phd supervisors have two moods

Seven tips for making the most of your supervisory relationships

How can we supervise our PhD students to give them the best chance of success? Here are seven tips to keep in mind when taking on the role

Kimberly Hutchings

• More on this topic

You may also like

Popular resources

.css-1txxx8u{overflow:hidden;max-height:81px;text-indent:0px;} Emotions and learning: what role do emotions play in how and why students learn?

Artificial intelligence and academic integrity: striking a balance, should academics embrace ambidextrous leadership, we need a reset to help black academics thrive, not survive, let students know they don’t know.

Having been a PhD supervisor in departments of philosophy, politics and international relations at four different universities over the past 35 years, I’ve supervised more than 30 students to successful completion. Yet, I’m still making mistakes!

Each time, I learn more about how to build supervisory relationships in a way that is most helpful for each student’s needs, and how to supervise in a way that improves their chances of starting and finishing doctoral work successfully. Here are my tips, drawing on the practical lessons I have learned. They reflect past failures as well as successes, and are always a work in progress.

Be proactive

Respond encouragingly to enquiries from prospective students and work with them on refining their research proposal and application. This won’t always result in the student coming to work with you, but if you don’t try, you certainly won’t succeed. This kind of engagement maximises the chances of a stronger research proposal, and of the student gaining funding through national or institutional schemes.

Boost confidence

The PhD is a long process, and crises of confidence happen. This is especially the case at the midway point, when supervisees often cannot see the wood for the trees. When discussing draft work, always bring the student back to how this part of the research (the tree) fits with the overall aims of the project (wood). Remind them that the PhD is an apprenticeship – no one expects it to be perfect, and it’s the beginning of their serious thinking, not the end. Get them to produce writing regularly right from the beginning , so that they get used to their drafts being looked at – this avoids the trap of perfectionism, common in many academics.

Be constructive

Just because doctoral researchers are peers within the research community, it doesn’t mean that all those arguments for constructive feedback or feedforward for undergraduates don’t also apply to them. Start with the positive in any summative comments on drafts. Draw out the constructive implications of your and others’ assessments of their work. Handle the first journal rejections they get by insisting on a cooling-off period to get over the shock, then work through the unfairness or otherwise of the review, gently taking them through the reasons why desk rejects happen.

Be sympathetic and honest

As a supervisor, you are your student’s champion and supporter. You must also be professional and realistic if things go seriously wrong. It’s tempting to cover for your students by making misleading claims about their progress, or ignoring evidence that they are not going to be able to complete, but will ultimately prove counterproductive.

• Five ways to support PhD students’ well-being
• How to foster PhD excellence
• Advice for supervising a PhD by published works

When there is a crisis, take advice from your director of graduate studies, clarify the regulations and possibilities, and have an honest conversation with the student to produce a plan to navigate the problem. Sometimes giving up the PhD is the right answer, even if that is not what the student wants to do.

Learn from your peers

Working with co-supervisors has taught me the most about supervising effectively. Initially, this was working in tandem with more senior colleagues and realising that my own experience of supervision as a student was not the right model to follow. Later, I learned from younger colleagues with a much more professionalised early career experience than my own.

If opportunities for peer learning are limited in your department, then use formal opportunities offered by your institution for training on supervision to meet and talk to other supervisors. Beyond your institution, use the working groups and networks on teaching and pedagogy of your professional associations. Check out what they are doing in disseminating successful supervisory practice. If they are not doing anything, get them to sponsor a workshop or conference panel on the topic and you will create your own community of peers.

Don’t go it alone

Completing a PhD is not a private matter between supervisor and supervisee. As a supervisor, you are part of a complex collaborative process involving many different people, including your supervisee and any co-supervisors, research skills training providers – but also the peer research community inside and outside your own institution. Think of them all as partners in supervision, and you, as well as your student, can learn from them. Encourage your student to get advice from as wide a community as possible, not only through presenting conference papers, but by making use of the training and career mentoring opportunities, offered by your own institution and by professional associations.

Get involved in initiatives to support doctoral work within and across institutions. Don’t dismiss doctoral training centres, even if they do sometimes reinvent the wheel of research training!

Try to involve yourself in the planning processes for bidding for these initiatives. It will give you a strong understanding of, and possibly a chance to influence, how research streams or training requirements are identified. I found this when I was involved in planning an Economic and Social Research Council-funded doctoral training programme and later, in a successful bid for a five-year Leverhulme-funded doctoral programme. When these bids succeed, they more than pay dividends in enabling more funding of PhD students, increasing your chance of supervising strong students and building a mutually supportive postgraduate researcher community.

Kimberly Hutchings is professor of politics and international relations at Queen Mary, University of London. She has been shortlisted in the Outstanding Research Supervisor of the Year category in the 2024 Times Higher Education Awards. A full list of nominees can be found here . The awards will be presented at a ceremony in Birmingham on 28 November 2024.

If you would like advice and insight from academics and university staff delivered direct to your inbox each week, sign up for the Campus newsletter .

Emotions and learning: what role do emotions play in how and why students learn?

The goldilocks effect: finding ‘just right’ in the ai era, what are students paying for when they learn online, when engaging young people in research, trust is key, decolonising the curriculum – how do i get started, a diy guide to starting your own journal.

Register for free

and unlock a host of features on the THE site

Ten types of PhD supervisor relationships – which is yours?

Lecturer, Griffith University

Disclosure statement

Susanna Chamberlain does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

Griffith University provides funding as a member of The Conversation AU.

View all partners

It’s no secret that getting a PhD is a stressful process .

One of the factors that can help or hinder this period of study is the relationship between supervisor and student. Research shows that effective supervision can significantly influence the quality of the PhD and its success or failure.

PhD supervisors tend to fulfil several functions: the teacher; the mentor who can support and facilitate the emotional processes; and the patron who manages the springboard from which the student can leap into a career.

There are many styles of supervision that are adopted – and these can vary depending on the type of research being conducted and subject area.

Although research suggests that providing extra mentoring support and striking the right balance between affiliation and control can help improve PhD success and supervisor relationships, there is little research on the types of PhD-supervisor relationships that occur.

From decades of experience of conducting and observing PhD supervision, I’ve noticed ten types of common supervisor relationships that occur. These include:

The candidate is expected to replicate the field, approach and worldview of the supervisor, producing a sliver of research that supports the supervisor’s repute and prestige. Often this is accompanied by strictures about not attempting to be too “creative”.

Cheap labour

The student becomes research assistant to the supervisor’s projects and becomes caught forever in that power imbalance. The patron-client roles often continue long after graduation, with the student forever cast in the secondary role. Their own work is often disregarded as being unimportant.

The “ghost supervisor”

The supervisor is seen rarely, responds to emails only occasionally and has rarely any understanding of either the needs of the student or of their project. For determined students, who will work autonomously, the ghost supervisor is often acceptable until the crunch comes - usually towards the end of the writing process. For those who need some support and engagement, this is a nightmare.

The relationship is overly familiar, with the assurance that we are all good friends, and the student is drawn into family and friendship networks. Situations occur where the PhD students are engaged as babysitters or in other domestic roles (usually unpaid because they don’t want to upset the supervisor by asking for money). The chum, however, often does not support the student in professional networks.

Collateral damage

When the supervisor is a high-powered researcher, the relationship can be based on minimal contact, because of frequent significant appearances around the world. The student may find themselves taking on teaching, marking and administrative functions for the supervisor at the cost of their own learning and research.

The practice of supervision becomes a method of intellectual torment, denigrating everything presented by the student. Each piece of research is interrogated rigorously, every meeting is an inquisition and every piece of writing is edited into oblivion. The student is given to believe that they are worthless and stupid.

Creepy crawlers

Some supervisors prefer to stalk their students, sometimes students stalk their supervisors, each with an unhealthy and unrequited sexual obsession with the other. Most Australian universities have moved actively to address this relationship, making it less common than in previous decades.

Captivate and con

Occasionally, supervisor and student enter into a sexual relationship. This can be for a number of reasons, ranging from a desire to please to a need for power over youth. These affairs can sometimes lead to permanent relationships. However, what remains from the supervisor-student relationship is the asymmetric set of power balances.

Almost all supervision relationships contain some aspect of the counsellor or mentor, but there is often little training or desire to develop the role and it is often dismissed as pastoral care. Although the life experiences of students become obvious, few supervisors are skilled in dealing with the emotional or affective issues.

Colleague in training

When a PhD candidate is treated as a colleague in training, the relationship is always on a professional basis, where the individual and their work is held in respect. The supervisor recognises that their role is to guide through the morass of regulation and requirements, offer suggestions and do some teaching around issues such as methodology, research practice and process, and be sensitive to the life-cycle of the PhD process. The experience for both the supervisor and student should be one of acknowledgement of each other, recognising the power differential but emphasising the support at this time. This is the best of supervision.

There are many university policies that move to address a lot of the issues in supervisor relationships , such as supervisor panels, and dedicated training in supervising and mentoring practices. However, these policies need to be accommodated into already overloaded workloads and should include regular review of supervisors.

• professional mentoring
• PhD supervisors

ARDC Project Management Office Manager

Associate Director, Indigenous Employment and Development

Lecturer / Senior Lecturer in Indigenous Knowledges

Commissioning Editor Nigeria

Professor in Physiotherapy

Supervisors’ emotion regulation in research supervision: navigating dilemmas in an accountability-based context

• Open access
• Published: 18 May 2024

Cite this article

You have full access to this open access article

• Jiying Han 1 ,
• Lei Jin 1 &
• Hongbiao Yin   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-5424-587X 2  

1694 Accesses

2 Citations

Explore all metrics

Given the complexity and high demands of research supervision and the intricate emotional experiences of supervisors, there is a need to explore how they regulate their emotions, particularly across various disciplinary backgrounds. The current study explored the emotion regulation strategies employed by research supervisors during the process of supervising graduate students. Based on data collected through semi-structured interviews, observations, and documentation from six research supervisors in different institutions in China, seven emotion regulation strategies employed by research supervisors were identified and further categorized into two groups, that is, antecedent-focused (prevention, intervention, reinterpretation, reconcentration, and detachment) and response-focused (suppression and expression) emotion regulation strategies. The findings shed light on the dilemmas faced by supervisors and the paradox aroused from the context-dependent and non-standardized nature of research supervision within an accountability-based managerial context. The implications for supervisors’ emotion regulation in authentic supervisory situations are discussed, and insights for universities’ policy-making are offered.

Similar content being viewed by others

Holding Abusive Managers in Contempt: Why and When Experienced Abusive Supervision Motivates Enacted Interpersonal Justice Toward Subordinates

Towards Safe and Equitable Relationships: Sociocultural Attunement in Supervision

“Take a step back”: teacher strategies for managing heightened emotions

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

Introduction

Since the 1990s, educational research has undergone an “affective turn” as a result of the critique of the long-standing Cartesian dualism between emotionality and rationality (Zembylas, 2021 ). Over the following three decades, the dynamic and complex nature of teacher emotion has been explored from various perspectives and approaches (Agudo, 2018 ). Since emotion can significantly impact various stages of the teaching process, either facilitating or hindering it (Yin, 2016a , 2016b ), opportunities for emotion regulation can be identified in educational contexts at any time (Taxer & Gross, 2018 ). In higher education, although emotion regulation has been proven significant to teacher development and well-being (Xie, 2021 ), the majority of research has been conducted within the context of classroom instruction (Tao et al., 2022 ), leaving that of research supervision in graduate education unexplored.

In graduate education, emotion plays an important role in the supervisory process and relationship building which involves a series of emotional interactions essential for both supervisors and graduate students. The existing research has demonstrated an increasing need for supervisors to develop emotion regulation skills to cope with the challenges and provide emotional support in research supervision (Wollast et al., 2023 ). On the one hand, supervisors need to employ emotion regulation strategies in the challenging supervisory contexts, as accountability-based policies and the blurring of personal and academic relationships between supervisors and graduate students may trigger complex emotional experiences such as anxiety and worry for supervisors (Xu, 2021 ). On the other hand, the provision of support from supervisors is strongly linked to the emotional well-being and research success of graduate students (Janssen & Vuuren, 2021 ; Wollast et al., 2023 ). Specifically, supervisors’ emotion regulation plays a crucial role in providing emotional support to graduate students, which in turn has a positive impact on graduate students’ well-being and their belief about their further academic pursuits (Han & Xu, 2023 ; Wollast et al., 2023 ).

Of the limited research on emotion in graduate education, much has been conducted to investigate the influence of graduate students’ emotion regulation on their mental health and academic engagement (Saleem et al., 2022 ). However, there is a paucity of studies which have researched supervisors’ emotions and emotion regulation during the supervisory process. With the aim of unpacking how research supervisors employ emotion regulation strategies in real supervisory scenarios to effectively fulfill their roles, and to gain insights into the nature of research supervision, this qualitative study explores the emotion regulation strategies used by supervisors in the process of research supervision.

Literature review

Teacher emotion and emotion regulation.

Emotion, once considered inferior to cognition, has gained increasing attention in the social sciences, including in educational research (Han & Xu, 2023 ). The current recognition of the intricate interplay between emotion and cognition in teaching and learning highlights the importance of emphasizing teacher emotion in both teacher development and teacher well-being (Chen & Cheng, 2022 ). Emotion is complex and difficult to define (Chen & Cheng, 2022 ), and the connotation of emotion has shifted from an intrapersonal perspective to a relational one, emphasizing interactions between individuals and their environment during emotion generation (Campos et al., 2011 ).

Under the relational view of emotion, individuals can achieve social goals in most jobs involving interpersonal interactions through emotion regulation (Brotheridge & Grandey, 2002 ). Emotion regulation refers to “the processes by which individuals influence which emotions they have, when they have them, and how they experienced and expressed their emotions” (Gross, 1998 , p. 275). In the educational field, a growing interest of research in emotion regulation has emerged since the 1990s (Yin, 2016a , 2016b ; Zembylas, 2021 ), as teaching has been viewed as “an emotional practice” (Hargreaves, 1998 , p. 835). Due to the importance of emotion in teachers’ professional lives, it is crucial for teachers to regulate their emotions to achieve improved teaching and learning outcomes. Specifically, enhancing positive emotions can foster better teacher-student relationships, promote creativity in teaching, and strengthen students’ learning motivation; inappropriately managed negative emotions can have adverse effects on these aspects (Hargreaves, 1998 ). Although teachers’ emotion regulation has been widely examined (e.g., Taxer & Frenzel, 2015 ; Yin, 2015 , 2016a , 2016b ; Yin et al.,  2018 ) most studies, influenced by the concept of emotional labor, have mainly focused on two types of emotion regulation strategies: deep acting (the act of internalizing a desired emotion, matching expressed emotion with felt emotion) and surface acting (the act of altering emotional expression without regulating inner feelings) (Grandey, 2000 ; Hochschild, 1983 ). Comparatively, Gross’s ( 1998 ) process model of emotion regulation provides a more nuanced framework to examine teachers’ employment of a wider range of emotion regulation strategies. According to Gross ( 1998 , 2015 ), emotion regulation could be achieved through two main approaches: the antecedent-focused and response-focused approach. The former entails strategies that seek to avoid or regulate emotions by modifying the factors triggering emotion generation, which include situation selection, situation modification, attention deployment, and cognitive changes. The latter modifies an individual’s expressions and responses after the emotions have fully manifested, directly influencing physiological, experiential, or behavioral responses.

In recent years, the predominant focus of studies, guided by Gross’s ( 1998 ) process model, has been on investigating the motivations, strategies, and outcomes of teachers’ intrapersonal emotion regulation (e.g., Taxer & Gross, 2018 ; To & Yin, 2021 ; Xu, 2021 ). Teachers’ motivations for emotional regulation stem from their diverse teaching goals, including managing the impressions that various parties have of them, adapting to intensive educational reforms for survival, and enhancing students’ concentration levels (Hosotani, 2011 ; Xu, 2021 ). As for emotion regulation strategies, the existing literature has mainly been conducted under Gross’s ( 2015 ) model, and revealed a series of antecedent-focused (e.g., situation selection, attention deployment, and cognitive change) and response-focused strategies (e.g., suppression, relaxation, and avoidance) to cope with the ambivalent demands and enormous workload faced by teachers. Remarkably, certain strategies that reflect the unique nature of teachers’ work, such as genuine expression (Yin, 2015 ; Yin, 2016a , 2016b ) and interpersonal strategies (To & Yin, 2021 ), have been identified. Regarding outcomes of emotion regulation, genuine expression of emotion and cognitive appraisal strategies were found helpful to improve the effectiveness of classroom teaching and to maintain a balance between teachers’ professional and personal dimensions of their identities (Yin, 2016a , 2016b ). In contrast, suppressing, pretending, and restraining emotions may cause emotional dissonance and less received social support (Yin, 2015 ).

Emotion regulation and research supervision

In graduate education, supervisors’ emotional experiences are triggered by the complexity and high demands of research supervision (Han & Xu, 2023 ). The conflicting roles of taking responsibility for both supporter and supervisor simultaneously, the contradiction between supervisors’ high expectations of students’ learning autonomy and graduate students’ unsatisfactory performance, and the blurred boundaries between supervisory relationship and friendship (Han & Xu, 2023 ; Parker-Jenkins, 2018 ) are major challenges encountered by research supervisors. These challenges lead to various emotional experiences on the part of supervisors, including positive emotions, such as joy and love (Halse & Malfroy, 2010 ), and more prevalent negative emotions, such as anger, and disappointment (Sambrook et al., 2008 ). Given the diverse range of emotions that emerge during the supervision process, it is necessary for supervisors to employ various emotion regulation strategies to accomplish effective research supervision.

According to literature, emotion regulation is strongly associated with research supervision in three areas. First, effective research supervision requires a constructive and supportive supervisory relationship, which is facilitated by supervisors’ emotion regulation. As poorly managed supervision relationships contribute to low academic completion rates, supervisors are required to establish a respectful and caring relationship with their students (Halse & Malfroy, 2010 ). However, creating and maintaining such relationships can be challenging. Specifically, during the interactions with graduate students, supervisors are expected to offer emotional supports, including encouragement, motivation, and recognition based on students’ individual needs while ensuring that any critical feedback is delivered constructively (Lee, 2008 ). However, excessive emotional engagement or close relationships with students may hinder their ability to provide constructive criticism (Lee, 2008 ). As such, supervisors must strike a balance between offering emotional support and providing constructive feedback, thereby developing a successful educational partnership with their students.

Second, the emotional support provided by supervisors plays a positive role in facilitating graduate students’ research productivity and emotional well-being (Han & Wang, 2024 ; Wollast et al., 2023 ). In terms of research success, supervisors who encourage critical thinking and support constructive controversies tend to produce higher achievement and retention rates than those who adopt a directive and authoritarian approach (Johnson, 2001 ). Furthermore, emotional support from supervisors has been linked to higher levels of research self-efficacy and emotional well-being among graduate students (Diekman et al., 2011 ). Specifically, structure and autonomy support strongly influence graduate students’ feelings and expectations about their future academic success. Thus, in academic settings, supervisors should adopt effective emotion regulation strategies, offering constructive feedback, close guidance, and attentiveness to maintain graduate students’ motivation and mental well-being.

Third, effective emotion regulation is also critical for the well-being of research supervisors themselves. When faced with repeated frustrating events such as a lack of student progress and demanding requirements in accountability-based supervisory contexts, supervisors may experience feelings of exhaustion, particularly when they perceive their supportive efforts as being ineffective (Xu, 2021 ). Failing to regulate these negative emotions with effective strategies can lead to the accumulation and intensification of undesirable feelings, resulting in detrimental effects on supervisors’ well-being and job satisfaction, which may ultimately lead to their emotional burnout and disengagement (To & Yin, 2021 ).

So far, the very limited research on research supervisors’ emotion regulation in medical and scientific disciplines found that although supervisors use instructional strategy modification (e.g., directly pointing out students’ writing deficiencies), cognitive change (e.g., reappraising the relationship between students’ underachievement and their supervision), and response regulation (e.g., lowering their voice to calm themselves) to deal with negative emotions (Han & Xu, 2023 ), they still have difficulties in stepping out of negative emotions (Sambrook et al., 2008 ). Meanwhile, supervisors from different disciplines may use different emotion regulation strategies due to disciplinary differences in occupational challenges, societal expectations, and specific work environments (Veniger & Kočar, 2018 ). Therefore, it is necessary for researchers to investigate the emotion regulation of supervisors with different disciplinary backgrounds.

Based on the literature, underpinned by Gross’s ( 2015 ) process model, the present qualitative multi-case study aims to investigate the emotion regulation strategies employed by research supervisors from different disciplinary backgrounds. Specifically, the study seeks to answer this core research question: What strategies do research supervisors use to regulate their emotions during the supervision process?

As the in-depth understanding of supervisors’ emotion regulation strategies relies on the narratives of their journey of research supervision, we used narrative inquiry to explore supervisors’ lived experiences in supervising graduate students. Narrative inquiry emphasizes the co-construction of specific experiences by the researcher and participants (Friedensen et al., 2024 ; Riessman, 2008 ), which allows us to co-construct the meaning of emotion regulation with participants through qualitative data including interviews, observations, and documents.

Research context: Emphasizing the accountability of research supervision

The Chinese research supervision system has its roots in the nineteenth century, evolving alongside the development of graduate education (Xie & Zhu, 2008 ). Within this system, research supervisors play a crucial role in research-based master’s and doctoral education. In 1961, a supervisor accountability system was formalized, placing the responsibility on supervisors for overseeing students in research projects, journal publications, and dissertation completion. Under the guidance of supervisors, students engage in specialized courses, master the latest advancements in a specific field, and conduct research (Peng, 2015 ).

In recent years, with the rapid growth of graduate education in China, both supervisors and graduate students have expressed concerns about the quality of research supervision (Xu & Liu, 2023 ). Thus, national policies have been introduced to stipulate supervisors’ responsibilities and enhance the overall supervision quality, with a particular emphasis on the accountability of research supervisors. In 2020, the Accountability Measures for Educational Supervision, released by China’s Ministry of Education ( 2020 ), outlined a code of conduct for supervisors, emphasizing that supervisors bear the primary responsibility for cultivating postgraduate students. Specifically, supervisors are held accountable for various aspects of graduate students’ academic progress, including the quality of dissertations, academic conduct, and the appropriate utilization of research funds. Failure to fulfill these responsibilities may result in serious consequences, such as disqualification from supervising students or the revocation of teaching credentials.

Participants

To explore a wide range of emotional experiences and emotion regulation strategies that arise when supervising students at various stages of their academic journey, participants were purposively selected based on the following three criteria: (1) doctoral supervisors with the qualifications to oversee research-based master’s students and PhD candidates were considered, which allows us to gain insights into their emotions in supervising students at different academic stages; (2) supervisors with a minimum of 5 years of supervision were selected, as their long-term experience would provide a comprehensive understanding of the depth and evolution of emotion regulation strategies; (3) supervisors of both hard and soft disciplines were involved, as disciplinary features may significantly shape supervisors’ styles, potentially leading to their diverse emotions and emotion regulation strategies. Finally, six doctoral supervisors from four universities in China agreed to participate in the study voluntarily and were informed of the research purpose and ethical principles before the study. Table 1 provides a summary of the demographic information for all participants.

Data collection

The positionality statement is essential as the authors’ roles may influence the data collection process. Specifically, two authors are doctoral supervisors with rich experience in research supervision, and one author is a doctoral student. Participants for this study were recruited from the authors’ colleagues or recommendations from friends. In the spirit of self-reflexivity, we acknowledge our positions in research supervision and recognize that our relationships with participants may impact our collection and interpretations of the data. However, the authors had attempted to minimize the possible influence through continuous reflection, crosscheck, and discussions during the data analysis and interpretation.

To produce convincing qualitative accounts, collecting data from multiple sources including semi-structured interviews, observations, and documentation was employed in the current study from November 2022 to April 2023.

The primary source of data was individual interviews with each participant. To gather participants’ narratives of critical events in their research supervision, an interview protocol was designed according to our research purpose, but the interview questions were sufficiently flexible to enable the interviewer to adapt the content according to the specific interview situation. The interviews lasted between 120 and 150 min, during which the participants were asked to describe critical events in their research supervision, their emotional experiences, and whether and how they regulated their emotions. Follow-up questions were asked to gain a more profound understanding of their emotion regulation strategies when they provided surprising and ambiguous responses. Sample interview questions included “What emotions do you typically experience as a research supervisor?” and “Do you regulate your emotions induced by research supervision? If so, how?” All interview questions were presented in Chinese, the participants’ first language, and were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim.

Observation was used to complement the data obtained from interviews. Before the observation, all supervisors and their students were informed about the research purpose and ethical principles. Then non-participant observation during their group and individual meetings proceeded only with their voluntary participation. Supervisors’ supervisory methods, activities, meeting atmosphere, and emotions of meeting members were recorded to supplement and validate the data collected through the interview. A short follow-up interview was then conducted with supervisors, focusing on their reflections on emotional events that occurred during the observed group and individual meetings.

Documentation was also used as a supplementary method. With the consent of the participants and their students, supervisors’ annotations and feedback on graduate students’ manuscripts, unofficial posts about supervision on social media (e.g., WeChat moments sharing), and chat logs between supervisors and students were collected to obtain additional information about the participants’ emotional experiences and supervisory practices. Table 2 presents the interview durations, the total minutes recorded during observations, the length of follow-up interviews, and the specific number and types of documents reviewed by both supervisors and students.

Data analysis

The analysis involved a three-level coding process (Yin, 2016a , 2016b ). First, interview transcripts were repeatedly read to label data excerpts that addressed the research questions. Initial codes were based on participants’ original perspectives and then iteratively refined and combined. Second, the coding system was organized according to Gross’s ( 2015 ) process model of emotional regulation, which distinguishes between antecedent-focused and response-focused strategies. Meanwhile, the study also remained open to other emotion regulation strategies that were evident in the empirical data. Third, the coding system was distilled to capture the nature of the identified strategies, resulting in three types of emotion regulation strategies. During the analysis process, the data were classified and organized using the NVivo software.

To strengthen the credibility of the data analysis, the interview transcripts were carefully examined multiple times to ensure that the data were accurately reflected in the coding scheme. Moreover, the coding scheme was collaboratively developed by the authors, and any discrepancies in classification were thoroughly deliberated to achieve mutual agreement. The final coding system, along with sub-categories and patterns, is presented in Table 3 .

In sum, seven emotion regulation strategies in research supervision emerged from the empirical data, which can be grouped into two categories, namely, antecedent-focused strategies and response-focused strategies.

Antecedent-focused strategies

Supervisors used antecedent-focused strategies to regulate the external situation and their internal cognition before the emotions were generated.

Prevention involves the prediction and avoidance of situations that may lead to undesirable emotional experiences during supervision prior to the generation of emotions. Prevention strategies were frequently utilized in the graduate student recruitment process and early stages of supervision, as a means of avoiding undesirable situations. On the former occasion, supervisors identified multiple recruitment indicators, such as research experiences and GPA, to avoid supervisory situations that may lead to negative emotions. This is commonly related to their former supervisory experience: “It was frustrating to supervise a student who was not invested in her work, so I have to implement a rigorous recruitment process to prioritize candidates who are truly interested in research, rather than rashly recruiting students” (P1-interview).

Supervisors remain vigilant once a supervisory relationship was established, as they are required by accountability-based policies to be responsible for students’ research performance and safety. Many supervisors stressed the significance of “establishing rules and regulations” (P4-interview) in the early stages of supervision to avoid infuriation and disappointment with students’ academic misconduct. Therefore, establishing an academic code of conduct is an effective prevention strategy for supervisors: “I’m frustrated by academic misconduct among students, as discovering data falsification in student-published articles holds me accountable, risking serious consequences for my academic career. So I frequently emphasize the need for high academic honesty and integrity standards” (P2-interview, observation).

Another concern that worried supervisors, especially those of science and technology, is student safety: “Whenever I hear about a laboratory explosion that causes student injuries, it makes me very nervous” (P3-interview, documentation). It is crucial for the institutions and supervisors to establish comprehensive laboratory safety rules and educate students on safety protocols before conducting experiments: “I told my graduate students: Failure to obey laboratory rules and lack of safety awareness can lead to immediate accidents that not only affect yourself but also pose a risk to other students” (P3-interview).

Intervention

Intervention is the most commonly employed strategy by supervisors to enhance the effectiveness of their supervision once a supervisory relationship is established. They employed various intervention strategies to improve students’ academic attitude and develop their academic ability.

Specifically, supervisors improved their students’ engagement and altered procrastination either by scaffolding their research or enforcing discipline and prohibitions. On the one hand, our participants acknowledged the importance of instructional scaffolding in the supervisory process.

We need to cultivate students’ interest so that they can actively engage in research. For instance, I often demonstrate interesting phenomena between the English and Chinese languages to generate my students’ curiosity. Then I am delighted to see their willingness to immerse themselves in linguistic research. (P5-interview)

On the other hand, some supervisors emphasized the enforcement of discipline in supervision. One supervisor expressed disappointment and dissatisfaction with the lackadaisical research atmosphere within the entire research group. In response, she implemented strict discipline and prohibitions to restrict students from engaging in activities unrelated to research in the office (P2-observation).

Finding a student watching a movie in the office angered me as it may disturb other students trying to focus on their studies. So, activities like watching movies and listening to music are not allowed in our office. By rigorously enforcing these rules, our research group was able to collaborate more effectively and ultimately achieve satisfactory results. (P2-interview)

Furthermore, intervention strategies were also used to enhance graduate students’ academic competency. Modifying supervisory activities was considered as a useful method. One supervisor shared: “We used to read literature in our group meeting together, but it was not effective. I felt frustrated and decided to change our meeting activities this semester.” As a result, the supervisor organized students to provide feedback on each other’s manuscripts in weekly group meetings, because “it was very effective in improving their writing abilities” (P1-interview, observation).

Interestingly, some supervisors opted to micromanage students’ research processes when they were disappointed with their research performance

At first, I encouraged students to independently identify research topics, but I later realized with disappointment that it was challenging for them to identify gaps in the existing literature. To make things more efficient, I started assigning research projects directly to help them complete their dissertation and meet the graduation requirements. (P5-interview)

Reinterpretation

Reinterpretation refers to the process of cognitively reappraising a supervisory situation from different perspectives to change its emotional impact. Supervising a graduate student who lacks interest in research was described as a “prolonged and painful undertaking” (P4-interview). However, one supervisor noted that: “Dwelling on negative emotions can be unproductive as it does not necessarily solve problems. Despite the challenging experience, I have gained valuable insights and will be better equipped to handle such situation” (P4-interview).

In addition to explaining the meaning of the situations from supervisors’ viewpoints, they reconsidered the events from graduate students’ perspectives to rationalize their unsatisfactory performance and procrastination. For example, supervisors understood students’ time arrangements when they procrastinated: “I used to become annoyed when students failed to submit assignments punctually… Now I know that students need a balance between work and rest. They need adequate time for rest” (P5-interview).

On occasion, supervisors reappraised the connection between students’ misbehaviors and the effort they invested from the perspective of the teacher-student relationship.

I felt angry when things happened, but I wouldn’t let that emotion affect my life. I see myself as a supervisor to students, not a parent, so I don’t hold high expectations for them. If students choose not to follow my guidance, it’s not my concern anymore. (P6-interview)

Reconcentration

Reconcentration is the strategy by which supervisors focus on another aspect of supervision or divert attention away from supervision with the intent of changing emotional consequences. Specifically, during the supervisory process, supervisors prepared themselves to be optimistic by reminding themselves of their students’ strengths: “I was anxious about a student who always made slow progress in research. But when I later realized that his incremental results were consistently good, indicating that he was very meticulous, I felt much better” (P2-interview, observation).

Apart from diverting attention during supervision in working environments, the participants highlighted the importance of balancing personal and professional life to manage negative emotions that may arise during supervision.

After giving birth, I realized that caring for a child demands a considerable amount of time and energy. Then I redirected my attention from supervising students to my family. Thankfully, my family provides a supportive environment, and the pleasant moments shared with my family members helped me overcome negative emotions associated with work. (P4-interview)

Detachment refers to the act of separating from or terminating the supervisory relationship to disengage from negative emotions. This strategy was often employed when intervention, reinterpretation, and reconcentration strategies were ineffective. When supervisors found that various proactive measures failed to resolve the challenges in research supervision, they experienced enduring feelings of helplessness, confusion, and distress. One supervisor expressed deep frustration, stating, “I’ve exhausted all efforts—careful communication with her and her parents, and providing my support during her experiments. Yet, she continued to resist making progress with her experiments and dissertation. I felt lost in supervising this student” (P4-interview). As a result, they have to release themselves from the emotionally harmful supervisory relationships.

Some supervisors chose to disengage, meaning they no longer actively push the student: “Continuing to push a student who refused to participate in research despite all my efforts would only increase my frustration. I have decided to let him go and will no longer push him” (P5-interview).

In some extreme cases that evoke negative emotions, supervisors even terminated the supervisory relationship.

Supervising this student was a painful experience as his inaction negatively affected the entire research team. Other students started following his behavior and avoided conducting experiments. It made me feel suffocated. I had to terminate my supervision to avoid any further negative impact on the team and myself… I felt relieved after he left. (P3-interview)

Response-focused strategies

Response-focused emotion regulation involves the use of strategies after an emotion has already been generated.

Suppression

Suppression involves consciously attempting to inhibit behavioral and verbal emotional responses. Although supervisors experienced negative moods during research supervision, some refrained from expressing these emotions to students. Certain supervisors believed that criticism hinders problem-solving. One participant explained, “While interacting with students, I found some are genuinely fearful of supervisor authority. In such cases, venting emotions on students only heightens their fear, makes them hesitant to express themselves or their confusion in research, and ultimately hinders their progress” (P1-interview). In addition, some supervisors believed that expressing anger or disappointment toward students could harm their self-efficacy in research. One supervisor stated, “Obtaining a master’s degree is a challenging journey, especially for novice researchers. Confidence is crucial for their success. As a supervisor, I refrain from expressing negative emotions as it can hurt students’ feelings and even damage their confidence” (P3-interview).

As mentioned by the supervisors above, expressing anger and disappointment to graduate students may not resolve issues but damage their self-efficacy. In challenging situations where negative emotions were hard to suppress, supervisors opted to temporarily suspend supervision activities or introduce new tasks to regain composure: “Sometimes revising students’ manuscripts can be a painful task. To avoid the risk of expressing negative emotions to them, I often temporarily suspend the revision. Sometimes I take a walk until I feel calmer and more collected” (P1-interview).

In supervision, expressing emotion is another effective strategy for regulating supervisors’ emotions. Although supervisors were aware that expressing negative emotions may sometimes negatively affect students’ feelings, the importance of their own emotional well-being was emphasized, as “expressing feelings helped me recover from negative moods faster” (P6-interview). However, supervisors had different expressive styles when interacting with their students.

Some supervisors expressed their anger and dissatisfaction to their students directly, through behavioral or verbal emotional responses. A supervisor recounted an incident, “During a phone call with her, I lost my temper because of her terrible attitude, and ended up throwing my phone” (P4-interview).

Interestingly, given that “graduate students are all adults” (P6-interview), some supervisors expressed their emotions more tactfully, taking care not to lose their temper and cause distress to their students. One supervisor “felt angry with a student’s poor writing.” However, instead of scolding the student directly, he made a joke during a one-to-one meeting, saying “It’s not that you wrote poorly. It’s that I am not clever enough to comprehend your writing.” The student laughed, and then the supervision was conducted in a relaxed atmosphere. The supervisor explained: “I do not hide my emotions but prefer to avoid losing my temper and instead use humor to guide my students better” (P5-interview, observation).

This study contributes to the existing literature on emotion regulation by providing detailed insights into how emotion regulation strategies were utilized by research supervisors. It also sheds light on the dilemmas supervisors encounter and the paradox between the context-dependent nature of research supervision and the accountability-based managerial context.

Supervisors’ dilemmas in research supervision

Our study demonstrated supervisors’ capacity to proactively employ diverse emotion regulation strategies when coping with difficulties in research supervision. It also revealed some paradoxical phenomena within the supervisors’ utilization of these emotion regulation strategies, highlighting the dilemmas they encountered in the context of research supervision.

In general, supervisors in our study demonstrated a higher tendency to employ antecedent-focused strategies for emotion regulation rather than response-focused strategies, which can alleviate their emotional burnout and enhance their well-being. Specifically, participants utilized intervention strategies as antecedent-focused strategies to improve the effectiveness of research supervision, rather than seeking consolation to alleviate generated emotions. Previous research has indicated that antecedent-focused strategies were associated with increased life satisfaction (Feinberg et al., 2012 ). By intervening in the emotion generation process at an early stage, these strategies can potentially alter the emotional trajectory, contributing to improved well-being among supervisors (Gross & John, 2003 ).

While supervisors displayed a strong inclination to utilize diverse strategies to enhance the effectiveness of their supervision, our findings unveiled two paradoxical phenomena in their emotion regulation strategies, indicating the dilemmas that supervisors faced in authentic supervisory situations. First, in antecedent-focused strategies aimed at modifying situations that may trigger negative emotions, numerous interventions and detachments highlighted the conflicts supervisors encountered as they strived to balance adequate assistance and excessive interference. Specifically, while participants in our study “inspired students through scaffolding” or “encouraged students’ autonomous learning,” they also “micromanaged students’ research process” or “enforced discipline” to enhance supervision efficiency. This pedagogical paradox concerning the choice between intervening and non-intervening approaches has generated ongoing debate in existing research (Janssen & Vuuren, 2021 ). Both approaches have the potential to evoke negative emotional experiences for supervisors and graduate students. Research found that a highly intervening approach has negative implications for both supervisors and graduate students (Lee, 2020 ). Students who have encountered autonomy-exploitative behavior from their supervisors, such as being restricted to specific research topics and methodologies, have reported experiencing negative emotions (Cheng & Leung, 2022 ). For supervisors, the burden of an intervening approach, the dissonance between supervisors’ expectations and students’ actual research progress, as well as students deviating from conventional practices (Han & Xu, 2023 ), all contribute to feelings of frustration, sadness, and exhaustion. Nevertheless, non-intervening approaches do not always fulfill the expectations of both parties either. Supervisors who encouraged graduate students’ autonomous action acknowledged the value of promoting their independent thinking, which has been identified as a significant predictor of students’ research self-efficacy (Gruzdev et al., 2020 ). However, students who initially expected their supervisors to play a leadership role felt dissatisfied and disappointed when supervisors were reluctant to offer explicit guidance (Janssen & Vuuren, 2021 ). This misunderstanding of supervisors’ intentions can ultimately generate negative effects on supervisors’ emotional experiences (Xu, 2021 ).

Another evident paradoxical phenomenon arises in the response-focused strategies employed after emotions have already been triggered. Although supervisors opted to suppress their negative emotional expression to safeguard the confidence and self-esteem of mature learners, there were instances when they outpoured their disappointment and anger to students, aiming to swiftly step out of their negative moods. The act of expressing and suppressing emotions highlights the dilemma of cultivating a mutually beneficial relationship that promotes emotional well-being for both supervisors and students. On the one hand, the existing literature emphasizes the importance of supervisors being sensitive to students’ emotional experiences (Bastalich, 2017 ). The inherent power imbalance in supervisor-student relationships may create a sense of student dependency on their supervisors (Friedensen et al., 2024 ; Janssen & Vuuren, 2021 ). Excessive criticism from supervisors can potentially lead to feelings of loss, and alienation throughout students’ academic journey, which highlights supervisors’ responsibility to manage their emotional criticism in supervisory interactions (Parker-Jenkins, 2018 ). On the other hand, although pursuing a research degree is a challenging journey for graduate students, it is important to acknowledge the vulnerability of research supervisors and their need for support (Parker-Jenkins, 2018 ). Power dynamics within supervisory relationships, particularly when students challenge or disregard supervisors’ advice, can lead to repression and disengagement for supervisors if negative emotions are not effectively regulated (Xu, 2021 ). Thus, recognizing supervisors’ needs and allowing for emotional expressions are also essential in developing a relationship that is mutually beneficial and conducive to the well-being of both parties (Parker-Jenkins, 2018 ).

The conflicts between research supervision and institutional policies

The dilemmas present in supervisors’ emotion regulation strategies inherently illustrate the context-dependent and non-standardized nature of research supervision. However, as modern higher education institutions move toward implementing accountability-based policies that aim to standardize and quantify research supervision (Jedemark & Londos, 2021 ), conflicts between the nature of supervision and these institutional policies not only place an emotional burden on supervisors, but also endanger the quality of graduate education.

The dilemmas observed in supervisors’ emotion regulation strategies highlight the divergent understandings between supervisors and graduate students regarding their respective responsibilities and the boundaries of the supervisor-student relationship. This divergence is influenced by context-dependent factors in research supervision, including the beliefs, motivations, and initiatives of the individuals involved (Denis et al., 2018 ). Due to the difficulty in achieving a perfect agreement on these context-dependent factors, it becomes challenging to establish a standard for what constitutes an ideal beneficial research supervision (Bøgelund, 2015 ). In authentic supervisory situations, the relationships between supervisors and graduate students can range from formal and distant to informal and intimate in both academic and social interactions (Parker-Jenkins, 2018 ). Therefore, research supervision is a highly context-dependent and non-standardized practice that relies on the capabilities of supervisors and students, which are shaped by their individual experiences and personalities.

This nature of research supervision underscores the significance of avoiding standardization and a “one size fits all” approach. However, as higher education institutions move toward a corporate managerial mode, research supervision is increasingly perceived as a service provided within a provider-consumer framework, and the fundamental aspects of research supervision are being reshaped to align with a culture of performance measurement, control, and accountability (Taylor et al., 2018 ). In modern academia, universities and institutions have established specific guidelines and protocols for research supervision, which require supervisors to follow diligently and take accountability in the supervision process (Figueira et al., 2018 ).

The presence of extensive external scrutiny or accountability ignored the context-dependent and non-standardized nature of research supervision, leading to adverse effects on both supervisors and graduate students. On the one hand, supervisors face significant pressure within an accountability-based context. They are expected to serve as facilitators of structured knowledge transmission, which is enforced through the demanding requirements and time-consuming tasks associated with supervisory practices (Halse, 2011 ). However, the distinctive characteristics of various disciplines and the interdependent relationship between the supervisory context and graduate students’ learning process are neglected (Liang et al., 2021 ). Such a narrow focus on knowledge transmission may pose potential threats to supervisors’ autonomy and academic freedom, generating their feelings of self-questioning, helplessness, and demotivation (Halse, 2011 ). Supervisors in our study reported many examples of emotion regulation strategies utilized to cope with performative and accountability pressures in their workplace. Specifically, the responsibility to ensure timely doctoral completions, prioritize students’ safety, and maintain accountability for those experiencing delays or violating research codes evoked feelings of nervousness, pressure, and insecurity among supervisors.

On the other hand, interventionist supervision within accountability-driven supervisory contexts is perceived as detrimental to students’ academic innovation (Bastalich, 2017 ). The prevailing environment of heightened performativity and accountability alters supervisors’ attitudes toward academic risk-taking, thereby influencing their supervisory practices (Figueira et al., 2018 ). For example, participants in our study utilized prevention and intervention strategies to mitigate potential negative occurrences. This included adopting a directive approach to supervise students’ work and dissuading them from undertaking risky or time-consuming methods to ensure timely completion. However, such micromanagement may stifle innovation, thereby inhibiting doctoral students’ development as independent researchers (Gruzdev et al., 2020 ). Providing pre-packaged research projects or excessive support may hinder students’ acquisition of essential knowledge, skills, and expertise required for their future pursuits, potentially obstructing their progress toward independent thinking (Gruzdev et al., 2020 ).

The conflicts between the prevailing shift from autonomy to accountability in higher education and the context-dependent and non-standardized nature of research supervision highlight the necessity for practice-informed evaluations for research supervision. This finding resonates with previous studies on policy-making in graduate education (Taylor et al., 2018 ), which emphasized the challenges of establishing evidence-based institutional policies to capture the intricate realities of supervision in practice.

Limitations

This study contributes to the understanding of research supervisors’ work by examining their emotion regulation strategies in authentic supervisory situations. However, certain limitations should be addressed for future research. First, the small sample size is a significant limitation, as only six supervisors participated. Future studies may increase the sample size and enhance diversity within the sample. Second, as our study only involved perspectives from research supervisors, future studies may consider incorporating the perceptions of both supervisors and graduate students and analyzing the level of convergence and divergence between the obtained results to enhance the validity of data collection.

Implications for practice

Despite being situated in China’s supervisory accountability system, our study holds broader implications in the global context. As the shift toward corporatized management models in higher education worldwide reshapes research supervision to align with performance measurement and accountability culture (Jedemark & Londos, 2021 ), our results offer implications for research supervision and policy-making beyond the Chinese context.

First, for research supervisors and graduate students, the intricate and dynamic nature of research supervision revealed in our study makes it challenging to offer direct recommendations for optimal emotion regulation strategies. Instead, supervisors are encouraged to adaptively employ a range of emotion regulation strategies in different supervisory situations to enhance their emotional well-being. Additionally, recognizing the context-dependent nature of research supervision, both research supervisors and graduate students are urged to take into account factors such as each other’s beliefs, motivations, and initiatives in their research and daily interactions.

Second, in light of the discrepancy between the current standardized accountability measures in higher education and the context-dependent nature of research supervision, it is imperative for universities and institutions to develop practice-based policies that are tailored to supervisors’ and students’ academic development, avoiding generic and assumed approaches. To effectively address the distinctive requirements of research supervision, policy-makers are strongly encouraged to implement multi-dimensional, discipline-oriented evaluation systems for supervisors in the future.

Data Availability

Data from this study cannot be shared publicly because participants may still be identifiable despite efforts to anonymise the data. Therefore, data will only be made available for researchers who meet criteria for access to confidential data.

Agudo, J. D. M. (Ed.). (2018). Emotions in second language teaching: Theory, research and teacher education . Springer.

Google Scholar  

Bastalich, W. (2017). Content and context in knowledge production: A critical review of doctoral supervision literature. Studies in Higher Education, 42 (7), 1145–1157.

Article   Google Scholar  

Bøgelund, P. (2015). How supervisors perceive PhD supervision-and how they practice it. International Journal of Doctoral Studies, 10 , 39–55.

Brotheridge, C. M., & Grandey, A. A. (2002). Emotional labor and burnout: Comparing two perspectives of “people work.” Journal of Vocational Behavior, 60 (1), 17–39.

Campos, J. J., Walle, E. A., Dahl, A., & Main, A. (2011). Reconceptualizing emotion regulation. Emotion Review, 3 (1), 26–35.

Chen, J., & Cheng, T. (2022). Review of research on teacher emotion during 1985–2019: A descriptive quantitative analysis of knowledge production trends. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 37 (2), 417–438.

Cheng, M. W. T., & Leung, M. L. (2022). “I’m not the only victim...” Student perceptions of exploitative supervision relation in doctoral degree. Higher Education, 84 (3), 523–540.

Denis, C., Colet, N. R., & Lison, C. (2018). Doctoral supervision in North America: Perception and challenges of supervisor and supervisee. Higher Education Studies, 9 (1), 30–39.

Diekman, A. B., Clark, E. K., Johnston, A. M., Brown, E. R., & Steinberg, M. (2011). Malleability in communal goals and beliefs influences attraction to stem careers: Evidence for a goal congruity perspective. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101 (5), 902–918.

Feinberg, M., Willer, R., Antonenko, O., & John, O. P. (2012). Liberating reason from the passions: Overriding intuitionist moral judgments through emotion reappraisal. Psychological Science, 23 (7), 788–795.

Figueira, C., Theodorakopoulos, N., & Caselli, G. (2018). Unveiling faculty conceptions of academic risk taking: A phenomenographic study. Studies in Higher Education, 43 (8), 1307–1320.

Friedensen, R. E., Bettencourt, G. M., & Bartlett, M. L. (2024). Power-conscious ecosystems: Understanding how power dynamics in US doctoral advising shape students’ experiences. Higher Education, 87 (1), 149–164. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-023-00998-x

Grandey, A. A. (2000). Emotional regulation in the workplace: A new way to conceptualize emotional labor. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 5 (1), 95–110.

Gross, J. J. (1998). The emerging field of emotion regulation: An integrative review. Review of General Psychology, 2 , 271–299.

Gross, J. J. (2015). Emotion regulation: Current status and future prospects. Psychological Inquiry, 26 (1), 1–26.

Gross, J. J., & John, O. P. (2003). Individual differences in two emotion regulation processes: Implications for affect, relationships, and well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85 (2), 348.

Gruzdev, I., Terentev, E., & Dzhafarova, Z. (2020). Superhero or hands-off supervisor? An empirical categorization of PhD supervision styles and student satisfaction in Russian universities. Higher Education, 79 (5), 773–789.

Gu, J., Levin, J. S., & Luo, Y. (2018). Reproducing “academic successors” or cultivating “versatile experts”: Influences of doctoral training on career expectations of Chinese PhD students. Higher Education, 76 (3), 427–447.

Halse, C. (2011). ‘Becoming a supervisor’: The impact of doctoral supervision on supervisors’ learning. Studies in Higher Education, 36 (5), 557–570.

Halse, C., & Malfroy, J. (2010). Retheorizing doctoral supervision as professional work. Studies in Higher Education, 35 (1), 79–92.

Han, Y., & Xu, Y. (2023). Emotional support from the perspective of extrinsic emotion regulation: Insights of computer science. Teaching in Higher Education, 28 (7), 1725–1743.

Han, J., & Wang, T. (2024). Exploring graduate students’ research characteristics, emotional exhaustion, mastery approach, and research career commitment: insights from the JD-R theory. Studies in Higher Education, 1–15.

Hargreaves, A. (1998). The emotional practice of teaching. Teaching and Teacher Education, 14 (8), 835–854.

Hochschild, A. R. (1983). The managed heart: Commercialization of human feeling . University of California Press.

Hosotani, R. (2011). Emotional experience, expression, and regulation of high-quality Japanese elementary school teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education, 27 (6), 1039–1048.

Janssen, S., & Vuuren, M. (2021). Sensemaking in supervisor-doctoral student relationships: Revealing schemas on the fulfillment of basic psychological needs. Studies in Higher Education, 46 (12), 2738–2750.

Jedemark, M., & Londos, M. (2021). Four different assessment practices: How university teachers handle the field of tension between professional responsibility and professional accountability. Higher Education, 81 (6), 1293–1309.

Johnson, J. W. (2001). The relative importance of task and contextual performance dimensions to supervisor judgments of overall performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86 (5), 984–996.

Lee, A. (2008). How are doctoral students supervised? Concepts of doctoral research supervision. Studies in Higher Education, 33 (3), 267–281.

Lee, A. (2020). Successful research supervision: Advising students doing research (2nd ed.). Routledge.

Liang, W., Liu, S., & Zhao, C. (2021). Impact of student-supervisor relationship on postgraduate students’ subjective well-being: A study based on longitudinal data in China. Higher Education, 82 (2), 273–305.

Ministry of Education, PRC. (2020). The accountability measures for educational supervision [yanjiusheng zhidao xingwei zhunze].  http://www.moe.gov.cn/srcsite/A22/s7065/202011/t20201111_499442.html . Accessed 17 May 2024.

Parker-Jenkins, M. (2018). Mind the gap: Developing the roles, expectations and boundaries in the doctoral supervisor–supervisee relationship. Studies in Higher Education, 43 (1), 57–71.

Peng, H. (2015). Assessing the quality of research supervision in mainland Chinese higher education. Quality in Higher Education, 21 (1), 89–100.

Riessman, C. K. (2008). Narrative methods for the human sciences . Sage.

Saleem, M. S., Isha, A. S., Awan, M. I., Yusop, Y. B., & Naji, G. M. (2022). Fostering academic engagement in post-graduate students: Assessing the role of positive emotions, positive psychology, and stress. Frontiers in Psychology, 13 , 920395.

Sambrook, S., Stewart, J., & Roberts, C. (2008). Doctoral supervision... A view from above, below and the middle! Journal of Further and Higher Education, 32 (1), 71–84.

Tao, Y., Liu, X., Hou, W., Niu, H., Wang, S., Ma, Z., & Zhang, L. (2022). The mediating role of emotion regulation strategies in the relationship between big five personality traits and anxiety and depression among Chinese firefighters. Frontiers in Public Health, 10 , 901686.

Taxer, J. L., & Frenzel, A. C. (2015). Facets of teachers’ emotional lives: A quantitative investigation of teachers’ genuine, faked, and hidden emotions. Teaching and Teacher Education, 49 , 78–88.

Taxer, J. L., & Gross, J. J. (2018). Emotion regulation in teachers: The “why” and “how”. Teaching and Teacher Education, 74 , 180–189.

Taylor, S., Kiley, M., & Humphrey, R. (2018). A handbook for doctoral supervisors (2nd ed.). Routledge.

To, K. H., & Yin, H. (2021). Being the weather gauge of mood: Demystifying the emotion regulation of kindergarten principals. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 30 (4), 315–325.

Veniger, K. A., & Kočar, S. (2018). The impact of academic discipline on university teaching and pedagogical training courses. Croatian Journal of Education, 20 (4), 1261–1298.

Wollast, R., Aelenei, C., Chevalère, J., Van der Linden, N., Galand, B., Azzi, A., Frenay, M., & Klein, O. (2023). Facing the dropout crisis among PhD candidates: The role of supervisor support in emotional well-being and intended doctoral persistence among men and women. Studies in Higher Education, 48 (6), 813–828.

Xie, A. B., & Zhu, Y. (2008). Retrospect and prospect of Chinese degree and graduate education development in the past three decades. Degree and Graduate Education, 11 , 19–29.

Xie, F. (2021). A study on Chinese EFL teachers’ work engagement: The predictability power of emotion regulation and teacher resilience. Frontiers in Psychology, 12 , 735969.

Xu, Y. (2021). Unpacking the emotional dimension of doctoral supervision: Supervisors’ emotions and emotion regulation strategies. Frontiers in Psychology, 12 , 651859.

Xu, Y., & Liu, J. A. (2023). Exploring and understanding perceived relationships between doctoral students and their supervisors in China. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 10 (1), 1–10.

Yin, H. (2015). The effect of teachers’ emotional labour on teaching satisfaction: Moderation of emotional intelligence. Teachers and Teaching, 21 (7), 789–810.

Yin, H. (2016a). Knife-like mouth and tofu-like heart: Emotion regulation by Chinese teachers in classroom teaching. Social Psychology of Education, 19 (1), 1–22.

Yin, H., Huang, S., & Lv, L. (2018). A multilevel analysis of job characteristics, emotion regulation and teacher well-being: A job demands-resources model. Frontiers in Psychology, 9 , 2395.

Yin, R. K. (2016b). Qualitative research from start to finish (2nd ed.). Guilford Press.

Zembylas, M. (2021). The affective turn in educational theory. Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Education. https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190264093.013.1272 . Accessed 17 May 2024.

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank the participants who made this publication possible.

This work was supported by the Project of Outstanding Young and Middle-aged Scholars of Shandong University, Shandong University Program of Graduate Education and Reform (grant number XYJG2023037) and the General Research Fund of Hong Kong SAR (grant number CUHK 14608922).

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

School of Foreign Languages and Literature, Shandong University, Jinan, 250100, Shandong, China

Jiying Han & Lei Jin

Department of Curriculum and Instruction, Faculty of Education, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Shatin, N.T., Hong Kong, SAR, China

Hongbiao Yin

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

Jiying Han: writing—original draft preparation, writing—reviewing and editing; Lei Jin: writing—original draft preparation, formal analysis; Hongbiao Yin: conceptualization, validation, writing—reviewing and editing.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Hongbiao Yin .

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest.

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Han, J., Jin, L. & Yin, H. Supervisors’ emotion regulation in research supervision: navigating dilemmas in an accountability-based context. High Educ (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-024-01241-x

Download citation

Accepted : 13 May 2024

Published : 18 May 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-024-01241-x

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Emotion regulation
• Research supervision
• Accountability
• Graduate education
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research