Literature on thesis supervision emphasises collaborative approaches with strong and supportive relationships. Despite an increasing research interest in supervisory relationships, little cross-cultural research has been conducted on supervisory roles and relationships in expandingcircle countries. This study explores how thesis supervisors negotiate different rolesand relationshipsin supervision in English as an Additional Language (EAL) contexts. A multi-case study was employed in three contexts: a Swedish university, two Indonesian private universities, and an Indonesian public university. Semi-structured interviews were conducted withfourteenthesis supervisors. Thematic analysis and systemic-functional appraisal theory were used to analyse the discourse. Our findings revealed that supervisors expressed dealing with (a)symmetrical relationships with students and colleagues, dealing with different supervision roles, and managing priorities relating to intellectual development and instrumental goals. However, these dimensions of supervision were described differently in the three contexts. The Swedish supervisors expressed concernsabouthavingweak authority; meanwhile, the Indonesian private supervisors described frustrated attempts to form a closer relationship with the students, whereas the Indonesian public supervisors reacted to students trying to become too familiar. Furthermore, supervisors in the three contexts had to take different unwanted roles in supervision. The article concludes with implications for understanding situatedaspects ofsupervision.

Introduction: Thesis supervision is a critical part of students’ academic literacy development. Previous research has shown different dimensions of this development with limited attention to cross-cultural aspects. In particular, there has been little research on how students and supervisors negotiate supervision practices in non-anglophone contexts. This study aimed to explore students’ and supervisors’ reported priorities and experiences regarding the provision and reception of feedback in English as an Additional Language thesis supervision. 

Method: We conducted a qualitative case study to illuminate supervisor’s and students’ experiences of supervision in Sweden and Indonesia. It involved 39 participants (14 supervisors and 25 students) from one Swedish and three Indonesian universities. One-on-one semi-structured interviews were conducted and analyzed thematically using Biesta’s functions of education, Habermas’ communicative action theory, and perspectives on academic literacy. 

Findings: Firstly, we found that Swedish and Indonesian supervisors had different feedback provision priorities. Swedish supervisors described prioritizing content-focused feedback to facilitate students’ socialization into academic writing. Conversely, most Indonesian supervisors expressed balancing content- and form-focused feedback with a greater emphasis on qualifying as English teachers. Despite these differences, supervisors in both contexts tended to isolate academic language use from discipline-specific values and practices. Secondly, students in both contexts largely expressed an instrumental orientation to achieving their goals and were frustrated by supervisors phrasing feedback as questions. Many students expressed unfamiliarity with necessary methodologies and theoretical frameworks, which made supervisors’ feedback difficult to decode. 

Discussion: Since only a few of the students viewed the feedback as a support for their process of learning, this study calls for a clear communication about the academic socialization intention through supervision. However, academic socialization cannot solely be the responsibility of supervisors but must be embedded in the curriculum courses 

Introduction: The importance of supervisory interaction facilitated by dialogic feedback is known to create a shared understanding between supervisors and students. However, previous studies of supervisory interaction mainly focus on exploring feedback provision as an input for specific improvement rather than as a process of interaction regardless of its discursivity. Informed by learning community theory, this study explores how thesis supervision in English as an Additional Language contexts is negotiated to identify the supervisory interaction patterns and strategies.

Method: This study applied a qualitative case study by involving six supervisory dyads (six supervisors and 15 students) in English- medium study programs. Thematic analysis was used to analyze 18 video-recorded supervision sessions from the beginning, the middle, and the end of the supervision process.

Findings and discussion: The findings illuminate the negotiated interaction patterns and strategies in supervisory meetings that can be organized into three themes: (1) managing correction, (2) managing scaffolding, and (3) managing students' emotional expressions. The supervisory interaction patterns tend to take the form of a common institutional talk due to the students' desire for confirmation and suggestions. Prompting strategies through exploratory questions can scaffold students' development of argumentative skills although students' deviant responses frequently lead to supervisors' further explanation. The theoretical analysis underscores that learning community theory emphasizes the development of student's academic literacy and argumentative proficiency through dialogic inquiry. Yet, effective engagement in such inquiry necessitates prerequisite academic literacy and rhetorical competencies.

Conclusion: This study highlights the need for developing student's academic literacy, research literacy, and communication skills to achieve an effective inquiry dialogue in thesis supervision.