How to be an RSRP Reviewer

In this Q&A, three current RSRP reviewers discuss their experiences as Reviewers in the programme, why they feel reflective practice is important as a supervisor, and key advice for early career researchers aiming to apply to RSRP. Catherine Hayes (University of Sunderland), Alisha Ali (Sheffield Hallam University), and Panagiotis Pentaris (Goldsmiths, University of London) take on the following discussion.

Can you please start by speaking on why you felt it was important to engage with UKCGE’s Research Supervision Recognition Programme (RSRP)? Why do you feel recognition and reflective practice are important to supervision? 

Catherine Hayes: I felt I wanted a systematic understanding of what a ​‘good supervisor’ actually was. I had the good fortune to be mentored by an experienced academic during my initial undertaking of doctoral supervision, which permitted me to see the procedural regularity, doctoral requirements and regulation of doctorates at Level 8 via the QAA standards. However, I was aware that there was no standardized recognition of my capacity to be a doctoral supervisor and whilst I could be reflective and reflexive on my annual contribution to doctoral supervisory praxis, I wanted to firstly ensure that my skills were optimal and secondly to iteratively improve on the level of doctoral educational provision I could provide to a wider range of students. I also work across several different academic disciplines, and I wanted to see if my approach to supervision transcended these signature pedagogies and whether what I was doing would be deemed credible and best practice with the students with whom I was working. 

Alisha Ali: Reflective practice does not come naturally to me; it is something I have to continuously work on. The UKCGE’s Research Supervision Recognition Programme (RSRP) offered me a valuable opportunity to specifically reflect on my postgraduate research (PGR) supervision. What made the scheme meaningful was that it did not require me to talk about strategic leadership or institutional responsibilities. Instead, I was able to focus on my own supervision practice such as my strength, areas for development, and to consider the PGR perspective. It encouraged and gave me the confidence to step into the shoes of my PGR students and ask: how do they experience my supervision? And how can I improve? 

One of the best parts of supervision is how individualised it can be because no two PGRs are the same. Each supervision journey is unique, and shaped by the PGR’s goals, background, and research. That’s part of the beauty of it. You work closely with someone who will become an expert in their field, and you play a small yet meaningful role in this. It is a professional and personal connection and learning experience and recognising and reflecting on this journey is important to becoming better supervisors and developing our practice. 

Panagiotis Pentaris: Reflective practice is key to growth, regardless of the area of practice. In supervision, reflective practice encourages critical thinking and pushes a supervisor to evaluate their decisions, actions, and outcomes carefully. Reflective approaches help surface insights and refine the relationships with PhD students and practice altogether. Additionally, reflective practice enables the exercise of curiosity rather than judgment, and this helps build confidence and minimise concerns in practice, while focusing on achievements. These are some of the key reasons I chose to apply for the UKCGE Research Supervision Recognition Programme. 

What motivated you to become a reviewer for UKCGE’s RSRP?

PP: My motivation to become a reviewer stemmed from many years of acting as a mentor and supervisor to early career researchers and supervisors. In the role of a reviewer, one contributes further on the shaping of the standards for reflexive supervision, while facilitating the standards for ethical supervision, as well. This role contributes to the shaping of future supervisors, while it supports the reviewer’s progress and advancement of skills. 

CH: I am keen to support others in their developmental progression and also to use the experience I have had from an almost three-decade career in Higher Education and doctoral supervision. I also appreciated the opportunity to work alongside colleagues from other academic institutions so I could see the situated nature of which approaches were being adopted and implemented at Sunderland. 

AA: Becoming a RSRP reviewer is an opportunity for me to grow and develop as a supervisor, as it is more than reviewing applications. One of the most valuable aspects of the scheme was gaining experience from practices beyond my own discipline. I would not normally have access to insights into supervisory approaches from other fields or international contexts as I come from a social sciences background. The RSRP opened that door by exposing me to a much broader range of experiences and strategies that have since informed and improved my own practice. I have also been able to bring these insights back to my colleagues, creating useful conversations about how we supervise and support our PGRs. 

Another unexpected but rewarding element of the programme was the opportunity to connect with peers across institutions. I was once paired with a reviewer and when we met to discuss our feedback, we realised that we had actually met years ago at a conference, reminding me of the interconnectedness of our academic world. 

You have now been on both sides of RSRP, as an applicant and as a reviewer. How has being a reviewer changed your practice as a supervisor for doctoral candidates? How has reviewing for RSRP enabled further reflective practice for you?

AA: RSRP has taught me to revisit past experiences to identify the lessons for intentional future planning. I can say with confidence that I am now a better supervisor because this process reflected in my sense of growth, but also in the feedback I receive from my students. I have significantly improved in how I communicate, support, and adapt to their individual needs. I also feel more confident in supporting colleagues and having open conversation about the highs and lows of supervision. 

CH: The main change for me has been my capacity to be more facilitative than directive. I became aware via reflection on my own approaches that I am inclined to overly encourage methodological approaches simply because I am familiar with them and enjoy using them and consequently, I admit I’m less open to other approaches when actually they could/​would be an equally sound option. I can also now acknowledge my own limitations, and I am better placed to deal with them – in particular the pace and speed at which I used to expect students to work was more akin to my own working style than theirs. I now better consider their personal circumstances and commitments when developing feasible timelines with them. I’m also far more likely to seek the advice of fellow academics than I was and not see this as weakness in any way. 

PP: Being a reviewer for this programme has enabled me to continuously visit new resources that will help me develop my reflective practice but also widen my understanding of how this is applied across different disciplines and empirical fields. It has enabled me to engage further with activities that help me explore relationship-based supervision in-depth and thus improve student outcomes altogether. 

How have you dealt with and resolved disagreement or conflict while on a reviewer panel? 

AA: When differences arise, my approach is to engage in supportive and honest conversations. We discuss where our views diverge, outlining the reasons behind our positions, and then returning to the agreed criteria to guide the final decision. I have found that by focusing on the shared framework, we can navigate our differences constructively and respectfully. 

CH: Not experienced…yet!!

PP: By open communication. When there have been disputes, my colleagues and I discuss the strengths of the application, identifying areas which the other might have missed, and from there start recognising the gaps together. In other words, founded on a positive relationship, open communication and discussion helps resolve disputes. 

Do you have any advice for early-career supervisors or those applying for the Research Supervision Recognition Programme? 

PP: Research supervision is not a skill that is given; it entails the pedagogical capacity to nurture the learning and growth of students in their own pace and based on their individual needs. My main advice is to enter research supervision in the knowledge that skills and capacities will need to be re-adapted every time, and recognising the student’s input in the relationship and their own progress, while avoiding to create barriers for the student which stem from the relationship with other supervisors. 

AA: RSRP reminded me of the importance of documenting and collecting evidence in my supervision practice. It is easy to forget key moments or small wins, many of which we take for granted. I now keep a running spreadsheet where I can quickly note down examples as they happen. This saves time later when pulling together your application and allows you to see patterns emerging in your development. 

I would also suggest remembering the ​“so what” question. It is not only about the examples but considering what was the impact of your action? What changes for the PGR, or you or your co-supervisors? You need good evidence to tell your story. 

CH: I would say that the Research Supervision Recognition Programme is a safe place to gain an insight, both via self-reflection and feedback of how supervisory practice can be best developed for the benefit of both supervisors and doctoral candidates. The systematic framework offered by the scheme is a unique means of deconstructing experiences, making sense of them and then building and consolidating best approaches where one size doesn’t fit all, because no two doctorates are alike. The sense of community and support received from the UKGCE is second to none, with excellent collective webinars and the award itself is not only recognition but a means of reliably benchmarking your own professional practice across the HE sector.