The Thinking Environment in Doctoral Supervision
On May 7th 2026, speakers from the universities of Newcastle and Durham presented an online webinar in which they introduced the ‘Thinking Environment’ approach as a method to enhance creative and effective thinking, particularly in supervisory contexts. The event was held in association with the UKCGE Research Supervisors’ Network.
The webinar was opened by Professor Peter Hopkins (Professor in Social Geography, Newcastle University), who talked about some of the findings from the Thinking Environment project. He contrasted factors that hinder thinking (interruptions, finishing sentences, closed questions) with those that enhance it (attentive listening, the productive aspects of silence), and he emphasised the need for a creative, open space for thinking.
He also explained that the Thinking Environment approach is derived from coaching and aims to empower individuals to find their own answers rather than simply receiving them from an expert. Professor Hopkins then outlined the ten components of the Thinking Environment approach, followed by their application in supervision.
“What would normally happen in a thinking partnership is that somebody would think out loud for a set period of time with the undivided attention of the listener, and then they would swap roles,” he said. “This is one way in which a Thinking Environment approach might work in PhD supervision.”
He also emphasised that this approach is not a one-size-fits-all solution, but one format that could be used alongside other types of meetings, such as those which are more process-driven.
The second speaker, Rosalind Beaumont (Interdisciplinary Training Lead, Institute of Advanced Study, Durham University) explained that the approach can be used successful group settings such as team meetings where each person is given time to think and to be attentive to other thinkers, before sharing their freshest thinking in rounds. This structured format supports the creation of a thinking environment which encourages all to contribute equally and be valued for their thinking.
She added: “At the end [of the thinking session] we explicitly ‘appreciate’ each other. In other words, we share what we noticed when the person was thinking – something positive, genuine and true about the person’s qualities or the contribution they’ve made – not so much about the content but the qualities that somebody embodies.”
The session then moved to a live demo, where both speakers role-played a Thinking Pair so that attendees could see the process in action. Rosalind then concluded with some final observations about the Thinking Environment approach – how it emphasises respectful, uninterrupted listening and creates a supportive space where both parties can think out loud and explore ideas freely.