# data[].attributes.body
I think that ideally, yes, supervision is a two-way conversation. In our department, students are often the experts on their specific case or topic, so my role is to engage critically. I see this as helping them ask better questions, consider alternatives, and justify their choices. At the same time, supervision is not entirely equal, and power dynamics inevitably shape the conversation

# data[].attributes.body
Yes, but one that over time should be led by the student (as their expertise, skills and insights grow).

# data[].attributes.body
I think it has to be! Anything other would not make sense.

# data[].attributes.body
Yes, certainly a two-way conversation. Especially because many times it's hard to know if the student needs a more hands-on or hands-off approach. And often the supervisor might learn something along the way as well.

# data[].attributes.body
At times. At other times, I suppose it is more goal oriented from one side or the other. You need to do this, how I can help. I need to do this, how can you help. Etc.

# data[].attributes.body
I think it is a two-way conversation most of the time. However, there need to be some instances where the conversation is led by either the supervisor or the student. At the beginning of the project or when deadlines/annual reviews approach, perhaps the supervisor needs to take the lead, while as the project approaches its end, then the student should take the lead.

# data[].attributes.body
Ideally yes, I want to understand what my supervisee needs from me and what they think about my guidance, and that will come through if I can listen to them. I also want to learn from them as their expertise develops. Sometimes though, they expect us to 'take the wheel' and clarify things for them. Again, a balancing act!

# data[].attributes.body
Yes. I'm learning new things from my students all the time. This can be really useful when we are problem solving experiments and methods. Sometimes I know the answer / best way forward.. but I would prefer some suggestions and ideas from them first to show they have thought / researched the problem. Supervision is a two-way conversation, but that doesn't mean everything is negotiable.

# data[].attributes.body
Absolutely. It involves two (often more) individuals with different experiences and skills, learning and sharing from each other. Like education, supervision is not (should not be?) a case of the 'expert imparting expertise to the novice'. Ultimately, at least in my field, the student becomes the expert of their own PhD and so supervision can only succeed by the supervisor/s meeting them as such.

# data[].attributes.body
Yes, I think supervision is a two-way conversation because each student is different and you need to somewhat be led by them. While you as the supervisor should set targets and goals, and have expectations regarding deadlines and quality of work, the student should feel confident enough to put their perspective forward.

# data[].attributes.body
Yes but really hard to move from a nurturing type problem-solver approach. Expectations need managing but agree with other comments that it's brilliant to learn and share ideas. I have thought about peer reviews of interactions in supervisor meetings.

# data[].attributes.body
Yes, for the most part to enable sharing of expectations, ideas, expertise, critical thinking - however, at times, when it comes to more the formal process/deadlines this feels it may need a more top-down approach to keep projects on time etc.

# data[].attributes.body
Generally I think it is a two-way conversation, but the nature of the conversation also changes over the course of the doctorate. The balance may tilt towards me at the start, but as the student gains experience, skills and knowledge, they can start to take the lead more. However, I think supervisors should also always be prepared to speak when they think something is not working, and that tips the balance back towards us in that moment.

# data[].attributes.body
I think it usually needs to be a two-way conversation. Perhaps especially in philosophy, where dialogue is a key tool for enabling the student themselves to refine their ideas (maybe it is in every field). There are some things, like deadlines and procedures that are not up for dispute, but usually they will get that information in an email form admin or on an information page (no response necessary!)

# data[].attributes.body
Ideally, I think it should be 70/30 supervisor/supervisee speaking time at the beginning of the supervision. 50/50 after a certain time and 30/70 at the end.

# data[].attributes.body
I think it’s often more than just a two way conversation, especially if you’ve got multiple supervisors or are drawing on a wider research community. It can feel more like a small group discussion with different perspectives shaping the work. That said, it doesn’t always feel perfectly conversational either, because things like power dynamics or confidence can make it a bit one sided at times. Ideally though, it becomes more balanced over time as you grow into the project..

# data[].attributes.body
Yes, for supervision (and for the supervisory relation) to work, it needs to be a two-way conversation between the PhD candidate, the supervisor and anyone else involved in the project (co-supervisor, TAP member etc). There are moments where the supervision is more oriented towards resolving practical issues or specific problems, but it is essential that the supervisor recognises the expertise brought in by the PhD candidate. This obviously does not mean that the supervisor has to always agree with the PhD candidate or that they are not able to provide advice and guidance.

# data[].attributes.body
I enjoyed the first activity (speaker, listener, observer). It developed skills that I don't think are encountered in the majority of supervisions, e.g. listening without needing to make any decisions or move things in any direction, but just to understand.

# data[].attributes.body
I believe so, though the goals of the conversation may not always align between supervisor and supervisee! This is not necessarily a bad thing, as I think from having meetings any differences can be resolved. We want to encourage students to become independent researchers, so they should over time learn how to, and be comfortable to, bring new ideas, perspectives, goals and thought processes to us about what they think about the project.

# data[].attributes.body
It might not always start that way, and the conversation may be more one-way at particular points, but I think that a two-way conversation should be a goal to be achieved. Students should ideally reach a point and feel confident enough to provide their perspective and to speak to their supervisor on an equal footing. After all, the student knows their research better than anyone else. I think a supervision relationship which embodies a two-way conversation is a sign of mutual respect for one another's expertise.

# data[].attributes.body
I think it should always be a two-way conversation - it is the student's project at the end of the day! But I can see that in the earlier stages of the PhD the balance may seem more one-way as the student needs more guidance and reassurance.

# data[].attributes.body
As we've discussed in previous weeks, I think there is a dialogue that develops over the course of the supervision. In that time I think the balance of power shifts in a way, as therefore the nature of the two-way process does too - at the outset it may be framed more towards the supervisor (to help scaffold the inquiry) and then towards the end the supervisee (who becomes the expert) takes more control of the dialogue.

# data[].attributes.body
It's not an easy question to answer for me as I would define "two-way" in different ways, but depending on what is being done at each point of a meeting or a feedback session (discussing obstacles? asking for advice? reporting on progress? planning next steps? troubleshooting? disclosing a personal situation? co-writing? providing or requesting feedback? checking in?), the give and take and who offers and who receives, who initiates and who responds, etc, will differ. If the supervision is going well, then there'll be action and communication coming from both sides.

# data[].attributes.body
I enjoyed exploring the different ways to listen - often there is a pressure to respond/fix etc so I found it calming to explore other ways of not having to assume responsibility to fix all the time.

# data[].attributes.body
Yes, or at least it should be. Both supervisor and student should be speaking, listening and responding to each other. An open mind and the ability to properly listen are very important in this context.