The case for artisanal doctoral supervision
I. Martins
Studies in Higher Education
Universities track doctoral students through study plans and progress reviews. I propose revisable plans and brief records of reasons, so that supervisors remain accountable and students can still change course when new evidence calls for it.
Universities increasingly organise doctoral supervision through study plans and progress reviews. These instruments protect students by making promised support verifiable. They also establish an early account of the research against which later progress is judged. In humanities research, new evidence may unsettle that account, and a change that improves the thesis can then look like a failure to keep to the plan. This conceptual article brings together research on doctoral supervision and research on how universities assess academic work to develop a typology of supervision. It distinguishes structure, which makes support reliable, from judgement, which helps students decide what a discovery means for their thesis. Their combination produces nominal, unstructured, bureaucratic, and artisanal supervision. Bureaucratic supervision combines reliable support with weak judgement and suits reviews that measure progress against the plan. Artisanal supervision uses reliable structure to make room for justified changes to the thesis within the time a doctorate allows. The article argues that formal records capture intellectual judgement poorly and can steer supervision towards what they record. It proposes revisable plans and brief, protected records of reasons, so that universities can hold supervision to account while leaving room for discovery.