Keywords

Introduction

During the early phases of doctoral education in Malaysia, it was customary for doctoral students to be supervised by a single academic supervisor. Nevertheless, with the broadening and progress of the education system, co-supervision became prominent in interdisciplinary fields where the combined expertise of multiple supervisors is required. The Universiti of Malaya has been at Malaysian universities’ forefront in adopting co-supervision. Recognising the importance of multiple supervisors in disciplines such as engineering, medicine, and social sciences, the university actively promotes students’ involvement with a diverse panel of supervisors, allowing them to gain insights and expertise from a broader perspective.

As the education system expanded in the 1990s and 2000s, co-supervision became prevalent in the STEM disciplines, where interdisciplinary research became significant. Co-supervision is now firmly ingrained in Malaysia’s higher education system, renowned for enhancing the quality of education and research throughout the country. The advantages of collaboration with multiple supervisors are well-recognised and actively encouraged by educational institutions, as they provide students with many opinions and perspectives to draw upon. Although many Malaysian universities have formalised co-supervision policies and procedures, reservations regarding its implementation persist. Consequently, it is imperative to understand the general acceptance of co-supervision practices, policies, and the underlying factors contributing to any hesitations or reluctance towards its adoption.

National and Institutional Policies on Doctoral Co-Supervision

The Malaysian Qualifications Agency (MQA) is instrumental in upholding international standards for Higher Education Providers (HEPs) in Malaysia, particularly concerning the conferment of qualifications. The MQA’s National Framework on Supervision Standards for Master's and Doctoral Degrees outlines guidelines and criteria for supervising doctoral students. The composition of supervisory teams and the inclusion of co-supervisors differ across universities while aligning with the MQA guidelines. This chapter investigates co-supervision approaches employed by four leading universities: Universiti Utara Malaysia (UUM), Universiti Teknologi Malaysia (UTM), Universiti Malaya (UM), and Universiti Putra Malaysia (UPM). The universities are mandated to appoint a supervisory team within their institutions. In UUM and UTM, doctoral students are supervised by academic staff members with relevant doctoral degrees. UM encourages doctoral candidates to be supervised by at least two supervisors. UPM promotes a co-supervision model involving academic staff and industry experts for doctoral candidates.

Mentoring Programmes for Doctoral Co-supervisors

The MQA requires HEPs to organise a comprehensive supervisor training program that covers the HEP's roles, responsibilities, policies, and regulations. Additionally, the training must address the interpersonal challenges of dealing with diverse individuals, cultures, educational backgrounds, and academic issues.

Selected universities in Malaysia have implemented structured training programs for doctoral supervisors, such as the program at UTM. This training program consists of three components (UTM Centre for Advancement in Digital and Flexible Learning, n.d.). Novice supervisors undergo a Supervisory Orientation Course as the first part, which addresses administrative aspects. The second part is the Supervisor Development Program, which focuses on supervision pedagogies. Finally, in the third part, novice supervisors engage in a Mentoring Programme, where they receive mentoring from senior supervisors for a semester.

Roles, Responsibilities, and Workloads of Doctoral Co-supervisors

While UTM includes some elements of co-supervision training in its program, such as a partnership in supervision, it depends on the personal knowledge, interpretation, and perception of the experienced supervisor. Similarly, the training provided at UM and UPM primarily focuses on general supervision training, and they do not specify training for co-supervisors. For example, UPM's training covers supervision rules and regulations for supervisors and students, thesis submission, and the supervisory process, such as establishing research interest compatibility, assessing students' needs, consultation schedules, and research plans (Jawan & Tan, 2013). At UUM, novice supervisors are usually trained for adequate supervision by co-supervising with a senior colleague appointed as the main supervisor. Occasionally, the supervisors and co-supervisors are encouraged to participate in workshops held by the university's teaching and learning centre, where general good supervision practices are shared and highlighted. What seems to be a drawback is that most of these training and mentoring are based on experiences rather than on evidence-based practices.

The universities under investigation have established general guidelines outlining the roles and responsibilities of primary and co-supervisors, although specific designations still need to be provided. However, UTM has outlined specific duties for co-supervisors, such as acting as substitutes for primary supervisors when unavailable and fostering positive relationships with primary supervisors and students (School of Graduate Studies, UTM, 2022). Workloads for academic staff at UTM and UUM are determined using their respective appraisal systems. Primary supervisors are allocated 20 h per student, while co-supervisors receive 10 h per student per academic semester, with three academic semesters per year. Supervision activities outside of academic semesters are not permitted. Supervisors are regularly reminded to advise their students to activate their status in the university portal and only supervise students with an active status each semester.

At UUM, the Academic Staff Workload Weighting is used, which categorises supervision provision into self-supervision, main supervision, co-supervision, and allied supervision. The weightage for each type of supervision varies according to the supervisor and doctoral student's enrolment status (full-time or part-time). For self-supervision, the weightage is 1.00; for main supervision, it is 0.80; for co-supervision, it is 0.50; and for allied supervision (including those appointed by external parties), it is 0.25. The weightage is 1.00 for full-time students and 0.70 for part-time students. However, UUM recognises the supervision and co-supervision of only four doctoral students. These indicators are automatically generated in the appraisal system of each supervisor and co-supervisor at UUM every year.

How Potential and Actual Supervisor Conflicts Are Mitigated/Resolved

UTM and UM have rules that mandate doctoral candidates to switch supervisors if conflicts remain unresolved. Meanwhile, at UUM, if a supervisor, whether the main supervisor, the co-supervisor, or any member of the Thesis Committee, cannot fulfil their responsibilities, the Graduate School's Dean must appoint another academic staff member to assume the supervision task for an appropriate duration. Supervisors are not permitted to resign unless they have a compelling reason and must formally request for withdrawal from the relevant Dean. Although conflicts are usually resolved among colleagues, the Postgraduate Course Coordinator may assist in finding a suitable solution. At times, students may choose to select the co-supervisor as their primary supervisor or opt for a sole primary supervisor to prevent possible conflicts of research interests during the supervision process.

How Co-supervision Affects the Authorship of Publications

There are no specific rules regarding the authorship of research publications for supervisors and co-supervisors. Although some universities require doctoral students to publish with their supervisors, there is no obligation to include their names as authors following MQA regulations. However, doctoral students are encouraged to include the names of their supervisors and co-supervisors as co-authors. The authorship requirements vary among universities. For example, at UTM, the doctoral student must be the first author, and the primary or co-supervisor must be a co-author.

In comparison, at UM, all doctoral students must publish with all their supervisors, and either the primary or co-supervisor must be the corresponding author. At UUM, it is a common practice to include both the supervisor's and co-supervisor's names as co-authors of doctoral students' publications, and the main supervisor or the doctoral student must be the corresponding author. UUM’s Code of Ethics for Research and Academic Writing mandates that doctoral students must seek the approval of their supervisors and co-supervisors before adding their names as co-authors to prevent research interest conflicts. However, this requirement may be called into question in hierarchical cultures.

How Co-Supervisors Are Recognised and Rewarded by Universities

Universities generally acknowledge the value of co-supervision and offer incentives such as allocating merits towards achieving annual Key Performance Indicators (KPIs). At UUM, co-supervisors receive KPI points based on the workload calculation in the appraisal system, and successful co-supervision of doctoral students is considered for academic promotions. For instance, a Senior Lecturer at UUM needs to have supervised at least one PhD to be promoted to Associate Professor. In contrast, a co-supervisor should have supervised three PhDs to qualify for promotion. Similarly, an Associate Professor must have supervised two PhDs as the main supervisor and co-supervisor for two PhDs to be considered for promotion to the position of Professor. However, the specific appraisal practices used by other universities remain undisclosed.

Examples of Good Co-supervision Practice

Co-supervision plays a vital role in the supervisory practices of doctoral studies in Malaysia, especially for new supervisors. In this context, a junior academic is appointed a co-supervisor for two years after completing their doctorate, aiming to gain valuable experience in postgraduate supervision. Throughout these two years, the primary supervisor guides and involves the co-supervisor in supervision sessions. The timing of these initial meetings is typically arranged to accommodate the schedules of all supervisors involved and the student. During these sessions, the co-supervisor observes the supervision process and actively participates in relevant discussions.

Another prevalent practice involves the collaboration of two senior academics as co-supervisors, with one seeking the support of the other in areas where they may not possess expertise. For instance, at UUM, it is common for co-supervisors to participate in joint supervision sessions actively. The primary supervisors arrange meetings with the co-supervisors at a mutually agreed time and location. During these sessions, the co-supervisors contribute significantly by sharing their respective areas of expertise. To enhance the quality of supervision, main supervisors often encourage co-supervisors to provide insights and guidance based on their specialised knowledge. The students diligent record notes during these sessions, serving as a reference for subsequent meetings and discussions. In the context of doctoral studies, engaging in co-supervisions emerges as a valuable element for active learning. Through collaborative engagement, two academics contribute to the advancement of the supervisee's research endeavours, engaging in constructive dialogues that involve agreement and occasional dissent, thereby facilitating the nuanced development of the ongoing research. This collaborative practice engenders thought-provoking stimuli and dialogues among all participants, fostering a dynamic intellectual environment.

Co-supervisors play active roles in facilitating the success of postgraduate research endeavours (Sidhu et al., 2014). In Malaysia, co-supervisors offer additional support and motivation as required. One practice involves sharing essential research-related information through easily accessible platforms like WhatsApp, WeChat, and email. Co-supervisors actively engage with the material shared by the main supervisors, providing further clarifications and offering feedback. They also proactively address any inquiries the students make, ensuring they are well informed and guided appropriately. This collaborative effort benefits the students and assists the main supervisors in their supervisory responsibilities.

Postgraduate students highly value co-supervisors, as their feedback is seen as valuable additions to the research process (Sidhu et al., 2014). Continuous and frequent communication between co-supervisors and main supervisors is a common practice. Regular meetings are held to share crucial research details and discuss the progress of the student's work. Co-supervisors collaborate with the main supervisors by coordinating their consultation schedules to accommodate joint supervision meetings. This collaborative effort ensures that the students receive comprehensive guidance and support throughout their research journey.

Another commendable co-supervision practice involves the collaborative reading and reviewing of doctoral works. Here, supervisors demonstrate a rotational approach by taking turns examining and offering feedback on specific chapters or sub-chapters of the written material. This allocation of responsibilities ensures an equitable distribution of workload. Supervisors frequently convene meetings or communicate through appropriate channels to ensure a seamless transition between chapters. These discussions serve as a platform for aligning feedback and ensuring a consistent approach towards guiding the students. Consequently, this supervision practice fosters positive relationships among colleagues, provides students with a clear sense of direction, and enriches the overall experience of postgraduate studies.

Debates About Doctoral Co-supervision

Co-supervision in doctoral research has sparked debates due to multiple concerns, including potential conflicts between co-supervisors, challenges related to student autonomy, and the overall quality of the research, as highlighted in the study by Sidhu et al. (2013). Opinions on co-supervision among supervisors vary, with some highlighting its value in enhancing the quality of the research while others harbour reservations. The potential for conflicts among co-supervisors or between supervisors and the students are some reasons for this reservation, which may impede the progress of the student’s research project. Additionally, disagreements can occur when there are differences in opinion concerning methodologies, roles and responsibilities and different communication styles. The supervisors have also expressed workload concerns regarding supervising and co-supervising many students.

The presence of power imbalances in traditional supervisory relationships has also triggered the debate on the roles of co-supervision in addressing these disparities and providing more support to doctoral students in Malaysia. Kalman et al. (2022) highlight the potential of co-supervision to mitigate power differentials between supervisors and their students. It has been reported that supervisors' influential position and authority over students can create a sense of dependency on supervisors for guidance (Lee, 2008). This power imbalance may impede the students' independent thinking and research skills.

Nevertheless, co-supervision can alleviate power differentials between supervisors and students by providing more comprehensive and diverse perspectives and support, thus ensuring that the student's voices are heard (Hair, 2014). This collective approach to supervision fosters an inclusive research environment. It may facilitate the cultivation of independent thinking and research skills due to the multiple voices from a supervisory team.

Another significant point of contention revolves around authorship. In today's academic environment, where knowledge is increasingly commodified and rankings take precedence, both supervisors and students face the demand to generate top-notch publications. In Malaysian universities, the achievement of doctoral studies now hinges on the mandatory publication of students. It is imperative for students to publish in ranked journals during their candidature before the thesis can be presented for examination. In one university, the regulation stipulates that student publications must include the names of their supervisors with the additional requirement that the supervisor be designated as the corresponding author (University Malaya).

Including supervisors as co-authors in student publications have triggered an ethical debate. The rationale supporting this practice lies in the substantial contributions made by supervisors throughout the research process. They provide guidance in research design, conceptualization of ideas, assistance with analysis, and even support in writing, thereby justifying the inclusion of supervisors as co-authors. Given the significant time commitment made by supervisors, it is argued that it is imperative to consider providing some form of acknowledgment or recognition. Supervisors bear substantial teaching responsibilities in addition to their supervisory duties, and engaging in co-authorship is a means by which they can fulfill publication requirements and achieve their key performance targets. This undertaking, in return, aids supervisors in meeting their annual performance benchmarks. It is essential to recognize that supervisors meet all the criteria delineated by the Vancouver protocols of publishing, including contributions to the conception and design of the study, analysis, and critical revision of the content, thereby warranting acknowledgment as co-authors. This premise also rests on the understanding that when supervisors assist students in crafting an article, they contribute by composing sections rather than solely offering feedback. In essence, their role as co-authors goes beyond providing guidance, encompassing active involvement in the paper's writing process.

An additional advantage associated with co-authoring publications with supervisors lies in the increased likelihood of successful acceptance for publication. Supervisors are recognized for their expertise in various aspects of publishing research articles, including the ability to identify suitable journals, effectively structure articles, manage submission processes, and address feedback from reviewers (Bartkowski et al., 2015). Supervisors often possess a proven track record of publishing in journals and are esteemed within their respective academic fields. Consequently, students are generally receptive to including their supervisors' names as co-authors in academic publications (Shamsi & Osam, 2022).

However, ethical concerns are raised if the supervisor's and co-supervisors' involvement and contribution have been minimal, thus raising a question about academic integrity. Therefore, upholding ethical standards and preserving the integrity of student publications means that the students must be safeguarded against undue pressure or coercion to include supervisors’ names as co-authors. To tackle this concern, a widely adopted approach is to designate the student as the lead author, while listing the supervisor/s as second and third authors. Typically, the student's approval is sought before including the supervisors’ names in the publication. Nevertheless, in a hierarchical culture, it is uncommon for any student to express disagreement.

Conclusion

Co-supervision practices have been debated in Malaysia, and some concerns have been reported regarding communication, expectations, student autonomy, supervisory styles and conflicts (Sidhu et al., 2014). Conflicts arise due to diverging interests, imposed pairings in co-supervision, different expectations, too many students to supervise, and, most importantly, unclear roles. Aspects of power differentials among supervisors and between supervisors and students have also been discussed. What is of main concern are ethical issues concerning student publications which necessitate careful consideration of contributions to uphold ethical standards and maintain academic integrity.

In a recent study conducted by Wald et al. (2023), a novel evidence-based tool has been introduced, demonstrating efficacy in navigating co-supervision practices and mitigating specific concerns outlined in this chapter. This tool serves as a valuable resource for enhancing the effectiveness of co-supervisory approaches and addressing the highlighted issues.