# data[].attributes.body
I suppose this is very supervisee contingent. If I had to suggest a one size fits all, it would be as much freedom as possible, while making sure that key goals are reached. E.g. it's ok to read widely for say first 3 months, but after that there needs to be clearer direction. Different timelines available.

# data[].attributes.body
I think framework is important in terms of staying on track with the overall timeline. Notwithstanding concrete obstacles such as health/family crisis, it is not helpful/kind to let someone 'drift' and then not be ready for the key milestones. Aside from the overall structure of the programme, I would think there is a bit more scope for freedom, as long as the supervisor is giving appropriate guiderails (around scope/scale/methods/academic style) so that the project meets the award criteria overall.

# data[].attributes.body
I tend to think this isn’t a fixed balance, as it shifts over time. Early on, more structure helps, including clear milestones, directive feedback, and a bit of scaffolding so the student isn’t overwhelmed. But if that stays in place too long, it can stop them developing real independence. So for me, it’s about gradually stepping back. You move from giving options, to asking them to generate options and justify decisions. It's the same with feedback - less line by line over time, and gradually more conceptual. I also think it’s useful to leave some uncertainty in place now and then, not always resolving things for them. That’s closer to what academic life actually feels like. Just checking in helps and asking whether they need more direction or more space at that point.

# data[].attributes.body
I think it's changeable, and student/where they're at in the PhD journey specific. It feels important to make them aware of/remind the student of key milestones e.g. review points, and broadly what should be achieved when e.g. data having been collected, analysed, etc, but the student should have autonomy within those expectations. Guidance around the process is needed throughout e.g. on academic standards, methods, feedback on chapters, etc but a 30(framework)/ 70(freedom) split, on average, seems about right.

# data[].attributes.body
I would be inclined to think that a framework is an important tool for setting out expectations and help keep the project on track. But all parties should recognise that there needs to be some flexibility within this to respond to circumstances.

# data[].attributes.body
It does depend on discipline area perhaps? I think it's important to contextualise, so asking the supervisee what is effective for them but perhaps providing some boundaries. As a novice supervisor, I have thought about my own experience and I needed a much better understanding of the structure and some clearer boundaries to work within. Lastly, encouraging supervisees to consider the rest of their commitments and realities.

# data[].attributes.body
Whether I like it or not, I act as an institutional representative, and the university is quite prescriptive in terms of process and progress. So both student and supervisor are operating within a bounded framework. Otherwise, I agree that the balance shifts depending on the student’s stage and whether additional guidance is needed. Generally, I see students as having high degree of freedom, often increasing over time, as it is their project and their career. I offer guidance and suggestion, but it is ultimately their choice. This may be shaped by the fact that many of our students are mature and bring prior professional experience, and by working in a field where students pursue independent projects rather than contributing to my work.

# data[].attributes.body
I think this would largely depend on where the student is in their journey and how motivated they are themselves. I think earlier in the journey, it is good to set goals but also to give them the freedom to read widely and explore different avenues. However, later in the journey (Year 3/4), I would expect them to narrow down their area and have a better workflow. Ultimately, the job of a supervisor is to have students pass their viva as well as expected, and setting a framework is part of this role.

# data[].attributes.body
I am inclined to think the supervisor ought to make sure that the supervisee is aware of key milestones they should be hitting and keeping some track of whether they are progressing adequately. But almost everything else I would think is up to the student. But I suspect this will vary enormously by discipline. In my area, it's just a writing project, so I'll expect the student to have in mind a literature and a line of argument and work on developing it themselves. I might point them towards things I have read that might be relevant to the project, and I would certainly critique the argument and try to prevent obvious wrong-turns or confusions, but short of that, the project is entirely the student's. In contrast, if they were setting up a lab experiment, I expect quite a lot more guidance would need to be given.

# data[].attributes.body
I think that we should give as much freedom as possible within a defined framework. As long as the framework is clear, the student should have as much freedom as possible to explore the project and come with their own ideas. For example, at the beginning of the project I'll give the students some specific experiments to perform, as the project develops and the student moves towards working more independently, they are free to come with new experiments, as long as they fit the overall idea behind the project. I can think of cases were maybe too much freedom doesn't work and it is necessary to be more "hands-on" with the work of the student (which I guess it links to previous discussions on how much "hands-on" is the approach to supervision).

# data[].attributes.body
Freedom exists within a framework. You need to know what the rules are and where the boundaries lie before you're able to exercise true freedom. Both are negotiated between the supervisor and the PGR.

# data[].attributes.body
The amount of freedom should be established in an initial conversation with the student. Some prefer a more hands-on supervisor, other prefer more freedom. But supervisor needs to be aware that the arrangement can be changed if results are suboptimal.

# data[].attributes.body
Independence and freedom should be adapted based on the student and previous interactions. I think active listening should help determine the amount of freedom necessary in a specific context.

# data[].attributes.body
To try and give a 'universal' answer... I think a broad framework needs to be outlined at the beginning of a doctoral supervision, which outlines expectations and boundaries within the supervision process (and which discusses other aspects of the PhD journey which may not be directly related to supervision). Once established, the student should then have freedom to develop, make mistakes, do their research etc... with the student steadily progressing to becoming an independent researcher.

# data[].attributes.body
I suppose there will always be an overall practical framework that needs to be adhered to (notably meeting certain deadlines for progression, submission etc) but allowing for flexibility within that is very important, for example to pivot if things don't go as initially planned, to allow for changes to personal circumstances, or just to allow the student to navigate the research for themselves (maybe make mistakes, or take a long time to develop a certain skill) to become an independent researcher.

# data[].attributes.body
I think this depends on three things:

1) Discipline - in animal research we have certain legal and ethical constraints.

2) Student stage - I would expect a lot more framework at the beginning of a PhD

3) Student personality - some students prefer freedom and work well with that by essentially creating their own framework, others do not.

Looking at the supervisory expectations grid, I would think that traditional wet lab PhDs lean heavily towards framework, rather than freedom. Many of these responsibilities fall on the supervisor or the wider PGR support network.

# data[].attributes.body
Thank you for running these sessions. The sessions were very useful and informative. Especially helpful I thought was the listening session. The templates and resources will also be useful and I'm sure some of us will be using and adapting those, w/ attribution! Thanks again.

# data[].attributes.body
I think this depends on the student, but broadly speaking I would anticipate a instituting a framework that ultimately facilitates freedom. Perhaps this is a process of 'handing over' responsibility of a framework to the student during the supervision process so they can then scaffold enquiry for themselves.