Practitioner-scholars quickly learn that supervision is more than a formal requirement of the programme. Meetings with supervisory teams are not only about deadlines, drafts, and decisions; they are relational spaces where identity, confidence, and scholarly courage are shaped. Drawing on the idea of academic care (Engward & Goldspink, 2020), it is possible to view these meetings not as transactional check-ins but as spaces where supervisory practice nurtures curiosity, resilience, and independence. 

Supervision as academic care 

Traditional images of supervision often emphasise oversight and progress monitoring. Yet supervision is also deeply personal. Just as students in tutorials have spoken of feeling “cared for” even at a distance, practitioner-scholars notice when supervisors demonstrate attentiveness, respect, and genuine interest. Academic care does not mean doing the work for the practitioner-scholar. Rather, it involves being alongside them as they navigate uncertainty, offering empathy without undermining autonomy. 

Seen this way, supervisory meetings become opportunities to create the conditions in which practitioner-scholars feel both supported and challenged. Care, in this sense, is not a lack of rigour. It is attentiveness, expressed through a willingness to listen, to recognise vulnerability, and to encourage independence. 

Five moves in academic care 

Engward & Goldspink’s study identified five ways in which learners experienced care: refocus, rethink, relate, review, and respond. These ideas translate powerfully into professional doctorate supervision: 

• Refocus – helping practitioner-scholars protect time and space for research amidst professional demands. 

• Rethink – encouraging them to test assumptions about their abilities and perspectives. 

• Relate – creating team dynamics where no question is dismissed, and diverse views are valued. 

• Review – supporting practitioner-scholars to see change in themselves as part of their scholarly development. 

• Respond – enabling self-directed strategies where candidates take ownership of their learning. 

By weaving these moves into supervisory conversations, academic care becomes a lived practice rather than an abstract principle. 

Avoiding dependency 

One of the risks of supervision is sliding into what Heidegger described as “inauthentic solicitude” – leaping in for the other person, even with the best of intentions. In supervision, this might mean over-directing, supplying solutions too quickly, or taking ownership of the project. While it feels supportive, it can unintentionally erode autonomy. 

Authentic supervision, by contrast, “leaps ahead”: it helps practitioner-scholars take responsibility for their own learning, while knowing they are not abandoned. This balance allows them to confront uncertainty, make mistakes, and develop resilience. Supervisory meetings, therefore, are not simply progress checks but spaces where supervisors model curiosity, tolerance of ambiguity, and the courage to ask difficult questions. 

Supervision as pedagogy 

Professional doctorates sit at the intersection of academic and professional practice. Supervision is one of the most important pedagogical tools for navigating this terrain. It is a form of academic care that unites intellectual challenge with personal support, recognising that practitioner-scholars are simultaneously practitioners, learners, and developing researchers. 

By approaching supervision in this way, supervisory teams move beyond the mechanics of project management. They create a relational pedagogy where care empowers, curiosity is encouraged, and independence is celebrated. 

Closing reflection 

Supervision on a professional doctorate is not about removing uncertainty, but about helping practitioner-scholars live productively with it. Academic care reframes supervisory meetings as spaces for trust, courage, and growth. When supervisors attend not only to the research but also to the person conducting it, they enable practitioner-scholars to discover their critical voice. This voice emerges through the capacity to reflect deeply, question assumptions, and articulate informed, contextually grounded perspectives. That confidence carries forward into practice, organisations, and communities. 

Key Takeaways 

• Academic care reframes supervision as relational, not transactional. 

• Supervisory meetings can build resilience through attentiveness, empathy, and challenge. 

• Five moves of care support independence: refocus, rethink, relate, review, respond

• Authentic supervision avoids dependency by “leaping ahead” rather than “leaping in.” 

• Supervision is a pedagogy in its own right, central to the professional doctorate experience.