Purpose – This paper aims to explore how novice doctoral co-supervisors promote PhD students’ well-being. It provides a more nuanced understanding of how early-career academics engage with the relational and emotionally complex nature of co-supervision. Design/methodology/approach – The qualitative study draws on 25 in-depth interviews with novice co-supervisors at two research-intensive universities in Sweden. Data were analysed using reflexive thematic analysis within a symbolic interactionist framework. Findings – The results reveal that novice co-supervisors promote PhD students’ well-being. Drawing on their social expertise, they contribute by reducing social isolation, structuring the supervisory process, fostering scholarly independence and creating opportunities for open dialogue about well-being. Practical implications – This study can serve as a basis for discussions about novice co-supervisory roles and their involvement in PhD student well-being. It also highlights that new supervisors may require support structures at multiple levels – clear policies, structured team induction, training, mentoring and, above all, a supportive supervisory culture. Originality/value – The originality of this study lies in its close look at the role of novice doctoral co-supervisors. Using a symbolic interactionist lens, it shows how everyday relational practices can become part of the structure of supervision. Its value lies in highlighting how novice co-supervisors help shift supervision towards a more supportive and caring culture.

The 8^th SEFI Doctoral Symposium in Engineering Education Research, held at the campus of EPFL on Sunday, September 1^st, preceded the SEFI 2024 Annual Conference. In all, 31 Ph.D. researchers attended. They came to share and further probe their Ph.D. research topics and study plans and to strengthen and extend their professional networks. During this full and intense day, 22 established scholars provided the Ph.D. researchers with personal feedback and ideas regarding their research. Highlights, according to the Ph.D. student participants, were the welcome and sense of support and belonging they experienced from the engineering education research community, including both the advising senior researchers and the other Ph.D. students. Although SEFI is a European organization, the Ph.D. researchers and senior advisers travelled from Africa, Australia, and North America, as well as from all over Europe, to Switzerland for this event.

This workshop focuses on peer review of journal manuscripts in the field of engineering education research.The aim is to jointly consider how to review manuscripts fairly, constructively and effectively.To this workshop we invite both experienced and new reviewers, with a particularly warm welcome extended to doctoral students in engineering education research.

This interactive workshop, facilitated by a team of editors, associate editors and experienced reviewers from a number of leading journals in engineering education, allowed participants the opportunity to network with other researchers and to learn about the journal publication process and how best to navigate it as an author. It provided an informal opportunity for both early-stage scholars, as well as those with more experience, to share their publication journeys and experiences, both positive and negative, directly with each other and journal editors.

This workshop was created for researchers seeking to elevate awareness of specific engineering education research (EER) issues or sub-domains and expand their readership and authorship base within these areas.Drawing from the experience of developing book and journal publications in EER, the facilitators shared insights into the publication process, highlighting the primary considerations involved.The discussion helped participants identify publication formats and understand the usefulness of special-focus journal issues as well as how to conceptualise publication projects, set up editorial teams, select and approach publishers, and prepare proposal documents.The open discussion format allowed participants to query the facilitators.

This study investigates how students reason about progression in an engineering programme. Here progression refers to the idea of setting up the educational programme so that learning activities build on previous ones and prepare for future ones, allowing students to gradually develop their competence and ultimately achieve the programme goals. It is not trivial to build progression into education programmes, and in particular, there may be differences between how the educators intended the curriculum to work and students' actual experiences. This study is based on 60 reflections on progression, written by engineering students. They were analysed thematically to identify the aspects viewed as important to create a good progression in the programme. The following categories were identified: teaching and assessment, repetition, making clear connections between prior and continuing courses, realistic progression, personal factors and alternative routes to progression. These findings give us better insight into the students' perspectives on requirements for appropriately creating progression in education programmes. After all, the students are the ones who experience the curriculum design and teaching in practice.

The Initiative for Innovation in Engineering Education, IDEE, is a university-wide activity at Delft University of Technology (TU Delft), aiming to strengthen the capacity for evidence-based innovation in engineering education. The goal is to create a more systematic and evidence-informed approach to educational innovation at TU Delft, and to ensure that the knowledge gained is documented and shared with the wider education community. This paper describes the first steps in establishing the structures for the initiative, identifying the educational themes to be addressed, mobilising teams of faculty members and recruiting junior researchers, creating support for these teams, and building a productive community. Through this setup, IDEE has high ambitions for creating both educational innovation and associated scientific gains. It is also intended to create role models for novel kinds of academic careers with an emphasis on teaching.

The concept of Curriculum Agility has been co-created in a series of sessions at CDIO meetings and conferences since 2018. Deliverables were a jointly generated definition, characteristics, a set of principles, and a self-mapping process on these principles. Using the Curriculum Agility concept offers guidance for CDIO programs and institutions in increasing the adaptability of their curricula based on the latest insights and developments in their discipline, continuously fulfilling the need of an ever more diverse student population and anticipating sudden societal changes. Curriculum Agility takes a holistic approach to considering conditions for proactive and timely curriculum development, including but not limited to enhancement of faculty competence. Although the success of CDIO implementation depends on this wider set of conditions that can drive, enable, or hinder change, this is currently not addressed in the CDIO standards. This paper proposes Curriculum Agility as an optional standard in the CDIO framework. It is a widely applicable, program-level concept including both educational and organisational aspects that addresses an important need in engineering education, and it is co-created within the CDIO community. Curriculum Agility is currently not sufficiently present or addressed in the existing standards. Therefore, this paper argues that Curriculum Agility as an optional standard and rubric will be a new useful tool in the CDIO toolbox.

Peer review is the mechanism for quality control in academic journals. When a manuscript is submitted to a journal, the editors invite other researchers - peers - to review it anonymously. The reviews should serve to support the journal editors in making decisions, and to support the authors in improving the manuscripts before publication. Therefore, reviews need to be fair and constructive. As reviewing can also take considerable effort, it is useful for the reviewer to consider how to do it effectively. Given the important role of peer review in a field, and the considerable effort it takes, it is valuable to jointly consider all these aspects of reviewing in a dialogue with reviewers, authors and editors. This paper presents the outcomes of such a dialogue with 49 participants in the field of engineering education research.

In this interactive workshop, facilitated by a team of editors from the European Journal of Engineering Education (EJEE), the Journal of Engineering Education (JEE), and IEEE Transactions on Education, participants had the opportunity to network with other scholars in the field, and learn about the journal publication process and how best to navigate it. It served as an informal opportunity for scholars at all stages of their publication journey to share their experiences, both positive and negative, directly with each other and journal editors. Participants co-created a document of shared insights about writing for publication, the key outcomes of which are presented in this paper.