Abstract:

In recent years, Australian universities have significantly revised and improved their approach to research supervision by implementing formal training programs for supervisors. This shift aligns with governmental policy changes, social dynamics, and educational paradigms, particularly concerning funding formulas. Conversely, while well-established doctoral supervision training courses exist in Australia, such courses are only occasionally offered in Spain. Nevertheless, some Spanish universities are beginning to introduce them more systematically, although their implementation is not yet helped by regulatory mandates. This study examines the differences between these doctoral supervisory training traditions, investigating institutional practices and regulatory frameworks.

The difference in adopting doctoral supervision training courses between Spain and Australia poses challenges for ensuring consistent quality in supervisory practices. Understanding the institutional and regulatory factors that drive these differences is crucial for optimizing the effectiveness of the training provided to thesis supervisors and for enhancing doctoral supervision outcomes.

This comparative study explores the traditions of research supervision training courses in Spain and Australia. By examining the existence, content, and institutional support of these courses, the research aims to identify critical differences, challenges, and opportunities for enhancing supervision training practices. A case study mixed-methods approach is used, including document analysis and interviews with stakeholders from a university in Spain and one in Australia. The study employs methods to gather data on the structure, content, and institutional support of doctoral supervision training courses and to understand the underlying factors influencing these practices.

The results reveal significant disparities. The Australian university exhibits widespread adoption and formalization of training programs, while the Spanish university presents a more varied scenario with a need for more standardization and regulatory guidance and support. Institutional culture and government mandates are among the key influencing factors. The findings provide practical insights for policymakers, educational institutions, and doctoral supervisors in both countries. By understanding the strengths and weaknesses of existing training traditions, stakeholders can develop tailored interventions to address training needs, promote best practices, and enhance the quality of doctoral supervision.

The comparative analysis enhances our theoretical understanding by clarifying the institutional and regulatory factors that shape training practices for doctoral supervision. The research enriches theoretical frameworks related to doctoral supervision, educational leadership, and institutional governance in higher education contexts.

Keywords:

Research supervision, doctoral supervision, regulatory frameworks, institutional practices, Doctoral policy.