A qualitative study of doctoral students’ experiences with written supervisory feedback

Abstract

In doctoral programs, supervisory feedback serves as a central mechanism for academic development, guiding students towards producing a thesis that meets the scholarly standards required for successful examination. However, the process of interpreting and applying this feedback is not straightforward. The language of feedback – tone, clarity, and specificity – plays a significant role in how students engage with supervisors’ comments. For candidates, particularly those navigating complex research projects at the master’s or doctoral level, understanding and responding effectively to feedback are both cognitive and emotional tasks that demand strategic thinking, resilience, and communication skills. This study draws on insights from five doctoral candidates in addressing written supervision feedback during their candidature. Using a qualitative research design, an online questionnaire was administered to evaluate each candidate’s experience. The common themes identified in this study include (1) divergence between feedback expectations and reality, (2) managing anxiety, (3) challenges in addressing feedback, and (4) the structure of written feedback.  Discussions bring to light the common strategies used by the five doctoral candidates in addressing feedback, and factors that motivated them while working on written feedback.

Introduction

Research students, be it a Master’s by research or a Doctor of Philosophy (PhD), are expected to write a full thesis as a product of their program. This experience requires guidance to ensure that the thesis is aligned with the aims of their study. This is where relevant supervisory feedback occurs. A number of studies have reflected on feedback from the supervisor’s perspective, while very few have studied students’ reactions to the feedback given (Zheng et al., 2020). This is what we bring to academic discussion through the findings of our study.

Supervisors of doctoral students frequently find it difficult to provide postgraduate research students insightful comments. They are increasingly trying to structure the research process and provide research candidates with specific feedback as part of a ‘productive pedagogy’ (Hill, 2007). According to Cekiso et al. (2019), postgraduate research students have poor supervision experience when receiving poor feedback. According to Svalberg (2009), student involvement can be described as a process in which the student is the agent of their own learning, as well as an affective, cognitive, and/or social state in the learning process. According to Zheng et al. (2020), student engagement with written feedback is the condition and method by which students react to the feedback, which may be emotive, behavioural, or cognitive.

Institutions place significant emphasis on timely thesis completion, driven by strict audit requirements and funding timelines. For many doctoral and master’s students, scholarships are limited to fixed durations – typically one to 3 years for master’s and up to 4 years for PhDs – placing added pressure to meet submission deadlines. This institutional urgency often intersects with the complex interpersonal dynamics of academic supervision. Carter and Kumar (2017) argue that the inherently personal nature of writing and feedback can compromise the delivery of constructive criticism, which is crucial for achieving both a completed thesis and the development of a capable researcher. They identify four core challenges in the feedback process: content, procedures, people, and expectations. These include not only the type and volume of feedback but also mismatches in expectations and structural shifts during the candidature, such as supervisor changes (Carter & Kumar, 2017; Chugh et al., 2022).

Despite these challenges, supervisors acknowledge the importance of written feedback in guiding doctoral students. Bitchener et al. (2010) highlight that supervisors provide feedback at various levels – ranging from sentence-level language use to broader discourse and genre-specific expectations. This layered feedback plays a critical role in shaping the student’s academic writing and research capacity. In this sense, supervisors function as expert mentors, fostering student autonomy and preparing them to meet the standards of their academic communities. This study examines how doctoral students experience and respond to written supervisory feedback. Guided by their lived experiences, it explores the nature and impact of such feedback through the following research questions.

(1) How do doctoral candidates experience and interpret written feedback provided by their supervisors during their candidature?

(2) What strategies do doctoral candidates use to address written feedback, and what factors motivate them to engage with the feedback process?

(3) In what ways do variations in supervisory roles and feedback practices influence the progress and outcomes of the doctoral journey?

Literature review

Central to students’ learning and development, feedback is considered a pivotal tool for quality teaching (Hattie and Timperley, 2007). According to Carless (2006), feedback is a mechanism that allows students to reflect on their supervisors’ comments on their projects. As much as it is crucial to learning and teaching, research conducted in Australia and the UK has revealed that students are dissatisfied towards feedback. They find it challenging to comprehend and interpret (Chanock, 2000), which causes difficulty in decoding academic discourse (Carless, 2006). In addition, gulfs exist between the feedback provider and receiver (Adcroft, 2011), which lead to the receiver misunderstanding many feedback comments. Providing effective feedback to research students is often labelled a challenging task for higher education supervisors. Supervisory feedback that is given negatively leads to negative experiences for postgraduate students (Cekiso et al., 2019). As stated by Engebretson et al. (2008), untimely, inadequate, and unconstructive feedback to higher-degree research students has emerged as an apparent problem in many studies. Timely, supportive, and high-impact feedback is highly recommended to facilitate and provide support to higher-education students (Deshpande, 2017).

There are different types of feedback, such as verbal, written, formal, informal, evaluative, descriptive, and self-assessed (Government, 2022). The fundamental principles of good feedback are clarity, constructiveness, and specificity, which help students process and cognitively engage with guidance. Various contextual matters such as cultural perspectives and considerations affect feedback (real and perceived effectiveness). Additionally, the notion of ‘good’ feedback depends on certain cultural variations, such as norms and stereotypes, which might affect how a student perceives the feedback as positive or negative. Supervisors should exercise caution when providing feedback, ensuring that it is thoughtfully considered and free from cultural stereotyping (Carter & Kumar, 2017). Often, doctoral students face language challenges, which disrupt their ability to understand and implement the feedback supervisors offer. These complex linguistic and cultural challenges or barriers produce stress, confusion, and lowered confidence as students struggle to complete their work in a compressed time frame.

In most cases where differences emerge, there may be a need to accept that the student will end up being an academic/researcher/writer different from their supervisor, even if the graduate voice is not as attractive to the supervisor as their own (Carter & Kumar, 2017). Furthermore, the question of ‘what best to do’ arises before engaging in supervisory work. Here, Carter and Kumar (2017) argued that to tackle the issue of students ignoring supervisory feedback, supervisors should set up early conversations and agreements with students on how to proceed with the feedback and negotiate the difference. It is suitable for the supervisor to meet with the student before work begins to ascertain what the student expects from engagement. Students will have problems if they need to help interpret the expectations of the supervisor or the supervisory team. Zheng et al. (2020) argued that while students had confidence in supervisor feedback, they failed to fully incorporate the feedback because they had not fully understood it.

Simply put, providing optimistic feedback to higher research degree students not only unleashes their potential writing skills but also hones existing skills. Students are required to gain confidence in academic writing and should be able to distinguish between other types of writing. They should be aware of the assumed supervisory relationship that could affect students’ decisions on how to employ feedback. In addition, it becomes imperative for supervisors to retrieve information by evaluating students’ responses to their understanding of feedback.

Methods

This study employed a qualitative research design to explore doctoral students’ reactions, perceptions, and strategies in response to written supervisory feedback. A qualitative approach was chosen for its capacity to provide in-depth insights into individuals’ lived experiences and the meanings they attributed to those experiences (Denzin and Lincoln, 2011).

Data collection and analysis

Data were collected via an online, open-ended questionnaire that enabled participants to reflect on and articulate their emotional and cognitive responses to supervisor comments. A purposive sampling strategy was used to ensure diversity in disciplinary backgrounds and research stages. The sample comprised five higher degree by research (HDR) students: one PhD graduate, two PhD candidates, and two Master’s by research graduates across the Humanities and STEMM fields. To maintain confidentiality, all participants were assigned pseudonyms.

Participants reflected on feedback received throughout their candidature, including early-stage proposal comments and thesis draft feedback, encompassing both creative and analytical components.

The questionnaire consisted of 11 open-ended questions designed to prompt participants to reflect deeply on their experiences with supervisor feedback. These questions explored both emotional and cognitive responses across different stages of candidature, including proposal development, draft revisions, and final thesis submission. Example questions included:

• Recalling significant moments when feedback influenced their research or writing

• Describing feelings associated with receiving feedback

• Discussing challenges in interpreting or using supervisor comments

• Reflecting on how feedback shaped their development as researchers

The questions were informed by existing literature on doctoral supervision and feedback practices (e.g. Boud and Molloy, 2013; Wisker, 2012) and piloted with two HDR students to ensure clarity and relevance. Although not derived from a validated instrument, this open-ended format enabled participants to provide rich, nuanced accounts aligned with the study’s qualitative aims.

Data analysis followed Braun and Clarke’s (2006, 2022) six-phase framework for reflexive Thematic Analysis: (1) familiarisation with the data, (2) generating initial codes, (3) constructing initial themes, (4) reviewing themes, (5) defining and naming themes, and (6) producing the report. The analysis was conducted manually using an inductive, data-driven approach, meaning that the themes were not based on existing theory or literature but emerged from close engagement with the participants’ narratives. This approach was appropriate for capturing the nuanced and situated experiences of HDR students (Nowell et al., 2017; Terry et al., 2017).

Initial codes were generated after repeated readings of the full dataset, attending to both explicit and underlying meanings. These codes were refined and consolidated into broader themes through an iterative process involving analytic memoing and critical discussion. To ensure credibility and trustworthiness, the coding process and emerging themes were reviewed in collaboration with fellow researchers experienced in qualitative inquiry. These peer debriefing sessions enabled reflexive dialogue around interpretation, theme coherence, and researcher positionality. Analytic decisions were documented through a reflective journal to enhance transparency (Braun and Clarke, 2022; Lincoln and Guba, 1985).

Researcher positionality statement

As researchers, we recognize that our positionality may have influenced various aspects of this study, including design, data collection, and analysis. We are postgraduate researchers with first-hand experience of engaging with written supervisory feedback, which provided us with an empathetic and informed perspective when examining participants’ experiences. While this insider position enriched our understanding, we remain conscious of the potential for bias. To address this, we engaged in ongoing reflexivity, critically reflecting on our assumptions and interpretations throughout the research process (Goundar, 2025b). Our aim was to interpret participants’ narratives authentically while acknowledging how our own academic experiences shaped by our perspectives.

Researcher/participant relationship

Our relationship with the participants was characterized by a shared understanding of the doctoral environment, although we had no prior personal or professional connections with any of the individuals involved. This helped to maintain an appropriate level of neutrality while fostering rapport and trust. As fellow members of the academic community, we were aware of the potential power dynamics and took deliberate steps to minimize them. The use of an anonymous online survey allowed participants to engage at their own pace and share their experiences openly without influence or pressure. This approach supported the ethical integrity of the study and preserved respectful researcher–participant boundaries (Holmes, 2020).

Participants

The participants of this survey consisted of Participant 1, a PhD graduate, two PhD candidates; Participant 2 and Participant 3, and two masters by research graduates, Participant 4 and Participant 5, from two disciplines (Humanities and STEMM). Pseudonyms were used by all participants to protect their identity. Participant 1 has obtained his PhD in Linguistics, while Participant 2 is currently pursuing her PhD in Literature & Creative Writing, and Participant 3 is an Applied Linguistics PhD candidate. The two participants who did Masters by research, Participant 4 and Participant 5 completed a Master of Science in Environmental Science and a Master of Science in Mathematics, respectively.

This study purposively included doctoral and master’s by research students from a range of disciplines – specifically, Humanities and STEMM – to explore how disciplinary contexts shape students’ experiences with written supervisory feedback. The rationale for this diversity was grounded in research showing that feedback practices, expectations, and conventions vary significantly across academic disciplines (Carless and Boud, 2018; Hyland, 2013). For example, Humanities students often receive feedback that is discursive and interpretive, whereas STEMM students are more likely to engage with directive or technical comments (Basturkmen et al., 2014; Nicol, 2010). Including participants from both domains allowed for a richer analysis of how disciplinary norms and supervisory styles inform feedback processes, and how students interpret and act on written comments within their specific academic contexts.

The inclusion of disciplinary diversity also aligns with calls in the literature to better understand feedback literacy (Carless and Boud, 2018) and emotional engagement with feedback (Ryan and Henderson, 2018) across a variety of learning environments. By comparing experiences across disciplines, the study identifies both shared challenges and domain-specific patterns in students’ engagement with feedback during research candidature.

Recruitment, selection, and ethical approval

Participants were recruited using purposive and convenience sampling methods, which are appropriate for exploratory qualitative research involving lived experience (Braun and Clarke, 2021; Merriam and Tisdell, 2016). An invitation was distributed through academic networks and professional contacts, targeting individuals who had either completed or were currently enrolled in a doctoral or research master’s program. Participants were selected based on their willingness to reflect on and discuss their experiences of receiving written supervisory feedback. No restrictions were placed on institutional affiliation, as the focus of the study was on the individual experience rather than program-specific practices.

All participants provided informed consent prior to participation. The study received ethical approval from the University of New England Human Research Ethics Committee (UNE HREC), ensuring that participants’ confidentiality, autonomy, and well-being were maintained throughout the research process. Pseudonyms were used in all reporting to protect participants’ identities, and participants had the right to withdraw from the study at any stage without consequence.

Findings

We would like to clarify the roles of supervisors referenced in this study to provide context for the feedback experiences shared by participants. The principal supervisor typically holds primary responsibility for guiding the overall research direction and providing detailed, ongoing feedback on academic content, methodology, and writing development. This supervisor is usually the main point of contact for the student and plays a central role in shaping the thesis. In contrast, the secondary supervisor’s role is generally more supportive and complementary, offering additional perspectives, expertise in specific areas, or advice on academic development. Feedback from secondary supervisors often focuses on disciplinary insights or broader scholarly practices rather than detailed project management or writing edits. These distinctions in supervisory roles help explain variations in the feedback participants reported. For example, principal supervisors’ comments frequently addressed core research challenges and writing coherence, whereas secondary supervisors’ feedback sometimes provided alternative viewpoints or methodological suggestions.

Five participants provided an in-depth overview of their doctoral journeys. The lived experiences of these candidates provide a deeper understanding of the various aspects that a student encounters when addressing written supervision feedback. The common themes that emerged from this study include the difference between what feedback expectations were to reality, handling, or withstanding anxiety, the challenges students face in addressing feedback and looking at the specific aspects of feedback provided by supervisors. Here, we also shed light on feedback turnover along with supervisors’ feedback style. These are expanded as follows.

Feedback expectations versus reality

The initial feedback that the participants received revealed the factor of managing expectations. This implies that students felt that their work was at an appropriate level when they submitted their draft thesis in the first instance. However, the candidates soon met with feedback that they had not anticipated. One of the participant’s, Participant 2, stated that the feedback was ‘unexpectedly comprehensive and detailed’. However, she claimed that the feedback was provided through email exchanges, which she found beneficial as she was able to write to the supervision team and ask for clarity on the suggestions. Having clarity enabled her to better understand the necessary changes and work on suggestions more efficiently.

Participant 1 shared a similar experience, stating that the feedback on the initial draft was not what he had expected because he was confident in his writing abilities and research. He recalled receiving 99 comments in his first draft research proposal, which took 3 months to address, as additional reading and rewriting was required. However, Participant 1 noted that he was glad that the supervision team provided detailed feedback as it helped fine-tune the research proposal.

In contrast, Participant 3 stated that after he received written feedback from his supervisors, the comments and suggestions were what he expected. He claimed the feedback he was given was justified. Participant 4’s experience is quite different, as the two supervisors she had, provided varied feedback that she did not anticipate. She found that the principal supervisors were intense and would even contradict what had been provided earlier, but her secondary supervisors’ feedback was clear and easier to understand. Participant 4 found the second supervisor’s comments to encourage her to work better.

Withstanding anxiety

Anxiety prior to the submission of the draft was a recurring theme that all participants felt during their doctoral journey. Participant 2 explained that she felt anxious when proofreading and editing the drafts before sending them to the supervisors due to time pressure.

[...] The presence of confusion sometimes heightens my anxiety about when to submit the draft and whether I have addressed all the errors from the previous version. Reading the comments and suggestions was overwhelming when I first encountered the initial feedback. (Participant 2)

The other participants had similar experiences. For example, Participant 1 felt anxious after submitting every draft because he was unsure if the supervisors would pick on the previous feedback to check if he had addressed it correctly. To reduce his anxiety about going through written feedback, he used the strategy of skimming the document:

[...] I would generally not go through all the feedback at once. I might flick through the document and see the total number of comments they made before I worked on it. Sometimes, I felt a bit depressed or anxious about how I was going to address some of the feedback as it seemed complex, but I think that comes with the pecks of doing a PhD.

Participant 3 explained that he was anxious and panicked when he received feedback from his supervisors. Even though there was positive criticism in the feedback, he was in an utter limbo in trying to determine where he ought to commence addressing written feedback. However, he noted that with proper time management and patience, Participant 3 was able to rectify all the feedback and was ready to progress to the next draft submission. Participant 5 also felt anxious when she submitted her first draft because she felt she was constantly thinking that her work was not good enough. She added ‘this was a common feeling during my journey, as the basic idea of my thesis was my own’.

Participant 4's anxiety arose from thinking that she was going to let her supervisor down. She was aware that her supervisor was a perfectionist, which made her feel anxious every time she submitted drafts. This contributed to her lack of motivation with her principal supervisor, who eventually lost interest in her project and referred her to another supervisor. Participant 4 shared that her self-esteem went to an all-time low, but the experience with her second supervisor was encouraging. She found the second supervisor helpful and patient, which made her confident and reduced her fear of receiving feedback.

Challenges in addressing feedback

Participant 2 claimed that the primary challenge in addressing written feedback included the burden of extensively modifying the draft. She felt an overwhelming challenge, which left her discouraged and demoralized. Furthermore, she said that another challenge was grappling with difficult comments and understanding the supervisor’s expectations, particularly in written feedback. Participants commented that their suggestions were ambiguous or not sufficiently specific. On the other hand, Participant 1 argued that the challenge in addressing feedback related to adhering to deadlines. He claimed that restructuring the paragraphs or adding literature required more reading and updating the bibliography list. Restructuring meant that he would have to update the numbering of the subheadings and then update the table of the content page. Even though these seemed minor amendments, Participant 1 stated that this attention to detailed tasks was time-consuming.

Participant 3 highlighted that some of the challenges he faced in addressing written supervision feedback included balancing critical feedback with a personal view and comprehending the feedback and emotional response to criticism. He further elaborated on the communication gaps and confidence in his own work. This finding is crucial, as it relates to how emotions can take over a candidate in their doctoral journey. Institutions need to build programs and provide adequate training to supervisors in the way they express feedback in written form, as this can result in emotional conundrum.

It should be noted that one of the primary challenges faced by Participant 4 in addressing written feedback was accessing paid journal articles. As she did not own a visa credit card, she could not pay to gain access to these journal papers. However, it is unclear how the institution was unable to facilitate access to journals through subscriptions, which should not be inflicted on doctoral students.

Variations in written feedback: focus, format, and supervisor roles

Participants noted that the written feedback varied in nature. Participant 4 pointed out that her secondary supervisor recommended a particular journal or resource to look up and add to her writing. Since her supervisor used the ‘track changes’ feature in commenting on her drafts, it made it easier for her to accept the changes and speed up the feedback process. Participant 2 explained that her supervisors went beyond general remarks and provided detailed feedback for each section of the written drafts. She pointed out that the supervision team received the following written feedback:

[...] The feedback specifically addresses the content, ideas, organization, writing style, language, word choice, punctuation, point of view, structure, and tense. My supervisors provided feedback and suggestions for enhancing the narrative style, language, and plot. Supervisors’ feedback primarily addresses writing style (Participant 2).

Another participant mentioned that his supervisors had separate duties when it came to the specifics of written feedback. For example, Participant 1 stated that the principal supervisor’s written feedback focused on the content, methodology, and coherency of ideas or suggestions on which more clarification was needed to be provided in the write-up. The secondary supervisor gave him feedback on spelling, grammatical errors, sentence structure, and the organization of the thesis. This is echoed by Participant 3’s experiences, in which supervisors provide written feedback using four specific components. These included clarity, literature gap, justification, and ethical considerations. His supervisors asked for clarification of the research problem and pointed out that when they felt that the literature review was incomplete. Participant 3 also mentioned that his supervisors commented on the need to justify the research methodology employed in his project along with how ethical concerns were addressed in his proposal.

Participant 5 shed light that her supervisors emphasized how the data should be analysed as part of the written feedback she received. This was what they were concerned mostly about, and apart from that, they pointed out minor grammatical errors and restructuring the sections in the methodology chapter of her thesis. In Participant 4’s case, the supervisor provides written feedback and follows up with a zoom meeting to go through it. She mentioned that they would focus on more complex areas in the thesis, such as the analysis of genetics and morphological chapters. Prior to concluding the Zoom session, her supervisor would give additional tasks due to a chapter, and she would make amendments before submitting the draft.

Turnaround of feedback

The turnaround of written feedback on draft chapters differed from candidate to candidate in this study. Participant 1 clarified that it would range between 1 to 3 months to receive feedback from supervisors. He explained that the process with the supervision team was the first principal supervisor to provide feedback and suggestions, which were then sent to the co-supervisor for feedback before he received it. If there were any delays in the turnaround of feedback, he would contact them.

[...] If I thought that it had taken a long time to receive feedback, I would send a follow-up email and request for it to be sent in the following two weeks.

Participant 5 experienced a slow turnover of written feedback from her supervisors in the initial days, which progressed to more frequent once she finished collecting her data. However, she had to make several phone calls or reach out to her principal supervisor using social media to respond. Often, the supervisor schedules a zoom meeting instead of sending any written feedback. These forms of unresponsiveness or follow-up required from the doctoral candidates lead to further delays in the individual’s candidature. Supervisors must adhere to the time factor that impacts the completion of a student's higher degree.

This study highlights the workload of supervisors impacting the turnover of written feedback. Participant 4 observed that feedback was slow with both supervisors, as they had many doctoral students and both were active researchers. She had to remind the principal supervisor on numerous occasions before she received feedback, and the secondary supervisor only looked at the chapter every few months. Tertiary institutions need to cap the number of doctoral students that a supervisor can take along with teaching and administrative duties. There needs to be more transparency between the Heads of Schools and individual supervisors, and an evaluation mechanism should be implemented to monitor this. Overloading academics with doctoral students have a domino effect on supervisors’ cohort of candidates.

Supervisors’ feedback style

Our study found that supervisors generally provided feedback simultaneously while reviewing thesis drafts. This entails writing down their comments as they carry out the review.

[...] the comments and suggestions are sometimes clearly stated in a single sentence, which makes it easier to understand…my supervisors would occasionally leave written suggestions as comments on particular paragraphs or sentences along with proposed solutions for improvement. (Participant 2)

The use of one document to provide feedback plays a significant role in providing written feedback as it saves time for candidates by referring to multiple documents. For example, Participant 2 stated that the most helpful part of written feedback was that both supervisors provided feedback in the same draft, and she was able to obtain more perspectives on her work. She claimed that the written feedback served as a guide that, while working on new drafts, she referred to.

This study also demonstrates how supervisors engage with each other when providing feedback. Participant 1 claimed that his co-supervisor was critical of the quantitative data analysed. This was beneficial because the principal supervisor delegated the task of providing feedback on quantitative data to him. Furthermore, he claimed that the supervisors provided feedback based on how the examiners were going to view the thesis. These included:

[...] They wrote every element that they either wanted clarity about or needed to be rewritten. The attention to detail by supervisors was extremely important because it helped strengthen the arguments. They added relevant literature that I would need to cite or refer to because it was connected to the research.

Participant 1 described the writing style of supervisors as professional and polite, even though they were the authority in their fields. The written aspect of feedback can often be interpreted as condescending, because there is a lack of verbal engagement. This could imply harshness in the tone of the written feedback. However, Participant 1 felt encouraged to address the feedback rather than belittled as the supervisors chose words that were critical but not demotivating. He felt that this approach was instrumental in encouraging him to continue studying. Participant 3 claimed that the supervisor's feedback was helpful for him because they pointed out how to strengthen the research question, narrow down the topic, and reconsider the methodology and sample population.

Discussion

This study explored doctoral candidates’ experiences of receiving and addressing written feedback from their supervisors. The findings offer valuable insight into how feedback is interpreted, acted upon, and internalised as part of the doctoral learning journey. Rather than viewing feedback as a one-way transmission of information, participants described the process as interactive, emotionally charged, and deeply influential in shaping both the trajectory of their research and their identity as emerging scholars. The discussion below interprets these findings through the lens of relevant feedback and supervision literature, identifying how the experiences shared by participants support, extend, or challenge existing research on academic feedback practices in doctoral education.

Navigating written feedback through strategy and self-regulation

The doctoral candidates in this study described employing a range of strategies to address written feedback, including printing drafts and highlighting comments, starting with simpler tasks such as grammatical corrections, and tracking feedback completion visually. These approaches reflect intentional self-regulation, aligning with Zimmerman’s (2002) self-regulated learning theory, which emphasizes how learners plan, monitor, and adapt their learning processes in response to feedback. Participants described breaking down feedback into manageable components, discussing suggestions with peers, and responding strategically rather than sequentially. This echoes Ajjawi and Boud’s (2017) argument that students must actively interpret and internalise feedback to make it meaningful.

The findings extend the work of Carless and Boud (2018) by highlighting the role of emotional regulation – particularly in reducing anxiety – in how feedback is processed and acted upon. For instance, taking time to reflect before responding, or seeking clarification, helped participants reframe feedback as constructive rather than threatening. Such self-regulatory behaviours point to the importance of fostering feedback literacy, which includes not only the ability to decode feedback but also to manage affective responses and implement revisions purposefully (Molloy et al., 2020).

The role of constructive criticism in motivating completion

Across all cases, constructive criticism emerged as a central motivator in progressing through doctoral candidature. Participants emphasised that respectful, encouraging, and well-articulated feedback supported their learning and reduced defensiveness. Rather than perceiving critique as punitive, they viewed it as a signal of their supervisors’ investment in their success. This supports the work of Winstone and Boud (2020), who argue that effective feedback is not only about correction but also about maintaining the emotional well-being of the learner. When delivered in a balanced and thoughtful tone, written feedback was seen as empowering rather than demoralising.

These insights challenge traditional conceptions of feedback as merely instructional or corrective. Instead, the findings point to the importance of affective feedback climates where trust and psychological safety are maintained. Nicol (2010) emphasises that for feedback to enhance learning, it must be experienced as dialogue – not as judgement. In line with this, participants described feedback as an ongoing conversation with their supervisors that enhanced their confidence, writing quality, and overall momentum. The study reinforces the idea that tone, timing, and delivery of feedback significantly shape doctoral candidates’ motivation to persist and revise.

Supervisory dynamics and feedback quality

The study highlighted nuanced differences in how principal, and secondary supervisors contributed to the feedback process. Principal supervisors tended to focus on the research’s conceptual coherence, methodology, and overarching argument, while secondary supervisors provided input on grammar, structure, and disciplinary conventions. This division of labour reflects established supervision practices and aligns with Lee’s (2008) framework on supervisory styles, where different supervisors bring complementary expertise and approaches to the feedback process.

Participants’ experiences also resonate with Guerin et al. (2015), who found that team supervision can create both opportunities and challenges for doctoral students. While the diversity of input can enrich the feedback received, it also requires candidates to navigate potentially divergent expectations or feedback styles. In this study, candidates appeared to benefit from clearly defined supervisory roles and appreciated when feedback was timely, coherent, and aligned across the team. These findings suggest the need for supervisors to coordinate feedback to avoid confusion and promote consistency, reinforcing Carless and Winstone’s (2020) call for relational and dialogic feedback practices that extend across academic partnerships.

Transformative impact of feedback on researcher identity and output

Finally, participants consistently described the feedback process as integral to their development as scholars. Rather than viewing feedback simply as a mechanism for revision, they interpreted it as formative in shaping their researcher identity, academic voice, and readiness for publication. Participant narratives indicated that responding to feedback taught them to articulate arguments more clearly, justify methodological decisions, and revise critically – skills essential for academic writing and professional growth.

These findings support Kamler and Thomson’s (2006) work on researcher identity, which positions supervision and feedback as central to becoming an academic writer. Several participants also connected feedback to tangible outcomes, such as publishing journal articles or successfully submitting their thesis, highlighting the instrumental value of written feedback in enhancing scholarly outputs. This contributes to recent literature on feedback as a high-impact practice in doctoral education (McAlpine and Asghar, 2010) and aligns with the argument that feedback should be future-oriented, developmental, and embedded in the broader trajectory of research training (Carless and Boud, 2018).

Implications and conclusion

This study explored doctoral candidates’ experiences with supervisor feedback and identified four major themes: divergence between feedback expectations and reality, managing anxiety, challenges in addressing feedback, and the structure of written feedback. These themes illuminate not only the academic, but also the emotional and relational dimensions of doctoral supervision, contributing meaningfully to ongoing research on feedback practices in higher education (Goundar, 2025a).

First, the candidates consistently expressed a mismatch between the feedback they anticipated and what they actually received. While many preferred emailed feedback supplemented by annotated comments directly on drafts, students often received unexpected and sometimes overwhelming critiques of their early submissions. This gap creates confusion and reduces confidence in the supervisory process. These findings underscore the importance of setting clear expectations and establishing a mutual understanding of the feedback process at the outset of the doctoral journey. When feedback lacks transparency or alignment with candidates’ expectations, it can erode trust and hinder progress.

Second, a prominent emotional theme across all the participants was the experience of heightened anxiety when receiving and responding to feedback. For many, engaging in multiple rounds of revisions has been described as a stressful and exhaustive task. However, the students also acknowledged that the process, while demanding, was ultimately beneficial in refining their work. This paradox highlights the emotional labour inherent in doctoral studies and points to the need for supervisors to adopt emotionally intelligent feedback practices that support rather than discourage students.

The third theme concerns the substantial challenges associated with feedback. Several candidates described the feedback process as demoralizing, especially when faced with inconsistent or delayed responses from supervisors. Turnaround times for feedback varied significantly between candidates, and in many instances, secondary supervisors deferred their input until primary supervisors had provided them. This practice not only delayed progress but also contributed to confusion. These findings highlight the need for institutional policies that promote timely, coordinated, and consistent feedback. Limiting supervisor-to-student ratios and setting clear timelines for feedback returns could mitigate these issues and enhance student motivation and productivity.

The fourth theme was related to how the feedback is structured and delivered. The participants reported that receiving feedback from multiple documents was inefficient and confusing. A preference was clearly expressed for consolidated feedback ideally in a single annotated document. Furthermore, written feedback, in the absence of verbal explanation, is often interpreted as harsh or critical due to its impersonal tone. Students emphasized the value of regular meetings, either in person or online, to clarify and contextualize written comments. These interactions are vital for improving academic and emotional well-being.

Despite these challenges, students have developed several effective strategies for engaging with feedback, including peer discussions, systematic revision tracking, and maintaining a growth mindset. Constructive criticism, when communicated respectfully and clearly, was universally recognized as motivating and valuable.

This study contributes to the broader discourse on doctoral supervision by highlighting the importance of feedback not only as a technical tool but also as a relational and emotional process. Future research should incorporate supervisors’ perspectives to promote mutual understanding and foster an effective and empathetic doctoral environment.