Abstract

This study examines online master’s dissertation supervision as a form of digital pedagogy in a UK business school, focusing on how supervisors managed feedback, interaction, student research development, and supervisory relationships during the shift from emergency remote practices to more sustainable digital models. Using a qualitative online ethnographic design, data were collected through semi-structured interviews with 31 postgraduate dissertation supervisors during the COVID-19 period. The findings identified four key themes: supervisor training and experience, procedural challenges, supervisor–student relationships, and supervisors’ role perceptions. Key issues include reduced social presence, delayed feedback, uneven student research skills, and the complexities of cross-cultural and online engagement. At the same time, supervisors adopted adaptive pedagogical strategies such as structured feedback practices, flexible communication tools, clearer expectations and emerging hybrid supervision approaches. The study contributes to the literature on digital pedagogy and higher education supervision by extending the concept of the “imaginary campus,” demonstrating how online dissertation supervision can evolve move beyond emergency response toward intentional, inclusive, and pedagogically effective supervision practice.

Keywords

References

• Abrahamson, E. D., Gilbert, T., Bishop, D., & Capocchiano, H. (2023). Engaging technology and supporting student mental health through connected online peer mentoring. International Journal of Didactical Studies, 4(2), 19898. https://doi.org/10.33902/ijods.202319898
• Aitken, G., Smith, K., Fawns, T., & Jones, D. (2022). Participatory alignment: A positive relationship between educators and students during online masters dissertation supervision. Teaching in Higher Education, 27(6), 772–786. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2020.1744129
• Almendingen, K., Skotheim, T., & Magnus, E. M. (2023). Transformation from blended to online learning: A four-year longitudinal cross-sectional interprofessional study. Education Sciences, 13(2), 116. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci13020116
• Arjang, A., et al. (2024). The effect of digital literacy, technological adoption, and collaborative learning on student engagement in business education. International Education Trend Issues, 2(2), 339–351. https://doi.org/10.56442/ieti.v2i2.893
• Bang-Larsen, A., & Qvortrup, A. (2022). Dialogic possibilities of online supervision. Dialogic Pedagogy: A Journal for Studies of Dialogic Education, 10, 59–81. https://dpj.pitt.edu/ojs/dpj1/article/view/443
• Becker, S., Jacobsen, M. J., & Friesen, S. (2025). Four supervisory mentoring practices that support online doctoral students’ academic writing. Frontiers in Education, 10, 1521452. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2025.1521452
• Beloucif, A., Mehafdi, M., & Komey, N. A. (2022). Expectation as a key determinant of international students’ satisfaction: A case study of business school MSc students. Journal of Applied Research in Higher Education, 14(1), 453–470. https://doi.org/10.1108/JARHE-04-2017-0048
• Bond, M., Buntins, K., Bedenlier, S., Zawacki-Richter, O., & Kerres, M. (2020). Mapping research in student engagement and educational technology in higher education: A systematic evidence map. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 17, 2. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-019-0176-8
• Brew, A., & Peseta, T. (2004). Changing postgraduate supervision practice: A program to encourage learning through reflection and feedback. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 41(1), 5–22. https://doi.org/10.1080/1470329032000172685
• Bruce, C., & Stoodley, I. (2013). Experiencing higher degree research supervision as teaching. Studies in Higher Education, 38(2), 226–241. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2011.576338
• Carter, S., & Kumar, V. (2017). ‘Ignoring me is part of learning’: Supervisory feedback on doctoral writing. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 54(1), 68–75. https://doi.org/10.1080/14703297.2015.1123104
• Crang, M., & Cook, I. (2007). Doing ethnographies. Sage.
• de Kleijn, R., Meijer, P. C., Brekelmans, M., & Pilot, A. (2022). Supervising graduation projects in higher professional education: A literature review. Educational Research Review, 37, 100462. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2022.100462
• Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (Eds.). (2005). The Sage handbook of qualitative research (3rd ed.). Sage.
• Deuchar, R. (2008). Facilitator, director or critical friend? Contradiction and congruence in doctoral supervision styles. Teaching in Higher Education, 13(4), 489–500. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562510802193905
• Domínguez Figaredo, D., Beaulieu, A., Estalella, A., Gómez, E., Schnettler, B., & Read, R. (2007). Virtual ethnography. Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 8(3), 274. https://doi.org/10.17169/fqs-8.3.274
• Dwyer, S. C., & Buckle, J. L. (2009). The space between: On being an insider–outsider in qualitative research. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 8(1), 54–63. https://doi.org/10.1177/160940690900800105
• Everitt, J. (2024). Learning from doctoral supervisors’ and candidates’ reflections on a supervisory model. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 62(2), 717–730. https://doi.org/10.1080/14703297.2024.2343831
• Fancett, A. (2024). Developing researchers’ writing skills. Exchanges: The Interdisciplinary Research Journal, 11(3), 304–314. https://doi.org/10.31273/eirj.v11i3.1567
• Ferreira-Meyers, K. (2022). The need for revision of selected aspects of online master’s and doctoral student supervision. Perspectives in Education, 40(1), 288–305. https://journals.ufs.ac.za/index.php/pie/article/view/5287
• Gopinathan, S., et al. (2022). The role of digital collaboration in student engagement towards enhancing student participation during COVID-19. Sustainability, 14(11), 6844. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14116844
• Hickey, A., & Forbes, M. (2022). Higher degree research supervision beyond expertise: A Rancierean and Freirean perspective on HDR supervision. Studies in Higher Education, 47(8), 1712–1723. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2021.1957812
• Hine, C. (2000). Virtual ethnography. Sage.
• Kozinets, R. V. (2002). The field behind the screen: Using netnography for marketing research in online communities. Journal of Marketing Research, 39(1), 61–72. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkr.39.1.61.18935
• Lee, A. (2020). Successful research supervision: Advising students doing research (2nd ed.). Routledge.
• Löfström, E., et al. (2023). Supervisors’ experiences of doctoral supervision in times of change. Studies in Graduate and Postdoctoral Education, 15(1), 34–48. https://doi.org/10.1108/SGPE-01-2023-0004
• Maor, D., Ensor, J. D., & Fraser, B. J. (2016). Doctoral supervision in virtual spaces. Higher Education Research & Development, 35(1), 172–188. https://www.learntechlib.org/p/193930/
• Manathunga, C. (2007). Supervision as mentoring: The role of power and boundary crossing. Studies in Continuing Education, 29(2), 207–221. https://doi.org/10.1080/01580370701424650
• Manathunga, C. (2014). Intercultural postgraduate supervision: Reimagining time, place and knowledge. Routledge.
• Markham, A. N., & Baym, N. K. (Eds.). (2009). Internet inquiry: Conversations about method. Sage.
• Markham, A., & Buchanan, E. (2023). Ethical decision-making and internet research: Recommendations from the AoIR ethics working committee. Association of Internet Researchers. https://www.aoir.org/reports/ethics2.pdf
• McChesney, K. (2022). A rationale for trauma-informed postgraduate supervision. Teaching in Higher Education, 29(5), 1338–1360. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2022.2145469
• McCallin, A., & Nayar, S. (2012). Postgraduate research supervision: A critical review of current practice. Teaching in Higher Education, 17(1), 63–74. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2011.590979
• Miller, D., & Slater, D. (2000). The internet: An ethnographic approach. Berg.
• Opesemowo, O. A. G., Adewuyi, H. O., Odutayo, A. O., & Jacob, U. S. (2025). Exploring remote supervision in higher education: Lecturers’ experiences. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 62(3), 781–794. https://doi.org/10.1080/14703297.2024.2354740
• Pham, T. D., Blue, L. E., & Anderson, P. J. (2024). Supporting indigenous success through quality supervision in research degrees. The Australian Educational Researcher, 52(2), 1199–1219. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13384-024-00759-4
• Pollard, R., & Kumar, S. (2021). Mentoring graduate students online: Strategies and challenges. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 22(2), 267–284. https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v22i2.5093
• Puri, A. (2007). The web of insights: The art and practice of webnography. International Journal of Market Research, 49(3), 387–408. https://doi.org/10.1177/147078530704900308
• Quinco-Cadosales, M. N., et al. (2024). Online instructional supervision. International Journal of Learning, Teaching and Educational Research, 23(10), 395–414. https://doi.org/10.26803/ijlter.23.10.19
• Ross, J., & Sheail, P. (2017). The ‘campus imaginary’: Online students’ experience of the masters dissertation at a distance. Teaching in Higher Education, 22(7), 839–854. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2017.1319809
• Singh, J., Steele, K., & Singh, L. (2021). Hybrid and blended learning approach for COVID-19. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 50(2), 140–171. https://doi.org/10.1177/00472395211047865
• Specht, D., & Lowe, H. (2025). The role of supervisors in asynchronous dissertation teaching. Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 25(4). https://doi.org/10.14434/josotl.v25i4.37528
• Techagaisiyavanit, W., Mingmontchaikul, B., & Keitleartthum, S. (2026). Navigating ethical challenges in research ethics approval: A case study of social science research in Thailand. Research Ethics, 22(1), 81–104. https://doi.org/10.1177/17470161251336573
• Todd, M. J., Smith, K., & Bannister, P. (2006). Supervising a social science undergraduate dissertation: Staff experiences and perceptions. Teaching in Higher Education, 11(2), 161–173. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562510500527693
• Winter, C., & Gundur, R. V. (2024). Challenges in gaining ethical approval for sensitive digital social science studies. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 27(1), 31–46. https://doi.org/10.1080/13645579.2022.2122226
• Xiaojing, Y., Zhiyong, Z., Bingqing, L., Zhuo, L., & Yan, S. (2024). Roles and interaction of supervisors and students in collective academic supervision: A qualitative study in China. Beijing International Review of Education, 6(3–4), 282–309. https://doi.org/10.1163/25902539-06030005

License

This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.