This article examines academic supervision in graduate management education as a relational and symbolic practice shaped by institutional hierarchies and power asymmetries. Drawing on Bourdieu’s theory of practice—particularly the concepts of field, habitus, capital, and symbolic power—we analyze how supervisory practices both reproduce and challenge unequal access to recognition, support, and academic capital. Based on 37 thematic oral history interviews with students and supervisors from Brazilian master’s and doctoral programs in Management, the study identifies relational configurations of supervision that reveal tensions, expectations, and strategies mobilized by participants in navigating their positioning within the academic field. Rather than treating supervision as an individual skill or a normative model of “effectiveness,” we highlight its role as a pedagogical and institutional practice embedded in broader structures of inequality. By foregrounding the symbolic and relational dynamics of supervision, the article contributes to more critical and reflexive approaches to supervisor training and program design in graduate management education. The findings encourage institutions and educators to reconsider how supervision is conceptualized, practiced, and evaluated within management education programs.
AckerS.HillT.BlackE. (1994). Thesis supervision in the social sciences: Managed or negotiated?Higher Education, 28(4), 483–498. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01383939
2.
AlbertiV. (2013). Manual de história oral (3rd ed.). Editora FGV.
3.
AndradeP. (2007). Agência e estrutura: O conhecimento praxiológico em Pierre Bourdieu. Estudos de Sociologia, 12(2), 97–118.
ArmstrongS. J.AllinsonC. W.HayesJ. (2004). The effects of cognitive style on research supervision: A study of student–supervisor dyads in management education. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 3(1), 41–63. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMLE.2004.12436818
6.
BaileyM. (2019). Snowball sampling in business oral history: Accessing and analyzing professional networks in the Australian property industry. Enterprise & Society, 20(1), 74–88. https://doi.org/10.1017/eso.2018.110
7.
BartlettA.MercerG. (2000). Reconceptualising discourses of power in postgraduate pedagogies. Teaching in Higher Education, 5(2), 195–204. https://doi.org/10.1080/135625100114849
8.
BennettR.KnibbsJ. (1986). Researching for a higher degree: The role(s) of the supervisor. Management Education and Development, 17(2), 137–145. https://doi.org/10.1177/135050768601700208
9.
BianchettiL.MachadoA. M. N. (Orgs.) (2012). A bússola do escrever: Desafios e estratégias na orientação de teses e dissertações. Cortez.
BogelundP. (2015). How supervisors perceive PhD supervision—And how they practice it. International Journal of Doctoral Studies, 10, 39–55.
12.
BourdieuP. (1990). The Logic of Practice (NiceR., Trans.). Stanford University Press.
13.
BourdieuP. (1996). Razões práticas: Sobre a teoria da ação (CorrêaM., Trans.). Papirus.
14.
BourdieuP. (2004). Os usos sociais da ciência: Por uma sociologia clínica do campo científico. Editora Unesp.
15.
BourdieuP. (2017). Homo academicus (MachadoA. L., Trans.). Ed. da UFSC. (Originally published in 1984).
16.
BourdieuP.WacquantL. (1992). An invitation to reflexive sociology. University of Chicago Press.
17.
CornerP. D.PioE. (2017). Supervising international students’ theses and dissertations. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 16(1), 23–38. https://doi.org/10.5465/ambpp.2014.12953abstract
18.
CostaF. J.SousaS. C. T.SilvaA. B. (2014). Um modelo para o processo de orientação na pós-graduação. Revista Brasileira de Pós-Graduação, 11(25), 823–852. https://doi.org/10.21713/2358-2332.2014.v11.638
19.
DaiK.HardyI. (2023). Pursuing doctoral research in an emerging knowledge hub: An exploration of international students’ experiences in China. Studies in Higher Education, 48(6), 784–796. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2023.2166917
20.
da NóbregaM. H. (2018). Orientandos e orientadores no século XXI: Desafios da pós-graduação. Educação & Realidade, 43(3), 1055–1076. https://doi.org/10.1590/2175-623674407
21.
de FreitasH. M. R.PesceG.MarcolinC.BehrA.MartensC. D. P. (2019). Processo de construção de uma tese de doutorado na área de Administração: Produzindo sentido a partir de interação orientador-orientando. ConTexto, 19(43), 58–73.
22.
DixitA. (2023). Caste(d) knowledges: (Self)-problematising epistemic impunity and caste-privilege in academia. Organization, 32(3), 377–394. https://doi.org/10.1177/13505084231204102
23.
DoloriertC.SambrookS.StewartJ. (2012). Power and emotion in doctoral supervision: Implications for HRD. European Journal of Training and Development, 36(7), 732–750. https://doi.org/10.1108/03090591211255566
24.
FerreiraL. M.FurtadoF.SilveiraT. S. (2009). Relação orientador-orientando: O conhecimento multiplicador. Acta Cirúrgica Brasileira, 24(3), 170–172. https://doi.org/10.1590/S0102-86502009000300001
25.
FrankeA.ArvidssonB. (2011). Research supervisors’ different ways of experiencing supervision of doctoral students. Studies in Higher Education, 36(1), 7–19. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075070903402151
GordonP. J. (2017). Advising to avoid or to cope with dissertation hang-ups. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 16(4), 515–528. https://doi.org/10.5465/amle.2003.9901674
28.
GrantB.GrahamA. (1999). Naming the game: Reconstructing graduate supervision. Teaching in Higher Education, 4(1), 77–89. https://doi.org/10.1080/1356251990040105
29.
GreenB.LeeA. (1999). Educational research, disciplinarity and postgraduate pedagogy: On the subject of supervision. In HolbrookA.JohnstonS. (Eds.), Supervision of postgraduate research in education (pp. 88–104). Australian Association for Research in Education.
30.
GruzdevI.TerentevE.DzhafarovaZ. (2020). Superhero or hands-off supervisor? An empirical categorization of PhD supervision styles and student satisfaction in Russian universities. Higher Education, 79(4), 773–789. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-019-00437-w
31.
HemerS. R. (2012). Informality, power and relationships in postgraduate supervision: Supervising PhD candidates over coffee. Higher Education Research & Development, 31(6), 827–839. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2012.674011
32.
JanesickV. J. (2020). Oral history interviewing with purpose and critical awareness. In LeavyP. (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed., pp. 457–479). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780190847388.013.23
33.
JenkinsR. (1992). Pierre Bourdieu. Routledge.
34.
JovchelovitchS.BauerM. W. (2002). Entrevista narrativa. InBauerM. W.GaskellG. (Orgs.), Pesquisa qualitativa com texto, imagem e som: Um manual prático (pp. 90–113). Vozes.
35.
LeeA. (2008). How are doctoral students supervised? Concepts of doctoral research supervision. Studies in Higher Education, 33(3), 267–281. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075070802049202
Leite FilhoG. A. L.MartinsG. A. (2006). Relação orientador-orientando e suas influências na elaboração de teses e dissertações. Revista de Administração de Empresas, 46, 99–109. https://doi.org/10.1590/S0034-75902006000500008
38.
LindebaumD. (2023). Management learning and education as “big picture” social science. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 23(1), 1–7. https://doi.org/10.5465/amle.2023.0173
39.
LöfströmE.TikkanenL.AnttilaH.PyhältöK. (2024). 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
40.
MachadoD. V. (2013). Delatando segredos: A análise bourdieusiana do campo acadêmico. Revista TEL—Tempo, Espaço, Linguagem, 4(1), 99–102.
41.
ManathungaC. (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
42.
MarxB. D.GarciaM. F.ButterfieldK. D.KappenJ. R.BaldwinA.BeckJ. E. (2016). Isn’t it time we did something about the lack of teaching preparation in business doctoral programs?Journal of Management Education, 40(5), 489–515. https://doi.org/10.1177/1052562916647986
43.
MassiL.CarvalhoH.GiordanM. (2020). Perfil socioformativo dos orientadores, heterogeneidade e hierarquia social na área de ensino da CAPES. Investigações em Ensino de Ciências, 25(1), 421–432. https://doi.org/10.22600/1518-8795.ienci2020v25n1p421
44.
McCauleyK. D.HinojosaA. S. (2020). Applying the challenge–hindrance stressor framework to doctoral education. Journal of Management Education, 44(4), 430–458. https://doi.org/10.1177/1052562920924072
45.
MeurerA. M.SousaR. C.daS.CostaF.ColautoR. D. (2021). Sentimentos percebidos pelos orientandos nas fases de orientação das dissertações em contabilidade. Revista Contabilidade & Finanças, 32(85), 158–173. https://doi.org/10.1590/1808-057x202010550
46.
NaidooR.GoslingJ.BoldenR.O’BrienA.HawkinsB. (2014). Leadership and branding in business schools: A Bourdieusian analysis. Higher Education Research & Development, 33(1), 144–156. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2013.864612
47.
Nascimento CockJ. C. A.AntunesA. L.RodriguesR. P.Lopes SantosD. S.AraujoJ. P. F. T. (2018). Operando com conceitos de Bourdieu: Produtividade em pesquisa e hierarquias acadêmicas no campo da educação. Educação e Pesquisa, 44, 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1590/s1678-4634201844178392
PittawayL.HoltR.ThompsonP.CollinsonD. (2023). Improving doctoral educator development: A scaffolding approach. Journal of Management Education, 47(3), 411–440. https://doi.org/10.1177/10525629221139062
50.
PrasadA. (2013). Playing the game and trying not to lose myself: A doctoral student’s perspective on the institutional pressures for research output. Organization, 20(6), 936–948. https://doi.org/10.1177/1350508413486274
51.
SavianiD. (2012). A pós-graduação em educação no Brasil: Pensando o problema da orientação. In BianchettiL.MachadoA. M. N.(Orgs.), A bússola do escrever: Desafios e estratégias na orientação e escrita de teses e dissertações (3a ed., pp. 148–176). Cortez.
52.
SchatzkiT. R. (2012). A primer on practices: Theory and research. In HiggsJ.BarnettR.BillettS.HutchingsM.TredeF. (Eds.), Practice-based education: Perspectives and strategies (pp. 13–26). Sense Publishers.
53.
ScobieM.LeeB.SmythS. (2021). Braiding together student and supervisor aspirations in a struggle to decolonize. Organization, 28(5), 857–875. https://doi.org/10.1177/13505084211015370
54.
ThomasC. (1995). Helping students complete master’s theses through active supervision. Journal of Management Education, 19(2), 240–249. https://doi.org/10.1177/105256299501900209
55.
TikkanenL.KetonenE.ToomA.PyhältöK. (2024). PhD candidates’ and supervisors’ wellbeing and experiences of supervision. Higher Education, 90, 1451–1469. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-024-01385-w
56.
TorresR. S.BispoM. S. (2024). Hidden figures: Women’s experiences in management graduate courses in Brazil. Organization, 32(5), 735–755. https://doi.org/10.1177/13505084241226925
57.
VianaC. M. Q. Q. (2008). A relação orientador-orientando na pós-graduação stricto sensu. Linhas Críticas, 14(26), 93–110. https://doi.org/10.26512/lc.v14i26.3430
58.
VianaC. M. Q. Q.VeigaI. P. A. (2010). O diálogo acadêmico entre orientadores e orientandos. Educação, 33(3), 222–226.
WhitelockD.FaulknerD.MiellD. (2008). Promoting creativity in PhD supervision: Tensions and dilemmas. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 3(2), 143–153. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2008.04.001
61.
WrightA.MurrayJ. P.GealeP. (2007). A phenomenographic study of what it means to supervise doctoral students. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 6(4), 458–474. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMLE.2007.27694946
