Supervision as a shared institutional responsibility: lessons from the development programme from The Arctic University of Norway

Doctoral supervision is no longer a role that can be left to chance or tradition. As higher education demands evolve, so must the practices of those supervising the next generation of researchers. High-quality supervision is not just a personal responsibility—it is an institutional imperative. Drawing on lessons from UiT’s innovative, mandatory development program for doctoral supervisors, this column explores how institutions can build a culture of excellence in supervision. By investing in structured, transformative learning opportunities, universities can ensure that supervisors are equipped to navigate the complexities of their roles, support diverse student needs, and contribute to the public good of higher education. 

The Case for Institutional responsibility 

Despite its importance, doctoral supervision has historically been treated as an informal skill, learned through personal experience or mentorship. Many supervisors rely on how they were supervised themselves, often decades ago, or on ad hoc reflections from their own practice.  However, the increasing complexity of doctoral education and the growing diversity of postgraduate candidates have made this approach insufficient. Institutions must take responsibility for equipping supervisors with the tools, knowledge, and frameworks they need to succeed, and to meet the necessary professional development. 

Core Elements of Professional Development Programs 

Professional development programs for doctoral supervisors must address the multifaceted nature of supervision. A longitudinal case study conducted at UiT from 2018 to 2021 examined the professional development of 329 doctoral supervisors participating in a mandatory, eight-month program. Using surveys and interviews, the study explored supervisors’ reflections on their learning needs, challenges, and transformative experiences. The findings highlight five critical elements—institutional responsibility, transformative learning, broader repertoire, managing complexity, and community formation—offering a robust framework for best practices in designing impactful supervisor development programs. What follows are key takeaways of the study.  

Based on research and the UiT case study, five core elements are essential for success: 

• Transformative learning: personal investment and authentic experiences
  Transformative learning goes beyond acquiring new skills; it involves a profound shift in perspectives, assumptions, and practices. Supervisors benefit from structured opportunities to reflect critically on their own approaches, engage in meaningful dialogue with peers, and experiment with new methods. For instance, UiT’s program required participants to engage in peer observation, where supervisors observed and provided feedback on each other’s practices. This process enhanced their skills and fostered a culture of mutual learning and support. 

However, transformative learning requires time—a scarce resource for busy academics. Supervisors often struggle to balance their teaching, research, and administrative responsibilities with professional development demands. Institutions must acknowledge this challenge and design flexible yet impactful programs, ensuring that supervisors can invest the necessary time without feeling overwhelmed within a too short time frame. 

• Building a Broader Repertoire: Tools for Diversity and Complexity
  Supervisors today must navigate a wide range of challenges, from managing cultural and disciplinary diversity to addressing students’ mental health and career aspirations. Professional development programs should equip them with practical tools to map expectations, provide effective feedback, and foster trustful relationships with their students. For example, UiT’s program emphasized the importance of understanding students’ individual needs and motivations and developing strategies to support their independence and agency. 

One key theoretical framework for research supervision, outlined in her book Successful Research Supervision (Lee 2019), identifies five approaches—functional, enculturation, critical thinking, emancipation, and relationship development—that guide supervisors in supporting doctoral students. Throughout the UiT program participants need to adapt these approaches and integrate her framework in relation to diverse parts of their own supervisory practice, and use it to reflect on the broader societal impact of doctoral education. Most importantly is to provide supervisors with a repertoire to be prepared for the “hidden realities” of doctoral life, such as conflicts, stress, and cultural differences. To build such diversity awareness can help supervisors build the skills they need to address different types challenges constructively. 

• Managing Complexity: Balancing Institutional and Student Needs

The role of a supervisor extends beyond academic supervision. Supervisors are often expected to help students navigate institutional requirements, develop transferable skills, and prepare for careers both within and outside academia. This balancing act can be daunting, particularly when institutional expectations are unclear or constantly changing. 

UiT’s program addressed this by providing supervisors with an overview of national and institutional frameworks, such as qualification standards and employability goals. Supervisors were encouraged to reflect on how these requirements align with their own practices and to discuss strategies for supporting students’ career development. By fostering a deeper understanding of the broader context of doctoral education, the program helped supervisors manage the complexity of their roles more effectively. 

• Formation and Community Building: Learning Across Boundaries
  Supervision is not a solitary endeavour. Building a community of practice among supervisors can provide invaluable opportunities for learning, collaboration, and support. UiT’s program brought together supervisors from diverse disciplines and campuses, creating a space for cross-disciplinary dialogue and mutual understanding. Supervisory teams, composed of 4–5 supervisors, worked together on assignments, observed each other’s practices, and provided feedback. IN the middle of the program there was a faculty gathering, to address 1) specific challenges that was important for each faculty, 2) to invite guests with specially needed competence that they wanted to get into depth on, and to 3) discuss and share best practises with fellow supervisors at the faculty. 

This sense of communities was particularly valuable for supervisors at smaller campuses or in isolated disciplines. This, along with the eight online voluntary workshops allowed them to share experiences, discuss challenges, and develop new perspectives on their work. By fostering connections and collegial observation across boundaries, the program enhanced individual supervisors’ skills and contributed to a broader “culture of excellence” in supervision, as the model provided access to communities and “supervisory cultures” they normally don’t have access to. 

• Institutional Leadership and Support: setting the tone
  Institutional leadership plays a crucial role in the success of professional development programs. At UiT, the involvement of senior leaders signalled the importance of supervision as a core institutional priority. Faculty leaders participated in workshops, facilitated discussions, and provided ongoing support for supervisors’ development. 

A strong incentive structure complemented this top-down commitment. Supervisors were required to complete the program to be eligible for new doctoral candidates, ensuring that professional development was not seen as optional. This also provided institute leaders with some tools for supervisors with records of complains from candidates. If they don’t seek to develop their practice, they can’t have any new candidates. At the same time, the program was not focusing on the mandatory part, but was designed to be engaging and relevant, addressing supervisors’ actual needs and challenges. 

Lessons from UiT’s Mandatory Program 

UiT’s eight-month mandatory program for doctoral supervisors offers a compelling model for other institutions. The program included both obligatory and voluntary elements (relevant issues for those who needed it)1. To earn a final certificate, participants were required to attend three mandatory sessions: a full-day start-up, a half-day digital follow-up, and a half-day faculty-specific supervision workshop. Additionally, they had to collaborate in supervisory teams (minimum 1–2 meetings), attend the faculty gathering and complete three assignments. By combining mandatory and voluntary elements, the program strikes a balance between institutional requirements, core element and individual flexibility. Supervisors can tailor their learning journey to their specific needs while still meeting core objectives. 

Another key strength was the program’s emphasis on process-oriented and collegial learning. Supervisors were encouraged to reflect on their practices, dialogue with peers, and experiment with new approaches. This enhanced their skills and fostered a sense of ownership and agency in their professional development. 

Overcoming Challenges and Resistance 

Despite its success, UiT’s program faced challenges, particularly resistance from experienced supervisors. Some seasoned academics are still sceptical of mandatory training, viewing it as an administrative burden or a challenge to their expertise. To address this, it advocated the new supervisors are often much more up to date and have experiences themselves not that long ago as candidates. Seasoned supervisors have other strengths and experiences, as both groups are important for each other. The value of lifelong learning and provided opportunities for experienced supervisors to share their insights an others. 

Time constraints were another significant barrier. Supervisors often struggled to balance the program’s demands with their other responsibilities. UiT addressed this by designing a flexible structure that allowed supervisors to prioritize their learning while meeting institutional requirements. Inviting leaders both to express how they work with doctoral education and get ownership to the program is also a core element. 

Institutional Recommendations 

Based on the lessons from UiT and broader research, the following recommendations can guide institutions in developing effective professional development programs for doctoral supervisors: 

1. Prioritize Supervision as a Core Institutional Responsibility: Recognize the critical role of supervision in doctoral education and allocate resources accordingly. 
2. Design Flexible, High-Quality Programs: Combine mandatory and voluntary elements to meet diverse needs while maintaining high standards.  
3. Foster Transformative Learning: Create opportunities for critical reflection, dialogue, and experimentation. 
4. Build Communities of Practice: Encourage collaboration and mutual learning among supervisors across disciplines and campuses. 
5. Engage Leadership at All Levels: Ensure senior leaders actively support and participate in professional development initiatives, for instance through inviting them to a planning meeting where they get relevant information and can come up with ideas. Faculty leaders should be in charge and “own” the faculty gathering in the middle of the program, and the research dean or prorector for research should be invited to the opening to share the institutional expectations.  

Conclusion 

Doctoral supervision is a complex and demanding role that requires continuous learning and reflexivity. Institutions are responsible for supporting supervisors in this journey, not only for the benefit of individual supervisors and students but also for the broader public good of higher education. UiT’s mandatory program demonstrates that with thoughtful design, institutional commitment, and a focus on transformative learning, professional development programs can have a profound impact. The participants especially highlight observing each other and working closely in cross-disciplinary and safe supervisory teams over time is transformative in their evaluation schemes. By investing in the professional development of supervisors, universities can build a culture of professional development that benefits all members of the academic community.