The PhD Supervisory Relationship Gap in the Accounting Discipline: A Study in a Malaysian Public University

Erlane K Ghani, Jamaliah Said


This study examines the nature and quality of supervisory relationship of the PhD supervisors and PhD supervisees based on questionnaire survey on 100 PhD supervisors and PhD supervisees. The results show that PhD supervisee group tend to agree that having common research interest and professional reputation of the supervisors as an important factor whereas the PhD supervisors perceived the PhD supervisees’ past research and work experience as a major influence in choosing their supervisee. The results also show that there is a significant different in supervisory selection criteria between PhD supervisors and supervisees in terms of common research interest and PhD supervisee’s/supervisor’s work habit and personality. A key finding in this study is that the selection criteria of supervisory relationship characteristics vary between the PhD supervisors and supervisees. Therefore, it is recommended that PhD supervisees need to be aware of the supervisory selection criteria of their potential supervisors in order to be accepted by the later party. PhD supervisees also need to be aware of the supervisory relationship characteristics expected by their PhD supervisors need order to complete their study successfully.

Full Text:



Acker, S., Hill, T., & Black, E. (1994) Thesis supervision in the social science: managed or negotiated? Higher Education, 28, 483-498.

Armstrong, D. (2004). Emotions in organisations. In C. Huffington, D.

Bernard, J. M., & Goodyear, R. K. (1992). Fundamentals of clinical supervision. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Connell, R. W. (1985). How to supervise a PhD. Vestes, 28(2), 38-42.

Cornwall, M. G., Schmithals, F., & Jaques, D. (1977). What is project orientation?: An overview. Proceedings of the Seminar on Project Orientation in Higher Education (pp. 1-16). University of Bremen, March 1976, University of London, Institute of Education.

Delamont, S., Atkinson, P., & Parry, O. (1997). Critical mass and doctoral research: Reflections on the Harris Report. Studies in Higher Education, 22(3), 319-31.

Dinham, S., & Scott, C. (1999). The doctorate: Talking about the degree. University of Western Sydney: Nepean.

Drysdale, M. T. (2001). The quality and nature of supervisory relationship in graduate education: Student and supervisor perceptions. PhD thesis, The University of Calgary.

Dye, H. A. (1987). ACES attitudes: Supervisor competencies and a national certification program. ERIC/CAPS Resources in Education. Document No. ED 283098.

Dye, A. (1994). The supervisory relationship. ERIC Digest, 11.

Eggleston, J., & Delamont, S. (1983). Supervision of students for research degrees. Birmingham, AL: BERA.

Freeman, S. C. (1992). C. H. Patterson on client-centered supervision: An interview. Counselor Education and Supervision, 31, 219-226.

Graham, A., & Grant, B. (1997). Managing more postgraduate research students. Oxford, Oxford Centre for Staff Development.

Grant, B. (1999). Walking on a rackety bridge: mapping supervision. In Higher Education Research and Development Society of Australasia.

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.

Hockey, J. (1991). The social science PhD-A literature review. Studies in Higher Education, 16(3), 319-332.

Johnston, T. (1999). Research supervision- setting the scene. In A. Holbrook & S. Johnston (Eds), Supervision of Postgraduate Research in Education. Review of Australian Research in Education, 5, 17-31.

Kam, B. H. (1997). Style and quality in research supervision. Higher Education, 34(1), 81-103.

Laske, S., & Zuber-Skerritt, O. (1996). Frameworks for postgraduate research and supervision. Lismore: Southern Cross University Press

McMorland, J., Carroll, S., & Pringle, J. (2003). Enhancing the practice of PhD through first and second person action research/ peer partnership inquiry. Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 4(2), 37.

Moses, I. (1984). Supervision of higher degree students—problem areas and possible solutions. Higher Education Research and Development, 3(2), 153-165.

Pearson, M., & Brew, A. (2002). Research Training and Supervision Development. Studies in Higher Education, 27(2), 135-150.

Pearson, M., & Kayrooz, C. (2004). Enabling critical reflection on research supervisory practice. International Journal for Academic Development, 9(1), 99.

Ray, S. (2007). Selecting a doctoral dissertation supervisor: analytical hierarchy approach to the multiple criteria problem. International Journal of Doctoral Studies, 2, 23-32.

Ronnestad, M. H., & Skovholt, T. M. (1993). Supervision of beginning and advanced graduate supervisees of counseling and psychotherapy. Journal of Counseling and Development, 71, 396-405.

Sharp, J. A., & Howard, K. (1996). The Management of a Student Project (2nd ed.). Gower: Publishing, Aldershot, England.

Smeby, J. (2000). Same-gender relationships in graduate supervision. Higher Education, 40, 53-67.

Wisker, G., & Sutcliffe, N. (1999). Good practice in postgraduate supervision. Birmingham: SEDA.

Wright, J., & Lodwick, R. (1989). The process of the PhD: A study of the first year of doctoral study. Research Papers in Education, 4, 22-56.

Young, K., Forgarty, M. P., & McRea, S. (1987). The management of doctoral studies in the social sciences. London, England: PSI.



  • There are currently no refbacks.


To make sure that you can receive messages from us, please add the '' domain to your e-mail 'safe list'. If you do not receive e-mail in your 'inbox', check your 'bulk mail' or 'junk mail' folders.

Copyright © Macrothink Institute   ISSN 2327-5499