15-29. 1435-1459. AQF 2011, 297-314. 3. 62-69.

23 times. If a candidate is feeling low because of a rejection from a journal, the supervisor might encourage them to think about other times when they have had to cope with rejection, how they coped with it then, and how they might use that experience to help them this time. There are times when candidates begin to lose their self- belief. The supervisor’s belief in them helps them to renew their commitment and their effort. CONCLUSION This paper has argued that a coaching approach lends itself to the support of the doctoral candidate in successful completion of their thesis. Having identified key challenges in doctoral supervision as completion, candidate autonomy and quality of thinking, the contribution of this paper is to show that similar issues are addressed in coaching, and indicating where coaching can be used effectively in doctoral supervision by encouraging a focus on goals, developing the candidate’s autonomy and challenging the candidate’s thinking in a positive way. Further research is needed into the extent to which coaching skills are already used by supervisors, as well as an evaluation of the effectiveness of coaching in doctoral supervision on completion rates, autonomy and quality of thesis, and on supervisors’ and candidates’ experience. Observations of supervision sessions are rare, but would provide stronger evidence than self-reports. The potential for coaching to contribute to doctoral supervision appears strong. If empirical research demonstrates the effectiveness of coaching in this context, more supervisors are likely to adopt this approach. Acknowledgements My sincere thanks to the editor for her encouragement, and to the two anonymous referees for their invaluable feedback. My thanks go also to my doctoral students and co-supervisors, from whom I have learned so much. REFERENCES Abiddin, NA Ismail, A 2011 , ‘Attrition and completion issues in postgraduate studies for student development ’, International Review of Social Sciences and Humanities

1, 15-29.

Alexander, G 2006 , ‘Behavioural coaching—the GROW model’, in J Passmore ed. Excellence in coaching: The industry guide, Kogan Page, London. Alvesson, M Sveningsson, S 2003 , ‘Managers Doing Leadership: The Extra-Ordinarization of the Mundane ’, Human Relations,

56, 1435-1459. AQF 2011,

Australian Qualifications Framework, DEEWR, Canberra. Arnold, J 2009, Coaching skills for leaders in the workplace, Oxford How to Books. Barnes, BJ Austin, AE 2009 , ‘The role of doctoral advisors: a look at advising from the advisor’s perspective’, Innovation in Education,

33, 297-314.

Berg, M Karlsen, J 2007 , ‘Mental Models in Project Management Coaching’, Engineering Management Journal,

19, 3.

Bruce, C Stoodley, I 2009 , ‘Toward a pedagogy of supervision in the technology disciplines ’, ALTC, Sydney. Burke, D Linley, PA 2007 , ‘Enhancing goal self-concordance through coaching’, International Coaching Psychology Review,

2, 62-69.

Addressing Challenges in PhD Supervision 24 Cadman, K Cargill, M 2007 , ‘Providing Quality Advice on Candidates Writing’, in C Denholm T Evans eds., Supervising Doctorates Downunder: Keys to Effective Supervision in Australia and New Zealand, ACER, Camberwell, Victoria, Australia. Cavanagh, MJ Grant, AM 2010 , ‘The solution-focused approach to coaching’, in E Cox, T Bachkirova D Clutterbuck eds., Complete handbook of coaching, Sage, London. Cox, E, Bachkirova, T Clutterbuck, D eds. 2010, The complete handbook of coaching, Sage, London. Cribb, A Gewirtz, S 2006 , ‘Doctoral student supervision in a managerial climate’, International Studies in Sociology of Education, 16, 223-236. Cullen, DJ 1994, Establishing Effective PhD supervision, Department of Employment, Education and Training, Australian Government Publishing Service. Delamont, S, Atkinson, P Parry, O 2004, Supervising the Doctorate 2nd edn, , McGraw-Hill Education, Berkshire, England. Department of Innovation, Industry Science and Research DIISR 2011 , ‘Defining quality for research training in Australia: a consultation paper ’, Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra. Deuchar, R 2008 , ‘Facilitator, director or critical friend?: contradiction and congruence in doctoral supervision styles ’, Teaching in Higher Education,

13, 489-500.