Supervisory Expertise in Doctoral Education: How Doctoral Supervisors Understand and Enact Supervision : A Case Study at a Research-Intensive Finnish University
Ladataan...
576.48 KB
suljettu
Julkaisu on tekijänoikeussäännösten alainen. Teosta voi lukea ja tulostaa henkilökohtaista käyttöä varten. Käyttö kaupallisiin tarkoituksiin on kielletty.
Lataukset5
Pysyvä osoite
Verkkojulkaisu
DOI
Tiivistelmä
Doctoral supervision shapes research progress and researcher development, with consequences for well-being and completion. During the doctoral process, supervisors move across several roles, including evaluator, co-author, mentor, and occasional source of emotional support, yet many practical expectations of supervision remain only partly defined in everyday academic work. Using a single-institution case study design based on 17 semi-structured interviews with doctoral supervisors across four disciplinary clusters at the University of Turku, this thesis examines how doctoral supervisors understand and enact supervision under contemporary institutional conditions. The analysis is guided by a conceptual framework that incorporates role theory, academic identity, and sensemaking, which together support an examination of supervision as institutionally situated professional work that depends on interpretation and judgment. First, the findings show that supervision operates under weakly specified institutional conditions in which formal structures are visible, yet practical expectations remain partial in daily work. Second, supervisory practice is adaptive and rooted in case-specific judgment, while co-supervision functions as coordination work within supervisory teams. Third, supervisory expertise develops through revision of judgment across time, as supervisors revisit earlier assumptions and adjust their interpretations in response to difficult cases. Further implications concern supervisory capacity, the organization of professional development, co-supervisory coordination, and institutional pressure on doctoral pace. Overall, the thesis concludes that doctoral supervision is best understood as adaptive professional judgment exercised under weakly specified institutional conditions, where supervisors must interpret broad expectations, coordinate uneven structures, and sustain doctoral work across variable cases.