Introduction

Since the 1990s, educational research has undergone an “affective turn” as a result of the critique of the long-standing Cartesian dualism between emotionality and rationality (Zembylas, 2021). Over the following three decades, the dynamic and complex nature of teacher emotion has been explored from various perspectives and approaches (Agudo, 2018). Since emotion can significantly impact various stages of the teaching process, either facilitating or hindering it (Yin, 2016a, 2016b), opportunities for emotion regulation can be identified in educational contexts at any time (Taxer & Gross, 2018). In higher education, although emotion regulation has been proven significant to teacher development and well-being (Xie, 2021), the majority of research has been conducted within the context of classroom instruction (Tao et al., 2022), leaving that of research supervision in graduate education unexplored.

In graduate education, emotion plays an important role in the supervisory process and relationship building which involves a series of emotional interactions essential for both supervisors and graduate students. The existing research has demonstrated an increasing need for supervisors to develop emotion regulation skills to cope with the challenges and provide emotional support in research supervision (Wollast et al., 2023). On the one hand, supervisors need to employ emotion regulation strategies in the challenging supervisory contexts, as accountability-based policies and the blurring of personal and academic relationships between supervisors and graduate students may trigger complex emotional experiences such as anxiety and worry for supervisors (Xu, 2021). On the other hand, the provision of support from supervisors is strongly linked to the emotional well-being and research success of graduate students (Janssen & Vuuren, 2021; Wollast et al., 2023). Specifically, supervisors’ emotion regulation plays a crucial role in providing emotional support to graduate students, which in turn has a positive impact on graduate students’ well-being and their belief about their further academic pursuits (Han & Xu, 2023; Wollast et al., 2023).

Of the limited research on emotion in graduate education, much has been conducted to investigate the influence of graduate students’ emotion regulation on their mental health and academic engagement (Saleem et al., 2022). However, there is a paucity of studies which have researched supervisors’ emotions and emotion regulation during the supervisory process. With the aim of unpacking how research supervisors employ emotion regulation strategies in real supervisory scenarios to effectively fulfill their roles, and to gain insights into the nature of research supervision, this qualitative study explores the emotion regulation strategies used by supervisors in the process of research supervision.

Literature review

Teacher emotion and emotion regulation

Emotion, once considered inferior to cognition, has gained increasing attention in the social sciences, including in educational research (Han & Xu, 2023). The current recognition of the intricate interplay between emotion and cognition in teaching and learning highlights the importance of emphasizing teacher emotion in both teacher development and teacher well-being (Chen & Cheng, 2022). Emotion is complex and difficult to define (Chen & Cheng, 2022), and the connotation of emotion has shifted from an intrapersonal perspective to a relational one, emphasizing interactions between individuals and their environment during emotion generation (Campos et al., 2011).

Under the relational view of emotion, individuals can achieve social goals in most jobs involving interpersonal interactions through emotion regulation (Brotheridge & Grandey, 2002). Emotion regulation refers to “the processes by which individuals influence which emotions they have, when they have them, and how they experienced and expressed their emotions” (Gross, 1998, p. 275). In the educational field, a growing interest of research in emotion regulation has emerged since the 1990s (Yin, 2016a, 2016b; Zembylas, 2021), as teaching has been viewed as “an emotional practice” (Hargreaves, 1998, p. 835). Due to the importance of emotion in teachers’ professional lives, it is crucial for teachers to regulate their emotions to achieve improved teaching and learning outcomes. Specifically, enhancing positive emotions can foster better teacher-student relationships, promote creativity in teaching, and strengthen students’ learning motivation; inappropriately managed negative emotions can have adverse effects on these aspects (Hargreaves, 1998). Although teachers’ emotion regulation has been widely examined (e.g., Taxer & Frenzel, 2015; Yin, 2015, 2016a, 2016b; Yin et al., 2018) most studies, influenced by the concept of emotional labor, have mainly focused on two types of emotion regulation strategies: deep acting (the act of internalizing a desired emotion, matching expressed emotion with felt emotion) and surface acting (the act of altering emotional expression without regulating inner feelings) (Grandey, 2000; Hochschild, 1983). Comparatively, Gross’s (1998) process model of emotion regulation provides a more nuanced framework to examine teachers’ employment of a wider range of emotion regulation strategies. According to Gross (1998, 2015), emotion regulation could be achieved through two main approaches: the antecedent-focused and response-focused approach. The former entails strategies that seek to avoid or regulate emotions by modifying the factors triggering emotion generation, which include situation selection, situation modification, attention deployment, and cognitive changes. The latter modifies an individual’s expressions and responses after the emotions have fully manifested, directly influencing physiological, experiential, or behavioral responses.

In recent years, the predominant focus of studies, guided by Gross’s (1998) process model, has been on investigating the motivations, strategies, and outcomes of teachers’ intrapersonal emotion regulation (e.g., Taxer & Gross, 2018; To & Yin, 2021; Xu, 2021). Teachers’ motivations for emotional regulation stem from their diverse teaching goals, including managing the impressions that various parties have of them, adapting to intensive educational reforms for survival, and enhancing students’ concentration levels (Hosotani, 2011; Xu, 2021). As for emotion regulation strategies, the existing literature has mainly been conducted under Gross’s (2015) model, and revealed a series of antecedent-focused (e.g., situation selection, attention deployment, and cognitive change) and response-focused strategies (e.g., suppression, relaxation, and avoidance) to cope with the ambivalent demands and enormous workload faced by teachers. Remarkably, certain strategies that reflect the unique nature of teachers’ work, such as genuine expression (Yin, 2015; Yin, 2016a, 2016b) and interpersonal strategies (To & Yin, 2021), have been identified. Regarding outcomes of emotion regulation, genuine expression of emotion and cognitive appraisal strategies were found helpful to improve the effectiveness of classroom teaching and to maintain a balance between teachers’ professional and personal dimensions of their identities (Yin, 2016a, 2016b). In contrast, suppressing, pretending, and restraining emotions may cause emotional dissonance and less received social support (Yin, 2015).

Emotion regulation and research supervision

In graduate education, supervisors’ emotional experiences are triggered by the complexity and high demands of research supervision (Han & Xu, 2023). The conflicting roles of taking responsibility for both supporter and supervisor simultaneously, the contradiction between supervisors’ high expectations of students’ learning autonomy and graduate students’ unsatisfactory performance, and the blurred boundaries between supervisory relationship and friendship (Han & Xu, 2023; Parker-Jenkins, 2018) are major challenges encountered by research supervisors. These challenges lead to various emotional experiences on the part of supervisors, including positive emotions, such as joy and love (Halse & Malfroy, 2010), and more prevalent negative emotions, such as anger, and disappointment (Sambrook et al., 2008). Given the diverse range of emotions that emerge during the supervision process, it is necessary for supervisors to employ various emotion regulation strategies to accomplish effective research supervision.

According to literature, emotion regulation is strongly associated with research supervision in three areas. First, effective research supervision requires a constructive and supportive supervisory relationship, which is facilitated by supervisors’ emotion regulation. As poorly managed supervision relationships contribute to low academic completion rates, supervisors are required to establish a respectful and caring relationship with their students (Halse & Malfroy, 2010). However, creating and maintaining such relationships can be challenging. Specifically, during the interactions with graduate students, supervisors are expected to offer emotional supports, including encouragement, motivation, and recognition based on students’ individual needs while ensuring that any critical feedback is delivered constructively (Lee, 2008). However, excessive emotional engagement or close relationships with students may hinder their ability to provide constructive criticism (Lee, 2008). As such, supervisors must strike a balance between offering emotional support and providing constructive feedback, thereby developing a successful educational partnership with their students.

Second, the emotional support provided by supervisors plays a positive role in facilitating graduate students’ research productivity and emotional well-being (Han & Wang, 2024; Wollast et al., 2023). In terms of research success, supervisors who encourage critical thinking and support constructive controversies tend to produce higher achievement and retention rates than those who adopt a directive and authoritarian approach (Johnson, 2001). Furthermore, emotional support from supervisors has been linked to higher levels of research self-efficacy and emotional well-being among graduate students (Diekman et al., 2011). Specifically, structure and autonomy support strongly influence graduate students’ feelings and expectations about their future academic success. Thus, in academic settings, supervisors should adopt effective emotion regulation strategies, offering constructive feedback, close guidance, and attentiveness to maintain graduate students’ motivation and mental well-being.

Third, effective emotion regulation is also critical for the well-being of research supervisors themselves. When faced with repeated frustrating events such as a lack of student progress and demanding requirements in accountability-based supervisory contexts, supervisors may experience feelings of exhaustion, particularly when they perceive their supportive efforts as being ineffective (Xu, 2021). Failing to regulate these negative emotions with effective strategies can lead to the accumulation and intensification of undesirable feelings, resulting in detrimental effects on supervisors’ well-being and job satisfaction, which may ultimately lead to their emotional burnout and disengagement (To & Yin, 2021).

So far, the very limited research on research supervisors’ emotion regulation in medical and scientific disciplines found that although supervisors use instructional strategy modification (e.g., directly pointing out students’ writing deficiencies), cognitive change (e.g., reappraising the relationship between students’ underachievement and their supervision), and response regulation (e.g., lowering their voice to calm themselves) to deal with negative emotions (Han & Xu, 2023), they still have difficulties in stepping out of negative emotions (Sambrook et al., 2008). Meanwhile, supervisors from different disciplines may use different emotion regulation strategies due to disciplinary differences in occupational challenges, societal expectations, and specific work environments (Veniger & Kočar, 2018). Therefore, it is necessary for researchers to investigate the emotion regulation of supervisors with different disciplinary backgrounds.

Based on the literature, underpinned by Gross’s (2015) process model, the present qualitative multi-case study aims to investigate the emotion regulation strategies employed by research supervisors from different disciplinary backgrounds. Specifically, the study seeks to answer this core research question: What strategies do research supervisors use to regulate their emotions during the supervision process?

Methods

As the in-depth understanding of supervisors’ emotion regulation strategies relies on the narratives of their journey of research supervision, we used narrative inquiry to explore supervisors’ lived experiences in supervising graduate students. Narrative inquiry emphasizes the co-construction of specific experiences by the researcher and participants (Friedensen et al., 2024; Riessman, 2008), which allows us to co-construct the meaning of emotion regulation with participants through qualitative data including interviews, observations, and documents.

Research context: Emphasizing the accountability of research supervision

The Chinese research supervision system has its roots in the nineteenth century, evolving alongside the development of graduate education (Xie & Zhu, 2008). Within this system, research supervisors play a crucial role in research-based master’s and doctoral education. In 1961, a supervisor accountability system was formalized, placing the responsibility on supervisors for overseeing students in research projects, journal publications, and dissertation completion. Under the guidance of supervisors, students engage in specialized courses, master the latest advancements in a specific field, and conduct research (Peng, 2015).

In recent years, with the rapid growth of graduate education in China, both supervisors and graduate students have expressed concerns about the quality of research supervision (Xu & Liu, 2023). Thus, national policies have been introduced to stipulate supervisors’ responsibilities and enhance the overall supervision quality, with a particular emphasis on the accountability of research supervisors. In 2020, the Accountability Measures for Educational Supervision, released by China’s Ministry of Education (2020), outlined a code of conduct for supervisors, emphasizing that supervisors bear the primary responsibility for cultivating postgraduate students. Specifically, supervisors are held accountable for various aspects of graduate students’ academic progress, including the quality of dissertations, academic conduct, and the appropriate utilization of research funds. Failure to fulfill these responsibilities may result in serious consequences, such as disqualification from supervising students or the revocation of teaching credentials.

Participants

To explore a wide range of emotional experiences and emotion regulation strategies that arise when supervising students at various stages of their academic journey, participants were purposively selected based on the following three criteria: (1) doctoral supervisors with the qualifications to oversee research-based master’s students and PhD candidates were considered, which allows us to gain insights into their emotions in supervising students at different academic stages; (2) supervisors with a minimum of 5 years of supervision were selected, as their long-term experience would provide a comprehensive understanding of the depth and evolution of emotion regulation strategies; (3) supervisors of both hard and soft disciplines were involved, as disciplinary features may significantly shape supervisors’ styles, potentially leading to their diverse emotions and emotion regulation strategies. Finally, six doctoral supervisors from four universities in China agreed to participate in the study voluntarily and were informed of the research purpose and ethical principles before the study. Table 1 provides a summary of the demographic information for all participants.

Table 1 The participants’ demographics
Full size table

Data collection

The positionality statement is essential as the authors’ roles may influence the data collection process. Specifically, two authors are doctoral supervisors with rich experience in research supervision, and one author is a doctoral student. Participants for this study were recruited from the authors’ colleagues or recommendations from friends. In the spirit of self-reflexivity, we acknowledge our positions in research supervision and recognize that our relationships with participants may impact our collection and interpretations of the data. However, the authors had attempted to minimize the possible influence through continuous reflection, crosscheck, and discussions during the data analysis and interpretation.

To produce convincing qualitative accounts, collecting data from multiple sources including semi-structured interviews, observations, and documentation was employed in the current study from November 2022 to April 2023.

The primary source of data was individual interviews with each participant. To gather participants’ narratives of critical events in their research supervision, an interview protocol was designed according to our research purpose, but the interview questions were sufficiently flexible to enable the interviewer to adapt the content according to the specific interview situation. The interviews lasted between 120 and 150 min, during which the participants were asked to describe critical events in their research supervision, their emotional experiences, and whether and how they regulated their emotions. Follow-up questions were asked to gain a more profound understanding of their emotion regulation strategies when they provided surprising and ambiguous responses. Sample interview questions included “What emotions do you typically experience as a research supervisor?” and “Do you regulate your emotions induced by research supervision? If so, how?” All interview questions were presented in Chinese, the participants’ first language, and were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim.

Observation was used to complement the data obtained from interviews. Before the observation, all supervisors and their students were informed about the research purpose and ethical principles. Then non-participant observation during their group and individual meetings proceeded only with their voluntary participation. Supervisors’ supervisory methods, activities, meeting atmosphere, and emotions of meeting members were recorded to supplement and validate the data collected through the interview. A short follow-up interview was then conducted with supervisors, focusing on their reflections on emotional events that occurred during the observed group and individual meetings.

Documentation was also used as a supplementary method. With the consent of the participants and their students, supervisors’ annotations and feedback on graduate students’ manuscripts, unofficial posts about supervision on social media (e.g., WeChat moments sharing), and chat logs between supervisors and students were collected to obtain additional information about the participants’ emotional experiences and supervisory practices. Table 2 presents the interview durations, the total minutes recorded during observations, the length of follow-up interviews, and the specific number and types of documents reviewed by both supervisors and students.

Table 2 Data collection types, time, and numbers
Full size table

Data analysis

The analysis involved a three-level coding process (Yin, 2016a, 2016b). First, interview transcripts were repeatedly read to label data excerpts that addressed the research questions. Initial codes were based on participants’ original perspectives and then iteratively refined and combined. Second, the coding system was organized according to Gross’s (2015) process model of emotional regulation, which distinguishes between antecedent-focused and response-focused strategies. Meanwhile, the study also remained open to other emotion regulation strategies that were evident in the empirical data. Third, the coding system was distilled to capture the nature of the identified strategies, resulting in three types of emotion regulation strategies. During the analysis process, the data were classified and organized using the NVivo software.

To strengthen the credibility of the data analysis, the interview transcripts were carefully examined multiple times to ensure that the data were accurately reflected in the coding scheme. Moreover, the coding scheme was collaboratively developed by the authors, and any discrepancies in classification were thoroughly deliberated to achieve mutual agreement. The final coding system, along with sub-categories and patterns, is presented in Table 3.

Table 3 Summary of research supervisors’ emotion regulation strategies
Full size table

Findings

In sum, seven emotion regulation strategies in research supervision emerged from the empirical data, which can be grouped into two categories, namely, antecedent-focused strategies and response-focused strategies.

Antecedent-focused strategies

Supervisors used antecedent-focused strategies to regulate the external situation and their internal cognition before the emotions were generated.

Prevention

Prevention involves the prediction and avoidance of situations that may lead to undesirable emotional experiences during supervision prior to the generation of emotions. Prevention strategies were frequently utilized in the graduate student recruitment process and early stages of supervision, as a means of avoiding undesirable situations. On the former occasion, supervisors identified multiple recruitment indicators, such as research experiences and GPA, to avoid supervisory situations that may lead to negative emotions. This is commonly related to their former supervisory experience: “It was frustrating to supervise a student who was not invested in her work, so I have to implement a rigorous recruitment process to prioritize candidates who are truly interested in research, rather than rashly recruiting students” (P1-interview).

Supervisors remain vigilant once a supervisory relationship was established, as they are required by accountability-based policies to be responsible for students’ research performance and safety. Many supervisors stressed the significance of “establishing rules and regulations” (P4-interview) in the early stages of supervision to avoid infuriation and disappointment with students’ academic misconduct. Therefore, establishing an academic code of conduct is an effective prevention strategy for supervisors: “I’m frustrated by academic misconduct among students, as discovering data falsification in student-published articles holds me accountable, risking serious consequences for my academic career. So I frequently emphasize the need for high academic honesty and integrity standards” (P2-interview, observation).

Another concern that worried supervisors, especially those of science and technology, is student safety: “Whenever I hear about a laboratory explosion that causes student injuries, it makes me very nervous” (P3-interview, documentation). It is crucial for the institutions and supervisors to establish comprehensive laboratory safety rules and educate students on safety protocols before conducting experiments: “I told my graduate students: Failure to obey laboratory rules and lack of safety awareness can lead to immediate accidents that not only affect yourself but also pose a risk to other students” (P3-interview).

Intervention

Intervention is the most commonly employed strategy by supervisors to enhance the effectiveness of their supervision once a supervisory relationship is established. They employed various intervention strategies to improve students’ academic attitude and develop their academic ability.

Specifically, supervisors improved their students’ engagement and altered procrastination either by scaffolding their research or enforcing discipline and prohibitions. On the one hand, our participants acknowledged the importance of instructional scaffolding in the supervisory process.

We need to cultivate students’ interest so that they can actively engage in research. For instance, I often demonstrate interesting phenomena between the English and Chinese languages to generate my students’ curiosity. Then I am delighted to see their willingness to immerse themselves in linguistic research. (P5-interview)

On the other hand, some supervisors emphasized the enforcement of discipline in supervision. One supervisor expressed disappointment and dissatisfaction with the lackadaisical research atmosphere within the entire research group. In response, she implemented strict discipline and prohibitions to restrict students from engaging in activities unrelated to research in the office (P2-observation).

Finding a student watching a movie in the office angered me as it may disturb other students trying to focus on their studies. So, activities like watching movies and listening to music are not allowed in our office. By rigorously enforcing these rules, our research group was able to collaborate more effectively and ultimately achieve satisfactory results. (P2-interview)

Furthermore, intervention strategies were also used to enhance graduate students’ academic competency. Modifying supervisory activities was considered as a useful method. One supervisor shared: “We used to read literature in our group meeting together, but it was not effective. I felt frustrated and decided to change our meeting activities this semester.” As a result, the supervisor organized students to provide feedback on each other’s manuscripts in weekly group meetings, because “it was very effective in improving their writing abilities” (P1-interview, observation).

Interestingly, some supervisors opted to micromanage students’ research processes when they were disappointed with their research performance

At first, I encouraged students to independently identify research topics, but I later realized with disappointment that it was challenging for them to identify gaps in the existing literature. To make things more efficient, I started assigning research projects directly to help them complete their dissertation and meet the graduation requirements. (P5-interview)

Reinterpretation

Reinterpretation refers to the process of cognitively reappraising a supervisory situation from different perspectives to change its emotional impact. Supervising a graduate student who lacks interest in research was described as a “prolonged and painful undertaking” (P4-interview). However, one supervisor noted that: “Dwelling on negative emotions can be unproductive as it does not necessarily solve problems. Despite the challenging experience, I have gained valuable insights and will be better equipped to handle such situation” (P4-interview).

In addition to explaining the meaning of the situations from supervisors’ viewpoints, they reconsidered the events from graduate students’ perspectives to rationalize their unsatisfactory performance and procrastination. For example, supervisors understood students’ time arrangements when they procrastinated: “I used to become annoyed when students failed to submit assignments punctually… Now I know that students need a balance between work and rest. They need adequate time for rest” (P5-interview).

On occasion, supervisors reappraised the connection between students’ misbehaviors and the effort they invested from the perspective of the teacher-student relationship.

I felt angry when things happened, but I wouldn’t let that emotion affect my life. I see myself as a supervisor to students, not a parent, so I don’t hold high expectations for them. If students choose not to follow my guidance, it’s not my concern anymore. (P6-interview)

Reconcentration

Reconcentration is the strategy by which supervisors focus on another aspect of supervision or divert attention away from supervision with the intent of changing emotional consequences. Specifically, during the supervisory process, supervisors prepared themselves to be optimistic by reminding themselves of their students’ strengths: “I was anxious about a student who always made slow progress in research. But when I later realized that his incremental results were consistently good, indicating that he was very meticulous, I felt much better” (P2-interview, observation).

Apart from diverting attention during supervision in working environments, the participants highlighted the importance of balancing personal and professional life to manage negative emotions that may arise during supervision.

After giving birth, I realized that caring for a child demands a considerable amount of time and energy. Then I redirected my attention from supervising students to my family. Thankfully, my family provides a supportive environment, and the pleasant moments shared with my family members helped me overcome negative emotions associated with work. (P4-interview)

Detachment

Detachment refers to the act of separating from or terminating the supervisory relationship to disengage from negative emotions. This strategy was often employed when intervention, reinterpretation, and reconcentration strategies were ineffective. When supervisors found that various proactive measures failed to resolve the challenges in research supervision, they experienced enduring feelings of helplessness, confusion, and distress. One supervisor expressed deep frustration, stating, “I’ve exhausted all efforts—careful communication with her and her parents, and providing my support during her experiments. Yet, she continued to resist making progress with her experiments and dissertation. I felt lost in supervising this student” (P4-interview). As a result, they have to release themselves from the emotionally harmful supervisory relationships.

Some supervisors chose to disengage, meaning they no longer actively push the student: “Continuing to push a student who refused to participate in research despite all my efforts would only increase my frustration. I have decided to let him go and will no longer push him” (P5-interview).

In some extreme cases that evoke negative emotions, supervisors even terminated the supervisory relationship.

Supervising this student was a painful experience as his inaction negatively affected the entire research team. Other students started following his behavior and avoided conducting experiments. It made me feel suffocated. I had to terminate my supervision to avoid any further negative impact on the team and myself… I felt relieved after he left. (P3-interview)

Response-focused strategies

Response-focused emotion regulation involves the use of strategies after an emotion has already been generated.

Suppression

Suppression involves consciously attempting to inhibit behavioral and verbal emotional responses. Although supervisors experienced negative moods during research supervision, some refrained from expressing these emotions to students. Certain supervisors believed that criticism hinders problem-solving. One participant explained, “While interacting with students, I found some are genuinely fearful of supervisor authority. In such cases, venting emotions on students only heightens their fear, makes them hesitant to express themselves or their confusion in research, and ultimately hinders their progress” (P1-interview). In addition, some supervisors believed that expressing anger or disappointment toward students could harm their self-efficacy in research. One supervisor stated, “Obtaining a master’s degree is a challenging journey, especially for novice researchers. Confidence is crucial for their success. As a supervisor, I refrain from expressing negative emotions as it can hurt students’ feelings and even damage their confidence” (P3-interview).

As mentioned by the supervisors above, expressing anger and disappointment to graduate students may not resolve issues but damage their self-efficacy. In challenging situations where negative emotions were hard to suppress, supervisors opted to temporarily suspend supervision activities or introduce new tasks to regain composure: “Sometimes revising students’ manuscripts can be a painful task. To avoid the risk of expressing negative emotions to them, I often temporarily suspend the revision. Sometimes I take a walk until I feel calmer and more collected” (P1-interview).

Expression

In supervision, expressing emotion is another effective strategy for regulating supervisors’ emotions. Although supervisors were aware that expressing negative emotions may sometimes negatively affect students’ feelings, the importance of their own emotional well-being was emphasized, as “expressing feelings helped me recover from negative moods faster” (P6-interview). However, supervisors had different expressive styles when interacting with their students.

Some supervisors expressed their anger and dissatisfaction to their students directly, through behavioral or verbal emotional responses. A supervisor recounted an incident, “During a phone call with her, I lost my temper because of her terrible attitude, and ended up throwing my phone” (P4-interview).

Interestingly, given that “graduate students are all adults” (P6-interview), some supervisors expressed their emotions more tactfully, taking care not to lose their temper and cause distress to their students. One supervisor “felt angry with a student’s poor writing.” However, instead of scolding the student directly, he made a joke during a one-to-one meeting, saying “It’s not that you wrote poorly. It’s that I am not clever enough to comprehend your writing.” The student laughed, and then the supervision was conducted in a relaxed atmosphere. The supervisor explained: “I do not hide my emotions but prefer to avoid losing my temper and instead use humor to guide my students better” (P5-interview, observation).

Discussion

This study contributes to the existing literature on emotion regulation by providing detailed insights into how emotion regulation strategies were utilized by research supervisors. It also sheds light on the dilemmas supervisors encounter and the paradox between the context-dependent nature of research supervision and the accountability-based managerial context.

Supervisors’ dilemmas in research supervision

Our study demonstrated supervisors’ capacity to proactively employ diverse emotion regulation strategies when coping with difficulties in research supervision. It also revealed some paradoxical phenomena within the supervisors’ utilization of these emotion regulation strategies, highlighting the dilemmas they encountered in the context of research supervision.

In general, supervisors in our study demonstrated a higher tendency to employ antecedent-focused strategies for emotion regulation rather than response-focused strategies, which can alleviate their emotional burnout and enhance their well-being. Specifically, participants utilized intervention strategies as antecedent-focused strategies to improve the effectiveness of research supervision, rather than seeking consolation to alleviate generated emotions. Previous research has indicated that antecedent-focused strategies were associated with increased life satisfaction (Feinberg et al., 2012). By intervening in the emotion generation process at an early stage, these strategies can potentially alter the emotional trajectory, contributing to improved well-being among supervisors (Gross & John, 2003).

While supervisors displayed a strong inclination to utilize diverse strategies to enhance the effectiveness of their supervision, our findings unveiled two paradoxical phenomena in their emotion regulation strategies, indicating the dilemmas that supervisors faced in authentic supervisory situations. First, in antecedent-focused strategies aimed at modifying situations that may trigger negative emotions, numerous interventions and detachments highlighted the conflicts supervisors encountered as they strived to balance adequate assistance and excessive interference. Specifically, while participants in our study “inspired students through scaffolding” or “encouraged students’ autonomous learning,” they also “micromanaged students’ research process” or “enforced discipline” to enhance supervision efficiency. This pedagogical paradox concerning the choice between intervening and non-intervening approaches has generated ongoing debate in existing research (Janssen & Vuuren, 2021). Both approaches have the potential to evoke negative emotional experiences for supervisors and graduate students. Research found that a highly intervening approach has negative implications for both supervisors and graduate students (Lee, 2020). Students who have encountered autonomy-exploitative behavior from their supervisors, such as being restricted to specific research topics and methodologies, have reported experiencing negative emotions (Cheng & Leung, 2022). For supervisors, the burden of an intervening approach, the dissonance between supervisors’ expectations and students’ actual research progress, as well as students deviating from conventional practices (Han & Xu, 2023), all contribute to feelings of frustration, sadness, and exhaustion. Nevertheless, non-intervening approaches do not always fulfill the expectations of both parties either. Supervisors who encouraged graduate students’ autonomous action acknowledged the value of promoting their independent thinking, which has been identified as a significant predictor of students’ research self-efficacy (Gruzdev et al., 2020). However, students who initially expected their supervisors to play a leadership role felt dissatisfied and disappointed when supervisors were reluctant to offer explicit guidance (Janssen & Vuuren, 2021). This misunderstanding of supervisors’ intentions can ultimately generate negative effects on supervisors’ emotional experiences (Xu, 2021).

Another evident paradoxical phenomenon arises in the response-focused strategies employed after emotions have already been triggered. Although supervisors opted to suppress their negative emotional expression to safeguard the confidence and self-esteem of mature learners, there were instances when they outpoured their disappointment and anger to students, aiming to swiftly step out of their negative moods. The act of expressing and suppressing emotions highlights the dilemma of cultivating a mutually beneficial relationship that promotes emotional well-being for both supervisors and students. On the one hand, the existing literature emphasizes the importance of supervisors being sensitive to students’ emotional experiences (Bastalich, 2017). The inherent power imbalance in supervisor-student relationships may create a sense of student dependency on their supervisors (Friedensen et al., 2024; Janssen & Vuuren, 2021). Excessive criticism from supervisors can potentially lead to feelings of loss, and alienation throughout students’ academic journey, which highlights supervisors’ responsibility to manage their emotional criticism in supervisory interactions (Parker-Jenkins, 2018). On the other hand, although pursuing a research degree is a challenging journey for graduate students, it is important to acknowledge the vulnerability of research supervisors and their need for support (Parker-Jenkins, 2018). Power dynamics within supervisory relationships, particularly when students challenge or disregard supervisors’ advice, can lead to repression and disengagement for supervisors if negative emotions are not effectively regulated (Xu, 2021). Thus, recognizing supervisors’ needs and allowing for emotional expressions are also essential in developing a relationship that is mutually beneficial and conducive to the well-being of both parties (Parker-Jenkins, 2018).

The conflicts between research supervision and institutional policies

The dilemmas present in supervisors’ emotion regulation strategies inherently illustrate the context-dependent and non-standardized nature of research supervision. However, as modern higher education institutions move toward implementing accountability-based policies that aim to standardize and quantify research supervision (Jedemark & Londos, 2021), conflicts between the nature of supervision and these institutional policies not only place an emotional burden on supervisors, but also endanger the quality of graduate education.

The dilemmas observed in supervisors’ emotion regulation strategies highlight the divergent understandings between supervisors and graduate students regarding their respective responsibilities and the boundaries of the supervisor-student relationship. This divergence is influenced by context-dependent factors in research supervision, including the beliefs, motivations, and initiatives of the individuals involved (Denis et al., 2018). Due to the difficulty in achieving a perfect agreement on these context-dependent factors, it becomes challenging to establish a standard for what constitutes an ideal beneficial research supervision (Bøgelund, 2015). In authentic supervisory situations, the relationships between supervisors and graduate students can range from formal and distant to informal and intimate in both academic and social interactions (Parker-Jenkins, 2018). Therefore, research supervision is a highly context-dependent and non-standardized practice that relies on the capabilities of supervisors and students, which are shaped by their individual experiences and personalities.

This nature of research supervision underscores the significance of avoiding standardization and a “one size fits all” approach. However, as higher education institutions move toward a corporate managerial mode, research supervision is increasingly perceived as a service provided within a provider-consumer framework, and the fundamental aspects of research supervision are being reshaped to align with a culture of performance measurement, control, and accountability (Taylor et al., 2018). In modern academia, universities and institutions have established specific guidelines and protocols for research supervision, which require supervisors to follow diligently and take accountability in the supervision process (Figueira et al., 2018).

The presence of extensive external scrutiny or accountability ignored the context-dependent and non-standardized nature of research supervision, leading to adverse effects on both supervisors and graduate students. On the one hand, supervisors face significant pressure within an accountability-based context. They are expected to serve as facilitators of structured knowledge transmission, which is enforced through the demanding requirements and time-consuming tasks associated with supervisory practices (Halse, 2011). However, the distinctive characteristics of various disciplines and the interdependent relationship between the supervisory context and graduate students’ learning process are neglected (Liang et al., 2021). Such a narrow focus on knowledge transmission may pose potential threats to supervisors’ autonomy and academic freedom, generating their feelings of self-questioning, helplessness, and demotivation (Halse, 2011). Supervisors in our study reported many examples of emotion regulation strategies utilized to cope with performative and accountability pressures in their workplace. Specifically, the responsibility to ensure timely doctoral completions, prioritize students’ safety, and maintain accountability for those experiencing delays or violating research codes evoked feelings of nervousness, pressure, and insecurity among supervisors.

On the other hand, interventionist supervision within accountability-driven supervisory contexts is perceived as detrimental to students’ academic innovation (Bastalich, 2017). The prevailing environment of heightened performativity and accountability alters supervisors’ attitudes toward academic risk-taking, thereby influencing their supervisory practices (Figueira et al., 2018). For example, participants in our study utilized prevention and intervention strategies to mitigate potential negative occurrences. This included adopting a directive approach to supervise students’ work and dissuading them from undertaking risky or time-consuming methods to ensure timely completion. However, such micromanagement may stifle innovation, thereby inhibiting doctoral students’ development as independent researchers (Gruzdev et al., 2020). Providing pre-packaged research projects or excessive support may hinder students’ acquisition of essential knowledge, skills, and expertise required for their future pursuits, potentially obstructing their progress toward independent thinking (Gruzdev et al., 2020).

The conflicts between the prevailing shift from autonomy to accountability in higher education and the context-dependent and non-standardized nature of research supervision highlight the necessity for practice-informed evaluations for research supervision. This finding resonates with previous studies on policy-making in graduate education (Taylor et al., 2018), which emphasized the challenges of establishing evidence-based institutional policies to capture the intricate realities of supervision in practice.

Limitations

This study contributes to the understanding of research supervisors’ work by examining their emotion regulation strategies in authentic supervisory situations. However, certain limitations should be addressed for future research. First, the small sample size is a significant limitation, as only six supervisors participated. Future studies may increase the sample size and enhance diversity within the sample. Second, as our study only involved perspectives from research supervisors, future studies may consider incorporating the perceptions of both supervisors and graduate students and analyzing the level of convergence and divergence between the obtained results to enhance the validity of data collection.

Implications for practice

Despite being situated in China’s supervisory accountability system, our study holds broader implications in the global context. As the shift toward corporatized management models in higher education worldwide reshapes research supervision to align with performance measurement and accountability culture (Jedemark & Londos, 2021), our results offer implications for research supervision and policy-making beyond the Chinese context.

First, for research supervisors and graduate students, the intricate and dynamic nature of research supervision revealed in our study makes it challenging to offer direct recommendations for optimal emotion regulation strategies. Instead, supervisors are encouraged to adaptively employ a range of emotion regulation strategies in different supervisory situations to enhance their emotional well-being. Additionally, recognizing the context-dependent nature of research supervision, both research supervisors and graduate students are urged to take into account factors such as each other’s beliefs, motivations, and initiatives in their research and daily interactions.

Second, in light of the discrepancy between the current standardized accountability measures in higher education and the context-dependent nature of research supervision, it is imperative for universities and institutions to develop practice-based policies that are tailored to supervisors’ and students’ academic development, avoiding generic and assumed approaches. To effectively address the distinctive requirements of research supervision, policy-makers are strongly encouraged to implement multi-dimensional, discipline-oriented evaluation systems for supervisors in the future.