by Rugare Mugumbate (PhD), Noel Garikai Muridzo (PhD), Devotion Tatenda Mahamba and Tatenda Sukulao

About authors: Rugare works at the University of Wollongong in Australia and is a Senior Associate Researcher at the University of Johannesburg in South Africa. Noel, Devotion and Tatenda work at the Midlands State University (MSU) in Zimbabwe. Recently, the authors organised a PhD indaba at the MSU, and some of the ideas presented in this article came from the indaba. The authors would like to acknowledge the participants of the indaba for the discussion.

Cite this article as: Mugumbate R, Muridzo N G, Mahamba D T and Sukulao T (2025). PhD research supervision models. Africa Social Work and Development Network. https://africasocialwork.net/phd-research-supervision-models/

Africa is increasing the number of its academic doctors. These doctors, called doctors of philosophy, gain their credentials through a substantive period of research supervision where they design research, execute it and publish findings as reports or journal articles. In South Africa, the National Development Plan targets 5 000 PhD graduates each year by 2023. Academia and governments are looking for models that result in more PhD completions, quality research expertise development and more impactful research that increases Africa’s opportunities and solves its problems. The period of a PhD is usually three years but could range from two to five years. However, there seems to be limited opportunities for the capacity building of supervisors. Often, older supervisors use their own PhD experience as a model. While this is basic practice, changes in the educational and research sectors necessitate further development, refinement or change of skills. This blog piece discusses three models of supervision, the peer, teacher-student and peer-learner model. The first one views the supervisor and supervisee as research peers while the other one views them as teacher and student. The third one is a combination of the other two models. In my supervision, I my preference is the peer-learner model, learning towards the peer model.

Peer model

The two photos below demonstrate different versions of the peer model. This model can be referred to as the collaborative model. It is a non-directive model. It can be applied in single, co- or multiple supervision. The key pedagogy in this model is dialogue where the ‘student’ is a ‘colleague in training.’ The arrangement of the chairs in the pictures provides an illustration of the peer model. The chairs are the same, signifying peerhood.

Teacher-student model

The photo below demonstrates the teacher-student model. This model can also be known as the directive model. Again, it can be applied in single, co- or multiple supervision. In this model, the supervisor has more power, is the expert while the student is the learner. The main pedagogical approach in this model is hierarchal instruction, as found in laboratory based research. If not used with caution, this model may result in academic oppression.

Peer-learner model

This hybrid model combines the two models already discussed in these ways:

• Supervisor may start with an instructional approach and then moves to a dialogical approach.
• The supervisor may combine the two approaches concurrently.
• One supervisor may be dialogical and the other instructional.

Comparison

Feature	Teacher-student model (TSM)	Peer-learner model (PLM)	Peer model (PM)
Common disciplines	STEM	Interdisciplinary fields, applied research	Humanities and social sciences
Power dynamics	Hierarchical	Balanced, gradual shift to collaboration	Collaborative
Role of supervisor/s	Authority figure, instructor	Mentor, with periods of guidance and partnership	Mentor, research partner
Role of student	Learner, dependent on supervisor	Learner who transitions into an independent researcher	Independent researcher, equal contributor
Feedback style	Directive, corrective	Mix of directive and dialogical feedback	Constructive, dialogical
Research autonomy and academic growth	Supervisor-driven, gradual independence	Supervisor guides early stages, increasing student autonomy over time	Encouraged from early stages, fostering confidence and freedom
Modeling good research behavior and culture	Supervisor demonstrates expected standards	Supervisor models best practices, then encourages student to co-develop them	Encourages co-creation and mutual learning
Communication and collegiality	One-way (supervisor to student), more formal relationship	Mix of structured guidance and open dialogue	Open, two-way dialogue, strong academic partnership
Career and research usage mentoring	Supervisor offers structured guidance on career and research application	Supervisor supports career development, allowing student to take initiative over time	Encourages student to explore career paths and engage with research impact collaboratively
Emotional and well-being support	Limited, primarily focused on academic progress	Moderate—initial support with increasing student self-management	More holistic, supporting personal and professional well-being
Monitoring and facilitation	Supervisor closely tracks progress and directs learning	Supervisor monitors progress but gradually shifts to student-led accountability	Encourages self-monitoring, problem-solving, and independent accountability

A supervisor reflects on the models

The student-supervisor relationship should be a relationship of mutual trust for the duration of the study. PhD supervision is one of the factors that contribute to the PhD experience(s): pleasantries, successes and discovery.  The supervisory approach adopted has a bearing on the nature of the experiences that both the supervisor and supervisee/student/ candidate will have in the journey. The choice of the model to be adopted could be influenced by many factors. Firstly, the supervision orientation and culture that the supervisor went through during their PhD journal ad relationship that they themselves had with their supervisor.  Secondly, the university/faculty/departmental culture.  The shared beliefs, values, behaviours and practices on the attainment of PhDs, supervisor and outlook on student/candidate/supervisee may influence the interaction between the supervision interaction and model generally adopted in the university, faculty or department.   Thirdly, related to this is where the supervisor did their PhD. The culture through which they went through their journey. Lastly, is the number of PhD holders in a university/faculty/department. Could it be that those holding the qualification are ‘offended’ and insist on the titles to distinguish themselves? Here the holders even forget their first names, expecting only be referred to by title by all and sundry taking offence if not addressed ‘accurately’. Perhaps, the lesser they are, the more those with the qualification revere themselves as being above others.  

I recommend the adoption of a supervisor-student agreement that establishes, guides and ensures a healthy supervisor-student relationship for the duration of the candidature by clearly defining the roles and responsibilities of the two parties involved. Regardless of the model inherent within the university, faculty or departmental culture or adopted by the parties, a written down agreement may help address potential challenges. 

Fears as a potential PhD candidate

A potential student gave this reflection:

As l reflect on the journey of pursuing a PhD, I am reminded of the complex mix of emotions and thoughts that come with it. Through the PhD indaba, I had the opportunity to rub shoulders with those who are post PhD, pre-PhD, and some who are in the middle of doing their PhD. These people expressed different experiences regarding the PhD journey. Some of the experiences were motivating, and others were demotivating. These experiences have led me to develop fears as a potential PhD student. On a positive note, the indaba provided a platform for other post-PhDs and post-post PhDs to share their interesting experiences that instilled feelings of hope and positivity within me.

I am primarily concerned about financial stability. Pursuing a PhD is costly, and many students depend on loans, part-time jobs, or scholarships to support themselves. From my research so far, I have discovered that PhD studies are expensive worldwide. If I do not secure a scholarship, I will need to fund my studies myself, which worries me. I am anxious about how I will manage my expenses while supporting myself throughout my PhD journey.

PhD studies can also lead to isolation. Considering that the PhD journey requires dedication and commitment, I might not have adequate time for my social life, and I might lose friends and family. My greatest fear is of feeling lonely and disconnected from others due to the intense focus required during the PhD journey.

I am also anxious about not making it (fear of failure). Failing is my greatest fear, considering that I would have invested significant time and resources throughout the journey. PhD studies require about 3 years, and all those years cannot go to waste. I am scared of failing to complete my PhD due to personal reasons, failure to collaborate well with my supervisor, or failure to grasp the key concepts.

I am also worried about being overwhelmed (fear of being overwhelmed). PhD studies are demanding and require one to give their all. I am afraid of managing the heavy workload that comes with these studies, including the research chapters and the data collection exercise.

Lastly, I am worried about my employability (fear of finding a job) after completing my PhD. I might not be able to secure a job in some organisations because of the title that comes with holding a PhD. I might be limited to work in the academia. On the other hand, I might get a chance to work in the non-academic field, but having the same position as someone who has a first degree.

Regardless of the challenges that those pursuing their PhDs shared during the PhD Indaba, the fact that they are still doing their PhDs gives me hope that l can still do mine. The fears I have indicated above are normal, and l believe that I can still make it despite them. The testimonies from the post PhDs also gave me confidence and encouragement that the PhD is doable. It only requires dedication and commitment.

Pictures from the indaba

A potential PhD candidate reflects on the 3 models

For the models, I also need to think about their benefits and drawbacks. The peer model (PM) is beneficial as it encourages collaboration, fosters mutual respect, and promotes independent thinking. However, it may lack structure, and inexperienced candidates might struggle without clear guidance. The teacher-student model (TSM) provides clear direction, structured learning, and a hierarchical framework that some students may find reassuring. The peer-learner model (PLM) is beneficial as it combines the strengths of the peer and teacher-student models, offering both guidance and collaboration, however, it requires a high level of skill and adaptability from the supervisor to balance both roles effectively. I recommend more indaba where people can learn and share their experiences and mentorship programs.

Conclusion

The instructional teacher-student model may result in quicker PhD completions but may not produce quality researchers. While peer models can result in quality researchers they may result in slow research, and more time required for PhDs to be completed. In terms of completions, no model seems to outweigh another because instructional models may result in friction, and withdrawals while peer models may result in students feeling less supported or withdrawing. At the end, the model that results in confident not fearful candidates, higher completion rates, high quality researchers and more impactful research should be preferable, supported with a solid agreement between the parties involved. More importantly, having platforms where candidates and supervisors share experiences as peers, such as the indada done at the MSU, will help build better understanding, and reduce fears and struggles associated with doing a PhD.