Journal of Further and Higher Education

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cjfh20

Ph.D. partnership: effective doctoral supervision

using a coaching stance

Jay Wilson & Wendy James

To cite this article: Jay Wilson & Wendy James (2021): Ph.D. partnership: effective
doctoral supervision using a coaching stance, Journal of Further and Higher Education, DOI:
10.1080/0309877X.2021.1945555

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/0309877X.2021.1945555

Published online: 30 Jun 2021.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 40

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=cjfh20
JOURNAL OF FURTHER AND HIGHER EDUCATION
https://doi.org/10.1080/0309877X.2021.1945555

ARTICLE

Ph.D. partnership: effective doctoral supervision using a coaching

stance
Jay Wilsona and Wendy James b

a
College of Education, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, Canada; bGwenna Moss Centre for Teaching and
Learning, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, Canada

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

Interactions between a graduate student and their supervisor are the Received 13 November 2020
backbone of a successful doctoral experience. Although the number of Accepted 15 June 2021
doctoral students is increasing, there are fewer full-time doctoral students. KEYWORDS
The emerging part-time student segment represents a unique trend in Graduate supervision;
higher education, creating greater diversity than traditional full-time stu­ questioning; coaching;
dents on an academic track. The shift impacts and complicates the stu­ autoethnography; part-time
dent’s overall experience in developing and sustaining relationships with professional
their supervisor. Traditional mentorship models suggest progressing
through doctoral studies in a manner that may be inappropriate for this
new group of part-time, professional Ph.D. candidates. This study applies
an autoethnographic approach in examining how a coaching stance
supports a faculty/student relationship. The paper shares two sides of
the journey and the resulting reflections. The outcomes represent the
supervisor and student experience and surface critical aspects of the
relationship and the associated dissertation writing process. The result is
a detailing of a unique experience and the lessons drawn from it. These
lessons provide guidance in working with doctoral students in a more
supportive and productive manner. Recommendations include using
coaching questions, fostering increased student responsibility for their
studies, and methods to make the supervision process intentionally
purposeful.

Introduction
The interactions between student and supervisor are the backbone of doctoral study. Although the
number of doctoral students is increasing (Emilsson and Johnsson 2007), there are fewer full-time
doctoral students (Watts 2010). More part-time students, many of whom may have a greater diversity
of circumstances and career goals than full-time students on an academic track, make developing
and sustaining a relationship between supervisors and students more complicated (Leibowitz,
Wisker, and Lamberti 2017). McCallin and Nayar (2012) note that ‘part-time students are usually in
their 40s, have substantive family and work commitments and need extended time for completion’
(65). These part-time, professional students may be poorly served by traditional mentorship models
(Hutchings 2017), mainly because the next career steps associated with the Ph. D may not occur in
the academic settings with which their supervisors are familiar. With their focus on developing
personal goals and the use of supportive questions to aid progress, coaching stances may provide
a successful alternative to mentorship stances when faculty supervisors are less clear about what
their Ph.D. students may need. This article discusses the approach applied in the supervisory

CONTACT Wendy James wendy.james@usask.ca University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, Canada

© 2021 UCU
2 J. WILSON AND W. JAMES

Table 1. Sample questions to promote reflection.

Example question Benefits Alternative to
Do you have anything you’ve ● Provides an opportunity to share forward progress ● What have you done since we
made forward progress on that but leaves the agency with student last met?
we need to discuss? Why are ● Assumes a key role of a supervisor in supporting
those things important for forward progress
what needs to happen next?
What are you hoping for from our ● Allows the student to focus the meeting in a self- ● I’d like to discuss your comps.
meeting today? determined direction ● What are your goals?
● It is limited and specific to avoid being overwhelming
Why might that be the best next ● It is tentative and allows room for rethinking. ● What should you do next?
step? ● Requires overt metacognition about alternative
and criteria for choosing
What are the patterns or ● Reinforces synthesis and evaluation skills ● What are you finding?
implications you are seeing? ● Practices theorising and reinforces it as tentative,
Why might they be important? creating a process of an ongoing inquiry.

relationship in the Ph.D. of a part-time, middle-aged professional from both the student and super­
visor’s perspectives and posits that a coaching process may be beneficial supporting mid-career
professional doctoral students. Dr. Wendy James provides the student perspective. Dr. Jay Wilson
supplies the supervisor’s perspective; the article discusses how generating the Ph.D. methodology
was influenced by each person’s approach and the relational nature of a supervision practice that
adopted elements of a coaching stance.

Literature review
Descriptions of what makes graduate supervision effective vary based on perceptions of the intent of
the supervision. Models focused on completing the dissertation identify a supervisor’s attributes that
are likely to support the process, such as setting deadlines, using technical expertise, and responding
in a timely manner (Easterby-Smith, Thorpe and Lowe 2002). Aspects that focus on assistance for
students focus on availability, supportiveness, and constructive criticism (Wisker 2012). Lee (2011)
describes the goal of supervision as stewardship of new academics into all parts of an academic role
conceived more broadly and includes functional project management and enculturation into
a disciplinary community described by others. Lee also sees supervisors as helping with critical
thinking, emancipation, and relationship development (2011). McCallin and Nayar (2012) note that
characteristics of effective supervision can also be described in terms of what students want, but that
different students need different things, ‘What stands out is that supervisors need to be adaptable
and supervision style discussed openly to ensure compatibility that meets the need of both parties
(Deuchar 2008). Overall, different models of supervision are required for different students’ (67).
Gurr’s (2001) model similarly argues that alignment between the supervisor and student is essential,
and a competently autonomous student will be comfortable with a more ‘hands-off’ supervisor that
one who is more dependent. While supervision style may vary based on student needs, a supervisor’s
process is influenced by a belief about the purpose of supervision; pedagogical diversity of super­
vision practice is likely limited, but personal belief about why supervision is needed (Åkerlind and
McAlpine 2017). As a result, exploring how a supervisor comes to know a student sufficiently to
provide helpful guidance and how the supervisors think about doing what they are doing is essential
in understanding supervision as a negotiated process.
Many supervisory models focus on helping doctoral students understand and meet the expecta­
tions of successful academics through mentorship, but mentorship may be inappropriate for part-
time, professional Ph.D. candidates. Lee (2008) notes that not all part-time students are focused on
a career in academia, but we may structure and supervise our professional and doctoral programmes
 JOURNAL OF FURTHER AND HIGHER EDUCATION 3

as if they are. Mentorship models remain the main focus on academic supervision (Lee 2011), even
though coaching models have replaced it in workplaces (Maguire, Prodi, and Gibbs 2018).
In supervisory processes, coaching descriptions are novel (McCarthy 2012; Godskesen and
Kobayashi 2016). Coaching focuses on recognising the students’ diverse social and cultural contexts
and adopting a stance of supporting students to be self-supporting of personal goals and circum­
stances (Godskesen and Kobayashi 2016). A supervisor with a strong understanding of the steps and
expectations of completing a Ph.D. can provide proper scaffolding through an agentic approach that
allows the student to take responsibility for decision-making and forward momentum. The process
occurs in a trusting partnership different from a mentorship because it needs a much more equal
power dynamic (Knight 2007; Griffiths 2005). Hopwood (2010) describes students developing rela­
tional agency, or the ability to understand situations and make decisions with the supervisor’s
support, reinforcing the student as the primary agent and decision-maker in the process. The
supervisor’s primary mechanism to help students develop and maintain agency is using coaching
questions in a trusting, equal relationship. Throughout the supervisory process, Wendy and Jay came
to conceptualise coaching, discovering central precepts of a coaching stance together. This paper
describes how coaching was used to help Wendy develop and maintain agency, even when Jay was
less confident of precisely what she would need and why.

Context
Wendy was managing a group of professional developers in a K-12 school division when she started
her Ph.D. She had recently published three professional articles and completed internal programme
evaluations but had not been actively involved in the academic community since completing
a Master’s thesis a decade previously. Wendy’s school division helped her with a one-year leave to
work on the doctorate. At the time, Jay was working as department head for one department and
temporarily supporting another and supervising two other graduate students and teaching six
courses. Both Wendy and Jay had a common background as educators and an interest in technology,
but diverse research interests, personalities, and competing, busy schedules reduced the opportu­
nity to meet.
Wendy was the first student in a new Ph.D. programme and as a result, there was much flexibility
in the process. The luxury of tradition is that it provides direction, and Jay and Wendy did not have
that. Due to their diverse backgrounds, limited time, and the evolving program, they discussed their
decisions about process overtly and directly, weighing various options together throughout the
process, establishing the basis for a coaching relationship.

Methodology
This paper’s methodology was autoethnography (AE), a qualitative research method where the
researchers and participants are the same. Autoethnography is a method of sharing written from
the perspective of those at the heart of the experience (Ellis, Adams, and Bochner 2011). The subject
is most times intensely personal, powerful, and often guided by a significant incident. Successful
autoethnographic accounts rely on good writing and engaging the reader in the story. The purpose
of autoethnography is to ‘inspire and create a connection’ (Ellis and Bochner 2000, 748). It is up to the
reader to make sense of what they are reading and apply it in their current or future contexts. The
method is appropriate for this study because it intends to connect with a particular audience
engaging in a life-changing experience. To fully and systematically understand what has taken
place, this paper does not attempt to ‘search for facts. What is presented is meaning based on an
individual’s experience’ (Ellis and Bochner 2000, 751).
4 J. WILSON AND W. JAMES

Although seemingly straightforward from the outside, autoethnography can be complex but
effective in working through experiences. Previous work by Gardner and Lane (2010) examined the
autoethnography process and the dynamic between a tutor and student in nursing education. Like
our study. the complexities of their work grew from an organic discussion and need for student
support. Their successful collaboration steered us towards AE as a way of continuing a process that
emerged from the existing relationship. O’Neil (2018) used AE as a means of engaging in more
meaningful professional learning. Written from the individual’s perspective, engaging in AE provided
benefits beyond simple reflection to improve practice. More than simply journaling about past
events, AE combines the voice of the individual driving the inquiry and the voices of other related
to the event.
Autoethnography values the process of combining or working collaboratively as a methodology.
Lee (2019) used autoethnography to uncover challenges for online doctoral students. Her work used
AE to investigate student experience. This study shows that graduate students can unpack their
experiences using AE, using their separate stories. Gant et al. (2019) used a combined form of AE to
examine the social work student experience. Their students were given guidance in what they wrote
about, and the writing was then analysed for themes. This study was the first we discovered the term
‘collaborative autoethnography’ (Chang, Ngunjiri, and Hernandez 2013). Looking deeper at Chang
et al.’s work, we see that it combines the shared journey through the dissertation writing process to
blend the significant players’ ethnographic perspectives. The individual experiences are compared,
and the process utilises the sharing of stories and following up with questions for each other as
a form of data analysis. There was no guidance or direction given. It was the unfiltered, iterative
experience shared between the supervisor and student.
The development of this paper began with a series of meetings between Jay and Wendy to
discuss the development of the Ph.D. and possible factors contributing to its progression. Each
person wrote independent accounts of the process and their impressions of the role each played in
shaping the course and success of the Ph.D. The early notes were collated and reviewed for potential
themes that might generate common ideas for further exploration. Reviewing the notes indicated
some of the richest data came from the process of Wendy selecting the methodology of her Ph.D. In
addition, methodology identification was comparatively rapid given Wendy’s professional status and
other commitments, leading us to think elements of the process might be worth additional discus­
sion, as the pace in completing a Ph.D. can be an issue for professional students.
A review of the process of selecting the methodology for this paper yielded several sources of
data. Wendy had extensive meeting notes about the process and its progression, which we specu­
lated could frame an analysis of our contributions to the process and the coaching relationship
development. To build the story at the heart of the autoethnography, Wendy generated a timeline of
early events and populated it with her memoing and reflective notes. Jay reviewed those notes and
annotated them with themes and his observations. We had many discussions over the following
eight months about what we each saw as significant and why; and compared our narratives of the
same events, taking note of distinctions and commonality to increase our observations’ reliability.
Finally, we drafted descriptions in the data section, then reviewed and edited those together. The
iterative thinking and commenting process helped unpack the shared experience and increased our
confidence in mutual perceptions about what had happened and how we understood its signifi­
cance to supervision.

Data
Wendy’s narrative of the process of selecting a research question and methodology
I started classes in September and simultaneously started by asking myself questions and trying to
answer them. I had taught high school students how to conduct inquiries, and I used the process
I guided them through to support me in moving from idea to a research question. My first question
 JOURNAL OF FURTHER AND HIGHER EDUCATION 5

was ‘What do I want to know?’ and the list of other questions I asked myself throughout the first
month of the Ph.D. were similarly wide-ranging and broad, including:

● What is the best way to lead PD?

● Why doesn’t anyone try to see if it is ‘good’ given when we expect teachers to do formative
assessments of their teaching?
● What is the best way to evaluate PD? What do people do when they try to evaluate PD as
researchers?
● Who is writing a lot about this with a K-12 lens?
● Is what I am doing making a difference?
● Who needs to know if PD is working? Is it valuable? Meets its goals? – what is the way to
describe good enough, and compared to what?
● How do people try to evaluate when they do? Why?

I was concerned with the issues I wondered about in my professional practice and was uncertain how
to translate those into a research question. Professionally, one of my roles was knowledge transla­
tion, and I was aware that academic and professional ways of writing and thinking were very
different. My questions were rooted in practice but far too imprecise for a dissertation. Notes from
mid-September indicate I was also thinking about positionality in conjunction with a course I was
taking on qualitative methodology. Both my wonders about what I wanted to know and my thinking
about positionality were much too general to give me a clear direction.
Reflection notes from a meeting with Jay in late September highlight the centrality of his
coaching questions in helping me focus my broader thinking. For example, when I was asking
about where to start in prioritising what to read more about, Jay asked what I wanted to spend my
time doing as a researcher and offered some options. When I identified my position as emic, he used
coaching questions to help me consider the implications: ‘You know a lot about this topic and many
of the people you might work with. What will that mean for you?’ Jay’s use of questions was
significant for me in a couple of ways. First, it reinforced my agency in making decisions about the
dissertation. Also, he asked me questions that helped me approach the tacit part of what he
attended to as a researcher, making my thinking processes more explicit and helping me bridge
the transition from a relative novice academic researcher to a more expert one. Thinking about the
implications of my choices was challenging because there were times when I did not know enough
to understand what those choices would mean. In those cases, Jay’s questions prompted me to dive
into the literature to increase my knowledge base. He asked me questions gently, and it was always
safe for me to say I did not know, something that was challenging given my stage of life and
professional responsibilities. His approach made it clear that the process of scholarship was one of
finding out, not knowing everything initially, and that it was both a personal and academic process
informed by questions. While Jay sometimes provided mentor-like direction about academia or
process, he more commonly treated me as a professional with her own goals and asked questions to
help me reach them.
At the end of September, Jay asked me a pivotal question: why I would exclude certain
methodologies given my gradually narrowing research question. The question was much more
helpful than just considering possible methodologies, which I had been doing until that point. It
led me to a multi-variable comparison of different qualitative options. I have notes describing the
implications of Creswell’s (1998) chart comparing Phenomenology and Grounded Theory and
similar notes about visual maps of what to consider and the structure for how research is written
up in each style. Because I was thinking so much about what criteria I might use to exclude
a methodology, I started preferentially considering resources that described alternative methodol­
ogies or reasons for excluding particular close methodologies. I was also noting quotations that
clarified distinctions in key characteristics, like the goal: ‘The goal in phenomenology is to study
how people make meaning of their lived experience; discourse analysis examines how language is
6 J. WILSON AND W. JAMES

Figure 1. Attributes used for selecting a grounded theory methodology.

used to accomplish personal, social, and political projects; and grounded theory develops expla­
natory theories of basic social processes studied in context’ (Starks and Brown Trinidad 2007,
1372). In particular, I have screenshots of various charts that compare across multiple character­
istics and criteria that I wrote extensive notes on. I typically choose tables and graphics over
quotations to clarify concepts for myself, but Jay’s question helped me understand that my goal
was finding the ‘best-fit’ methodology and that reducing the possible options was a successful way
to reduce the complexity.
The methodology selection of the comprehensive paper I wrote indicates how much Jay’s
question about excluding specific methodologies informed my thinking about key criteria and
using them to make judgements:

“In the process of selecting grounded theory, I used four key factors in my final decision once I determined its
positionality was compatible. I considered the research question, the goals of methodology, the potential uses of
the research, and the writing style and voice commonly used by researchers in that methodology. I selected
these elements because they highlighted key differences in the methodologies. I found many areas of similarity,
such as using interviews and observation for data collection or creating and organizing files for data manage­
ment. For each area, I articulated the key elements for myself, then compared them to the main tenets of
methodology and the theory underlying it.”

My penchant for thinking about process given context meant grounded theory was both well-suited
to me and to my final questions, but neither Jay nor I understood it particularly well. He would have
been unlikely to suggest it for that reason, and I may have leaned towards narrative or case study,
which would have been close methodologies given my final questions. I already understood them
from my Masters’ and professional work, and I could see how they related to what I wanted to know.
Figure 1, below, also taken from the same paper, indicates each of the four categories I would end up
using as detailed reasons for selecting grounded theory, all of which came from attempting to
answer Jay’s question for myself:
Jay’s question also anticipated likely queries from a knowledgeable committee and led me to be
able to substantiate my decision-making in a way the committee described as very effective. For
each close methodology, I generated a description of the processes, purpose, and assumptions
drawing on the research literature. Then I connected it to reasoning related to the dissertation study
or my personal context. This section from my second comprehensive paper is an example of
a portion of that explanation:

“While an ethnographic, or even autoethnographic, approach would have merit in understanding the culture or
process stemming from culture, I am looking to extend my learning professionally in a newer vein for me
personally. In addition, ethnography is best designed to address questions of a social and cultural nature. While
influenced by these factors, my question is more directly looking at individuals’ thinking and processes. My
interest is in generating theory describing a thinking and self-assessment processes, rather than the social
circumstances or culture of professional learning.”
 JOURNAL OF FURTHER AND HIGHER EDUCATION 7

Jay’s questions led me to connect my professional background, my preferences, and my questions

together. The combination made it easy to stay motivated and productive, but the questions also
encouraged me to consider my reasoning at every stage.
By the end of December, I had conducted a pilot study to pinpoint the questions and protocols
I wanted for the main dissertation study. I had a large portion of the work needed to defend
a methodology and draw from a substantive literature review. The coaching stance Jay adopted
made the inquiry process both personal and efficient for me. I spent very little time on tangents that
would not turn out to be essential for the final dissertation and remained deeply interested in what
I was learning, even though it was not closely related to Jay’s scholarship. The questions were also
successful in helping me with my reasoning, even though Jay had not used the methodology
I wound up selecting.

Jay’s process
The most difficult part of this paper’s research process was thinking back and trying to ascertain what
was intentional. Some of my actions were based on previous personal approaches or engagement in
other learning or leadership situations. Often my actions just happened. There was no manual or
research that I consulted. I relied on doing what I thought was correct, sometimes based on my own
graduate student experiences. When we sat down to write the article, it was amazing to reflect on
the process and learn what resonated with Wendy. Aspects that she found crucial in her journey did
not always register at the same level with me. Her questions about my motivations or reasons for
asking a specific question at a specific time were sometimes met with silence as I considered what
I had done and why. Often my responses paled in comparison with her detailed recounting of
a meeting or the energy in which she engaged in a task that we had determined to be a crucial next
step. This back and forth created a differentiated impact. No one had to please the other or ensure
that both persons benefitted equally. Did this make our meetings less important to me? I would say
no, but to tell the world that what I did was pre-planned or part of an overall strategy would not be
true. My story is an emergent one, an example of making explicit process that was essentially tacit for
me, and I have asked myself the questions I struggled to answer as we explored our shared
experience. These reasons make the writing of this paper even more important. If I were able to
capture a successful process, I could hone and shape it, improving what happened instinctually.
I believe I am not alone in the instinctual nature of working with graduate students, but like others,
I struggled to understand what took place.
I did not have a series of pre-planned questions at any time. I truly care about students owning
their learning, so dictating a roadmap based on my needs would not be genuine. I tried to be open at
each meeting with Wendy, prepared to respond to her needs as we discussed them. It helped that
she was organised and able to articulate what was important before and during our meetings. There
were aspects of the process to follow, such as ethics approval, determining a methodology, or
preparing for a comprehensive exam that I would typically ask about, but most of the questions
I asked were based on listening to Wendy and trying to find out what would help her focus or find
clarity in an ill-defined process. I am an intuitive person, which I think helps me to be skilled at
responsiveness. Rather than try to anticipate and plan the meetings, I used my instincts.
Each phase of her dissertation journey was dynamic. Initially, Wendy’s research plan had tight
timelines guided by external factors. These outside pressures influenced our process but did not
mean that each meeting required restarting the work. Rather the meetings were safe places to boost
what was happening and discuss her journey. She would use the time in-between these meetings to
prepare for the next ones. The process of support did not involve regularly scheduled meetings or
pre-determined milestones. We would typically meet and discuss a series of questions she had
planned and would bring to our meetings. I would pose questions in response to the focus of our
conversation. Some could be answered, whereas others served as a guide to the next process that
Wendy would undertake.
8 J. WILSON AND W. JAMES

It was important to make Wendy feel that her work and learning were important to me. As
a result, I ensured that Wendy was always able to ask any question on her mind. If I didn’t have an
answer, we explored the question together. I would ask her a question knowing what I knew about
her approach, skills, and research background. Her willingness to take on these challenges made her
journey much more successful. An equal and informed playing field made the experience successful.
I honestly had to listen and engage to provide her with a question or prompt that would help. Rather
than mould her in my program of research, she had the freedom to pursue her passions, and
I supported her to the best of my abilities.

Discussion
Although Jay’s supervision process was more instinctive than premeditated, the process he built for
Wendy has many of the attributes of a coaching cycle found in the education literature (Knight 2007)
that focused on the mental skills of what Lee (2011) describes as a critical thinking approach to
supervision. Lee (2011) notes five basic approaches a supervisor might take: functional, encultura­
tion, critical thinking, emancipation, and relationship development. Jay’s natural approaches tended
away from functional, which requires directing, managing, and an ordered progression through tasks
(Lee 2011), and Wendy did not need support with task completion or project management. Wendy
was already highly reflective and a mid-level manager, making an emancipatory approach unneces­
sary, and her cognitive focus made a relationship approach, although natural for Jay, less effective.
The process of negotiating their shared approach is a key part of the coaching cycle (Knight 2007)
and landed them with a style that highlighted a common interest in an enquiry-based partnership,
used Jay’s skills in argument, analysis, and synthesis, and supported Wendy through a process of
constant inquiry and synthesis.
Our early meetings focused on Jay getting a sense of how Wendy approached her question and
what motivated her to select a way to approach the partnership and develop the relationship. Jay tried
to identify what Wendy was skilled at and was looking to learn. We discussed these elements directly so
that we both had clarity. For Jay, that precision was around Wendy’s needs as a learner to move
forward, and for Wendy, clarity provided information about what Jay valued and what support he could
offer. In coaching processes, establishing the learner’s needs and preferences is an essential first step in
building trust and rapport and ensuring the learner maintains control of the process (Knight 2007).
The following is Jay’s description of this thinking process and intentions in these early meetings:
Throughout the supervision process, I spent plenty of time with Wendy making choices based on Wendy’s
personality, experiences, and ways of thinking. It was important that she had control over goal-setting and
decision-making. She guided me and helped me find a fit based on both her expressed needs and ones I could
intuit. I believe that individuals are different. Their goals are different. Their knowledge and experiences are
different, so their journey will be, too. Without control over learning, the student is not experiencing the true
value of doctoral studies. To approach each learner with a similar plan or focus would not create the
conditions for success. As a result, a respectful, supportive relationship is established. These relationships
will be unique and are necessary to create the foundation for individual success. At the undergraduate level,
connections are impacted by class size and time spent with students. Most of the interaction is based on
teaching, and the student has little say in what is taking place. At the Masters’ level, relationship building
becomes more feasible with more student decision-making and coaching entering the experience. In
a doctoral program, the connection between student and supervisor becomes the essential aspect. When
the Ph.D. learner knows they can be open and honest, they will grow. They feel empowered as a result of the
trusting relationship and take control of their learning. The interactions led to the creation of an informal
personality profile for Wendy to guide me. Each meeting began with an initial overview of what was
happening since we had last met. This process gave me insight into what was taking place in her world
and how she would deal with it. Our meetings would then shift to the goals and needs that Wendy had for
that particular meeting. It was important for me to be prepared to discuss anything that she felt to be of value
for her learning.

Jay’s description highlights the value of intentionality in building and evolving the supervisor/
student relationship. Information is intentionally processed to support the student and strengthen
 JOURNAL OF FURTHER AND HIGHER EDUCATION 9

the relationship gradually over time. An iterative cycle of asking supportive questions to promote
student responsibility and problem-solving became the foundation of Wendy’s work on the
dissertation.
We used a cycle that began in our first meeting with Jay asking Wendy a series of general
questions. This process was important to unpack key information about the student and clarify the
equal power dynamic in the relationship. The questioning process included interests, what Wendy
did previously as a writer, especially in her work as a professional. The use of a coaching stance
allowed a more context-specific focus that offered the opportunity to adjust to the different contexts
of a part-time professional student in a program targeted at future academics. The questions also
revolved around discussing any previous experience with research. In particular, do we see
a particular methodology as connected to where Wendy was or what she wished to investigate?
We also address practical parts of the early stage of the Ph.D. around coursework and timelines for
completion. A key distinction between standard questions and the questions we used was the
consistent addition of stems that allowed us to consider why a particular answer was given.
Generating an inventory provides the supervisor with the opportunity to do a gap analysis consistent
with Lee’s emancipator approach (2011). It also looks for possible efficiencies in the process and
provides the opportunity to start from exactly where the student is. This process of learning the
learner’s needs, experiences, and context is essential to the start of the coaching process. Without it,
the supervisor slides into a consultative stance and winds up telling the student what is needed
instead of helping the student determine what is needed and take responsibility for it. The why
questions focused on the student are an essential mechanism in this process, as they prompt
metacognition (Knight 2007; Lee 2011).
For professional students, in particular, the coaching stance grounded in past experiences is
important for three reasons. First, the student’s identity can work against them because they are
used to being capable and feel like novices or expect respect and are now repositioned. Secondly, it
allows the student to leverage existing strengths – they may not have published papers but have
often written work designed to summarise or adapted for a specific audience and purpose. Finally, it
helps the student focus early on something of intense interest and persists in the face of competing
commitments at work. A professional student’s strengths may reduce the need for supervision
approaches that are designed to enculturate to the field and emancipate the student, as both may
be in place for mid-career professionals. However, professional experience may increase the need for
a critical thinking stance to allow the novice researcher to transcend their personal experiences while
still benefiting from them.
After the initial meeting, the process was essentially the same, and all focused on agency and
metacognition about critical thinking and decision-making. Jay began by asking some general
questions to check where Wendy was at; then, they worked through an update together. Wendy
asked her key questions, and they unpacked them, with Jay asking clarifying questions to help
Wendy synthesise and evaluate her options. Wendy left each meeting with a plan and deadlines
she had set. They were not hard deadlines, so they could move if necessary. The work and
writing determined when we got together again, and we always met because there was
a specific need for Jay to help Wendy sort through a problem or decide the next step. The
meetings did not occur because it was a pre-set time. They occurred because there was a need
to move forward with something new or to get unstuck from a pernicious problem. The focus
critically examining personal work is typical of both a coaching stance and a critical thinking
supervisory approach, as both assume the learner is working to better understand and improve
personal processes.
One of the key benefits of the process was efficiency. Because the questions Jay asked required
Wendy to engage in metacognitive thinking about the process, they consistently helped move the
process forward. For example, Wendy would often start a meeting with an update of what she had
done since the last meeting and a set of questions she had to ask. Jay routinely praised the
10 J. WILSON AND W. JAMES

effectiveness of the list and sometimes answered the questions with questions about why Wendy
was asking about that now or the relationship of that question to others Wendy had. The metacog­
nitive nature of the questions reinforced Wendy’s responsibility for the learning process and the
cognitive load and positioned Jay as an expert helper in Wendy’s process. The questions helped both
of us keep the journey moving forward and focused our attention on the greatest points of difficulty
so that we could resolve them more quickly.
Jay’s process lead to a deep understanding of what was happening and what Wendy needed. He
took responsibility for helping Wendy meet standards, particularly around areas of difficulty for her,
like the mechanical issues caused by her dyslexia. Because Wendy was safe to communicate directly
about potential problems, they were routinely addressed proactively, and the Ph.D. stages unfolded
smoothly. Jay provided the extra support needed to scaffold and faded out of the process where
Wendy was easily capable. As a result, shared time was allocated well, and Wendy always saw Jay as
helping with problems, never as micromanaging. This created a dynamic of the coach as an ally,
while still maintaining high standards and appropriate challenges.

Conclusions and recommendations

Although what we present in this paper is one experience, we feel that the process of adopting
a coaching stance for supervision is replicable. The primary activities and elements are clear enough
to permit others to follow and discover similar success and contribute a new description of building
a coaching relationship and question frames that could be helpful for supervisors. No supervision
journey is ever the same, but the process we describe provides room for individuals to follow the
academic path they desire while respecting a student’s context and promoting student agency.
Doctoral students can receive support and mentorship along the way and finish at roughly the same
ending point but with a richer and less stressful experience. To be true to AE that includes analysis
and value (Stahlke Wall 2016), we must address who is this work is for? We share our stories to
provide insight for many audiences. We believe that new faculty, graduate students, curricular
developers, and graduate chairs will learn from our experience.
For the novice faculty working with Ph.D. students for the first time, our paper provides a first-
hand account of a successful process. The work represents a chance to model or guide their
emerging style based on what has worked for others. With a lack of mentoring experience for
graduate supervision, inexperienced academics are often unclear about how to proceed. This work
demonstrates a way the process can be foundational for the early career Ph.D. mentor. Those who
have supervised doctoral students previously have the opportunity to reflect on past and current
practice to discover ways to increase student support. It may be a process of reaffirming the success
of a current approach or an opportunity to change. Graduate students may read this work and reflect
on the process rather than simply participate in it. This unique way of seeing their role as
Ph.D. students can broaden their understanding and empower them in terms of expectations.
Graduate chairs and supervisors of faculty can use the lessons learned from this paper to mentor
and coach. The work provides a helpful option in guiding others through the process that may be
difficult to do but also more difficult to describe to those who have not experienced it. For
educational developers who provide training in the area of mentorship, we see our experience as
adding a valuable resource to guide faculty development. The results provide a discussion focus for
the potential of expanding coaching and mentoring beyond meeting deadlines or satisfying grad­
uate programmes’ criteria. There is also the opportunity to create new discussions between faculty
and disciplines around ways outside of those we propose to make the coaching process even more
useful. Further study to explore coaching for Ph. D students, including how it differs from mentoring,
may provide additional insights that could help professionals returning to universities for advanced
degrees complete successful dissertations.
 JOURNAL OF FURTHER AND HIGHER EDUCATION 11

Recommendations
Using questions to coach critical thinking
One of the most powerful ways to position yourself as a coach is to ask questions to help the student
clarify their thinking. Coaching questions are effective alternatives to teaching or mentoring
a graduate student. They encourage the student to do the heavy cognitive lifting, reinforcing
a student’s agency and responsibility for the doctorate. In addition, questions can provide a good
bridge for supervisors with many graduate students and commitments. They allow the student to
refresh the supervisor on the critical details before giving any advice. Finally, the process of the
student answering the questions provides valuable clues about potential issues, like when a student
responds too generally because a key issue needs greater depth or breadth of thought.
Professionals completing part-time doctoral research feel added pressure to move forward under
time pressure while still needing to maintain the personal agency they expect at work. Effective
coaching questions fulfil three key purposes: helping the students clarify goals, understanding what
they have done (and its impacts), and developing a forward path (Table 1).
Lee described sample critical thinking questions for supervisors, including: ‘What are the most
important elements? What are your goals?’ and ‘What patterns are emerging, describe them in detail,
and are there any gaps?’ (2011, 76). The metacognitive steps of moving from identifying and
reflecting on experiences, comparing personal experiences to theory, and then creating or evolving
new thinking or theory is Moon’s (2013) reflective model. It works well as a structure embedded
within a coaching process designed to promote critical thinking.

Increased and supported student responsibility

The student must be in charge of the dissertation research process for it to work effectively, given its
open-ended and scholar-dependent nature. If the student comes to each meeting with an agenda
and prepared questions and takes responsibility for the process, it relieves an inappropriate burden
on the supervisor. The transfer of, and increase in, responsibility fits with the coaching stance and
responsiveness. The resultant empowerment helps the student in transitioning to a controlling
scholar. This outcome means they are moving from graduate student into a researcher’s role.
A caution is that the process is not merely a sink or swim activity. The supervisor should encourage
the student to take control based on observed performance and the student’s demonstration of skill
and confidence. This process may start during the coursework and will be refined over time.
Providing students with the opportunity to test-drive their skills by preparing a paper for
a conference or co-authoring work during their time as a student helps to develop an authentic
application of useful dissertation completion skills. The result is a deeper and more independent
understanding of research and writing and a higher student confidence level.

Purposeful supervision process

The work of the supervisor needs to be focused and active. Rather than meetings to only ‘check-in’,
the engagement must have meaning. Scheduling regular meetings may work, but the meeting
schedule is most effective when driven by needs. The steps in the process need to be communicated
to the student. Options for methodology, research ethics timelines, committee construction are
aspects of the dissertation process that may be foreign to the student. The teaching of the process
occurs in parallel with the research aspect of the Ph.D. student’s work. The supervisor must realise
that they are involved in supporting the student, not managing them. To understand the student’s
needs, the supervisor must be open to listening and realise they are forming a relationship with the
student. This interaction may be a significant shift in the metacognitive process for the faculty
member. They may have experienced a very different type of supervision process in their doctoral
work. So, it is essential to ‘Not just do what was done by your supervisor’ if it was very different than
what is described in this paper. A key activity for the supervisor is an active reflection on what you do.
What are the takeaways from student engagement and interaction? What are you learning about
12 J. WILSON AND W. JAMES

your student as you review their drafts? Is there a direction or resources that you may provide that
strengthens their work or shines a light on an area they have yet to discover? Moving through the
process of supervision has the potential for routine or become an assembly line approach for the
faculty member. They must keep in mind that the student is experiencing the process for the one
and only time. They bring some knowledge but are often unaware of steps and stages. Treating each
student as if it was your first student ensures you are attentive to their needs and do not take
anything for granted.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Notes on contributors
Dr. Jay Wilson is Professor and Department Head in Curriculum Studies at the University of Saskatchewan. He is also the
acting Department Head for Educational Administration and Educational Foundations. Dr. Wilson’s research centres on
innovative learning design, online teaching and learning, and experiential learning assessment. Dr. Wilson supports pre-
service and in-service teachers’ and professors’ understanding and growth through his service and scholarship. His current
research projects include investigating land-based experiential learning assessment and studying the application of VR
technologies in Nursing education. He is a strong advocate of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning (SOTL).
Dr. Wendy James is the Manager of Curriculum and Professional Development at the Gwenna Moss Centre for Teaching
and Learning at the University of Saskatchewan. She has been a curriculum and instruction coordinator, consultant,
curriculum developer, and teacher in the K-12 education system. Dr. James’ research interests focus on facilitating
professional learning, faculty development, and professional learning evaluation. She coordinates Scholarship of
Teaching and Learning (SOTL) clusters at the University of Saskatchewan.

ORCID
Wendy James http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9546-2045

References
Åkerlind, G., and L. McAlpine. 2017. “Supervising Doctoral Students: Variation in Purpose and Pedagogy.” Studies in
Higher Education 42 (9): 1686–1698. doi:10.1080/03075079.2015.1118031.
Chang, H., F. Ngunjiri, and K. A. Hernandez. 2013. Collaborative Autoethnography. Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press.
Creswell, J. W. 1998. Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Easterby-Smith, M., Thorpe, R., and Lowe, A. 2002. Management Research: An Introduction, Sage Management Research,
2nd ed., London: Sage Publications.
Ellis, C., and A. P. Bochner. 2000. “Autoethnography, Personal Narrative, Reflexivity: Researcher as Subject.” In Handbook
of Qualitative Research, edited by N. Denzin and Y. Lincoln, 733–768. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Ellis, C., T. E. Adams, and A. P. Bochner. 2011. “Autoethnography: An Overview.” Historical Social Research/ Historische
Sozialforschung 36 (4): 273–290.
Emilsson, U. M., and E. Johnsson. 2007. “Supervision of Supervisors: On Developing Supervision in Postgraduate
Education.” Higher Education Research & Development 26 (2): 163–179. doi:10.1080/07294360701310797.
Gant, V., L. Cheatham, H. Di Vito, E. Offei, G. Williams, and N. Yatosenge. 2019. “Social Work through Collaborative
Autoethnography.” Social Work Education 38 (6): 707–720. doi:10.1080/02615479.2019.1570109.
Gardner, R L.D., and H. Lane. 2010. “Exploring the Personal Tutor–student Relationship: An Autoethnographic
Approach.” Journal of Psychiatric and Mental Health Nursing 17 (4): 342–347. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2850.2009.01527.x.
Godskesen, M., and S. Kobayashi. 2016. “Coaching Doctoral Students – A Means to Enhance Progress and Support Self-
organisation in Doctoral Education.” Studies in Continuing Education 38 (2): 145–161. doi:10.1080/
0158037X.2015.1055464.
Griffiths, K. 2005. “Personal Coaching: A Model for Effective Learning.” Journal of Learning Design 1 (2): 55–65.
Gurr, G. M. 2001. “Negotiating the “Rackety Bridge”—a Dynamic Model for Aligning Supervisory Style with Research
Student Development.” Higher Education Research & Development 20 (1): 81–92. doi:10.1080/07924360120043882.
Hopwood, N. 2010. “Doctoral Experience and Learning from a Sociocultural Perspective.” Studies in Higher Education
35 (7): 829–843. doi:10.1080/03075070903348412.
 JOURNAL OF FURTHER AND HIGHER EDUCATION 13

Hutchings, M. 2017. “Improving Doctoral Support through Group Supervision: Analysing Face-to-face and
Technology-mediated Strategies for Nurturing and Sustaining Scholarship.” Studies in Higher Education 42 (3):
533–550. doi:10.1080/03075079.2015.1058352.
Knight, J. 2007. Instructional Coaching: A Partnership Approach to Improving Instruction. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin
Press.
Lee, A. 2008. “How are Doctoral Students Supervised? Concepts of Doctoral Research Supervision.” Studies in Higher
Education 33 (3): 267–281. doi:10.1080/03075070802049202.
Lee, A. 2011. Successful Research Supervision: Advising Students Doing Research. New York: Routledge.
Lee, K. 2019. “Transformative Learning in an Online Doctoral Programme: Autoethnography as a Pedagogical Method.”
In Learning, Design, and Technology, edited by M. Spector, B. Lockee, and M. Childress, 1–21. Cham: Springer.
Leibowitz, B., G. Wisker, and P. Lamberti. 2017. “Postgraduate Study in Uncharted Territory: A Comparative Study.” In
Postgraduate Supervision – Future Foci for the Knowledge Society, Sun Media, Stellenbosch, edited by M. Fourie-
Malherbe, R. Albertyn, C. Aitchison, and E. Bitzer, 189–202.
Maguire, K., E. Prodi, and P. Gibbs. 2018. “Minding the Gap in Doctoral Supervision for a Contemporary World: A Case
from Italy.” Studies in Higher Education 43 (5): 867–877. doi:10.1080/03075079.2018.1438114.
McCallin, A., and S. Nayar. 2012. “Postgraduate Research Supervision: A Critical Review of Current Practice.” Teaching in
Higher Education 17 (1): 63–74. doi:10.1080/13562517.2011.590979.
McCarthy, G. 2012. “The Case for Coaching as an Approach to Addressing Challenges in Doctoral Supervision.”
International Journal of Organisational Behaviour 17 (1): 15–27.
Moon, J. A. 2013. A Handbook of Reflective and Experiential Learning: Theory and Practice. London: Routledge.
O’Neil, S. M. 2018. “On Becoming A Better Supervisor: A Deconstruction of Autoethnography as Method for Professional
Development.” South African Journal of Higher Education 32 (6): 483–501. doi:10.20853/32-6-2970.
Stahlke Wall, S. 2016. “Toward a Moderate Autoethnography.” International Journal of Qualitative Methods 15 (1):
160940691667496. doi:10.1177/1609406916674966.
Starks, H., and S. Brown Trinidad. 2007. “Choose Your Method: A Comparison of Phenomenology, Discourse Analysis,
and Grounded Theory.” Qualitative Health Research 17 (10): 1372–1380.
Watts, J. H. 2010. “Team Supervision of the Doctorate: Managing Roles, Relationships and Contradictions.” Teaching in
Higher Education 15 (3): 335–339. doi:10.1080/13562511003740908.
Wisker, G. 2012. The Good Supervisor: Supervising Postgraduate and Undergraduate Research for Doctoral Theses and
Dissertations. Basingstoke: Macmillan International Higher Education.