{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.019034670292318152, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0013596193065941536, 'mean_word_length': 5.752293577981652, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Content and context in knowledge production: a critical review of doctoral supervision literature

With the massification of higher degrees, the efficiency gaze has fixed on students and supervisors, or on their relationship, as the ‘problem’ to be managed, in need of administrative regulation, skill improvement or perhaps emotional management. This critical review of a selection of higher education journal articles on doctoral supervision published in the past 20 years within the UK, Australia, Sweden and the Netherlands aims to summarise what we have learnt about ‘the problem of supervision’ to date, and to suggest possible ways forward in light of this within the changing doctoral education climate. The review observes four distinct conceptual frames that prescribe how research education is thought in these contexts, each taking in a specific understanding of what constitutes ‘good supervision’, with implicit relations drawn between academics, doctoral candidates, academic developers and government. The review highlights the importance of the challenge mounted to the conception of supervisors as distant masters with sole responsibility for research outcomes. At the same time, the article argues that a de-contextualised, psychological lens dominates educational thought about research education and innovation, pointing to the need for a greater emphasis on content and context learning within future research and practice around doctoral education.