The Role of Reflection in Doctoral Education: An Integrative Review of Approaches to Supporting Well-Being and Developmental Growth
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThank you for the opportunity to review this study. It has potential in the important area of mentoring doctoral students and its complexities.
The study will benefit from improvement such as more support of the ideas or details and explanations of ideas in some areas. For example:
The authors indicate the "integrative review method" (line 93) for the literature review. However, no citation was included. The approach was briefly defined, but specific steps or processes were not included in the description.
Between lines 106 and 117, the authors identified the keywords used in the search. However, there is no description of the exclusion of the articles.
The analytical framework was included but needs a detailed explanation of both professional uncertainty and care to help readers relate the findings to the framework.
In section 3.1 a table summarizing the studies was included, however, it is not clear what the authors want the reader to get from the table. They need to add a synthesis of the ideas from the literature to help "see" the findings.
Section 3.2 needs to be connected to the framework. If the framework is clearly explained before and the findings in this section connect to the description, the readers will really see the value of the findings.
Section 3.3 needs more details. For example, how is the theme of "integration of coaching in supervision" different from the theme "research supervisors need to support doctoral students both academically and personally".
Author Response
- Reviewers Comment: Thank you for the opportunity to review this study. It has potential in the important area of mentoring doctoral students and its complexities.
Author’s answer: Thank you for your kind feedback. I appreciate your recognition of the study's potential and focus.
- Reviewers Comment: The study will benefit from improvement such as more support of the ideas or details and explanations of ideas in some areas. For example: a) The authors indicate the "integrative review method" (line 93) for the literature review. However, no citation was included. The approach was briefly defined, but specific steps or processes were not included in the description.
2 a) Author’s Answer: Thank you for this suggestion. I have revised the section to provide a more detailed description of the integrative review method, referring to the framework outlined by Kutcher and LeBaron (2022). This framework originally describes seven steps for conducting an integrative review. However, for the purposes of this study, these steps have been condensed into four: defining the research question and purpose, conducting a comprehensive literature search, synthesizing findings, and summarizing and disseminating results. Additionally, the four core concepts underpinning the findings are explicitly integrated into the methodological description, aligning them with the four-stage process to strengthen the connection between the method and its application in this study. These refinements have been highlighted in yellow throughout the text for your convenience.
b) Reviewers Comment: Between lines 106 and 117, the authors identified the keywords used in the search. However, there is no description of the exclusion of the articles.
b) Author’s Answer: Thank you for pointing this out. I have revised the section to include a description of the exclusion criteria applied during the screening process. The updated text explains that studies were excluded if they did not explicitly address research supervision, care, or doctoral student well-being. Furthermore, I clarified that only studies published in English or Swedish were included, as these are the languages in which the I have sufficient proficiency to accurately assess the value and relevance of the material. The changes have been highlighted in yellow for ease of reference.
3. Reviewers Comment: The analytical framework was included but needs a detailed explanation of both professional uncertainty and care to help readers relate the findings to the framework.
Author’s Answer: Thank you for this comment. I have expanded the section on the analytical framework to provide more detail on both professional uncertainty and care. The revised text elaborates on professional uncertainty as balancing explicit knowledge with tacit understanding, and care as structured through phrases like “caring about” and “caring with,” emphasizing trust and solidarity. These revisions aim to clarify how the frameworks are applied to analyze the care-related strategies in the reviewed articles.
Additionally, this has been reflected in the results section, specifically in subsection 3.1, where care aspects have been italicized in the table. Furthermore, the heading text in the relevant column has been updated to emphasize the "Care Framework Connection," making the link between the findings and the framework more explicit. The changes have been highlighted in yellow for ease of reference.
- Reviewers Comment: In section 3.1 a table summarizing the studies was included, however, it is not clear what the authors want the reader to get from the table. They need to add a synthesis of the ideas from the literature to help "see" the findings.
Author’s Answer: Thank you for this comment. I have carefully revised Section 3.1 to include a more cohesive synthesis of the key themes and insights from the articles presented in Table 2. The updated text highlights shared findings, such as the significance of relational dynamics, the value of cultural sensitivity, innovative practices like coaching, and the emphasis on the well-being of both students and supervisors. I hope this synthesis provides a clearer narrative and enhances the table's contribution to the overall analysis. The changes have been highlighted in yellow for ease of reference.
- Reviewers Comment: Section 3.2 needs to be connected to the framework. If the framework is clearly explained before and the findings in this section connect to the description, the readers will really see the value of the findings.
Author’s Answer: Thank you for this valuable comment. I have revised Section 3.2 to strengthen the connection between the findings and the analytical frameworks of professional uncertainty and care. Each identified care practice is now explicitly linked to the relevant theoretical concepts, demonstrating how relational and reflective approaches contribute to doctoral students’ well-being and academic development. I hope these revisions clarify and enhance the integration of the findings with the framework. The changes have been highlighted in yellow for ease of reference.
Reviewers Comment: Section 3.3 needs more details. For example, how is the theme of "integration of coaching in supervision" different from the theme "research supervisors need to support doctoral students both academically and personally".
Author’s Answer: Thank you for this insightful comment. I have revised Section 3.3 to provide more detail and clarify the distinctions between the themes. Specifically, the section now elaborates on how "integration of coaching in supervision" focuses on adopting specific strategies to enhance resilience and stress management, often requiring a reassessment of established supervisory practices. In contrast, the theme "research supervisors need to support doctoral students both academically and personally" addresses the broader dual role of supervisors, encompassing academic guidance and emotional support. These distinctions, along with additional details, aim to provide a clearer narrative for the challenges discussed in this section. The changes have been highlighted in yellow for ease of reference.
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsTHE ROLE OF REFLECTION IN TEACHING AND LEARNING
First of all, thank you very much for allowing me to collaborate in the revision of this article, in order to provide another view to researchers and to increase its quality.
The following is a structured analysis of the manuscript:
Attending to the title, it is observed that the title has clarity, but does not explicitly define the relationship between professional uncertainty and care-based strategies. It is recommended that the title be reworded to emphasise this connection, improving its scientific accuracy.
Regarding the abstract, although it addresses the general aspects of the article, it lacks a detailed description of the findings and their contribution to the field of study. Therefore, it is recommended that a sentence highlighting the relevance and key contributions of the article be added at the end. An example is included for the authors' guidance: “This paper provides a practical approach to integrating caring strategies into doctoral supervision, offering concrete tools to enhance the well-being and resilience of doctoral students, while providing a reflective framework for supervisors to find a balance between personal and academic support”.
Regarding the introduction, the authors make a clear connection between the concepts of professional uncertainty and care in the context of doctoral supervision, however, the concepts of professional uncertainty and care (p. 1, lines 24-53) could be synthesised to avoid redundancies. Furthermore, it is recommended to update the citations with more recent research (last five years) to substantiate the arguments. Finally, it would be appropriate to elaborate on how this study addresses gaps in the literature.
In terms of methodology, the integrative review is well justified as a method, however it is recommended to ensure the quality of study selection and validity of interpretations (p. 3, lines 91-101) and to incorporate a diagram or table summarising the stages of methodological analysis from literature search to data analysis, and to describe how the quality and validity of interpretations were ensured (p. 3, lines 91-101).
As for the results, although the presentation of the data is clear and the tables summarise the findings, there is a need to elaborate on how the results interconnect the principles of care with resilience and doctoral student development (p. 5, lines 160-180).
In response to the challenges detailed in section 3.3, the article would be improved by making the relationship between coaching and mental health more concrete through explicit citations (p. 6, lines 227-233). Furthermore, it is recommended to further explore how the findings can be translated into practical recommendations for academic institutions, including a narrative explanation that connects the categories and provides concrete examples of the findings.
In terms of discussion, the authors connect the results well with the theoretical framework of professional uncertainty and care. The section describes concretely how supervisors can act as mediators between the academic and personal development of doctoral students. Difficulties related to supervisor self-care and the need for institutional support are mentioned (lines 263-266):
In lines 244-253 it is mentioned that uncertainty can foster resilience and adaptability, but this is not sufficiently specified, and it is recommended to explain how reflective supervision can transform uncertainty into a pedagogical tool, including practical examples of supervisory activities designed to foster these skills.
In lines 259-266, it is noted that although the need for self-care strategies and institutional support is mentioned, no concrete examples of these interventions are proposed, therefore, it is recommended to incorporate specific examples, such as the implementation of coaching programmes for supervisors or workshops on stress management and reflective communication techniques, among others.
In lines 266-275, although the discussion reports on the institutional implications of the findings, it does not detail how care strategies can be integrated into academic policies or structures, so it is recommended to propose concrete actions, such as supervisory frameworks that include indicators of student wellbeing and continuous training for supervisors.
Finally, it is recommended that the authors include a sub-section on future lines of research.
In light of these issues, it is proposed that the editors accept the article for publication once the authors make these minor modifications.
Author Response
Reviewers Comment: First of all, thank you very much for allowing me to collaborate in the revision of this article, in order to provide another view to researchers and to increase its quality.
Author’s Answer: Thank you for your encouraging comment. I truly appreciate the time and effort you have taken to provide constructive feedback. Your insights are invaluable in helping to refine the article, and I am grateful for the opportunity to benefit from your expertise and perspective.
The following is a structured analysis of the manuscript:
Reviewers Comment: Attending to the title, it is observed that the title has clarity, but does not explicitly define the relationship between professional uncertainty and care-based strategies. It is recommended that the title be reworded to emphasise this connection, improving its scientific accuracy.
Author’s Answer: Thank you for this valuable feedback. I have revised the title to better reflect the connection between professional uncertainty and care-based strategies, as well as the reflective nature of the review. The new title is: "An Integrative Review of Approaches to Support Doctoral Students' Well-Being and Developmental Growth: Reflected Through a Lens of Professional Uncertainty and Care." I hope this revised title provides greater clarity.
Reviewers Comment: Regarding the abstract, although it addresses the general aspects of the article, it lacks a detailed description of the findings and their contribution to the field of study. Therefore, it is recommended that a sentence highlighting the relevance and key contributions of the article be added at the end. An example is included for the authors' guidance: “This paper provides a practical approach to integrating caring strategies into doctoral supervision, offering concrete tools to enhance the well-being and resilience of doctoral students, while providing a reflective framework for supervisors to find a balance between personal and academic support”.
Author’s Answer: Thank you for your thoughtful comment. I have revised the abstract to include a clearer description of the findings and their contribution to the field. The updated abstract highlights the identified strategies, challenges, and practical insights, emphasizing how the concepts of professional uncertainty and care inform supervisory practices. Additionally, I have added a concluding sentence to underline the study’s relevance, offering practical tools and a reflective framework for integrating care-based strategies into doctoral supervision. I hope this revision meets your expectations.
Reviewers Comment: Regarding the introduction, the authors make a clear connection between the concepts of professional uncertainty and care in the context of doctoral supervision, however, the concepts of professional uncertainty and care (p. 1, lines 24-53) could be synthesised to avoid redundancies.
Author’s Answer: Thank you for your feedback regarding the introduction. I have revised the text to synthesize the concepts of professional uncertainty and care to reduce redundancies and create a more cohesive narrative. Specifically, I have clarified how these concepts interrelate within the context of doctoral supervision, emphasizing their complementary roles in addressing the relational and ethical complexities of this process. By refining these sections, I aim to better communicate the interplay between these concepts. I hope this revision addresses your concerns, and I welcome any further suggestions. The changes have been highlighted in yellow for ease of reference.
Reviewers Comment: Furthermore, it is recommended to update the citations with more recent research (last five years) to substantiate the arguments.
Author’s Answer: Thank you for your valuable feedback regarding the inclusion of more recent research. In response, I have made an additional search and updated the discussion section to include Acharya et al. (2024), which provides a contemporary perspective on the challenges and demands in doctoral programs. The changes have been highlighted in yellow for ease of reference.
Reviewers Comment: Finally, it would be appropriate to elaborate on how this study addresses gaps in the literature.
Author’s Answer: Thank you for your valuable feedback. I have clarified how this study addresses gaps in the literature within the discussion section. Specifically, I have linked the contributions of this study to the research gaps identified by Acharya et al. (2024), highlighting how this work complements their call for exploring moderating and mediating factors in doctoral supervision. By integrating findings from multiple researchers, this study provides actionable insights into strategies that support well-being and health in doctoral education. The changes have been highlighted in yellow for ease of reference.
Reviewers Comment: In terms of methodology, the integrative review is well justified as a method, however it is recommended to ensure the quality of study selection and validity of interpretations (p. 3, lines 91-101) and to incorporate a diagram or table summarising the stages of methodological analysis from literature search to data analysis, and to describe how the quality and validity of interpretations were ensured (p. 3, lines 91-101).
Author’s Answer: Thank you for your valuable feedback. To enhance transparency, I have clarified how the adapted steps of Kutcher and LeBaron’s [6] framework guide the methodology. Additionally, I have specified that the final step of summarizing and sharing results is presented in the results section, where the findings are reported and analyzed. I have also highlighted how systematic screening and analysis ensure the relevance, quality, and validity of the included studies. The changes have been highlighted in yellow for ease of reference.
Reviewers Comment: As for the results, although the presentation of the data is clear and the tables summarise the findings, there is a need to elaborate on how the results interconnect the principles of care with resilience and doctoral student development (p. 5, lines 160-180).
Author’s Answer: Thank you for your generous feedback. To address your comment regarding the need to elaborate on how the results interconnect the principles of care with resilience and doctoral student development, I have revised the results section. The table now integrates explicit references to the care principles (caring about, caring with, and taking responsibility) within the findings of each study. Additionally, I have expanded the synthesis following the table to clarify how these care-focused practices foster supportive relationships, promote well-being, and build resilience and autonomy among both doctoral students and supervisors. These adjustments ensure a clearer connection between the reviewed studies’ findings, the care framework, and their implications for doctoral student development. The changes have been highlighted in yellow for ease of reference.
Reviewers Comment: In response to the challenges detailed in section 3.3, the article would be improved by making the relationship between coaching and mental health more concrete through explicit citations (p. 6, lines 227-233). Furthermore, it is recommended to further explore how the findings can be translated into practical recommendations for academic institutions, including a narrative explanation that connects the categories and provides concrete examples of the findings.
Author’s Answer: Thank you for your feedback. I have clarified the relationship between coaching and mental health in the section “Conflict management and stress reduction are important but challenging.” Explicit references to Bordogna and Lundgren-Resenterra [9] now highlight how coaching methods, such as active listening and constructive feedback, help students manage stress and build adaptability. I have also strengthened the narrative by connecting these challenges to practical strategies, such as peer support and institutional support structures. The changes have been highlighted in yellow for ease of reference.
Reviewers Comment: In terms of discussion, the authors connect the results well with the theoretical framework of professional uncertainty and care. The section describes concretely how supervisors can act as mediators between the academic and personal development of doctoral students. Difficulties related to supervisor self-care and the need for institutional support are mentioned (lines 263-266):
Author’s Answer: Thank you for your positive feedback. I have made a few adjustments to the discussion section to further enhance and strengthen the points raised. These revisions aim to maintain and reinforce the connection between the results and the theoretical frameworks of professional uncertainty and care, as well as to emphasize the role of supervisors as mediators between the academic and personal development of doctoral students. The changes have been highlighted in yellow for ease of reference.
Reviewers Comment: In lines 244-253 it is mentioned that uncertainty can foster resilience and adaptability, but this is not sufficiently specified, and it is recommended to explain how reflective supervision can transform uncertainty into a pedagogical tool, including practical examples of supervisory activities designed to foster these skills.
Author’s Answer: Thank you for your suggestion. I have added practical examples of supervisory activities, such as reflective dialogues, mid-year well-being reviews, and year-end reflections, to show how uncertainty can be transformed into a pedagogical tool. The changes have been highlighted in yellow for ease of reference.
Reviewers Comment: In lines 259-266, it is noted that although the need for self-care strategies and institutional support is mentioned, no concrete examples of these interventions are proposed, therefore, it is recommended to incorporate specific examples, such as the implementation of coaching programmes for supervisors or workshops on stress management and reflective communication techniques, among others.
Author’s Answer: Thank you for your feedback. I have now provided concrete examples of institutional support and self-care strategies. The changes have been highlighted in yellow for ease of reference.
Reviewers Comment: In lines 266-275, although the discussion reports on the institutional implications of the findings, it does not detail how care strategies can be integrated into academic policies or structures, so it is recommended to propose concrete actions, such as supervisory frameworks that include indicators of student wellbeing and continuous training for supervisors.
Author’s Answer: Thank you for your insightful feedback. I have clarified how care strategies can be thoughtfully integrated into academic policies and structures by proposing supervisory frameworks that incorporate indicators of student well-being and continuous training for supervisors. These revisions aim to further enhance the practical implications of the findings, ensuring they are both actionable and aligned with the broader goals of supporting doctoral candidates and supervisors alike. The changes have been highlighted in yellow for ease of reference.
Reviewers Comment: Finally, it is recommended that the authors include a sub-section on future lines of research.
Author’s Answer: Thank you for your suggestion. I have now included a section on future lines of research, proposing both longitudinal studies and systematic reviews to deepen understanding of care-based supervision strategies. Additionally, I suggest a practice-based research approach, such as lesson study, where doctoral supervisors collaboratively reflect on and improve their practice within a supportive and secure environment.
Reviewers Comment: In light of these issues, it is proposed that the editors accept the article for publication once the authors make these minor modifications.
Author’s Answer: Thank you for your constructive feedback and support for this article. I have carefully addressed all the suggested modifications, including adding concrete examples, clarifying institutional implications, and proposing future lines of research.
