As academics, we carry knowledge and experiences gained during our careers. An academic ideal is that we don’t keep these to ourselves. We should cherish and nurture a longing within us to share what we know.

Rarely does this ideal emerge as plainly as in the relationship with a doctoral student. The university accepts new postgraduate students who are eager to start their research. For them to develop as academics, an experienced researcher acts as their supervisor – a mentor who travels with the doctoral student throughout the research process and shares their knowledge and experience.

Supervising is a privilege. It is a chance to realize a longing to live out the academic ideal.

No two supervisor relationships are the same, and no supervisor knows everything about the supervision process. To prepare the supervisor, the doctoral student, and everyone else who is affected by the supervision process, it is important to reflect on and learn more about it. In the first issue of the Journal of Teaching and Learning (JoTL), you will have the opportunity to learn more about this important academic mission.

In this issue, you can read five contributions that deal with supervision and doctoral education. The first is from Alberto Chrysoulakis, “Doctoral Supervision: A Reflection Matrix for Process and Progress.” In it, the author invites supervisors of doctoral students to reflect on their supervision practice in relation to five categories: “relationship,” “domain/research knowledge,” “pedagogical competence,” “functional aspects,” and “methodological understanding.”

The second text is by Fatiha Djebbar and Amilcar Soares, “An Overview and an Reflection of the Process and Product of Ph.D. Programs.” They look at three key figures in doctoral education – the supervisor, the supervisor, and the academic department – and discuss what their role looks like at different stages of their doctoral studies.

The third text is by Defne Kadioglu and Chiara Valli, “It Takes a Village to Get a PhD: Producing the ‘Independent Researcher’ by Extending the Supervisory Relationship.” From a feminist perspective on care-practice, they discuss multiple and often unrecognized and unknown relationships that arise during the doctoral process.

The fourth text is written by Kristoffer Holm, “The supervisor’s role in facilitating the doctoral student’s identity development.” It discusses possible ways in which a supervisor can contribute to a doctoral student’s identity formation as a researcher, as well as his/her socialization into a larger academic context.

Doctoral programs vary around the world. A comparative perspective is offered in the fifth article “PhD Education in Brazil and Sweden: A Comparative Pedagogical Analysis” by Claudio Linhares. It compares doctoral education in Brazil and Sweden. It further discusses how varying support structures and evaluation processes within the different systems influence the quality of the doctoral student’s research and experience.

In addition that you can read about supervision and doctoral education, this issue also contains two articles that deal with essential aspects of higher education.

One is titled “Formativt arbetssätt som ett verktyg för språkutveckling och lärande i högre utbildning” and is written by Zeljka Prelevic. The text uses a research-based feedback model and suggested strategies for assessment to reflect on different types of feedback the teacher can give to support the students’ language and writing development.

The second is written by Kevin Walther, “Reflections on Using Audience Response Software in Higher Education Accounting Courses.” The article discusses whether audience response software (ARS), using Wooclap as an example, can contribute to student engagement and active learning.

Thank you to all the writers for your contributions and thank you to all readers who support JoTL.

Fredrik Portin
Editor-in-Chief, JoTL