The supervision of professional doctorates in two universities: Experiences of the processes and ways forward

The scarcity of literature aimed at management of doctoral research supervision (Gatfield, 2005), begs a number of questions around how do supervisors gain, develop and share knowledge of the appropriate tools to facilitate the doctorate as a successful and smooth process. Whilst this assumption is true for PhD supervisors, it applies even more to the evolving art of professional doctorate supervision. This is further complicated by the majority of current supervisors in most HEIs having experienced, both as student and supervisor, doctoral research in the ‘traditional’ PhD format. The current policy demands of research training that is in line with employer demands were identified in the Roberts review (2002) and have been strongly emphasised in later governmental reports and reviews (Leitch Review, 2006; Warry Report, 2006; Sainsbury Review, 2007). The position of the professional doctorate as doctoral training that is strongly located within the professional area means that it is ideally suited to address these policy issues. Indeed within more recent policy initiatives there is a further development on the theme of applying research to practice in that the agenda not only includes translational research, but also transformational research (RCUK, 2008).