Supervision

Supervision styles

Supervision styles can be broadly categorised into distinct approaches that reflect varying degrees of control, participation, and support. If we check literature on established frameworks in organisational psychology and educational theory, five main supervision styles are commonly identified: autocratic, democratic, laissez-faire, supportive, and transformational.

The autocratic style is characterised by a high level of control, where the supervisor makes decisions unilaterally and expects compliance without extensive dialogue. While this approach can be effective in situations requiring rapid decision-making or high levels of standardisation, it often limits autonomy and may stifle motivation over the long term.

In contrast, the democratic style involves shared decision-making, where supervisors actively engage supervisees in goal-setting and problem-solving. This participatory approach tends to foster motivation, ownership, and learning, although it may be less efficient in contexts that demand quick resolutions or strict procedural adherence.

The laissez-faire style represents the most hands-off form of supervision. Here, the supervisor provides minimal direction, allowing the supervisee a high degree of independence. While this can promote creativity and self-regulation, it may also result in confusion or stagnation, particularly for those who require more structure or feedback.

Supportive supervision, often associated with developmental models in education and clinical practice, prioritises the emotional and psychological well-being of the supervisee. Emphasis is placed on trust-building, mentorship, and personal growth, making it especially relevant in contexts where reflective practice and professional identity formation are central.

Finally, transformational supervision focuses on inspiring supervisees to achieve beyond conventional expectations. This style is defined by vision-setting, intellectual stimulation, and modelling of values, and has been associated with high levels of engagement and innovation. However, it requires strong interpersonal skills and a clear alignment of goals between supervisor and doctoral researcher.

Doctoral students

Doctoral tudents can also be categorised according to their learning styles, autonomy levels, or doctoral identity trajectories, and several theoretical models have been developed to describe these variations. From the student’s point of view, supervision style can have different impacts depending on their orientation, expectations, and developmental stage.

Many studies have proposed typologies that align students’ needs and behaviours with supervisory approaches. These models also reflect implicit models of how doctoral students engage: the functional, enculturation, critical thinking, emancipation, and developmental orientations. For example, students with a functional orientation may value structured guidance and clear feedback. Those with an emancipatory orientation seek independence, intellectual freedom, and minimal oversight.

Doctoral students may be broadly categorised into profiles such as dependent learners, collaborative learners, and autonomous researchers, each benefiting from different types of supervisory engagement. Dependent learners may thrive with directive and supportive supervision, while autonomous researchers may prefer a hands-off, transformational approach. Collaborative learners often benefit most from democratic, dialogic supervision, where mutual expectations are negotiated over time. However, this is dynamyc, as the relationship supervisor-doctoral student is adjusting over time as the student develops from a dependent novice to an autonomous researcher.

It is important that doctoral candidates understand the practical implications of their funding context. Working under the umbrella of a funded project provides a degree of financial security but necessarily involves alignment with predefined objectives and deliverables, which may limit the scope for complete intellectual freedom. In contrast, doctoral candidates and postdocs who secure their own funding often have greater freedom in shaping their research direction, but this also comes with greater responsibility for framing and justifying their choices.

In both cases, I expect students to take full ownership of their work (which is not a trivial statement) and to approach their research with a high level of initiative and professionalism. I prioritise students who are proactive, well-organised, and capable of making independent progress, while preserving high ethical standards. This is a highly competitive academic environment, where rejection from journals, funders, and evaluators is the norm rather than the exception. Yet, these challenges are also opportunities to learn resilience, discipline, and adaptability, qualities that define a successful researcher. Supervision provides guidance, encouragement, and a framework for development, but ultimately each person must carve their own path. For those ready to embrace the difficulties of research, the experience can be demanding but also highly rewarding, opening doors to growth, discovery, and meaningful contribution to science.

Some References

Gurr, G. M. (2001). Negotiating the “Rackety Bridge”—a dynamic model for aligning supervisory style with research student development. Higher Education Research & Development, 20(1), 81-92.

Grant, B. (2003). Mapping the pleasures and risks of supervision. Discourse: studies in the cultural politics of education, 24(2), 175-190.

Lee, A. (2008). How are doctoral students supervised? Concepts of doctoral research supervision. Studies in Higher education, 33(3), 267-281.

Pole, C. J., Sprokkereef, A., Burgess, R. G., & Lakin, E. (1997). Supervision of doctoral students in the natural sciences: Expectations and experiences. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 22(1), 49-63.