Sample Reflective Account — Recognised Associate Supervisor
This sample reflective account for the UKCGE’s Research Supervisors Recognition Programme’s Recognised Associate Supervisor Award is designed to demonstrate what your completed reflection might look like.
A single, reflective account, it demonstrates how you could evidence your supervisory practice, and reference the literature, for each of the five Good Supervisory Practice Framework criteria you select.
This sample reflective account includes example evidence for all four elective criteria.
You only need to provide evidence for your two chosen criteria when completing your reflection.
I graduated in Biomedical Engineering from the Universities of Poppleton (Bachelor’s and Master’s) and Uttoxeter (PhD). I was appointed as a Research Associate in the Faculty of Engineering in the University of Barchester in 2016 and then a Research Associate in [the same/different department] in 2019. I am now applying for Research Fellowships as well as Lecturing posts and wish to carve out a niche researching biomedical engineering, for which I will soon be looking to build and supervise a team of researchers.
As a final year PGR, I supervised a Masters project student and summer placement student and also had a degree of responsibility for inducting new PGRs into our research group. I have built on this during my two postdoctoral positions, supporting eight PGRs over the past five years, at varying points in their doctoral journey. Four out of these eight are from outside of the UK.
As an associate supervisor I play a complementary role to the official supervisory team. I support the team’s work, and align with their plans for each PGR, but I also offer additional and different input that supports research. Whilst I don’t have accountability for the PGRs in the group, as a ‘near-peer’ I provide: recent experience of the PhD journey and academic career requirements; hands-on support for the day to day processes of research; an appreciation of the range of career pathways available to PGRs; experience of varied communication methods and audiences. There is also a smaller power differential between me and the PGRs, meaning that it’s easier for them to relate to me, and for me to build trust, enabling openness.
I have worked closely with one particular PGR throughout their doctoral journey from induction to them now preparing for their viva (and my PI acknowledges that I have provided strong input to supervision, even if I am not formally recognised with a title/role), and I have supported the others in specific instances (e.g. induction, preparing for annual progress reviews or first conference presentation).
My initial view of how to supervise was formed by my own experiences as a PGR. My supervisor had a hands-off attitude. As a result, I often struggled to make progress, felt lost, and had a fraught experience trying to understand if I was on track.
When I started to supervise, my inclination was the opposite extreme; I was highly directive. This meant giving PGRs detailed instructions for how to plan and undertake data collection, write results up, search the literature, and manage time. This was extremely time-consuming and risked PGRs staying dependent, rather than supporting them to think and work independently to achieve ‘doctorateness’ (Wellington, 2010). Whilst this was reassuring for some PGRs it wasn’t for others. Parents for example plan and manage their time very differently to me. At least two PGRs (with industry experience) felt that too much direction took the joy out of being able to find their own way — the reason they’d applied for a PhD.
I realised:
- Our PGR population is becoming increasingly diverse and we can’t impose one particular way of working (Lee, 2018).
- Different PGRs have different expectations for project ownership and support needs.
I talked to my PI (their primary supervisor) about expectations on progress and ownership of the project with each PGR. I suggested using the ‘Establishing a good relationship from the beginning’ tool (Lee, 2017) which framed a discussion on expectations and roles for all involved, and how these might shift over time, so aims and feedback would align (Guerin and Green, 2013). Now I allow the students time to find their own way, and to disclose any individual needs or circumstances as appropriate. I also acknowledge at the outset that everyone will have different needs, that we welcome diversity, and that whilst I’m happy to share my own approaches, they will also find a way that works for them.
I completed a coaching skills course, and EDI training to gain broader understanding of challenges PGRs are experiencing, and an awareness of the institutional policies to support them. I use coaching skills to provide a supportive environment which scaffolds PGRs in finding their own preferred ways of working and helps them gain confidence (Godskesen and Kobayashi, 2015). Using a coaching approach means I am also not at risk of giving advice that contradicts any of the PGR other supervisors. It’s important that I am not creating confusion and adding to PGRs’ uncertainty, but take a facilitative role (Buirski, 2021).
Where PGRs are less confident on how to get started, I help them to build confidence by setting mini-projects and goals and suggest where they can find advice on these (literature, blogs). I encourage them to come back to discuss progress, embracing failures as part of the process. As confidence and independence grows, my approach needs to change (Benmore 2014) and I have been able to adapt my approach accordingly because I am now more open to listening to the needs of each student and working with this, rather than having any one particular style.
PGRs in our institution have at least two supervisors, and three where we have an industrial partner. Our work is multi-disciplinary so supervisors will bring different areas of expertise, and may have different opinions on the direction of research. In some cases I see that the PGR ends up managing the supervisors (Guerin and Green, 2015) and I’ve often ended up being the person to whom they bring conflicting sets of instructions, for guidance. The approach I adopt here is to suggest all parties use the ‘Establishing a good relationship from the beginning’ tool. I’ve also directed them to the PGR Code of Practice (Supervisory Expectations) and the Code of Good Practice in Research.
On a practical level, I support PGRs by making suggestions about how to document and keep records of each meeting, for example with a summary of bullet points, emailing these back to the whole supervisory team to check their own understanding of the discussion, and to gain agreement from all partners before embarking on a plan. Confusion and lack of control can cause motivation to drop. I act as a sounding board, listening to the PGRs concerns about a way forward after their supervision meetings and through this I can support them to make sense of the discussion, to create a reasonable action plan, and to go back and query any points of ambiguity. It’s important here that I neither add confusion, nor undermine and break trust between the PGR or between us all as formal and informal supervisors (Robertson, 2017).
Clear and shared understanding is even more critical where members of the supervisory team are external. Different institutions have different requirements for key stages and milestones in the PhD-process with varying institutional expectations of the supervisory role, and a lack of clarity can create uncertainty, confusion and stress for all parties involved. Confusion and stress is draining and demotivating and Ahern and Manathunga (2004) offer ways of supporting low motivation PGRs. Their classification of the causes of ‘stalling’ into the cognitive, affective, and social domains is useful in understanding why PGRs are stuck and in deciding how to support them to progress.
When I started taking on a more substantial role with one particular PGR I didn’t want to compound these issues by adding yet another voice and so I created a checklist for our induction meeting, with all the things that needed to be done or agreed (see Grossman and Crowther, 2015) covering the what, where, when and how of co-supervision. We agreed who would be responsible for each of those areas and then brought that back to the next meetings. My PI has now adapted this checklist for their other projects.
I have supported Masters students to write PhD applications by sharing my own proposals with them, making sure they understand the criteria and explaining technical terms. I have supported them to understand the ‘bigger picture’ of our research focus to fit the work to our themes. I ask questions to help them to clarify their thinking around the project. The above are things that I have a good understanding of, from my ‘position’ as associate supervisor and research group member. To get experience in assessing proposals I’m shadowing my PI. She is giving me feedback on my initial judgments of project feasibility (what is ‘enough’ and ‘doable’?), risk versus innovation, and suitability of the potential PGR (e.g. how much weight to place upon writing ability at this point?). I noted from supervisor training workshops that supervisors can tend to expect too much within 3‑years (Full-Time). The need to set and monitor specific, appropriate goals is reported in Cardilini, et al. (2021) who note the consequence of not doing so is reduced PGR wellbeing.
When new PGRs arrive, I flag the timelines, policies, guidance docs, and required processes we adhere to, using an ‘Induction Folder’ for each new starter. We make this into a ‘welcome ceremony’ and stress the importance of adding dates, deadlines, and milestones into their diaries. As well as long-term planning, I support new PGRs with basic time and project management, allowing them to plan the short-term, i.e. the first few months. This includes explaining processes (e.g. booking equipment) and advising how long certain tasks take. I encourage them to break down bigger goals set by their supervisor into manageable tasks, and find a system that works for them (diaries, to-do apps, Trello etc). I encourage them to attend training on the skills required to maintain productivity and monitor progress, consciously bringing the need for active project management into their consciousness (Santiago-Lopez, 2019).
I support their workshop learning with discussion to help put it into practice ‑how we manage data, uphold standards for research notebooks etc. This means they can bring in new suggestions or updates from the course to improve the whole group. I help PGRs understand where to get the info they need to move effectively though the project. I encourage them to get involved with groups and attend events where they’ll meet other PGRs, accessing the Hidden Curriculum (Elliot et al, 2020) hearing the approaches of others and stories of how they overcame challenges. This increases intellectual development and provides social support for learning (Brown, 2019). I make sure they know technical and professional staff who are essential partners (e.g. guardians of policies/processes, finance and risk assessment professionals). I share common pitfalls and setbacks that I’ve seen happen (e.g. broken equipment, ethics delays, collaborators withholding datasets, industrial confidentiality agreements) and try to be clear that PhDs are rarely linear. I encourage risk mitigation strategies where appropriate, ‘plan B’ projects are built in from the outset.
In my own doctorate, I was advised to do the writing at the very end. This proved stressful because I had to learn how to do academic writing late in the day, which was time consuming. As I discovered later, writing is not just the product of research but part of the process of doing research, and being a researcher, and should be developed as regular practice throughout, rather than treated as a simple skill (Barnacle and Dall’Alba, 2013).
Writing skills are critically important and as supervisors we become responsible for providing that training. Yet I received only limited guidance on how to ‘do writing’ myself. I never had any formal training on the more critical or positional angle of writing. Additionally, supervisor training did not provide support on how to develop PGR writing, which is a common limitation (Guerin et al, 2017). To supplement this I consulted PGR resources e.g. https://thesiswhisperer.com https://doctoralwriting.wordpr… integrating advice into my supervision.
I support PGRs to develop as writers by enabling them to gain self-awareness about their writing, and by sharing my own drafts and struggles with writing (Cayley, 2020). Shared writing spaces build community and wellbeing (Beasy et al., 2020).
My strengths now are in seeing writing as a developmental process, which helps move research along (rather than getting in the way of research), and I build in time to write from the start of each project. I share these ideas with PGRs — talking about writing as regular practice (rather than a large intimidating task) and project management strategies to protect writing time.
I signpost to online writing support, encourage them to attend workshops, and require them to share drafts early to get feedback. My own experience of supervisory feedback was more about grammar rather than on structure, style or voice. A recurrent role for me as an associate supervisor is to give PGRs ‘big picture’ feedback before it goes off to the critical eye of the supervisor(s). I support them to request the feedback they want from their primary supervisors, and to interpret it when it comes back. I avoid wading in and providing my own feedback and instead help them to formulate questions for the supervisor(s), so they could prioritise their request, and articulate it. I have found that when PGRs talk about ‘not being good at’ writing, I can ask them to explain what they mean by that or give me some evidence of that, which is actually quite different to what I expect I might do as a primary supervisor, but this seems to be really helpful for the PGR in helping them reflect on their skills and capacity to learn.
For my research group I have started the practice of sharing in-progress drafts in lab meetings. These may be conference abstracts, cover letters to journals, first year reports etc. and this helps PGRs to see the evolution of a piece of writing from a messy first draft to a polished piece. I think it’s important that they understand what the finished product looks like, but also that there are lots of steps which build up to that.
Example 1: Supporting PGR wellbeing:
Supervisors must actively support PGR wellbeing by creating a sense of community (Ryan et al, 2021). PGRs can often perceive themselves to be walking alone, with high responsibility for their projects. This can create a sense of isolation which is remedied by connection to communities. A key contribution supervisors make is in establishing a culture of team science, and collaboration (Behar-Horenstein and Prikhidko, 2017).
I support online community building for the research group (Studebaker and Curtis, 2021), through journal clubs, socials and zoom events (quizzes and coffees) but nonetheless some of our PGRs go off-radar. I suggest we have a minimum daily check-in where we share a quick update of what we’re doing, as a complement to the more high pressure lab meetings run by my PI. I encourage PGRs to join the PhD Society or other community groups for social interactions emphasising their importance for wellbeing.
I ensure all PGRs are aware of specialist mental health support services. I attended a 1hr webinar on supporting PGR mental health and immediately implemented their video on active listening skills. I’m also clear about my own boundaries (e.g. not working or responding to emails after 6pm) to role-model good practice. This overt signalling is important as the academic culture can often be obscured. I aim to bridge the transition into academic cultures which makes a powerful difference, particularly to our international PGRs, ensuring their inclusion (Elliot & Kobayashi, 2018). I shared my own worries too, to normalise having good strategies for wellbeing (taking regular breaks from the screen, yoga, celebrating small achievements, self-compassion) and also acknowledged that there were days where I made no progress and struggled with productivity.
The need to take a learner-centred approach to deal with diverse issues and challenges in the PhD has been demonstrated (Schmidt and Hansson, 2018). This aligns with my coaching approach and I apply this by meeting some PGRs for a walk, checking in with them personally, but in an informal space. I noticed that one PGR who had been out of contact for a long time had started to lose confidence that their research had value. This prevented them attending informal PhD community chats. I supported them to set and achieve smaller ‘wins’ so that they could see they were making some progress (e.g. the acknowledgements chapter of their thesis). We looked for what could be done rather than what could not. Positive validation from supervisors, peers and the wider scientific community is crucial for wellbeing and for the formation of a confident researcher identity (Collins and Brown, 2020) and I keep on top of their achievements and mention them specifically.
Example 2 Supporting professional and career development:
It is now well documented that, across most national contexts, increasing numbers of PhD holders enter non-academic employment (Hancock, 2021). There are many options and career decisions to be made in supporting post-PhD career choices.
To address this, I have run careers workshops for PGRs and postdocs in my Faculty, bringing in a Careers Adviser from the University and also six alumni and industry contacts in a range of careers from Patent Attorney, to Medical Liaison, to Science Communications Officer, and funding manager for a Professional Society. I created a webpage for my PI to share the career destinations and successes of our former research group members, and also started a LinkedIn group, through which PGRs can see the types of roles graduates move into in more detail, and can contact former group members with questions about their chosen career paths. I try to encourage PGRs to explore a vast range of options and I’ll talk about the destinations people in my PhD networks have moved to as examples of positive successes. I am mindful of structural factors like available opportunities and access to professional networks (Germain-Alamartine et al., 2020) and also to nationality/Visa eligibility restrictions as well as the difficult economic climate and how all these factors can constrain individual preferences factors for job selection (McAlpine et al., 2021).
All PGRs have to do a training needs analysis and write a personal development plan each year so I offer to look at their plan and give feedback and sometimes can suggest other courses or resources — such as MOOCS, online blogs or resources, or networks, committees, or competitions. I encourage PGRs to attend training courses — even ones that they don’t think will be immediately useful, to stretch their thinking and expand their vocabulary. Through this they get exposure to different types of ideas, knowledge and networks. This all adds career value (Bryan & Guccione, 2018).
To validate their choices, and support them to keep up momentum for their development, I try to remember to ask each PGR how their selected development activities went. Where possible, I also pass on opportunities as they arise (e.g. on mailing lists for supervisors I have joined) such as to get involved in public engagement and outreach work, or science communications events and competitions like 3‑Minute Thesis. Often PGRs need a fair bit of encouragement that they should try these things out, they aren’t a waste of time, and no-one is going to judge them.
Learning the skills to communicate research effectively should be embedded through all stages of the doctorate. The purpose of communicating research findings is to open up conversations, and through this PGRs learn more deeply about our own and others’ work. Seen in this way, communicating research is a central way of enhancing critical thinking for PGRs (Woodhouse and Wood, 2020).
Communication to expert audiences can be challenging so requires supervisor support. I host practice presentations, without the formal supervisors, to support PGRs to build confidence in articulating their thoughts and ideas. This ‘safe’ peer-supported space enables critical discussion. I help them find courses or resources to learn about presentation skills, and also share examples of mine. I encourage them to evaluate elements of the ‘good’ poster/presentation, not just copy.
I invited a colleague to talk about their experience of open access publication via preprints. I wanted to emphasise to students that the publication landscape is changing rapidly and that what supervisors did won’t necessarily be the path they will follow. I know they are learning about this as part of research integrity and data management courses so it’s good to reflect on what those mean for their subject area. I encourage all students to get an ORCID identifier and be aware of policies around publication and authorship, using the CRediT taxonomy in our group. This allows us to have open structured conversations about authorship on publications, at an early stage. I have recently started reviewing scientific papers but found an online Publons course and encouraged the PGRs to engage. After my first experience of being a reviewer, I gave a talk at our lab meeting supporting PGRs by demystifying the publication and reviewing process.
It’s important to communicate with a range of different audiences as their different perspectives enrich the PGR learning process. I organise events at the local Science Festival and invite PGRs along to work with me, talking to school pupils, teachers and families. I help them prepare materials, and remind them of our duty as researchers to communicate with the public, who fund our work. Afterwards, I encourage evaluation of what worked / what they’d change.
For PGRs interested in science communication I suggest mailing lists and training. I’ve given feedback on draft funding applications for an internal public engagement fund, which some PGRs were successful in getting and so delivered activities at a local Science Centre. Afterwards they blogged about how the experience had created a sense of satisfaction in their work. Writing openly about factors that enable academic work such as working cultures and environments, and sharing information and providing advice is part of a researcher repertoire (Mewburn & Thompson, 2013). Several PGRs have continued to blog, and also developed profiles on Twitter, building a portfolio of communication work to support employability. Twitter also supports PGRs to feel part of the research community both within our University and the wider research community (Vigurs, 2016).
I have completed institutional supervisor training, workshops on leadership, coaching and mentoring, EDI, difficult conversations, and PGR mental health. Supervisor training was useful for orienting me to responsibilities, processes and nomenclature as also found by McCulloch and Loesser (2016). Some of these are different to my own experiences so it was useful to know how to find correct guidance or regulations.
The workshops contained blogs, and demographic /survey data on the institution’s PGRs. This brought home to me the diversity in our PGR population and not to make assumptions based on my own experiences. Further, blogs and toolkits aimed at (e.g. https://supervisingphds.wordpr… https://thesupervisionwhispere…) brought different international and disciplinary experiences into my awareness.
My key learning through all this was the vastness of the support system out there for PGRs — from Graduate Schools and Tutors, to careers and writing advisers, and professional development courses. I realised supervisors don’t need to provide all the information but need to signpost and empower students to actively navigate and engage with the communities around them (Bryan and Guccione, 2018).
Within my own institution, styles vary widely, and through my supervision observation and discussion I realised this is OK — there’s not one definition of a ‘good relationship’. I benefited from meeting other supervisors and realising that they didn’t have all the answers. Cultural differences and power dynamics can have a big influence on approach. The supervisor I observed set clearer, more tightly managed, boundaries than I have with PGRs. Her preference was to maintain a professional relationship by not socialising with PGRs outside of work hours, and not ‘gossiping’ about other PGRs to reduce competitiveness. Yet, there was space for discussion of personal challenges and how they affected PhD progress. It had not previously occurred to me that the personal-professional boundary was so complex. I learned that the most important thing was not where we each drew our boundary, but the communication of this, and the setting of clear expectations (Benmore, 2014). We each supervise within our own sets of values, and there is a more irrational component to how we learn to be good supervisors, as well as structured courses (Henderson, 2017).
All these things helped to recognise my own levels of comfort, my boundaries, and to move away from being overly-directive. My need to ‘prove I was a good supervisor’ by driving for results stifled PGRs’ developing identity — as well as impacting on my own workload. I now avoid being ‘the font of all knowledge’ by collating existing guidance into a ‘lab manual’, which I refer students to. This has the added benefit of giving the relationships a partnership feel as we update materials together. Supervisors’ knowledge can become rapidly out-of-date; better to direct the student to find out the answer directly from the Code or the Graduate School /Funder.
I will expand my supervisory skill set by observing a diverse range of supervisions. Professional development can happen in different ways formally and informally including through such mentoring (Robertson, 2017) and is shaped by institutional and academic cultures and so I will seek to expand my range of comparative experiences (Huet and Casanova, 2021).
Grossman, E. and Crowther, N. (2015) Co-supervision in postgraduate training. Ensuring the right hand knows what the left hand is doing. South African Journal of Science, 111(11–12).
Guerin, C. & Green, I. ‘They’re the bosses’: feedback in team supervision. Journal of Further and Higher Education(2013) doi:10.1080/0309877x.2013.831039.
Guerin, C. et al. Doctoral supervisor development in Australian universities: Preparing research supervisors to teach writing. journal.aall.org.au (2017).
Hancock, S. What is known about doctoral employment? Reflections from a UK study and directions for future research. J High Educ Policy Management 1–17 (2021) doi:10.1080/1360080x.2020.1870027.
Henderson, E. F. Anticipating doctoral supervision: (Not) bridging the transition from supervisee to supervisor. Teaching in Higher Education 0, 1–16 (2017).
Huet, I. & Casanova, D. Exploring the professional development of doctoral supervisors through workplace learning: a literature review. High Educ Res Dev 1–15 (2021) doi:10.1080/07294360.2021.1877629.
Lee, A. (2017) Establishing a good relationship from the beginning. Retrieved 7 May 2021, from https://drannelee.wordpress.co…
Lee, A. How can we develop supervisors for the modern doctorate? Studies in Higher Education 43, 878–890 (2018).
McAlpine, L. and Amundsen, C. (2011) To Be or Not to Be? The Challenges of Learning Academic Work. In L. McAlpine and C. Amundsen (eds.) Doctoral Education: Research-Based Strategies for Doctoral Students, Supervisors and Administrators. London, Springer: 1–14.
McAlpine, L., Skakni, I. & Inouye, K. Phd careers beyond the traditional: integrating individual and structural factors for a richer account. European J High Educ 1–21 (2021) doi:10.1080/21568235.2020.1870242.
McCulloch, A. & Loeser, C. Does research degree supervisor training work? The impact of a professional development induction workshop on supervision practice. Higher Education Research & Development 1–15 (2016) doi:10.1080/07294360.2016.1139547.
Mewburn, I. & Thomson, P. Why do academics blog? An analysis of audiences, purposes and challenges. Studies in Higher Education 38, 1105–1119 (2013).
Santiago-Lopez, A. (2019). Six project-management tips for your PhD. Retrieved 6 May 2021, from https://www.nature.com/article…
Wellington, J. Searching for ‘doctorateness.’ Studies in Higher Education 38, 1490–1503 (2013).
Woodhouse, J. & Wood, P. Creating dialogic spaces: developing doctoral students’ critical writing skills through peer assessment and review. Studies in Higher Education 0, 1–13 (2020).