CONFERENCEProf. Zanda Rubene, Director of the Doctoral School of University of Latvia
How and What Do PhD Supervisors Learn? International Experience and Insights from Latvia
Doctoral supervision is becoming an increasingly important element of higher education quality, leading to growing interest in how PhD supervisors are prepared and supported in their professional development. A study by the European University Association (2025) shows that approximately 60% of universities offer dedicated training programs for PhD supervisors, most often focusing on early-career supervisors. These programs encompass various supervision models, including the academic expertise approach, pedagogical leadership, mentoring and support, research process management, and professional doctoral supervision.
The presentation analyses training models for PhD supervisors in universities across Europe, the United States, and Canada, with particular attention to approaches used to develop supervisors’ competencies. Comparative analysis helps identify key trends and examples of good practice that contribute to the quality of doctoral education and support the professional development of supervisors.
In addition to the international perspective, the presentation provides insights from a pilot study on supervisors’ competencies and academic culture at the University of Latvia. The study highlights current needs, challenges, and potential directions for improving doctoral supervision within the Latvian academic environment. The aim of the presentation is to foster discussion on effective approaches to the preparation and professional development of PhD supervisors, thereby strengthening the quality of doctoral education.
Presentation
Dr. Inta Jaunzeme, Deputy Director of the Doctoral School of University of Latvia
Development of doctoral studies in Europe and Latvia: challenges and solutions in strengthening the competencies of PhD supervisors
The development of doctoral studies in Europe and Latvia is shaped by rapid systemic changes, including new funding models, international cooperation, open science, artificial intelligence and stronger industry involvement. In Europe, doctoral education sits between the European Higher Education Area (EHEA) and the European Research Area (ERA) and is guided by the ESG 2015 quality assurance framework and the Salzburg Recommendations (2005/2010). Doctoral studies are based on original research; universities should take institutional responsibility for programme design, doctoral candidates should be recognised as early-stage researchers, and programmes should respond to both academic and labour-market needs.
Key trends and standards include structured doctoral programmes and doctoral schools, transparent and accountable governance, and a strong focus on research integrity and open science (e.g., clear authorship practices and data sharing where feasible). Programmes increasingly emphasise career development and transferable skills such as project management, scientific communication, pedagogy and entrepreneurship. Well-being, inclusion and a safe environment are also central, with targeted support for international doctoral candidates. Structured programmes aim to define learning outcomes, provide support mechanisms and monitor progress. Salzburg II highlights a 3–4 year full-time model supported by adequate, sustainable funding, mobility opportunities and clear quality criteria for both the research process and results.
Latvia is preparing a major regulatory reform, with a new doctoral model planned for full implementation from 1 January 2027. The reform will address funding, a continuous path to the degree, doctoral candidate employment, and requirements for supervisors and promotion boards. Current challenges include uneven internship quality, supervisor workload and motivation, and barriers such as limited time, funding, workload and mobility. Proposed solutions focus on doctoral schools, regular performance evaluation and strengthening leadership competencies, including mentoring, integrity, project and risk management, communication, conflict mediation, administration, career support and inclusive learning environments.
Presentation
- Prof. Tomasz Jewartowski, Prof. Katarzyna Szarzec, Poznań University of Economics and Business
Doctoral Supervision in Poland: Regulations, Good Practices, and Challenges
Doctoral schools replaced faculty’s doctoral programs in 2019 as part of the reform of higher education in Poland. The new framework changed, among many other things, the nature of the relationship between doctoral students and supervisors.
The key determinant of success in submitting a doctoral dissertation remains the same: strong collaboration between the PhD student and the supervisor. Therefore, new control mechanisms have been introduced. PhD students must report their progress to the doctoral school authorities on a semester or annual basis, depending on the university. They also undergo a mandatory mid-term assessment (in the end of the 2nd year of education). Many Polish doctoral schools have introduced a type of a contract between the PhD student and the supervisor that specifies the obligations of both sides. In others, both parties are asked to accept a code of good practices that specifies principles and rules governing their cooperation.
As a result, PhD students have become less dependent on supervisors, their status is now clearly defined, and their obligations and commitments have been standardized to some extent. It is now easier for PhD students to change a supervisor when necessary, the doctoral school authorities typically help resolve conflicts between both parties. Doctoral schools also conduct regular checks to respond as quickly as possible in case any issues arise. Doctoral students are asked to report the frequency and intensity of their contacts with supervisors. Still, several challenges remain:
how to organize additional trainings for supervisors (both new and experienced)?
how to assess a quality of supervisors’ work?
how to encourage doctoral students to express their concerns openly (as many are afraid of potential negative consequences)?
who should be involved in more formal and informal procedures for resolving conflicts between PhD students and supervisors?P
Dr. Alena Kašpárková, VSB-Technical University of Ostrava
Development Programme for Supervisors at VSB-TUO
Despite the long-lasting pressures to reform the doctoral studies in the Czech Republic, Czech universities had to wait for the new Higher Education Act till spring 2025. Some of the changes related to the reform have been the establishment of doctoral schools and new standards for supervisors. At VSB-Technical University in Ostrava, we established the so-called PhD Academy back in 2021. However, we felt the support for supervisors was missing. To amend this, we ran a survey among supervisors, and designed and launched two different development programmes for doctoral student supervisors focusing separately on the aspiring and current doctoral student supervisors to start manifesting that self-development was a norm. However, it is difficult to run two separate programmes and recruit enough candidates. Building on the learnt experience, this year we are revising the programmes to offer one-year-long development programme for both aspiring and current supervisors in autumn 2026. The new programme will combine a 2-day intensive training to start the programme, regular shorter workshops to focus on specific topic in bigger detail, and mastermind group format to offer safe space to discuss challenges and case studies. On top of those, the programme will offer participants individual coaching sessions.
Supporting Writing for Publication in Czechia
In the Czech Republic, the former Higher Education Act stipulated that doctoral students had to publish their research outputs before their dissertation defence. Although the act did not specify this requirement further, and for many years conference papers sufficed, more recently this may have meant students were expected to publish several impact-factor papers during their studies. To support often-struggling doctoral students in their writing, on top of the support provided by their supervisors, at VSB-Technical University of Ostrava, we joined forces with the Czech Academy of Sciences and offered structured academic writing/ writing for publication courses for doctoral students. Moreover, to spread this methodology, we designed training for academic writing teachers and doctoral student supervisors in cooperation with Dr. Dana Driscoll from Indiana University of Pennsylvania. This was a unique, two-semester, blended-learning training that included mentored teaching practice. The training aimed to support participants from different universities, and we trained a number of both Czech and international colleagues. Overall, the interest in course was low, and the completion rates were gradually falling often due to the work overload on the part of the doctoral student supervisors.
Presentation
- Dr. Damien Faivre, University of Latvia
A personal view on supervision
I studied in France, Canada, USA and Germany, with advisors from USA, France, Italy, and Germany. I supervised numerous master (19) and doctoral (20) students, as well as post-doctoral (24) researchers from all continents except Oceania while working in Germany, France, and now Latvia. These students graduated in fields varying from chemistry, physics, biology to materials science.
In this talk, I will present my personal view of how I transitioned from an experimental scientist, mostly working in the lab, to a group leader, designing research and mentoring others. I will explain my way of interacting with students and my expectations, as well as how I feel this is understood by others with different geographic and personal backgrounds. I will also depict how I developed a scheme to propose interdisciplinary research themes. Finally, I will also point towards differences encountered with how doctoral supervisation has evolved due to the Bologna process and the Salzburg principles, as well as how graduate schools are organized in the different countries and institutions I worked in and how this impacts supervision and students’ projects.
Presentation