Enhancing co-supervision practice by setting expectations in a structured discussion using a research-informed tool

References

• Bitusikova, A. (2009). Reforming doctoral education in Europe. Academe, 95(1), 21–23.
   Google Scholar
• Bitzer, E. M., & Albertyn, R. M. (2011). Alternative approaches to postgraduate supervision: A planning tool to facilitate supervisory processes. South African Journal of Higher Education, 25(5), 875–888.
   Google Scholar
• Carless, D., & Boud, D. (2018). The development of student feedback literacy: Enabling uptake of feedback. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 43(8), 1315–1325. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2018.1463354
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Grant, B. (2003). Mapping the pleasures and risks of supervision. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 24(2), 175–190. https://doi.org/10.1080/01596300303042
   Google Scholar
• Grossman, E. S., & Crowther, N. J. (2015). Co-supervision in postgraduate training: Ensuring the right hand knows what the left hand is doing. South African Journal of Science, 111(11–12), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.17159/sajs.2015/20140305
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Guerin, C., & Green, I. (2015). ‘They’re the bosses’: Feedback in team supervision. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 39(3), 320–335. https://doi.org/10.1080/0309877X.2013.831039
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Guerin, C., Green, I., & Bastalich, W. (2011). Big love: Managing a team of research supervisors. In V. Kumar & A. Lee (Eds.), Doctoral education in international context: Connecting local, regional & global perspectives (pp. 138–153). Universiti Putra Malaysia Press.
   Google Scholar
• Lahenius, K., & Ikävalko, H. (2014). Joint supervision practices in doctoral education – a student experience. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 38(3), 427–446. https://doi.org/10.1080/0309877X.2012.706805
   Google Scholar
• Lindvig, K. (2018). The implied PhD student of interdisciplinary research projects within monodisciplinary structures. Higher Education Research & Development, 37(6), 1171–1185. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2018.1474343
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Macfarlane, B. (2017). The ethics of multiple authorship: Power, performativity and the gift economy. Studies in Higher Education, 42(7), 1194–1210. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2015.1085009
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Manathunga, C. (2007). ‘Unhomely’ academic developer identities: More post-colonial explorations. International Journal for Academic Development, 12(1), 25–34. https://doi.org/10.1080/13601440701217287
   Google Scholar
• Manathunga, C. (2012a). Supervisors watching supervisors: The deconstructive possibilities and tensions of team supervision. Australian Universities’ Review, 54(1), 29–37.
   Google Scholar
• Manathunga, C. (2012b). Team’ supervision: New positionings in doctoral education pedagogies. In A. Lee & S. Danby (Eds.), Reshaping doctoral education: International approaches and pedagogies (pp. 42–55). Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Martin, B. R. (2016). What’s happening to our universities? Prometheus, 34(1), 7–24. https://doi.org/10.1080/08109028.2016.1222123
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McWilliam, E., Singh, P., & Taylor, P. G. (2002). Doctoral education, danger and risk management. Higher Education Research & Development, 21(2), 119–129. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360220144042
   Google Scholar
• Molloy, E., Boud, D., & Henderson, M. (2019). Developing a learning-centred framework for feedback literacy. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 45(4), 527–540. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2019.1667955
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Olmos-López, P., & Sunderland, J. (2017). Doctoral supervisors’ and supervisees’ responses to co-supervision. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 41(6), 727–740. https://doi.org/10.1080/0309877X.2016.1177166
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pearson, M., & Kayrooz, C. (2004). Enabling critical reflection on research supervisory practice. International Journal for Academic Development, 9(1), 99–116. https://doi.org/10.1080/1360144042000296107
   Google Scholar
• Pole, C. (1998). Joint supervision and the PhD: Safety net or panacea? Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 23(3), 259–271. https://doi.org/10.1080/0260293980230303
   Google Scholar
• Robertson, M. J. (2017a). Team modes and power: Supervision of doctoral students. Higher Education Research & Development, 36(2), 358–371. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2016.1208157
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Robertson, M. J. (2017b). Trust: The power that binds in team supervision of doctoral students. Higher Education Research & Development, 36(7), 1463–1475. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2017.1325853
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Robertson, M. J. (2019). Power and doctoral supervision teams: Developing team building skills in collaborative doctoral research. Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Robinson-Pant, A., & Singal, N. (2020). Beyond authorship and accountability? The ethics of doctoral research dissemination in a changing world. British Educational Research Journal, 46(4), 859–877. https://doi.org/10.1002/berj.3590
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Skakni, I. (2018). Doctoral studies as an initiatory trial: Expected and taken-for-granted practices that impede PhD students’ progress. Teaching in Higher Education, 23(8), 927–944. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2018.1449742
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Spronken-Smith, R., Cameron, C., & Quigg, R. (2018). Factors contributing to high PhD completion rates: A case study in a research-intensive university in New Zealand. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 43(1), 94–109. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2017.1298717
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Taylor, S., & Beasley, N. (2005). A handbook for doctoral supervisors. Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Taylor, S., Kiley, M., & Humphrey, R. (2018). A handbook for doctoral supervisors (2nd ed.). Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Watts, J. H. (2010). Team supervision of the doctorate: Managing roles, relationships and contradictions. Teaching in Higher Education, 15(3), 335–339. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562511003740908
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar