How do Deans and Directors of Doctoral Schools characterise, oversee, and regulate supervisory practice?
In 2025, the Research England-funded Next Generation Research SuperVision Project (RSVP) conducted focus groups with Deans and Directors of Doctoral Schools (DDDs), focusing on good and poor supervisory practice, and their experiences of addressing the latter. Capturing insights from approximately 15% of the total body of UK DDDs, the resulting report reveals how these key players navigate varying institutional structures and disciplinary norms to identify and remedy situations affecting the experiences of their postgraduate researchers (PGRs).
Interestingly, the DDDs challenged the framing of specific supervisory practices against a basic “good vs poor” dichotomy; instead, they advocated for a flexible, nuanced approach accounting for varying disciplinary contexts, institutional settings, and individual candidate needs.
When reflecting on their responsibilities around poor supervision experiences, the DDDs’ responses fell into three distinct categories: oversight, response, and enhancement. For all three, though, a multiplicity of routes and a mix of formal and informal approaches were identified. This was associated with DDDs having cross-cutting responsibility rather than direct authority on matters such as line management and work planning.
Focus group participants consistently expressed a preference for informal and locally-led approaches to resolving supervision issues. Formal mechanisms remained important, but were generally reserved for serious or persistent cases. The DDDs identified their “moral authority” as a vital enabler when acting across, rather than within, official reporting routes. However, the report also highlights a systemic gap and suggests that coherent institutional record-keeping of repeated poor practice is largely absent.
To drive enhancement, DDDs favoured identifying and sharing good practice through formal accreditation schemes, supervisor awards, and the dissemination of PGR-related updates. Positive engagement with culture-setting activities such as initial supervisor development and reflective supervisor forums were also highlighted.
Reflecting on the report, Professor Hala Mansour, Head of Doctoral Programmes at the Royal College of Art stated:
"The report offers a unique, well-documented account of how real-world institutional oversight of supervision functions in practice. It demonstrates that effective supervision is not measured against a rigid standard, but rather by its responsiveness to the individual needs of the PhD student, the disciplinary context, and the specific stage of their doctoral journey. These insights can directly inform the development of more adaptive and candidate-centred supervisory approaches."
The full report is now available as part of the RSVP Collection.
