The rules and roles of co-supervision - a study at LTH

Abstract

Co-supervision is considered good-practice in PhD student supervision but how it is done in practice may differ substantially between research teams. In this report we discuss the existing rules and roles of co-supervisors, in particular at the Faculty of Engineering at Lund University (LTH), and how these different rules and roles may affect PhD supervision. At LTH, co-supervision has been mandatory since 2007 and there are some rules regarding the requirements of the supervisors formal training. Also, it is mandatory for at least one of the supervisors to be permanently employed at the university. However, with the exception of the rule stating that it is the principal supervisor’s responsibility to inform the co-supervisor(s) about the ethical guidelines of supervision at LTH, we have found that there are no rules or guidelines regarding the division of work between the principal supervisor and the co-supervisor(s) at LTH. The absence of regulations gives the supervisors large freedom in the division of the work and structure of the supervision group, but it also makes the role, including tasks and workload, of the individual supervisor unclear. We have interviewed senior supervisors at LTH regarding their view on the current regulations and the roles of supervisors, focusing on the rules and roles of the co-supervisor. The supervisors interviewed have all had previous experience as both principal supervisor and as co-supervisor. In accordance with previous studies, the interviewed supervisors are very positive to the concept of co-supervision, seeing many benefits of both the opportunity of being a co-supervisor and having a co-supervisor(s) on the team. It is clear that the absence of regulations leave room for many ways to organize co-supervision, but that the organization of the group and distributions of tasks in itself are very seldom formalized. Some

interviewees are positive to a formalization of the framework of supervision while others see this as an impossible task due to the many different group constellations and individual needs involved. However, most agree that many benefits would come with increased mutual exchange of supervision-experience and continued education on supervision, which is not there today. Finally, the interviews show that the above mentioned ethical guidelines are poorly known by the supervisors. However, most argue that they still follow these guidelines, although not being aware of the official document.