The Role of Reflection in Doctoral Education: An Integrative Review of Approaches to Supporting Well-Being and Developmental Growth

Abstract

Doctoral supervision is a complex and multifaceted endeavor that requires balancing the dual objectives of promoting academic development and supporting the well-being of doctoral candidates. This study examines how care-focused strategies and the concept of professional uncertainty can guide supervisors in addressing these demands. An integrative review methodology was used to synthesize findings from educational, psychological, and health-related literature, identifying methods and practices that enhance well-being and personal growth among doctoral candidates. Results indicate that fostering supportive relationships, integrating coaching practices, and adopting salutogenic approaches promote resilience and autonomy in doctoral students. Supervisors’ self-care and collegial support were also highlighted as critical for sustaining their capacity to guide students successfully. Challenges include managing conflicting expectations, navigating cultural diversity, and addressing stress within supervisory relationships. By emphasizing relational and ethical dimensions, the study demonstrates how reflective supervision can create environments that support both academic progress and mental health. While focused on doctoral education, these findings may also offer insights for teacher education programs, suggesting ways in which principles of care, reflection, and professional uncertainty could be relevant in broader educational contexts. Recommendations for practice include adopting structured supervision cycles and embedding care as a core principle in institutional policies. This paper offers practical insights and tools for integrating care-based strategies into doctoral supervision, providing a framework to enhance doctoral students’ well-being and adaptability while helping supervisors balance their dual roles.

1. Introduction

Being a doctoral student can feel like boarding a ship without knowing its destination. As a supervisor, I step aboard the same journey, recognizing with some anxiety that I am expected to serve as its captain, navigating toward uncertain waters. Even if the supervisory role mainly takes place on solid ground, it still carries risks. Prior research has documented challenges and risks faced by doctoral students. Findings from Satinsky et al. (2021) indicate a high prevalence of mental health issues among doctoral students, with depression, anxiety, and suicidal thoughts being common symptoms. Although precise data on the prevalence of suicidal thoughts remain challenging to obtain due to variations among studies included in the review (Satinsky et al., 2021), the trend is nonetheless alarming. This issue presents additional challenges for supervisors, who, despite prioritizing the well-being of their doctoral candidates, must balance this support with the task of guiding them toward developing specific expertise while encouraging their independence.

The interplay between professional uncertainty and care becomes particularly significant in the context of doctoral supervision. Both concepts highlight the relational and ethical complexities in guiding doctoral candidates. Research, by its nature, requires navigating fields where the final destination is uncertain. It is through the process itself that insights emerge. In my doctoral work (Klefbeck, 2022), I relied on the concept of professional uncertainty to describe the challenges that special educators may encounter when working with students with complex and extensive needs. In interpreting findings on teachers’ strategies for promoting engagement and learning for students with co-occurring autism and intellectual disabilities (Klefbeck, 2022), I drew upon the concept of professional uncertainty. Professional uncertainty, as explored by Mintz (2014), emerges as a central aspect in teaching, especially in contexts involving students with special educational needs as there are no definitive answers, and hastily made decisions can be misleading despite initially appearing in line with evidence-based practice. Mintz highlights how working with children diagnosed with autism presents a “fertile crucible” for exploring teacher uncertainty. This uncertainty stems from the challenge of balancing expert, diagnostic knowledge with the experiential, often tacit knowledge that teachers acquire through direct interactions with these students. Specifically, the complexities of autism—where traditional social communication abilities are impacted—raise critical questions about agency, autonomy, and independence, aspects central to both teaching and supervisory roles. Similarly, in doctoral supervision, the supervisor must navigate the dual challenge of addressing the emotional and academic needs of their students while encouraging their growth toward independence. Care, therefore, is more than just support; it provides a framework for approaching open-ended questions and relational aspects of supervision. Supervisors must balance offering guidance with enabling their doctoral candidates to take ownership of their research journeys. In the present study, Mintz’s (2014) concept of professional uncertainty serves as a framework for understanding research findings on care-based strategies in doctoral supervision.

This perspective on professional uncertainty (Mintz, 2014), paired with the challenges and responsibilities identified in existing research (Satinsky et al., 2021), underscores the complexity of doctoral supervision. With these insights in mind, and having recently completed a supervision course (spring term 2024), I am now preparing for my forthcoming supervisory responsibilities—a task that fills me with both anticipation and anxiety. To interpret the supervisor’s acts of care, I turn to Romano’s (2020) concept of care, which highlights the importance of attentiveness, mutual trust, and ethical responsiveness in building and maintaining the teacher–student relationship. Both student/doctoral candidate and teacher/supervisor must engage in shared responsibility. The doctoral student’s project has to align with broader goals, meet the funders’ criteria, and, within this process, there exists within the supervisor’s mind a desire to leave a mark or contribute to the field.

Drawing on Romano’s theory, I explore the supervisor–doctoral candidate relationship as an ethical practice, where care extends beyond academic development to encompass a genuine presence in the challenges and uncertainties characterizing doctoral education. This focus on ethical care naturally intersects with Kreber and Cranton’s (2000) description of effective knowledge transmission, which they argue requires a blend of instructional, pedagogical, and curricular knowledge. According to Kreber and Cranton, such knowledge must be meaningful, contextualized, and validated within its specific setting, an approach that resonates with the purpose of this integrative research review.

Against this backdrop, reflection emerges as the crucial link between professional uncertainty and care in doctoral supervision. By actively engaging in reflective practice, both supervisors and doctoral candidates can transform open-ended questions and relational challenges into actionable strategies that promote well-being, mental health, and professional growth. In the following sections, this integrative review examines how these three concepts interconnect in practice, thereby contributing to ongoing discussions on the role of reflection in teaching and learning.

1.1. Purpose

Building on this understanding, the purpose of this study is to synthesize other researchers’ findings and implications regarding how doctoral supervision can be designed to support doctoral candidates’ well-being, mental health, and personal development. The study focuses on how supervisors can contribute to doctoral candidates’ academic and personal growth by considering various supportive practices, guided by the core perspectives of professional uncertainty, reflection and care. Additionally, the study aims to identify factors that promote or hinder this development.

1.2. Research Questions

• What methods, theoretical approaches, and findings have been identified in the studies reviewed?
• How can aspects of care and health be identified and used to enhance the well-being of both doctoral candidates and supervisors?
• What types of challenges are highlighted in the studies regarding strategies for supporting doctoral candidates’ personal and academic development, and how can they be addressed?

2. Materials and Methods

The approach used to identify scientific articles on care-related strategies in research supervision in the present study can best be described as an integrative review method, based on the framework outlined by Kutcher and LeBaron (2022). This method was chosen to align with the research questions’ aim of mapping out which care practices are applied in research supervision, examining how these have been implemented to enhance the well-being of doctoral candidates and supervisors, and identifying challenges related to supporting doctoral students’ personal and academic development.

As stated by Kutcher and LeBaron (2022), an integrative review does not require the researcher to narrow down the search in advance. Rather, it provides an overview of available research, especially useful in areas with limited existing results, where pre-defining search parameters can be challenging (Kutcher & LeBaron, 2022). An integrative review differs from scoping or systematic reviews in that it involves a more comprehensive and pragmatic approach. Kutcher and LeBaron (2022) originally describe a seven-step process for conducting an integrative review, which includes: selecting a topic, determining aims for the analysis, performing a comprehensive literature search, organizing and evaluating the data, analyzing and synthesizing the findings, summarizing results and formulating conclusions, and finally distributing the findings. For this study, the original seven-step process has been adapted and condensed into four key steps to better align with the scope and objectives of the research. These four steps consolidate and simplify the original steps while maintaining their core principles. The adapted steps include:

• Defining the research question and purpose—Combining the selection of the topic and setting a clear aim.
• Conducting a literature search—Covering the search process and organizing initial data.
• Synthesizing findings—Analyzing data and identifying patterns and themes.
• Summarizing and sharing results—Formulating conclusions and communicating findings.

This adapted structure maintains the core principles of the original framework (Kutcher & LeBaron, 2022) while streamlining the process for practical application. The concepts of care and professional uncertainty have been applied as analytical lenses to guide the interpretation of the findings, enriching the analysis.

2.1. Keywords and Databases

To achieve the aim and address the research questions, articles were searched across a broad spectrum of databases, covering educational, medical, and psychological research. Keywords used related to research supervision, care, health, and academic growth. The initial search strings were: (“academic mentoring” OR “research supervision”) AND (care OR caring) AND (“well-being” OR “wellbeing” OR “mental health”) AND (“academic growth” OR “academic development”). As these initial searches yielded no results, adjustments were made. In line with the present study’s first step of the integrative review methodology, “Defining the research question and purpose—combining the selection of the topic and setting a clear aim”, broader terms were included, and care terms were expanded to incorporate words associated with the desired outcomes of care, such as well-being, while excluding specific phrases. The adjusted search string used in the search (2024-05-03) was: (“academic mentoring” OR “research supervision” OR “supervisor support”) AND (wellbeing OR wellness OR “mental health”) AND (development OR growth OR “personal growth”), with corresponding terms in Swedish. Following the present study’s second methodological step, “Conducting a literature search—covering the search process and organizing initial data”, a systematic screening process was applied to ensure the relevance and quality of the articles included in the review. Studies that did not explicitly address research supervision, care, or doctoral student well-being were excluded. Duplicate records identified across the databases were removed. Furthermore, only peer-reviewed articles were considered, excluding editorials and other non-research materials. To ensure that the value and relevance of the materials could be accurately assessed, only studies published in languages where the author has proficient understanding, specifically English or Swedish, were included. This screening process ensured that the final selection of articles directly aligned with the research questions and methodological framework.

The search began in established databases from the university library; however, as too few studies were identified, it was expanded to include broader coverage information databases. The search results are shown in

Table 1. Databases ¹.

Database	Total Hits	Relevant Hits
Education Research Complete	6	2
Medline	30	0
PsycInfo	47	1
Google Scholar (English)	Unspecified	2
Google Scholar (Swedish)	Unspecified	1

¹ The search included both academic databases (Education Research Complete, Medline, PsycInfo) and the broader platform Google Scholar (in English and Swedish).

below.

The third step of the methodological process, “Synthesizing findings—analyzing data and identifying patterns and themes”, was conducted by analyzing the findings of the included studies through the lens of professional uncertainty and care. These theoretical concepts are described in the following section. The outcome of the fourth and final step; “Summarizing and sharing results—formulating conclusions and communicating findings”, is presented in the result section, where the outcome of the theoretical analysis is reported, providing a synthesis of the findings.

2.2. Analytical Framework: Professional Uncertainty and Care

In this review, the concepts of professional uncertainty, reflection, and care are used to examine care-related strategies in doctoral supervision. Professional uncertainty, as conceptualized by Mintz (2014), refers to the challenges professionals face when situations lack definitive answers. Drawing on Schön’s notion of reflection-in-action, Mintz highlights how practitioners make continuous, real-time adjustments by integrating both formal (theoretical) knowledge and tacit, experiential insights. This interplay recognizes that not all practical dilemmas can be solved by prescriptive guidelines alone; it also underscores the importance of flexible, context-dependent thinking. Reflection in this context serves not only as a mechanism for immediate problem solving, but also as a catalyst for awareness. Additionally, care, as described by Romano (2020), provides a framework for analyzing the relational and ethical dimensions within doctoral supervision. Romano’s model offers identifies several phases of care, including “caring about”, “taking responsibility”, and “caring with”. By focusing on these elements, the framework provides a structured approach to understanding how care practices support both academic and personal development (Romano, 2020).

The systematic screening and analysis process ensured the relevance of the selected articles, while transparency in each step supports the validity of the interpretations.

3. Results

The results section begins with an overview of methods, theoretical approaches, and findings of the studies included in this review (Research Question 1). Next, the identified supportive practices are presented, detailing how these principles were applied in practice (Research Question 2). In the following part, the challenges and opportunities related to care and well-being identified in the included articles are discussed (Research Question 3).

3.1. Presentation of the Methods, Theoretical Foundations, and Results of the Identified Articles

The results of the review of the methods, theories, and findings of the included articles are summarized in the table below (see

Table 2. Purpose, Methods, Theory, and Results.

Article	Purpose	Method	Theoretical Framework	Findings vs. Care Framework Connection	Implications for Practice
Article 1 (Bendrups et al., 2021)	Explore doctoral students’ experiences in a transnational educational collaboration.	Qualitative interviews with doctoral students.	Theories on transnational education.	Importance of face-to-face interaction, cultural diversity, and cohort identity. Caring with: Group sense of belonging enhances resilience through trust and mutual support, despite physical distance.	Highlights the need for culturally adapted supervisory practice.
Article 2 (Bergnéhr, 2013)	Analyze relational dynamics within doctoral supervision.	Qualitative interviews and theoretical analysis.	Theories on relational supervision.	Balancing structured guidance and flexibility is essential for supervision. Caring about: Flexibility promotes autonomy and emotional resilience over time.	Supervisors should balance structure with flexibility to meet students’ transforming needs.
Article 3 (Bordogna & Lundgren-Resenterra, 2023)	Evaluate how coaching can be integrated into doctoral supervision.	Case studies and interviews.	Normalization Process Theory (NPT).	Coaching contributes to resilience and stress management. Caring with: Coaching enhances adaptability, self-efficacy, and reflective growth.	Institutions should consider integrating coaching methods to improve stress management and self-efficacy.
Article 4 (Byrom et al., 2022)	Identify factors influencing doctoral students’ stress and well-being.	Quantitative survey with 431 doctoral students.	Stress and well-being models.	Social support networks and a positive self-image influence mental health. Caring about: Positive identity promote mental well-being.	Departments should strengthen social support, address imposter syndrome (self-doubt), and provide mental health resources.
Article 5 (Eriksson, 2019)	Introduce a salutogenic approach to doctoral supervision.	Conceptual and theoretical study based on the researcher’s own experience.	Salutogenic principles.	Mutual support reduce stress and enhance well-being. Taking responsibility: Salutogenic principles promote resilience through resource identification.	Recommends using ’The Collegial Model’ with structured meetings and mutual learning opportunities to reduce stress and enhance transparency.
Article 6 (Wisker & Robinson, 2016)	Explore supervisors’ well-being and professional identity.	Mixed methods combining previous studies and new inter-views.	Identity and resilience theories.	Collegial support and self-care reduce supervisor stress and enhance identity. Taking responsibility: Supervisor self-care models resilience and supports sustainable supervision.	Collegial support structures should be implemented to support supervisors’ well-being and reduce their stress levels.

Note. Highlights the main elements and outcomes of each article.

). To illustrate these aspects, the purpose of each article, as well as implications arising from their findings, are also highlighted.

The reviewed articles highlight a spectrum of methods, theoretical approaches, and findings that collectively shed light on how doctoral supervision can support well-being, mental health, and personal development. A recurring theme across the studies is the importance of supportive relationships, which align with Romano’s (2020) concepts caring about and caring with by balancing structured guidance with flexibility to meet doctoral students’ growing needs (Bergnéhr, 2013; Byrom et al., 2022).

This relational approach is further enriched by findings that emphasize cultural and contextual sensitivity in supervisory practices, particularly in transnational education contexts, where a group sense of belonging promotes trust and resilience despite physical distance (Bendrups et al., 2021). Similarly, environments that highlight mutual support and clarity were shown to reduce stress and enhance well-being, reflecting strategies for taking responsibility for creating sustainable supervisory relationships (Eriksson, 2019).

Some articles explored innovative practices, such as integrating coaching into supervision, which aligns with caring with by promoting adaptability and stress management skills in doctoral students (Bordogna & Lundgren-Resenterra, 2023). In addition to addressing students’ needs, the studies underscore the importance of supervisors’ own well-being. Collegial support and self-care, as highlighted by Wisker and Robinson (2016), reflect taking responsibility by enabling supervisors to manage their professional pressures and therethrough model resilience for their students.

Taken together, these findings demonstrate how care-focused practices within doctoral supervision can foster supportive and adaptive relationships that build resilience and autonomy among both doctoral students and supervisors.

3.2. Specific Care Practices and Their Implementation

In the previous section, methods, theoretical approaches, and findings were outlined, along with aspects of how these can be applied in doctoral supervision. This section provides a more detailed analysis of how the identified care and health-related aspects can be utilized to enhance the well-being of both doctoral students and supervisors.

• Supportive relationships are essential. Bergnéhr (2013) and Byrom et al. (2022) emphasize the importance of relational dimensions in supervision, corresponding closely with the present study’s care framework’s focus on “caring with”, which stresses trust and solidarity. By cultivating responsive and flexible relationships, supervisors provide the relational foundation necessary to support both autonomy and well-being in their students. This reflects the ethical dimensions of care, where attentiveness and responsiveness are central. Concretely, this can involve creating agendas for the supervision meetings and document agreed-upon outcomes to ensure transparency (Bergnéhr, 2013) or keeping regular check-ins to discuss progress and challenges (Byrom et al., 2022), thereby cultivating a supportive supervision process.
• Personalized coaching as a supportive tool for doctoral student well-being. Findings by Bordogna and Lundgren-Resenterra (2023) indicate that coaching strengthens personal endurance and stress management in doctoral students. This practice connects to professional uncertainty, as coaching provides students with tools to navigate complex and uncertain situations, promoting their capacity for reflection and adaptation. Concretely, this can involve using structured reflection exercises, such as journaling or scenario-based problem-solving, to help students identify stressors and develop strategies to address them.
• Salutogenic principles such as clarity, manageability, and meaningfulness. Eriksson’s (2019) “Collegial Model” integrates structured meetings and consistent feedback, corresponding with both frameworks. The emphasis on clarity and mutual learning reflects care’s relational focus, while the adaptive and reflective processes highlighted by Eriksson resonate with professional uncertainty, enabling supervisors to guide students through complex academic challenges. Concretely, this can involve supervision agreements defining roles and timelines, along with logbooks or structured agendas to ensure clarity and direction (Eriksson, 2019).
• Supervisor self-care. Wisker and Robinson (2016) advocate for self-care as a strategy for supervisors to reduce stress and maintain presence in supervision. This practice complements care, as it models sustainable well-being for students while enhancing the supervisor’s ability to engage in attentive interactions. Concretely, journaling or discussing challenges with trusted colleagues can help supervisors process stress and maintain emotional resilience. As Wisker and Robinson (2016) highlight, these practices also cultivate a sense of solidarity among supervisors.
• Social and collegial support. Byrom et al. (2022) and Eriksson (2019) highlight the importance of social networks and collegial support for mental health. These findings align with the care framework, where collective responsibility and “caring with” are emphasized. Collegial fellowship not only support supervisors and students but also promotes an environment of mutual respect. Concretely, Byrom et al. (2022) recommend regular research group meetings or networking events to build community. Eriksson (2019) adds that structured peer feedback sessions and collaborative projects foster a sense of shared purpose, enhancing mutual respect and understanding.
• Structured and adapted support. Bendrups et al. (2021) highlight the need for culturally adapted supervisory practices in transnational collaborations. This reflects the ethical responsibility embedded in care, as well as the adaptability required by professional uncertainty to address diverse and unique student needs. Concretely, Bendrups et al. (2021) recommend developing culturally sensitive communication by conducting workshops tailored to the specific needs of diverse student groups. Additionally, establishing clear guidelines for supervisors to navigate cultural differences in academic practices (Bendrups et al., 2021).

The identified practices illustrate the practical application of the care framework and professional uncertainty, showing how supervisors integrate relational and reflective approaches to support doctoral students’ academic and personal development. For example, cultivating supportive relationships, as emphasized by Bergnéhr (2013) and Byrom et al. (2022), corresponds to the relational dimension of the care framework, where trust and attentiveness are central. Incorporating coaching practices, as discussed by Bordogna and Lundgren-Resenterra (2023), equips students with tools to manage complex and uncertain situations, reflecting strategies central to professional uncertainty. Supervisors adopting a salutogenic perspective, focusing on clarity and meaningfulness in supervision (Eriksson, 2019), create an environment that supports sustainable well-being. Prioritizing supervisor self-care, as highlighted by Wisker and Robinson (2016), models healthy practices for students, while structured and culturally adapted support, as described by Bendrups et al. (2021), addresses diverse student needs, promoting both academic success and personal growth.

3.3. Challenges and Strategies for Addressing Them

What challenges, then, are reported in the studies regarding strategies to promote the personal and academic development of doctoral students? The identified studies encompass a range of factors that may hinder a positive doctoral student–supervisor relationship.

The quality of the supervisor–doctoral student relationship. As previously mentioned, strong supervisor–doctoral student relationships are crucial for doctoral students’ health and well-being (Bergnéhr, 2013; Byrom et al., 2022; Eriksson, 2019; Wisker & Robinson, 2016), but these can be difficult to maintain. Bordogna and Lundgren-Resenterra (2023) state that difficulties often arise from differing expectations and communication styles between the parties, which can lead to tension and misunderstandings.

Integration of coaching in supervision. The introduction of coaching into supervision is highlighted as a strategy that promotes personal and professional development for doctoral students (Eriksson, 2019). Even so, this approach can challenge established norms of supervision, which traditionally focus on academic guidance. Bordogna and Lundgren-Resenterra (2023) argue that adopting coaching practices often requires supervisors to reassess their roles and develop new skills, such as providing tailored support. This shift may face resistance in contexts where coaching is not yet widely accepted as part of the supervisory process.

Research supervisors need to support doctoral students both academically and personally. In contrast, the broader theme of holistic support emphasizes the dual role of the supervisor in addressing both academic and personal challenges faced by doctoral students. Byrom et al. (2022) stress that emotional and personal support is essential for students to navigate the demands of their programs. However, balancing these roles can strain supervisors, as it requires going beyond traditional academic mentorship. Eriksson (2019) and Wisker and Robinson (2016) highlight that such dual responsibilities necessitate institutional support and resources to enable supervisors to meet these demands effectively.

Conflict management and stress reduction are important but challenging. Wisker and Robinson (2016) highlight that the supervisor often experience stress linked to managing conflicts and expectations within supervisory relationships. This stress, if left unaddressed, can negatively impact both supervisors’ well-being and their ability to provide support. Similarly, Bordogna and Lundgren-Resenterra (2023) demonstrate that coaching methods, such as active listening and constructive feedback, can help doctoral students manage stress by fostering adaptability and reflective problem-solving.

However, the practical implementation of these strategies remains complex. Studies reveal that doctoral students often face feelings of isolation and pressure, which amplify the need for institutional support structures. Addressing these challenges requires a combination of conflict management training, supportive supervisory practices, and peer networks to help reduce stress and promote resilience. By integrating coaching approaches and creating collaborative environments, academic institutions can better support both supervisors and students, ultimately building a healthier research climate. While strategies such as building strong relationships (Bordogna & Lundgren-Resenterra, 2023; Byrom et al., 2022; Eriksson, 2019), integrating coaching practices (Bordogna & Lundgren-Resenterra, 2023; Eriksson, 2019), and providing holistic support (Byrom et al., 2022; Wisker & Robinson, 2016) can significantly benefit doctoral students, implementing these practices is not without obstacles. Coaching, for example, represents a targeted tool for personal development, while holistic support requires a broader and more encompassing approach. Balancing the dual role of academic mentor and personal support provider demands new competencies in communication and conflict management (Wisker & Robinson, 2016).

The included studies reveal that doctoral students often face feelings of isolation and pressure, which amplify the need for institutional support structures. Addressing these challenges requires a combination of conflict management training, supportive supervisory practices, and peer networks to help reduce stress and promote resilience. Building on these insights, a synthesis of the challenges identified in the included studies suggests that supervisors might benefit from adopting an annual supervision cycle.

Such a cycle could include the following elements:

• Early in the academic year. Establish clear expectations and engage in reflective dialogs about uncertainties, helping students reframe uncertainty as an opportunity for growth.
• Mid-year review. Include discussions on personal well-being and emotional challenges alongside academic milestones, such as guided feedback sessions focused on stress management and adaptability.
• Year-end reflection. Encourage students to reflect on their experiences of uncertainty, highlighting the resilience and skills they developed throughout the year.

By adopting a reflective cycle, supervisors could better equip doctoral students with the resilience, adaptability, and critical skills needed to navigate challenges both within and beyond their research.

4. Discussion

Although Kreber and Cranton (2000) do not specifically address supervision, their description of reflective practice in teaching is relevant for understanding the research summarized in the present integrative review. The results suggest that by implementing structured systems for collaboration and reflection, such as the annual supervision cycle, supervisors can continuously assess and adapt their approach to better support the doctoral candidate’s development. Much like a captain steering their ship, the supervisor plays a crucial role in guiding the doctoral candidate through the early stages of the academic journey.

Several of the included studies (Eriksson, 2019; Wisker & Robinson, 2016) show that a supervisor’s ability to gradually transfer responsibility and encourage independent decision making is essential for the candidate’s growth and success. Recent research on doctoral students’ well-being (published in July 2024) (Acharya et al., 2024), based on semi-structured interviews with 35 doctoral students, introduces the challenge and hindrance demands framework, which differentiates between challenge demands—those that stimulate growth and development—and hindrance demands, which hinder well-being and performance. The findings suggest that this framework can help doctoral students better understand the dual nature of demands in doctoral education: certain challenges, such as workload, can support resilience if managed effectively, while hindrances, such as interpersonal conflict, can impar the stress levels. These results (Acharya et al., 2024) enrich the findings of the present study’s integrative review, as it adds additional concepts for reflective candidate–supervisor discussions.

To help the candidate manage the pressures and demands of their studies, the supervisor may need to prepare them to navigate challenges independently before reaching the destination. Various studies in the present study’s synthesis emphasize that supervision should consider personal development and mental well-being, in addition to research progress (Bendrups et al., 2021; Bergnéhr, 2013; Bordogna & Lundgren-Resenterra, 2023).

Other factors, such as coaching and salutogenic approaches (Bordogna & Lundgren-Resenterra, 2023; Eriksson, 2019), suggest that care in supervision enables the supervisor to foster an environment where the candidate feels seen and confirmed, enhancing their emotional and academic capacity. These findings emphasize that aspects of care in supervision are critical not only for the candidate’ success but also for the supervisor’s development. However, as Wisker and Robinson (2016) highlight, supervisors face significant challenges, including managing stress and balancing academic and emotional support.

To address these challenges, institutional support and self-care strategies—such as coaching programs, stress management workshops, and peer support networks—can enable supervisors to manage their dual roles effectively.

The aim of this study was to explore how doctoral supervision can support doctoral candidates’ well-being, mental health, and personal growth. By drawing on previous research, the study sought to understand how supervisors can contribute to candidates’ development through supportive practices while identifying potential obstacles. The reviewed articles (article no 1–6) emphasize that strong supervisor–candidate relationships are crucial for encouraging independence and creativity. Those findings align with Mintz’s (2014) notion that professional uncertainty can drive innovation and responsiveness, as it encourages teachers/supervisors to critically assess and adapt their methods rather than relying solely on predetermined strategies.

For supervisors, this productive uncertainty plays a crucial role. By maintaining an open and reflective stance, supervisors can model the importance of navigating ambiguity for their doctoral candidates, fostering resilience and adaptability. Acting with empathy and responsiveness, the supervisor not only helps candidates to take on responsibilities and make independent decisions but also demonstrates how to balance formal academic guidance with personal support, particularly in emerging academic territories. In line with this, recent findings (Acharya et al., 2024) suggest that supervisors who balance technical guidance with emotional sensitivity promote an environment that enhances both academic performance and mental well-being, underscoring the relational and ethical dimensions of effective supervision.

Romano’s (2020) framework is employed in this discussion to understand and interpret the supervisor’s role as one of ethical care, emphasizing the importance of creating a secure and reflective environment. Creating a secure, reflective environment allows doctoral candidates to mature professionally, equipping them with the skills needed to manage uncertainty in their own future careers. As Mintz (2014) suggests, such an approach has implications beyond the immediate context, encouraging professional growth that is adaptable and responsive to the diverse needs of students vs. doctoral candidates.

This summary of the findings suggests that recognition and incorporation of care principles in supervision benefits both the candidate’s and supervisor’s development. According to Romano (2020), care involves a shared responsibility in educational contexts to create a sustainable and supportive learning environment. Wisker and Robinson (2016) emphasize that institutional support and self-care strategies are central for enabling supervisors to balance their dual roles, ensuring they can guide candidates effectively while maintaining their own well-being. Ultimately, integrating care and professional uncertainty as guiding principles enriches the development of both doctoral candidates and supervisors, fostering a supervisory environment that is adaptable and deeply reflective.

4.1. Method Discussion

Through a synthesis of the included articles, aspects of the supervisor’s care for the doctoral candidate have been examined, where the supervisor’s care mission is defined as extending beyond the responsibilities of the academic work relationship to also encompass the well-being and academic growth of both parties. In this study, the concept of care has been expanded to include strategies for health and well-being in doctoral supervision, with data collected through search strings covering a broad spectrum of care principles within the supervisory role. An integrative review methodology (Kutcher & LeBaron, 2022) was employed in this study, driven by the need to provide an overview of the existing research field. The integrative review method allows flexibility, integrating qualitative and quantitative studies and sources beyond academic ones. This flexibility makes it well-suited for exploratory investigations that provide an overarching understanding of doctoral supervision, health, and care. The study by Acharya et al. (2024) revealed important and additional aspects in the research on doctoral supervision, specifically by contributing with the challenge and hindrance demands framework.

While Acharya et al. (2024) suggested future research with a longitudinal approach to investigate moderating and mediating factors influencing doctoral students’ experiences of challenges and hindrances over time, the present study’s synthesis offers a different but complementary perspective. Rather than employing a longitudinal method, this study integrated findings from multiple researchers to investigate how well-being and health are addressed in doctoral supervision. By synthesizing insights from various studies, the present study aimed to contribute to a broader understanding of supportive practices and their implications. The findings of this study contribute a nuanced understanding of how care principles and structured reflective practices in supervision can address both the personal and academic development of doctoral students while encouraging resilience and adaptability in the supervisory relationship. This approach complements Acharya et al.’s (2024) call for further exploration by providing actionable insights into how supervisors and institutions can better support doctoral students’ health and development.

However, this study cannot be regarded as a purely traditional review, as it incorporates significant elements of the researcher’s own experiences and self-reflection. The inclusion of personal insights and reflections, particularly on professional uncertainty and care, adds a dimension that moves beyond objective synthesis. These reflective aspects are intended to add a nuanced interpretation of the findings, where the researcher’s experiences actively inform the analysis. As a consequence, accepting variability among the included articles, the integrative approach has produced a broad overview of the field. Therefore, a recommendation for future research may be for the next “captain” to apply a more systematic scope and refined search strategies based on the results obtained in this study.

4.2. Implications for Teacher Education

Although the present review centers on doctoral-level supervision, the findings can be applied to the training and ongoing development of educators:

• Navigating Professional Uncertainty. Just as doctoral supervisors face ambiguous situations without straightforward solutions, teachers in K–12 or higher education frequently encounter classroom challenges, from diverse student needs to evolving curricular demands. Embedding reflection-in-action (Schön, described by Mintz, 2014) within teacher education programs can encourage prospective teachers to develop the habit of pausing, assessing, and adjusting their instructional strategies in real time. This reflective approach equips teachers with the flexibility required to address unpredictable classroom scenarios.
• Emphasizing Care in Teacher–Student Relationships. In the same way that care contributes to doctoral students’ well-being, adopting care-based strategies in teacher education can support relational dimensions in the classroom. By modeling attentiveness, empathy, and shared responsibility, teacher educators can help preservice teachers recognize the social and emotional aspects of teaching. This, in turn, can create supportive learning environments that encourage students at all levels to thrive academically.
• Integrating Reflective Practice. Structured reflective frameworks (e.g., annual cycles, peer-reflection groups, or coaching sessions) can be adapted for initial teacher training and ongoing professional development. Encouraging novice educators to regularly evaluate their teaching approaches and discuss challenges with peers can lead to a deeper understanding of student learning needs.
• Balancing Emotional Sensitivity. Just as supervisors balance formal academic guidance with personal support, teacher educators can learn to address preservice teachers’ emotional well-being. Acknowledging emotional challenges can strengthen teacher self-efficacy and reduce burnout.
• Developing Sustainable Professional Communities. The peer support strategies highlighted for supervisors in this research synthesis (e.g., coaching programs, networks) can likewise be incorporated into teacher education. Collaborative learning communities may help new teachers feel supported and tackle classroom uncertainty.

By drawing on these principles, prospective teachers may develop not only robust methodological strategies for effective instruction but also the relational and ethical sensibilities needed to promote enduring professional growth.

4.3. Future Research

While this study provides a broad overview of supportive practices within doctoral supervision, there remain significant opportunities for further research to deepen the understanding of this complex field. Future studies could adopt longitudinal designs to investigate the long-term effects of care-based supervision strategies on doctoral candidates’ well-being, resilience, and academic success. Additionally, more systematic reviews with refined search strategies could build upon this study’s findings, identifying gaps in the literature and evaluating the effectiveness of specific interventions.

Furthermore, I would propose a practice-based research approach, where doctoral supervisors actively examine their own supervisory practices with the aim of identifying and implementing improvements. This could be conducted in the form of a lesson study, where supervisors collaborate to systematically reflect on their practice, share experiences, and try out strategies for improvement. Such an approach requires a supportive environment that supports trust among all participants, ensuring that reflections and learning can take place constructively. By adopting a practice-based approach, supervisors can gain insights into the relational dimensions of care in supervision while simultaneously contributing to the development of sustainable, student-centered supervisory practices.