2023, and has raised $9,846. She has spent $2,260.

More: DeSantis appoints Manatee County Commissioner James Satcher as elections supervisor

Jennifer Hamey filed to run for the District 1 seat on Oct. 11, 2023, with no party affiliation. She has raised $5,465 and has received $643.86 of in-kind contributions. She has spent $1,545.

Democrat Glenn Pearson filed to run for the District 1 seat. He has not yet filed campaign finance reports.

Manatee County District 3 Commissioner

Incumbent Republican Kevin Van Ostenbridge filed to run for re-election to the Manatee County District 3 county commissioner seat on June 1, 2023, and has raised $214,253. He has spent $9,729.

Republican Talha Siddique filed to run for the District 3 seat on Sept. 19, 2023. He has raised $26,933 and received $1,611 worth of in-kind contributions. He has spent $13,749.

Democrat Diana Shoemaker filed to run for the seat on Sept. 20, 2023. She has raised $25,767 and received $232 of in-kind contributions. She has spent $10,591.

Manatee County District 5 Commissioner

Incumbent Republican Raymond Turner filed to run for election to the District 5 seat on Oct. 3, 2023. He assumed the role on August 1, 2023, after he was appointed by DeSantis to finish the term started by longtime District 5 commissioner Vanessa Baugh, following her resignation. Turner has raised $41,620 and spent $8,221 for his campaign. Baugh withdrew her bid for re-election to the seat.

Republican Robert McCann filed to run for the seat on Dec. 7, 2023. He has raised $11,119 and received $1,769 worth of in-kind contributions. He has spent $2,551.

Joseph Di Bartolomeo filed to run for the seat on Jan. 23 with no party affiliation. He has raised $5,400 and received $25 worth of in-kind contributions. He has spent $1,487.

Manatee County District 7 Commissioner

Incumbent Republican George Kruse filed to run for re-election to the at-large District 7 seat on Oct. 19, 2023. He has raised $37,089 and received $1,165 worth of in-kind contributions. He has spent $3,027.

Republican April Culbreath filed to run for the seat on Oct. 3, 2023. She has raised $19,993 and received $5,000 worth of in-kind contributions. She has spent $911.

Democrat Sari Lindroos-Valimaki filed to run for the seat on March 22. She has raised $500 and received $196.00 of in-kind contributions. She has spent $386.

Manatee County Supervisor of Elections

Republican Scott Farrington filed to run for the Manatee County Tax Collector seat on Jan. 24. He has raised $10,300 and received $211 worth of in-kind contributions. He has not made any expenditures.

Farrington served as Chief of Staff for 11 years under former Manatee County Supervisor of Elections Mike Bennett. He resigned from the office upon Satcher's appointment to serve out the remainder of Bennett's term.

Previously: Manatee County Supervisor of Elections to retire ahead of 2024 presidential primary

School Board of Manatee County District 1

Mark Stanoch filed to run for the District 1 seat on the School Board of Manatee County on May 16, 2023. He has raised $20,731 and received $200 worth of in-kind contributions. He has spent $13,607.

Heather Felton filed to run for the District 1 seat on the School Board of Manatee County on Oct. 31, 2023. She has raised $4,910 and received $300 worth of in-kind contributions. She has spent $746.

Alexander Garner filed to run for the District 1 seat on the School Board of Manatee County on April 2. He has not yet filed any campaign finance reports.

Manatee County Tax Collector

Incumbent Republican Ken Burton filed to run for re-election as Manatee County Tax Collector on Jan. 9. He has raised $16,000 and spent $37.

12th Judicial Circuit State Attorney

Twelvth Judicial Circuit State Attorney Ed Brodsky filed for re-election on Dec. 9, 2020. He has raised $69,250 and spent $3,938.

Clerk of Circuit Court

Incumbent Republican Angelina Colonneso filed to run for re-election to the Manatee County Clerk of Circuit Court seat on Feb. 17, 2023. She has raised $39,675 and received $3,056 worth of in-kind contributions. She has spent $1,046.

Manatee County Sheriff

Incumbent Republican Sheriff Rick Wells filed to run for re-election on March 15, 2023. He has raised $100,650 and received $4,280 worth of in-kind contributions. He has spent $10,804.

Property Appraiser

Incumbent Charles Hackney filed to run for re-election as Manatee County property appraiser on Oct. 30, 2023. He has raised $44,700 and spent $4,064.