This paper examines master’s thesis supervision in situ. Following a cohort of students within universities located in three countries, the study investigates how master’s thesis supervision takes place in real time and context. It examines the agentic opportunities (Klemenčič, 2021; 2023; 2024) created for and enacted by students during supervision sessions. While previous empirical work on thesis supervision has largely focused on data gathered outside supervision sessions (e. g. Eklund & Løvland, 2025; Filippou, 2020) – for example, by interviewing students separately–, we actually know less about what happens within the actual sessions. Earlier research has investigated the supervisory practices and discourses in Master’s thesis supervision situations (e.g. Svinhufvud, 2015; Svinhufvud & Vehviläinen, 2013), but not especially in regards to students’ perceptions and agency. The study aims to contribute to the topic by answering the following research questions: How is master’s thesis supervision practiced in situ?What agentic opportunities do students enact within these practices?

To examine the research questions, the study defines student agency as “students’ capabilities to intervene in and influence their learning environments and learning pathway” (Klemenčič, 2017, p. 69; see also Klemenčič, 2021). More specifically, it uses Klemenčič’s (2017) concept of agentic opportunities to understand the students’ positioning within the supervision sessions. Agentic opportunities refer to students’ opportunities to make and take choices and are well-suited framework to understand students’ actual freedom in these practices (see Sen, 2005; Crocker & Robeyns, 2009).

The rationale for this theoretical approach links to the past-decade initiatives of the Bologna Process, especially the promotion of the concept of student-centred learning as a principle and as a standard to be implemented within higher education institutions (Aref & Stensaker, 2025). These initiatives have been understood as a responsibility of university teachers, especially related to implementing student-centred learning within their teaching responsibilities (Dakovic & Zhang, 2021; Damiani 2019). It is in this context that researchers have argued for strengthening theoretical foundation of these initiatives – highlighting student agency as a point-of-departure (Klemenčič, 2017; 2021; see also Geven & Attard, 2012).

The study utilised a multiple case design (Yin, 2018). To account for diversity in how student agency may be enacted, and to account for cultural and institutional diversity, data were gathered from three different geographical settings - two countries and one region. The common denominator for the selection was amongst other things that the concept of student-centred learning had been emphasised in national and regional reform initiatives (e. g. APPRAIS, 2023; Meld. St. 16. (2016-2017)). The specific geographical contexts for the study are Norway, Portugal and Kurdistan Bashur. Our methodological approach is also influenced by an ambition to obtain more information on master’s thesis supervision in situ. This is a challenging ambition, as these settings often are characterised as quite private and sensitive (Sagbakken and Konow-Lund, 2014) and therefore require considerable trust to gain access. We experienced this challenge in our recruitment, and most of the participants were therefore recruited through established networks and contacts. The study selected three master’s programmes in the academic discipline of educational sciences as cases (Yin, 2018), with the intention of following 3-4 students within each case. However, due to difficulties in recruiting enough voluntary participants in the Kurdish case, one master’s student was recruited from a different programme. The students were writing their master’s theses from 2024-2025 – but some have extended their submission deadlines. The programmes were selected based on the following criteria: They had to be 2-year master’s programmes; the thesis had to be integrated as the final work of the degree; the thesis had to be in written format; and supervision had to be provided. The design was for participants – either the students or their teachers – to send for the researchers the recording of each supervision sessions they had, without researchers’ attendance. However, what emerged was that supervision was practiced very differently across contexts. For instance, in Kurdistan Bashur, students and their supervisors tended to interact much more frequently through apps like WhatsApp and Telegram, regardless of time and working hours. Joint and synchronous meeting sessions were not that common. Accordingly, we received screenshots and audio recordings of the messages sent through these platforms. In Portugal, students were commonly supervised in groups. The data are aimed to be analysed through interaction analysis (jf. Steen-Utheim & Wittek, 2017).

While the data have not yet been analysed, we expect a lot of commonalities regarding the practices of supervision and their agentic opportunities offered for students and taken, across and within the cases. This is regardless of the already observed differences occurring within the more practical elements of the supervision and due to the very nature of this teaching-form.

APPRAIS (2023). Roadmap for the implementation of the Bologna Process in Kurdish universities. Read. 29 December 2023. https://www.appraisproject.eu/roadmap-for-the-implementation-of-the-bologna-process-in-kurdish-universities/ Aref, L., & Stensaker, B. (2025). How is student-centred learning translated within the European Higher Education Area?. Studies in Higher Education, 1-15. Crocker, D. A., & Robeyns, I. (2010). Capability and agency. In C. W. Morris (Ed.), Amartya Sen (pp. 60–90). Cambridge University Press. Dakovic, G. & Zhang, T. (2021). Student-Centered Learning from a European Policy and Practice Perspective. In S. Hoidn & M. Klemenčič (Eds.), The Routledge international handbook of student-centered learning and teaching in higher education. (pp. 562-580). Oxon: Routledge. Damiani, M. S. (2019). From 1999 to 2019: 20 years of European debate, development, and achievements. Tuning Journal for Higher Education, 6(2), 51-71. Geven, K., & Attard, A. (2012). Time for student-centred learning?. In Curaj, A., Scott, P., Vlasceanu, L. & Wilson, L. (Eds.). European higher education at the crossroads: between the Bologna Process and national reforms (pp. 153-172). Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands. Eklund, G., & Løvland, A. (2025). Supervision of master’s theses in teacher education: Norwegian teacher educators’ views of their role and competence. European Journal of Teacher Education, 1-18. Filippou, K. (2020). Identifying thesis supervisors’ attitudes: Indications of responsiveness in international master’s degree programmes. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 57(3), 274-284. Meld. St. 16 (2016-2017). Kultur for kvalitet i høyere utdanning. Kunnskapsdepartementet. https://www.regjeringen.no/contentassets/aee30e4b7d3241d5bd89db69fe38f7ba/no/pdfs/stm201620170016000dddpdfs.pdf Klemenčič, M. (2017). From student engagement to student agency: Conceptual considerations of European policies on student-centered learning in higher education. Higher Education Policy, 30, 69-85. Klemenčič, M. (2021). Students as actors and agents in student-centered higher education. In S. Hoidn & M. Klemenčič (Eds.), The Routledge international handbook of student-centered learning and teaching in higher education. (pp. 92-108). Routledge. Sagbakken, M., & Konow-Lund, M. T. (2014). Å bære lykten eller være følgesvenn? Uniped, 37(4), 32-45. Sen, A. (2005). Human rights and capabilities. Journal of human development, 6(2), 151-166. Steen-Utheim, A., & Wittek, A. L. (2017). Dialogic feedback and potentialities for student learning. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction, 15, 18-30. Svinhufvud, K., & Vehviläinen, S. (2013). Papers, documents, and the opening of an academic supervision encounter. Text & Talk, 33(1), 139-166. Svinhufvud, K. (2015). Participation in the master's thesis seminar. Exploring the lack of discussion. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction, 5, 66-83. Yin, R. K. (2018). Case study research and applications (6th ed). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.