Rethinking the role of research supervisors

At the University of Karachi, faculty members established the Research and Teaching Society (RTS) to enhance academic activities. Recently, RTS organised a session on research supervision. While syllabi and examinations usually dominate discussions, it is supervision that shapes the quality of postgraduate research, the growth of young scholars and the reputation of institutions. The dialogue highlighted that supervision is both a privilege and a profound responsibility, with the power to inspire or derail future researchers.

Research supervision is the art of mentorship i.e. helping students navigate conceptual confusion, ethical dilemmas, and the self-doubt that arises in the process of independent inquiry. Effective supervision requires patience, empathy and accessibility, qualities that ensure students feel supported while still being challenged. The most impactful supervisors are those who balance critique with encouragement, structure with independence, and discipline with respect for individuality.

The discussion highlighted that the supervisor-student relationship must be treated as a professional partnership rather than a rigid hierarchy. When expectations are clarified at the outset concerning timelines, responsibilities and ethical standards, students gain confidence to pursue research without fear of arbitrary judgment. Supervisors, in turn, avoid the pitfalls of overextension or inequity. Mutual respect becomes the foundation that allows this partnership to flourish.

Supervisors also serve as exemplars of integrity. In an age where plagiarism, data manipulation and authorship disputes remain pressing concerns, mentors must not only insist on ethical conduct but also embody it. This means crediting contributions fairly, modeling authenticity in data practices and fostering open discussions on ethics within research groups. Without integrity, even the most technically impressive work loses meaning, and institutions risk reputational harm far greater than any short-term advantage gained through compromise.

The conversation also confronted the systemic challenges supervisors face. Scarce funding, outdated laboratories and heavy administrative burdens weigh down faculty. Students, too, often struggle with the financial realities of sustaining research, sometimes forced to rely on personal resources. Such conditions can reduce supervision to crisis management rather than meaningful mentorship. Yet honesty about these constraints, combined with encouragement for adaptive strategies and collaborations, can transform limitations into opportunities for resilience. Supervisors who are candid about structural hurdles inspire adaptability instead of disillusionment.

Another theme that resonated strongly was fairness, whether in student allocation, authorship recognition or institutional hierarchies. When students are redirected against their will or when supervisors claim disproportionate credit, trust in the system erodes. The principle must remain clear: mentorship is about empowerment, not exploitation. Supervisors who resist the temptation to wield authority for personal advantage strengthen both their students and their institutions.

The debate highlighted that while international supervision standards stress training, accountability and student-centered approaches, they cannot be copied directly in local contexts with financial and cultural constraints. Instead, the goal is to adapt universal principles like fairness, empathy and structured guidance to local realities, making supervision both realistic and aspirational.

Perhaps the most overlooked dimension of supervision is its emotional aspect. Students navigating research in constrained environments often face stress, anxiety and even isolation. A supportive supervisor provides not only technical guidance but also reassurance and perspective.

The session closed with the reminder that dialogue must lead to action. Universities need to prioritise supervisor training, accountability and funding support, while supervisors themselves must practice honesty, empathy and clarity. The initiative signals a shift toward making supervision a cornerstone of academic excellence, where true success lies in building a culture of fairness, integrity and mentorship that equips scholars with both knowledge and values.