You have various approaches to choose from in order to train supervisors. CARTA offers this particular curriculum because it has been well received by participants ranging from senior, experienced supervisors to new supervisors.

Doctoral training is crucial to fast-track the development of Africa, and so CARTA made it a priority (Mothiba et al., 2019). Anywhere in the world, effective and efficient supervision plays an important role in the experience and outcomes of doctoral research. Appropriate supervision ensures that candidates receive the guidance that will establish them as career researchers who are, in turn, equipped to train the next generation.

Supervisors play multiple roles, such as guiding doctoral students to:

• Identify feasible research topics.
• Formulate appropriate questions.
• Develop feasible study protocols.
• Analyse and write up their research.
• Complete their projects on time.

Supervisors provide oversight of the entire research process. High-quality supervision is essential for the timely completion of high-quality doctoral research projects and then for launching candidates into academia, or research institutes, public or private (Kiley, 2011).

Supervision is a team venture; effective collaboration between multiple supervisors is essential. Styles of supervision have changed over time, from the apprentice model – which implied one-on-one supervision – to team supervision, especially as multidisciplinary studies become more common. These require the support of supervisors from diverse specialities and disciplinary working cultures. Collaboration of this kind facilitates peer-to-peer learning between supervisors. Many institutions team less experienced supervisors together with more experienced colleagues as a way to maximise institutional memory.

Training of supervisors for doctoral candidates has been inadequate in many institutions. Qualification requirements for supervisors are inconsistent. Many supervisors of PhD candidates learnt the process of supervision on the job, but this is often not enough to guarantee quality. Formal and professional development education, and dedicated peer-to-peer learning experiences are essential for academics to achieve their full potential as PhD supervisors. CARTA recommends that such experiences be repeated throughout one’s academic career to maintain the quality of supervision.

This curriculum is based on experience from the first ten years of the CARTA program, including a comprehensive one-week workshop for the PhD supervisors. (Manderson et al 2017, Igumbor et al 2021).

By the end of the workshop or series of sessions, PhD supervisors can:

• Apply best practices in the recruitment and selection of PhD candidates.
• Prioritise measures to ensure scientific integrity in their supervisees’ work.
• Apply the most appropriate PhD supervision approach with their supervisees.
• Appreciate the role of academic institutions in the supervision process.
• Critically examine the practical logistics of PhD supervision.
• Create a nurturing relationship with their supervisees.

The CARTA approach is problem-posing and participatory, acknowledging the skills, and experience that people bring into the workshop. Each session presents situations and poses problems. Participants work with each other and with inputs from the facilitator to find solutions. Problem-posing education bases itself on creativity and stimulates true reflection along with action on reality (Freire, 2020). It is different from the transfer or transmission of knowledge or facts to the passive learner, where the trainer is seen as possessing all essential information, and trainees as ‘empty vessels’ needing to be filled with knowledge.

The choice of participatory method is deliberate: there is a coherence between values and the approach to sharing them. From the beginning, this curriculum recognizes all participants as thinking, creative people with the capacity for action. Each person is a contributor, bringing different perceptions based on their own experiences. This requires that you, as facilitator, make a conscious effort to use participatory methods to enable participants to grow in awareness.

Watch this video for more insight into CARTA’s approach.

Some people assume that facilitating a workshop will be an easy process, until they try doing it. The participatory method means that you and your co-facilitators guide the workshop while appreciating that the participants are in charge. Your responsibility is to create an enabling environment that allows participants to learn from each other, come to an understanding, and pool their collective wisdom in resolving issues.

A good co-facilitator works as an ally to help you ensure that meetings, seminars, planning sessions and workshops, deliver the intended and desired outcomes. It is very difficult to facilitate a meeting yourself, when you also want to participate in it as an equal. But not all facilitators are alike. Identify co-facilitators who have the personality and aptitude to understand the goals, objectives, and expected outcomes of this curriculum. CARTA recommends you look for co-facilitators with these attributes.

As you work through the curriculum ahead of the workshop, check that participants will be able to access the references for all sessions. Some sources may require payment, an email request to authors, institutional log in or a portal such as Hinari.

Identify and engage co-facilitators and other contributors for the workshop. Advise your co-facilitators to read and re-read the curriculum until they feel comfortable and confident that they know what is expected for all the workshop sessions. Meet as a facilitation team as often as needed to ensure that all are on the same page.

For the workshop venue, identify a location that allows participants to move around easily, for example for role-play. Make sure there are enough break-away rooms for small-group activities, and adequate wall space for poster tours and other elements of the workshop methodology.

Two weeks before the workshop, send detailed information to participants on workshop logistics, the participatory workshop method, what is expected of them as participants and the reading lists.

Prepare and link to an online pre-workshop survey to draw out the participants’ profiles. Ask:

• What are your expectations of this workshop?
• What are you willing to contribute to ensure a successful workshop?

You can then analyse the information and adapt the workshop program, as much as possible, to accommodate the needs that participants express.

• Fonn, S., Ayiro, L. P., Cotton, P., Habib, A., Mbithi, P. M. F., Mtenje, A., & Ezeh, A. (2018). Repositioning Africa in global knowledge production. The Lancet, 392(10153), 1163–1166.
• Igumbor, J. O., et al: (2022). Effective supervision of doctoral students in public and population health in Africa: CARTA supervisors’ experiences, challenges and perceived opportunities, Global Public Health, 17:4, 496-511.
• Kiley, M. (2011). Developments in research supervisor training: Causes and responses. Studies in Higher Education, 36(5), 585–599.
• Manderson, L., et al (2017). Enhancing Doctoral Supervision Practices in Africa: Reflection on the CARTA Approach. Council for the Development of Social Science Research in Africa, 2018 (ISSN 0851–7762).
• Mothiba, T. M., Maputle, M. S., & Goon, D. T. (2019). Understanding the practices and experiences of supervising nursing doctoral students: A qualitative survey of Two South African universities. Global Journal of Health Science, 11(6), 123–131.
• Olubosoye, O. E. and Olusoji, O. (2013/2014). Determinants of PhD completion time at the University of Ibadan. CESDAVE/ African Journal of Sustainable Development, Vol. 4 No. 2.
• Tettey, W. J. (2010). Challenges of developing and retaining the next generation of academics: deficits in academic staff capacity at African universities. Partnership for Higher Education in Africa Paper.
• Wamala, R. Ocaya, B. and Oonyu, J. C. (2012). Extended candidature and non-completion of a PhD at Makerere University, Uganda. Contemporary Issues in Education Research 5 (3): 175-183.

Discuss the desired outcomes of the workshop, reflecting on why individuals choose to train for a PhD, and how academia and society benefit. Participants compare the conditions and support for supervision in their institutions, building group rapport.

Outcomes
By the end of the session, supervisors can:

• Relate the requirements for a PhD to the candidate’s responsibilities, work, and potential career path.
• Describe the potential impact of a PhD on academic institutions, industry, and society.
• Characterise the role and responsibilities of the supervisor in the training and development of a PhD graduate as an independent researcher and leader.

Preparation
As the facilitator
At least one week before the workshop, ask participants: How did you prepare for a career or role as a PhD supervisor? Ask them read these resources in light of their own institution and experience.

• Ali, F., Shet, A., Yan, W., Atkins, S., and Lucas. H. and for the ARCADE consortium (2017). Doctoral Research and Training Capacity in the Social Determinants of Health at Universities and Higher Education Institutions in India, China, Oman and Vietnam: A Survey of Needs. Health Research Policy and Systems. 15:76-87
• Loxley, A., and Kearns, M. (2018). Finding a purpose for the doctorate? A view from the supervisors. Studies in Higher Education. 43:826-840.
• Igumbor, J., Bosire, E. N., Katahoire. A., Allison, J., Muula, A. S., Peixoto, A., Otwombe, K., Bondjers, G., Fonn, S., and Ajuwon, A., Effective supervision of doctoral students in public and population health in Africa: CARTA supervisors’ experiences, challenges and perceived opportunities. Global Public Health, 1-16.
• Wichmann-Hansen, G., Wogensen, Bach. L., Eika, B., Mulvany, M. J., Successful PhD Supervision: A Two-Way Process, Chapter 5, The Researching, Teaching, and Learning Triangle, DOI 10.1007/978-1-4614-0568-9_5.

Steps

Supervisors share experiences of the recruitment process in their different institutions, in order to identify best practices for the recruitment and retention of PhD candidates and their successful completion. Participants map out common pitfalls and pool their combined experience to brainstorm practical solutions.

Outcomes
By the end of this session, supervisors can:

• Compare the processes involved in recruiting and selecting PhD students in different universities.
• Appreciate how these processes – and the way they are managed – affect the progress, retention, attrition, and future success of PhD candidates, depending on how they are managed.
• Discuss the effects of candidate recruitment and selection, on the supervision process and journey.
• Identify best practices in recruitment, training, and retention of candidates, and in ensuring the successful completion of PhD training.
• Discuss common pitfalls in recruitment process and map out practical solutions.

Preparation
Design a PowerPoint presentation (maximum of five slides) to introduce the session (Step 1).
Consult these resources to enrich your presentation and share them with participants.

• • Wichmann-Hansen, G., Wogensen, L; Eika, B., Mulvany, M. (2012) Successful PhD Supervision: A Two-Way Process in The Researching, Teaching, and Learning Triangle, 55–64.
  • Leijen, A., Lepp, L., Remmik, M. (2015) Why did I drop out? Former students’ recollections about their study process and factors related to leaving the doctoral studies in Continuing Education 38: 129-144.
  • Groenvynck, H., Vandevelde, K., Van Rossem, R. (2013) The PhD track: Who succeeds, who drops out? Research Evaluation 22: 199-209.

Steps

Supervisors focus on their need to guide their supervisee when it comes to ethics. Any accusation of misconduct such as plagiarism, fabrication, or falsification will reflect on the supervisor as well as the student and the institution. Solidarity is important between researchers, supervisors and supervisees,““““ and co-authors in ensuring the integrity of research.

Outcomes
By the end of this session, supervisors can:

• Appreciate international standards and regulations for research integrity.
• Understand their own role, as an individual or as a member of a supervisory team, in applying these rules in PhD training.
• Compare practical procedures for ensuring research integrity in various institutions.
• Appreciate the concept of academic citizenship in relation to supervisory integrity.

Preparation
Ask supervisors to watch or read the resource materials and come ready to discuss the issues they raise.

• “Plagiarism scandal engulfs high-profile academic in Latvia” and other articles on RetractionWatch
• World Health Organization (2017). Code of Ethics and Professional Conduct (abridged)
• Löfström E and Pyhältö K (2017). Ethics in the supervisory relationship: supervisors´and doctoral students´ dilemmas in the natural and behavioural sciences. Studies in Higher Education. (42) 232-247
• Denisova-Schmidt E. (2018). Corruption, the Lack of Academic Integrity and Other Ethical Issues in Higher Education: What Can Be Done within the Bologna Process? IN: Curaj A., Deca L., Pricopie R. (eds) European Higher Education Area: The Impact of Past and Future Policies, Springer, Cham.
• Clynes, M., Corbett, A., Overbaugh, J. (2019). J. Why we need good mentoring. Nature Reviews Cancer. 19:489-493.

Prepare three slides to introduce the concepts of scientific integrity and academic citizenship and to give examples of misconduct.

Steps

Supervisors describe and discuss the practical organization of supervision in different institutions and disciplines.

Outcomes
By the end of this session, supervisors can:

• Critically review the supervisory process as it is organised in their own institutions.
• Appreciate the interactive roles and responsibilities of the candidate and the supervisor in different phases of the PhD training process.
• Consider other support for supervision in their own institutions.
• Understand different perspectives on the purpose of the PhD.
• Debate the use of milestones and progress reports during supervision.
• Compare international differences and common trends in supervision processes and training for supervisors.

Preparation
Summarise the steps in the supervision process in three or four slides (Step 1).

For participants
Read these resources before the session:

• Anonymous Academic. (2015). Bad PhD supervisors can ruin research. So why aren’t they accountable? The Guardian.
• Ronnie Gunnarson. (2014). Supervision (of PhD students). In Science Network TV.
• Roach, A., Christensen B. K., Rieger, E. (2019). The essential ingredients of research supervision: A discrete-choice experiment. J. Educ. Psychology 111:1243-1260.
• Barnett, J. V., R. A. Harris., M. J., Mulvany (2017). A comparison of best practices for doctoral training in Europe and North America. FEBS Open Bio. 7: 1444-1452.

Reflect on the question “How are supervisors prepared for their task in your institution?” and prepare notes and/or a PowerPoint slide for the session.

Prepare three PowerPoint slides to introduce the concepts of scientific integrity and academic citizenship and to give examples of misconduct.

Steps

• What does society expect from universities?
• And what do we expect from university systems in terms of PhD training to meet society’s expectations?

Supervisors discuss the role of the university in society, particularly in relation to the supervisor’s responsibilities. They consider the concept of academic citizenship and the role of the academic system, in reaching international agreements, such as the Sustainable Development Goals, and in equipping society with knowledge and competence for democratic development, both historically and beyond 2030. Academic freedom and critical thinking – important throughout the world – provide a common framework for research and higher education.

Outcomes
By the end of this session, supervisors can:

• Identify the responsibilities (aside from producing a thesis) of the supervisor, the mentor, and the university in the training of a doctoral candidate.
• Appreciate the role of the supervisor in supporting the development of the next generation of academic leaders.
• Understand the role of PhD training in the attainment of the Sustainable Development Goals.
• Compare the oversight mechanisms in place at various universities to ensure that both the PhD candidate and the supervisors fulfil their roles and responsibilities.

Preparation
Develop three to five PowerPoint slides to outline the role of universities in the development of academic citizens and in achieving the Sustainable Development Goals (Step 1).

For participants
Read these resources before the session:

• Tara Brabazon. (2013). 10 truths a PhD supervisor will never tell you. Times Higher Education supplement.
• Anna Peixoto. (2014). De mest lämpade. [Thesis in Swedish but with an extensive summary in English of the Bourdiean analysis of the academic field].
• Lee, Ann. (2007). How are doctoral students supervised? Concepts of doctoral research supervision. Studies in Higher Education 33: 267-281.

Reflect on the career support for PhD candidates in their institutions and how this affects doctoral training.

Steps

The supervision process is enriched when the supervisor and the supervisee both understand their roles clearly and play them appropriately. CARTA uses a contract between supervisors and supervisees to clarify mutual expectations, and this session uses that contract as a learning tool. Workshop participants and their universities may want to adopt elements for their own institutional policies and procedures.

The CARTA contract:

• Covers the expected roles and responsibilities of both supervisors and supervisees throughout the entire supervision process.
• Supplements the obligations of the candidate and supervisor(s) to their university and to any funding agency.
• Summarizes typical terms and conditions of a PhD.
• Includes best practices gleaned from across the academic community.

Outcomes
By the end of this session, supervisors can:

• Appreciate the value of a PhD supervision contract/agreement.
• Consider the CARTA supervision contract as a possible model.
• Discuss the role of a contract in the supervisory process.
• Consider the legal and other implications of the contract.
• Discuss the possibility of adopting a contract or agreement in institutions where this is not practised.

Preparation
Develop three to five PowerPoint slides to introduce the idea and component elements of a contract in doctoral supervision (Step 1).

For participants
Read these resources:

• Norwegian University of Science and Technology (2020). PhD Handbook. Quality in PhD Education.
• Shin, J. C., Kim, S. J., Kim, E., Lim, H., (2018). Doctoral students ‘satisfaction in a research-focused Korean university: socio-environmental and motivational factors. Asia Pacific Education Review 19:159-168.
• CARTA Contract of supervision and academic obligations.

Steps

Doctoral training can be arduous. Many candidates enrol for doctoral training but only a few successfully complete it. Institutions appoint supervisors to guide and support doctoral candidates throughout the training, some offering a single supervisor, others joint supervision. Doctoral candidates also learn from their peers. This session describes:

• The different formats of supervision.
• The challenges and benefits of joint supervision.
• The role of peer-to-peer support in doctoral training.

Outcomes
By the end of this session, supervisors can:

• Address practical issues in organizing the PhD supervision process.
• Identify the advantages and challenges of co-supervision.
• Appreciate the role of peer interactions, peer-to-peer learning and mutual support, with reference to the working culture of the postgraduate student body.
• Present the advantages and disadvantages, opportunities, and challenges associated with group supervision.
• Share deepened thinking on preparation and training for supervisors.
• Identify the most common and significant challenges to supervisors in managing supervisees’ progress, and share the best ways to address them.

Preparation
Develop three to five PowerPoint slides that summarise supervision approaches: individual, co-supervision and group supervision including by multi-disciplinary teams (Step 1).

For participants
Read these resources:

• Nakanjako D., Katamba A., Kaye D., Okello E., Kamya M., Sewankembo N., Mayanja-Kizza H., (2014). Doctoral training in Uganda: evaluation of mentoring best practices at Makerere university college of health sciences. BMC Medical Education 14:9. DOI: 10.1186/1472-6920-14-9
• Van Schalkwyk S. C., Murdoch-Eaton, D., Tekian, A., van der Vleuten, C., Cilliers, F., (2016). The supervisor’s toolkit: A framework for doctoral supervision in health professions education: AMEE Guide No. 104. Med Teach. 38:429-42. doi: 10.3109/0142159X.2016.1142517. Epub 2016 Mar 21.
• Govender, K., & Dhunpath, R. (2011). Student experiences of the PhD cohort model: Working within or outside communities of practice? Perspectives in Education, 29(1), 88-99.

Consider their university’s regulations on supervisor training, provision of training and access to training for supervisors, co-supervisors, group supervision, mentors and teams of supervisors.
Reflect on their prior experience of joint supervision and peer-to-peer support.

Steps

The interaction between supervisor and supervisee is close and may lead to psychological and relationship challenges. In this session, participants discuss these challenges in relation to:

• The roles and personalities of both parties.
• How their relationships may evolve over the course of the PhD training.
• The question of institutional support to both parties.

Outcomes
By the end of this session, supervisors can:

• Discuss and reflect on the affective dimensions of the supervisor–supervisee relationship.
• Propose important personal qualities of a supervisor from the perspectives of, respectively, the supervisee, the supervisor, and the institution.
• Assess how the supervisee affects the supervisor.
• Describe how these relationships may evolve during the PhD training, with specific emphasis on how to seize important opportunities, and avoid common pitfalls.
• Consider what psychological support the institution should provide to the supervisee and the supervisor.
• Discuss the role of gender in the relationship between supervisor and supervisee.

Preparation
Develop three to five PowerPoint slides to introduce the psychology of the supervision relationship, including unequal power dynamics based on as gender, age, and other factors (Step 1).

For participants
Read these resources:

• Deuchar, R. (2008). Facilitator, director or critical friend? Contradiction and congruence in doctoral supervision styles. Teaching in higher education 13: 489-500.
• Bitzer, E. and Matimbo, F. (2017). Cultivating African Academic capital – intersectional narratives of an African graduate and his PhD study supervisor. Innovations in Education and Teaching International
• Bernstein, B. L., Evans, B., Fyffe, J., Halai, N., Hall, F. L., Jensen, H. S., … & Ortega, S. (2014). The continuing evolution of the research doctorate. In Globalization and its impacts on the quality of PhD education (pp. 5-30). Brill Sense.54:539-549. DOI: 10.1080/14703297.2017.1394825
• Fortes, M., Kehm, B. M., & Mayekiso, T. (2014). Evaluation and quality management in Europe, Mexico, and South Africa. In Globalization and its impacts on the quality of PhD education (pp. 81-109). Brill Sense

Consider their own experiences of the affective components of supervision.
Reflect on any prior experiences that may be useful for the group discussion.

Steps

This session focuses on the role of the supervisor in quality control in the context of both supplementary external quality control and internal quality-assurance mechanisms at institutional level. The supervisor must strike a balance between controlling quality and giving pastoral support to the PhD candidate.

Assuring quality in research is essential for validating and maintaining the credibility of the academic system. While the supervisor/s take responsibility for most of the quality-control processes involved in the completion of the PhD, independent and objective quality assurance is primarily a responsibility of the institution. The broader scientific community provides external quality control during PhD training through peer review, open access of published material, and examination by external examiners.

Outcomes
By the end of this session, supervisors can:

• Distinguish clearly between quality control and quality assurance, in order to compare and contrast the distinctive roles of supervisors, mentors, and institutions.
• Explain the role of the supervisor in assuring high-quality research and the development of a high-quality researcher over the course of PhD.
• Debate the supervisor’s role in quality control of the research: gate-keeper, facilitator or supporter.
• Review common quality-control mechanisms designed to ensure that the candidate, supervisors, and mentors all fulfil their roles and responsibilities throughout the course of the PhD, and take corrective action wherever necessary.
• Define quality control and assurance of the PhD thesis according to format (monograph, thesis by publication, or de facto hybrid model).
• Understand how examination of the PhD should be used for quality control of individual graduates, of the supervisors and mentors’ contributions and of the overall doctoral training process.
• Evaluate key performance indicators (KPIs) for quality assurance, both process- and outcome-based.

Preparation
Develop three to five PowerPoint slides to explain the importance of quality in validating and maintaining the credibility of the academic system (Step 1).

For participants
Read these resources:

• European University Association (2010). Salzburg II Recommendations: European universities’ achievements since 2005 in implementing the Salzburg Principles.
• Orpheus. (2016/2020). Best Practices for PhD Training.

To explore the quality-assurance system for research training in their institution, read the full guidelines and regulations for postgraduate studies.
Reflect on their prior experience related to quality assurance in PhD supervision.

Steps

The relationship between a supervisor and supervisee is not a relationship of equal partners. This situation is a potential source of conflict which must be acknowledged and prevented. Many conflicts in the supervisor–supervisee relationship can be avoided if one is aware of the ways that gender, age, ethnicity, class, and culture may affect supervision. A toolbox of support options is valuable in case of a dilemma in relation to inequity and division.

Outcomes
By the end of this session, supervisors can:

• Understand supervision in relation to power dynamics in the academic field and within the university community as a whole.
• Appreciate how gender, age, ethnicity, class and culture affect supervision.
• Explain the ways in which scientific research, university structures and processes and academic opportunity are influenced by gender, age, ethnicity, class and culture.
• Appreciate how supervisor–supervisee relationships are influenced by gender, age, sexuality, ethnicity, social class and culture.
• Suggest ways to solve dilemmas between a supervisor and a supervisee that concern gender, age, ethnicity, class, and/or culture.
• Discuss how social justice and social exclusion are affected by modes of supervision.

Preparation
Develop three to five PowerPoint slides to introduce the subject of inequity and the dilemmas that often arise during the supervision process (Step 1).
Make copies of the instructions for Trio Coaching.

For participants
Reflect on a dilemma they have experienced with a supervisee that concerns gender, age, ethnicity, class and/or culture. First-time supervisors should think of a dilemma they have experienced as a supervisee or one that they have heard of. Each participant should be ready to describe how the dilemma was resolved and what they learnt from it.
Read these resources:

• University of Auckland (2022). Te Ara Tautika | The Equity Policy.
• Carter, S. Blumenstein, M., Cook, C., (2013). Different for women? The challenges of doctoral studies. Teaching in Higher E§ducation 18:339-351.
• Shibayama, S., and Kobayashi, Y., (2017). Impact of Ph.D. training: a comprehensive analysis based on a Japanese national doctoral survey. Scientometrics 113:387–415. DOI 10.1007/s11192-017-2479-7.
• Cohen, G. L., Garcia, J., Appel, N., Master, A., (2006). Reducing the racial achievement gap: A social-psychological intervention. Science 313: 1307-3013. doi 10.1126/Science 1128317.
• Doumbo, O. K., Krogstad D. J. (1998). Doctoral training of African scientists. Am, J., Trop Med Hyg. 58:127-132. DOI; 10.4269/ajtmh 58.127

Steps

Successful PhD training should produce a graduate who is able to conduct research independently of their doctoral supervisor. The transition from the student phase to the postdoc phase of the career may be difficult for the supervisor, the supervisee, and their relationship.

This session raises these challenges, with the aim of maximizing the independence of the doctoral candidate after graduation, while preserving a good relationship between the supervisor and supervisee as independent peers, to the mutual benefit of both parties.

Outcomes
By the end of this session, supervisors can:

• Appreciate the role of the supervisor in enabling the successful future career of the PhD, through essential soft skills acquired during the PhD training and an ongoing mentorship relationship.
• Be alert to the possibility that the hierarchical supervisor–supervisee relationship becomes competitive.
• Identify solutions to challenges, emphasizing the full course of the PhD training as a process of transition towards independence, emphasising the transition into a peer-to-peer relationship.
• Discuss career planning with the doctoral candidate.

Preparation
Develop PowerPoint slides to explain the concept and importance of detachment (Step 1).
Remind yourself of the World Café approach to generating and sharing ideas. Prepare four flipcharts, one for each ‘station’ (Step 2).

For participants
Read these resources:

• The World Café. Design Principles.
• Hobin, J. A., Clifford, P. S., Dunn, B. M., Rich, S., Justement, L. B. (2014). Putting PhDs to work: career planning for today´s scientists. CBE – Life sciences education 13: 49-53.
• Bryan, B. and Guccione, K. (2018). Was it worth it? A qualitative exploration into graduate perceptions of doctoral value. Higher Education Research and development 37 : 1124-1140.

Reflect on how they have developed or are developing their own career plans, and be ready to share these steps.
Reflect on their expectations and experience of the detachment process after completing their own doctoral training.

Steps

For early-career researchers, effective mentorship is essential for personal development, career guidance, and choices. Mentorship has a significant impact on the retention of trainees and their research productivity, including publication and grant success. Mentored graduates are said to be more connected to their work environment than their non-mentored peers. They also report higher levels of satisfaction with academic experience when compared to their non-mentored peers. Mentorship is a skill that needs to be developed and nurtured, hence this session.

Outcomes
By the end of this session, supervisors can:

• Appreciate the role of mentorship in professional development.
• Understand something of the dynamics of mentorship in the supervisor–supervisee relationship.
• Differentiate between mentorship and coaching in professional development.

Preparation
Develop PowerPoint slides to define the concept of mentorship and explain the role that mentorship plays in a PhD candidate’s career development (Step 1).

For participants
Identify their university’s academic mentorship rules and tools. Bring a copy to the workshop.
Note successful mentorship activities they have witnessed or experienced, to contribute to group discussions.
Read these resources:

• Balogun, F. M., Malele-Kolisa, Y., Nieuwoudt, S. J., Jepngetich, H., Kiplagat, J., Morakinyo, O. M. & Kaindoa, E. (2021). Experiences of doctoral students enrolled in a research fellowship program to support doctoral training in Africa (2014 to 2018): The Consortium for Advanced Research Training in Africa odyssey. PloS one, 16(6), e0252863.
• Desai, M. M., Göç, N., Chirwa, T., Manderson, L., Charalambous, S., Curry, L. A., & Linnander, E. (2021). Strengthening the Mentorship and Leadership Capacity of HIV/AIDS and Tuberculosis Researchers in South Africa. The American Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene.
• Mathews, P. (2003). Academic mentoring enhancing the use of scarce resources. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 31(3), 313-334.
• Spangle, Jennifer M. et al. (2021). Practical advice for mentoring and supporting faculty colleagues in STEM fields: Views from mentor and mentee perspectives. Journal of Biological Chemistry, Volume 0, Issue 0, 101062. DOI:
• Quinlan, K. M. (1999). Enhancing mentoring and networking of junior academic women: what, why, and how? Journal of higher education policy and management, 21(1), 31-42.
• Sambunjak, D., Straus, S. E., & Marušić, A. (2006). Mentoring in academic medicine: a systematic review. Jama, 296(9), 1103-1115.
• Schrodt, P., Cawyer, C. S., & Sanders, R. (2003). An examination of academic mentoring behaviors and new faculty members’ satisfaction with socialization and tenure and promotion processes. Communication Education, 52(1), 17-29.
• Somefun, O. D., & Adebayo, K. O. (2021). The role of mentoring in research ecosystems in Sub-Saharan Africa: Some experiences through the CARTA opportunity. Global Public Health, 16(1), 36-47.
• Sorkness, C. A., Pfund, C., Ofili, E. O. et al. A new approach to mentoring for research careers: the National Research Mentoring Network. BMC Proc 11, 22 (2017).
• Engel, M. (2017) Making the mentoring relationship work. Fred Hutch Cancer Center.

Watch this video:

• Kenneth Ortiz |TEDxBethanyGlobalUniversity (2019). How to be a Great Mentor.

Prepare three slides to introduce the concepts of mentorship and to give examples of the role of mentorship in career development.

Steps

This session encourages individual reflection on the workshop.

• What have we achieved in the supervisor workshop?
• What have we achieved towards the development of an African perspective on supervision in research training?

Raise remaining issues in open discussion with peers and facilitators. Discuss the challenges of research training in Africa, based on the experience of the participants. Little has been published on the specific challenges of research training in Africa or best practices to overcome them, so the network of peers established in the workshop may consider developing paper/s based on the workshop and on the experiences of the group.

Outcomes
By the end of this session, supervisors can:

• Reflect on whether or how the workshop challenged their´ attitudes and perceptions as regards their responsibilities in relation to supervision.
• (Collectively) synthesize the opportunities for improved supervision practices that have been mapped out during the workshop.
• Decide what changes, if any, in research-education supervision are necessary in their home institutions.
• Judge the potential role of supervisor training in the quality assurance of PhD education in their own institution.
• Consider ways in which contemporary initiatives in relation to research supervision and education outside of Africa may or may not be adapted to be useful in African contexts.

Preparation
For participants
Reflect in advance on all the discussions over the course of the workshop, so that they can share their views on what was useful, what was not, and what could be improved.

Steps