Reflections on Ph.D. supervision training at Makerere University
Tatiana Ershova (Department of Education)
Aleksandr Popov (Didactics in Informatics research group)
University of Bergen
“Most people supervise the way they were supervised because they’ve not been told any other way.”
One facilitator’s remark sums up an uncomfortable truth of doctoral education: supervisors rarely receive training for the role. At Makerere University’s College of Health Sciences, a team of facilitators is working to change that.
We, Tatiana Ershova (Department of Education) and Aleksandr Popov (Didactics in Informatics research group), PhD fellow researchers from the University of Bergen, were recently invited to take part in a PhD student mobility. Funded by the HePED project, the mobility program was led by Kenan Dikilitaş as part of the NORPART project at UiB, in collaboration with Makerere University in Uganda. We joined the team and took part in the mobility from 4 to 12 September.
The mobility involved preparing, planning, delivering, and reflecting on an intensive PhD supervision course. Our role was to bring the PhD student’s perspective and to explore how facilitators and participants understand the doctoral journey and the training programme. We practised developing interview questions under Professor Kenan Dikilitaş’s supervision, observed the workshop, and helped document the approaches to supervision discussed during the week. This post shares what we experienced during the workshops and what we discussed with the participants and facilitators.
Facilitators’ reflections: rethinking PhD supervision at Makerere University
For facilitators Dr. Ian Munabi, Professor Sarah Kiguli, and Dr. Roy Mubuuke Gonzaga, the PhD supervision workshop at Makerere University’s College of Health Sciences was not simply an opportunity to share good practices. It was also a space to reflect critically on how supervisors themselves learn to supervise, the institutional conditions in which supervision takes place, and the kind of academic culture they would like to help create.
Much of that learning, they said, happens informally. Supervisors often draw on their own experiences as doctoral students, copying approaches they found helpful or, sometimes, repeating practices they once struggled with themselves.
“Most people supervise the way they were supervised because they’ve not been told any other way,” one facilitator said.
Co-supervision can offer another route into the role. Working alongside a more experienced colleague may become a kind of informal mentoring, giving newer supervisors a chance to observe how meetings are handled, how feedback is given, and how difficult moments are navigated.
But supervision teams do not always work as teams. Ian, Sarah, and Roy have seen cases where supervisors respond to a student’s work separately, each trying to help but offering different, sometimes conflicting, directions. The student can then become caught between competing expectations.
Roy recalled one case where this was beginning to happen. The supervisory team realised they needed to talk without the student present.
“We need to sit down with this guy and agree on a few things,”
he remembered saying.
The supervisors met, clarified their expectations and discussed what the university required. After that, Roy said, “the student just sailed through.” For him, the experience showed how a relatively small change — supervisors communicating with one another — can make a major difference.
The facilitators also stressed that supervision is about much more than checking research milestones. Sarah described the danger of reducing the role to questions such as whether data collection is complete, whether a paper has been submitted, or whether a proposal has been revised. Students may also be dealing with financial pressure, family responsibilities, competing work demands or a loss of confidence.
“There’s that much more beyond,” she said.
Good supervision, in her view, means recognising the person behind the research. A student may need encouragement, guidance on balancing responsibilities, or support in thinking about what comes after the PhD.
Ian similarly sees doctoral training as a process of preparing someone for academic independence. That means helping students learn not only how to conduct research, but also how to write grants, present at conferences, build networks and collaborate with others.
“You move a candidate from where they are and start them on the journey towards academic independence,” he said.
Eventually, the student should be able to move beyond the supervisor, become a colleague and perhaps begin supporting other researchers in turn. Ian believes this development should be intentional rather than left to chance.
Power and hierarchy are also part of that experience. At Makerere, as in many universities, the difference in status between a senior academic and a doctoral student can be significant. But the facilitators do not see hierarchy itself as the problem. What matters is whether the student feels able to approach the supervisor, ask questions and speak openly.
“I think it’s the supervisor who should be the one to break the ice,”
one facilitator said.
For Roy, training can help supervisors move beyond simply reproducing what they have experienced. He describes this as a shift from “experience-based supervision” to “knowledge-based supervision.” Experience still matters, but it should be examined and combined with evidence, reflection and new ideas. Otherwise, difficult traditions can easily continue through an attitude of:
“I went through it; you must go through it also.”
Sarah hopes that changing individual practices can eventually change the wider culture of supervision. If supervisors communicate more, support students more deliberately and reflect on their own roles, those practices can spread.
“It starts as this,” she said, “but these are the people who are going to change.”
For Ian, Sarah, and Roy, that is the wider promise of supervisor development: not simply helping one academic supervise one student better but creating a culture in which positive doctoral experiences become the norm rather than a matter of luck.
Participants’ Experience: What Makes a Good PhD Supervisor?
A central part of the workshop was a critical discussion of the realities of academic supervision at Medical Institute at the Makerere University. Participants reflected on how institutional, cultural, and field-specific contexts shape the role of a PhD supervisor, as well as on their own experiences of supervising students and being students themselves. These gave Aleksandr an opportunity to actively involve in these activities and conduct three interviews with supervisors from Makerere University:
- David Lubogo (MBChB, MPH), Research Fellow, Department of Community Health and Behavioural Sciences
- Dr. John Bosco Isunju, Department of Disease Control & Environmental Health, School of Public Health
- Juliana Kayaga, Lecturer in Paediatrics and Child Health, College of Health Sciences
Much of the discussion focused on what makes a good supervisor and how to build an effective, trusting relationship with a PhD student. Drawing on their own experiences, participants highlighted the importance of availability, understanding, an open mind, and accepting students as they are.
“I understand that because I've been through this, I know the student load, so I try to find ways of navigating that [challenges] with the students coming up, starting from the flexible schedule” (c) David
They also discussed the role of leadership: good supervision is not simply about providing academic expertise, but also about guiding students, creating a supportive environment, and helping them gradually become more independent researchers.
“What I've learned a lot from here, and I think is very important, is leadership. A good supervisor should be able to be a good leader - and not just leading students, but even co-supervisors, organizing the team” - (c) Juliana
Participants also reflected on what they expect from their students. Intrinsic motivation and critical thinking emerged as two key qualities. Students, they noted, need to become increasingly self-driven and engaged with their research, learning to identify gaps in their field and understand the wider relevance of their work. Ultimately, the goal of PhD supervision is not simply to help students complete their research, but to support them in becoming independent and self-sufficient academics.
“I think that providing leadership and helping students to develop their vision and helping them to stay on track is what makes a very good advisor” - (c) Juliana
At the same time, participants recognised that students do not necessarily arrive with all these qualities fully developed. The workshop therefore also explored some of the challenges supervisors encounter and the strategies they use to address them. In one case discussion, participants shared different approaches to supporting students who may need additional guidance. Some described working closely with students on the literature in their field, helping them develop the tools to read and engage with it critically. Others focused on the organisational side of supervision, emphasising the importance of discussing expectations with students, establishing clear and supportive communication, and finding effective ways to structure meetings and feedback.
“Another important thing is understanding: someone who is open-minded and willing to take the student as they are, start from whoever they are, be able to follow the student to where they think they want to go.” - (c) Juliana
“Once you build this, the PhD fellow's inner strength, they can do anything. You have to tell them that whatever is a mountain before them - it is actually a flat scene.” - (c) John
Feedback was another major theme of the workshop, with a dedicated session exploring how supervisors can make feedback a regular and constructive part of the supervision process. Participants discussed the value of maintaining a continuous feedback loop, combining more formal, summative feedback with informal feedback throughout the research process.
The discussion also provided space to talk openly about the challenges supervisors themselves face. One concern was the way supervision performance is sometimes evaluated. Participants felt that overly prescriptive measures, such as counting capacity-building meetings attended, do not necessarily reflect the quality of supervision. For them, the progress and development of students provide a much more meaningful indication of effective supervision.
In this case, what makes the NORPART workshop design distinctive and positively received by participants? The answer is that openness and exchange of experience during interactive activities was one of the advantages. Rather than positioning the workshop simply as a space where experienced academics receive new knowledge, the interactive activities and group discussions created an opportunity for participants to learn from one another.
“The people here are all seniors - so maybe they are not [in need of] being told, but to share experiences. And I like it that you allow this sharing to go on and bring scenarios that are triggering them.” - John
The discussions showed that academic supervision is not a fixed set of practices. It is shaped by people, institutions, disciplines, and contexts, and requires supervisors to continuously reflect on how they work with individual students. By creating space for that reflection and exchange, the workshop allowed participants not only to discuss good supervision in theory, but to learn from the realities of doing it.
Concluding Thoughts
Across both groups of interviews, the same message emerged: good supervision is not something determined but trained and learnt. Facilitators argued for moving from experience-based to knowledge-based supervision, with supervisors who talk to each other, see the whole person behind the project, and deliberately prepare students for independence. Participants described the same ideals, from availability and open-mindedness to leadership and regular feedback, and valued a workshop that treated them as colleagues exchanging experience rather than recipients of instruction.