Recently, I have been scrolling through LinkedIn when I stumbled on a post that raised an interesting and somewhat humorous question: “if supervisors have a significant say in shaping the research question, selecting the methodology, establishing the theoretical framework and informing the analytical approach, why are they suddenly absent when the student is required to defend the thesis?”

The post jokingly suggested that supervisors should accompany their students into the viva and defend the thesis alongside them. Although humorous, the suggestion raises a much more substantial question about accountability, intellectual ownership and, perhaps most importantly, the purpose of postgraduate supervision.

The fine line between guidance and intellectual control

At its best, postgraduate supervision is a collaborative intellectual relationship. Supervisors bring experience, methodological expertise and disciplinary knowledge that can be invaluable in shaping a research project. Their guidance can strengthen an argument, expose weaknesses, challenge assumptions and, at times, fundamentally change the direction of a study.

However, the extent of this involvement raises an important question: where does the supervisor's intellectual contribution end and the student's ownership begin?

There is an interesting asymmetry here. When a thesis produces an outstanding contribution or receives academic recognition, the supervisor's role in that achievement is rarely overlooked. Yet, when a project encounters difficulties, produces less convincing findings or fails to meet expectations, responsibility is often placed almost entirely on the student.

This is not necessarily an argument for supervisors to share formal responsibility for defending a thesis. Rather, it invites us to think more carefully about the relationship between supervisory influence and academic accountability. There is also a fundamental tension between providing direction and developing independence. The purpose of postgraduate research is not to produce researchers who can successfully reproduce their supervisors' intellectual positions or justify every decision by saying, "This is what my supervisor suggested." It is to develop scholars who can formulate their own questions, make informed methodological decisions, critically evaluate their findings and defend their intellectual choices.

The compass, not the steering wheel

Reflecting on this debate, I consider myself particularly fortunate to have had an exceptionally supportive supervisor. Throughout my own doctoral journey, I was never instructed to take my research in a particular direction or adopt a predetermined intellectual position. Instead, I was consistently encouraged through probing questions, thoughtful challenges and opportunities for critical reflection. These conversations often led me to reconsider whether the direction I was pursuing was genuinely the one I wanted to take.

What made this experience particularly valuable was that I was not simply given answers or directed towards predetermined solutions. I was encouraged to arrive at my own conclusions, sometimes recognising for myself that an assumption needed reconsideration or that an alternative direction might be more appropriate.

I believe this distinction captures something essential about effective supervision. A good supervisor does not need to occupy the driving seat. Rather, they provide the intellectual compass that helps students navigate unfamiliar territory while retaining responsibility for the journey. Such an approach does not mean withdrawing guidance or leaving students to struggle independently. On the contrary, it requires considerable intellectual investment, patience and trust. It involves knowing when to challenge, when to question, when to offer direction and, perhaps most importantly, when to step back. The outcome is not simply a stronger thesis, but a researcher who understands and owns the intellectual decisions underpinning their work.

Rethinking the purpose of supervision

So, should supervisors share responsibility for the theses they oversee? Perhaps they do not need to sit alongside their students during the viva, but the question itself is worth taking seriously. Supervision should not be understood simply as the process of helping a student produce a satisfactory thesis. It should be understood as an educational relationship through which an individual develops the intellectual confidence and critical capacity to become an independent researcher.

The most successful supervisors are not necessarily those whose influence is most visible in the final thesis. Sometimes, their greatest contribution is reflected in the decisions students learn to make independently, the questions they learn to ask and the confidence with which they can defend their own intellectual positions.

Ultimately, good supervision is not about creating academic replicas of ourselves. It is about equipping the next generation of researchers to think beyond us, challenge us and, eventually, stand independently without us.

Perhaps that is the real measure of successful supervision: not how much of ourselves we can see in our students' work, but how well they can stand behind that work as their own.