Beyond Deficit Narratives: Supervisory Gaps, Resilience, and Institutional Learning in Ghanaian Higher Education

Beyond Deficit Narratives: Supervisory Gaps, Resilience, and Institutional Learning in Ghanaian Higher Education | 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 Beyond Deficit Narratives: Supervisory Gaps, Resilience, and Institutional Learning in Ghanaian Higher Education Enoch Danso Okyere, Emmanuel Erastus Yamoah, Jacob Oppong Nkansah This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-8593726/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Under Review Version 1 posted 5 You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract Postgraduate supervision is central to research quality, doctoral completion, and academic socialisation, yet supervision practices remain uneven in many resource-constrained higher education systems. This study explores how supervision gaps are perceived, attributed, and navigated by postgraduate students and supervisors in Ghanaian public universities. Drawing on organisational theory, role theory, and social exchange theory, the study adopts an interpretive phenomenological design and analyses semi-structured interviews with 34 participants across eight public universities. Findings reveal that supervision gaps are structurally produced through weak quality assurance mechanisms, role ambiguity, hierarchical academic cultures, misaligned incentive systems, and regulatory constraints. Rather than passive recipients of these conditions, students and supervisors actively deploy adaptive and resilience-based strategies, including peer support networks, self-directed learning, digital communication, and informal flexibility in supervision arrangements. While these strategies sustain progress, they also expose risks related to quality assurance, equity, and emotional labour. The study makes a novel contribution by reconceptualising coping and resilience not merely as individual survival mechanisms but as contextually grounded practices with potential to inform sustainable supervisory reform. It argues for culturally responsive, process-oriented supervision models that formalise effective adaptive practices while reducing over-reliance on individual resilience as a substitute for institutional support. postgraduate supervision higher education qualitative research resilience doctoral education institutional culture Introduction Postgraduate supervision is widely recognised as a critical determinant of research quality, timely completion, and doctoral socialisation within higher education systems globally. Effective supervision extends beyond technical guidance to encompass mentorship, professional identity formation, emotional support, and integration into scholarly communities. In both developed and developing contexts, the quality of the supervisor–student relationship has been shown to significantly influence postgraduate outcomes, including completion rates, publication productivity, and career trajectories (Lee, 2008 ; McAlpine & McKinnon, 2013 ). Despite this centrality, supervision practices remain uneven, particularly in resource-constrained higher education systems. In sub-Saharan Africa, expanding postgraduate enrolments, limited supervisory capacity, bureaucratic constraints, and weak accountability mechanisms have intensified what scholars describe as “supervision gaps” (Manathunga, 2014 ; Teferra, 2019 ). These gaps manifest as delayed feedback, unclear expectations, power asymmetries, inconsistent policies, and limited institutional support, often compelling students and supervisors to rely on informal coping strategies to sustain progress. Ghana presents a compelling context for examining these dynamics. Over the past two decades, Ghanaian public universities have experienced rapid postgraduate expansion driven by national development agendas, regulatory targets set by the Ghana Tertiary Education Commission (GTEC), and growing demand for advanced qualifications. However, this growth has not been matched by commensurate investments in supervisory training, research infrastructure, and institutional governance systems. Existing studies on postgraduate education in Ghana have tended to focus on completion rates, funding challenges, or student experiences in isolation, leaving a limited understanding of how supervision gaps are jointly constructed, interpreted, and navigated by both students and supervisors (Amponsah, Mensah & Oteng, 2025 ; Akparep, Jengre & Amoah, 2017 ; Dzikunu, Agyekum, Pajibo & Yelkpieri, 2025 ). This study addresses this gap by adopting an interpretive phenomenological approach to explore how postgraduate students and supervisors in Ghanaian public universities perceive and attribute supervision gaps, the adaptive and resilience strategies they employ, and how these lived experiences can inform the development of context-sensitive and globally relevant supervisory models. By integrating institutional, pedagogical, and contextual perspectives, the study contributes novel empirical and theoretical insights to the international literature on postgraduate supervision in resource-limited settings. Specifically, the study is guided by the following research questions: How do postgraduate students and supervisors perceive and attribute supervision gaps within the Ghanaian higher education system? In what ways do postgraduate students and supervisors demonstrate resilience and adopt coping strategies to navigate these supervision gaps? How can insights from these experiences inform the development of context-specific and globally relevant supervisory models for Ghanaian higher education? Literature Review Theoretical Review Understanding supervision gaps and adaptive mechanisms in postgraduate education requires a multi-theoretical lens that captures institutional structures, cultural role expectations, and relational dynamics. This study is anchored in organisational theory, role theory, and social exchange theory, which together provide a robust explanatory framework for analysing how supervision practices are shaped, constrained, and negotiated within higher education systems, particularly in resource-constrained contexts such as Ghana. Organisational Theory Organisational theory explains how formal structures, policies, governance arrangements, and institutional cultures shape individual behaviour and performance within organisations (Scott, 2014 ; Scott & Davis, 2016 ). In higher education, postgraduate supervision is embedded within organisational systems that regulate admissions, workload allocation, quality assurance, promotion criteria, and resource distribution. These structures significantly influence supervisory capacity, expectations, and accountability. Contemporary scholarship highlights that supervision challenges often arise not from individual deficiencies but from institutional misalignment, where expanding postgraduate enrolments are not matched with adequate supervisory staffing, training, or incentives (Marginson, 2016 ; Teferra, 2019 ). Weak organisational coupling, manifested in unclear supervision policies, fragmented reporting mechanisms, and inconsistent enforcement of standards, creates systemic supervision gaps that persist regardless of individual commitment or competence. Recent studies further emphasise that regulatory environments and external governance pressures can exacerbate these gaps. For example, performance-driven regulatory frameworks that prioritise enrolment growth and throughput may unintentionally undermine supervision quality when institutional capacity is overstretched (Shin & Jung, 2014 ; Tight, 2023 ). From an organisational theory perspective, supervision challenges in Ghanaian universities are therefore best understood as institutional artefacts, products of governance structures, incentive regimes, and resource constraints rather than isolated supervisory failures. Role Theory Role theory focuses on how individuals interpret, enact, and negotiate socially defined roles within institutional and cultural contexts (Biddle, 1986 ; Katz & Kahn, 1978 ). In postgraduate supervision, roles are shaped by formal guidelines (e.g., supervision handbooks, progress reporting requirements) as well as informal norms related to hierarchy, authority, and academic seniority. Role ambiguity occurs when expectations regarding supervision frequency, feedback standards, or student responsibilities are unclear or inconsistently communicated. Role conflict emerges when students receive competing directives from multiple supervisors, departmental reviewers, or institutional actors. Both conditions have been shown to negatively affect doctoral progress, satisfaction, and psychological well-being (Gardner, 2009 ; Pyhältö et al., 2015 ). In many African higher education contexts, role expectations are further shaped by deeply embedded hierarchical and collectivist cultural norms, which often position supervisors as unquestionable authorities (Hlengwa, 2020 ; Manathunga, 2014 ). These norms can discourage students from seeking clarification, negotiating expectations, or activating formal grievance mechanisms, even when such structures exist. As a result, formal policies may coexist with informal practices that perpetuate power asymmetries and silence student agency. Role theory, therefore, provides a critical lens for understanding how supervision gaps are sustained through cultural expectations and how adaptive behaviours such as student assertiveness, peer support, or informal negotiation emerge as compensatory mechanisms within constrained role structures. Social Exchange Theory Social exchange theory conceptualises social relationships as ongoing exchanges of resources governed by norms of reciprocity, fairness, and mutual obligation (Blau, 1964 ; Cropanzano et al., 2017 ). In postgraduate supervision, the exchange relationship involves students contributing time, intellectual labour, emotional resilience, and compliance, while supervisors provide expertise, feedback, mentorship, and professional socialisation. When exchanges are perceived as imbalanced, such as when supervisors invest substantial effort with minimal institutional recognition or remuneration, motivation and engagement may decline (Emerson, 1976 ; Shore et al., 2006 ). Conversely, students may experience diminished trust and commitment when feedback is delayed, inconsistent, or perceived as dismissive. Recent studies demonstrate that perceived inequity in supervision relationships is associated with disengagement, prolonged completion times, and emotional exhaustion among both supervisors and doctoral candidates (Pyhältö et al., 2022 ; Sverdlik et al., 2018 ). In resource-constrained systems, social exchange dynamics are particularly salient. Heavy workloads, limited financial incentives, and weak institutional support can distort reciprocity, prompting supervisors to prioritise activities with higher tangible returns, such as teaching or assessment roles (Teferra & Knight, 2018 ). At the same time, students often compensate by increasing self-reliance and peer collaboration, effectively redistributing exchange obligations within informal networks. Social exchange theory thus offers a powerful framework for explaining both supervision disengagement and the emergence of resilience-based coping strategies in Ghanaian postgraduate education. Empirical Review Global Perspectives on Postgraduate Supervision International research consistently characterises postgraduate supervision as a relational, pedagogical, and organisational process, rather than a purely technical activity. Studies from Europe, North America, and Australasia highlight the importance of structured supervision agreements, clearly defined expectations, regular meetings, and systematic progress monitoring in promoting timely completion and high-quality research outcomes (Halse & Malfroy, 2010 ; McAlpine & McKinnon, 2013 ; Wisker, 2012 ). More recent scholarship emphasises innovative supervisory models such as team supervision, cohort-based doctoral education, and publication-oriented doctoral pathways, which aim to reduce student isolation and distribute supervisory responsibility (Lee et al., 2021 ; Tight, 2023 ). Supervisor training and professional development are increasingly viewed as essential, with evidence suggesting that pedagogical competence and relational skills are as critical as disciplinary expertise (Bastalich, 2017 ; De Kleijn et al., 2022 ). Nevertheless, even in well-resourced systems, supervision challenges persist. Empirical studies report ongoing issues of mismatched expectations, power imbalances, emotional labour, and supervisory burnout (Pyhältö et al., 2015 ; Wao & Onwuegbuzie, 2011 ). These findings suggest that supervision quality depends not solely on material resources but also on institutional culture, role clarity, and the quality of interpersonal relationships. Supervision in African and Developing Contexts In African and other developing higher education contexts, empirical literature consistently identifies structural and systemic constraints as dominant influences on supervision quality. These include high supervisor–student ratios, limited access to research funding and databases, inadequate infrastructure, and bureaucratic delays in ethics approval and administrative processes (Morley et al., 2017 ; Teferra, 2019 ). Supervision in these contexts is often highly individualised and informal, with limited institutional oversight and minimal training for supervisors (Manathunga, 2014 ; Hlengwa, 2020 ). Students frequently rely on peer networks, informal mentoring, and self-directed learning to compensate for irregular supervision, a pattern also observed in other parts of the Global South (Ngulube et al., 2019 ). In Ghana specifically, empirical studies document persistent challenges such as delayed feedback, unclear supervision policies, heavy teaching workloads, and limited institutional research support (Amponsah, Mensah & Oteng, 2025 ; Akparep, Jengre & Amoah, 2017 ; Dzikunu, Agyekum, Pajibo & Yelkpieri, 2025 ). While these studies provide valuable insights, most focus primarily on student experiences and tend to frame coping strategies as individual survival mechanisms rather than as sources of institutional learning and innovation. This study advances the literature by simultaneously examining student and supervisor perspectives and by reconceptualising adaptive behaviours such as peer support, digital communication, and resilience, not merely as responses to deficits but as contextually grounded practices with the potential to inform sustainable and globally relevant supervisory models. By foregrounding resilience, reciprocity, and institutional culture, the study responds to calls for more nuanced, theory-informed analyses of postgraduate supervision in African higher education systems. Methodology Research Design and Paradigmatic Orientation This study employed a qualitative research design situated within an interpretive phenomenological paradigm to examine how postgraduate students and supervisors in Ghanaian public universities experience, interpret, and navigate supervision gaps. Interpretive phenomenology is particularly appropriate for research that seeks to understand how individuals construct meaning from lived experiences within specific socio-cultural and institutional contexts (Creswell & Poth, 2018 ; Smith, Flowers, & Larkin, 2009 ). Rather than aiming for generalisation, this approach prioritises depth, contextual sensitivity, and interpretive understanding. The chosen paradigm is theoretically congruent with the study’s analytical framework, which draws on organisational theory, role theory, and social exchange theory. These perspectives assume that supervision practices are socially constructed, relationally negotiated, and institutionally embedded. Accordingly, the methodology foregrounds participants’ subjective interpretations while situating these narratives within broader organisational arrangements, cultural norms, and incentive structures that shape postgraduate supervision in Ghanaian higher education. While the study is grounded in interpretive phenomenology, its analytical orientation is not strictly idiographic. Rather than limiting analysis to individual meaning-making, the study adopts an abductive, theory-informed approach, whereby participants’ lived experiences are interpreted in dialogue with organisational theory, role theory, and social exchange theory. This approach enables movement between experiential accounts and institutional-level explanations, allowing supervision gaps to be theorised as socially and structurally produced phenomena rather than solely personal experiences. Research Setting The study was conducted in eight of Ghana’s sixteen traditional public universities, purposively selected due to their long-standing involvement in postgraduate education and the presence of established graduate schools. These institutions have offered Master’s and doctoral programmes for several decades and therefore represent mature supervisory environments within the national higher education system. The universities included were: Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology (KNUST), University of Ghana (UG), University of Cape Coast (UCC), University of Education, Winneba (UEW), University for Development Studies (UDS), University of Mines and Technology (UMaT), Ghana Institute of Management and Public Administration (GIMPA), and University of Professional Studies, Accra (UPSA). Adopting a multi-institutional design enhanced the analytical robustness of the study by allowing for comparison across diverse organisational cultures, disciplinary traditions, and resource conditions, while also identifying systemic patterns that cut across institutional boundaries. Participants and Sampling Strategy The study involved 34 participants, comprising 16 postgraduate supervisors, 16 postgraduate students, and 2 institutional heads in charge of postgraduate education. From each participating university, two supervisors and two students: one Master’s and one PhD graduate, were included. Supervisors were senior lecturers or professors with substantial experience in postgraduate supervision, while student participants were recent graduates who had completed their programmes and were therefore well positioned to reflect on the supervisory process from entry to completion. The two institutional heads were included as contextual informants rather than as primary phenomenological subjects. Their role was to provide institutional-level perspectives on governance structures, regulatory processes, and administrative practices shaping postgraduate supervision, thereby contextualising and triangulating the experiential accounts of students and supervisors. Participants were selected using purposive sampling, an approach well-suited to qualitative inquiry where the aim is to generate rich, information-dense accounts from individuals with direct experience of the phenomenon under investigation (Patton, 2015 ). Sampling decisions were guided by the principle of theoretical relevance, ensuring representation of both supervisory and student perspectives across institutions. Data collection continued until thematic saturation was reached, that is, when additional interviews yielded no substantively new insights relevant to the research questions. Consistent with contemporary qualitative standards, saturation was assessed iteratively through concurrent data collection and analysis rather than being determined solely by sample size (Hennink & Kaiser, 2022 ). The final sample was judged sufficient to capture both convergence and variation in supervision experiences across contexts. Data Collection Primary data were generated through semi-structured, in-depth interviews, a method that enables participants to articulate their experiences in detail while allowing the researcher to probe emergent issues (Ruslin et al., 2022 ). To accommodate participants’ geographical dispersion and professional commitments, a hybrid interview approach was adopted, combining face-to-face and virtual interviews. An interview guide comprising open-ended questions was developed to explore participants’ perceptions of supervision gaps, institutional and cultural influences, relational dynamics, and adaptive strategies. The semi-structured format provided consistency across interviews while allowing flexibility to pursue issues raised by participants. The interview guide was pilot-tested with postgraduate students and supervisors who were not included in the final sample. Insights from the pilot phase informed refinements to question wording, sequencing, and scope, enhancing clarity and relevance. All interviews were audio-recorded with participants’ consent and transcribed verbatim to ensure accuracy and analytic rigour. Data Analysis Data were analysed using Braun and Clarke’s six-phase thematic analysis framework, which offers a systematic yet flexible approach to identifying patterns of meaning across qualitative datasets (Braun & Clarke, 2006 ; Maguire & Delahunt, 2017 ). Analysis began with repeated reading of transcripts to achieve immersion and familiarity. Initial codes were generated inductively, capturing salient features of participants’ accounts relevant to supervision gaps and adaptive practices. Codes were then organised into broader themes and sub-themes through an iterative process of comparison, refinement, and abstraction. Throughout the analysis, emerging themes were continually checked against the original data to ensure coherence and credibility. The final thematic structure was interpreted in relation to the study’s theoretical framework, enabling theoretically informed insights rather than purely descriptive reporting. Representative verbatim quotations were used to substantiate interpretations and preserve participants’ voices. Analysis proceeded abductively, moving iteratively between inductive coding of lived experiences and deductive engagement with the study’s theoretical framework, enabling the development of analytically abstracted themes that extend beyond individual cases. Trustworthiness and Rigour The study employed multiple strategies to enhance trustworthiness, consistent with established qualitative quality criteria (Lincoln & Guba, 1985 ). Credibility was strengthened through member checking, whereby participants reviewed and confirmed the accuracy of interview transcripts and preliminary interpretations. An audit trail was maintained to document methodological decisions, analytic processes, and theme development, thereby enhancing dependability and transparency. Thick description and the use of illustrative quotations support transferability by enabling readers to assess the relevance of the findings to similar contexts. Reflexive engagement throughout the research process further enhanced confirmability by making the researchers’ interpretive positions explicit. Positionality Statement The researchers occupy a dual positionality as both scholars of higher education and active postgraduate supervisors within one of the participating universities. This positionality afforded insider knowledge of institutional processes, supervisory norms, and cultural dynamics shaping postgraduate education in Ghana. At the same time, it presented the risk of assuming shared understandings or normalising systemic challenges encountered in supervisory practice. To address this, the researchers adopted a reflexive stance grounded in bracketing, consciously setting aside prior experiences and assumptions during data collection and analysis. A reflexive journal was maintained throughout the research process to document evolving interpretations, emotional responses, and potential biases. This practice enabled ongoing interrogation of how the researchers’ positions might shape interactions with participants and analytical decisions. During interviews, the researchers prioritised open-ended, non-leading questions and actively encouraged participants to articulate perspectives that diverged from the researchers’ own experiences. Analytical interpretations were repeatedly cross-checked against participants’ narratives to ensure that findings reflected participants’ meanings rather than institutional or personal assumptions. This reflexive approach strengthened the interpretive integrity of the study and aligned with best practices in phenomenological research. Ethical Considerations Ethical approval for the study was obtained from the Institutional Review Board of the University of Education, Winneba. All procedures complied with internationally accepted ethical standards for research involving human participants. Informed consent was obtained before participation, with participants fully briefed on the study’s purpose, voluntary nature, potential risks, and their right to withdraw at any stage without consequence. Confidentiality and anonymity were ensured through the use of pseudonyms and secure data storage. Given the potential sensitivity of discussing supervision experiences and power relations, interviews were conducted with care, participants were monitored for discomfort, and debriefing was provided where necessary. Findings This section presents the empirical findings on how supervision gaps manifest in Ghanaian public universities and how postgraduate students and supervisors adapt to these challenges. Three interrelated themes emerged from the data: (1) institutional and systemic attributions, (2) adaptive, coping, and resilience dimensions, and (3) pathways for supervisory reform and innovation. Together, these themes reveal that supervision challenges are structurally embedded while also highlighting contextually grounded responses that sustain postgraduate progress in resource-limited settings. Table 1 presents a theory-aligned summary of the key themes, analytical sub-themes, and illustrative participant quotations that underpin the findings discussed below. Table 1 Themes, Theory-Aligned Sub-themes, and Illustrative Verbatim Quotes Theme Theory Lens Sub-theme (Analytical Focus) Illustrative Verbatim Quotes Institutional and Systemic Attributions OT Absence of supervision quality frameworks and accountability systems “Measuring quality is the problem. Now we operate with GTEC standards, but no, we do not have any quality indicator." P22 (a supervisor) OT Governance and regulatory constraints (centralised admissions, bureaucracy) "The central administration handles admissions without involving lecturers… GTEC determines it…" P22 (a supervisor) RT Role ambiguity arising from unclear supervision policies "In the institution, I do not really know, but with my supervisor, there are no guidelines." P7 (a master’s student) RT Hierarchical supervision culture and constrained student agency “Students are sceptical about accessing them for fear of victimisation…" P19 (a PhD student) SET Imbalanced exchange: low remuneration, high workload, supervisor demotivation "We prefer to assess thesis rather than to supervise these… Yet that one, they pay you less." P22 (a supervisor) SET Resource inequities undermining reciprocity (databases, research centres) "There are some critical databases, such as Scopus, that we do not have access to." P27 (a supervisor) Adaptive, Coping, and Resilience Dimensions SET Peer-based academic exchange as compensatory support “I also talk to other lecturers to go through my work…” P12 (a PhD student) RT Self-directed learning in response to role ambiguity “Sometimes you just have to figure things out yourself… I read widely and watch online tutorials.” P13 (a PhD student) SET Emotional reciprocity and peer motivation “When I feel stuck, I talk to friends… they encourage me not to give up.” P6 (a master's student) OT Informal flexibility in supervision arrangements "We do not have fixed meetings… I just call when I need help." P1 (a master’s student) RT / SET Independence as both empowerment and risk “It helped me to be on my toes… But the weaknesses… some errors made by me might not be detected.” P11 (a PhD student) SET Resilience as a substitute for institutional support "The PhD journey is not about intelligence. It is about resilience." P18 (a PhD student) Pathways for Supervisory Reform and Innovation OT Digital and infrastructural reforms (online supervision) "If we can also adapt online more, it will help…" P11 (a PhD student) RT Structured supervisory training and role clarification “Training for anyone who is in a position to supervise… would be helpful." P12 (a PhD student) SET Formalising peer review and collaborative exchange “If students can also contact other supervisors or colleagues in a formalised manner, it will help…” P17 (a PhD student) OT / RT Student-centred supervisor allocation and consultative governance "Students should be allowed to recommend at least one supervisor…" P21 (a supervisor) OT Research infrastructure and spaces to reduce isolation “There should be more research rooms or offices…” P14 (a PhD student) RT / SET Supervision as mentorship rather than transactional control “There should teach us to get the student involved… Then the student can learn something." (Interviewee) Institutional and Systemic attributions This theme explores how organisational structures and broader societal systems shape individual behaviours and outcomes. Rather than attributing challenges solely to individual actions, this perspective highlights the significant role that established institutions and systemic factors play in influencing experiences. Participants explained the absence of quality indicators for supervision. The majority of the supervisors acknowledge the lack of clear metrics for assessing supervisory quality. They explained that completion rates and timelines are contested, and publication output is suggested but not implemented. One of the participants explained that: “Measuring quality is the problem. Now we operate with GTEC standards, but no, we do not have any quality indicator." P22 (a supervisor) This highlights a systemic gap in quality assurance: the absence of institutional systems reflects deeper cultural and structural limitations, underscoring the need for context-sensitive quality frameworks. Others also explained that there are no clear institutional policies guiding supervisors. Some participants said: "In the institution, I do not really know, but with my supervisor, there are no guidelines." P7 (a master’s student) "The only thing is, before you come, call me to pre-inform me, that is the only thing." P22 (a supervisor) This suggests how the absence of formal guidelines creates role ambiguity, leading to inconsistent supervisory practices. This lack of institutional structure may undermine accountability and quality assurance in postgraduate supervision. Other student participants explained that although they believe formal policies exist, are not widely known, or are not widely enforced, supervision largely depends on individual discretion. Some of them said: "There may be. I have not come across any yet, but I have observed that it is usually at the discretion of the supervisor." P5 (a master's student) "Yes, four progress reports before your final thesis defence. That is what the faculty requires. But for individual supervisors, it depends on the availability of both the student and the lecturer." P16 (a PhD student) The quotes imply how the lack of clarity creates systemic ambiguity in roles and responsibilities. The quotes reveal that institutional culture in Ghanaian higher education may prioritise flexibility over formalisation, which could impact research quality and student satisfaction. This reveals an institutional vacuum in the implementation of supervision policy, impacting consistency and accountability. Supervisors perceive a significant gap in student readiness for postgraduate research, noting that many students lack foundational skills and rely excessively on supervisors for basic tasks. Some of the participants said: "They do not add, they only take… Ideally, you are supposed to be co-creators of knowledge… But this time around, we have groups of students who offer nothing… Some even come to your office, secretly recording." P24(a supervisor) "The system should create room for students to do serious… before supervision so that at the proposal stage… we know whether this student is ready for research. Try to develop a template in the form of a contract indicating each chapter… deadlines… both of you will sign." P21(a supervisor ) The quotes introduce a readiness-based supervision model for Ghanaian higher education, emphasising pre-admission screening and structured agreements. This reflects Social Exchange Theory, where supervisors perceive an imbalance in the knowledge exchange process; students "take" without contributing. The proposed contractual approach signals an attempt to formalise expectations and restore reciprocity. This approach is rarely documented in African contexts and offers a practical solution to mitigate quality concerns. The majority of supervisors identify structural constraints, such as centralised admissions, as significant barriers to effective supervision. Some of them explained as: "In advanced countries… before you will be admitted, you should have gotten a faculty member who has agreed to supervise you… But here, the central administration handles admissions without involving lecturers. The university does not determine the number of admissions. GTEC determines it… Universities are just to go by the rules of GTEC and the ministry.” P22 (a supervisor) This suggests that systemic practices such as centralised admissions are artefacts of governance structures that fail to prioritise quality supervision. The comparison with advanced countries underscores the absence of relational alignment in admissions, which could otherwise foster better supervisor-student fit. This finding introduces a structural governance critique: Ghanaian higher education supervision is constrained by external regulatory mandates (GTEC and Ministry of Education), creating a mismatch between enrollment targets and supervisory capacity. Supervisors’ motivation is affected by inadequate pay. The majority of the supervisors express strong dissatisfaction with remuneration, which significantly demotivates engagement in supervision. Many prefer assessment roles to supervision because of higher pay and a lower time commitment. One of them said: "We prefer to assess thesis rather than to supervise these… Because we are working for money. The amount of time you spend on supervision is far more than the time you will spend on assessments… Yet that one, they pay you less." P22 a supervisor This finding introduces a critical economic dimension to supervisory effectiveness, highlighting how financial disincentives and workload inequities shape faculty attitudes toward supervision. This theme reflects Social Exchange Theory, as supervisors weigh costs and benefits in their engagement. The imbalance between effort and reward creates a negative exchange dynamic, reducing motivation and potentially compromising quality. Supervisors juggle heavy teaching loads and multiple students, limiting their ability to provide timely and thorough feedback. One supervisor had this to say: "Within four years, I will be supervising 50-something students… So when some of the students come to you, you will be like I do not know you." P24 (Supervisor) The quote introduces the concept of the feedback quality trade-off; supervisors either rush reviews or delay them, both of which compromise student progress. It became evident from participants' responses that bureaucratic delays in issuing data-collection letters, rigid regulatory frameworks, and IRB delays hinder timely progress. Some of them explained that: “When a student is applying for ethical clearance… it takes not less than eight months… But admission takes less than three months.” P21 (Supervisor) “You apply for an introductory letter… It takes so many months before you get it… Or you do not even hear from the department.” P12 (a PhD student) The insight that ethical clearance delays exceed admission timelines reveals a misaligned prioritisation within institutional processes. This reveals how systemic delays, especially IRB clearance, impact research timelines, even after decentralisation. This positions administrative responsiveness as a critical enabler of effective supervision, an aspect often overlooked in the literature. However, an institutional head explained that although ethics approval delays occur, the responsibility lies outside the university, limiting institutional control. One of them explained that: "The university does not necessarily give ethics approval… The university just helps with introductory letters… Ethics committees have schedules for meetings." P29 (an institutional head) The quote reframes administrative delay as an inter-institutional challenge rather than an internal inefficiency, highlighting the need for collaborative solutions. Some students also commented about the institutional timing of supervisor assignment. They explained that late supervisor assignment undermines rapport and early guidance. One of them said: “If supervisors are given to us at the beginning… It will really help… Just get to know your supervisor and all of those things.” P 7 (Master's student) This shows how delayed assignment creates role ambiguity and weakens early-stage support. This suggests a culturally adaptive solution to early supervisor allocation for rapport-building, rather than current norms. The majority of the participants also explained how accountability mechanisms are weak. An institutional head explained that reporting is annual rather than continuous, and progress reports lack formal integration into supervision processes. One of them said: "Another major weakness is low accountability… Ideally, a supervisor should report to the department head at least once per semester… But the current system does not have it. Progress reports are a form of accountability… but it can be improved if there is a much more detailed reporting system." P30 (an institutional head) This introduces the concept of “process accountability”; quality supervision is not just about outcomes but continuous engagement, which is largely absent in the current system. This quote shows how institutional artefacts (annual appraisals) fail to enforce real-time accountability. The student participants perceived minimal institutional support and unclear administrative processes. Departments also provided minimal structured support for supervisors and students. While some participants explained that occasional workshops exist, others explained the absence of support. This was explained by one participant, who said: "For my department, they do nothing… I do not see any support… Even in other departments, I hear their students are taking time for a pre-submission defence, which is really good. But I do not know why the department is not doing it.” P11 (a PhD student) A supervisor expressed similar concerns by commenting that: "There are no rigorous ways that you have to do this, you have to do that." – P27, a supervisor. This highlights fragmented support systems; some departments innovate (progress reports, defences), others do nothing, creating inequity. This finding underscores the institutional vacuum in postgraduate supervision, which contrasts with global best practices emphasising structured support systems. This undermines supervisory effectiveness and creates reliance on informal networks. All the institutional heads explained that students expressed limited engagement with institutional research programs. They explained that research workshops exist but that students rarely attend, attributing this to a lack of seriousness. One of them said that: Even when we organise research programmes and workshops, few students show interest and participate. The PhD students show less interest than the master's students. P 29 (an institutional head) Students acknowledge that research programs exist, but rarely attend due to poor communication and scheduling. One student confirmed this by saying that: "Personally, I have not really been… By the time I realised the date had passed." P4 (a master’s student) "They organise many research programs… Personally, I have not really been… By the time I realised the date had passed." P23 (a PhD student The quotes highlight the gap between institutional intentions (programs offered) and actual student participation, revealing a disconnect in implementation. The lack of clear communication about institutional roles and responsibilities creates confusion and missed opportunities. Some participants expressed concerns about equity in the allocation of supervisors. Students perceive inequity in the distribution of supervisor workload. Participant 5, a PhD student, said: “I think… based on the topic that they choose, they may be biased in allocation… So definitely there can be equity issues.” This raises equity as a systemic issue in Ghanaian higher education supervision, which is rarely addressed in existing literature. Supervisors often lack structured training on how to engage students and provide constructive feedback. One supervisor commented that: "When you are on board as a supervisor… You should be going through some training on how that engagement should be… It is not enough to give research guidelines… The how of it should be planned for.” P26 (a supervisor) The emphasis on interactional competence training supervisors in communication and feedback delivery adds a new dimension to quality assurance in supervision. Students perceive supervision as hierarchical and recommend assertiveness to counteract the boss-servant dynamic. One of them said: "In our context, that boss-servant interaction stays with us even at this level… You should also be assertive and be confident in your engagements." P20 (a PhD student) This strongly reflects Role Theory, where cultural norms shape role expectations, reinforcing hierarchy. The participant explicitly calls for cultural reorientation through supervisor training to foster collaboration rather than dominance. The majority of the students expressed fear of victimisation. The students hesitate to request supervisor changes due to fear of victimisation, even when prior relationships were problematic. Although formal channels exist for addressing supervisory challenges through the PhD coordinator, students hesitate to use them for fear of damaging relationships or being victimised. Some of them said: "There are people who maybe had their master's, and now are doing a PhD… They wish they did not have to work with [certain supervisors]… but they have not explored it for fear of victimisation." P11 (a PhD student) “Students are sceptical about accessing them for fear of victimisation… What you may share in confidence may not stay confidential." P19 (a PhD student) This reflects how hierarchical norms and power dynamics discourage students from exercising formal rights. The quotes introduce psychological barriers to policy utilisation, showing that formal rights (e.g., changing supervisors) are ineffective without cultural change. This suggests that formal structures fail without cultural safeguards for confidentiality and fairness. Some supervisors expressed concern about workload, which affects the quality time they spend with their students. One of them said: "We teach during the week and then also on the weekend… and even during vacation… When you add the master's and doctoral supervision… It makes it more burdensome." P12 (a PhD student) Some supervisors perceive supervision as stressful and professionally unrewarding, with minimal contribution to their academic growth due to the workload. One of them said: "It only gives me stress. The kind of students that we have are not adding anything to our development." P26 (a supervisor) The explicit framing of supervision as a stress-inducing obligation rather than a developmental opportunity adds a critical dimension to debates on faculty motivation and retention in postgraduate education. This sentiment reinforces Social Exchange Theory, which holds that perceived costs (stress, time) outweigh the benefits (academic advancement), leading to disengagement. The majority of the supervisors reported limited access to research databases as a significant systemic challenge. One of them said: "My university… has access to a few databases… But there are some critical databases, such as Scopus, that we do not have access to. Other supervisors in advanced institutions have all these opportunities with ease," P27 (a supervisor) “ We do not have any centre… At some other universities, there is a writing centre… or a data centre… My university lacks such centres.” P22 (a supervisor) The finding introduces a structural inequity perspective that variations in resource access across institutions create uneven supervisory experiences. The majority of supervisors express scepticism about department-led progress reports, arguing that such mechanisms can create confusion when comments conflict with their guidance. They recommend supervisor-led progress reporting to maintain authority and coherence. Some of them had this to say: “If the department does a progress report and the supervisor disagrees with that comment… The student will be confused." P26 (a supervisor) "Progress reports should be organised by the supervisor… so that the supervisor will be the chair." P21 (a supervisor) These quotes highlight a cultural preference for supervisor-centric governance in progress monitoring, contrasting with collaborative models in Western contexts. This insight underscores the importance of culturally sensitive reforms in supervision practices. Some supervisors believe the current system is fundamentally sound but constrained by resource and logistical limitations. Suggested improvements focus on infrastructure (internet access), institutional journals, and the adoption of publication-based graduation requirements, provided resources are available. They said: “ The system we have, I do not see any problem. It is good just that we have resource and logistic challenges… If there are resources, for example, if we have a good internet system, it is a matter of meeting the student through Zoom." P22 (a supervisor) "The publication system would have been the best for us… But you cannot tell a student to publish before you graduate, when you have not made journals accessible to the student." P27 (a supervisor) The finding introduces a conditional innovation perspective: supervisors are open to adopting global best practices (publication-based graduation, digital supervision), but they highlight structural prerequisites and the lack of reciprocal institutional support (e.g., journals). This nuance challenges simplistic policy recommendations and underscores the need for resource-sensitive reforms. Some supervisors expressed concerns about transparency and abuse of discretion, characterising the supervision process. One participant warns that excessive discretion in allocation and evaluation processes can lead to abuse, favouritism, and inconsistent treatment of students. The participant commented that: “ The process is sometimes subject to abuse… I have witnessed people settling personal scores with colleagues over students who are not supposed to be part of it… that is why I have talked about a much more detailed, transparent system and accountability." P26 (a supervisor) This quote implies that hierarchical structures and opaque processes enable discretionary abuse. The explicit link between discretionary power and systemic abuse adds a critical governance dimension to supervision discourse, highlighting the need for transparency reforms in African higher education. Others also mentioned irregular meetings, which are infrequent and lack formal scheduling. Some said: "The structure, I do not know the structure, but the frequency, it is not often." – P8 (a master's student). Role Theory shows that role ambiguity, when students are unsure of expectations, suggests that inconsistent interactions weaken trust and reciprocity. The quotes reveal systemic informality in supervision, in contrast to structured models in other regions. It was evident from the responses that faculty progress reports sometimes involve reviewers who are not the student’s direct supervisor, creating conflicting directions. One PhD student had this to say: "Sometimes people who are not your direct supervisors review your work, and you are required to address their comments. It can be tiring and may not align with your supervisor's direction.” P21 (a PhD student) This suggests that conflicting feedback creates role conflict and ambiguity for students. It also reveals a fragmented culture where multiple actors intervene without coordination. Students perceive low reciprocity when extra effort does not align with their supervisor’s expectations. Other supervisors acknowledge the availability of digital tools but report low usage, citing insufficient training and reliance on traditional methods. One said: "It is not a lack of technology, but a lack of usage… Microsoft Word has a review in it… How many supervisors are aware of it? The overwhelming majority are using the traditional method… print, cancel, underline… It does not help to track changes." P28 (a supervisor) The finding reveals a competency gap: digital resources exist but are underutilised due to inadequate training, thereby missing an opportunity to improve supervision efficiency. This underscores a digital divide in supervisory practices, revealing how infrastructural fragility, not resistance to change, limits technology adoption in African higher education. Adaptive, Coping, and Resilience Dimensions This theme presents the diverse ways in which resilience is demonstrated by postgraduate students and supervisors in Ghana's higher education, alongside the coping mechanisms they adopt to navigate supervision gaps. Peer and informal support networks emerged as coping strategies. Students frequently compensate for supervisory gaps by seeking feedback from peers and other faculty members. This informal network serves as a critical coping mechanism in the absence of structured departmental support. One of them said: “I also talk to other lecturers to go through my work… sometimes I also contact other colleagues to read my work…” P12 (a PhD student) This finding reveals an adaptive strategy that could be institutionalised through peer-review systems or departmental support groups, offering a scalable model for resource-constrained contexts globally. Resilience through self-directed learning and independence also emerged in participants' responses. Students demonstrate resilience by adopting self-learning strategies, including extensive reading and online tutorials, to overcome limited supervisory engagement. One participant explained that: “Sometimes you just have to figure things out yourself… I read widely and watch online tutorials.” P13 (a PhD student) This quote highlights resilience as a core competency in African postgraduate education, suggesting global relevance for resilience-based training programs. Both students and supervisors adopt flexible meeting arrangements to cope with workload pressures and bureaucratic delays. One of them explained that. "We do not have fixed meetings… I just call when I need help." – P1 (a master’s student) This quote points to the need for structured flexibility in supervisory models, integrating informal access with formal accountability, a concept applicable to diverse higher education systems. Supervisors manage high workloads by prioritising students nearing submission and delegating minor reviews to colleagues. One of them said that: "I manage by prioritising students who are closer to submission… sometimes I delegate minor reviews to friends.” P27 (a supervisor) The quote uncovers informal delegation practices that could evolve into team-based supervision frameworks, promoting collaborative culture in global academia. Students rely on emotional support from peers to sustain motivation during challenging phases. One of them said: “When I feel stuck, I talk to friends… they encourage me not to give up.” P6 (a master's student) This quote frames this as emotional coping that reinforces persistence. This suggests integrating mental health and peer-support programs into postgraduate supervision systems, a practice with global applicability. Students frequently described independence as both an empowering and precarious coping mechanism. Independence emerges as a coping strategy in contexts where supervisory roles are ambiguous or inconsistent. While autonomy enabled personal growth and confidence, it also introduced risks such as undetected errors and reduced quality assurance. One of them said: “It helped me to be on my toes… becoming independent… But the weaknesses… some errors made by me might not be detected.” P11 (a PhD student) This nuanced view of independence as both empowering and risky adds depth to global debates on supervisory models in resource-limited contexts. It challenges the assumption that autonomy is universally positive, highlighting the need for structured independence supported by periodic quality checks. Participants consistently framed success in PhD supervision not as a function of intelligence but as a measure of resilience and emotional endurance. Supervisors reinforced this perspective, emphasising persistence over cognitive ability. One participant said: "One thing my supervisor tells me is that the PhD journey is not about intelligence. It is about resilience." – P18 (a PhD student) The quote suggests that persistence and adaptability sustain the student-supervisor relationship despite systemic challenges, creating a reciprocal dynamic where effort substitutes for structural support. This insight reframes PhD success metrics in Ghanaian universities, shifting emphasis from intellectual capacity to resilience as a survival skill. Globally, these challenges dominate narratives of academic excellence and introduce a culturally grounded lens for evaluating doctoral progress in resource-limited contexts. Group communication as an equity coping mechanism emerged. Students and supervisors adopt group communication strategies such as WhatsApp groups or joint email threads to coordinate feedback among multiple supervisors. This approach is perceived as a way to ensure fairness and transparency in supervisory input. One participant said: “We created a WhatsApp group with all supervisors… It helps because everyone sees the comments and no one feels left out.” P16 (a PhD student) This quote introduces group communication as an equity mechanism that ensures balanced input and reduces power asymmetries in multi-supervisor contexts. It suggests institutionalising digital group platforms for supervisory coordination a scalable innovation for resource-limited higher education systems globally. Group communication reduces ambiguity in multi-supervisor arrangements by clarifying roles and expectations, reflecting an emerging culture of collaborative supervision rather than hierarchical, siloed practices. Institutions aim to bridge supervision gaps through capacity-building initiatives, such as workshops and symposia, for both students and supervisors. The students' association offer occasional interventions aimed at strengthening research skills and clarifying expectations. One of them said: "GRASAG also organises symposia on thesis writing and proposal development. Both students and supervisors attend it is beneficial." P12 (a PhD student) This finding demonstrates the positive impact of institutional interventions through postgraduate students’ associations in Ghanaian higher education, though participation and impact vary. It suggests that scaling these initiatives and integrating them into formal supervision frameworks could enhance consistency and accountability. Globally, this offers a model for resource-limited contexts where informal coping dominates. Pathways for Supervisory Reform and Innovation The majority of the student participants recommend adopting online supervision to reduce travel burdens. One of them said: "If we can also adapt online more, it will help… Last semester, a student left the Volta region… came, and the lecturer was not available." P11 (a PhD student) This quote introduces a practical, context-sensitive solution for Ghanaian institutions, especially for geographically dispersed students. The participant recommends structured training for supervisors and standardised models to reduce inconsistencies and conflicts among multiple supervisors. One of them said: “Training for anyone who is in a position to supervise… Trained on specific models that the institution wants to use… When there are standardised approaches in place, it would be helpful." P12 (a PhD student) This reflects advocating for cultural transformation through capacity building and procedural clarity. The call for standardising supervisory models offers a systemic solution to mitigate conflicts and ensure equity across programs. Some students also recommended formalising peer-review groups and departmental mentorship circles to supplement supervisor input. One of them said: “If students can also contact other supervisors or colleagues in a formalised manner, it will help…” P17 (a PhD student) This implies building a collaborative network that distributes support equitably. This suggests that converting coping strategies into formal systems, reducing isolation and improving feedback quality. The majority of participants emphasise that improving supervision requires cultural and structural reforms at the institutional level, including clear timelines, communication channels, and accountability systems. Some of them explained that: “They have to start with the institutional culture… We must make deliberate efforts to outline issues that, when addressed, will improve… timelines, clear communication channels, and training for faculty.” P22 (a supervisor) "Supervisors should be accountable to their heads of department… progress reports must be discussed and feedback given." P24(a supervisor) . This approach challenges entrenched hierarchical practices and offers a culturally sensitive pathway to enhance supervisory effectiveness. Some participants strongly advocate a shift from hierarchical, entitlement-driven allocation to a consultative, student-centred model in which students and supervisors negotiate based on research interests and willingness to supervise. Some of them said: "Students should be allowed to recommend at least one supervisor… The current system is too much at the discretion of just one person." P21(a supervisor) "If a supervisor is just somewhere and suddenly you get a letter that this student has been assigned to you… You do not even understand it… That is why the supervising process becomes frustrating." P25(a supervisor) "Everything is about student-centred… If we start with teacher-centred approaches when it comes to supervision, then we are really not improving.” P22 (a supervisor) The recommendation to institutionalise student choice and supervisor consent introduces a participatory governance model rarely documented in Ghanaian higher education. Linking this to global best practices, the participant argues that student-centred allocation enhances equity and reduces frustration, challenging traditional teacher-centred paradigms. Some participants commented that institutions should adopt models in which students select supervisors during the application process based on research alignment. One of them said that: “ Other institutions… when you apply, you write a short proposal and then you have to go through the website and get a professor you feel you can work with… If that model can be adopted, it will really help us from the beginning.” P13 (a PhD student) This suggests integrating supervisor selection into admission processes, a structural shift that promotes early rapport and student-centeredness. Others mentioned that institutions should integrate global models, such as requiring publications, conference presentations, and dedicated research spaces. One of them said: "A friend abroad said, during his PhD process, he has to publish some articles… attend a conference… They give them spaces provided for them to come and do their research; we can equally adopt this.” P18 (a PhD student) This suggests that physical and intellectual infrastructure should be part of supervision, rarely emphasised in Ghanaian postgraduate systems. Some participants commented that providing research rooms with resources (computers, desks) for postgraduate students would help maintain focus and reduce academic isolation. One participant commented that: “There should be more research rooms or offices, sort of a conference centre for students… so that we can go there and continue with the research. Because all I have been left alone to do is the research.” P14 (a PhD student) This positions anti-isolation infrastructure as a cultural artefact to sustain motivation. Some students suggested that supervisors should teach and guide students through the research process rather than demand outputs. One of them said that: “There should teach us to get the student involved… not just say go bring this, go bring that… Then the student can learn something." (Interviewee) This quote positions supervision as a form of mentorship and capacity-building rather than transactional oversight. Discussion Consistent with the study’s interpretive-abductive orientation, these findings are discussed not as isolated subjective accounts but as empirically grounded insights into the institutional, cultural, and relational conditions shaping postgraduate supervision. This study advances postgraduate supervision scholarship by theorising supervision gaps as structurally produced, culturally mediated, and relationally negotiated phenomena, rather than as isolated failures of supervisors or students. By integrating organisational theory, role theory, and social exchange theory, the study provides a multi-level explanatory framework that captures how supervision practices are shaped by institutional arrangements, cultural norms, and exchange relationships within resource-constrained higher education systems. In doing so, it responds to calls for more theoretically grounded and context-sensitive analyses of doctoral supervision beyond well-resourced Western settings (Manathunga, 2014 ; Morley et al., 2017 ; Tight, 2023 ). Organisational Theory: Supervision Gaps as Institutional Artefacts From an organisational theory perspective, the findings demonstrate that supervision gaps are best understood as institutional artefacts arising from weak process accountability, misaligned incentive structures, and loose coupling between policy and practice (Scott, 2014 ; Scott & Davis, 2016 ). The absence of clear supervision quality indicators and the dominance of outcome-based metrics such as completion timelines echo concerns raised in international literature that supervision quality is often evaluated retrospectively, obscuring the relational and temporal nature of supervisory work (Halse & Malfroy, 2010 ; McAlpine & McKinnon, 2013 ). The Ghanaian case extends organisational theory by illustrating how externally imposed regulatory regimes, particularly centralised admissions and enrolment targets, reshape internal supervision dynamics. While massification has been widely documented as a global phenomenon (Marginson, 2016 ), this study empirically demonstrates how regulation-driven expansion intensifies supervision gaps when institutional autonomy over admissions and workload allocation is constrained. Similar tensions between regulation and academic capacity have been observed in other African contexts (Teferra, 2019 ; Teferra & Knight, 2018 ), but this study contributes by theorising these tensions as structural contradictions embedded within governance arrangements rather than transitional inefficiencies. The findings further introduce a distinction between outcome accountability and process accountability in postgraduate supervision. Participants’ emphasis on the lack of semester-based reporting, feedback monitoring, and continuous oversight aligns with arguments that effective supervision requires ongoing organisational engagement rather than episodic evaluation (Pyhältö et al., 2015 ; Tight, 2023 ). This extends organisational theory by positioning supervision as a form of process-intensive academic labour that is poorly supported by existing managerial frameworks. Role Theory: Cultural Hierarchies and Persistent Role Ambiguity Role theory illuminates how supervision gaps persist even in the presence of formal guidelines. Consistent with Biddle’s ( 1986 ) and Katz and Kahn’s ( 1978 ) foundational work, the findings show that role ambiguity and role conflict are sustained by unclear expectations, inconsistent enforcement, and overlapping authority structures. Students’ uncertainty regarding supervision frequency, feedback standards, and grievance procedures mirrors patterns reported in other doctoral education studies (Gardner, 2009 ; Pyhältö et al., 2015 ). This study advances role theory by foregrounding the role of culturally embedded hierarchies in shaping role enactment. Students’ fear of victimisation and reluctance to challenge supervisory practices reflect entrenched norms of authority and deference previously documented in African and other hierarchical academic systems (Manathunga, 2014 ; Hlengwa, 2020 ). Even where formal mechanisms for supervisor change exist, anticipated relational consequences inhibit their use, rendering formal role structures symbolically present but functionally weak. Supervisors’ preference for supervisor-centred progress reporting further illustrates how role expectations are mutually reinforced across hierarchical levels. While collaborative and team-based supervision models are widely promoted in Western contexts (Lee et al., 2021 ; De Kleijn et al., 2022 ), the findings caution against their uncritical transfer. Instead, they support calls for culturally adaptive role reconfiguration, where supervision reforms must align with local understandings of authority, expertise, and legitimacy (Wisker & Robinson, 2023 ). This contributes to role theory by demonstrating that role effectiveness is contingent not only on formal design but also on cultural legitimacy. Social Exchange Theory: Supervision as a Distorted Exchange Relationship Social exchange theory offers a relational explanation for supervisory disengagement and student coping. Consistent with Blau ( 1964 ) and Emerson ( 1976 ), the findings reveal that supervision operates within a distorted exchange system, characterised by high supervisory costs and low institutional rewards. Supervisors’ dissatisfaction with remuneration and workload mirrors international evidence that academic labour allocation is shaped by perceived equity and reciprocity (Shore et al., 2006 ; Cropanzano et al., 2017 ). This study extends social exchange theory by demonstrating how institutional reward structures directly shape supervisory behaviour. Supervisors’ preference for assessment roles over supervision aligns with findings that academics strategically prioritise activities with clearer returns under constrained conditions (Teferra & Knight, 2018 ; Shin et al., 2022 ). Importantly, the study shows that reduced supervisory engagement is not a reflection of diminished professional commitment but a rational response to inequitable exchange arrangements. On the student side, intensified self-reliance, peer collaboration, and emotional coping function as compensatory exchange mechanisms. These findings resonate with research highlighting the emotional and relational dimensions of doctoral persistence (Sverdlik et al., 2018 ; Pyhältö et al., 2020 ). However, this study advances theory by conceptualising resilience as an exchange substitute: a socially produced response that fills gaps left by weak organisational support. While resilience enables progress, it simultaneously masks systemic deficiencies, echoing critiques that individual coping can inadvertently legitimise institutional underinvestment (Morley et al., 2017 ). Integrative Contribution: Coping as Proto-Institutional Innovation A central theoretical contribution of this study lies in its reconceptualisation of coping strategies as proto-institutional innovations rather than informal survival tactics. Practices such as peer-review networks, group-based digital communication, flexible supervision arrangements, and informal delegation have been observed elsewhere (Lee et al., 2021 ; De Kleijn et al., 2022 ), but this study uniquely positions them as emergent organisational responses to structural constraint. Integrating organisational, role, and exchange perspectives, the study demonstrates how adaptive practices arise at the intersection of institutional failure and relational negotiation. Organisational gaps generate role ambiguity; role ambiguity intensifies exchange imbalance; and exchange imbalance stimulates adaptive behaviour. This dynamic process conceptualises supervision as a negotiated social system rather than a fixed institutional function, extending contemporary theorisation of doctoral supervision as relational and emotionally embedded work (Halse & Malfroy, 2010 ; Lee et al., 2021 ). Implications for Theory Development Beyond the Ghanaian context, this study contributes to international higher education theory by offering a context-sensitive model of supervision under constraint. It challenges universalistic assumptions embedded in dominant supervision frameworks and supports calls for theories that account for governance asymmetries, cultural hierarchies, and distorted exchange relations (Manathunga, 2014 ; Tight, 2023 ). By foregrounding resilience, reciprocity, and institutional culture, the study reframes supervision quality as an emergent property of higher education ecosystems rather than an attribute of individual capability. In sum, this study contributes theoretically by (1) conceptualising supervision gaps as institutional artefacts, (2) revealing the cultural persistence of role ambiguity, (3) theorising resilience as an exchange substitute, and (4) reframing coping strategies as foundations for institutional innovation. These contributions extend existing supervision theory and provide a robust analytical framework for understanding postgraduate supervision in resource-constrained higher education systems globally. Conclusion This study set out to examine how supervision gaps are perceived, attributed, and navigated within Ghanaian public universities, and how these experiences can inform more context-sensitive and globally relevant models of postgraduate supervision. Drawing on organisational theory, role theory, and social exchange theory, the study demonstrates that supervision challenges are not episodic or individualised failures but are institutionally produced, culturally sustained, and relationally negotiated. In doing so, it advances supervision scholarship beyond deficit-oriented explanations and contributes a theoretically integrated account of supervision under structural constraint. From an organisational theory perspective, the findings show that supervision gaps function as institutional artefacts arising from weak process accountability, misaligned incentive systems, and regulatory environments that prioritise enrolment expansion over supervisory capacity (Scott, 2014 ; Marginson, 2016 ; Tight, 2023 ). The study highlights the limits of outcome-based quality indicators and underscores the need to reconceptualise supervision as a form of process-intensive academic labour requiring continuous institutional engagement and monitoring. This reframing extends existing theorisation of supervision quality by foregrounding the organisational conditions under which supervisory relationships are enacted and sustained. Role theory further reveals how culturally embedded hierarchies and role ambiguity perpetuate supervision gaps even in the presence of formal policies (Biddle, 1986 ; Katz & Kahn, 1978 ). Students’ constrained agency, fear of victimisation, and reluctance to activate formal grievance mechanisms illustrate how informal cultural norms override formal role prescriptions (Manathunga, 2014 ; Hlengwa, 2020 ). At the same time, supervisors’ preference for supervisor-centred oversight reflects culturally legitimate expectations of authority and expertise. These findings caution against the uncritical transfer of egalitarian supervisory models and instead call for culturally adaptive role reconfiguration in postgraduate supervision reform (Wisker & Robinson, 2023 ). Through the lens of social exchange theory, the study conceptualises supervision as a distorted exchange relationship, shaped by inequitable distributions of effort, reward, and recognition (Blau, 1964 ; Cropanzano et al., 2017 ). Supervisory disengagement emerges as a rational response to high costs and low returns rather than a lack of professional commitment, while students’ intensified self-reliance and peer collaboration operate as compensatory exchange mechanisms (Teferra & Knight, 2018 ; Sverdlik et al., 2018 ). Importantly, the study theorises resilience as an exchange substitute; a socially produced capacity that sustains doctoral progress in the absence of robust institutional support but simultaneously risks masking systemic deficiencies. A central theoretical contribution of this study lies in its reframing of coping strategies as proto-institutional innovations. Adaptive practices such as peer review networks, digital group supervision, flexible meeting arrangements, and informal delegation are not merely survival responses but represent emergent organisational solutions to structural constraint. By integrating organisational, role, and exchange perspectives, the study conceptualises postgraduate supervision as a negotiated social system, continually reconstituted through everyday practices rather than a fixed institutional function. This integrative framing advances existing supervision theory by linking institutional failure, relational negotiation, and adaptive innovation within a single analytical model. The implications of these theoretical claims extend beyond the Ghanaian context. For policy and practice, the findings underscore the need to move beyond reliance on individual resilience and toward the formal recognition and institutionalisation of effective adaptive practices. Process-oriented supervision indicators, culturally responsive supervisory training, participatory supervisor allocation mechanisms, and structured peer-support systems emerge as critical levers for reform. However, the study cautions that without addressing underlying governance arrangements and incentive structures, such reforms risk reproducing the very inequities they seek to resolve. This study contributes to global postgraduate supervision scholarship by offering a context-sensitive, theory-driven account of supervision under constraint. By positioning supervision gaps as institutional artefacts, role ambiguity as culturally sustained, resilience as an exchange substitute, and coping as a foundation for institutional learning, the study provides a robust conceptual framework for analysing and reforming postgraduate supervision in resource-constrained higher education systems. Future research should build on this framework through comparative, longitudinal, and policy-oriented studies that further examine how adaptive practices can be translated into sustainable institutional transformation without overburdening individual actors. Declarations Conflict of interest : The authors have no relevant financial or non-financial interests to disclose Ethics Declaration Ethical approval for the study was obtained from the Institutional Review Board of the University of Education, Winneba. All procedures complied with internationally accepted ethical standards for research involving human participants. Funding: No funding was received for conducting this study Author Contribution EDO -Wrote the methodology and the final draft of the paper.EEY-Wrote the literature and discussion sections of the paper.JON-Wrote the introduction and analysis sections of the paper.All authors reviewed the final manuscript. Data Availability The data supporting the analysis is available upon reasonable request References Akparep JY, Jengre E, Amoah DA (2017) Demystifying the blame game in the delays of graduation of research students in Universities in Ghana: The case of University for Development Studies. Eur J Bus Innov Res 5(1):34–50 Amponsah KD, Mensah RO, Oteng B (2025) Demystifying postgraduate research delays: perceptions of graduate students in selected public university. Policy Reviews High Educ 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1080/2332296.2025.2590059 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 Biddle BJ (1986) Recent developments in role theory. Ann Rev Sociol 12:67–92. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.so.12.080186.000435 Blau PM (1964) Exchange and power in social life. Wiley Braun V, Clarke V (2006) Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Res Psychol 3(2):77–101 Creswell JW, Poth CN (2018) A Book Review: Qualitative Inquiry & Research Design: Choosing Among Five Approaches. In SAGE Publications, Inc.: Vol. Fourth Edi. https://doi.org/10.13187/rjs.2017.1.30 Cropanzano R, Anthony EL, Daniels SR, Hall AV (2017) Social exchange theory: A critical review with theoretical remedies. Acad Manag Ann 11(1):479–516. https://doi.org/10.5465/annals.2015.0099 De Kleijn RAM, Meijer PC, Brekelmans M, Pilot A (2022) Doctoral supervision: An integrative review of empirical research. High Educ Res Dev 41(3):955–970. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2021.1907438 Dzikunu CK, Agyekum MW, Pajibo ED, Yelkpieri D (2025) Factors accounting for delayed completion of theses among postgraduate students of the University of Education. Winneba 13(2):1–18. https://doi.org/10.37745/bje.2013/voll3n2118 Emerson RM (1976) Social exchange theory. Ann Rev Sociol 2:335–362. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.so.02.080176.002003 Gardner SK (2009) The development of doctoral students: Phases of challenge and support. Jossey-Bass Halse C, Malfroy J (2010) Retheorizing doctoral supervision as professional work. Stud High Educ 35(1):79–92. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075070902906798 Hennink M, Kaiser BN (2022) Sample sizes for saturation in qualitative research: A systematic review of empirical tests. Soc Sci Med 292:114523 Hlengwa A (2020) Power relations in postgraduate supervision: Experiences of doctoral students in South Africa. South Afr J High Educ 34(4):113–129. https://doi.org/10.20853/34-4-3545 Katz D, Kahn RL (1978) The social psychology of organizations, vol 2. wiley, New York, p 528 Lee A (2008) How are doctoral students supervised? Concepts of doctoral supervision. Stud High Educ 33(3):267–281. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075070802049202 Lee A, McKenzie J, Brennan M (2021) Doctoral supervision as emotional labour. High Educ Res Dev 40(6):1163–1177. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2020.1818065 Lincoln YS, Guba EG (1985) Naturalistic Inquiry, 1st edn. Sage Publications Inc, Newbury Park Maguire M, Delahunt B (2017) Doing a thematic analysis: A practical, step-by-step guide for learning and teaching scholars. All Irel J High Educ, 9 (3) Manathunga C (2014) Intercultural postgraduate supervision: Reimagining time, place and knowledge. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203111956 Marginson S (2016) Higher education and the common good. Melbourne University McAlpine L, McKinnon M (2013) Supervision—the most variable of variables: Student perspectives. Stud Continuing Educ 35(3):265–280. https://doi.org/10.1080/0158037X.2012.746227 Morley L, Havergal C, Cunningham R, Usher R (2017) Doctoral education in Africa: Building capacities and generating knowledge. Society for Research into Higher Education Ngulube P, Mathipa ER, Gumbo MT (2019) Theoretical and conceptual frameworks in doctoral research: Experiences of supervisors and students in South Africa. Int J Educational Sci 26(1–3):1–13 Patton MQ (2015) Qualitative research & evaluation methods: integrating theory and practice. Sage, pp 31–33 Pyhältö K, Vekkaila J, Keskinen J (2015) Fit matters in the supervisory relationship. Innovations Educ Teach Int 52(1):4–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/14703297.2014.981836 Pyhältö K, Castelló M, McAlpine L, Löfström E (2020) Agency in doctoral education: A literature review. Teach High Educ 25(4):1–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2020.1736026 Pyhältö K, Tikkanen L, Anttila H, Löfström E (2022) Doctoral supervision, burnout, and engagement. Stud High Educ 47(5):1–15. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2020.1859680 Ruslin R, Mashuri S, Rasak MSA, Alhabsyi F, Syam H (2022) Semi-structured Interview: A methodological reflection on the development of a qualitative research instrument in educational studies. IOSR J Res Method Educ (IOSR-JRME) 12(1):22–29 Scott WR (2014) Institutions and organizations: Ideas, interests, and identities, 4th edn. Sage Scott WR, Davis GF (2016) Organizations and organizing: Rational, natural, and open systems perspectives. Routledge Shin JC, Jung J (2014) Academics job satisfaction and job stress across countries. High Educ 67(5):603–620. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-013-9668-5 Shin JC, Arimoto A, Cummings WK, Teichler U (2022) Teaching and research in contemporary higher education. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-05288-3 Shore LM, Tetrick LE, Lynch P, Barksdale K (2006) Social and economic exchange: Construct development and validation. J Appl Soc Psychol 36(4):837–867 Smith JA, Flowers P, Larkin M (2009) Sage. Thousand Oaks, United States Sverdlik A, Hall NC, McAlpine L, Hubbard K (2018) The PhD experience: Completion, achievement and well-being. Int J Doctoral Stud 13:361–388. https://doi.org/10.28945/4113 Teferra D (2019) Defining internationalisation: Intention versus coercion. University World News Teferra D, Knight J (2018) Higher education in Africa: The international dimension. Boston College Center for International Higher Education Tight M (2023) Research into higher education: A systematic review. High Educ 85(2):343–365. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-022-00879-6 Wao HO, Onwuegbuzie AJ (2011) A mixed research investigation of factors related to time to the doctorate. J Coll Student Retent 13(4):489–518. https://doi.org/10.2190/CS.13.4.e Wisker G (2012) The good supervisor, 2nd edn. Palgrave Macmillan Wisker G, Robinson G (2023) Doctoral supervision and power: Rethinking relationships. Stud High Educ 48(8):1465–1479. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2022.2068794 Additional Declarations No competing interests reported. Cite Share Download PDF Status: Under Review Version 1 posted Reviewers agreed at journal 11 May, 2026 Reviewers invited by journal 05 May, 2026 Editor assigned by journal 16 Jan, 2026 Submission checks completed at journal 16 Jan, 2026 First submitted to journal 13 Jan, 2026 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-8593726","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Research Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":638276456,"identity":"8092d43b-e9a9-4197-b6fc-d6ddebd3574c","order_by":0,"name":"Enoch Danso Okyere","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"University of Education, Winneba","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Enoch","middleName":"Danso","lastName":"Okyere","suffix":""},{"id":638276457,"identity":"a9959eea-ce09-4d87-9b61-810f4c667c60","order_by":1,"name":"Emmanuel Erastus Yamoah","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"University of Education, Winneba","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Emmanuel","middleName":"Erastus","lastName":"Yamoah","suffix":""},{"id":638276459,"identity":"6ebd5507-5758-4206-a58d-59adfa1948c8","order_by":2,"name":"Jacob Oppong Nkansah","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Education University of Hong Kong","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Jacob","middleName":"Oppong","lastName":"Nkansah","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2026-01-13 15:24:10","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":"","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-8593726/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-8593726/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":109282414,"identity":"562e59ab-d735-428b-8b32-b3c6da649296","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-05-14 18:40:30","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":335998,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8593726/v1/75d2cec8-e070-4235-af11-2a501af16212.pdf"}],"financialInterests":"No competing interests reported.","formattedTitle":"Beyond Deficit Narratives: Supervisory Gaps, Resilience, and Institutional Learning in Ghanaian Higher Education","fulltext":[{"header":"Introduction","content":"\u003cp\u003ePostgraduate supervision is widely recognised as a critical determinant of research quality, timely completion, and doctoral socialisation within higher education systems globally. Effective supervision extends beyond technical guidance to encompass mentorship, professional identity formation, emotional support, and integration into scholarly communities. In both developed and developing contexts, the quality of the supervisor\u0026ndash;student relationship has been shown to significantly influence postgraduate outcomes, including completion rates, publication productivity, and career trajectories (Lee, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR17\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2008\u003c/span\u003e; McAlpine \u0026amp; McKinnon, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR23\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eDespite this centrality, supervision practices remain uneven, particularly in resource-constrained higher education systems. In sub-Saharan Africa, expanding postgraduate enrolments, limited supervisory capacity, bureaucratic constraints, and weak accountability mechanisms have intensified what scholars describe as \u0026ldquo;supervision gaps\u0026rdquo; (Manathunga, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e; Teferra, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR38\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e). These gaps manifest as delayed feedback, unclear expectations, power asymmetries, inconsistent policies, and limited institutional support, often compelling students and supervisors to rely on informal coping strategies to sustain progress.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eGhana presents a compelling context for examining these dynamics. Over the past two decades, Ghanaian public universities have experienced rapid postgraduate expansion driven by national development agendas, regulatory targets set by the Ghana Tertiary Education Commission (GTEC), and growing demand for advanced qualifications. However, this growth has not been matched by commensurate investments in supervisory training, research infrastructure, and institutional governance systems. Existing studies on postgraduate education in Ghana have tended to focus on completion rates, funding challenges, or student experiences in isolation, leaving a limited understanding of how supervision gaps are jointly constructed, interpreted, and navigated by both students and supervisors (Amponsah, Mensah \u0026amp; Oteng, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e; Akparep, Jengre \u0026amp; Amoah, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e; Dzikunu, Agyekum, Pajibo \u0026amp; Yelkpieri, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis study addresses this gap by adopting an interpretive phenomenological approach to explore how postgraduate students and supervisors in Ghanaian public universities perceive and attribute supervision gaps, the adaptive and resilience strategies they employ, and how these lived experiences can inform the development of context-sensitive and globally relevant supervisory models. By integrating institutional, pedagogical, and contextual perspectives, the study contributes novel empirical and theoretical insights to the international literature on postgraduate supervision in resource-limited settings.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eSpecifically, the study is guided by the following research questions:\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003col\u003e \u003cspan\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eHow do postgraduate students and supervisors perceive and attribute supervision gaps within the Ghanaian higher education system?\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/span\u003e \u003cspan\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn what ways do postgraduate students and supervisors demonstrate resilience and adopt coping strategies to navigate these supervision gaps?\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/span\u003e \u003cspan\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eHow can insights from these experiences inform the development of context-specific and globally relevant supervisory models for Ghanaian higher education?\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/span\u003e \u003c/ol\u003e \u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Literature Review","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec3\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eTheoretical Review\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eUnderstanding supervision gaps and adaptive mechanisms in postgraduate education requires a multi-theoretical lens that captures institutional structures, cultural role expectations, and relational dynamics. This study is anchored in organisational theory, role theory, and social exchange theory, which together provide a robust explanatory framework for analysing how supervision practices are shaped, constrained, and negotiated within higher education systems, particularly in resource-constrained contexts such as Ghana.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eOrganisational Theory\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eOrganisational theory explains how formal structures, policies, governance arrangements, and institutional cultures shape individual behaviour and performance within organisations (Scott, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR31\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e; Scott \u0026amp; Davis, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR32\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e). In higher education, postgraduate supervision is embedded within organisational systems that regulate admissions, workload allocation, quality assurance, promotion criteria, and resource distribution. These structures significantly influence supervisory capacity, expectations, and accountability.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eContemporary scholarship highlights that supervision challenges often arise not from individual deficiencies but from institutional misalignment, where expanding postgraduate enrolments are not matched with adequate supervisory staffing, training, or incentives (Marginson, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR22\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e; Teferra, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR38\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e). Weak organisational coupling, manifested in unclear supervision policies, fragmented reporting mechanisms, and inconsistent enforcement of standards, creates systemic supervision gaps that persist regardless of individual commitment or competence.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eRecent studies further emphasise that regulatory environments and external governance pressures can exacerbate these gaps. For example, performance-driven regulatory frameworks that prioritise enrolment growth and throughput may unintentionally undermine supervision quality when institutional capacity is overstretched (Shin \u0026amp; Jung, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR33\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e; Tight, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR40\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e). From an organisational theory perspective, supervision challenges in Ghanaian universities are therefore best understood as institutional artefacts, products of governance structures, incentive regimes, and resource constraints rather than isolated supervisory failures.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eRole Theory\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRole theory focuses on how individuals interpret, enact, and negotiate socially defined roles within institutional and cultural contexts (Biddle, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1986\u003c/span\u003e; Katz \u0026amp; Kahn, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1978\u003c/span\u003e). In postgraduate supervision, roles are shaped by formal guidelines (e.g., supervision handbooks, progress reporting requirements) as well as informal norms related to hierarchy, authority, and academic seniority.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eRole ambiguity occurs when expectations regarding supervision frequency, feedback standards, or student responsibilities are unclear or inconsistently communicated. Role conflict emerges when students receive competing directives from multiple supervisors, departmental reviewers, or institutional actors. Both conditions have been shown to negatively affect doctoral progress, satisfaction, and psychological well-being (Gardner, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2009\u003c/span\u003e; Pyh\u0026auml;lt\u0026ouml; et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR27\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn many African higher education contexts, role expectations are further shaped by deeply embedded hierarchical and collectivist cultural norms, which often position supervisors as unquestionable authorities (Hlengwa, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e; Manathunga, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e). These norms can discourage students from seeking clarification, negotiating expectations, or activating formal grievance mechanisms, even when such structures exist. As a result, formal policies may coexist with informal practices that perpetuate power asymmetries and silence student agency.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eRole theory, therefore, provides a critical lens for understanding how supervision gaps are sustained through cultural expectations and how adaptive behaviours such as student assertiveness, peer support, or informal negotiation emerge as compensatory mechanisms within constrained role structures.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eSocial Exchange Theory\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSocial exchange theory conceptualises social relationships as ongoing exchanges of resources governed by norms of reciprocity, fairness, and mutual obligation (Blau, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1964\u003c/span\u003e; Cropanzano et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e). In postgraduate supervision, the exchange relationship involves students contributing time, intellectual labour, emotional resilience, and compliance, while supervisors provide expertise, feedback, mentorship, and professional socialisation.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eWhen exchanges are perceived as imbalanced, such as when supervisors invest substantial effort with minimal institutional recognition or remuneration, motivation and engagement may decline (Emerson, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1976\u003c/span\u003e; Shore et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR35\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2006\u003c/span\u003e). Conversely, students may experience diminished trust and commitment when feedback is delayed, inconsistent, or perceived as dismissive. Recent studies demonstrate that perceived inequity in supervision relationships is associated with disengagement, prolonged completion times, and emotional exhaustion among both supervisors and doctoral candidates (Pyh\u0026auml;lt\u0026ouml; et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR29\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e; Sverdlik et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR37\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn resource-constrained systems, social exchange dynamics are particularly salient. Heavy workloads, limited financial incentives, and weak institutional support can distort reciprocity, prompting supervisors to prioritise activities with higher tangible returns, such as teaching or assessment roles (Teferra \u0026amp; Knight, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR39\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e). At the same time, students often compensate by increasing self-reliance and peer collaboration, effectively redistributing exchange obligations within informal networks. Social exchange theory thus offers a powerful framework for explaining both supervision disengagement and the emergence of resilience-based coping strategies in Ghanaian postgraduate education.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eEmpirical Review\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cdiv id=\"Sec8\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eGlobal Perspectives on Postgraduate Supervision\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eInternational research consistently characterises postgraduate supervision as a relational, pedagogical, and organisational process, rather than a purely technical activity. Studies from Europe, North America, and Australasia highlight the importance of structured supervision agreements, clearly defined expectations, regular meetings, and systematic progress monitoring in promoting timely completion and high-quality research outcomes (Halse \u0026amp; Malfroy, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2010\u003c/span\u003e; McAlpine \u0026amp; McKinnon, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR23\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e; Wisker, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR42\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2012\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eMore recent scholarship emphasises innovative supervisory models such as team supervision, cohort-based doctoral education, and publication-oriented doctoral pathways, which aim to reduce student isolation and distribute supervisory responsibility (Lee et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR18\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e; Tight, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR40\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e). Supervisor training and professional development are increasingly viewed as essential, with evidence suggesting that pedagogical competence and relational skills are as critical as disciplinary expertise (Bastalich, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e; De Kleijn et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eNevertheless, even in well-resourced systems, supervision challenges persist. Empirical studies report ongoing issues of mismatched expectations, power imbalances, emotional labour, and supervisory burnout (Pyh\u0026auml;lt\u0026ouml; et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR27\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e; Wao \u0026amp; Onwuegbuzie, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR41\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e). These findings suggest that supervision quality depends not solely on material resources but also on institutional culture, role clarity, and the quality of interpersonal relationships.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eSupervision in African and Developing Contexts\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn African and other developing higher education contexts, empirical literature consistently identifies structural and systemic constraints as dominant influences on supervision quality. These include high supervisor\u0026ndash;student ratios, limited access to research funding and databases, inadequate infrastructure, and bureaucratic delays in ethics approval and administrative processes (Morley et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR24\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e; Teferra, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR38\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eSupervision in these contexts is often highly individualised and informal, with limited institutional oversight and minimal training for supervisors (Manathunga, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e; Hlengwa, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e). Students frequently rely on peer networks, informal mentoring, and self-directed learning to compensate for irregular supervision, a pattern also observed in other parts of the Global South (Ngulube et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR25\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn Ghana specifically, empirical studies document persistent challenges such as delayed feedback, unclear supervision policies, heavy teaching workloads, and limited institutional research support (Amponsah, Mensah \u0026amp; Oteng, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e; Akparep, Jengre \u0026amp; Amoah, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e; Dzikunu, Agyekum, Pajibo \u0026amp; Yelkpieri, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e). While these studies provide valuable insights, most focus primarily on student experiences and tend to frame coping strategies as individual survival mechanisms rather than as sources of institutional learning and innovation.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis study advances the literature by simultaneously examining student and supervisor perspectives and by reconceptualising adaptive behaviours such as peer support, digital communication, and resilience, not merely as responses to deficits but as contextually grounded practices with the potential to inform sustainable and globally relevant supervisory models. By foregrounding resilience, reciprocity, and institutional culture, the study responds to calls for more nuanced, theory-informed analyses of postgraduate supervision in African higher education systems.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Methodology","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec11\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eResearch Design and Paradigmatic Orientation\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis study employed a qualitative research design situated within an interpretive phenomenological paradigm to examine how postgraduate students and supervisors in Ghanaian public universities experience, interpret, and navigate supervision gaps. Interpretive phenomenology is particularly appropriate for research that seeks to understand how individuals construct meaning from lived experiences within specific socio-cultural and institutional contexts (Creswell \u0026amp; Poth, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e; Smith, Flowers, \u0026amp; Larkin, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR36\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2009\u003c/span\u003e). Rather than aiming for generalisation, this approach prioritises depth, contextual sensitivity, and interpretive understanding.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe chosen paradigm is theoretically congruent with the study\u0026rsquo;s analytical framework, which draws on organisational theory, role theory, and social exchange theory. These perspectives assume that supervision practices are socially constructed, relationally negotiated, and institutionally embedded. Accordingly, the methodology foregrounds participants\u0026rsquo; subjective interpretations while situating these narratives within broader organisational arrangements, cultural norms, and incentive structures that shape postgraduate supervision in Ghanaian higher education.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eWhile the study is grounded in interpretive phenomenology, its analytical orientation is not strictly idiographic. Rather than limiting analysis to individual meaning-making, the study adopts an abductive, theory-informed approach, whereby participants\u0026rsquo; lived experiences are interpreted in dialogue with organisational theory, role theory, and social exchange theory. This approach enables movement between experiential accounts and institutional-level explanations, allowing supervision gaps to be theorised as socially and structurally produced phenomena rather than solely personal experiences.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec12\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eResearch Setting\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe study was conducted in eight of Ghana\u0026rsquo;s sixteen traditional public universities, purposively selected due to their long-standing involvement in postgraduate education and the presence of established graduate schools. These institutions have offered Master\u0026rsquo;s and doctoral programmes for several decades and therefore represent mature supervisory environments within the national higher education system. The universities included were: Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology (KNUST), University of Ghana (UG), University of Cape Coast (UCC), University of Education, Winneba (UEW), University for Development Studies (UDS), University of Mines and Technology (UMaT), Ghana Institute of Management and Public Administration (GIMPA), and University of Professional Studies, Accra (UPSA).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAdopting a multi-institutional design enhanced the analytical robustness of the study by allowing for comparison across diverse organisational cultures, disciplinary traditions, and resource conditions, while also identifying systemic patterns that cut across institutional boundaries.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec13\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eParticipants and Sampling Strategy\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe study involved 34 participants, comprising 16 postgraduate supervisors, 16 postgraduate students, and 2 institutional heads in charge of postgraduate education. From each participating university, two supervisors and two students: one Master\u0026rsquo;s and one PhD graduate, were included. Supervisors were senior lecturers or professors with substantial experience in postgraduate supervision, while student participants were recent graduates who had completed their programmes and were therefore well positioned to reflect on the supervisory process from entry to completion. The two institutional heads were included as contextual informants rather than as primary phenomenological subjects. Their role was to provide institutional-level perspectives on governance structures, regulatory processes, and administrative practices shaping postgraduate supervision, thereby contextualising and triangulating the experiential accounts of students and supervisors.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eParticipants were selected using purposive sampling, an approach well-suited to qualitative inquiry where the aim is to generate rich, information-dense accounts from individuals with direct experience of the phenomenon under investigation (Patton, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR26\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e). Sampling decisions were guided by the principle of theoretical relevance, ensuring representation of both supervisory and student perspectives across institutions.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eData collection continued until thematic saturation was reached, that is, when additional interviews yielded no substantively new insights relevant to the research questions. Consistent with contemporary qualitative standards, saturation was assessed iteratively through concurrent data collection and analysis rather than being determined solely by sample size (Hennink \u0026amp; Kaiser, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e). The final sample was judged sufficient to capture both convergence and variation in supervision experiences across contexts.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec14\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eData Collection\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003ePrimary data were generated through semi-structured, in-depth interviews, a method that enables participants to articulate their experiences in detail while allowing the researcher to probe emergent issues (Ruslin et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR30\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e). To accommodate participants\u0026rsquo; geographical dispersion and professional commitments, a hybrid interview approach was adopted, combining face-to-face and virtual interviews.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAn interview guide comprising open-ended questions was developed to explore participants\u0026rsquo; perceptions of supervision gaps, institutional and cultural influences, relational dynamics, and adaptive strategies. The semi-structured format provided consistency across interviews while allowing flexibility to pursue issues raised by participants.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe interview guide was pilot-tested with postgraduate students and supervisors who were not included in the final sample. Insights from the pilot phase informed refinements to question wording, sequencing, and scope, enhancing clarity and relevance. All interviews were audio-recorded with participants\u0026rsquo; consent and transcribed verbatim to ensure accuracy and analytic rigour.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec15\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eData Analysis\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eData were analysed using Braun and Clarke\u0026rsquo;s six-phase thematic analysis framework, which offers a systematic yet flexible approach to identifying patterns of meaning across qualitative datasets (Braun \u0026amp; Clarke, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2006\u003c/span\u003e; Maguire \u0026amp; Delahunt, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e). Analysis began with repeated reading of transcripts to achieve immersion and familiarity. Initial codes were generated inductively, capturing salient features of participants\u0026rsquo; accounts relevant to supervision gaps and adaptive practices.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eCodes were then organised into broader themes and sub-themes through an iterative process of comparison, refinement, and abstraction. Throughout the analysis, emerging themes were continually checked against the original data to ensure coherence and credibility. The final thematic structure was interpreted in relation to the study\u0026rsquo;s theoretical framework, enabling theoretically informed insights rather than purely descriptive reporting. Representative verbatim quotations were used to substantiate interpretations and preserve participants\u0026rsquo; voices.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAnalysis proceeded abductively, moving iteratively between inductive coding of lived experiences and deductive engagement with the study\u0026rsquo;s theoretical framework, enabling the development of analytically abstracted themes that extend beyond individual cases.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec16\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eTrustworthiness and Rigour\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe study employed multiple strategies to enhance trustworthiness, consistent with established qualitative quality criteria (Lincoln \u0026amp; Guba, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1985\u003c/span\u003e). Credibility was strengthened through member checking, whereby participants reviewed and confirmed the accuracy of interview transcripts and preliminary interpretations. An audit trail was maintained to document methodological decisions, analytic processes, and theme development, thereby enhancing dependability and transparency.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThick description and the use of illustrative quotations support transferability by enabling readers to assess the relevance of the findings to similar contexts. Reflexive engagement throughout the research process further enhanced confirmability by making the researchers\u0026rsquo; interpretive positions explicit.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec17\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003ePositionality Statement\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe researchers occupy a dual positionality as both scholars of higher education and active postgraduate supervisors within one of the participating universities. This positionality afforded insider knowledge of institutional processes, supervisory norms, and cultural dynamics shaping postgraduate education in Ghana. At the same time, it presented the risk of assuming shared understandings or normalising systemic challenges encountered in supervisory practice.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eTo address this, the researchers adopted a reflexive stance grounded in bracketing, consciously setting aside prior experiences and assumptions during data collection and analysis. A reflexive journal was maintained throughout the research process to document evolving interpretations, emotional responses, and potential biases. This practice enabled ongoing interrogation of how the researchers\u0026rsquo; positions might shape interactions with participants and analytical decisions.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eDuring interviews, the researchers prioritised open-ended, non-leading questions and actively encouraged participants to articulate perspectives that diverged from the researchers\u0026rsquo; own experiences. Analytical interpretations were repeatedly cross-checked against participants\u0026rsquo; narratives to ensure that findings reflected participants\u0026rsquo; meanings rather than institutional or personal assumptions. This reflexive approach strengthened the interpretive integrity of the study and aligned with best practices in phenomenological research.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec18\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eEthical Considerations\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cstrong\u003eEthical approval\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cp\u003efor the study was obtained from the Institutional Review Board of the University of Education, Winneba. All procedures complied with internationally accepted ethical standards for research involving human participants. Informed consent was obtained before participation, with participants fully briefed on the study\u0026rsquo;s purpose, voluntary nature, potential risks, and their right to withdraw at any stage without consequence.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eConfidentiality and anonymity were ensured through the use of pseudonyms and secure data storage. Given the potential sensitivity of discussing supervision experiences and power relations, interviews were conducted with care, participants were monitored for discomfort, and debriefing was provided where necessary.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e "},{"header":"Findings","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec19\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis section presents the empirical findings on how supervision gaps manifest in Ghanaian public universities and how postgraduate students and supervisors adapt to these challenges. Three interrelated themes emerged from the data: (1) institutional and systemic attributions, (2) adaptive, coping, and resilience dimensions, and (3) pathways for supervisory reform and innovation. Together, these themes reveal that supervision challenges are structurally embedded while also highlighting contextually grounded responses that sustain postgraduate progress in resource-limited settings.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eTable\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e presents a theory-aligned summary of the key themes, analytical sub-themes, and illustrative participant quotations that underpin the findings discussed below.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab1\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 1\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eThemes, Theory-Aligned Sub-themes, and Illustrative Verbatim Quotes\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"4\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTheme\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTheory Lens\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSub-theme (Analytical Focus)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eIllustrative Verbatim Quotes\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eInstitutional and Systemic Attributions\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eOT\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eAbsence of supervision quality frameworks and accountability systems\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026ldquo;Measuring quality is the problem. Now we operate with GTEC standards, but no, we do not have any quality indicator.\" P22 (a supervisor)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eOT\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eGovernance and regulatory constraints (centralised admissions, bureaucracy)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\"The central administration handles admissions without involving lecturers\u0026hellip; GTEC determines it\u0026hellip;\" P22 (a supervisor)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eRT\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eRole ambiguity arising from unclear supervision policies\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\"In the institution, I do not really know, but with my supervisor, there are no guidelines.\" P7 (a master\u0026rsquo;s student)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eRT\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eHierarchical supervision culture and constrained student agency\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026ldquo;Students are sceptical about accessing them for fear of victimisation\u0026hellip;\" P19 (a PhD student)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eSET\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eImbalanced exchange: low remuneration, high workload, supervisor demotivation\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\"We prefer to assess thesis rather than to supervise these\u0026hellip; Yet that one, they pay you less.\" P22 (a supervisor)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eSET\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eResource inequities undermining reciprocity (databases, research centres)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\"There are some critical databases, such as Scopus, that we do not have access to.\" P27 (a supervisor)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eAdaptive, Coping, and Resilience Dimensions\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eSET\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePeer-based academic exchange as compensatory support\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026ldquo;I also talk to other lecturers to go through my work\u0026hellip;\u0026rdquo; P12 (a PhD student)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eRT\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSelf-directed learning in response to role ambiguity\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026ldquo;Sometimes you just have to figure things out yourself\u0026hellip; I read widely and watch online tutorials.\u0026rdquo; P13 (a PhD student)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eSET\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eEmotional reciprocity and peer motivation\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026ldquo;When I feel stuck, I talk to friends\u0026hellip; they encourage me not to give up.\u0026rdquo; P6 (a master's student)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eOT\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eInformal flexibility in supervision arrangements\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\"We do not have fixed meetings\u0026hellip; I just call when I need help.\" P1 (a master\u0026rsquo;s student)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eRT / SET\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eIndependence as both empowerment and risk\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026ldquo;It helped me to be on my toes\u0026hellip; But the weaknesses\u0026hellip; some errors made by me might not be detected.\u0026rdquo; P11 (a PhD student)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eSET\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eResilience as a substitute for institutional support\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\"The PhD journey is not about intelligence. It is about resilience.\" P18 (a PhD student)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003ePathways for Supervisory Reform and Innovation\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eOT\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eDigital and infrastructural reforms (online supervision)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\"If we can also adapt online more, it will help\u0026hellip;\" P11 (a PhD student)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eRT\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eStructured supervisory training and role clarification\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026ldquo;Training for anyone who is in a position to supervise\u0026hellip; would be helpful.\" P12 (a PhD student)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eSET\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eFormalising peer review and collaborative exchange\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026ldquo;If students can also contact other supervisors or colleagues in a formalised manner, it will help\u0026hellip;\u0026rdquo; P17 (a PhD student)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eOT / RT\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eStudent-centred supervisor allocation and consultative governance\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\"Students should be allowed to recommend at least one supervisor\u0026hellip;\" P21 (a supervisor)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eOT\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eResearch infrastructure and spaces to reduce isolation\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026ldquo;There should be more research rooms or offices\u0026hellip;\u0026rdquo; P14 (a PhD student)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eRT / SET\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSupervision as mentorship rather than transactional control\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026ldquo;There should teach us to get the student involved\u0026hellip; Then the student can learn something.\" (Interviewee)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec20\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eInstitutional and Systemic attributions\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis theme explores how organisational structures and broader societal systems shape individual behaviours and outcomes. Rather than attributing challenges solely to individual actions, this perspective highlights the significant role that established institutions and systemic factors play in influencing experiences.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eParticipants explained the absence of quality indicators for supervision. The majority of the supervisors acknowledge the lack of clear metrics for assessing supervisory quality. They explained that completion rates and timelines are contested, and publication output is suggested but not implemented. One of the participants explained that:\u003cdiv class=\"BlockQuote\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u0026ldquo;Measuring quality is the problem. Now we operate with GTEC standards, but no, we do not have any quality indicator.\" P22 (a supervisor)\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThis highlights a systemic gap in quality assurance: the absence of institutional systems reflects deeper cultural and structural limitations, underscoring the need for context-sensitive quality frameworks.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eOthers also explained that there are no clear institutional policies guiding supervisors. Some participants said:\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\"In the institution, I do not really know, but with my supervisor, there are no guidelines.\" P7 (a master\u0026rsquo;s student)\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\"The only thing is, before you come, call me to pre-inform me, that is the only thing.\" P22 (a supervisor)\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThis suggests how the absence of formal guidelines creates role ambiguity, leading to inconsistent supervisory practices. This lack of institutional structure may undermine accountability and quality assurance in postgraduate supervision.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eOther student participants explained that although they believe formal policies exist, are not widely known, or are not widely enforced, supervision largely depends on individual discretion. Some of them said:\u003cdiv class=\"BlockQuote\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\"There may be. I have not come across any yet, but I have observed that it is usually at the discretion of the supervisor.\" P5 (a master's student)\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\"Yes, four progress reports before your final thesis defence. That is what the faculty requires. But for individual supervisors, it depends on the availability of both the student and the lecturer.\" P16 (a PhD student)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe quotes imply how the lack of clarity creates systemic ambiguity in roles and responsibilities. The quotes reveal that institutional culture in Ghanaian higher education may prioritise flexibility over formalisation, which could impact research quality and student satisfaction. This reveals an institutional vacuum in the implementation of supervision policy, impacting consistency and accountability.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eSupervisors perceive a significant gap in student readiness for postgraduate research, noting that many students lack foundational skills and rely excessively on supervisors for basic tasks. Some of the participants said:\u003cdiv class=\"BlockQuote\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\"They do not add, they only take\u0026hellip; Ideally, you are supposed to be co-creators of knowledge\u0026hellip; But this time around, we have groups of students who offer nothing\u0026hellip; Some even come to your office, secretly recording.\" P24(a supervisor)\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\"The system should create room for students to do serious\u0026hellip; before supervision so that at the proposal stage\u0026hellip; we know whether this student is ready for research. Try to develop a template in the form of a contract indicating each chapter\u0026hellip; deadlines\u0026hellip; both of you will sign.\" P21(a supervisor )\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe quotes introduce a readiness-based supervision model for Ghanaian higher education, emphasising pre-admission screening and structured agreements. This reflects Social Exchange Theory, where supervisors perceive an imbalance in the knowledge exchange process; students \"take\" without contributing. The proposed contractual approach signals an attempt to formalise expectations and restore reciprocity. This approach is rarely documented in African contexts and offers a practical solution to mitigate quality concerns.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe majority of supervisors identify structural constraints, such as centralised admissions, as significant barriers to effective supervision. Some of them explained as:\u003cdiv class=\"BlockQuote\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\"In advanced countries\u0026hellip; before you will be admitted, you should have gotten a faculty member who has agreed to supervise you\u0026hellip; But here, the central administration handles admissions without involving lecturers. The university does not determine the number of admissions. GTEC determines it\u0026hellip; Universities are just to go by the rules of GTEC and the ministry.\u0026rdquo; P22 (a supervisor)\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThis suggests that systemic practices such as centralised admissions are artefacts of governance structures that fail to prioritise quality supervision. The comparison with advanced countries underscores the absence of relational alignment in admissions, which could otherwise foster better supervisor-student fit. This finding introduces a structural governance critique: Ghanaian higher education supervision is constrained by external regulatory mandates (GTEC and Ministry of Education), creating a mismatch between enrollment targets and supervisory capacity.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eSupervisors\u0026rsquo; motivation is affected by inadequate pay. The majority of the supervisors express strong dissatisfaction with remuneration, which significantly demotivates engagement in supervision. Many prefer assessment roles to supervision because of higher pay and a lower time commitment. One of them said:\u003cdiv class=\"BlockQuote\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\"We prefer to assess thesis rather than to supervise these\u0026hellip; Because we are working for money. The amount of time you spend on supervision is far more than the time you will spend on assessments\u0026hellip; Yet that one, they pay you less.\" P22 a supervisor\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis finding introduces a critical economic dimension to supervisory effectiveness, highlighting how financial disincentives and workload inequities shape faculty attitudes toward supervision. This theme reflects Social Exchange Theory, as supervisors weigh costs and benefits in their engagement. The imbalance between effort and reward creates a negative exchange dynamic, reducing motivation and potentially compromising quality.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eSupervisors juggle heavy teaching loads and multiple students, limiting their ability to provide timely and thorough feedback. One supervisor had this to say:\u003cdiv class=\"BlockQuote\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\"Within four years, I will be supervising 50-something students\u0026hellip; So when some of the students come to you, you will be like I do not know you.\" P24 (Supervisor)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe quote introduces the concept of the feedback quality trade-off; supervisors either rush reviews or delay them, both of which compromise student progress.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIt became evident from participants' responses that bureaucratic delays in issuing data-collection letters, rigid regulatory frameworks, and IRB delays hinder timely progress. Some of them explained that:\u003cdiv class=\"BlockQuote\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u0026ldquo;When a student is applying for ethical clearance\u0026hellip; it takes not less than eight months\u0026hellip; But admission takes less than three months.\u0026rdquo; P21 (Supervisor)\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u0026ldquo;You apply for an introductory letter\u0026hellip; It takes so many months before you get it\u0026hellip; Or you do not even hear from the department.\u0026rdquo; P12 (a PhD student)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe insight that ethical clearance delays exceed admission timelines reveals a misaligned prioritisation within institutional processes. This reveals how systemic delays, especially IRB clearance, impact research timelines, even after decentralisation. This positions administrative responsiveness as a critical enabler of effective supervision, an aspect often overlooked in the literature.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eHowever, an institutional head explained that although ethics approval delays occur, the responsibility lies outside the university, limiting institutional control. One of them explained that:\u003cdiv class=\"BlockQuote\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\"The university does not necessarily give ethics approval\u0026hellip; The university just helps with introductory letters\u0026hellip; Ethics committees have schedules for meetings.\" P29 (an institutional head)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe quote reframes administrative delay as an inter-institutional challenge rather than an internal inefficiency, highlighting the need for collaborative solutions.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eSome students also commented about the institutional timing of supervisor assignment. They explained that late supervisor assignment undermines rapport and early guidance. One of them said:\u003cdiv class=\"BlockQuote\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u0026ldquo;If supervisors are given to us at the beginning\u0026hellip; It will really help\u0026hellip; Just get to know your supervisor and all of those things.\u0026rdquo; P 7 (Master's student)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis shows how delayed assignment creates role ambiguity and weakens early-stage support.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis suggests a culturally adaptive solution to early supervisor allocation for rapport-building, rather than current norms.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe majority of the participants also explained how accountability mechanisms are weak. An institutional head explained that reporting is annual rather than continuous, and progress reports lack formal integration into supervision processes. One of them said:\u003cdiv class=\"BlockQuote\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\"Another major weakness is low accountability\u0026hellip; Ideally, a supervisor should report to the department head at least once per semester\u0026hellip; But the current system does not have it. Progress reports are a form of accountability\u0026hellip; but it can be improved if there is a much more detailed reporting system.\" P30 (an institutional head)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis introduces the concept of \u0026ldquo;process accountability\u0026rdquo;; quality supervision is not just about outcomes but continuous engagement, which is largely absent in the current system. This quote shows how institutional artefacts (annual appraisals) fail to enforce real-time accountability.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe student participants perceived minimal institutional support and unclear administrative processes. Departments also provided minimal structured support for supervisors and students. While some participants explained that occasional workshops exist, others explained the absence of support. This was explained by one participant, who said:\u003cdiv class=\"BlockQuote\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\"For my department, they do nothing\u0026hellip; I do not see any support\u0026hellip; Even in other departments, I hear their students are taking time for a pre-submission defence, which is really good. But I do not know why the department is not doing it.\u0026rdquo; P11 (a PhD student)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eA supervisor expressed similar concerns by commenting that: \u003cem\u003e\"There are no rigorous ways that you have to do this, you have to do that.\"\u003c/em\u003e \u0026ndash; P27, a supervisor.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis highlights fragmented support systems; some departments innovate (progress reports, defences), others do nothing, creating inequity. This finding underscores the institutional vacuum in postgraduate supervision, which contrasts with global best practices emphasising structured support systems. This undermines supervisory effectiveness and creates reliance on informal networks.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAll the institutional heads explained that students expressed limited engagement with institutional research programs. They explained that research workshops exist but that students rarely attend, attributing this to a lack of seriousness. One of them said that:\u003cdiv class=\"BlockQuote\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eEven when we organise research programmes and workshops, few students show interest and participate. The PhD students show less interest than the master's students. P 29 (an institutional head)\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eStudents acknowledge that research programs exist, but rarely attend due to poor communication and scheduling. One student confirmed this by saying that:\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\"Personally, I have not really been\u0026hellip; By the time I realised the date had passed.\" P4 (a master\u0026rsquo;s student)\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\"They organise many research programs\u0026hellip; Personally, I have not really been\u0026hellip; By the time I realised the date had passed.\" P23 (a PhD student\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe quotes highlight the gap between institutional intentions (programs offered) and actual student participation, revealing a disconnect in implementation. The lack of clear communication about institutional roles and responsibilities creates confusion and missed opportunities.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eSome participants expressed concerns about equity in the allocation of supervisors. Students perceive inequity in the distribution of supervisor workload. Participant 5, a PhD student, said: \u003cem\u003e\u0026ldquo;I think\u0026hellip; based on the topic that they choose, they may be biased in allocation\u0026hellip; So definitely there can be equity issues.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/em\u003e This raises equity as a systemic issue in Ghanaian higher education supervision, which is rarely addressed in existing literature.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eSupervisors often lack structured training on how to engage students and provide constructive feedback. One supervisor commented that:\u003cdiv class=\"BlockQuote\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\"When you are on board as a supervisor\u0026hellip; You should be going through some training on how that engagement should be\u0026hellip; It is not enough to give research guidelines\u0026hellip; The how of it should be planned for.\u0026rdquo; P26 (a supervisor)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe emphasis on interactional competence training supervisors in communication and feedback delivery adds a new dimension to quality assurance in supervision.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eStudents perceive supervision as hierarchical and recommend assertiveness to counteract the boss-servant dynamic. One of them said:\u003cdiv class=\"BlockQuote\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\"In our context, that boss-servant interaction stays with us even at this level\u0026hellip; You should also be assertive and be confident in your engagements.\" P20 (a PhD student)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis strongly reflects Role Theory, where cultural norms shape role expectations, reinforcing hierarchy. The participant explicitly calls for cultural reorientation through supervisor training to foster collaboration rather than dominance.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe majority of the students expressed fear of victimisation. The students hesitate to request supervisor changes due to fear of victimisation, even when prior relationships were problematic. Although formal channels exist for addressing supervisory challenges through the PhD coordinator, students hesitate to use them for fear of damaging relationships or being victimised. Some of them said:\u003cdiv class=\"BlockQuote\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\"There are people who maybe had their master's, and now are doing a PhD\u0026hellip; They wish they did not have to work with [certain supervisors]\u0026hellip; but they have not explored it for fear of victimisation.\" P11 (a PhD student)\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u0026ldquo;Students are sceptical about accessing them for fear of victimisation\u0026hellip; What you may share in confidence may not stay confidential.\" P19 (a PhD student)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis reflects how hierarchical norms and power dynamics discourage students from exercising formal rights. The quotes introduce psychological barriers to policy utilisation, showing that formal rights (e.g., changing supervisors) are ineffective without cultural change. This suggests that formal structures fail without cultural safeguards for confidentiality and fairness.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eSome supervisors expressed concern about workload, which affects the quality time they spend with their students. One of them said:\u003cdiv class=\"BlockQuote\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\"We teach during the week and then also on the weekend\u0026hellip; and even during vacation\u0026hellip; When you add the master's and doctoral supervision\u0026hellip; It makes it more burdensome.\" P12 (a PhD student)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eSome supervisors perceive supervision as stressful and professionally unrewarding, with minimal contribution to their academic growth due to the workload. One of them said:\u003cdiv class=\"BlockQuote\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\"It only gives me stress. The kind of students that we have are not adding anything to our development.\" P26 (a supervisor)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe explicit framing of supervision as a stress-inducing obligation rather than a developmental opportunity adds a critical dimension to debates on faculty motivation and retention in postgraduate education. This sentiment reinforces Social Exchange Theory, which holds that perceived costs (stress, time) outweigh the benefits (academic advancement), leading to disengagement.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe majority of the supervisors reported limited access to research databases as a significant systemic challenge. One of them said:\u003cdiv class=\"BlockQuote\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\"My university\u0026hellip; has access to a few databases\u0026hellip; But there are some critical databases, such as Scopus, that we do not have access to. Other supervisors in advanced institutions have all these opportunities with ease,\" P27 (a supervisor)\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e \u003cem\u003e\u0026ldquo;\u003c/em\u003eWe do not have any centre\u0026hellip; At some other universities, there is a writing centre\u0026hellip; or a data centre\u0026hellip; My university lacks such centres.\u0026rdquo; P22 (a supervisor)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe finding introduces a structural inequity perspective that variations in resource access across institutions create uneven supervisory experiences.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe majority of supervisors express scepticism about department-led progress reports, arguing that such mechanisms can create confusion when comments conflict with their guidance. They recommend supervisor-led progress reporting to maintain authority and coherence. Some of them had this to say:\u003cdiv class=\"BlockQuote\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u0026ldquo;If the department does a progress report and the supervisor disagrees with that comment\u0026hellip; The student will be confused.\" P26 (a supervisor)\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\"Progress reports should be organised by the supervisor\u0026hellip; so that the supervisor will be the chair.\" P21 (a supervisor)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThese quotes highlight a cultural preference for supervisor-centric governance in progress monitoring, contrasting with collaborative models in Western contexts. This insight underscores the importance of culturally sensitive reforms in supervision practices.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eSome supervisors believe the current system is fundamentally sound but constrained by resource and logistical limitations. Suggested improvements focus on infrastructure (internet access), institutional journals, and the adoption of publication-based graduation requirements, provided resources are available. They said:\u003cdiv class=\"BlockQuote\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e \u003cem\u003e\u0026ldquo;\u003c/em\u003eThe system we have, I do not see any problem. It is good just that we have resource and logistic challenges\u0026hellip; If there are resources, for example, if we have a good internet system, it is a matter of meeting the student through Zoom.\" P22 (a supervisor)\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\"The publication system would have been the best for us\u0026hellip; But you cannot tell a student to publish before you graduate, when you have not made journals accessible to the student.\" P27 (a supervisor)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe finding introduces a conditional innovation perspective: supervisors are open to adopting global best practices (publication-based graduation, digital supervision), but they highlight structural prerequisites and the lack of reciprocal institutional support (e.g., journals). This nuance challenges simplistic policy recommendations and underscores the need for resource-sensitive reforms.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eSome supervisors expressed concerns about transparency and abuse of discretion, characterising the supervision process. One participant warns that excessive discretion in allocation and evaluation processes can lead to abuse, favouritism, and inconsistent treatment of students. The participant commented that:\u003cdiv class=\"BlockQuote\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e \u003cem\u003e\u0026ldquo;\u003c/em\u003eThe process is sometimes subject to abuse\u0026hellip; I have witnessed people settling personal scores with colleagues over students who are not supposed to be part of it\u0026hellip; that is why I have talked about a much more detailed, transparent system and accountability.\" P26 (a supervisor)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis quote implies that hierarchical structures and opaque processes enable discretionary abuse. The explicit link between discretionary power and systemic abuse adds a critical governance dimension to supervision discourse, highlighting the need for transparency reforms in African higher education.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eOthers also mentioned irregular meetings, which are infrequent and lack formal scheduling. Some said: \u003cem\u003e\"The structure, I do not know the structure, but the frequency, it is not often.\"\u003c/em\u003e \u0026ndash; P8 (a master's student). Role Theory shows that role ambiguity, when students are unsure of expectations, suggests that inconsistent interactions weaken trust and reciprocity. The quotes reveal systemic informality in supervision, in contrast to structured models in other regions.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIt was evident from the responses that faculty progress reports sometimes involve reviewers who are not the student\u0026rsquo;s direct supervisor, creating conflicting directions. One PhD student had this to say:\u003cdiv class=\"BlockQuote\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\"Sometimes people who are not your direct supervisors review your work, and you are required to address their comments. It can be tiring and may not align with your supervisor's direction.\u0026rdquo; P21 (a PhD student)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis suggests that conflicting feedback creates role conflict and ambiguity for students. It also reveals a fragmented culture where multiple actors intervene without coordination. Students perceive low reciprocity when extra effort does not align with their supervisor\u0026rsquo;s expectations.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eOther supervisors acknowledge the availability of digital tools but report low usage, citing insufficient training and reliance on traditional methods. One said:\u003cdiv class=\"BlockQuote\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\"It is not a lack of technology, but a lack of usage\u0026hellip; Microsoft Word has a review in it\u0026hellip; How many supervisors are aware of it? The overwhelming majority are using the traditional method\u0026hellip; print, cancel, underline\u0026hellip; It does not help to track changes.\" P28 (a supervisor)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe finding reveals a competency gap: digital resources exist but are underutilised due to inadequate training, thereby missing an opportunity to improve supervision efficiency. This underscores a digital divide in supervisory practices, revealing how infrastructural fragility, not resistance to change, limits technology adoption in African higher education.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec21\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eAdaptive, Coping, and Resilience Dimensions\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis theme presents the diverse ways in which resilience is demonstrated by postgraduate students and supervisors in Ghana's higher education, alongside the coping mechanisms they adopt to navigate supervision gaps.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003ePeer and informal support networks emerged as coping strategies. Students frequently compensate for supervisory gaps by seeking feedback from peers and other faculty members. This informal network serves as a critical coping mechanism in the absence of structured departmental support. One of them said:\u003cdiv class=\"BlockQuote\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u0026ldquo;I also talk to other lecturers to go through my work\u0026hellip; sometimes I also contact other colleagues to read my work\u0026hellip;\u0026rdquo; P12 (a PhD student)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis finding reveals an adaptive strategy that could be institutionalised through peer-review systems or departmental support groups, offering a scalable model for resource-constrained contexts globally.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eResilience through self-directed learning and independence also emerged in participants' responses. Students demonstrate resilience by adopting self-learning strategies, including extensive reading and online tutorials, to overcome limited supervisory engagement. One participant explained that:\u003cdiv class=\"BlockQuote\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u0026ldquo;Sometimes you just have to figure things out yourself\u0026hellip; I read widely and watch online tutorials.\u0026rdquo; P13 (a PhD student)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis quote highlights resilience as a core competency in African postgraduate education, suggesting global relevance for resilience-based training programs.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eBoth students and supervisors adopt flexible meeting arrangements to cope with workload pressures and bureaucratic delays. One of them explained that.\u003cdiv class=\"BlockQuote\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\"We do not have fixed meetings\u0026hellip; I just call when I need help.\" \u0026ndash; P1 (a master\u0026rsquo;s student)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis quote points to the need for structured flexibility in supervisory models, integrating informal access with formal accountability, a concept applicable to diverse higher education systems.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eSupervisors manage high workloads by prioritising students nearing submission and delegating minor reviews to colleagues. One of them said that:\u003cdiv class=\"BlockQuote\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\"I manage by prioritising students who are closer to submission\u0026hellip; sometimes I delegate minor reviews to friends.\u0026rdquo; P27 (a supervisor)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe quote uncovers informal delegation practices that could evolve into team-based supervision frameworks, promoting collaborative culture in global academia.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eStudents rely on emotional support from peers to sustain motivation during challenging phases. One of them said:\u003cdiv class=\"BlockQuote\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u0026ldquo;When I feel stuck, I talk to friends\u0026hellip; they encourage me not to give up.\u0026rdquo; P6 (a master's student)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis quote frames this as emotional coping that reinforces persistence. This suggests integrating mental health and peer-support programs into postgraduate supervision systems, a practice with global applicability.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eStudents frequently described independence as both an empowering and precarious coping mechanism. Independence emerges as a coping strategy in contexts where supervisory roles are ambiguous or inconsistent. While autonomy enabled personal growth and confidence, it also introduced risks such as undetected errors and reduced quality assurance. One of them said:\u003cdiv class=\"BlockQuote\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u0026ldquo;It helped me to be on my toes\u0026hellip; becoming independent\u0026hellip; But the weaknesses\u0026hellip; some errors made by me might not be detected.\u0026rdquo; P11 (a PhD student)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis nuanced view of independence as both empowering and risky adds depth to global debates on supervisory models in resource-limited contexts. It challenges the assumption that autonomy is universally positive, highlighting the need for structured independence supported by periodic quality checks.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eParticipants consistently framed success in PhD supervision not as a function of intelligence but as a measure of resilience and emotional endurance. Supervisors reinforced this perspective, emphasising persistence over cognitive ability. One participant said:\u003cdiv class=\"BlockQuote\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\"One thing my supervisor tells me is that the PhD journey is not about intelligence. It is about resilience.\" \u0026ndash; P18 (a PhD student)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe quote suggests that persistence and adaptability sustain the student-supervisor relationship despite systemic challenges, creating a reciprocal dynamic where effort substitutes for structural support. This insight reframes PhD success metrics in Ghanaian universities, shifting emphasis from intellectual capacity to resilience as a survival skill. Globally, these challenges dominate narratives of academic excellence and introduce a culturally grounded lens for evaluating doctoral progress in resource-limited contexts.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eGroup communication as an equity coping mechanism emerged. Students and supervisors adopt group communication strategies such as WhatsApp groups or joint email threads to coordinate feedback among multiple supervisors. This approach is perceived as a way to ensure fairness and transparency in supervisory input. One participant said:\u003cdiv class=\"BlockQuote\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u0026ldquo;We created a WhatsApp group with all supervisors\u0026hellip; It helps because everyone sees the comments and no one feels left out.\u0026rdquo; P16 (a PhD student)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis quote introduces group communication as an equity mechanism that ensures balanced input and reduces power asymmetries in multi-supervisor contexts. It suggests institutionalising digital group platforms for supervisory coordination a scalable innovation for resource-limited higher education systems globally. Group communication reduces ambiguity in multi-supervisor arrangements by clarifying roles and expectations, reflecting an emerging culture of collaborative supervision rather than hierarchical, siloed practices.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eInstitutions aim to bridge supervision gaps through capacity-building initiatives, such as workshops and symposia, for both students and supervisors. The students' association offer occasional interventions aimed at strengthening research skills and clarifying expectations. One of them said:\u003cdiv class=\"BlockQuote\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\"GRASAG also organises symposia on thesis writing and proposal development. Both students and supervisors attend it is beneficial.\" P12 (a PhD student)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis finding demonstrates the positive impact of institutional interventions through postgraduate students\u0026rsquo; associations in Ghanaian higher education, though participation and impact vary. It suggests that scaling these initiatives and integrating them into formal supervision frameworks could enhance consistency and accountability. Globally, this offers a model for resource-limited contexts where informal coping dominates.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec22\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003ePathways for Supervisory Reform and Innovation\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe majority of the student participants recommend adopting online supervision to reduce travel burdens. One of them said:\u003cdiv class=\"BlockQuote\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\"If we can also adapt online more, it will help\u0026hellip; Last semester, a student left the Volta region\u0026hellip; came, and the lecturer was not available.\" P11 (a PhD student)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis quote introduces a practical, context-sensitive solution for Ghanaian institutions, especially for geographically dispersed students.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe participant recommends structured training for supervisors and standardised models to reduce inconsistencies and conflicts among multiple supervisors. One of them said:\u003cdiv class=\"BlockQuote\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u0026ldquo;Training for anyone who is in a position to supervise\u0026hellip; Trained on specific models that the institution wants to use\u0026hellip; When there are standardised approaches in place, it would be helpful.\" P12 (a PhD student)\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThis reflects advocating for cultural transformation through capacity building and procedural clarity. The call for standardising supervisory models offers a systemic solution to mitigate conflicts and ensure equity across programs.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eSome students also recommended formalising peer-review groups and departmental mentorship circles to supplement supervisor input. One of them said:\u003cdiv class=\"BlockQuote\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u0026ldquo;If students can also contact other supervisors or colleagues in a formalised manner, it will help\u0026hellip;\u0026rdquo; P17 (a PhD student)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis implies building a collaborative network that distributes support equitably. This suggests that converting coping strategies into formal systems, reducing isolation and improving feedback quality.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe majority of participants emphasise that improving supervision requires cultural and structural reforms at the institutional level, including clear timelines, communication channels, and accountability systems. Some of them explained that:\u003cdiv class=\"BlockQuote\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u0026ldquo;They have to start with the institutional culture\u0026hellip; We must make deliberate efforts to outline issues that, when addressed, will improve\u0026hellip; timelines, clear communication channels, and training for faculty.\u0026rdquo; P22 (a supervisor)\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\"Supervisors should be accountable to their heads of department\u0026hellip; progress reports must be discussed and feedback given.\" P24(a supervisor)\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e. This approach challenges entrenched hierarchical practices and offers a culturally sensitive pathway to enhance supervisory effectiveness.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eSome participants strongly advocate a shift from hierarchical, entitlement-driven allocation to a consultative, student-centred model in which students and supervisors negotiate based on research interests and willingness to supervise. Some of them said:\u003cdiv class=\"BlockQuote\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\"Students should be allowed to recommend at least one supervisor\u0026hellip; The current system is too much at the discretion of just one person.\" P21(a supervisor)\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\"If a supervisor is just somewhere and suddenly you get a letter that this student has been assigned to you\u0026hellip; You do not even understand it\u0026hellip; That is why the supervising process becomes frustrating.\" P25(a supervisor)\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\"Everything is about student-centred\u0026hellip; If we start with teacher-centred approaches when it comes to supervision, then we are really not improving.\u0026rdquo; P22 (a supervisor)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe recommendation to institutionalise student choice and supervisor consent introduces a participatory governance model rarely documented in Ghanaian higher education. Linking this to global best practices, the participant argues that student-centred allocation enhances equity and reduces frustration, challenging traditional teacher-centred paradigms.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eSome participants commented that institutions should adopt models in which students select supervisors during the application process based on research alignment. One of them said that:\u003cdiv class=\"BlockQuote\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e \u003cem\u003e\u0026ldquo;\u003c/em\u003eOther institutions\u0026hellip; when you apply, you write a short proposal and then you have to go through the website and get a professor you feel you can work with\u0026hellip; If that model can be adopted, it will really help us from the beginning.\u0026rdquo; P13 (a PhD student)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis suggests integrating supervisor selection into admission processes, a structural shift that promotes early rapport and student-centeredness.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eOthers mentioned that institutions should integrate global models, such as requiring publications, conference presentations, and dedicated research spaces. One of them said:\u003cdiv class=\"BlockQuote\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\"A friend abroad said, during his PhD process, he has to publish some articles\u0026hellip; attend a conference\u0026hellip; They give them spaces provided for them to come and do their research; we can equally adopt this.\u0026rdquo; P18 (a PhD student)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis suggests that physical and intellectual infrastructure should be part of supervision, rarely emphasised in Ghanaian postgraduate systems.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eSome participants commented that providing research rooms with resources (computers, desks) for postgraduate students would help maintain focus and reduce academic isolation. One participant commented that:\u003cdiv class=\"BlockQuote\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u0026ldquo;There should be more research rooms or offices, sort of a conference centre for students\u0026hellip; so that we can go there and continue with the research. Because all I have been left alone to do is the research.\u0026rdquo; P14 (a PhD student)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis positions anti-isolation infrastructure as a cultural artefact to sustain motivation.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eSome students suggested that supervisors should teach and guide students through the research process rather than demand outputs. One of them said that:\u003cdiv class=\"BlockQuote\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u0026ldquo;There should teach us to get the student involved\u0026hellip; not just say go bring this, go bring that\u0026hellip; Then the student can learn something.\" (Interviewee)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis quote positions supervision as a form of mentorship and capacity-building rather than transactional oversight.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"Discussion","content":"\u003cp\u003eConsistent with the study\u0026rsquo;s interpretive-abductive orientation, these findings are discussed not as isolated subjective accounts but as empirically grounded insights into the institutional, cultural, and relational conditions shaping postgraduate supervision.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis study advances postgraduate supervision scholarship by theorising supervision gaps as structurally produced, culturally mediated, and relationally negotiated phenomena, rather than as isolated failures of supervisors or students. By integrating organisational theory, role theory, and social exchange theory, the study provides a multi-level explanatory framework that captures how supervision practices are shaped by institutional arrangements, cultural norms, and exchange relationships within resource-constrained higher education systems. In doing so, it responds to calls for more theoretically grounded and context-sensitive analyses of doctoral supervision beyond well-resourced Western settings (Manathunga, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e; Morley et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR24\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e; Tight, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR40\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec24\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eOrganisational Theory: Supervision Gaps as Institutional Artefacts\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eFrom an organisational theory perspective, the findings demonstrate that supervision gaps are best understood as institutional artefacts arising from weak process accountability, misaligned incentive structures, and loose coupling between policy and practice (Scott, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR31\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e; Scott \u0026amp; Davis, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR32\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e). The absence of clear supervision quality indicators and the dominance of outcome-based metrics such as completion timelines echo concerns raised in international literature that supervision quality is often evaluated retrospectively, obscuring the relational and temporal nature of supervisory work (Halse \u0026amp; Malfroy, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2010\u003c/span\u003e; McAlpine \u0026amp; McKinnon, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR23\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe Ghanaian case extends organisational theory by illustrating how externally imposed regulatory regimes, particularly centralised admissions and enrolment targets, reshape internal supervision dynamics. While massification has been widely documented as a global phenomenon (Marginson, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR22\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e), this study empirically demonstrates how regulation-driven expansion intensifies supervision gaps when institutional autonomy over admissions and workload allocation is constrained. Similar tensions between regulation and academic capacity have been observed in other African contexts (Teferra, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR38\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e; Teferra \u0026amp; Knight, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR39\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e), but this study contributes by theorising these tensions as structural contradictions embedded within governance arrangements rather than transitional inefficiencies.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe findings further introduce a distinction between outcome accountability and process accountability in postgraduate supervision. Participants\u0026rsquo; emphasis on the lack of semester-based reporting, feedback monitoring, and continuous oversight aligns with arguments that effective supervision requires ongoing organisational engagement rather than episodic evaluation (Pyh\u0026auml;lt\u0026ouml; et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR27\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e; Tight, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR40\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e). This extends organisational theory by positioning supervision as a form of process-intensive academic labour that is poorly supported by existing managerial frameworks.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec25\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eRole Theory: Cultural Hierarchies and Persistent Role Ambiguity\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eRole theory illuminates how supervision gaps persist even in the presence of formal guidelines. Consistent with Biddle\u0026rsquo;s (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1986\u003c/span\u003e) and Katz and Kahn\u0026rsquo;s (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1978\u003c/span\u003e) foundational work, the findings show that role ambiguity and role conflict are sustained by unclear expectations, inconsistent enforcement, and overlapping authority structures. Students\u0026rsquo; uncertainty regarding supervision frequency, feedback standards, and grievance procedures mirrors patterns reported in other doctoral education studies (Gardner, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2009\u003c/span\u003e; Pyh\u0026auml;lt\u0026ouml; et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR27\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis study advances role theory by foregrounding the role of culturally embedded hierarchies in shaping role enactment. Students\u0026rsquo; fear of victimisation and reluctance to challenge supervisory practices reflect entrenched norms of authority and deference previously documented in African and other hierarchical academic systems (Manathunga, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e; Hlengwa, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e). Even where formal mechanisms for supervisor change exist, anticipated relational consequences inhibit their use, rendering formal role structures symbolically present but functionally weak.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eSupervisors\u0026rsquo; preference for supervisor-centred progress reporting further illustrates how role expectations are mutually reinforced across hierarchical levels. While collaborative and team-based supervision models are widely promoted in Western contexts (Lee et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR18\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e; De Kleijn et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e), the findings caution against their uncritical transfer. Instead, they support calls for culturally adaptive role reconfiguration, where supervision reforms must align with local understandings of authority, expertise, and legitimacy (Wisker \u0026amp; Robinson, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR43\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e). This contributes to role theory by demonstrating that role effectiveness is contingent not only on formal design but also on cultural legitimacy.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec26\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eSocial Exchange Theory: Supervision as a Distorted Exchange Relationship\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eSocial exchange theory offers a relational explanation for supervisory disengagement and student coping. Consistent with Blau (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1964\u003c/span\u003e) and Emerson (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1976\u003c/span\u003e), the findings reveal that supervision operates within a distorted exchange system, characterised by high supervisory costs and low institutional rewards. Supervisors\u0026rsquo; dissatisfaction with remuneration and workload mirrors international evidence that academic labour allocation is shaped by perceived equity and reciprocity (Shore et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR35\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2006\u003c/span\u003e; Cropanzano et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis study extends social exchange theory by demonstrating how institutional reward structures directly shape supervisory behaviour. Supervisors\u0026rsquo; preference for assessment roles over supervision aligns with findings that academics strategically prioritise activities with clearer returns under constrained conditions (Teferra \u0026amp; Knight, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR39\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e; Shin et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR34\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e). Importantly, the study shows that reduced supervisory engagement is not a reflection of diminished professional commitment but a rational response to inequitable exchange arrangements.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eOn the student side, intensified self-reliance, peer collaboration, and emotional coping function as compensatory exchange mechanisms. These findings resonate with research highlighting the emotional and relational dimensions of doctoral persistence (Sverdlik et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR37\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e; Pyh\u0026auml;lt\u0026ouml; et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR28\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e). However, this study advances theory by conceptualising resilience as an exchange substitute: a socially produced response that fills gaps left by weak organisational support. While resilience enables progress, it simultaneously masks systemic deficiencies, echoing critiques that individual coping can inadvertently legitimise institutional underinvestment (Morley et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR24\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec27\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eIntegrative Contribution: Coping as Proto-Institutional Innovation\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eA central theoretical contribution of this study lies in its reconceptualisation of coping strategies as proto-institutional innovations rather than informal survival tactics. Practices such as peer-review networks, group-based digital communication, flexible supervision arrangements, and informal delegation have been observed elsewhere (Lee et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR18\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e; De Kleijn et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e), but this study uniquely positions them as emergent organisational responses to structural constraint.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIntegrating organisational, role, and exchange perspectives, the study demonstrates how adaptive practices arise at the intersection of institutional failure and relational negotiation. Organisational gaps generate role ambiguity; role ambiguity intensifies exchange imbalance; and exchange imbalance stimulates adaptive behaviour. This dynamic process conceptualises supervision as a negotiated social system rather than a fixed institutional function, extending contemporary theorisation of doctoral supervision as relational and emotionally embedded work (Halse \u0026amp; Malfroy, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2010\u003c/span\u003e; Lee et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR18\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec28\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eImplications for Theory Development\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eBeyond the Ghanaian context, this study contributes to international higher education theory by offering a context-sensitive model of supervision under constraint. It challenges universalistic assumptions embedded in dominant supervision frameworks and supports calls for theories that account for governance asymmetries, cultural hierarchies, and distorted exchange relations (Manathunga, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e; Tight, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR40\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e). By foregrounding resilience, reciprocity, and institutional culture, the study reframes supervision quality as an emergent property of higher education ecosystems rather than an attribute of individual capability.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn sum, this study contributes theoretically by (1) conceptualising supervision gaps as institutional artefacts, (2) revealing the cultural persistence of role ambiguity, (3) theorising resilience as an exchange substitute, and (4) reframing coping strategies as foundations for institutional innovation. These contributions extend existing supervision theory and provide a robust analytical framework for understanding postgraduate supervision in resource-constrained higher education systems globally.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"Conclusion","content":"\u003cp\u003eThis study set out to examine how supervision gaps are perceived, attributed, and navigated within Ghanaian public universities, and how these experiences can inform more context-sensitive and globally relevant models of postgraduate supervision. Drawing on organisational theory, role theory, and social exchange theory, the study demonstrates that supervision challenges are not episodic or individualised failures but are institutionally produced, culturally sustained, and relationally negotiated. In doing so, it advances supervision scholarship beyond deficit-oriented explanations and contributes a theoretically integrated account of supervision under structural constraint.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFrom an organisational theory perspective, the findings show that supervision gaps function as institutional artefacts arising from weak process accountability, misaligned incentive systems, and regulatory environments that prioritise enrolment expansion over supervisory capacity (Scott, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR31\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e; Marginson, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR22\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e; Tight, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR40\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e). The study highlights the limits of outcome-based quality indicators and underscores the need to reconceptualise supervision as a form of process-intensive academic labour requiring continuous institutional engagement and monitoring. This reframing extends existing theorisation of supervision quality by foregrounding the organisational conditions under which supervisory relationships are enacted and sustained.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eRole theory further reveals how culturally embedded hierarchies and role ambiguity perpetuate supervision gaps even in the presence of formal policies (Biddle, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1986\u003c/span\u003e; Katz \u0026amp; Kahn, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1978\u003c/span\u003e). Students\u0026rsquo; constrained agency, fear of victimisation, and reluctance to activate formal grievance mechanisms illustrate how informal cultural norms override formal role prescriptions (Manathunga, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e; Hlengwa, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e). At the same time, supervisors\u0026rsquo; preference for supervisor-centred oversight reflects culturally legitimate expectations of authority and expertise. These findings caution against the uncritical transfer of egalitarian supervisory models and instead call for culturally adaptive role reconfiguration in postgraduate supervision reform (Wisker \u0026amp; Robinson, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR43\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThrough the lens of social exchange theory, the study conceptualises supervision as a distorted exchange relationship, shaped by inequitable distributions of effort, reward, and recognition (Blau, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1964\u003c/span\u003e; Cropanzano et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e). Supervisory disengagement emerges as a rational response to high costs and low returns rather than a lack of professional commitment, while students\u0026rsquo; intensified self-reliance and peer collaboration operate as compensatory exchange mechanisms (Teferra \u0026amp; Knight, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR39\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e; Sverdlik et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR37\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e). Importantly, the study theorises resilience as an exchange substitute; a socially produced capacity that sustains doctoral progress in the absence of robust institutional support but simultaneously risks masking systemic deficiencies.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eA central theoretical contribution of this study lies in its reframing of coping strategies as proto-institutional innovations. Adaptive practices such as peer review networks, digital group supervision, flexible meeting arrangements, and informal delegation are not merely survival responses but represent emergent organisational solutions to structural constraint. By integrating organisational, role, and exchange perspectives, the study conceptualises postgraduate supervision as a negotiated social system, continually reconstituted through everyday practices rather than a fixed institutional function. This integrative framing advances existing supervision theory by linking institutional failure, relational negotiation, and adaptive innovation within a single analytical model.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe implications of these theoretical claims extend beyond the Ghanaian context. For policy and practice, the findings underscore the need to move beyond reliance on individual resilience and toward the formal recognition and institutionalisation of effective adaptive practices. Process-oriented supervision indicators, culturally responsive supervisory training, participatory supervisor allocation mechanisms, and structured peer-support systems emerge as critical levers for reform. However, the study cautions that without addressing underlying governance arrangements and incentive structures, such reforms risk reproducing the very inequities they seek to resolve.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis study contributes to global postgraduate supervision scholarship by offering a context-sensitive, theory-driven account of supervision under constraint. By positioning supervision gaps as institutional artefacts, role ambiguity as culturally sustained, resilience as an exchange substitute, and coping as a foundation for institutional learning, the study provides a robust conceptual framework for analysing and reforming postgraduate supervision in resource-constrained higher education systems. Future research should build on this framework through comparative, longitudinal, and policy-oriented studies that further examine how adaptive practices can be translated into sustainable institutional transformation without overburdening individual actors.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003cp\u003e \u003ch2\u003e \u003cb\u003eConflict of interest\u003c/b\u003e:\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe authors have no relevant financial or non-financial interests to disclose\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cstrong\u003eEthics Declaration\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cp\u003eEthical approval for the study was obtained from the Institutional Review Board of the University of Education, Winneba. All procedures complied with internationally accepted ethical standards for research involving human participants.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eFunding:\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eNo funding was received for conducting this study\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eAuthor Contribution\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eEDO -Wrote the methodology and the final draft of the paper.EEY-Wrote the literature and discussion sections of the paper.JON-Wrote the introduction and analysis sections of the paper.All authors reviewed the final manuscript.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eData Availability\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe data supporting the analysis is available upon reasonable request\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAkparep JY, Jengre E, Amoah DA (2017) Demystifying the blame game in the delays of graduation of research students in Universities in Ghana: The case of University for Development Studies. Eur J Bus Innov Res 5(1):34\u0026ndash;50\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAmponsah KD, Mensah RO, Oteng B (2025) Demystifying postgraduate research delays: perceptions of graduate students in selected public university. Policy Reviews High Educ 1\u0026ndash;25. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1080/2332296.2025.2590059\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1080/2332296.2025.2590059\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\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\u003eBiddle BJ (1986) Recent developments in role theory. Ann Rev Sociol 12:67\u0026ndash;92. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.so.12.080186.000435\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1146/annurev.so.12.080186.000435\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBlau PM (1964) Exchange and power in social life. Wiley\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\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCreswell JW, Poth CN (2018) A Book Review: Qualitative Inquiry \u0026amp; Research Design: Choosing Among Five Approaches. In SAGE Publications, Inc.: Vol. Fourth Edi. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.13187/rjs.2017.1.30\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.13187/rjs.2017.1.30\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCropanzano R, Anthony EL, Daniels SR, Hall AV (2017) Social exchange theory: A critical review with theoretical remedies. Acad Manag Ann 11(1):479\u0026ndash;516. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.5465/annals.2015.0099\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.5465/annals.2015.0099\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eDe Kleijn RAM, Meijer PC, Brekelmans M, Pilot A (2022) Doctoral supervision: An integrative review of empirical research. High Educ Res Dev 41(3):955\u0026ndash;970. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2021.1907438\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1080/07294360.2021.1907438\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eDzikunu CK, Agyekum MW, Pajibo ED, Yelkpieri D (2025) Factors accounting for delayed completion of theses among postgraduate students of the University of Education. Winneba 13(2):1\u0026ndash;18. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.37745/bje.2013/voll3n2118\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.37745/bje.2013/voll3n2118\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eEmerson RM (1976) Social exchange theory. Ann Rev Sociol 2:335\u0026ndash;362. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.so.02.080176.002003\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1146/annurev.so.02.080176.002003\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGardner SK (2009) The development of doctoral students: Phases of challenge and support. Jossey-Bass\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHalse C, Malfroy J (2010) Retheorizing doctoral supervision as professional work. Stud High Educ 35(1):79\u0026ndash;92. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1080/03075070902906798\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1080/03075070902906798\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHennink M, Kaiser BN (2022) Sample sizes for saturation in qualitative research: A systematic review of empirical tests. Soc Sci Med 292:114523\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHlengwa A (2020) Power relations in postgraduate supervision: Experiences of doctoral students in South Africa. South Afr J High Educ 34(4):113\u0026ndash;129. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.20853/34-4-3545\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.20853/34-4-3545\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKatz D, Kahn RL (1978) The social psychology of organizations, vol 2. wiley, New York, p 528\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLee A (2008) How are doctoral students supervised? Concepts of doctoral 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\u003eLee A, McKenzie J, Brennan M (2021) Doctoral supervision as emotional labour. High Educ Res Dev 40(6):1163\u0026ndash;1177. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2020.1818065\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1080/07294360.2020.1818065\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLincoln YS, Guba EG (1985) Naturalistic Inquiry, 1st edn. Sage Publications Inc, Newbury Park\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMaguire M, Delahunt B (2017) Doing a thematic analysis: A practical, step-by-step guide for learning and teaching scholars. All Irel J High Educ, \u003cem\u003e9\u003c/em\u003e(3)\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eManathunga C (2014) Intercultural postgraduate supervision: Reimagining time, place and knowledge. Routledge. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.4324/9780203111956\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.4324/9780203111956\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMarginson S (2016) Higher education and the common good. Melbourne University\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMcAlpine L, McKinnon M (2013) Supervision\u0026mdash;the most variable of variables: Student perspectives. Stud Continuing Educ 35(3):265\u0026ndash;280. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1080/0158037X.2012.746227\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1080/0158037X.2012.746227\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMorley L, Havergal C, Cunningham R, Usher R (2017) Doctoral education in Africa: Building capacities and generating knowledge. Society for Research into Higher Education\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eNgulube P, Mathipa ER, Gumbo MT (2019) Theoretical and conceptual frameworks in doctoral research: Experiences of supervisors and students in South Africa. Int J Educational Sci 26(1\u0026ndash;3):1\u0026ndash;13\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003ePatton MQ (2015) Qualitative research \u0026amp; evaluation methods: integrating theory and practice. Sage, pp 31\u0026ndash;33\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003ePyh\u0026auml;lt\u0026ouml; K, Vekkaila J, Keskinen J (2015) Fit matters in the supervisory relationship. Innovations Educ Teach Int 52(1):4\u0026ndash;16. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1080/14703297.2014.981836\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1080/14703297.2014.981836\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003ePyh\u0026auml;lt\u0026ouml; K, Castell\u0026oacute; M, McAlpine L, L\u0026ouml;fstr\u0026ouml;m E (2020) Agency in doctoral education: A literature review. Teach High Educ 25(4):1\u0026ndash;18. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2020.1736026\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1080/13562517.2020.1736026\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003ePyh\u0026auml;lt\u0026ouml; K, Tikkanen L, Anttila H, L\u0026ouml;fstr\u0026ouml;m E (2022) Doctoral supervision, burnout, and engagement. Stud High Educ 47(5):1\u0026ndash;15. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2020.1859680\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1080/03075079.2020.1859680\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRuslin R, Mashuri S, Rasak MSA, Alhabsyi F, Syam H (2022) Semi-structured Interview: A methodological reflection on the development of a qualitative research instrument in educational studies. IOSR J Res Method Educ (IOSR-JRME) 12(1):22\u0026ndash;29\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eScott WR (2014) Institutions and organizations: Ideas, interests, and identities, 4th edn. Sage\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eScott WR, Davis GF (2016) Organizations and organizing: Rational, natural, and open systems perspectives. Routledge\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eShin JC, Jung J (2014) Academics job satisfaction and job stress across countries. High Educ 67(5):603\u0026ndash;620. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-013-9668-5\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1007/s10734-013-9668-5\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eShin JC, Arimoto A, Cummings WK, Teichler U (2022) Teaching and research in contemporary higher education. Springer. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-05288-3\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1007/978-3-031-05288-3\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eShore LM, Tetrick LE, Lynch P, Barksdale K (2006) Social and economic exchange: Construct development and validation. J Appl Soc Psychol 36(4):837\u0026ndash;867\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSmith JA, Flowers P, Larkin M (2009) Sage. \u003cem\u003eThousand Oaks, United States\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSverdlik A, Hall NC, McAlpine L, Hubbard K (2018) The PhD experience: Completion, achievement and well-being. Int J Doctoral Stud 13:361\u0026ndash;388. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.28945/4113\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.28945/4113\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eTeferra D (2019) Defining internationalisation: Intention versus coercion. University World News\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eTeferra D, Knight J (2018) Higher education in Africa: The international dimension. Boston College Center for International Higher Education\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eTight M (2023) Research into higher education: A systematic review. High Educ 85(2):343\u0026ndash;365. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-022-00879-6\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1007/s10734-022-00879-6\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWao HO, Onwuegbuzie AJ (2011) A mixed research investigation of factors related to time to the doctorate. J Coll Student Retent 13(4):489\u0026ndash;518. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.2190/CS.13.4.e\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.2190/CS.13.4.e\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWisker G (2012) The good supervisor, 2nd edn. Palgrave Macmillan\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWisker G, Robinson G (2023) Doctoral supervision and power: Rethinking relationships. Stud High Educ 48(8):1465\u0026ndash;1479. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2022.2068794\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1080/03075079.2022.2068794\" 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":false,"hideJournal":false,"highlight":"","institution":"","isAcceptedByJournal":false,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":false,"email":"","identity":"sn-social-sciences","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"","title":"SN Social Sciences","twitterHandle":"","acdcEnabled":false,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"VoR Journals","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":false},"keywords":"postgraduate supervision, higher education, qualitative research, resilience, doctoral education, institutional culture","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-8593726/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-8593726/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003cp\u003ePostgraduate supervision is central to research quality, doctoral completion, and academic socialisation, yet supervision practices remain uneven in many resource-constrained higher education systems. This study explores how supervision gaps are perceived, attributed, and navigated by postgraduate students and supervisors in Ghanaian public universities. Drawing on organisational theory, role theory, and social exchange theory, the study adopts an interpretive phenomenological design and analyses semi-structured interviews with 34 participants across eight public universities.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFindings reveal that supervision gaps are structurally produced through weak quality assurance mechanisms, role ambiguity, hierarchical academic cultures, misaligned incentive systems, and regulatory constraints. Rather than passive recipients of these conditions, students and supervisors actively deploy adaptive and resilience-based strategies, including peer support networks, self-directed learning, digital communication, and informal flexibility in supervision arrangements. While these strategies sustain progress, they also expose risks related to quality assurance, equity, and emotional labour.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe study makes a novel contribution by reconceptualising coping and resilience not merely as individual survival mechanisms but as contextually grounded practices with potential to inform sustainable supervisory reform. It argues for culturally responsive, process-oriented supervision models that formalise effective adaptive practices while reducing over-reliance on individual resilience as a substitute for institutional support.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"Beyond Deficit Narratives: Supervisory Gaps, Resilience, and Institutional Learning in Ghanaian Higher Education","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2026-05-14 18:40:20","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-8593726/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"129576939745528103820482092372730935123","date":"2026-05-11T12:53:05+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewersInvited","content":"","date":"2026-05-06T00:48:59+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorAssigned","content":"","date":"2026-01-16T13:09:39+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"checksComplete","content":"","date":"2026-01-16T13:08:08+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"submitted","content":"SN Social Sciences","date":"2026-01-13T15:16:07+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":false,"email":"","identity":"sn-social-sciences","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"","title":"SN Social Sciences","twitterHandle":"","acdcEnabled":false,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"VoR Journals","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":false}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"4860660b-dfb0-4f7c-bacf-7ae3bb50377e","owner":[],"postedDate":"May 14th, 2026","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"129576939745528103820482092372730935123","date":"2026-05-11T12:53:05+00:00","index":27,"fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewersInvited","content":"18","date":"2026-05-06T00:48:59+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""}],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"under-review","subjectAreas":[],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2026-05-14T18:40:20+00:00","versionOfRecord":[],"versionCreatedAt":"2026-05-14 18:40:20","video":"","vorDoi":"","vorDoiUrl":"","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-8593726","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-8593726","identity":"rs-8593726","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"XKTyCvWXoU3ODBz1xrDgd","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}