Failure of dialogic praxis: Culture of silence, epistemic tensions, resilience and agency in postgraduate supervision in South Asia

Failure of dialogic praxis: Culture of silence, epistemic tensions, resilience and agency in postgraduate supervision in South Asia | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Research Article Failure of dialogic praxis: Culture of silence, epistemic tensions, resilience and agency in postgraduate supervision in South Asia Illahi Bakhsh, Maya Khemlani David, Tahreem Akhter, Ghulam Ali Buriro This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-9584531/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract This study aims to analyze the tensions between supervisors and supervisees in postgraduate research at the University of Sindh, Pakistan. It is based on semi-structured interviews with 15 MPhil and PhD research students (N = 9 male and 6 female) enrolled in Arts and Humanities disciplines, and analyzed through a thematic analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2006 ). Theoretically, the study is grounded in the concepts of critical pedagogy (Freire, 1970 ), which provides a critical approach to the notion of supervision as a relational, political, and institutional practice. The results indicate that supervision is influenced by highly ingrained hierarchies, a lack of dialogic interaction, institutional and supervisory forces that restrict pedagogical interaction and knowledge production. This research identifies five themes that relate to each other: power asymmetries and hierarchical relationships, epistemic mismatch and disciplinary tensions, supervisory ambiguity and feedback failure, epistemic uncertainty, structural and institutional constraints, and supervisee agency and resilience. Mismatches in discipline and methodological misalignment also contribute to tensions, and failure in feedback, lack of direction, and limited access to research materials create epistemic and emotional issues for supervisee. Despite these challenges, supervisees also exhibit a high level of agency in negotiating power, being strategic, and committed to their research. The study preempts supervision as a disputed pedagogical field and conditions more dialogue and equitable and context-sensitive supervisory practices, especially in under-resourced higher education settings in South Asia. research supervision critical pedagogy power asymmetry epistemic tension resilience supervisee agency Introduction Postgraduate supervision is key to academic quality, research excellence, and the success of a supervisee. From a global perspective, it is exclusively framed as a relationship of mentorship, collaboration, and power negotiation (Lee, 2008 ; Jackson, Davidson & Usher, 2022 ). postgraduate supervision in Pakistani higher educations institutes remain underexplored and under-researched, some research studies have highlighted struggle of research students rather than epistemic tensions, silence, failure of dialogic praxis. supervisee usually face ambiguous direction, unclear feedback and imbalanced power, which influence their agency, identity and degree completion (Bastalich, 2017 ; Guerin et al., 2015 ). In Pakistan, supervisees encounter several issues including institutional pressure, publications in W category journals, and linguistic barriers in English medium instruction institutes (Cross & Backhouse, 2014). These issues multiply with supervisors’ membership in various academic committees, heavy workload leaving supervisee without sufficient guidance and prolonged postgraduate research journey. While the latest research reveals supervisory practices collaborative in publications, scheduled structured meetings (Masood et al., 2023 ). Supervisee often share a lack of dialogic interaction, less professional training opportunities, and unbalanced supervisory relationships (Wisker, 2012 ; Batool, Ali & Safdar, 2022 ; Liu, Wang & Dai, 2026 ). This study seeks to reframe postgraduate supervision by recording supervisee’s silence, and voice and how they negotiate power, encounter epistemic tensions, and remain resilient in the process of supervision. Within critical pedagogy (Freire, 1970 ), the study situates supervisees’ experiences and indicates how they show resilience, and establish their agency, construct knowledge ingrained by institutional hierarchy, and epistemic tensions during the research process and their negotiations with supervisors. Literature Review Supervision is a complex relational practice in higher education in Pakistan. An organizational environment is characterized by power, authority, and autonomous pressures at academic institutes (Khene, 2014 ). Research supervision is not merely a procedural and executive activity, but solely a relational practice. The supervisory relationship is charged with pressure of authority and self-sufficiency, expertise and dialogue, as well as institutional requirements and personal growth (Whitelock et al., 2008 ). In doctoral supervision, an unequal access to research culture has long been observed by scholars to construct supervisory relationships (Deem & Brehony, 2000 ), institutional positioning (Clouder et al., 2020 ), and space and authority negotiation (Grant, 2005 ; Manathunga, 2007 ). These tensions are also enlightened by the critical pedagogical approaches. Hickey and Forbes ( 2021 ) and Moriarty, Danaher, and Danaher ( 2008 ) base their arguments on Freirean dialogical pedagogy by suggesting that supervisory practices be understood as mutual inquiry, and Shih ( 2025 ) contextualizes supervisory practices within the wider transformations of hegemonic practices. Ali, Ullah & Sanauddin ( 2019 ) researched experiences of Pakistani postgraduate students and reported limited institutional support. Malik et al. ( 2021 ) stepped further and considered negative supervisory behaviors (resource drain, ego depletion, abusive supervision). Their results unveil the destruction of motivation, trust, and academic identity. Supervision is a relationship of power that students are accustomed to navigating, rather than a collaborative intellectual relationship. Although a growing body of research has examined supervisory models, procedures, and outcomes across academic and organizational settings, much of this work focuses on structural, pedagogical, or behavioral dimensions of supervision. Less attention has been paid to how supervision is experienced as a relational, dialogic, and ethically charged process. Addressing this gap, the present study conceptualizes supervision as a relational, dialogic, and ethically charged practice situated within broader cultural, institutional, and ideological contexts. Based on the background, review of the relevant literature, and research gaps, the study explores the following research questions. Theoretical framework The theoretical basis of this research is critical pedagogy proposed by Freire ( 1970 ), which theorizes education as a political, dialogic, and transformative practice based on power relations, hierarchies of knowledge, and social structures. In this paradigm, postgraduate supervision is not considered a neutral academic practice but rather a site of power negotiation, epistemological struggle, and identity formation, in which both supervisees and supervisors are placed in an asymmetric relationship. The fundamental aspect of Freire’s theory is the denunciation of the banking model of education, in which knowledge is passed in the same direction from teacher to learner. In the context of doctoral supervision, this framework is applied in the form of directive, hierarchical, and supervisory practices wherein supervisors dictate research direction, knowledge validation, and evaluative outcomes. Conversely, Freire ( 1970 ) supports a problem-posing approach to education based on dialogue, mutual learning, and critical inquiry. This outlook replays supervision as a constructive and interactive process in which knowledge is negotiated rather than forced. However, this study demonstrates that this dialogic engagement is frequently missing or incomplete, especially when there is disciplinary mismatch and supervisory ambiguity because the absence of common epistemic grounds makes meaningful engagement impossible. In this way, the difference between ideal supervision (dialogic supervision) and practice (hierarchical supervision) grows analytically relevant. One of the main ideas in Freire’s framework is conscientização (critical consciousness), the process of making people conscious of oppressive situations and gaining the ability to act on them (Chalaune, 2021 ). Another idea highlighted by Freire is the significance of dialogue, which is praxis, reflection, and action. In postgraduate supervision, dialogue is not merely a form of communication but a pedagogical act that makes it possible to have epistemic reciprocity and shared meaning-making. The lack of timely feedback, clear guidance, and minimal interaction, is a failure of dialogic praxis that results in epistemic isolation and emotional distress. Significantly, the connection between education and structural conditions is prefigured in Freire’s framework. The institutional constraints, including heavy workloads for supervisors, inability to access research resources, and systemic disciplinary mismatch practices, show how supervision is integrated into larger institutional ecologies. This critical framework not only determines access to knowledge but also opportunities for dialogue, support, and equity (Hodgson, 2019 ). Therefore, there are several levels of power in supervision: interpersonal (supervisor–supervisee), epistemic (knowledge validation), and structural (institutional systems). This research has expanded the critical pedagogy of Freire to the field of postgraduate supervision (e.g. MPhil and PhD supervision) by showing that supervision is a critical pedagogical space where power, knowledge, and identity intersect. It adds to the fact that although supervisory practices tend to recreate hierarchical and anti-dialogic conditions, supervisees are active participants in creating meaning, resistance, and self-directed learning. With a Freirean lens, this research re-posits postgraduate supervision as an active and conflictual pedagogical process, with the possibility of transformative learning hinging on how far supervision can be pushed to dialogue, hierarchy to collaboration, to knowledge transmission to critical co-construction. Research Question How do power asymmetries, epistemic mismatch, and institutional constraints impact supervisor -supervisee relationships in research in Pakistani settings? How do supervisees use their agency and resilience to negotiate supervisory relationships through a critical pedagogical lens? Methodology The study adopts a qualitative and interpretive research design with a constructivist epistemology (Mncina et al., 2024 ). The interpretive paradigm places greater emphasis on participants’ meanings and experiences and their views, instead of testing set hypotheses. Semi-structured interviews are conducted with postgraduate students, which allow us to explore the major themes in a structured manner and, at the same time, provide us with the flexibility to pursue emergent issues. This method is especially suitable considering the aim of our research: to learn how supervisees negotiate their agency and resilience themselves and make sense of tensions in supervisory relationships. Participants and Sampling The study involves 15 postgraduate students, i.e., 6 MPhil and 9 Doctoral, enrolled at the University of Sindh, Pakistan. Participants’ age range from 26–52 years (mean age = 35.4 years), and represent diverse disciplines, including Education (2), English Linguistics (6), English Literature (4), Sociology (2), Psychology (1). The sample comprises 9 male participants and 6 female participants, with supervisory experience spanning from 6 months to five years. Participants are selected through purposive sampling, using the networks of academic contacts within other partner universities. Inclusion criteria require that participants be currently pursuing an MPhil degree or a doctoral degree, have an active supervisor, be willing to share the experience of supervision openly, and be capable of taking part in an interview in English. Although purposive sampling is associated with selection bias, this method is suitable because our aims are associated with an exploratory, experience-based study. Ethical Consideration This study involved human participants so it was carried out in complete compliance with international ethical standards, including the principles highlighted in in the Belmont Report and the Declaration of Helsinki (2013). Before data collection, we adhered to institutional and ethical requirements of the university of Sindh and sought approval for the conduct of this research. Then, an informed consent was taken and a prepared form for approval (see appendix 1) was administered to participants. We clearly explained the purpose, procedure and voluntary nature of participation in the study. Furthermore, we ensured them about their right to withdraw at any stage without any hesitation or harm. Some ethical measures were considered to ensure their confidentiality and anonymity, and data were only used for research purpose. We conducted this research keeping in view of participants, respect, dignity, rights and well-being. And no harm was inflicted during the research process. Data Collection Semi-structured interviews were conducted from June to September 2025. 15 interviews are carried out, primarily face-to-face (13) and supplemented by video calls (2). Each session lasted between 40 and 60 minutes (average interview time = 40 minutes). The interviews were audio-recorded with participants’ concerns and transcribed verbatim. The transcription was accomplished carefully to capture non-native accents, colloquial expressions and instances of code switching between English and the local languages, as the transcription had to maintain the linguistic authenticity of the participants, but at the same time, it had to be understood by them. The interview guide comprises open-ended questions that enquired about: (1) what the participants expected of the supervision and how this was met or not met regarding actual supervision experiences; (2) particular cases of tension or conflict in supervisory relationships; (3) patterns of communication and feedback; (4) emotional experiences and wellbeing effects; (5) sources of support outside formal supervision; (6) perceptions of the supervisor competence and Pilot-testing of the guide was done with three supervisees before actual data collection to ensure that the guide is clear and culturally acceptable. Data Analysis Data Analysis is carried out with systematic thematic analysis. To begin with, the research team read transcripts several times to be immersed into the data. Second, line by line coding is held and it produces preliminary codes, reflecting conceptually different ideas. Third, potential themes are created by clustering codes together using an iterative process. Fourth, themes are developed based on the analysis of original data, which means that themes are based on the words and experience of the participants, but not the assumptions of the researcher. Lastly, themes are grouped in a hierarchical manner, i.e. primary themes and sub-themes. The analytical rigor is improved by: (1) researcher triangulation (the same group of researchers coded data separately and the interpretations are reconciled and reviewed), (2) participant validation (preliminary findings are discussed with three participant volunteers and their feedback is taken into account), (3) reflexivity practice (researchers kept journals recording methods of their analytical choices and possible biases), and (4) consideration of alternative interpretations. Findings and Analysis Continuing on the critical pedagogical orientation of this research, we present the findings and analysis. The analysis is based on the conceptualization of education as a dialogic and power-laden process (Freire, 1970 ), which studies how the relationships between supervisees and their supervisors are experienced, negotiated, and resisted in the institutional context. The emergent themes, including power imbalances, epistemic discrepancies, supervisory uncertainties, structural limitations and supervisee agency are not discussed as separate categories but as interrelated aspects of a larger pedagogical ecology. This section transcends descriptive reporting to provide a theoretically informed, interpretive analysis concerning how these dynamics formulate postgraduate research practices, identities and trajectories. Theme 1: Power Asymmetries and hierarchical relationship Interview Excerpt 1 (MPhil Candidate, University of Sindh, Male, Linguistics): She makes decisions on my research direction, she does not really consult me, and I come to a meeting and she has already decided what I should do next, I want to say that I had another idea but I do not know how to do it, I do not know whether I can do it. My supervisor holds a PhD; she has the power to give me the analysis. I say nothing because I fear of failing. This statement by supervisee shows the psychological calculation that supervisees conduct: suppressing their own intellectual urges since the approval of the supervisor is an institutionally mandatory one. Although the supervisor probably does not mean to suppress student voice, the imbalance of the institutional power makes real conversation challenging. The fact that a supervisee then says that she can pass me or fail me places emphasis upon the inherent power imbalance that is used to structure the relationship. This observation is consistent with the existing literature on power relations in Global South situations, in which power relationships that embed hierarchical relations may marginalize student agency (Showunmi et al., 2024). Fear expressed by supervisee is also related to power asymmetry, not only of poor academic results, but also affective that prevents open communication. This situation acts as a self-censorship tool, where supervisees are not able to reveal their difficulties, express dissent, or seek clear instructions. In terms of Freirean view (1970), it is representative of reproducing oppressive pedagogical orders, in which the power is concentrated, and communication is substituted by unilateralism. The silence of supervisee is not just an option but it is an expression of a culture of silence, which is a systemic creation of power relation. The supervisory space is transformed into a non-dialogic location, in which the knowledge is deposited, but not constructed together, which supports the banking model of education. A lack of negotiation means the failure to move towards relationship-development necessary in promoting independent scholarship. The reliance of the supervisee on the supervisor to evaluate him also increases the hierarchical relationship and institutionalizes power in the assessment (Lee, 2008 ). This leads to what can be called epistemic marginalization in which ideas of supervisee are suppressed internally even before they can get to the dialogic space. Interview Excerpt 2 (Doctoral Student, Male, English Literature): I just fear telling him that things are not going well, that I am confused. I do not understand the theory. When I say I am struggling, my supervisor becomes distant, he will become harder on me. He will think that I do not deserve to be in this program. So I keep silent, I did not ask him to help me. A statement by a supervisee presents a strategic calculation: the threat of disclosure (possibility of withdrawal of supervisors, increased scrutiny, or negative publicity) is greater than the benefit of getting help. Importantly, fear of supervisee is not the irrational paranoia, but rather the basis of observation. This power dynamic does not allow supervisees to get support at the time they most require it and this is what leads to a spiral where they find it hard to talk with supervisors in an open way. In the opposite direction, some reported about their supervisors who appeared interested in defending their own power and knowledge and see student inquisitiveness or different conceptualizations as a threat to supervisory validity instead of intellectual exchange. In terms of Freirean view (1970), this also encapsulates a highly ingrained culture of silence in which a supervisee cannot express confusion because of fear of being punished or sacked. The supervisory space is anti-dialogic in the sense that Freire states that the space is not conducive to openness and critical interaction. Rather than creating a problem-posing educational setting, the interaction recreates educational framework, in which vulnerability (e.g., confusion, struggle) is seen as a shortcoming, not an appropriate aspect of learning. The way the supervisee chose to handle everything independently depicts how power is internalized resulting in self-surveillance and self-censorship. In reaction to trouble, this intensified strictness of supervisor causes a pedagogical paradox: the very time guidance is most needed is the very time it is least available. As a result, the supervisee changes the orientation of learning to performance-survival mode whereby the focus is on the avoidance of errors rather than intellectual exploration. To Hickey and Forbes ( 2021 ), this experience indicates the inability to shift expertise as authority to dialogic interaction. Rather than fostering a participative environment in which confusion may be addressed constructively, the supervisor maintains a hierarchical relationship that sets competence and compliance. A lack of epistemic trust, i.e. a supervisee is free to reveal his doubts, does not allow appearance of co-constructed knowledge. Consequently, learning is disconnected and disintegrated, instead of having a relational and dialogic quality. Interview Excerpt 3 (Doctoral candidate, Female, Linguistics): when I proposed an alternative theoretical framework, my supervisor got upset. He replied, I have been conducting research of 20 years, I know what works, and what is right? This was not even a question; this was me challenging him personally. Since that time, I have learned not to question his methods since it is his research project and not mine. This statement shows how defensiveness on the part of the supervisor can reduce intellectual conversation to assertiveness that is hierarchical. A student concludes saying that this is his research project, which means that the power balance has changed so that he sees the research project as a property of supervisor and not his scholarly growth. According Akhurst, ( 2020 ) authoritative supervision disengages a student ownership of PhD, but collaborative forms authentic shared investment. It illustrates the replication of oppressive pedagogical practices, when power is concentrated and dialogue is substituted by one-way decision-making (Freire, 1970 ). The silence of supervisee is not simply a decision-making but rather a result of what Freire calls a culture of silence, which is created through a system of power relations. The supervisory space is turned into a non-dialogic location, in which knowledge is deposited, but not co-constructed. The fact that a supervisee relies on supervisor to provide evaluation further enhances the hierarchical relationship, which entails power dynamics in institutional assessment systems. Such a situation demonstrates the dominance of expertise as a form of authority in which the positional power of supervisor prevails over the potential of epistemic reciprocity. This is epistemic marginalization, in which ideas of a student are suppressed internally before even they can be placed in the dialogic space. Therefore, power asymmetry is not merely external (in the form of authority) but also internal (self-regulation and self-censorship (Freire, 1970 ). Theme 2: Feedback Failure and Epistemic Uncertainty Many supervisees narrated feedback delay as one of the serious concerns and frustrations. More importantly, they expressed that they waited longer than they expected for feedback. They looked demotivated, and uncertainty prevailed, Interview Excerpt 4 (MPhil candidate, Female, Psychology): I have already submitted my first chapter three months ago. Three months! I have not yet heard, so how can I proceed when I am unable to know what is wrong or what is right? I wrote and rewrote paragraphs in my head a hundred times. I imagine what my supervisor may write to me. I am tired of writing to him now. Sometimes, he replied all is good, just submit without providing any constructive feedback. One of the supervisees explains that feedback delays not only decelerate her research process, but cause psychological torment. She is unable to move until she is guided, but cannot passively retreat; she goes into a draining liminal process of anticipatory rumination. This reminds Lekhetho (2021) who confirmed that students valued supervisors who managed effectively and provided feedback quickly, indicating that simple responsiveness is the basis of satisfaction. Supervisors who have disproportionately large number of supervisees, particularly in resource-limited situations, find it more challenging to provide timely feedback. However, the impact of failure of feedback on students is more severe. As demonstrated above, sometimes, she receives a response of ‘all is good’ just submit thesis. This indicates carelessness and negligence of supervisor in the research process whose timely feedback can improve the quality of her research thesis. The wait and imagine phenomena (supervisees reporting that they have not heard their supervisors in months) can be interpreted as an effective embodiment of a lack of power in both time and relationships in the supervision process. Thus extended silence, in a Freirean (1970) view, becomes an anti-dialogic state, in which the lack of communication actually deprives the supervisee’s voice in the learning process, contributing to passive and subordinate role. The fact that a supervisee imagines, indicates an internalized uncertainty and self-regulation. As a result, supervisee feels anxious, stressed, and loses confidence in her research. Interview Excerpt 5 (Doctoral candidate, Male, Sociology): My supervisor’s statements include such remarks like this section is weak or you need to make your argument stronger, but what weak means is not stated. He starts underlining almost all sections of the thesis. Weak how? In logic? In evidence? In clarity? I do not know what to correct as I do not know the issue. I have made various revisions and he tells me no, not like that as well but he did not tell me what like that should be. This feedback is composed of unpedagogical judgments. Although the supervisor has indicated the aspect that is to be improved, a supervisee does not have the relevant knowledge that can enable him to revise effectively. In case of abstract or unclear feedback, students feel that they were criticized without having a chance to learn. This is especially problematic in Global South situations where they can be unacquainted with the academic writing conventions that their supervisor presumes them to know. In the multilingual setting like Pakistan, where English is the language of instruction though neither supervisors nor supervisees are native English speakers, linguistic barriers worsen the issues of feedback (Canagarajah, 2002 ). Above statement demonstrates the epistemic confusion and disruptive nature of non-specific and vague evaluative feedback that interferes with the meaningful interaction in research. In Freirean (1970) terms, calling work weak without specifying the reason is an anti-dialogic pedagogical act, where authority is given based on judgment and not dialogue. Instead of relevant support, it is evident that supervisee is not provided what he needed. This kind of attitude reflects a banking model of supervision. The indecisiveness of supervisee, whether the problem is in logic or interpretation, leads to lack of problem-posing interaction, which is a prerequisite for building critical consciousness and intellectual clarity. The lack of dialogic interaction in feedback is failure to engage in meaning-making co-construction. In this instance, feedback is a one-way claim of authority as opposed to a co-operative process of idea enhancement. It supports hierarchical power relations and restricts the ability of supervisee to engage actively in the production of knowledge (Hickey & Forbes, 2021 ). Interview Excerpt 6 (MPhil Candidate, Female, Sociology): Whenever I visit my worthy supervisor, he begins saying theoretical underpinning is vague, it needs justification. He writes that my conceptualization is too superficial, I need to be more nuanced, so I had to look up what a nuanced conceptualization is. I am already writing in a second language. It seems like I am being evaluated not only on my ideas but also on my English and it is not my language. This statement by a supervisee explains a stratified linguistic multiplicity. In universities in Global South including Pakistan, the use of English-medium instruction indicates a problematic situation where students are forced to speak and write in English. The above expression shows a supervisee being evaluated in English not on ideas. In case, supervisors provide feedback using complex academic language, they inadvertently establish more impediments to understanding rather than helping them to understand. The excerpt shows how the epistemic assessment and linguistic judgment interact to create the stratified marginalization in supervision. According to Freirean (1970) view, the criticism of the supervisor on superficial conceptualization and vague theoretical foundation without explicit dialogic scaffolding is an anti-dialogic form of evaluation where the authority determines what is legitimate knowledge. This critical situation increases a focus on language, where the supervisee is not only expected to live up to conceptual expectations, but also to dominant linguistic standards. This is in accordance with the cultural invasion aspect by Freire in which superior forms of expression are favored at the expense of other voices and meaning-making that may be muted. In addition to, it demonstrates the continuation of expertise-as-authority, in which academic norms are dictated rather than negotiated. The linguistic status of a supervisee also adds to the complexity of the co-constructed knowledge as the language becomes a gatekeeping system limiting the involvement. Rather than facilitating dialogic interaction, supervision strengthens epistemic hierarchy where fluency and rhetoric sophistication are favored above the growing scholarly voice. Theme 3: Institutional and Structural Constraints. Some supervisees expressed that their supervisors were overly busy with many supervisees, their regular classes, and administrative responsibilities. Although this realization was sympathetic, it also caused tension: acknowledgment that the supervisor was not really open to substantive mentorship. Interview Excerpt 7 (MPhil Candidate, Male, English Literature): My research supervisor teaches three courses, he has many students to supervise, he is on the graduate committee and he is yet to publish, when would he have time to see me? I consider making a meeting and I know he will give me an evasive answer or cancel the meeting and so I no longer bother. He is busy all time. I work on my thesis by myself. I think he does not care. The system is broken. This narrative is alarming and represents hierarchal dimensions of supervisory authority and power-decisive. A supervisee is able to have a pathetic insight of systemic constraint and feels the effect of it on his research journey: the unavailability supervisor. More importantly, the research student reacts to this inaccessibility by disengaging, resigning to isolation. In the context of Pakistan, the institutional circumstances are not always easily changed; universities simply do not have the means to recruit more staff, decrease teaching assignments, or compensate supervisory duties. As a result, it makes the incompatibility between demand and capacity of supervision structurally irreversible. ‘Supervisor is busy all the time, and the system is broken’ can be seen as a part of systemic limitations that contribute to the problem of power asymmetries and epistemic marginalization in research supervision. In Freirean theory (1970), an anti-dialogic atmosphere is created, where the supervisee is constantly stopped in his effort to contribute to meaningful dialogue, preventing any critical discussion and knowledge building. The institutional inaccessibility strengthens, since a researcher decides to work alone, considering uncertainty and regulating his research process. The absence of a continued conversation does not allow a formation of co-constructed knowledge. As demonstrated ‘ I work on my thesis by myself. I think he does not care’. Competing obligations and over-commitment of supervisors frequently create hindrances to successful supervision, which cause delays, cancellations and frustration. Interview Excerpt 8 (Doctoral Candidate, Female, Education): When I told my supervisor that I cannot access databases she recommended, she replied that I should find other sources but I simply cannot because it is behind costly paywalls. I fail to access good research articles. Our library has no subscriptions and she is not aware that it is a real barrier to me and I am not able to complete the literature review, she wants me to. This exposes a severe equity problem, that is, supervisor and supervisee exist in disparate material realities. Failure to access reputable journals or research repositories presents a critical scenario where research students struggle and suffer non-availability of required datasets for their research. These research limitations become apparent when supervisors are unaware of or appear to be insensitive to. It is a sheer ignorance of supervisor and institutional system. This narrative demonstrates a way that structural and relationship restrictions provide a considerable tension in the research process. According to a Freirean (1970) view, no access to research materials limits supervisee’s chances of critical engagement with literature, thus making him unable to produce knowledge independently. The forced projection of writing a literature review under such circumstances reflects supervisory practices where a researcher is supposed to do a scholarly activity without required tools, strengthening dependency and restricting learning. Systemic obstacles can transform supervision into a process of hierarchy where a student’s agency is restricted and identity is suppressed. Some supervisee talked about their institutional policies which slowed down their research and supervision: no specifications on supervision, degree specifications, changing schedules, or bureaucratic demands which appeared arbitrary. Interview Excerpt 9 (Doctoral Candidate, Female, English Linguistics): No one ever explains to me what I will do at various phases of my research, there is no schedule, I do not know whether I do coursework or whether I am writing a chapter and whether I should start fieldwork. My professor says that he has no knowledge or knows nothing. He always says, go and find yourself, and I visit various offices for my work. I feel I am lost. The research student indicates a systemic problem which is not clearly defined: without well-defined institutional structures, supervision is a form of improvisation. This reflects a supervisor’s lack of interest or awareness about supervisory procedures. The institutional clarity is a key to successful mentoring and guidance. This approach lays much pressure on supervisee who feels lost. This narrative brings out a set of relational, procedural, and epistemic issues that acutely limit the progress of supervisee. such vagueness is an anti-dialogic and non-problem-posing environment in which the supervisee has no opportunity to critically engage in the process because she is not provided with structured direction (Freire, 1970 ). The ambiguous instructions of professor and informal office visits only support a hierarchical institutional dynamic, in which knowledge is asymmetrically communicated. The sense of being lost shows that it is not only a case of confusion with procedures but also insecurity of identity as an emerging researcher. Ambiguous expectations and lack of consistency in supervision are the main causes of stress and burnout among doctoral students as well as student attrition (Atkinson & Parry, 2000). The statement illustrates how procedural opaqueness, ambiguous guidance, and unspecified interaction act as emotional and epistemic obstacles and compel supervisees to solitary, self-guided navigation of research activities at the same time increasing anxiety and frustration. Theme 4: Supervisor incompetence and expertise gap Some supervisee reported of having supervisors who appeared to lack confidence in their own supervisory style. Many supervisors appeared not to have known how to meet the needs of their supervisees. Interview excerpt 10 (MPhil Candidate, Male, English Linguistics): In the first encounter, my supervisor asked me what I expected in supervision, and I believed she would inform me! Is she not aware of what a good master’s thesis should be, what schedule to adhere to, what meetings ought to be? Rather, she is asking me to define it. It leaves me nervous. But how will I know when she does not know? This is a valid concern of a supervisee: when supervisors do not have clear structures to use when supervising, they can either become passive or too direct. A question posed by a supervisor, indicates that she herself may not be confident in supervisory skills. The fact that most supervisors engage in supervision without any training or orientation implies the academic situation could be more prevalent than it is known. This passage shows how supervisory experiences may cause anxiety, role ambiguity, and epistemic uncertainty. According to Freirean (1970) perspective, ‘what do you expect of supervision? represents a superficially dialogic intervention, however, in real sense, it turns out to be anti-dialogic (there is no scaffolding). This sets up a space of ambiguous authority without proper direction. The nervousness of supervisee indicates affective aspect of supervision where ambiguous expectations lead to loss of confidence, and reduces engagement. It is evident in the narrative that lack of clear guidance presents neither authoritative direction nor a meaningful collaboration. Some supervisees shared that their supervisors had a hard time directing them through research methodology, and statistical analysis. Interview Excerpt 11 (Doctoral Candidate, Male, English Linguistics): I selected mixed methods since it suited my research questions. My supervisor has purely qualitative expertise. She said she knew nothing about mixed methods, but she said that was honest but not helpful. So, now I am left to learn the quantitative part on my own. She should not be supervising quantitative part. This represents the way in which methodological mismatch creates an ambivalent relationship between autonomy and abandonment. Here, the narrative presents no support from supervisor in research. A responsivity is shifted to supervise who has to learn and proceed in his research without support. A lack of this support translates to unguided autonomy that a supervisee can manoeuvre through methodological complications with no guidance. Misalignment in methods forces a student to make complicated methodological choices without required mentoring. This does not just exacerbate cognitive and emotional stress, but indicates a wider structural constraint on supervision practices with expertise boundaries limiting dialogic and supportive learning relationships. One of the supervisees told that his supervisor had irrelevant degree in the field. She also expressed it as a common practice in higher institutes in Pakistan. Interview Excerpt 12 (Doctoral candidate, Male, English Literature). My supervisor is a senior professor and holds a PhD in English Linguistics. However, I conduct PhD research in literature. We contradict in many areas in research because our fields fall apart. Unfortunately, I feel that I have to adjust to his demands instead of doing what would be correct in my discipline, when he appears to be not interested or says that it is too complicated when I attempt to explain my methodology, such as linguistic analysis or IPA transcription. This statement foreshadows the fact that disciplinary mismatch is not a proforma issue but a systemized form of practice, which generates long-term epistemic conflicts in supervision. In a Freirean (1970;1991) sense, to accommodate intellectually present the evidence of some internalized accommodations to the power of the dominant authority, where supervisee keeps aside disciplinary knowledge in order to conform to the demands of his supervisor. This interaction echoes the perception of Freire on adapting under oppressive systems where learners alter their intellectual stand to accommodate the demands of hierarchy rather to engage in an actual dialogue. This lack of two-way interaction turns supervision into an anti-dialogic area and precludes the existence of co-constructed knowledge. The epistemic support of supervisor and supervisee differs with the background in literature and linguistics respectively. It provokes the repetition of contradictions in methodology. As demonstrated by a supervisee, a mismatch in the field is a common practice that only points to how these institutional structures make such mismatches normal. Grant ( 2005 ) sees supervision as a conflictual place where power and knowledge come into contact and, usually, exclude other opinions. This institutional disciplinary mismatch creates epistemic tension, strengthens hierarchical power structure, and limits supervisee’s intellectual autonomy. Theme 5: Supervisee Agency and Resilience This theme expands an active negotiation, adaptation, and maintenance of research. Despite institutional and structural constraints, supervisee establish their agency and show resilience. Interview Excerpt 13 (MPhil Candidate, Female, English Literature). Although my supervisor favors quantitative methods, I chose to stick with qualitative research design due to the suitability of the design to my research questions. I had to read extensively on my own and defend each step in meetings, which was challenging, but I desired my research to be methodologically sound. I kept going. This indicates a vigorous performance of agency by supervisee in which she takes the charge of making methodological decisions even when there is little supervisory congruency. In Freirean (1970) terms, this critical consciousness shows that a supervisee is active and fully concerned about her research. She does not conform to the supervisory preference. This situation brings out a paradox, whereby a lack of a dialogic space in supervision is offset by supervisee who constructs a self-driven epistemic space. The phrase ‘ I kept going’ refers to passion and resilience. She is determined to make her research sound that shapes her academic identity in engaging in self-directed learning and perseverance, especially when the system does not support. Therefore, her agency is not delegated here but is created through struggle. It is a manifestation of resilience as an intellectual and relationship accomplishment. Another supervisee mentioned that: Interview Excerpt 14 (MPhil candidate, Male, English Literature) Several times, I felt like I was about to quit because I did not receive any guidance. However, I kept reminding myself of my objectives. and I did many things without mentorship, and silently I kept working on my own ideas. In this statement, resilience is foreshadowed as a multi-layered emotion regulation and strategic bargaining process. Adjusting with quietly working on his ideas represents a kind of critical agency that is exercised within constraint, but not overtly. This is an indication of a supervisory situation where there is no relationship building and supportive mentoring that drives supervisee to the self-managed learning. Despite no guidance or mentorship, a supervisee maintains the momentum due to goal-oriented persistence, which underscores the importance of resilience. Non dialogic interaction compels him to establish a dialogic space internally. According to above expression, supervisee agency and resilience are not predetermined qualities but rather relationally and structurally constructed and created through constant negotiations with power, disciplinary expectations, and institutional restrictions. Although the dialogic engagement might be limited through supervision, students will actively reconstruct their identities as autonomous, which proves that resilience is both a cognitive as well as a political practice in the hierarchical academic settings. Nevertheless, some supervisees reported that they reframed their experiences, saw meaning in struggle, and resilience, and were committed to their research. Interview Excerpt 15 (Doctoral Candidate, Male, Education): My research process has been a difficult one, more difficult than I anticipated. My supervisor does not like me. We do not have mutual understanding in the research journey. Despite, I am still here. My research means everything to me. I have started learning to make my own decisions about my work. I did not get motivated by my mentor. I reminded myself that I could do it. This supervisee is incredibly resilient and agency-based, re-conceptualizing structural constraint into development opportunity. ‘ I reminded myself that I could do it ’ shows a strong resilience without mutual understanding and motivation. The above statement presents a strong interplay of emotional conflict, perseverance, and agency, and how supervisee manages difficult supervisory relationships and remain committed to their research. A phrase ‘my research means everything’ narrates critical consciousness of a supervisee who can find meaning in challenging research process. This autonomy implies that intellectual growth is possible even in resource limited settings or without mentorship. It brings out resilience as not only endurance but as an act of self-construction, in which the negotiated sense of meaning, sense of identity, and sense of direction are achieved in the context of hierarchical constraints. Discussion The current research demonstrates how power, epistemic incompatibility, structural limitations, and emotional interactions impact the research experience of supervisees in the context of Pakistan. The results show that supervision is not simply a pedagogical act, but a highly relational and political act deeply embedded in institutional environments, across interrelated themes: power asymmetries and hierarchical relationships, epistemic mismatch and disciplinary tensions, supervisory ambiguity and feedback gaps, structural and institutional constraints, and supervisee agency and resilience. These closely aligns with insights of Lee ( 2008 ), supervisee development of Gurr (2001), and dialogic interaction of Freire ( 1970 ). The insights from supervisees relate to the ubiquitous impact of power asymmetry. In the research, it was noticed that supervisees always felt anxious about the authority of their supervisors, carefully self-censoring their anxiety and intellectual input. They did not afford risking their degrees. This relationship is aggravated in the Global South situations where supervisors not only dominate the academic assessment of performance but also, have access to research facilities, publications, and professional networks that are vital in professional growth. The unequal source of power is not exclusive to the South Asian settings (Giroux, 2010 ; Abiwu, 2024 ; Sidhu et al., 2014 ), and the lack of resources makes supervisees more reliant on individual supervisors to gain access to crucial research conditions, which may increase vulnerability. Interestingly, some supervisees expressed insights into systemic constraint constraining supervisors themselves, excessive workloads, lack of resources, ambiguous institutional demands. This humanizing, although blurring systemic accountability, also covers it. The acceptance that supervisors do not supervise due to their workload or various roles on different committees view this practice as an epistemic injustice rather than reality (Sidhu et al., 2014 ; Tuck, 2024 ). The results lead to the fact that supervision is organized according to the hierarchical authority when supervisees tend to be silenced, afraid, and restricted in their participation. Based on the works of Freire ( 1970 ), these dynamics indicate a culture of silence where knowledge flows in one way only, and the dialogue is restricted. The unwillingness of supervisees to communicate confusion or disagreement is in line with Freire's criticism of banking education, where learners are placed in the position of passive consumers. It is also supported by the fact that, according to the typology developed by Lee ( 2008 ), there are directive and functional models of supervision that emphasize control over collaboration. In this situation, supervisees get addicted to so-called supervisory authority, which supports power imbalances. Equally, to Hickey and Forbes ( 2021 ), supervision based on the concept of expertise-as-authority suppresses epistemic reciprocity and limits the possibility of co-constructed knowledge. These findings are supported by empirical research. For example, Grant ( 2005 ) uses the idea of supervision as a contested space that exists as a result of power in which students tend to bargain over silence and compliance. Likewise, Manathunga ( 2007 ) also points out that hierarchical relations limit intellectual risk-taking and support dependency. Power asymmetry is therefore more than a structural condition but also an experience of pedagogy that is lived and which constructs voice, identity, and participation. Another important result is the existence of disciplinary mismatch, especially between literature-oriented supervisors and linguistics-oriented supervisees. This incompatibility creates epistemic tensions where methodological and theoretical differences are not resolved, forcing supervisees to change. In a Freirean view, this is equivalent to epistemic domination in knowledge system. The adjustment that supervisee must make depicts an internalized compliance in unequal power relations. This reminds Lee ( 2008 ) who points out that successful supervision necessitates cohesiveness in the disciplinary enculturation, which is interrupted when the supervisor is not familiar with the field of research that the supervisee works. Hickey and Forbes ( 2021 ) criticize such situations as the inability to go beyond the knowledge-based supervision, that is still limited to disciplinary silos. Cross-disciplinary supervision needs to be negotiated intentionally; otherwise, it will result in confusion, tension, and poor development of research. These results indicate that epistemic mismatch is not an individual problem, but an institutionally legitimized practice that has important pedagogic implications. The results underscore widespread uncertainties in supervisory instructions such as ambiguity of instructions, epistemic uncertainty, and feedback failure. These circumstances result in loss of direction, panic and stagnation among supervisees. The lack of dialogue, in Freirean terms, is an anti-dialogic pedagogy, in which a learner is deprived of the chance to be critically engaged in knowledge. This insight of the study reflects that supervisee are deprived of mentorship and guidance when they need it in the research process. Timely feedback and systematic guidance are considered to be at the heart of the process and lack of these interfere with academic progress and development of identity (Lee, 2008 ). Equally, Hickey and Forbes, M. ( 2022 ) echoed that supervision must be dialogic and continuous without it a production of knowledge could be disorganized. These findings are supported by Ives and Rowley ( 2005 ) who indicated that lack of clarity and inability to provide consistent supervision adversely affect progress of doctoral students. Wisker ( 2012 ) emphasized the importance of feedback to keep the momentum and confidence, and Delamont et al. ( 2000 ) associate supervisory ambiguity with stress and turnover. Ambiguity and delay, therefore, serve as an epistemic and affective block, which exacerbates supervisory tension. In addition to, the results also demonstrate that supervisory practices are influenced by institutional structures, including heavy workloads, committee duties, and a lack of access to research resources. The lack of access to databases and frequent unavailability of supervisors are a source of systemic barriers to learning (Giroux, 2011 ; Yin, Xu & Wang, 2026 ). These restrictions restrict a dialogic interaction, and further supports inequality in knowledge accessibility (Freire, 1970 ). Likewise, Lee ( 2008 ) also recognized that institutional contexts affect supervision, but these limits may compromise the relational and pedagogical aspects of it. Though the lens of Hickey and Forbes ( 2021 ) a proper supervision cannot be carried out without a long-lasting interaction, which is undermined when the pressure of structure is exerted. In the same vein, Bair and Haworth (2004) discussed resource constraints and workload of supervisors as critical determinants of doctoral persistence. According to Manathunga ( 2007 ), the administrative role of supervisors is usually restructured by institutional demands to be mentors. Taken together, it is indicated that supervision is not only influenced by personal practices but also by institutional ecologies that limit time, access, and interaction. Nevertheless, it is worth noticing that supervisees demonstrated their agency and resilience to overcome tensions by adopting adaptive strategies, persistence, and self-directed learning. They rationalize methodological decisions, deal with emotional demands, and maintain a focus on their study. Through a Freirean prism, this indicates the development of a critical consciousness where people participate in and change their circumstances. This trend of autonomy of choice depicts transitioning from passive reception toward problem-posing engagement (Whitelock et al., 2008 ). Such development is self-initiated rather than facilitated (Lee, 2008 ). Hickey and Forbes ( 2021 ) emphasize that without the dialogic supervision, students can create their own dialogic space that allows them to reflect and advance. Cotterall ( 2013 ) focuses on emotions as a key to self-regulation, whereas Gardner ( 2009 ) regards resilience as an important aspect of doctoral identity formation. Grant ( 2005 ) goes on to state that students tend to use strategic compliance to manoeuvre in hierarchical systems. Therefore, resilience becomes a contextual, interpersonal practice influenced by power, context and personal dedication. It is not endurance but a process of meaning-making and identity construction which is transformative. Theoretically, supervision is viewed as interaction of power, pedagogy and institutional structure. In Pakistani universities, research supervision at postgraduate level is seen as controversial pedagogical space wherein power, knowledge, and identity are in a constant state of negotiation. The opportunities of transformative learning are possible if supervision can be progressed to a more dialogic, equitable, and more context-sensitive practice (Giroux, 2010 ; 2011 ; Swedan et al., 2026 hämäki et al., 2021). Collectively, the study has its value in demonstrating the interaction of these dimensions in practice and creating the tensions that are negotiated via supervisee agency and resilience. Conclusion This research has critically discussed the relationship between supervisors and supervisees at postgraduate level, and identified that supervision is not a neutral academic process as it is complex, relational, and power-infused due to epistemic, institutional, and pedagogical circumstances. Throughout the outlined themes, the results indicate that tensions arising in supervision are not accidental or unrelated, but systematically created and institutionalized, specifically in higher education settings that are under-resourced in Pakistan. Through the theoretical lens of Freire’s critical pedagogy, the research presents the way supervisory practices recreate the anti-dialogic condition, in which hierarchical authority, silence, and restricted participation inhibit the voice and presence of the supervisee. Significantly, this research also shows transformational ability of supervisee agency and resilience. Although there are structural and relational limitations, they actively establish their statuses by means of strategic adjustments, independent study, and long-term commitment to their research. Despite uncertainty, we notice in the research that supervisees defend their methodological decisions, traverse disciplinary incompatibilities, and persevere. References Abiwu L (2024) A reflective experience of postgraduate education in South African higher education institutions. International Journal of Educational Development in Africa , 9 , 21-pages. https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7782-4604 Akhurst J (2020) A South African perspective on community psychology practice competencies. J Community Psychol 48:2108–2123. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcop.22410 Ali J, Ullah H, Sanauddin N (2019) Postgraduate Research Supervision: Exploring the Lived Experience of Pakistani Postgraduate Students. FWU J Social Sci, 13 (1) Bastalich W (2017) Content and context in knowledge production: a critical review of doctoral supervision literature. Stud High Educ 42(7):1145–1157. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2015.1079702 Batool HS, Ali AF, Safdar M (2022) What Pakistani doctoral students want? A qualitative exploration of their research experiences. Global Knowl Memory Communication 71(4–5):355–369. https://doi.org/10.1108/GKMC-04-2021-0074 Braun V, Clarke V (2006) Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Res Psychol 3(2):77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa Canagarajah AS (2002) A geopolitics of academic writing. University of Pittsburgh. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctt5vk0j6 Chalaune BS (2021) Paulo Freire’s critical pedagogy in educational transformation. Int J Res – GRANTHAALAYAH 9(4):185–194. https://doi.org/10.29121/granthaalayah.v9.i4.2021.3813 Clouder L, Billot J, King V, Smith J (2020) Friend or Foe: the complexities of being an academic and a doctoral student in the same institution. Stud High Educ 45(9):1961–1972. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2019.1643307 Cotterall S (2013) More than just a brain: Emotions and the doctoral experience. High Educ Res Dev 32(2):174–187. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2012.680017 Delamont S, Atkinson P, Parry O (2000) The doctoral experience: Success and failure in graduate school. Falmer Deem R, Brehony KJ (2000) Doctoral Students’ Access to Research Cultures-are some more unequal than others? Stud High Educ 25(2):149–165. https://doi.org/10.1080/713696138 Freire P (1998) Pedagogy of the Heart. Continuum, New York Freire P (1970) Pedagogy of the oppressed (MB Ramos, Trans.). New York: Continuum Gardner SK (2009) The development of doctoral students: Phases of challenge and support. ASHE High Educ Rep 34(6):1–127. https://doi.org/10.1002/aehe.3406 Giroux HA (2011) On critical pedagogy . Bloomsbury. https://doi.org/10.5040/9781501306766 Giroux HA (2010) Bare pedagogy and the scourge of neoliberalism: Rethinking higher education as a democratic public sphere. Educational Forum 74(3):184–196. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131725.2010.483897 Grant B (2005) Fighting for space in supervision: Fantasies, fairytales, fictions and fallacies. Int J Qualitative Stud Educ 18(3):337–354. https://doi.org/10.1080/09518390500082483 Guerin C, Kerr H, Green I (2015) Supervision pedagogies: Narratives from the field. Teach High Educ 20(1):107–118. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2014.957271 Hickey A, Forbes M (2022) Higher degree research supervision beyond expertise: A Rancièrean and Freirean perspective on HDR supervision. Stud High Educ 47(8):1712–1723. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2021.1957812 Hickey A, Forbes M (2021) Higher degree research supervision beyond expertise: A Rancièrean and Freirean perspective. Stud High Educ 47(8):1712–1723. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2021.1957812 Hodgson D (2019) Critical supervision for the human services: A social model to promote learning and value-based practice. Australian Social Work 73(3). https://doi.org/10.1080/0312407X.2017.1407214 Ives G, Rowley G (2005) Supervisor selection or allocation and continuity of supervision: PhD students’ progress and outcomes. Stud High Educ 30(5):535–555. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075070500249161 Jackson D, Davidson PM, Usher K (2022) Doctoral Supervision as Pedagogy. Successful Doctoral Training in Nursing and Health Sciences. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-87946-4_2 Khene C (2014) Supporting a humanizing pedagogy in the supervision relationship and process. Int J Doctoral Stud 9:73–83. https://doi.org/10.28945/2027 Lee A (2008) How are doctoral students supervised? Concepts of doctoral research supervision. Stud High Educ 33(3):267–281. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075070802049202 Lekhetho M (2022) Postgraduate students’ perceptions of support services rendered by a distance learning institution. Int J High Educ 11(7):1–24. https://doi.org/10.5430/ijhe.v11n7p24 Liu Y, Wang Z, Dai K (2026) Reframing intercultural supervision: Understanding mainland Chinese doctoral students’ adaptation experiences in Hong Kong. Int J Intercultural Relations 111:102368. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.IJINTREL.2026.102368 Malik AH, Iqbal MZ, Ul Haq MI (2021) Supervisees’ reactions to a concatenation of supervisors’ resource drain, ego depletion and abusive supervision. Int J Confl Manage 32(2):177–198 Manathunga C (2007) Supervision as mentoring: The role of power and boundary crossing. Stud Continuing Educ 29(2):207–221. https://doi.org/10.1080/01580370701424650 Masood S, Khawaja F, Waqar Y (2023) The Road to Doctoral Success: A Model for High-Quality PhD Supervision in Education . GESR, VIII(II), 660–672 Mncina TC, Letsie H, Nkhi SE, Mofana M (2024) Effective communication in postgraduate supervision: Shaping experiences and overcoming challenges. Interdisciplinary J Educ Res 6:1–21. https://doi.org/10.38140/ijer-2024.vol6.13 Moriarty B, Danaher PA, Danaher G (2008) Freire and dialogical pedagogy in postgraduate supervision. Int J Lifelong Educ 27(4):431–442. https://doi.org/10.1080/02601370802051447 Shih Y-H (2025) The transformation of higher education in the context of globalization: Implications from Paulo Freire’s critical pedagogy. Front Educ. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2025.1714343 Sidhu GK, Kaur S, Fook CY, Yunus FW (2013) Postgraduate supervision: Exploring Malaysian students’ experiences. Procedia-Social Behav Sci 90:133–141 Sidhu GK, Kaur S, Fook CY, Yunus FW (2014) Postgraduate supervision: Comparing student perspectives from Malaysia and the United Kingdom. Procedia-Social Behav Sci 123:151–159 Swedan SF, Alzoubi KH, Khabour OF, Aljabali AAA, Hendawi M, Al-Delaimy WK (2026) Research mentorship in graduate programs in a developing country: An ethical perspective. Social Sci Humanit Open 13:102488. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.SSAHO.2026.102488 Tuck J (2024) We can work on this: exploring supervisor approaches to feedback in the context of writing for a professional doctorate. Stud Graduate Postdoctoral Educ 16(1):90–106. https://doi.org/10.1108/SGPE-01-2024-0004 Vähämäki M, Saru E, Palmunen LM (2021) Doctoral supervision as an academic practice and leader–member relationship: A critical approach to relationship dynamics. Int J Manage Educ 19(3):100510. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.IJME.2021.100510 Whitelock D, Faulkner D, Miell D (2008) Promoting creativity in PhD supervision: Tensions and dilemmas. Think Skills Creativity 3(2):143–153. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.TSC.2008.04.001 Wisker G (2012) The good supervisor: Supervising postgraduate and undergraduate research for doctoral theses and dissertations . Bloomsbury Academic Yin M, Xu W, Wang Y (2026) Controlling or directing? Text mining to decode supervisor-graduate student relationship. Acta Psychol 262:106030. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ACTPSY.2025.106030 Additional Declarations The authors declare no competing interests. Cite Share Download PDF Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-9584531","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Research Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":632884349,"identity":"e79b823f-770f-460c-816e-238b113e603e","order_by":0,"name":"Illahi Bakhsh","email":"","orcid":"https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4049-0433","institution":"University of Sindh","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Illahi","middleName":"","lastName":"Bakhsh","suffix":""},{"id":632888866,"identity":"b6c863f7-c8bd-458f-bb28-c6d60d18e633","order_by":1,"name":"Maya Khemlani David","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Asia-Europe Institute University of Malaya Kuala Lumpur Malaysia","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Maya","middleName":"Khemlani","lastName":"David","suffix":""},{"id":632890117,"identity":"897ba197-05dc-4e68-8d67-397b23fb48f6","order_by":2,"name":"Tahreem Akhter","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Language Academy, Faculty of Social Sciences and Humanities, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia (UTM), Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Tahreem","middleName":"","lastName":"Akhter","suffix":""},{"id":632890332,"identity":"9e7b1f20-0853-42aa-9b8e-a29a8289ad2b","order_by":3,"name":"Ghulam Ali Buriro","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"University of Sindh","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Ghulam","middleName":"Ali","lastName":"Buriro","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2026-05-01 09:15:02","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":{"humanSubjects":true,"vertebrateSubjects":false,"conflictsOfInterestStatement":false,"humanSubjectEthicalGuidelines":true,"humanSubjectConsent":true,"humanSubjectClinicalTrial":false,"humanSubjectCaseReport":false,"vertebrateSubjectEthicalGuidelines":false},"doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-9584531/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-9584531/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":109206841,"identity":"5f907375-d8cc-411a-8aa7-66ec8183febd","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-05-13 15:16:11","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":240671,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-9584531/v1/86fb2cd8-f83b-417c-b2e1-d6a4c440a47f.pdf"}],"financialInterests":"The authors declare no competing interests.","formattedTitle":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eFailure of dialogic praxis: Culture of silence, epistemic tensions, resilience and agency in postgraduate supervision in South Asia\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","fulltext":[{"header":"Introduction","content":"\u003cp\u003ePostgraduate supervision is key to academic quality, research excellence, and the success of a supervisee. From a global perspective, it is exclusively framed as a relationship of mentorship, collaboration, and power negotiation (Lee, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR26\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2008\u003c/span\u003e; Jackson, Davidson \u0026amp; Usher, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR24\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e). postgraduate supervision in Pakistani higher educations institutes remain underexplored and under-researched, some research studies have highlighted struggle of research students rather than epistemic tensions, silence, failure of dialogic praxis. supervisee usually face ambiguous direction, unclear feedback and imbalanced power, which influence their agency, identity and degree completion (Bastalich, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e; Guerin et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn Pakistan, supervisees encounter several issues including institutional pressure, publications in W category journals, and linguistic barriers in English medium instruction institutes (Cross \u0026amp; Backhouse, 2014). These issues multiply with supervisors\u0026rsquo; membership in various academic committees, heavy workload leaving supervisee without sufficient guidance and prolonged postgraduate research journey. While the latest research reveals supervisory practices collaborative in publications, scheduled structured meetings (Masood et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR31\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e). Supervisee often share a lack of dialogic interaction, less professional training opportunities, and unbalanced supervisory relationships (Wisker, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR41\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2012\u003c/span\u003e; Batool, Ali \u0026amp; Safdar, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e; Liu, Wang \u0026amp; Dai, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR28\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2026\u003c/span\u003e). This study seeks to reframe postgraduate supervision by recording supervisee\u0026rsquo;s silence, and voice and how they negotiate power, encounter epistemic tensions, and remain resilient in the process of supervision. Within critical pedagogy (Freire, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1970\u003c/span\u003e), the study situates supervisees\u0026rsquo; experiences and indicates how they show resilience, and establish their agency, construct knowledge ingrained by institutional hierarchy, and epistemic tensions during the research process and their negotiations with supervisors.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Literature Review","content":"\u003cp\u003eSupervision is a complex relational practice in higher education in Pakistan. An organizational environment is characterized by power, authority, and autonomous pressures at academic institutes (Khene, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR25\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e). Research supervision is not merely a procedural and executive activity, but solely a relational practice. The supervisory relationship is charged with pressure of authority and self-sufficiency, expertise and dialogue, as well as institutional requirements and personal growth (Whitelock et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR40\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2008\u003c/span\u003e). In doctoral supervision, an unequal access to research culture has long been observed by scholars to construct supervisory relationships (Deem \u0026amp; Brehony, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2000\u003c/span\u003e), institutional positioning (Clouder et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e), and space and authority negotiation (Grant, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR18\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2005\u003c/span\u003e; Manathunga, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR30\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2007\u003c/span\u003e). These tensions are also enlightened by the critical pedagogical approaches. Hickey and Forbes (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e) and Moriarty, Danaher, and Danaher (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR33\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2008\u003c/span\u003e) base their arguments on Freirean dialogical pedagogy by suggesting that supervisory practices be understood as mutual inquiry, and Shih (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR34\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e) contextualizes supervisory practices within the wider transformations of hegemonic practices.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAli, Ullah \u0026amp; Sanauddin (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e) researched experiences of Pakistani postgraduate students and reported limited institutional support. Malik et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR29\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e) stepped further and considered negative supervisory behaviors (resource drain, ego depletion, abusive supervision). Their results unveil the destruction of motivation, trust, and academic identity. Supervision is a relationship of power that students are accustomed to navigating, rather than a collaborative intellectual relationship.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAlthough a growing body of research has examined supervisory models, procedures, and outcomes across academic and organizational settings, much of this work focuses on structural, pedagogical, or behavioral dimensions of supervision. Less attention has been paid to how supervision is experienced as a relational, dialogic, and ethically charged process. Addressing this gap, the present study conceptualizes supervision as a relational, dialogic, and ethically charged practice situated within broader cultural, institutional, and ideological contexts. Based on the background, review of the relevant literature, and research gaps, the study explores the following research questions.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec3\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eTheoretical framework\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe theoretical basis of this research is critical pedagogy proposed by Freire (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1970\u003c/span\u003e), which theorizes education as a political, dialogic, and transformative practice based on power relations, hierarchies of knowledge, and social structures. In this paradigm, postgraduate supervision is not considered a neutral academic practice but rather a site of power negotiation, epistemological struggle, and identity formation, in which both supervisees and supervisors are placed in an asymmetric relationship.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe fundamental aspect of Freire\u0026rsquo;s theory is the denunciation of the banking model of education, in which knowledge is passed in the same direction from teacher to learner. In the context of doctoral supervision, this framework is applied in the form of directive, hierarchical, and supervisory practices wherein supervisors dictate research direction, knowledge validation, and evaluative outcomes. Conversely, Freire (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1970\u003c/span\u003e) supports a problem-posing approach to education based on dialogue, mutual learning, and critical inquiry. This outlook replays supervision as a constructive and interactive process in which knowledge is negotiated rather than forced. However, this study demonstrates that this dialogic engagement is frequently missing or incomplete, especially when there is disciplinary mismatch and supervisory ambiguity because the absence of common epistemic grounds makes meaningful engagement impossible. In this way, the difference between ideal supervision (dialogic supervision) and practice (hierarchical supervision) grows analytically relevant. One of the main ideas in Freire\u0026rsquo;s framework is conscientiza\u0026ccedil;\u0026atilde;o (critical consciousness), the process of making people conscious of oppressive situations and gaining the ability to act on them (Chalaune, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAnother idea highlighted by Freire is the significance of dialogue, which is praxis, reflection, and action. In postgraduate supervision, dialogue is not merely a form of communication but a pedagogical act that makes it possible to have epistemic reciprocity and shared meaning-making. The lack of timely feedback, clear guidance, and minimal interaction, is a failure of dialogic praxis that results in epistemic isolation and emotional distress. Significantly, the connection between education and structural conditions is prefigured in Freire\u0026rsquo;s framework. The institutional constraints, including heavy workloads for supervisors, inability to access research resources, and systemic disciplinary mismatch practices, show how supervision is integrated into larger institutional ecologies. This critical framework not only determines access to knowledge but also opportunities for dialogue, support, and equity (Hodgson, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR22\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e). Therefore, there are several levels of power in supervision: interpersonal (supervisor\u0026ndash;supervisee), epistemic (knowledge validation), and structural (institutional systems).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis research has expanded the critical pedagogy of Freire to the field of postgraduate supervision (e.g. MPhil and PhD supervision) by showing that supervision is a critical pedagogical space where power, knowledge, and identity intersect. It adds to the fact that although supervisory practices tend to recreate hierarchical and anti-dialogic conditions, supervisees are active participants in creating meaning, resistance, and self-directed learning. With a Freirean lens, this research re-posits postgraduate supervision as an active and conflictual pedagogical process, with the possibility of transformative learning hinging on how far supervision can be pushed to dialogue, hierarchy to collaboration, to knowledge transmission to critical co-construction.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eResearch Question\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eHow do power asymmetries, epistemic mismatch, and institutional constraints impact supervisor -supervisee relationships in research in Pakistani settings?\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eHow do supervisees use their agency and resilience to negotiate supervisory relationships through a critical pedagogical lens?\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Methodology","content":"\u003cp\u003eThe study adopts a qualitative and interpretive research design with a constructivist epistemology (Mncina et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR32\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e). The interpretive paradigm places greater emphasis on participants\u0026rsquo; meanings and experiences and their views, instead of testing set hypotheses. Semi-structured interviews are conducted with postgraduate students, which allow us to explore the major themes in a structured manner and, at the same time, provide us with the flexibility to pursue emergent issues. This method is especially suitable considering the aim of our research: to learn how supervisees negotiate their agency and resilience themselves and make sense of tensions in supervisory relationships.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eParticipants and Sampling\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe study involves 15 postgraduate students, i.e., 6 MPhil and 9 Doctoral, enrolled at the University of Sindh, Pakistan. Participants\u0026rsquo; age range from 26\u0026ndash;52 years (mean age\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;35.4 years), and represent diverse disciplines, including Education (2), English Linguistics (6), English Literature (4), Sociology (2), Psychology (1). The sample comprises 9 male participants and 6 female participants, with supervisory experience spanning from 6 months to five years.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eParticipants are selected through purposive sampling, using the networks of academic contacts within other partner universities. Inclusion criteria require that participants be currently pursuing an MPhil degree or a doctoral degree, have an active supervisor, be willing to share the experience of supervision openly, and be capable of taking part in an interview in English. Although purposive sampling is associated with selection bias, this method is suitable because our aims are associated with an exploratory, experience-based study.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eEthical Consideration\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis study involved human participants so it was carried out in complete compliance with international ethical standards, including the principles highlighted in in the Belmont Report and the Declaration of Helsinki (2013). Before data collection, we adhered to institutional and ethical requirements of the university of Sindh and sought approval for the conduct of this research. Then, an informed consent was taken and a prepared form for approval (see appendix 1) was administered to participants. We clearly explained the purpose, procedure and voluntary nature of participation in the study. Furthermore, we ensured them about their right to withdraw at any stage without any hesitation or harm. Some ethical measures were considered to ensure their confidentiality and anonymity, and data were only used for research purpose. We conducted this research keeping in view of participants, respect, dignity, rights and well-being. And no harm was inflicted during the research process.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec8\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eData Collection\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eSemi-structured interviews were conducted from June to September 2025. 15 interviews are carried out, primarily face-to-face (13) and supplemented by video calls (2). Each session lasted between 40 and 60 minutes (average interview time\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;40 minutes). The interviews were audio-recorded with participants\u0026rsquo; concerns and transcribed verbatim. The transcription was accomplished carefully to capture non-native accents, colloquial expressions and instances of code switching between English and the local languages, as the transcription had to maintain the linguistic authenticity of the participants, but at the same time, it had to be understood by them.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe interview guide comprises open-ended questions that enquired about: (1) what the participants expected of the supervision and how this was met or not met regarding actual supervision experiences; (2) particular cases of tension or conflict in supervisory relationships; (3) patterns of communication and feedback; (4) emotional experiences and wellbeing effects; (5) sources of support outside formal supervision; (6) perceptions of the supervisor competence and Pilot-testing of the guide was done with three supervisees before actual data collection to ensure that the guide is clear and culturally acceptable.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec9\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eData Analysis\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eData Analysis is carried out with systematic thematic analysis. To begin with, the research team read transcripts several times to be immersed into the data. Second, line by line coding is held and it produces preliminary codes, reflecting conceptually different ideas. Third, potential themes are created by clustering codes together using an iterative process. Fourth, themes are developed based on the analysis of original data, which means that themes are based on the words and experience of the participants, but not the assumptions of the researcher. Lastly, themes are grouped in a hierarchical manner, i.e. primary themes and sub-themes. The analytical rigor is improved by: (1) researcher triangulation (the same group of researchers coded data separately and the interpretations are reconciled and reviewed), (2) participant validation (preliminary findings are discussed with three participant volunteers and their feedback is taken into account), (3) reflexivity practice (researchers kept journals recording methods of their analytical choices and possible biases), and (4) consideration of alternative interpretations.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"Findings and Analysis","content":"\u003cp\u003eContinuing on the critical pedagogical orientation of this research, we present the findings and analysis. The analysis is based on the conceptualization of education as a dialogic and power-laden process (Freire, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1970\u003c/span\u003e), which studies how the relationships between supervisees and their supervisors are experienced, negotiated, and resisted in the institutional context. The emergent themes, including power imbalances, epistemic discrepancies, supervisory uncertainties, structural limitations and supervisee agency are not discussed as separate categories but as interrelated aspects of a larger pedagogical ecology. This section transcends descriptive reporting to provide a theoretically informed, interpretive analysis concerning how these dynamics formulate postgraduate research practices, identities and trajectories.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec11\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e\u003cb\u003eTheme 1: Power Asymmetries and hierarchical relationship\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eInterview Excerpt 1 (MPhil Candidate, University of Sindh, Male, Linguistics):\u003cdiv class=\"BlockQuote\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e \u003cem\u003eShe makes decisions on my research direction, she does not really consult me, and I come to a meeting and she has already decided what I should do next, I want to say that I had another idea but I do not know how to do it, I do not know whether I can do it. My supervisor holds a PhD; she has the power to give me the analysis. I say nothing because I fear of failing.\u003c/em\u003e \u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis statement by supervisee shows the psychological calculation that supervisees conduct: suppressing their own intellectual urges since the approval of the supervisor is an institutionally mandatory one. Although the supervisor probably does not mean to suppress student voice, the imbalance of the institutional power makes real conversation challenging. The fact that a supervisee then says that she can pass me or fail me places emphasis upon the inherent power imbalance that is used to structure the relationship. This observation is consistent with the existing literature on power relations in Global South situations, in which power relationships that embed hierarchical relations may marginalize student agency (Showunmi et al., 2024). Fear expressed by supervisee is also related to power asymmetry, not only of poor academic results, but also affective that prevents open communication. This situation acts as a self-censorship tool, where supervisees are not able to reveal their difficulties, express dissent, or seek clear instructions.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn terms of Freirean view (1970), it is representative of reproducing oppressive pedagogical orders, in which the power is concentrated, and communication is substituted by unilateralism. The silence of supervisee is not just an option but it is an expression of a culture of silence, which is a systemic creation of power relation. The supervisory space is transformed into a non-dialogic location, in which the knowledge is deposited, but not constructed together, which supports the banking model of education. A lack of negotiation means the failure to move towards relationship-development necessary in promoting independent scholarship. The reliance of the supervisee on the supervisor to evaluate him also increases the hierarchical relationship and institutionalizes power in the assessment (Lee, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR26\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2008\u003c/span\u003e). This leads to what can be called epistemic marginalization in which ideas of supervisee are suppressed internally even before they can get to the dialogic space.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eInterview Excerpt 2 (Doctoral Student, Male, English Literature):\u003cdiv class=\"BlockQuote\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e \u003cem\u003eI just fear telling him that things are not going well, that I am confused. I do not understand the theory. When I say I am struggling, my supervisor becomes distant, he will become harder on me. He will think that I do not deserve to be in this program. So I keep silent, I did not ask him to help me.\u003c/em\u003e \u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eA statement by a supervisee presents a strategic calculation: the threat of disclosure (possibility of withdrawal of supervisors, increased scrutiny, or negative publicity) is greater than the benefit of getting help. Importantly, fear of supervisee is not the irrational paranoia, but rather the basis of observation. This power dynamic does not allow supervisees to get support at the time they most require it and this is what leads to a spiral where they find it hard to talk with supervisors in an open way. In the opposite direction, some reported about their supervisors who appeared interested in defending their own power and knowledge and see student inquisitiveness or different conceptualizations as a threat to supervisory validity instead of intellectual exchange.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn terms of Freirean view (1970), this also encapsulates a highly ingrained culture of silence in which a supervisee cannot express confusion because of fear of being punished or sacked. The supervisory space is anti-dialogic in the sense that Freire states that the space is not conducive to openness and critical interaction. Rather than creating a problem-posing educational setting, the interaction recreates educational framework, in which vulnerability (e.g., confusion, struggle) is seen as a shortcoming, not an appropriate aspect of learning. The way the supervisee chose to handle everything independently depicts how power is internalized resulting in self-surveillance and self-censorship. In reaction to trouble, this intensified strictness of supervisor causes a pedagogical paradox: the very time guidance is most needed is the very time it is least available. As a result, the supervisee changes the orientation of learning to performance-survival mode whereby the focus is on the avoidance of errors rather than intellectual exploration. To Hickey and Forbes (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e), this experience indicates the inability to shift expertise as authority to dialogic interaction. Rather than fostering a participative environment in which confusion may be addressed constructively, the supervisor maintains a hierarchical relationship that sets competence and compliance. A lack of epistemic trust, i.e. a supervisee is free to reveal his doubts, does not allow appearance of co-constructed knowledge. Consequently, learning is disconnected and disintegrated, instead of having a relational and dialogic quality.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eInterview Excerpt 3 (Doctoral candidate, Female, Linguistics):\u003cdiv class=\"BlockQuote\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e \u003cem\u003ewhen I proposed an alternative theoretical framework, my supervisor got upset. He replied, I have been conducting research of 20 years, I know what works, and what is right? This was not even a question; this was me challenging him personally. Since that time, I have learned not to question his methods since it is his research project and not mine.\u003c/em\u003e \u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis statement shows how defensiveness on the part of the supervisor can reduce intellectual conversation to assertiveness that is hierarchical. A student concludes saying that this is his research project, which means that the power balance has changed so that he sees the research project as a property of supervisor and not his scholarly growth. According Akhurst, (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e) authoritative supervision disengages a student ownership of PhD, but collaborative forms authentic shared investment. It illustrates the replication of oppressive pedagogical practices, when power is concentrated and dialogue is substituted by one-way decision-making (Freire, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1970\u003c/span\u003e). The silence of supervisee is not simply a decision-making but rather a result of what Freire calls a culture of silence, which is created through a system of power relations. The supervisory space is turned into a non-dialogic location, in which knowledge is deposited, but not co-constructed.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe fact that a supervisee relies on supervisor to provide evaluation further enhances the hierarchical relationship, which entails power dynamics in institutional assessment systems. Such a situation demonstrates the dominance of expertise as a form of authority in which the positional power of supervisor prevails over the potential of epistemic reciprocity. This is epistemic marginalization, in which ideas of a student are suppressed internally before even they can be placed in the dialogic space. Therefore, power asymmetry is not merely external (in the form of authority) but also internal (self-regulation and self-censorship (Freire, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1970\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec12\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eTheme 2: Feedback Failure and Epistemic Uncertainty\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eMany supervisees narrated feedback delay as one of the serious concerns and frustrations. More importantly, they expressed that they waited longer than they expected for feedback. They looked demotivated, and uncertainty prevailed,\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eInterview Excerpt 4 (MPhil candidate, Female, Psychology):\u003cdiv class=\"BlockQuote\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e \u003cem\u003eI have already submitted my first chapter three months ago. Three months! I have not yet heard, so how can I proceed when I am unable to know what is wrong or what is right? I wrote and rewrote paragraphs in my head a hundred times. I imagine what my supervisor may write to me. I am tired of writing to him now. Sometimes, he replied all is good, just submit without providing any constructive feedback.\u003c/em\u003e \u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eOne of the supervisees explains that feedback delays not only decelerate her research process, but cause psychological torment. She is unable to move until she is guided, but cannot passively retreat; she goes into a draining liminal process of anticipatory rumination. This reminds Lekhetho (2021) who confirmed that students valued supervisors who managed effectively and provided feedback quickly, indicating that simple responsiveness is the basis of satisfaction. Supervisors who have disproportionately large number of supervisees, particularly in resource-limited situations, find it more challenging to provide timely feedback. However, the impact of failure of feedback on students is more severe. As demonstrated above, sometimes, she receives a response of \u0026lsquo;all is good\u0026rsquo; just submit thesis. This indicates carelessness and negligence of supervisor in the research process whose timely feedback can improve the quality of her research thesis.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe wait and imagine phenomena (supervisees reporting that they have not heard their supervisors in months) can be interpreted as an effective embodiment of a lack of power in both time and relationships in the supervision process. Thus extended silence, in a Freirean (1970) view, becomes an anti-dialogic state, in which the lack of communication actually deprives the supervisee\u0026rsquo;s voice in the learning process, contributing to passive and subordinate role. The fact that a supervisee imagines, indicates an internalized uncertainty and self-regulation. As a result, supervisee feels anxious, stressed, and loses confidence in her research.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eInterview Excerpt 5 (Doctoral candidate, Male, Sociology):\u003cdiv class=\"BlockQuote\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e \u003cem\u003eMy supervisor\u0026rsquo;s statements include such remarks like this section is weak or you need to make your argument stronger, but what weak means is not stated. He starts underlining almost all sections of the thesis. Weak how? In logic? In evidence? In clarity? I do not know what to correct as I do not know the issue. I have made various revisions and he tells me no, not like that as well but he did not tell me what like that should be.\u003c/em\u003e \u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis feedback is composed of unpedagogical judgments. Although the supervisor has indicated the aspect that is to be improved, a supervisee does not have the relevant knowledge that can enable him to revise effectively. In case of abstract or unclear feedback, students feel that they were criticized without having a chance to learn. This is especially problematic in Global South situations where they can be unacquainted with the academic writing conventions that their supervisor presumes them to know. In the multilingual setting like Pakistan, where English is the language of instruction though neither supervisors nor supervisees are native English speakers, linguistic barriers worsen the issues of feedback (Canagarajah, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2002\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAbove statement demonstrates the epistemic confusion and disruptive nature of non-specific and vague evaluative feedback that interferes with the meaningful interaction in research. In Freirean (1970) terms, calling work weak without specifying the reason is an anti-dialogic pedagogical act, where authority is given based on judgment and not dialogue. Instead of relevant support, it is evident that supervisee is not provided what he needed. This kind of attitude reflects a banking model of supervision. The indecisiveness of supervisee, whether the problem is in logic or interpretation, leads to lack of problem-posing interaction, which is a prerequisite for building critical consciousness and intellectual clarity. The lack of dialogic interaction in feedback is failure to engage in meaning-making co-construction. In this instance, feedback is a one-way claim of authority as opposed to a co-operative process of idea enhancement. It supports hierarchical power relations and restricts the ability of supervisee to engage actively in the production of knowledge (Hickey \u0026amp; Forbes, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eInterview Excerpt 6 (MPhil Candidate, Female, Sociology):\u003cdiv class=\"BlockQuote\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e \u003cem\u003eWhenever I visit my worthy supervisor, he begins saying theoretical underpinning is vague, it needs justification. He writes that my conceptualization is too superficial, I need to be more nuanced, so I had to look up what a nuanced conceptualization is. I am already writing in a second language. It seems like I am being evaluated not only on my ideas but also on my English and it is not my language.\u003c/em\u003e \u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis statement by a supervisee explains a stratified linguistic multiplicity. In universities in Global South including Pakistan, the use of English-medium instruction indicates a problematic situation where students are forced to speak and write in English. The above expression shows a supervisee being evaluated in English not on ideas. In case, supervisors provide feedback using complex academic language, they inadvertently establish more impediments to understanding rather than helping them to understand. The excerpt shows how the epistemic assessment and linguistic judgment interact to create the stratified marginalization in supervision.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAccording to Freirean (1970) view, the criticism of the supervisor on superficial conceptualization and vague theoretical foundation without explicit dialogic scaffolding is an anti-dialogic form of evaluation where the authority determines what is legitimate knowledge. This critical situation increases a focus on language, where the supervisee is not only expected to live up to conceptual expectations, but also to dominant linguistic standards. This is in accordance with the cultural invasion aspect by Freire in which superior forms of expression are favored at the expense of other voices and meaning-making that may be muted.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn addition to, it demonstrates the continuation of expertise-as-authority, in which academic norms are dictated rather than negotiated. The linguistic status of a supervisee also adds to the complexity of the co-constructed knowledge as the language becomes a gatekeeping system limiting the involvement. Rather than facilitating dialogic interaction, supervision strengthens epistemic hierarchy where fluency and rhetoric sophistication are favored above the growing scholarly voice.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003eTheme 3: Institutional and Structural Constraints.\u003c/b\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eSome supervisees expressed that their supervisors were overly busy with many supervisees, their regular classes, and administrative responsibilities. Although this realization was sympathetic, it also caused tension: acknowledgment that the supervisor was not really open to substantive mentorship.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eInterview Excerpt 7 (MPhil Candidate, Male, English Literature):\u003cdiv class=\"BlockQuote\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e \u003cem\u003eMy research supervisor teaches three courses, he has many students to supervise, he is on the graduate committee and he is yet to publish, when would he have time to see me? I consider making a meeting and I know he will give me an evasive answer or cancel the meeting and so I no longer bother. He is busy all time. I work on my thesis by myself. I think he does not care. The system is broken.\u003c/em\u003e \u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis narrative is alarming and represents hierarchal dimensions of supervisory authority and power-decisive. A supervisee is able to have a pathetic insight of systemic constraint and feels the effect of it on his research journey: the unavailability supervisor. More importantly, the research student reacts to this inaccessibility by disengaging, resigning to isolation. In the context of Pakistan, the institutional circumstances are not always easily changed; universities simply do not have the means to recruit more staff, decrease teaching assignments, or compensate supervisory duties. As a result, it makes the incompatibility between demand and capacity of supervision structurally irreversible.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026lsquo;Supervisor is busy all the time, and the system is broken\u0026rsquo; can be seen as a part of systemic limitations that contribute to the problem of power asymmetries and epistemic marginalization in research supervision. In Freirean theory (1970), an anti-dialogic atmosphere is created, where the supervisee is constantly stopped in his effort to contribute to meaningful dialogue, preventing any critical discussion and knowledge building. The institutional inaccessibility strengthens, since a researcher decides to work alone, considering uncertainty and regulating his research process. The absence of a continued conversation does not allow a formation of co-constructed knowledge. As demonstrated \u0026lsquo;\u003cem\u003eI work on my thesis by myself. I think he does not care\u0026rsquo;.\u003c/em\u003e Competing obligations and over-commitment of supervisors frequently create hindrances to successful supervision, which cause delays, cancellations and frustration.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eInterview Excerpt 8 (Doctoral Candidate, Female, Education):\u003cdiv class=\"BlockQuote\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e \u003cem\u003eWhen I told my supervisor that I cannot access databases she recommended, she replied that I should find other sources but I simply cannot because it is behind costly paywalls. I fail to access good research articles. Our library has no subscriptions and she is not aware that it is a real barrier to me and I am not able to complete the literature review, she wants me to.\u003c/em\u003e \u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis exposes a severe equity problem, that is, supervisor and supervisee exist in disparate material realities. Failure to access reputable journals or research repositories presents a critical scenario where research students struggle and suffer non-availability of required datasets for their research. These research limitations become apparent when supervisors are unaware of or appear to be insensitive to. It is a sheer ignorance of supervisor and institutional system.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis narrative demonstrates a way that structural and relationship restrictions provide a considerable tension in the research process. According to a Freirean (1970) view, no access to research materials limits supervisee\u0026rsquo;s chances of critical engagement with literature, thus making him unable to produce knowledge independently. The forced projection of writing a literature review under such circumstances reflects supervisory practices where a researcher is supposed to do a scholarly activity without required tools, strengthening dependency and restricting learning. Systemic obstacles can transform supervision into a process of hierarchy where a student\u0026rsquo;s agency is restricted and identity is suppressed.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eSome supervisee talked about their institutional policies which slowed down their research and supervision: no specifications on supervision, degree specifications, changing schedules, or bureaucratic demands which appeared arbitrary.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eInterview Excerpt 9 (Doctoral Candidate, Female, English Linguistics):\u003cdiv class=\"BlockQuote\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e \u003cem\u003eNo one ever explains to me what I will do at various phases of my research, there is no schedule, I do not know whether I do coursework or whether I am writing a chapter and whether I should start fieldwork. My professor says that he has no knowledge or knows nothing. He always says, go and find yourself, and I visit various offices for my work. I feel I am lost.\u003c/em\u003e \u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe research student indicates a systemic problem which is not clearly defined: without well-defined institutional structures, supervision is a form of improvisation. This reflects a supervisor\u0026rsquo;s lack of interest or awareness about supervisory procedures. The institutional clarity is a key to successful mentoring and guidance. This approach lays much pressure on supervisee who feels lost.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis narrative brings out a set of relational, procedural, and epistemic issues that acutely limit the progress of supervisee. such vagueness is an anti-dialogic and non-problem-posing environment in which the supervisee has no opportunity to critically engage in the process because she is not provided with structured direction (Freire, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1970\u003c/span\u003e). The ambiguous instructions of professor and informal office visits only support a hierarchical institutional dynamic, in which knowledge is asymmetrically communicated. The sense of being lost shows that it is not only a case of confusion with procedures but also insecurity of identity as an emerging researcher. Ambiguous expectations and lack of consistency in supervision are the main causes of stress and burnout among doctoral students as well as student attrition (Atkinson \u0026amp; Parry, 2000). The statement illustrates how procedural opaqueness, ambiguous guidance, and unspecified interaction act as emotional and epistemic obstacles and compel supervisees to solitary, self-guided navigation of research activities at the same time increasing anxiety and frustration.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec13\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eTheme 4: Supervisor incompetence and expertise gap\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eSome supervisee reported of having supervisors who appeared to lack confidence in their own supervisory style. Many supervisors appeared not to have known how to meet the needs of their supervisees.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eInterview excerpt 10 (MPhil Candidate, Male, English Linguistics):\u003cdiv class=\"BlockQuote\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e \u003cem\u003eIn the first encounter, my supervisor asked me what I expected in supervision, and I believed she would inform me! Is she not aware of what a good master\u0026rsquo;s thesis should be, what schedule to adhere to, what meetings ought to be? Rather, she is asking me to define it. It leaves me nervous. But how will I know when she does not know?\u003c/em\u003e \u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis is a valid concern of a supervisee: when supervisors do not have clear structures to use when supervising, they can either become passive or too direct. A question posed by a supervisor, indicates that she herself may not be confident in supervisory skills.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe fact that most supervisors engage in supervision without any training or orientation implies the academic situation could be more prevalent than it is known.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis passage shows how supervisory experiences may cause anxiety, role ambiguity, and epistemic uncertainty. According to Freirean (1970) perspective, \u0026lsquo;what do you expect of supervision? represents a superficially dialogic intervention, however, in real sense, it turns out to be anti-dialogic (there is no scaffolding). This sets up a space of ambiguous authority without proper direction. The nervousness of supervisee indicates affective aspect of supervision where ambiguous expectations lead to loss of confidence, and reduces engagement. It is evident in the narrative that lack of clear guidance presents neither authoritative direction nor a meaningful collaboration.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eSome supervisees shared that their supervisors had a hard time directing them through research methodology, and statistical analysis.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eInterview Excerpt 11 (Doctoral Candidate, Male, English Linguistics):\u003cdiv class=\"BlockQuote\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e \u003cem\u003eI selected mixed methods since it suited my research questions. My supervisor has purely qualitative expertise. She said she knew nothing about mixed methods, but she said that was honest but not helpful. So, now I am left to learn the quantitative part on my own. She should not be supervising quantitative part.\u003c/em\u003e \u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis represents the way in which methodological mismatch creates an ambivalent relationship between autonomy and abandonment. Here, the narrative presents no support from supervisor in research. A responsivity is shifted to supervise who has to learn and proceed in his research without support. A lack of this support translates to unguided autonomy that a supervisee can manoeuvre through methodological complications with no guidance. Misalignment in methods forces a student to make complicated methodological choices without required mentoring. This does not just exacerbate cognitive and emotional stress, but indicates a wider structural constraint on supervision practices with expertise boundaries limiting dialogic and supportive learning relationships.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eOne of the supervisees told that his supervisor had irrelevant degree in the field. She also expressed it as a common practice in higher institutes in Pakistan.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eInterview Excerpt 12 (Doctoral candidate, Male, English Literature).\u003cdiv class=\"BlockQuote\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e \u003cem\u003eMy supervisor is a senior professor and holds a PhD in English Linguistics. However, I conduct PhD research in literature. We contradict in many areas in research because our fields fall apart. Unfortunately, I feel that I have to adjust to his demands instead of doing what would be correct in my discipline, when he appears to be not interested or says that it is too complicated when I attempt to explain my methodology, such as linguistic analysis or IPA transcription.\u003c/em\u003e \u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis statement foreshadows the fact that disciplinary mismatch is not a proforma issue but a systemized form of practice, which generates long-term epistemic conflicts in supervision. In a Freirean (1970;1991) sense, to accommodate intellectually present the evidence of some internalized accommodations to the power of the dominant authority, where supervisee keeps aside disciplinary knowledge in order to conform to the demands of his supervisor.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis interaction echoes the perception of Freire on adapting under oppressive systems where learners alter their intellectual stand to accommodate the demands of hierarchy rather to engage in an actual dialogue. This lack of two-way interaction turns supervision into an anti-dialogic area and precludes the existence of co-constructed knowledge. The epistemic support of supervisor and supervisee differs with the background in literature and linguistics respectively. It provokes the repetition of contradictions in methodology. As demonstrated by a supervisee, a mismatch in the field is a common practice that only points to how these institutional structures make such mismatches normal. Grant (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR18\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2005\u003c/span\u003e) sees supervision as a conflictual place where power and knowledge come into contact and, usually, exclude other opinions. This institutional disciplinary mismatch creates epistemic tension, strengthens hierarchical power structure, and limits supervisee\u0026rsquo;s intellectual autonomy.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec14\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eTheme 5: Supervisee Agency and Resilience\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis theme expands an active negotiation, adaptation, and maintenance of research. Despite institutional and structural constraints, supervisee establish their agency and show resilience.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eInterview Excerpt 13 (MPhil Candidate, Female, English Literature).\u003cdiv class=\"BlockQuote\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e \u003cem\u003eAlthough my supervisor favors quantitative methods, I chose to stick with qualitative research design due to the suitability of the design to my research questions. I had to read extensively on my own and defend each step in meetings, which was challenging, but I desired my research to be methodologically sound. I kept going.\u003c/em\u003e \u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis indicates a vigorous performance of agency by supervisee in which she takes the charge of making methodological decisions even when there is little supervisory congruency. In Freirean (1970) terms, this critical consciousness shows that a supervisee is active and fully concerned about her research. She does not conform to the supervisory preference. This situation brings out a paradox, whereby a lack of a dialogic space in supervision is offset by supervisee who constructs a self-driven epistemic space. The phrase \u0026lsquo;\u003cem\u003eI kept going\u0026rsquo;\u003c/em\u003e refers to passion and resilience. She is determined to make her research sound that shapes her academic identity in engaging in self-directed learning and perseverance, especially when the system does not support. Therefore, her agency is not delegated here but is created through struggle. It is a manifestation of resilience as an intellectual and relationship accomplishment.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAnother supervisee mentioned that:\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eInterview Excerpt 14 (MPhil candidate, Male, English Literature)\u003cdiv class=\"BlockQuote\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e \u003cem\u003eSeveral times, I felt like I was about to quit because I did not receive any guidance. However, I kept reminding myself of my objectives. and I did many things without mentorship, and silently I kept working on my own ideas.\u003c/em\u003e \u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn this statement, resilience is foreshadowed as a multi-layered emotion regulation and strategic bargaining process. Adjusting with quietly working on his ideas represents a kind of critical agency that is exercised within constraint, but not overtly. This is an indication of a supervisory situation where there is no relationship building and supportive mentoring that drives supervisee to the self-managed learning. Despite no guidance or mentorship, a supervisee maintains the momentum due to goal-oriented persistence, which underscores the importance of resilience. Non dialogic interaction compels him to establish a dialogic space internally.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAccording to above expression, supervisee agency and resilience are not predetermined qualities but rather relationally and structurally constructed and created through constant negotiations with power, disciplinary expectations, and institutional restrictions. Although the dialogic engagement might be limited through supervision, students will actively reconstruct their identities as autonomous, which proves that resilience is both a cognitive as well as a political practice in the hierarchical academic settings.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eNevertheless, some supervisees reported that they reframed their experiences, saw meaning in struggle, and resilience, and were committed to their research.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eInterview Excerpt 15 (Doctoral Candidate, Male, Education):\u003cdiv class=\"BlockQuote\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e \u003cem\u003eMy research process has been a difficult one, more difficult than I anticipated. My supervisor does not like me. We do not have mutual understanding in the research journey. Despite, I am still here. My research means everything to me. I have started learning to make my own decisions about my work. I did not get motivated by my mentor. I reminded myself that I could do it.\u003c/em\u003e \u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis supervisee is incredibly resilient and agency-based, re-conceptualizing structural constraint into development opportunity. \u0026lsquo;\u003cem\u003eI reminded myself that I could do it\u003c/em\u003e\u0026rsquo; shows a strong resilience without mutual understanding and motivation. The above statement presents a strong interplay of emotional conflict, perseverance, and agency, and how supervisee manages difficult supervisory relationships and remain committed to their research.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eA phrase \u0026lsquo;my research means everything\u0026rsquo; narrates critical consciousness of a supervisee who can find meaning in challenging research process. This autonomy implies that intellectual growth is possible even in resource limited settings or without mentorship. It brings out resilience as not only endurance but as an act of self-construction, in which the negotiated sense of meaning, sense of identity, and sense of direction are achieved in the context of hierarchical constraints.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"Discussion","content":"\u003cp\u003eThe current research demonstrates how power, epistemic incompatibility, structural limitations, and emotional interactions impact the research experience of supervisees in the context of Pakistan. The results show that supervision is not simply a pedagogical act, but a highly relational and political act deeply embedded in institutional environments, across interrelated themes: power asymmetries and hierarchical relationships, epistemic mismatch and disciplinary tensions, supervisory ambiguity and feedback gaps, structural and institutional constraints, and supervisee agency and resilience. These closely aligns with insights of Lee (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR26\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2008\u003c/span\u003e), supervisee development of Gurr (2001), and dialogic interaction of Freire (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1970\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe insights from supervisees relate to the ubiquitous impact of power asymmetry. In the research, it was noticed that supervisees always felt anxious about the authority of their supervisors, carefully self-censoring their anxiety and intellectual input. They did not afford risking their degrees. This relationship is aggravated in the Global South situations where supervisors not only dominate the academic assessment of performance but also, have access to research facilities, publications, and professional networks that are vital in professional growth. The unequal source of power is not exclusive to the South Asian settings (Giroux, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR17\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2010\u003c/span\u003e; Abiwu, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e; Sidhu et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR36\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e), and the lack of resources makes supervisees more reliant on individual supervisors to gain access to crucial research conditions, which may increase vulnerability. Interestingly, some supervisees expressed insights into systemic constraint constraining supervisors themselves, excessive workloads, lack of resources, ambiguous institutional demands. This humanizing, although blurring systemic accountability, also covers it. The acceptance that supervisors do not supervise due to their workload or various roles on different committees view this practice as an epistemic injustice rather than reality (Sidhu et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR36\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e; Tuck, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR38\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe results lead to the fact that supervision is organized according to the hierarchical authority when supervisees tend to be silenced, afraid, and restricted in their participation. Based on the works of Freire (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1970\u003c/span\u003e), these dynamics indicate a culture of silence where knowledge flows in one way only, and the dialogue is restricted. The unwillingness of supervisees to communicate confusion or disagreement is in line with Freire's criticism of banking education, where learners are placed in the position of passive consumers. It is also supported by the fact that, according to the typology developed by Lee (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR26\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2008\u003c/span\u003e), there are directive and functional models of supervision that emphasize control over collaboration. In this situation, supervisees get addicted to so-called supervisory authority, which supports power imbalances. Equally, to Hickey and Forbes (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e), supervision based on the concept of expertise-as-authority suppresses epistemic reciprocity and limits the possibility of co-constructed knowledge. These findings are supported by empirical research. For example, Grant (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR18\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2005\u003c/span\u003e) uses the idea of supervision as a contested space that exists as a result of power in which students tend to bargain over silence and compliance. Likewise, Manathunga (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR30\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2007\u003c/span\u003e) also points out that hierarchical relations limit intellectual risk-taking and support dependency. Power asymmetry is therefore more than a structural condition but also an experience of pedagogy that is lived and which constructs voice, identity, and participation.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAnother important result is the existence of disciplinary mismatch, especially between literature-oriented supervisors and linguistics-oriented supervisees. This incompatibility creates epistemic tensions where methodological and theoretical differences are not resolved, forcing supervisees to change. In a Freirean view, this is equivalent to epistemic domination in knowledge system. The adjustment that supervisee must make depicts an internalized compliance in unequal power relations. This reminds Lee (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR26\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2008\u003c/span\u003e) who points out that successful supervision necessitates cohesiveness in the disciplinary enculturation, which is interrupted when the supervisor is not familiar with the field of research that the supervisee works. Hickey and Forbes (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e) criticize such situations as the inability to go beyond the knowledge-based supervision, that is still limited to disciplinary silos. Cross-disciplinary supervision needs to be negotiated intentionally; otherwise, it will result in confusion, tension, and poor development of research. These results indicate that epistemic mismatch is not an individual problem, but an institutionally legitimized practice that has important pedagogic implications.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe results underscore widespread uncertainties in supervisory instructions such as ambiguity of instructions, epistemic uncertainty, and feedback failure. These circumstances result in loss of direction, panic and stagnation among supervisees. The lack of dialogue, in Freirean terms, is an anti-dialogic pedagogy, in which a learner is deprived of the chance to be critically engaged in knowledge. This insight of the study reflects that supervisee are deprived of mentorship and guidance when they need it in the research process. Timely feedback and systematic guidance are considered to be at the heart of the process and lack of these interfere with academic progress and development of identity (Lee, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR26\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2008\u003c/span\u003e). Equally, Hickey and Forbes, M. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e) echoed that supervision must be dialogic and continuous without it a production of knowledge could be disorganized. These findings are supported by Ives and Rowley (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR23\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2005\u003c/span\u003e) who indicated that lack of clarity and inability to provide consistent supervision adversely affect progress of doctoral students. Wisker (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR41\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2012\u003c/span\u003e) emphasized the importance of feedback to keep the momentum and confidence, and Delamont et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2000\u003c/span\u003e) associate supervisory ambiguity with stress and turnover. Ambiguity and delay, therefore, serve as an epistemic and affective block, which exacerbates supervisory tension.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn addition to, the results also demonstrate that supervisory practices are influenced by institutional structures, including heavy workloads, committee duties, and a lack of access to research resources. The lack of access to databases and frequent unavailability of supervisors are a source of systemic barriers to learning (Giroux, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e; Yin, Xu \u0026amp; Wang, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR42\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2026\u003c/span\u003e). These restrictions restrict a dialogic interaction, and further supports inequality in knowledge accessibility (Freire, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1970\u003c/span\u003e). Likewise, Lee (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR26\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2008\u003c/span\u003e) also recognized that institutional contexts affect supervision, but these limits may compromise the relational and pedagogical aspects of it. Though the lens of Hickey and Forbes (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e) a proper supervision cannot be carried out without a long-lasting interaction, which is undermined when the pressure of structure is exerted. In the same vein, Bair and Haworth (2004) discussed resource constraints and workload of supervisors as critical determinants of doctoral persistence. According to Manathunga (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR30\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2007\u003c/span\u003e), the administrative role of supervisors is usually restructured by institutional demands to be mentors. Taken together, it is indicated that supervision is not only influenced by personal practices but also by institutional ecologies that limit time, access, and interaction.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eNevertheless, it is worth noticing that supervisees demonstrated their agency and resilience to overcome tensions by adopting adaptive strategies, persistence, and self-directed learning. They rationalize methodological decisions, deal with emotional demands, and maintain a focus on their study. Through a Freirean prism, this indicates the development of a critical consciousness where people participate in and change their circumstances. This trend of autonomy of choice depicts transitioning from passive reception toward problem-posing engagement (Whitelock et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR40\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2008\u003c/span\u003e). Such development is self-initiated rather than facilitated (Lee, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR26\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2008\u003c/span\u003e). Hickey and Forbes (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e) emphasize that without the dialogic supervision, students can create their own dialogic space that allows them to reflect and advance. Cotterall (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e) focuses on emotions as a key to self-regulation, whereas Gardner (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2009\u003c/span\u003e) regards resilience as an important aspect of doctoral identity formation. Grant (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR18\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2005\u003c/span\u003e) goes on to state that students tend to use strategic compliance to manoeuvre in hierarchical systems. Therefore, resilience becomes a contextual, interpersonal practice influenced by power, context and personal dedication. It is not endurance but a process of meaning-making and identity construction which is transformative. Theoretically, supervision is viewed as interaction of power, pedagogy and institutional structure. In Pakistani universities, research supervision at postgraduate level is seen as controversial pedagogical space wherein power, knowledge, and identity are in a constant state of negotiation. The opportunities of transformative learning are possible if supervision can be progressed to a more dialogic, equitable, and more context-sensitive practice (Giroux, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR17\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2010\u003c/span\u003e; \u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e; Swedan et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR37\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2026\u003c/span\u003eh\u0026auml;m\u0026auml;ki et al., 2021). Collectively, the study has its value in demonstrating the interaction of these dimensions in practice and creating the tensions that are negotiated via supervisee agency and resilience.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Conclusion","content":"\u003cp\u003eThis research has critically discussed the relationship between supervisors and supervisees at postgraduate level, and identified that supervision is not a neutral academic process as it is complex, relational, and power-infused due to epistemic, institutional, and pedagogical circumstances. Throughout the outlined themes, the results indicate that tensions arising in supervision are not accidental or unrelated, but systematically created and institutionalized, specifically in higher education settings that are under-resourced in Pakistan. Through the theoretical lens of Freire\u0026rsquo;s critical pedagogy, the research presents the way supervisory practices recreate the anti-dialogic condition, in which hierarchical authority, silence, and restricted participation inhibit the voice and presence of the supervisee.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eSignificantly, this research also shows transformational ability of supervisee agency and resilience. Although there are structural and relational limitations, they actively establish their statuses by means of strategic adjustments, independent study, and long-term commitment to their research. Despite uncertainty, we notice in the research that supervisees defend their methodological decisions, traverse disciplinary incompatibilities, and persevere.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAbiwu L (2024) A reflective experience of postgraduate education in South African higher education institutions. \u003cem\u003eInternational Journal of Educational Development in Africa\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e9\u003c/em\u003e, 21-pages. https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7782-4604\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAkhurst J (2020) A South African perspective on community psychology practice competencies. J Community Psychol 48:2108\u0026ndash;2123. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1002/jcop.22410\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1002/jcop.22410\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAli J, Ullah H, Sanauddin N (2019) Postgraduate Research Supervision: Exploring the Lived Experience of Pakistani Postgraduate Students. FWU J Social Sci, \u003cem\u003e13\u003c/em\u003e(1)\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBastalich W (2017) Content and context in knowledge production: a critical review of doctoral supervision literature. Stud High Educ 42(7):1145\u0026ndash;1157. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2015.1079702\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1080/03075079.2015.1079702\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBatool HS, Ali AF, Safdar M (2022) What Pakistani doctoral students want? A qualitative exploration of their research experiences. Global Knowl Memory Communication 71(4\u0026ndash;5):355\u0026ndash;369. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1108/GKMC-04-2021-0074\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1108/GKMC-04-2021-0074\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBraun V, Clarke V (2006) Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Res Psychol 3(2):77\u0026ndash;101. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1191/1478088706qp063oa\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCanagarajah AS (2002) A geopolitics of academic writing. University of Pittsburgh. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctt5vk0j6\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.2307/j.ctt5vk0j6\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eChalaune BS (2021) Paulo Freire\u0026rsquo;s critical pedagogy in educational transformation. Int J Res \u0026ndash; GRANTHAALAYAH 9(4):185\u0026ndash;194. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.29121/granthaalayah.v9.i4.2021.3813\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.29121/granthaalayah.v9.i4.2021.3813\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eClouder L, Billot J, King V, Smith J (2020) Friend or Foe: the complexities of being an academic and a doctoral student in the same institution. Stud High Educ 45(9):1961\u0026ndash;1972. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2019.1643307\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1080/03075079.2019.1643307\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCotterall S (2013) More than just a brain: Emotions and the doctoral experience. High Educ Res Dev 32(2):174\u0026ndash;187. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2012.680017\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1080/07294360.2012.680017\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eDelamont S, Atkinson P, Parry O (2000) The doctoral experience: Success and failure in graduate school. Falmer\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eDeem R, Brehony KJ (2000) Doctoral Students\u0026rsquo; Access to Research Cultures-are some more unequal than others? Stud High Educ 25(2):149\u0026ndash;165. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1080/713696138\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1080/713696138\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eFreire P (1998) Pedagogy of the Heart. Continuum, New York\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eFreire P (1970) Pedagogy of the oppressed (MB Ramos, Trans.). \u003cem\u003eNew York: Continuum\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGardner SK (2009) The development of doctoral students: Phases of challenge and support. ASHE High Educ Rep 34(6):1\u0026ndash;127. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1002/aehe.3406\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1002/aehe.3406\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGiroux HA (2011) \u003cem\u003eOn critical pedagogy\u003c/em\u003e. Bloomsbury. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.5040/9781501306766\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.5040/9781501306766\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGiroux HA (2010) Bare pedagogy and the scourge of neoliberalism: Rethinking higher education as a democratic public sphere. Educational Forum 74(3):184\u0026ndash;196. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1080/00131725.2010.483897\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1080/00131725.2010.483897\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGrant B (2005) Fighting for space in supervision: Fantasies, fairytales, fictions and fallacies. Int J Qualitative Stud Educ 18(3):337\u0026ndash;354. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1080/09518390500082483\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1080/09518390500082483\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGuerin C, Kerr H, Green I (2015) Supervision pedagogies: Narratives from the field. Teach High Educ 20(1):107\u0026ndash;118. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2014.957271\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1080/13562517.2014.957271\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHickey A, Forbes M (2022) Higher degree research supervision \u003cem\u003ebeyond\u003c/em\u003e expertise: A Ranci\u0026egrave;rean and Freirean perspective on HDR supervision. Stud High Educ 47(8):1712\u0026ndash;1723. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2021.1957812\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1080/03075079.2021.1957812\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHickey A, Forbes M (2021) Higher degree research supervision beyond expertise: A Ranci\u0026egrave;rean and Freirean perspective. Stud High Educ 47(8):1712\u0026ndash;1723. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2021.1957812\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1080/03075079.2021.1957812\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHodgson D (2019) Critical supervision for the human services: A social model to promote learning and value-based practice. Australian Social Work 73(3). \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1080/0312407X.2017.1407214\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1080/0312407X.2017.1407214\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eIves G, Rowley G (2005) Supervisor selection or allocation and continuity of supervision: PhD students\u0026rsquo; progress and outcomes. Stud High Educ 30(5):535\u0026ndash;555. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1080/03075070500249161\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1080/03075070500249161\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eJackson D, Davidson PM, Usher K (2022) Doctoral Supervision as Pedagogy. Successful Doctoral Training in Nursing and Health Sciences. Springer, Cham. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-87946-4_2\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1007/978-3-030-87946-4_2\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKhene C (2014) Supporting a humanizing pedagogy in the supervision relationship and process. Int J Doctoral Stud 9:73\u0026ndash;83. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.28945/2027\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.28945/2027\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLee A (2008) How are doctoral students supervised? Concepts of doctoral research supervision. Stud High Educ 33(3):267\u0026ndash;281. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1080/03075070802049202\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1080/03075070802049202\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLekhetho M (2022) Postgraduate students\u0026rsquo; perceptions of support services rendered by a distance learning institution. Int J High Educ 11(7):1\u0026ndash;24. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.5430/ijhe.v11n7p24\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.5430/ijhe.v11n7p24\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLiu Y, Wang Z, Dai K (2026) Reframing intercultural supervision: Understanding mainland Chinese doctoral students\u0026rsquo; adaptation experiences in Hong Kong. Int J Intercultural Relations 111:102368. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/J.IJINTREL.2026.102368\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/J.IJINTREL.2026.102368\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMalik AH, Iqbal MZ, Ul Haq MI (2021) Supervisees\u0026rsquo; reactions to a concatenation of supervisors\u0026rsquo; resource drain, ego depletion and abusive supervision. Int J Confl Manage 32(2):177\u0026ndash;198\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eManathunga C (2007) Supervision as mentoring: The role of power and boundary crossing. Stud Continuing Educ 29(2):207\u0026ndash;221. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1080/01580370701424650\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1080/01580370701424650\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMasood S, Khawaja F, Waqar Y (2023) \u003cem\u003eThe Road to Doctoral Success: A Model for High-Quality PhD Supervision in Education\u003c/em\u003e. GESR, VIII(II), 660\u0026ndash;672\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMncina TC, Letsie H, Nkhi SE, Mofana M (2024) Effective communication in postgraduate supervision: Shaping experiences and overcoming challenges. Interdisciplinary J Educ Res 6:1\u0026ndash;21. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.38140/ijer-2024.vol6.13\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.38140/ijer-2024.vol6.13\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMoriarty B, Danaher PA, Danaher G (2008) Freire and dialogical pedagogy in postgraduate supervision. Int J Lifelong Educ 27(4):431\u0026ndash;442. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1080/02601370802051447\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1080/02601370802051447\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eShih Y-H (2025) The transformation of higher education in the context of globalization: Implications from Paulo Freire\u0026rsquo;s critical pedagogy. Front Educ. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2025.1714343\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.3389/feduc.2025.1714343\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSidhu GK, Kaur S, Fook CY, Yunus FW (2013) Postgraduate supervision: Exploring Malaysian students\u0026rsquo; experiences. Procedia-Social Behav Sci 90:133\u0026ndash;141\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSidhu GK, Kaur S, Fook CY, Yunus FW (2014) Postgraduate supervision: Comparing student perspectives from Malaysia and the United Kingdom. Procedia-Social Behav Sci 123:151\u0026ndash;159\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSwedan SF, Alzoubi KH, Khabour OF, Aljabali AAA, Hendawi M, Al-Delaimy WK (2026) Research mentorship in graduate programs in a developing country: An ethical perspective. Social Sci Humanit Open 13:102488. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/J.SSAHO.2026.102488\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/J.SSAHO.2026.102488\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eTuck J (2024) We can work on this: exploring supervisor approaches to feedback in the context of writing for a professional doctorate. Stud Graduate Postdoctoral Educ 16(1):90\u0026ndash;106. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1108/SGPE-01-2024-0004\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1108/SGPE-01-2024-0004\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eV\u0026auml;h\u0026auml;m\u0026auml;ki M, Saru E, Palmunen LM (2021) Doctoral supervision as an academic practice and leader\u0026ndash;member relationship: A critical approach to relationship dynamics. Int J Manage Educ 19(3):100510. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/J.IJME.2021.100510\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/J.IJME.2021.100510\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWhitelock D, Faulkner D, Miell D (2008) Promoting creativity in PhD supervision: Tensions and dilemmas. Think Skills Creativity 3(2):143\u0026ndash;153. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/J.TSC.2008.04.001\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/J.TSC.2008.04.001\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWisker G (2012) \u003cem\u003eThe good supervisor: Supervising postgraduate and undergraduate research for doctoral theses and dissertations\u003c/em\u003e. Bloomsbury Academic\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eYin M, Xu W, Wang Y (2026) Controlling or directing? Text mining to decode supervisor-graduate student relationship. Acta Psychol 262:106030. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/J.ACTPSY.2025.106030\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/J.ACTPSY.2025.106030\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/ol\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":true,"hideJournal":true,"highlight":"","institution":"University of Sindh","isAcceptedByJournal":false,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true},"keywords":"research supervision, critical pedagogy, power asymmetry, epistemic tension, resilience, supervisee agency","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-9584531/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-9584531/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003cp\u003eThis study aims to analyze the tensions between supervisors and supervisees in postgraduate research at the University of Sindh, Pakistan. It is based on semi-structured interviews with 15 MPhil and PhD research students (N\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;9 male and 6 female) enrolled in Arts and Humanities disciplines, and analyzed through a thematic analysis (Braun \u0026amp; Clarke, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2006\u003c/span\u003e). Theoretically, the study is grounded in the concepts of critical pedagogy (Freire, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1970\u003c/span\u003e), which provides a critical approach to the notion of supervision as a relational, political, and institutional practice. The results indicate that supervision is influenced by highly ingrained hierarchies, a lack of dialogic interaction, institutional and supervisory forces that restrict pedagogical interaction and knowledge production. This research identifies five themes that relate to each other: power asymmetries and hierarchical relationships, epistemic mismatch and disciplinary tensions, supervisory ambiguity and feedback failure, epistemic uncertainty, structural and institutional constraints, and supervisee agency and resilience. Mismatches in discipline and methodological misalignment also contribute to tensions, and failure in feedback, lack of direction, and limited access to research materials create epistemic and emotional issues for supervisee. Despite these challenges, supervisees also exhibit a high level of agency in negotiating power, being strategic, and committed to their research. The study preempts supervision as a disputed pedagogical field and conditions more dialogue and equitable and context-sensitive supervisory practices, especially in under-resourced higher education settings in South Asia.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"Failure of dialogic praxis: Culture of silence, epistemic tensions, resilience and agency in postgraduate supervision in South Asia","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2026-05-04 18:05:04","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-9584531/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"f2e06c46-21c7-4eca-815f-b26c6d16b469","owner":[],"postedDate":"May 4th, 2026","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"posted","subjectAreas":[],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2026-05-04T18:05:04+00:00","versionOfRecord":[],"versionCreatedAt":"2026-05-04 18:05:04","video":"","vorDoi":"","vorDoiUrl":"","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-9584531","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-9584531","identity":"rs-9584531","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"XKTyCvWXoU3ODBz1xrDgd","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}