The Value of Continuing Professional Development for Supervisors

In 2021, the UK Council for Graduate Education (UKCGE) conducted the first iteration of the UK Research Supervision Survey (UKRSS), with support from the Wellcome Trust and UKRI, open to all those involved in supervising doctoral candidates and providing them with an opportunity to share their attitudes and experiences of the role. In 2024, UKRSS was repeated with funding from Research England, through the Next Generation Research SuperVision Project (RSVP). The survey received 5,174 usable responses from supervisors across 141 institutions between June 3rd and July 16th, 2024.

This briefing highlights the benefit of Continuing Professional Development (CPD) for supervisors and research cultures. In UKRSS, respondents were asked to report on the types of self-initiated CPD activities they participated in, including: attending conferences, consulting handbooks, discussing practices with colleagues or as a part of an appraisal, evaluating practice with candidates, event participation, participation in mandatory or voluntary updating CPD sessions, reading the scholarly literature, and/or reviewing completion rates.

Respondents were also asked to consider what forms of CPD their institution offered, including opportunities to learn from more experienced supervisors through role modelling or shared practice, opportunities for less-experienced supervisors to be part of a wider supervisory team, opportunities for the mentoring of supervisors, opportunities to reflect on their supervisory practice, and/or time and space to create informal support groups, such as within departments. This briefing will focus on participation in CPD by respondents and their awareness of institutional offerings related to supervisory CPD. Evidence from UKRSS shows that participation and offerings of CPD had a positive association with practice and tasks completed by supervisors.

CPD participation

2021 and 2024 self-initiated CPD participation

Figure 1 — “Which of the following do you do to enhance your supervisory practice?”

From 2021 to 2024, across all categories of self-initiated CPD, participation in self-led CPD increased or stayed consistent year-on-year. The most significant changes were among those who reported that they participated in events such as supervisor forums (+4.1%); those who reported that they consulted their workplace handbook or code of practice (+4.3%); and those who participated in mandatory updating sessions (+7.9%).

The most commonly reported forms of self-initiated CPD were:

discussing practice with colleagues (74.6% in 2024)
consulting an institutional handbook and/or code of practice (56.1% in 2024)
discussing practice as a part of an appraisal (49.9% in 2024)
And, evaluating practice with candidates (44.4% in 2024).

These common practices point to the importance of communication-based reflective work in relation to supervisor development.

2021 and 2024 institutionally offered reflective practice

Figure 2 — “How often does your workplace/institution provide the following? Opportunities to reflect on your own supervisory practice”

Rates of institutionally offered reflective practice was consistent across 2021 and 2024, with 19% in 2024 and 18.5% in 2021 reporting that their institution always or frequently offered them opportunities for reflection on their supervisory practice. 38.7% reported that they were occasionally given these opportunities, and 42.3% stated they were rarely or never given these opportunities in 2024.

Association between CPD and reflective practice institutional-offerings

There was a positive association between respondents who stated that their institution offered reflective practice opportunities and those who were more likely to report that they participated in self-initiated CPD. For example, of those who reported that their institution always offered reflective opportunities on supervision:

85.4% stated that they discussed practice with colleagues, compared to 59.4% of those whose institutions never offered opportunities for reflective practice
69.4% reported that they evaluated practice with candidates, compared to 31.7% of those whose institutions never offered opportunities for reflective practice
59% stated that they participated in events such as supervisory forums, compared to 23% of those whose institutions never offered opportunities for reflective practice
50.7% stated that they participated in mandatory updating sessions, compared to 27.9% of those whose institutions never offered opportunities for reflective practice
40.3% stated that they read the scholarly literature on supervision and doctoral pedagogy, compared to 19.8% of those whose institutions never offered opportunities for reflective practice.

Self-initiated CPD practices and institutionally-supported opportunities for reflective practice are not always mutually exclusive. It is therefore not altogether surprising that there is a positive association between self-initiated CPD participation and reported institutional offerings of reflective practice. What the correlation illustrates, however, is that while supervisors may engage with self-initiated CPD even in the absence of institutional support, the perception that institutional support is available has a significant multiplier effect on these CPD practices.

Association between reflective practice offerings and perception of research culture

Figure 3 — “How often does your institution provide opportunities to reflect on your own supervisory practice?” by “To what extent do you agree that you institution lives up to a positive research culture?”

There was a positive association between those who reported that their institution offered opportunities to reflect on their supervisory practice and those who agreed that their institution had a positive research culture.

Of those who stated that their institution always offered opportunities for reflection: 54.9% strongly agreed that their institution had a positive research culture (rising to a combined total of 86.6% including “agree”). Of those who stated that their institution frequently offered such opportunities, 50% strongly agreed that their institution has a positive research culture (rising to a combined total of 90.3% agreement).

Comparatively, of those who stated their institution never offered opportunities for reflection, only 21% strongly agreed that their institution had a positive research culture (rising to a combined total of 65.7% agreement).

2021 and 2024 institutionally offered mentoring opportunities

Figure 4 — “How often does your workplace/institution provide the following? Opportunities for the mentoring of supervisors”

Rates of institutionally offered opportunities for the mentoring of supervisors was relatively consistent across 2021 and 2024, with 32.8% in 2024 and 34.3% in 2021 reporting that their institution always or frequently offered them opportunities for the mentorship of supervisors. 30.8% reported that they were occasionally given these opportunities, and 36.5% stated they were rarely or never given such opportunities in 2024.

Association between mentoring offerings and perception of research culture

Figure 5 — “How often does your institution provide opportunities for the mentoring of supervisors?” by “To what extent do you agree that you institution lives up to a positive research culture?”

There was a positive association between those who felt that their institution had a positive research culture and those who stated that their institution offered opportunities for the mentoring of supervisors. 57.4% of those who always stated that their institution offered such opportunities stated that they strongly agreed that their institution had a positive research culture (89.5% total agreement). Similarly, 46.4% of those who felt their institution frequently offered such opportunities reported strong agreement that their institution had a positive research culture (90.6% total agreement). Comparatively, 22.5% of those who stated that their institution never offered such opportunities said that they strongly agreed that their institution had a positive research culture (68.2% total agreement and 15.5% total disagreement).

Mentorship offerings for supervisors impact on regular supervisory tasks

Institutional support for supervisory mentoring opportunities is positively associated with supervisory practices. For example:

Association between mentoring offerings and non-academic career advising

Figure 6 — “How often does your institution provide opportunities for the mentoring of supervisors?” by “In my supervisory work, I regularly provide advice on pursuing non-academic careers”

60.8% of those who reported that their institution always offered mentorship opportunities — and 60% of those who said these opportunities were frequently available — stated that they regularly provided advice to their doctoral candidates on pursuing non-academic careers. Comparatively, 50.8% of those who said their institution never offered such opportunities stated that they provided this advice to their candidates.

Association between mentoring offerings and academic career advising

Figure 7 — “How often does your institution provide opportunities for the mentoring of supervisors?” by “In my supervisory work, I regularly provide advice on pursuing academic careers”

86.7% of those who reported that mentoring opportunities were always available provided advice on academic careers, compared to 77.7% of those who reported there were never such opportunities.

Association between mentoring offerings and publishing encouragement

Figure 8 — “How often does your institution provide opportunities for the mentoring of supervisors?” by “In my supervisory work, I regularly ensure my doctoral candidate publishes in their field”

Similarly, 80.4% of those who said their institution always offered such opportunities – and 80.6% of those who reported frequently – stated that they regularly ensured that their doctoral candidates published in their fields. This was compared to 67.2% of those who reported that their institutions never offered mentorship opportunities for supervisors.

These correlations imply that being exposed to mentoring opportunities encourages ‘mentoring-like’ behaviours in supervisory practices, such as career advice and collaboration.

CPD participation and the impact on regular supervisory tasks

Figure 9 — “Which of the following do you do to enhance your supervisory practice?” by “In my supervisory work, I regularly…”

Across key areas of engagement with CPD, participants reported higher rates of regularly undertaking positive supervisory practices than the overall dataset. In other words, respondents were asked how frequently they undertook specific supervisory tasks, and their participation in CPD activities had a positive association with engaging in regular supervisory tasks and best practice.

For example, 73.3% of all respondents reported regularly ensuring that candidates published within their field. This increased to 76.9% for those who participated in mandatory CPD, 79.3% of those who participated in peer observation and 80.2% of those who evaluated their practices with doctoral candidates.

Similarly, 86% of the overall respondents stated that they regularly highlighted training, professional development and public engagement to their candidates. This rose to 92.1% of those who participated in mandatory updating CPD sessions, 92.3% of those who participated in voluntary updating sessions and 92.2% of those who participated in peer observation of supervision.

79.7% of the overall respondents reported regularly providing advice to candidates on academic careers, compared to 86.3% of those who participated in peer observation, 84.3% of those who discussed their supervisory practice as a part of an appraisal or professional development review and 84.9% of those who evaluated their practice with their candidates.

53.6% of overall respondents reported that they regularly provided advice on non-academic careers to doctoral candidates. This increased to 61.2% of those who participated in peer observation, 60.4% of those who evaluated their practice with their candidates, and 59.0% of those who discussed their work as part of a professional appraisal.

Across all measures analysed, respondents involved in CPD were more likely to report regularly carrying out key supervisory tasks. These findings suggest that institutions should actively provide and support opportunities for CPD in order to strengthen supervisory practice and research culture.

Fast facts

      
    
      Community-based self-initiated CPD practices were frequently the most reported across 2021 and 2024: 74.6% of 2024 respondents reported discussing practice with colleagues
56.1% of 2024 respondents reported consulting an institutional handbook and/​or code of practice
49.9% of 2024 respondents reported discussing practice as part of an appraisal
44.4% of 2024 respondents reported evaluating practice with candidates.
Those who stated that their institution offered reflective practice opportunities were more likely to report that they participated in self-initiated CPD.
There was a positive association between those who reported that their institution offered opportunities to reflect on their supervisory practice and those who agreed that their institution had a positive research culture.86.6% of those who reported that their institution always offered opportunities for reflection agreed that their institution had a positive research culture.
65.7% of those who reported that their institution never offered such opportunities agreed that their institution had a positive research culture.
There was a positive association between those who felt that their institution had a positive research culture and those who stated that their institution offered opportunities for the mentoring of supervisors.89.5% of those who always stated that their institution offered such opportunities reported agreement that their institution had a positive research culture.
68.2% of those who stated that their institution never offered such opportunities agreed that their institution had a positive research culture (15.5% total disagreement).
Where respondents reported that their institution offered supervisory mentorship opportunities, regularity of careers advice and publishing assistance for candidates was higher.
There was a positive association between forms of professionalising, self-initiated CPD participation and regular engagement with positive supervisory practices.Among all respondents, 73.3% regularly encouraged candidates to publish in their field, rising to over 76% among those engaged in CPD, peer observation or reflective evaluation with candidates.
Overall, 86% regularly promoted training, professional development and public engagement opportunities to candidates, increasing to over 92% among those participating in CPD or peer observation.
Similarly, 79.7% regularly advised candidates on academic careers, compared with around 84–86% among those involved in peer observation, appraisal discussions or reflective evaluation.
Advice on non-academic careers was less common overall (53.6%) but increased to around 59–61% among respondents engaged in peer observation, appraisal or evaluation activities. 

    

Fact sheet developed with support from the Next Generation Research SuperVision Project (RSVP), with funding from Research England.