Learning to work together: conceptualizing doctoral supervision as a critical friendship
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Faculty supervision has been identified as a critical component of doctoral student socialization in both the higher education and physical education literature. Nevertheless, few faculty members receive explicit training for supervisory roles, and few published scholarly articles discuss the process through which faculty members develop supervisory practices. Drawing from occupational socialization theory, and adopting self-study of teacher education practices as a methodology, the current study sought to understand how Kevin, a faculty member in physical education, developed, articulated, and enacted what it meant to be a student-centered doctoral supervisor while navigating the power dynamics involved in supervision. Kevin was in his second year in a tenure-track faculty position at the beginning of the study, and was in the process of taking on additional roles related to doctoral supervision. Tim, a faculty member at a different university with experience supervising doctoral students, served as Kevin’s critical friend. The dataset included Kevin’s reflective journal and critical friend conversations with Tim, which were analyzed in reference to key turning points. Kevin came to frame doctoral education as a form of critical friendship, which he defined as including three key elements: (a) finding a balance when supporting students, (b) maintaining social relationships with students, and (c) giving up control and allowing students to struggle. The results of this study highlight the difficulties and benefits of critically examining one’s own practice in the context of doctoral supervision and provide recommendations for others who engage in supervisory roles.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it