Abstract Swedish law requires all doctoral students to be co-supervised. Individuals seeking to become primary supervisors are required to complete doctoral supervision training programs to ensure they are equipped with necessary competencies to guide doctoral students. This chapter uses interviews, surveys, and documents to explore cosupervision and the experiences of co-supervisors, providing insights and comparing to global practices. We provide a historical overview of co-supervison in Sweden, covering its development over the past 70 years. We then analyse different types of supervision in terms of involvement and formality. Next then describe the contextual setting by examining supervision guidelines, supervisors’ role expectations, and work allocation. We then explore the definition, application, experience, and regulation of co-supervison in Sweden. Drawing from this analysis, we showcase successful instances of co-supervison in Sweden and address the associated challenges. This chapter offers a thorough examination of co-supervision practices, encompassing their historical origins, present implementation, and prospective advancements.

There is a widespread interest in doctoral supervision, yet novice doctoral co-supervisors’ experiences remain understudied. The aim of this qualitative study is to explore how supervision culture and practice are experienced by novices. This thematic analysis is based on focus groups and in-depth interviews with 23 novice co-supervisors from two Swedish research-intensive universities. The study reveals three dimensions related to the challenging experience of the supervision culture, namely closedness, dependence and competition. Moreover, the analysis proves that co-supervisors’ practices are embedded within the ‘hidden curriculum’, here defined as the unplanned and implicit support outside formal meetings and activities. Novice co-supervisors bridge the gap between main supervisors and doctoral students and make the path to the doctoral degree smoother when engaging in emotional, intellectual, practical and mediation support. This study has practical implications and suggests improvements for co-supervision that would also benefit the doctoral students.

Purpose: The purpose of this study is to explore how novice doctoral cosupervisorspromote doctoral students’ well-being. This paper aims to contributeto a deeper understanding how novice doctoral co-supervisors form a nurturingsupervisor identity when involving with doctoral students who reported wellbeingchallenges. Study design/methodology/approach: The qualitative study, based on25 in-depth interviews with novice co-supervisors from two Swedish researchintensiveuniversities was conducted. The interviews were analysed usingreflexive thematic analysis. One of the topics they emphasised was thesupervision of doctoral students who were unwell, a topic we explored further. Findings: The study revealed that co-supervisors were substantially involvedin promoting PhD students’ well-being. They used a range of well-beingpromotion strategies. The co-supervisors promoted well-being by, for example,breaking social isolation; being available as a first contact for doctoral students;and mediating between main supervisor and student in tense situations. Practical implications: Recommendations arising include guidelines forPhD well-being promotion, developing supervisor training, and raising awarenessof the impact of co-supervisors’ support.Originality/value: The study provided valuable insights into co-supervisoryidentity and highlighted how co-supervision can be developed to meet futurechallenges.

This paper explores the formation of a reflective individual identity among novice doctoral co-supervisors. The focus is on the perceived feedback in defining the boundaries of their co-supervisory role. Grounded in the theoretical framework of ‘local sociology’, the study draws on data from in-depth interviewsinvolving 25 co-supervisors from two research-intensive universities in Sweden.The transcribed in-depth interviews were analysed using reflexive thematic analysis. Firstly, the study illustrates that others’ feedback, whether affirming or corrective, may be pivotal in the development of a reflective individual cosupervisor identity. Secondly, the findings indicate that novice co-supervisors predominantly obtain feedback from their spouses, partners, colleagues at other departments than their own, and former supervisors, while receiving comparatively less feedback from their current supervisory teams. Moreover,some novice co-supervisors reported that they had no feedback at all on their supervision practice. To conclude, these insights suggest that institutions could better support the professional development of novice doctoral co-supervisors by addressing the support structure for novices, developing guidelines, and encouraging discussions about co-supervision practice, ultimately enhancing thequality of doctoral education.