Supervision of undergraduate thesis writing is a core academic practice with substantial consequences for students, supervisors, universities, and society. Agricola, Prins, van der Schaaf, and van Tartwijk (2021) show that supervisors’ pedagogical decisions during thesis meetings are directed toward supporting student understanding, revealing supervision as a dynamic, interactive, context‑specific practice. Bradshaw, O’Sullivan, and Creaven (2025) further describe supervision as a continual negotiation of academic identity shaped by institutional structures, personal values, and relational demands. The significance of supervision is especially clear in research by Mårtensson and Söderström (2024), who demonstrate that different supervisory emphases—such as support, control, content focus, process orientation, and supervisory format—relate distinctly to student outcomes including timely completion, deep learning, scientific curiosity, and thesis quality. From the student perspective, Roberts and Seaman (2018) find that students value supervisors who are supportive, empowering, communicative, and aligned with their research interests, while concerns often center on power dynamics and inconsistent guidance.

Yet, the empirical research base—particularly from the supervisor’s perspective—remains comparatively limited and dispersed across disciplines and national contexts. Besides, the fragmentation in theoretical usage is highlighted by Bradshaw et al. (2025) while Agricola et al. (2021) and Freeman et al. (2020) observe that methodological transparency and paradigm articulation are often limited in studies of academic supervision. These perspectives bring out the need for theoretically explicit syntheses that illuminate how supervisors conceptualize and enact their roles. This review therefore asks: Which theoretical and methodological patterns characterize empirical qualitative studies on supervisors’ perspectives on undergraduate thesis supervision, and what gaps and opportunities emerge from a systematic scoping of this literature? Addressing this question involves four objectives: to conduct a systematic search for published, peer‑reviewed empirical literature on supervision of undergraduate thesis from the supervisor perspective; to chart the range of aims, theories, and methodologies used in these studies; to analyze characteristics of theory use via the notion of “theory work” (Hamann & Kosmützky, 2021); and to appraise methodological characteristics using the Approach‑Based Model that distinguishes Big‑Q qualitative from small‑q qualitative research (Nicmanis & Spurrier, 2025). 

Two conceptual frameworks guide the analysis in this review, each addressing a different dimension of how research on supervisors’ perspectives is constructed and justified. The first is a theory‑work lens, which draws on Hamann and Kosmützky’s (2021) articulation of three core dimensions of theory work in higher education research. This lens enables a systematic examination of how studies position themselves theoretically by considering: (i) the range of theories they mobilize—whether they rely on broad, universal theories or highly contextual, case‑specific conceptual tools; (ii) their mode of engagement with theory, including whether theory is being tested, applied, modified, or built; and (iii) the degree of epistemic autonomy demonstrated, that is, whether studies develop theoretical contributions independently or primarily borrow from adjacent fields. 

The second framework is an alignment lens, which evaluates the coherence between a study’s stated (or implied) ontological and epistemological commitments and its methodological choices, data collection strategies, analytic procedures, and interpretive claims. This lens is informed by Nicmanis and Spurrier’s (2025) distinction between interpretive Big‑Q qualitative approaches, which are grounded in explicit paradigmatic commitments, and method‑driven small‑q qualitative approaches, which treat qualitative methods primarily as technical tools. The alignment lens is particularly relevant in this field because many studies on undergraduate thesis supervision rely on interviews, thematic analysis, or discourse‑oriented methods while omitting explicit paradigm statements. Such omissions create uncertainty about whether methodological choices are philosophically grounded or merely procedural. 

Together, these two frameworks allow the review not only to map theoretical and methodological patterns but also to interrogate the conceptual coherence and scholarly positioning of the field.

Methodologically, the review follows the scoping framework introduced by Arksey and O’Malley (2005) and later refined by Levac, Colquhoun, and O’Brien (2010), as well as the extraction and reporting recommendations of Pollock et al. (2023). Database searches will include ERIC, PsycInfo, Scopus, and Web of Science, supplemented with reference and citation chaining as recommended by Pollock et al. (2023) and the JBI Manual chapter by Peters, Godfrey, McInerney, Munn, Tricco, and Khalil (2024). Inclusion criteria for this publication focus on empirical qualitative studies representing supervisors’ experiences; exclusions include mixed methods designs and studies blending supervisor and student perspectives without distinguishing between them, consistent with the pragmatic guidance of Levac et al. (2010). The final corpus consists of 12 qualitative studies published between 1998 and November 2024, with nine published after 2015, indicating a recent uptick in supervisor‑focused research on undergraduate thesis supervision. Studies were conducted across nine countries (e.g., UK, Sweden, Norway, Netherlands, Spain, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, Indonesia) and span disciplines including health sciences, psychology, education, business, sport studies, and law, with three studies involving multi‑disciplinary samples. This breadth underscores both the growing interest and the cross‑context heterogeneity of supervisory practice. Data extraction covered study demographics (country, discipline, year), stated aims, theory/concepts, methodological stance and methods, analytical approach, and ethical reporting. Analytical work comprised (a) a descriptive synthesis of aims, theories, and methodologies range and (b) a deductive appraisal using the theory‑work lenses (Hamann & Kosmützky, 2021) and the Approach‑Based Model (Nicmanis & Spurrier, 2025). Reporting followed JBI guidance by Pollock et al. (2023) and Peters et al. (2024), using narrative synthesis supported by structured comparison.

Across the corpus, studies consistently explore supervisors’ experiences of dilemmas, negotiations, and challenges embedded in the daily practice of undergraduate thesis supervision. In terms of theory use, seven of the twelve studies incorporate theories or sensitizing concepts to guide inquiry or deepen interpretation. Much of this theoretical scaffolding is imported from adjacent domains: concepts such as “dilemmatic space,” “teacher noticing,” and “teaching dilemmas” derive from pedagogical research, while “chaos/cosmos” originates in learning theory. Studies also draw on repertoires of supervisory roles and quality dimensions developed in other supervision contexts, and one employs systemic functional linguistics to analyze tenor and relational positioning. The remaining studies rely mainly on case specific interpretations, using theory more as a reflective or comparative tool during the discussion stage than as a primary analytic driver. Methodologically, the studies predominantly align with interpretivist or constructivist paradigms, whether explicitly acknowledged or implicitly conveyed through research questions and analytic choices. Designs span exploratory qualitative studies, case studies, hermeneutic approaches, and grounded theory influenced analyses. Semi structured or unstructured interviews constitute the primary method of data collection, supplemented occasionally by focus groups or qualitative questionnaires. Analytic strategies range from reflexive and latent thematic analysis to discourse analysis, phenomenological accounts of lived experience, and constant comparison coding. Notably, several studies that otherwise align with Big Q qualitative values introduce positivist leaning quality metrics—such as inter rater reliability or coding agreement—suggesting that methodological reporting may at times reflect disciplinary or editorial norms rather than paradigmatic congruence. Analyzed through Hamann and Kosmützky’s theory work lenses and the Approach Based Model, the corpus reveals both conceptual breadth and methodological inconsistency, underscoring the need for clearer theoretical articulation and stronger paradigm method alignment in future research.

Agricola, B. T., Prins, F. J., van der Schaaf, M. F., & van Tartwijk, J. (2021). Supervisor and student perspectives on undergraduate thesis supervision in higher education. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 65(5), 877–897. https://doi.org/10.1080/00313831.2020.1775115 Arksey, H., & O’Malley, L. (2005). Scoping studies: Towards a methodological framework. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 8(1), 19–32. https://doi.org/10.1080/1364557032000119616 Bradshaw, D., O’Sullivan, Í., & Creaven, A. M. (2025). Negotiated identity: A systematic review of the experiences and perceptions of supervisors of undergraduate academic supervision. International Journal for Academic Development. https://doi.org/10.1080/1360144X.2025.2538626 Freeman, L., Brooks, J., Crowley, C., Elmi Glennan, C., Gordon Finlayson, A., McDermott, H., & Seymour Smith, S. (2020). Beyond the comfort zone: A guide to supervising qualitative undergraduate psychology dissertations for quantitative researchers. Levac, D., Colquhoun, H., & O’Brien, K. K. (2010). Scoping studies: Advancing the methodology. Implementation Science, 5, 69. https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-5-69 Mårtensson, M., & Söderström, J. (2024). How does supervision shape student thesis outcomes? Expanding the theory and measurement of supervision and its impact. Journal of Political Science Education. https://doi.org/10.1080/15512169.2024.2446940 Peters, M. D. J., Godfrey, C., McInerney, P., Munn, Z., Tricco, A. C., & Khalil, H. (2024). JBI Manual for Evidence Synthesis: Scoping Reviews (Chapter 10). https://doi.org/10.46658/JBIMES-24-09 Pollock, D., Peters, M. D. J., Khalil, H., McInerney, P., Alexander, L., Tricco, A. C., Evans, C., de Moraes, É. B., Godfrey, C. M., Pieper, D., Saran, A., Stern, C., & Munn, Z. (2023). Recommendations for the extraction, analysis, and presentation of results in scoping reviews. JBI Evidence Synthesis, 21(3), 520–532. https://doi.org/10.11124/JBIES-22-00123 Rietig, K. (2023). Supervising dissertations. In Innovative Social Sciences Teaching and Learning (Chapter 8). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-41452-7_8 Roberts, L. D., & Seaman, K. (2018). Students’ experiences of undergraduate dissertation supervision. Frontiers in Education, 3, 109. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2018.00109