Interviews with supervisors
Generally, all supervisors (100%) are involved in teaching in the dentist programme. This is in courses during various semesters and levels of the programme. Also, all supervisors (100%) have either been or are currently involved in other responsibilities at KI and externally in addition to their role as teachers and supervisors. These include for instance head of department, research team leader, member of the programme council, and in committees, etc. There were no sex differences concerning teaching, or involvement in other responsibilities.
The requirements for pedagogical education to supervise degree projects is met by all supervisors (100%), with no sex differences. The university credits they hold in higher pedagogical education range from 10 to 30 credits. More specifically, 25% (only men) had 10 ECTS credits, 38% have 11–30 ECTS credits, and 28% have 38 ECT credits. The two latter had an equal sex distribution. All supervisors had a doctoral degree and was specialized in a particular area of expertise.
The supervisors had at least ten years of teaching experience (25% in the entire group of supervisors, 50% men), and as most 40 years of experience (25% in the entire group of supervisors, 50% women). However, 50% of the supervisors had 20–30 years’ experience in teaching, with an equal sex distribution (40% men, 40% women). 63% of the supervisors had supervised over twenty degree projects (63%), while 38% had supervised less than 20 degree projects. There was no sex difference in the distribution of supervised degree projects.
All supervisors (100%) have experience of supervision concerning degree projects on basic level and master level. Eighty-eight percent of the supervisors, with no sex difference, had experience in supervising PhD-theses.
Sixty-three percent of the supervisors were responsible for one-to-two-degree projects annually. One supervisor (13%) was responsible for three-to-four-degree projects annually, while another (13%) was responsible for more than four projects annually. Men are responsible for supervising more degree projects, compared to women.
There was an equal distribution regarding publishing degree projects, with 36.7% hade more than five publications, and 36.7% had more than two, and 36.7% had at least one. However, there were no sex difference to this area of query.
Themes from the interviews with supervisors
The thematical analysis resulted in three themes, that are presented below.
Theme 1 – The approach to supervision
This theme highlights the reasons for choosing a degree project, the approach to supervision, and the challenges that supervisors experience during a degree project.
The supervisors choose a degree project that is realistic and feasible. This means that there are prerequisites to complete the project, especially considering the time frame given for this. Another important factor for the choice of degree project is the scientific relevance, i.e. that it contributes to a knowledge-gap, and to the development of the profession. The supervisors also tend to choose project after interest, and in accordance with their research-line and specialty.
Woman 1: It must be feasible, then. I say this, many times individuals come and have very, very good ideas. Really, but it's not realistic, unfortunately. Because, firstly, we don't have the patient types, secondly, we do not have the financial resources, and thirdly, it takes too long time.
Man 1: So, I make sure that the projects are really feasible, that's the most important thing. It has to be realistic.
Supervision is described as guiding. This means that students receive feedback that motivates them to develop a greater degree of independence. This initially requires a high degree of hands-on and concrete guidance in the practical part of the work of the degree project. It also requires guidance in scientific writing, which includes structure and language. Thus, this guidance is part of a student-centered approach where the student is expected to be a driving force and contribute to the work. This form of supervision is the same regardless of the level of the project (Undergraduate > Master of Science > Doctorate) but is adapted to the student's level of education with increasing demands for independence.
Woman 4: Yes, I think I do [have the same supervision style], and then it is clear that I have higher demands if you [the student] are at a higher level.
Man 3: I have the same supervision style, but the requirements vary depending on the [educational] level of the student.
Man 4: I put a lot of responsibility on the student. It is their work, not my work.
There are, however, a number of challenges in supervision and these relate to the fact that the undergraduate students are time optimists and find it difficult to plan and structure their time for the different parts of the degree project work. This makes it difficult for them to meet deadlines. Also, during the course of the work, the students can lose motivation and interest. This makes the counselling approach of supervision with continuous support, motivation, and encouragement extra important.
Woman 2: I think the biggest challenge was to get them to, sort of, juggle time.
Woman 4: I think that many times it's been about the fact that you [the students] kind of think that you [the students] have to do so much more yourself, so that you [the students] don't come and ask for supervision until they [the students] have about three days left, and, well, I've been in that situation quite a few times, even though I think I've tried really hard to get in touch. I want to see the result when you have written this because it is better that I come in early with my comments if it is going in the wrong direction and then you [the students] do not do it anyway. And then it is not fun, because then I sit there two nights before and have to work like crazy on a degree project that I could have done so much better with, earlier.
Man 1: Sometimes I can re-formulate a paragraph for them, with the track-changes function. In that way I can show how you [the students] should do. Or I can show similar studies that I think are good, encourage you [the students] to look at the discussions, and to see the structure. The hands-on supervision depends on how much I want to challenge the students.
Man 4: I guide as much as I can guide, I help, I support.
Theme 2 – Identified characteristics that contribute to a qualitative degree project
The supervisors described themselves as committed to the degree project work, available and present during the process of the degree project for the students, for instance by replying quickly to student questions. Also, they described themselves as guiding, and clear towards the students, and encouraging. When it came to the actual work with reading and giving feedback on the text of the degree project, the supervisors thought they were structured and organized.
Woman 4: I always have meetings when the students want. I always make myself available and I think that is what a student needs. A supervisor who is present and who really tries to explain it, and that is what I do.
Man 1: For example, when I get a text, I go in and adjust it, but with "track changes"-function, so that you [the students] can see how I change it. I always use the student's text as a starting point, so I do not change the content, just provide guidance on how to write, how to think, and how to organize. Maybe I am a bit picky. Also, that I give feedback quickly so that it does not take too long time, does not stop the process. I also take the time needed when needed [by the students].
The supervisors believed that the students would describe them as accurate, meticulous, motivating, approachable, accessible, structured, and organized. These qualities were in line with how the supervisors described themselves, which implies that they think that students perceive them the same way.
Woman 3: I think you [the students] think that I am strict and fussy, I would say. But I think they also appreciate the accessibility of being able to get hold of me. They [the students] usually say when they are done that, they thank me for responding so quickly and taking so much time. Perhaps I also spend too much time on supervision.
Woman 1: Strict, cheerful, courteous, committed, interested.
Man 2: For me, it is like I want to encourage them to continue. Then I answer [to student queries] quickly. Yes, I do.
A degree project work should, according to supervisors, be feasible, have a good structure and language in accordance with scientific requirements, and an elaborate type of text which also includes students’ argumentation and reasoning. The degree project work should be within the supervisors’ area of interest, and expertise. It should also be interesting from a student perspective to make them motivated and committed in completing the degree project. Students’ commitment is, by supervisors, perceived as a contributing factor for quality in a degree project. Other factors that influence the quality of a degree project are a good structure and design that makes the degree project feasible. In addition, there should be a common thread throughout the degree project text, with a correct scientific language, and in which students can demonstrate their own reasoning skills. Finally, a complete degree project, that is publishable indicates high quality.
Woman 1: Language and structure. This is what characterizes high-quality work.
Woman 3: There are almost the same requirements for a degree project as for an article to be published because the idea of our degree projects is often to make them publishable.
Man 1: The most important factor is the structure of the project from the beginning, its feasibility, the existence of a question that can be answered. A clear language that makes the text easy to read.
Man 4: Good language. And then how the project is done, the structure, the design of the project, so to speak material and method, how it is set up and what statistics have been used so that you can see that it is a project that has been feasible in a good way. […] The degree project is at a level where you [the supervisor] still feel that it gives something to the department that is responsible for the project, but also that it gives something to the students.
Theme 3 – Choices and challenges of a degree project
The supervisors think that supervision of undergraduate students in their degree project is fun, stimulating and contributes to the development of the supervisor as well as the student. When choosing projects to supervise, the supervisors base their decision on whether degree projects are fun, interesting, and are potential publications. This is because publications are an academic merit for both supervisors and students. The latter may use the merit for a plausible future academic career.
Woman 1: I like it [to supervise], and particularly when they [the students] are so enthusiastic as well, and you got somebody who is really, really interested in what they are doing.
Man 1: If the student is keen to have a publication, then I try to challenge them a little more. So that the students get that merit, which is very important for their future.
The choice of students to supervise is made in relation to students shown interest in the subject for the degree project, motivation, but also personal chemistry between the supervisors and the students.
Woman 2: They have to show their motivation. That they are really interested in doing this […]. And then you can see how well you interact as well, and I think that is quite important.
Man 1: The students have to be interested in the subject, and it has usually been the case that they have been able to show that interest for a long time, by coming to ask questions, discussing and making their own suggestions. I think that the student should still make sure that they fit with me as a supervisor. Because that role is just as important as how good the work is or how good the student is, you feel that you can communicate.
However, there are practical issues with supervision. For instance, it is time-demanding, and requires engaged participation from both the supervisor and the student. This emphasizes the degree project as a collaboration between the supervisor, an experienced expert, and the student, which is often but not always a novice within scientific writing. When facing challenges, supervisors give students additional support and encouragement. Supervisors then work even more hands-on, which includes giving the student more time to discuss their degree project work with the supervisor, but also provide suggestions to solutions.
Woman 4: But I think I am very committed to it [supervision], partly because I think the subject is so incredibly fun, and that I think all the ideas that the students come up with are fun to work with. I try to get the students to contact me regularly so I can guide them a little at a time. Then it's not like I sit and do the work, I don't do that, but I really try to get across why you should do this or that and I always have meetings when the students want to, I always make myself available and I think that's what a student needs. So, I am a supervisor who is present and who really tries to explain. I would never abandon a student, never ever. That's why I think I'm a good tutor. Because I have such high demands on myself as well.
Man 3: Then I usually bring them in [to a meeting]. You have to kind of try to encourage them and ask them ok where are you stuck? […] Sometimes they are a bit [lost], they don't know what to do, what to start with and so on, so you try to guide them. Ok, [you encourage them to] start writing, write material and method now, because now you know what you have done. Get it down [in writing], the introduction, it's just, it's just writing, you know what you have, like the reverse... you've already done it on the mid-term report. Just fine-tune it. Just write everything down. It can be kind of messy, it is alright, just get everything down on a piece of paper and then we can start sorting out […] and try to kind of create structure, and then when this is done, we can meet again and discuss.
Student responses to the questionnaire
A total of 45 students (out of 150; 30%) – 35 women and 10 men – voluntarily responded to the questionnaire. Six out of 45 students (13%) responded that they have previous experience of writing a degree project, and of being supervised. This means that most of the students do not have any previous experience, and there were no sex differences between women and men.
The three most important factors for the selection of a degree project concerned specific interest in the subject/topic (38%) of the degree project, the supervisor (34%), and the writing partner (20%). Women tend to value the interest in the subject/topic (32 out of 35; 91%) and the supervisor (30 out of 35; 86%) to a significantly higher degree (p < 0.05) than men do – subject/topic was rated as important by 6 out of 10 (60%), and supervisor by 4 out of 10 (40%).
Students answered that a degree project with high quality is characterized by a good structure (29%), being scientifically sound (19%), and written in accordance with academic requirements of language (19%). In the following excerpt student number 19 (S19) described that high-quality of a degree project is characterized by a: “[w]ell thought-out structure with a common thread and link between intro and discussion, academic and scientific English, clear tables/figures, credible sources, clear conclusion.” There were no sex differences concerning what characterizes a degree project with high quality.
The students emphasize that important qualities of a supervisor are pedagogical skills, supportiveness, and presence during work with the degree project (39%). Also, students value supervisors that have good communication skills and high dedication/engagement (29%), but also that are easily accessible and responds quickly to queries (24%). This was also highlighted in the following excerpt: "I believe that communication between supervisors and students is the most important thing. And that you get support throughout the work when questions arise. Available supervisor for various questions." (S41). There were no sex differences concerning this question.
When choosing a supervisor, the students criteria involve a supervisor with good communication skills, attentiveness, dedication, and engagement (32%). A student described this as “[s]omeone who is passionate about their subject and about learning and understanding us students.” (S4). Also, student criteria include a supervisor with experience in supervision, that is guiding, structured, and supportive (31%). Students also appreciate quick responses to queries and accessibility during work with the degree project (23%). There were no sex differences concerning this area of query.
Students believe that their supervisors would describe them as interested, committed, resourceful, and motivated (26%), but also as ambitious, meticulous, reliable, and efficient (25%). In addition, students believe that supervisors describe them as individuals that seek guidance, feedback, and support (12%). For this question, no sex differences were shown.
Student expectations on supervisors are clear instructions and clear guidance (100%). This was also expressed by a student as follows: "That I get clear feedback to improve the quality of the work. I don't want a supervisor who gives a pass just to be nice, you learn for life.” (S11). Also, students expect that supervisors are present, engaged, accessible, understanding, and supportive (19%). Students also value supervisors who provide quick and thoughtful responses and maintain a good communication (19%). This is reflected in the following student response: "I expect the supervisor to help me with a large and challenging task. Taking their time with feedback and understand that this is the first time for us working on such a substantial project." (S29). There were no sex differences on student expectations on supervisors.
Students point out that critical criteria when choosing a writing partner is that the partner is cooperative, easy to communicate with, and accessible (38%). Also important is that their writing partner has similar ambitions with the degree project, goals, and level of commitment (24%). Finally, they value having a writing partner that is responsible, participative, and willing to work (17%). A student expresses the critical criteria in terms of “[t]hat you have a similar vision, are willing to spend as much time as you do and that it is possible to have an open dialogue and communication.” (S22). When it comes to critical criteria for the selection of a writing partner, there were no sex differences.
Students' expectations on a writing partner include being responsible, participative, have a willingness to work, and being careful of an equal workload (30%). The latter is clearly described by a student: “That the work should be divided roughly equally, to come at set times and that it should be possible to cooperate” (S21). Students also expect a writing partner that is cooperative, easy to communicate with, accessible (27%), in addition to having similar or same ambitions, goals, and level of commitment (26%). For this question-area there were no sex differences.
Table 1
Summary of student responses (45 students – 35 women; 10 men) from a questionnaire on factors associated with the degree project in odontology (30 ECTS - advanced level) presented in number of respondents (n=) and percentage of responses (%).
Question | All n= (%) | Women n= (%) | Men n= (%) |
Previous experience of being supervised, i.e. writing a degree project in other higher education |
Have previous experience | 6 (13) | 4 (11) | 2 (20) |
Three most important factors for selection of degree project |
Interesting subject/topic | 38 (84) | 32 (91) | 6 (60) |
Supervisor | 34 (76) | 30 (86) | 4 (40) |
Meritorious purposes | 13 (29) | 8 (23) | 5 (50) |
Writing partner | 20 (44) | 16 (46) | 4 (40) |
Publication possibility | 12 (27) | 8 (23) | 4 (40) |
In-depth study of subject/topic | 9 (20) | 5 (14) | 4 (40) |
Goes fast | 7 (16) | 4 (11) | 3 (30) |
Other – contribute to future professional knowledge | 1 (2) | 1 (3) | 0 (0) |
What characterizes a degree project of high quality |
Good structure | 29 (64) | 23 (66) | 6 (60) |
Scientifically sound/grounded | 19 (42) | 16 (46) | 3 (30) |
Proper academic/scientific language | 19 (42) | 15 (43) | 4 (40) |
Interesting and well-defined subject/topic | 18 (40) | 13 (37) | 5 (50) |
Other – good supervision | 2 (4) | 2 (6) | 0 (0) |
What qualities of a supervisor are important |
Pedagogical, supportive, present | 39 (87) | 30 (86) | 9 (90) |
Good communicative skills, dedicated/engaged | 29 (64) | 23 (66) | 6 (60) |
Quick responses to queries, accessible | 24 (53) | 19 (54) | 5 (50) |
Experienced in supervision, experienced researcher | 10 (22) | 6 (17) | 4 (40) |
What criteria are important when choosing a supervisor |
Good communicative skills, attentive, dedicated/engaged | 32 (71) | 26 (74) | 6 (60) |
Experienced in supervision, guiding, structured, supportive | 31 (69) | 26 (74) | 5 (50) |
Quick responses to queries, accessible | 23 (51) | 19 (54) | 4 (40) |
Experienced researcher, subject/topic expert | 18 (40) | 15 (43) | 3 (30) |
How students believe their supervisors would describe them |
Inquisitive, committed, resourceful, motivated | 26 (58) | 23 (66) | 3 (30) |
Ambitious, meticulous, reliable, efficient | 25 (56) | 19 (54) | 6 (60) |
Seeking for guidance, feedback, and support | 12 (27) | 11 (31) | 1 (10) |
Independent, self-reliant | 8 (18) | 4 (11) | 4 (40) |
Other – nice/friendly, time-optimist, mediocre | 6 (13) | 3 (9) | 3 (30) |
Expectations on supervisor |
Clear instructions and clear guidance | 45 (100) | 35 (100) | 10 (100) |
Present, engaged, accessible, understanding, supportive | 19 (42) | 15 (54) | 4 (40) |
Quick and thoughtful responses, good communication | 19 (42) | 17 (49) | 2 (20) |
Subject/topic expert sharing their knowledge | 6 (13) | 5 (14) | 1 (10) |
What criteria are important when choosing a writing partner |
Cooperative, easy to communicate with, accessible | 38 (84) | 28 (80) | 9 (90) |
Similar/same ambition, goals, and level | 24 (53) | 19 (54) | 5 (50) |
Responsible, participative, willingness to work | 17 (38) | 13 (37) | 4 (40) |
Expectations on writing partner |
Responsible, participative, willingness to work, equal workload | 30 (67) | 23 (66) | 7 (70) |
Cooperative, easy to communicate with, accessible | 27 (60) | 21 (60) | 6 (60) |
Similar/same ambition, goals, and level | 26 (58) | 19 (54) | 6 (60) |
ECTS = European credit transfer system |
Bold text indicates significant difference between sexes (Mann-Whitney U-test; p < 0.05)