Exploring and understanding perceived relationships between doctoral students and their supervisors in China

The study investigates how doctoral supervisor–student fit or misfit shapes supervisory relationships and student outcomes, emphasizing that fit is influenced by cultural and disciplinary contexts. In China, Confucian traditions frame teacher–student ties as hierarchical and quasi-familial, while STEM supervision entails close interdependence. The paper addresses the main question: How can we understand supervisor–doctoral student perceived fit or misfit in STEM supervisory relationships in China? Two sub-questions guide the inquiry: (1) How do doctoral students and supervisors in supervisory pairs perceive fit or misfit in supervisory relationships in China? (2) How can such perceived fit or misfit be understood within cultural and disciplinary contexts? The study aims to fill gaps in prior research that seldom integrates both supervisors’ and students’ voices and rarely examines fit/misfit through a cultural (Confucian) and disciplinary (STEM) lens.

Prior work identifies conceptual and practical dimensions of fit/misfit in doctoral supervision. Conceptually, orientations differ on task-focused vs person-focused goals and controlling vs guiding supervision (Murphy et al. 2007; Murphy 2009). Students and supervisors often diverge on supervisors’ roles, resources, and success factors (e.g., students seek intensive guidance for timely completion; supervisors value independence and overall development). Practically, mismatches occur between preferred and provided supervision styles and between offered support and students’ needs (Mainhard et al. 2009; Deuchar 2008). In China, Confucianism shapes teacher–student relations as hierarchical and quasi-familial (shi-fu/di-zi), emphasizing filial piety, deference, and potential superficial harmony that masks conflicts; supervisors may feel burdened by ‘family responsibility.’ The person–environment fit framework, specifically person–supervisor fit, distinguishes supplementary fit (similarity in values/goals; conceptual) and complementary fit (needs–supplies and demands–abilities; practical) (Kristof-Brown et al. 2005). While fit theory has been suggested for doctoral education, previous studies emphasized macro student–environment fit and underplayed dyadic supervisor–student perspectives and cultural/disciplinary influences. This study applies person–supervisor fit to Chinese STEM supervision, attending to both conceptual and practical dimensions and to Confucian cultural dynamics.

Qualitative study conducted at a research-intensive Chinese university specializing in STEM. Sampling: purposive to include supervisors from hard–pure (sciences, mathematics) and hard–applied (technology, engineering) clusters (Biglan–Becher), with varied academic ranks and supervisory experience; followed by snowball sampling. Participants: five supervisors (two associate professors, three professors; 3–21 years of supervisory experience); nine doctoral students (years 1–5); forming nine supervisor–student pairs across hard–pure and hard–applied areas. Data collection: semi-structured, one-on-one interviews in Mandarin (December 2021); guide covered perceptions and practices of supervision and perceived fit/misfit with reasons. Interviews lasted ~61 to 118 minutes, audio-recorded with informed consent; confidentiality assured; transcripts verbatim; pseudonyms used. Data analysis: thematic analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2013) with NVivo 12, combining deductive coding informed by person–supervisor fit theory and doctoral education literature with inductive identification of emergent themes related to cultural and disciplinary contexts.

- Two overarching dimensions of fit/misfit were identified through a person–supervisor fit lens: 1) Conceptual (supplementary) fit/misfit. 2) Practical (complementary) fit/misfit. - Supplementary fit (conceptual congruences): • Shared view of doctoral learning as a gradual developmental process from novice to independent researcher. • Agreement that certain student dispositions are essential: positive mindset, passion/exploration, engagement/persistence, independence/autonomy. • Convergence on supervisors’ modeling and nurturing roles: supervisors act as exemplars (xuewei renshi, xingwei shifan), use scaffolding that fades as students develop independence, adjust guidance across phases. - Supplementary misfit (conceptual): • Divergence over supervisors’ familial roles. Students expected quasi-familial intimacy and care (affective + instrumental), whereas supervisors emphasized professional boundaries and multiple modern academic roles, expressing “I am only a supervisor,” highlighting tension between Confucian expectations and contemporary academic workloads. - Complementary fit (practical): • Needs–supplies fit: - Task-focused: supervisors supplied instrumental guidance (equipment use, literature, frontier topics, research ideas, writing) and resources (funding for experiments/conferences; networking). Example: student D2 accessed international collaboration and a postdoc via supervisor’s network. - Person-focused: supervisors supported career development inside and outside academia. For aspiring academics, they reinforced scientific purpose (social responsibility, national contribution) beyond “papers-only,” re-motivating students. For non-academic trajectories, they cultivated transferable skills (presentations, communication), expanded industry networks (corporate interactions), enhancing employability and professional breadth. • Demands–abilities fit: - Matching prior knowledge/skills to supervisors’ projects; interdisciplinary supervisors sought complementary backgrounds. Students also functioned as a workforce (gan huo) contributing to supervisors’ research and enterprise-funded (transverse) projects, which in turn offered students professional exposure and networks, especially in hard-applied fields. - Complementary misfit (practical) and superficial harmony: • Tensions between supervisors’ strict requirements (e.g., early lab arrivals, strong work ethic) and students’ desire for autonomy. Despite dissatisfaction, students avoided direct confrontation, maintaining superficial harmony due to hierarchical norms (“s/he is the supervisor after all”), reflecting Confucian deference. - Sample/context details supporting findings: 5 supervisors and 9 doctoral students forming 9 pairs; interviews conducted Dec 2021; STEM lab-centric contexts underscored interdependence, resource flows, and workforce dynamics.

Findings address the research questions by detailing how supervisor–student dyads in Chinese STEM perceive alignment and misalignment across conceptual beliefs and practical interactions, and how these are shaped by Confucian cultural norms and STEM disciplinary structures. Conceptually, shared beliefs about doctoral development, requisite dispositions, and supervisory modeling/nurturing underpin supplementary fit, facilitating effective guidance and independence-building. Supplementary misfit arises from conflicting expectations about supervisors’ quasi-familial roles versus modern academic role multiplicity, revealing enduring cultural scripts colliding with contemporary professional demands. Practically, complementary fit reflects STEM’s interdependence: supervisors supply resources, training, and networks meeting students’ task and developmental needs; students’ abilities, prior knowledge, and labor meet supervisors’ project demands, illustrating bidirectionality. Complementary misfit emerges where strict supervisory control clashes with students’ autonomy needs, yet hierarchical cultural norms sustain superficial harmony rather than open negotiation. Overall, the study extends person–supervisor fit theory to doctoral supervision by integrating dyadic perspectives and illuminating cultural–disciplinary mechanisms that produce fit/misfit, with implications for supervision quality, student satisfaction, and professional development.

The study contributes by advancing the application of person–supervisor fit to STEM doctoral supervision with dyadic (student and supervisor) perspectives, delineating two dimensions of fit/misfit: supplementary (conceptual) and complementary (practical). It shows three areas of conceptual alignment (doctoral development, key dispositions, supervisory modeling/nurturing) and identifies conceptual misfit around expected familial roles. Practically, it demonstrates bidirectional complementary fit (needs–supplies; demands–abilities) characteristic of STEM, and highlights a complementary misfit where strict supervisory practices conflict with students’ autonomy, often masked by culturally driven superficial harmony. Recommendations include institutional support for structured dialogue to surface expectations, and supervisors signaling and fostering open, egalitarian communication climates. Future research should broaden samples across institutions and disciplines, and probe how supervisor rank/age and student stage shape perceived fit/misfit, further unpacking cultural–disciplinary intersections.

Small sample from a single research-intensive Chinese university limits generalizability; disciplinary categorization (hard vs soft) is coarse; findings are specific to STEM and Confucian cultural context. Future work should include more institutions and diverse disciplines, and examine the roles of supervisors’ academic rank and age, and students’ stage of study in shaping perceptions of supervisory relationships.