Abstract
This article presents the results of a cross-institutional survey on PhD students’ supervision at Russian universities. It is aimed at answering three questions concerning (1) styles of PhD supervision and their prevalence, (2) the relation between supervision style and PhD students’ satisfaction with their supervisor, and (3) the relation between supervision style and PhD students’ expected time-to-degree. We propose the empirically driven categorization of six supervision styles: superhero, hands-off supervisor, research practice mediator, dialogue partner, mentor, and research advisor. The most problematic category, characterized by providing no help for PhD students, was named “hands-off supervisors.” For this category PhD students reported the lowest level of satisfaction, and the highest expected time-to degree. Nonetheless, the large share of PhD students who are satisfied with hands-off supervisors may evidence a presence of a disengagement compact between PhD students and supervisors in Russian universities. Two categories of supervisors characterized by the highest level of PhD students’ satisfaction and shortest expected time-to-degree were named “superheroes” and “mentors.” These supervisors are reported to perform managerial and expert functions, which emphasizes the critical importance of these functions.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
Training of Academic Staff in Russia, 2018. http://csrs.ru/archive/stat_2018_staff/. Accessed 29 May 2007.
Project 5–100 is a special governmental program which was launched in 2013 by the Ministry of Education and Science to develop Russian universities. Under this project, 15 and later 6 more leading Russian universities received financial support in order to maximize their positions in the global university rankings. See http://5top100.com/ for more details.
Under the federal higher education development program introduced by the Russian Ministry of Education and Science, 10 universities with special status of federal universities were created between 2006 and 2014. Most of them appeared as a result of university mergers. The main goal of the program was the development of the regional higher education systems and strengthening the ties between regional economy and higher education system (to see more: Arzhanova and Knyazev 2013).
Not all universities provided such information.
Training of Academic Staff in Russia, 2018. http://csrs.ru/archive/stat_2018_staff/. Accessed 29 May 2007.
References
Abramov, R. (2010). Transformations of academic autonomy. Educational Studies, 3, 75–91.
Ali, P. A., Watson, R., & Dhingra, K. (2016). Postgraduate research students’ and their supervisors’ attitudes towards supervision. International Journal of Doctoral Studies, 11, 227–241.
Armstrong, S. J. (2004). The impact of supervisors’ cognitive styles on the quality of research supervision in management education. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 74(4), 599–616.
Arzhanova, I. V., & Knyazev, E. A. (2013). The creating of federal universities: conception and reality (in Russian). University Management: Practice and Analysis, 5, 7–14.
Bao, Y., Kehm, B. M., & Ma, Y. (2018). From product to process. The reform of doctoral education in Europe and China. Studies in Higher Education, 43(3), 524–541.
Boehe, D. M. (2016). Supervisory styles: a contingency framework. Studies in Higher Education, 41(3), 399–414.
Cyranoski, D., Gilbert, N., Ledford, H., Nayar, A., & Yahia, M. (2011). The PhD factory. Nature, 472(7343), 276.
De Valero, Y. F. (2001). Departmental factors affecting time-to-degree and completion rates of doctoral students at one land-grant research institution. The Journal of Higher Education, 72(3), 341–367.
Delamont, S., Atkinson, P., & Parry, O. (2000). The doctoral experience: success and failure in graduate school. London: Falmer.
Deuchar, R. (2008). Facilitator, director or critical friend? Contradiction and congruence in doctoral supervision styles. Teaching in Higher Education, 13(4), 489–500.
Devos, C., Van der Linden, N., Boudrenghien, G., Azzi, A., Frenay, M., Galand, B., & Klein, O. (2015). Doctoral supervision in the light of the three types of support promoted in self-determination theory. International Journal of Doctoral Studies, 10, 439–464.
Donald, J. G., Saroyan, A., & Denison, D. B. (1995). Graduate student supervision policies and procedures: a case study of issues and factors affecting graduate study. The Canadian Journal of Higher Education, 25(3), 71–92.
Enders, J. (2004). Research training and careers in transition: a European perspective on the many faces of the PhD. Studies in Continuing Education, 26(3), 419–429.
Fillery-Travis, A., & Robinson, L. (2018). Making the familiar strange – a research pedagogy for practice. Studies in Higher Education, 43(5), 841–853.
Fox, M. A. (1997). Graduate students: too many and too narrow? In R. Ehrenberg (Ed.), The American university: national treasure or endangered species? (pp. 100–114). Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
Franke, A., & Arvidsson, B. (2011). Research supervisors’ different ways of experiencing supervision of doctoral students. Studies in Higher Education, 36(1), 7–19.
Froumin, I., & Dobryakova, M. (2012). What makes Russian universities change: disengagement compact. Educational Studies, 2, 159–191.
Gardner, S. K. (2008). ‘What’s too much and what’s too little?’: the process of becoming an independent researcher in doctoral education. The Journal of Higher Education, 79, 326–350.
Gatfield, T. (2005). An investigation into PhD supervisory management styles: development of a dynamic conceptual model and its managerial implications. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 27(3), 311–325.
Gillingham, L., Seneca, J. J., & Taussig, M. K. (1991). The determinants of progress to the doctoral degree. Research in Higher Education, 32(4), 449–468.
Golde, C. M. (2000). Should I stay or should I go? Student descriptions of the doctoral attrition process. Review of Higher Education, 23(4), 199–228.
Grant, K., Hackney, R., & Edgar, D. (2014). Postgraduate research supervision: an ‘agreed’ conceptual view of good practice through derived metaphors. International Journal of Doctoral Studies, 9, 43–60.
Grover, V., & Malhotra, M. K. (2003). Interaction between a doctoral student and advisor: making it work. Decision Line, 34(1), 16–18.
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.
Halse, C. (2007). Is the doctorate in crisis? Nagoya. Journal of Higher Education, 7, 321–337.
Halse, C., & Malfroy, J. (2010). Retheorizing doctoral supervision as professional work. Studies in Higher Education, 35(1), 79–92.
Harman, G. (2003). PhD student satisfaction with course experience and supervision in two Australian research-intensive universities. Prometheus: Critical Studies in Innovation, 21(3), 312–333.
Hockey, J. (1991). The social science PhD: a literature review. Studies in Higher Education, 16(3), 319–332.
Holdaway, E., Deblois, C., & Winchester, I. (1995). Supervision of graduate students. The Canadian Journal of Higher Education, 25(3), 1–29.
Jiranek, V. (2010). Potential predictors of timely completion among dissertation research students at an Australian faculty of science. International Journal of Doctoral Studies, 5, 1–13.
Johnson, W. B., & Huwe, J. M. (2003). Getting mentored in graduate school. Washington, D.C: American Psychological Association.
Kehm, B. M. (2006). Doctoral education in Europe and North America: a comparative analysis. Wenner Gren International Series, 83, 67.
Kuh, G. D. (1999). How are we doing? Tracking the quality of the undergraduate experience, 1960s to the present. The Review of Higher Education, 22(2), 99–120.
Kuh, G. D. (2003). What we’re learning about student engagement from NSSE: benchmarks for effective educational practices. Change, 35(2), 24–32.
Lee, A. (2008). How are doctoral students supervised? Concepts of doctoral research supervision. Studies in Higher Education, 33(3), 267–281.
Linden, N., Frenay, M., & Galand, B. (2016). Misfits between doctoral students and their supervisors:(how) are they regulated? International Journal of Doctoral Studies, 11, 467–486.
Lipschutz, S. S. (1993). Enhancing success in doctoral education: from policy to practice. New Directions for Institutional Research, 80, 69–80.
Mainhard, T., Van Der Rijst, R., Van Tartwijk, J., & Wubbels, T. (2009). A model for the supervisor–doctoral student relationship. Higher Education, 58(3), 359–373.
Maloshonok, N., & Terentev, E. (2019a). National barriers to the completion of doctoral programs at Russian universities. Higher Education, 77 (2), 195–211.
Maloshonok, N., & Terentev, E. (2019b). Towards a new model of doctoral education: the experience of Russian universities to improve the effectiveness of PhD programs. Voprosy obrazovaniya / Educational Studies Moscow, 3 (forthcoming).
Nerad, M. (2004). The PhD in the US: criticisms, facts, and remedies. Higher Education Policy, 17(2), 183–199.
Park, C. (2005). New variant PhD: the changing nature of the doctorate in the UK. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 27(2), 189–207.
Pearson, M. (2005). Framing research on doctoral education in Australia in a global context. Higher Education Research and Development, 24(2), 119–134.
Powell, S., & Green, H. (2007). The doctorate worldwide. McGraw-Hill Education (UK).
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.
Rose, G. L. (2005). Group differences in graduate students’ concepts of the ideal mentor. Research in Higher Education, 46(1), 53–80.
Russian Federal State Statistics. (2018). http://www.gks.ru/wps/wcm/connect/rosstat_main/rosstat/ru/statistics/population/education/. Accessed 28 July 2019.
Sadlak, J. (Ed.). (2004). Doctoral studies and qualifications in Europe and the United States: status and prospects. Bucharest: UNESCO-CEPES.
Seagram, B. C., Gould, J., & Pyke, S. W. (1998). An investigation of gender and other variables on time to completion of doctoral degrees. Research in Higher Education, 39, 319.
Sinclair, M. (2004). The pedagogy of good 'PhD supervision: a national cross-disciplinary investigation of PhD supervision. – Canberra : Department of Education, Science and Training, 2004.
Taylor, S., Kiley, M., & Humphrey, R. (2017). A handbook for doctoral supervisors. Abingdon: Routledge.
Taylor, R. T., Vitale, T., Tapoler, C., & Whaley, K. (2018). Desirable qualities of modern doctorate advisors in the USA: a view through the lenses of candidates, graduates, and academic advisors. Studies in Higher Education, 43(5), 854–866.
Van Ours, J. C., & Ridder, G. (2003). Fast track or failure: a study of the graduation and dropout rates of PhD students in economics. Economics of Education Review, 22(2), 157–166.
Wao, H. O., & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2011). A mixed research investigation of factors related to time to the doctorate in education. International Journal of Doctoral Studies, 6, 115–134.
Zavgorodnayaya, O. (2016). The institute of PhD awarding in Russia and doctoral education: convergence or divergence. Higher Education in Russia and Beyond, 3(9), 7–9.
Zhao, C. M., Golde, C. M., & McCormick, A. C. (2007). More than a signature: how advisor choice and advisor behaviour affect doctoral student satisfaction. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 31(3), 263–281.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Publisher’s note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Gruzdev, I., Terentev, E. & Dzhafarova, Z. Superhero or hands-off supervisor? An empirical categorization of PhD supervision styles and student satisfaction in Russian universities. High Educ 79, 773–789 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-019-00437-w
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-019-00437-w