Authors:
Dr. Liyuan Zhuang (Lecturer in Urban Studies & Social Policy) & Dr. Colin Mack (Lecturer in Quantitative Methods)
From Dialogue to Reflection
Supervising dissertations is a key part of academic teaching, especially for early-career lecturers like us. One of us is British, the other Chinese. We began supervising around the same time in the same division, mainly working with Chinese postgraduate students. This reflection began in June 2024 via monthly hour-long conversations, where we took notes on our shared experiences of postgraduate taught Master’s level supervision. By November, we had identified four main themes (supervisory roles & methods, expectations, feedback, and assessment & professional development), using these to structure a 2,000-3,000-word individual reflection. Their comparison forms the basis of this blog, where we reflect on our shared MSc supervision challenges and what we have learned from reading each other’s reflections.
Shared Challenges
Despite our different styles, we have encountered similar challenges, particularly around communication. While language is often seen as the main barrier, we have found that cultural norms and academic expectations play a greater role (Winchester-Seeto et al., 2014). For example, Chinese students may hesitate to ask questions, challenge feedback, or express uncertainty, behaviours sometimes misread as disengagement, but often reflecting a desire to be respectful.
We have also noticed that many students begin their dissertations with a limited understanding of academic research (Zhang et al., 2024). Some, especially those using quantitative methods, focus heavily on data and data analysis, with less attention to literature, argument, or structure. Since each student receives five meetings, supporting students to grasp these conventions can feel time-pressured and require additional unallocated time.
Liyuan’s Reflections
Colin’s reflection prompted me to reconsider how clearly I set expectations during the supervision process. From the start, he encourages students to take responsibility for scheduling meetings and arriving with an agenda. This addresses the idea that the dissertation is the students’ responsibility, not something managed by the supervisor. While I also value student independence, I have sometimes hesitated to address a lack of preparation directly, worrying it might damage the rapport I have built. His approach reminded me of the importance of setting clear expectations early on. When these are established from the start, students are more likely to develop consistent habits, which makes supervision easier to manage over time.
I also noticed that Colin maintains more formal boundaries, which appear to support efficiency and role clarity. In contrast, my more flexible and approachable style may sometimes unintentionally suggest that rules are open to negotiation. Colin’s reflection made me think more carefully about balancing warmth with structure, ensuring the supportive environment without compromising boundaries. His writing also prompted me to reflect on moments when supervision does not go smoothly. I have similarly worked with a few students who speak very little during meetings, even when I try different ways to encourage conversation. His reflection was the reminder that such challenges are not unusual. When communication feels difficult, it is not necessarily a personal failure, but a cue to adapt our supervision styles to better meet students’ needs. Like Colin, I aways provide detailed written feedback to help students engage with ideas in their own time, especially when verbal interaction feels limited.
Colin’s Reflections
Reflecting on Liyuan’s supervision style, I noticed that she took a more personal approach: she knew most of her supervisees already through teaching and takes time to get to know then in informal settings like cafes, helping to create more open dialogue. My meetings are predominantly online, and my style is more functional than pastoral, though it can be both. Whilst I consider myself supportive and responsible, I see room for improvement in establishing stronger supervisory relationships.
Another thing I learned from Liyuan was a greater appreciation of cultural differences among my predominantly Chinese Masters students. We both give extensive written feedback and found ourselves addressing similar gaps, particularly around literature reviews and methodology. Whilst I saw language as the main barrier, Liyuan pointed out that – even when she explains in Chinese – students still struggle with methodological concepts, as these are often not part of their prior academic training. So even when language is accounted for, cultural differences reveal themselves as epistemological differences: our students have learned to construct academic knowledge in different ways. Whilst this might partly be addressed through a Master’s research design module, it has not necessarily resolved the issue at the supervisory level with our need to give additional support here. I therefore believe greater recognition of cross-cultural differences in supervision and their challenges (Brown, 2007), especially under tight workloads and shorter timelines for UK Master’s dissertations (Pilcher, 2011), is much needed. In the meantime, I aim to develop not just a more personal approach, but one more sensitive to cultural contexts.
Conclusion and Our Project
We both agreed that what mattered most was not reaching a shared model but learning from each other’s experiences and challenges. We hope this encourages others to reflect on their own practices and open up space for more dialogue among colleagues.
This blog is the first output of our project on MSc cross-cultural supervision. Next, we plan to write a theory-informed reflective paper based on our experiences. In a third paper, we hope to include student voices by exploring their perspective through interviews.
References
Brown, L. (2007) ‘A consideration of the challenges involved in supervising international masters students’, Journal of Further and Higher Education, 31(3), pp. 239–248. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/03098770701424967.
Pilcher, N. (2011) ‘The UK postgraduate Masters dissertation: an “elusive chameleon”?’, Teaching in Higher Education, 16(1), pp. 29–40. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2011.530752.
Winchester-Seeto, T., Homewood, J., Thogersen, J., Jacenyik-Trawoger, C., Manathunga, C., Reid, A., & Holbrook, A. (2014). Doctoral supervision in a cross-cultural context: Issues affecting supervisors and candidates. Higher Education Research & Development, 33(3), 610-626.
Zhang, J., Wu, M. & Zhang, G. (2024). The Influence of Supervisor–Postgraduate Relationship on Master’s Students’ Research Learning Engagement—The Mediating Effect of Academic Aspiration. Behavioral Sciences, 14(4), 334.