• Peter Gavora Tomas Bata University in Zlín



Doctoral study, doctoral supervisor, supervisor´s interaction, self-rate system


The knowledge of interaction between a supervisor and doctoral students brings important consequences for research purposes, for supervisor´s evaluation, and for a feedback to a supervisor. In this paper we introduce a descriptive instrument, Inventory of Supervisor Activities, which makes it possible to rate the supervisor´s activities. The instrument concentrates on supervisor´s activities during interaction with a student in three phases of the doctoral studies: before enrolment of the student, during the study and after completion of the study. The system covers 100 activities, which are hierarchically organized, and which make it possible to obtain a rather complex portrayal of the interaction of the supervisor with the doctoral student.


Bandura, A. (2009) Self-efficacy. The Exercise of Control, New York: W. H. Freeman and Comp.  ISBN 0-7167-2850-8

Barnes, B.J., Austin, A.E. (2009) ´The Role of Doctoral Advisors: A Look at Advising from the Advisor’s Perspective´,  Innovative Higher Education, vol. 33, no. 5, pp. 297-315.

den Brok, P.J., Levy, J., Rodriguez, R., Wubbels, Th. (2002) ´Perceptions of Asian–American and Hispanic–American Teachers and their Students on Interpersonal Communication Style´, Teaching and Teacher Education, vol. 18, no. 4, pp. 447–467.

Franke, A., Arvidsson, B. (2011) ´Research supervisors’ different ways of experiencing supervision of doctoral students´, Studies in Higher Education, vol. 36, no. 1, pp. 7–19.

Fullan, M.G., Hargreaves, A. (1991) What´s Worth Fighting for? Working Together in Your School, Toronto: Ontario Public School Teachers´ Federation, ISBN 1-878234-02-1.

Gardner, S.K. (2010) ´Faculty Perspectives on Doctoral Student Socialization in Five Disciplines´, International Journal of Doctoral Studies, vol. 5, pp. 39-52.

Guidelines for Advising Relationships between Faculty Advisors and Graduate Students (2009), Stanford University, Office of Graduate Studies. Retrieved on Oct. 21, 2014 from

Halse, C. (2011) ‘Becoming a Supervisor: The Impact of Doctoral Supervision on Supervisors’ Learning´, Studies in Higher Education, vol. 36, no. 5, pp. 557–570.

Halse, C., Malfroy, J. (2010) ´Re-theorizing Doctoral Supervision as Professional Work´, Studies in Higher Education, vol. 35, no. 1, pp. 79–92.

Kristsonis, W.A. (2008) ´Functions for the Doctoral Dissertation Advisor. Focus on Colleges´, Universities and Schools, vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 1-6.

Lee, A. (2008) ´How Are Doctoral Students Supervised? Concepts of Doctoral Research Supervision´, Studies in Higher Education, vol. 33, no. 3, pp. 267–281.

Marsh, H.W., Rowe, K.J., Martin, A. (2002) 'PhD Students´ Evaluations of Research Supervision', The Journal of Higher Education, vol. 73, no. 3, pp. 313-348.

Neusar, A., Charvát, M. et al. (2012) PhD existence v oboru psychologie v České republice a na Slovensku, Olomouc: Filozofická fakulta. ISBN 978-80-244-3158-1

Parnell, J., Prendergast, P.J. (2006) ´Postgraduate Supervision: Best Practice Guidelines on Research Supervision for Academic Staff and Students´, Retrieved on May 7, 2015 from

Petersen, E.B. (2007) ´Negotiating Academicity: Postgraduate Research Supervision as Category Boundary Work´, Studies in Higher Education, vol. 32, no. 4, pp. 475–487.

Responsibilities of the Advisor (2007) Harvard University, Harvard School of Public Health. Retrieved on Oct. 21, 2014 from students#responsibilites of the advisor 

Sarason, S.B., Levine, M., Goldenberg, I., Cherlin, D., Bennett, E. (1966) Psychology in Community Settings: Clinical, Educational, Vocational, Social Aspects, New York: John Wiley and Son.

Additional Files



How to Cite

Gavora, P. (2015) ’CONSTRUCTION OF THE SYSTEM TO JUDGE SUPREVISOR-DOCTORAL STUDENT INTERACTION’, Journal on Efficiency and Responsibility in Education and Science, vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 44–47.



Short communication