Unpacking the black box: understanding supervisor-candidate co-authorship as a directive, pedagogical, and epistemic practice

Doctoral publishing has increasingly become a requirement for graduation and a crucial factor in securing post-doctoral employment. However, doctoral students are often not apprenticed into academic publishing during their candidature. Research suggests that supervisor-candidate co-authorship can serve as a pathway to enculturating candidates into these practices, but few studies have explored the actual processes involved, particularly in humanities, arts, and social sciences (HASS) disciplines, where co-authorship is less prevalent compared to STEM disciplines. This study aims to demystify supervisor-candidate co-authorship by exploring how 12 doctoral supervisors and 11 candidates within HASS in seven Australian universities engage in co-authorship. It adopts thematic analysis and narrative inquiry to analyze and explore data drawn from interviews, written reflections, and email correspondence/Slack messages. The findings reveal how supervisors variably approach the different processes and activities of co-authorship, some adopting a directive mode in which information is explicitly presented and tasks assigned, whereas others adopt a pedagogical mode wherein structured support is provided to develop the candidate’s understanding of the publication process. The third approach observed in the data is that of the epistemic mode in which the supervisor co-author works to make explicit the implicit norms and practice of academic publication, apprenticing the candidate into an understanding of how knowledge is constructed within the field. In combination, the findings from this study shed light on the often-hidden processes of supervisor-candidate co-authorship, serving as a practical guide for candidates aiming to publish and supervisors planning to co-author with candidates. It concludes with practical insights and caveats for those considering such collaborations.