The Impact of Supervision on Research Quality
As part of the 2021 and 2024 UK Research Supervision Survey (UKRSS), the UK Council for Graduate Education asked participants to consider whether serving as a doctoral supervisor enhances the quality of their own research. This resource presents UKRSS analysis of respondents’ views on the extent to which supervision contributes to research quality, as well as the frequency of research collaboration with doctoral candidates.
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. It was open to all those involved in supervising doctoral candidates and provided 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 focusses on whether respondents felt that being a supervisor increases the quality of their own research. Evidence from UKRSS shows that supervision contributes significantly to broader institutional research productivity and outputs.
Supervision’s impact on research quality
Agreement with ‘Being a supervisor increases the quality of my own research’
The majority of respondents to UKRSS 2021 and 2024 stated that supervising doctoral candidates increased the quality of their own research (over 80%). Overall agreement with this statement was relatively consistent from 2021 to 2024, with 80.2% in 2024 and 82.4% in 2021 strongly agreeing or agreeing that being a supervisor increased the quality of their own research.
Disciplinary agreement with ‘Being a supervisor increases the quality of my own research’
Reports of the benefits of supervision to research quality were higher among those in Physical Sciences, Engineering, and Mathematics (PSEM) and Medicine, Health, and Life Sciences (MHLS). 84.2% of PSEM and 82.4% of MHLS respondents reported agreement that supervision increased the quality of their own research, compared to 75.4% of those in Social Sciences and 78.1% of those in Arts and Humanities. Irrespective of discipline, the vast majority of respondents to UKRSS 2021 and 2024 reported agreement that being a supervisor improved the quality of their own research.
Career stage agreement with ‘Being a supervisor increases the quality of my own research’
Late-career respondents were more likely to strongly agree that supervision increased the quality of their own research than early- and mid-career respondents. 43.7% of late-career respondents strongly agreed with this statement, with 80.6% overall agreement. 79.7% of mid-career and 81.2% of early-career respondents responded overall affirmatively to this statement. Irrespective of career stage, then, the majority of respondents reported that supervision benefited their own research.
Frequency of collaboration or co-authorship
Respondents were asked to consider how frequently they collaborate on or co-author doctoral candidate publications. 56.5% of respondents stated that they frequently do this, with just 13.7% reporting that they never do.
Research quality improvement from supervision vs. frequency of collaboration or co-authorship with doctoral candidates
There was a positive association between respondents who reported that they strongly agreed or agreed that being a supervisor improves the quality of their own research and those that reported that they frequently collaborated or co-authored with their doctoral candidates. 67.6% of those who strongly agreed that supervision improved the quality of their research stated that they frequently collaborated on published projects with their doctoral candidates. Comparatively, of the 2% of respondents who strongly disagreed that supervision improved their research, 33.3% frequently collaborated or co-authored with their doctoral candidates and 27.2% never did.
Disciplinary differences amongst frequency of collaboration or co-authorship with doctoral candidates
Disciplinary differences emerged among those who collaborated or co-authored with their doctoral candidates, with those from MHLS (94.1%) and PSEM (93.6%) being more likely to report that they frequently or occasionally did this. 69.5% of SS respondents reported that they frequently or occasionally collaborated or co-authored with their doctoral candidates. Comparatively, 33.4% of AH respondents reported that they frequently or occasionally did this.
While there was a positive association between those who reported that their research quality improved from research supervision and those who co-authored and collaborated on publications with their doctoral candidates, the majority of all respondents stated that they had benefitted from supervision, regardless of the frequency of co-authorship. For example, while just 33.4% of AH respondents reported that they collaborated on publications, 78.1% stated that supervision improved the quality of their own research. This indicates that supervisors understand that research output is not the only facet of their work to benefit from supervision.
From these findings, it is clear that the beneficiaries of doctoral supervision are not simply the doctoral researchers themselves. Supervision creates the incentives and the environment to improve the quality of research conducted by the supervisors themselves.
Fast facts
- Over 80% of respondents to UKRSS 2021 and 2024 stated that supervising doctoral candidates increased the quality of their own research, representing the majority of respondents in both years.
- Most respondents from all disciplinary groups reported that supervision improved the quality of their own research:
- 84.2% of Physical Sciences, Engineering and Mathematics
- 82.4% of Medicine, Health and Life Sciences
- 78.1% of those in Arts and Humanities
- 75.4% of those in Social Sciences.
- Respondents from all career stages agreed that doctoral supervision improved their own research quality, with a small increase in strong agreement from late-career respondents:
- 81.2% of early-career respondents
- 80.6% of late-career respondents
- 79.7% of mid-career respondents
- 67.6% of those who strongly agreed that supervision improved the quality of their research stated that they frequently collaborated on published projects with their doctoral candidates, compared to 33.3% of the 2% of respondents who strongly disagreed.
- Disciplinary differences emerged regarding co-authoring or collaborating on publications with doctoral candidates, with 33.4% of AH respondents reporting that they frequently or occasionally did this compared to 94.1% of MHLS.
- Agreement that doctoral supervision improved research quality was high even in disciplines where co-authorship was low.
Fact sheet developed with support from the Next Generation Research SuperVision Project (RSVP), with funding from Research England.