phd supervisor types

Ten types of PhD supervisor relationships – which is yours?

Lecturer, Griffith University

Disclosure statement

Susanna Chamberlain does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

Griffith University provides funding as a member of The Conversation AU.

View all partners

It’s no secret that getting a PhD is a stressful process .

One of the factors that can help or hinder this period of study is the relationship between supervisor and student. Research shows that effective supervision can significantly influence the quality of the PhD and its success or failure.

PhD supervisors tend to fulfil several functions: the teacher; the mentor who can support and facilitate the emotional processes; and the patron who manages the springboard from which the student can leap into a career.

There are many styles of supervision that are adopted – and these can vary depending on the type of research being conducted and subject area.

Although research suggests that providing extra mentoring support and striking the right balance between affiliation and control can help improve PhD success and supervisor relationships, there is little research on the types of PhD-supervisor relationships that occur.

From decades of experience of conducting and observing PhD supervision, I’ve noticed ten types of common supervisor relationships that occur. These include:

The candidate is expected to replicate the field, approach and worldview of the supervisor, producing a sliver of research that supports the supervisor’s repute and prestige. Often this is accompanied by strictures about not attempting to be too “creative”.

Cheap labour

The student becomes research assistant to the supervisor’s projects and becomes caught forever in that power imbalance. The patron-client roles often continue long after graduation, with the student forever cast in the secondary role. Their own work is often disregarded as being unimportant.

The “ghost supervisor”

The supervisor is seen rarely, responds to emails only occasionally and has rarely any understanding of either the needs of the student or of their project. For determined students, who will work autonomously, the ghost supervisor is often acceptable until the crunch comes - usually towards the end of the writing process. For those who need some support and engagement, this is a nightmare.

The relationship is overly familiar, with the assurance that we are all good friends, and the student is drawn into family and friendship networks. Situations occur where the PhD students are engaged as babysitters or in other domestic roles (usually unpaid because they don’t want to upset the supervisor by asking for money). The chum, however, often does not support the student in professional networks.

Collateral damage

When the supervisor is a high-powered researcher, the relationship can be based on minimal contact, because of frequent significant appearances around the world. The student may find themselves taking on teaching, marking and administrative functions for the supervisor at the cost of their own learning and research.

The practice of supervision becomes a method of intellectual torment, denigrating everything presented by the student. Each piece of research is interrogated rigorously, every meeting is an inquisition and every piece of writing is edited into oblivion. The student is given to believe that they are worthless and stupid.

Creepy crawlers

Some supervisors prefer to stalk their students, sometimes students stalk their supervisors, each with an unhealthy and unrequited sexual obsession with the other. Most Australian universities have moved actively to address this relationship, making it less common than in previous decades.

Captivate and con

Occasionally, supervisor and student enter into a sexual relationship. This can be for a number of reasons, ranging from a desire to please to a need for power over youth. These affairs can sometimes lead to permanent relationships. However, what remains from the supervisor-student relationship is the asymmetric set of power balances.

Almost all supervision relationships contain some aspect of the counsellor or mentor, but there is often little training or desire to develop the role and it is often dismissed as pastoral care. Although the life experiences of students become obvious, few supervisors are skilled in dealing with the emotional or affective issues.

Colleague in training

When a PhD candidate is treated as a colleague in training, the relationship is always on a professional basis, where the individual and their work is held in respect. The supervisor recognises that their role is to guide through the morass of regulation and requirements, offer suggestions and do some teaching around issues such as methodology, research practice and process, and be sensitive to the life-cycle of the PhD process. The experience for both the supervisor and student should be one of acknowledgement of each other, recognising the power differential but emphasising the support at this time. This is the best of supervision.

There are many university policies that move to address a lot of the issues in supervisor relationships , such as supervisor panels, and dedicated training in supervising and mentoring practices. However, these policies need to be accommodated into already overloaded workloads and should include regular review of supervisors.

• professional mentoring
• PhD supervisors

Sydney Horizon Educators (Identified)

Senior Disability Services Advisor

Deputy Social Media Producer

Associate Professor, Occupational Therapy

GRAINS RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION CHAIRPERSON

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• PLoS Comput Biol
• v.17(9); 2021 Sep

Ten simple rules for choosing a PhD supervisor

Department of Biology, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada

Catherine Bannon

J. scott p. mccain, introduction.

The PhD beckons. You thought long and hard about why you want to do it, you understand the sacrifices and commitments it entails, and you have decided that it is the right thing for you. Congratulations! Undertaking a doctoral degree can be an extremely rewarding experience, greatly enhancing your personal, intellectual, and professional development. If you are still on the fence about whether or not you want to pursue a PhD, see [ 1 , 2 ] and others to help you decide.

As a PhD student in the making, you will have many important decisions to consider. Several of them will depend on your chosen discipline and research topic, the institution you want to attend, and even the country where you will undertake your degree. However, one of the earliest and most critical decisions you will need to make transcends most other decisions: choosing your PhD thesis supervisor. Your PhD supervisor will strongly influence the success and quality of your degree as well as your general well-being throughout the program. It is therefore vital to choose the right supervisor for you. A wrong choice or poor fit can be disastrous on both a personal and professional levels—something you obviously want to avoid. Unfortunately, however, most PhD students go through the process of choosing a supervisor only once and thus do not get the opportunity to learn from previous experiences. Additionally, many prospective PhD students do not have access to resources and proper guidance to rely on when making important academic decisions such as those involved in choosing a PhD supervisor.

In this short guide, we—a group of PhD students with varied backgrounds, research disciplines, and academic journeys—share our collective experiences with choosing our own PhD supervisors. We provide tips and advice to help prospective students in various disciplines, including computational biology, in their quest to find a suitable PhD supervisor. Despite procedural differences across countries, institutions, and programs, the following rules and discussions should remain helpful for guiding one’s approach to selecting their future PhD supervisor. These guidelines mostly address how to evaluate a potential PhD supervisor and do not include details on how you might find a supervisor. In brief, you can find a supervisor anywhere: seminars, a class you were taught, internet search of interesting research topics, departmental pages, etc. After reading about a group’s research and convincing yourself it seems interesting, get in touch! Make sure to craft an e-mail carefully, demonstrating you have thought about their research and what you might do in their group. After finding one or several supervisors of interest, we hope that the rules bellow will help you choose the right supervisor for you.

Rule 1: Align research interests

You need to make sure that a prospective supervisor studies, or at the very least, has an interest in what you want to study. A good starting point would be to browse their personal and research group websites (though those are often outdated), their publication profile, and their students’ theses, if possible. Keep in mind that the publication process can be slow, so recent publications may not necessarily reflect current research in that group. Pay special attention to publications where the supervisor is senior author—in life sciences, their name would typically be last. This would help you construct a mental map of where the group interests are going, in addition to where they have been.

Be proactive about pursuing your research interests, but also flexible: Your dream research topic might not currently be conducted in a particular group, but perhaps the supervisor is open to exploring new ideas and research avenues with you. Check that the group or institution of interest has the facilities and resources appropriate for your research, and/or be prepared to establish collaborations to access those resources elsewhere. Make sure you like not only the research topic, but also the “grunt work” it requires, as a topic you find interesting may not be suitable for you in terms of day-to-day work. You can look at the “Methods” sections of published papers to get a sense for what this is like—for example, if you do not like resolving cryptic error messages, programming is probably not for you, and you might want to consider a wet lab–based project. Lastly, any research can be made interesting, and interests change. Perhaps your favorite topic today is difficult to work with now, and you might cut your teeth on a different project.

Rule 2: Seek trusted sources

Discussing your plans with experienced and trustworthy people is a great way to learn more about the reputation of potential supervisors, their research group dynamics, and exciting projects in your field of interest. Your current supervisor, if you have one, could be aware of position openings that are compatible with your interests and time frame and is likely to know talented supervisors with good reputations in their fields. Professors you admire, reliable student advisors, and colleagues might also know your prospective supervisor on various professional or personal levels and could have additional insight about working with them. Listen carefully to what these trusted sources have to say, as they can provide a wealth of insider information (e.g., personality, reputation, interpersonal relationships, and supervisory styles) that might not be readily accessible to you.

Rule 3: Expectations, expectations, expectations

A considerable portion of PhD students feel that their program does not meet original expectations [ 3 ]. To avoid being part of this group, we stress the importance of aligning your expectations with the supervisor’s expectations before joining a research group or PhD program. Also, remember that one person’s dream supervisor can be another’s worst nightmare and vice versa—it is about a good fit for you. Identifying what a “good fit” looks like requires a serious self-appraisal of your goals (see Rule 1 ), working style (see Rule 5 ), and what you expect in a mentor (see Rule 4 ). One way to conduct this self-appraisal is to work in a research lab to get experiences similar to a PhD student (if this is possible).

Money!—Many people have been conditioned to avoid the subject of finances at all costs, but setting financial expectations early is crucial for maintaining your well-being inside and outside the lab. Inside the lab, funding will provide chemicals and equipment required for you to do cool research. It is also important to know if there will be sufficient funding for your potential projects to be completed. Outside the lab, you deserve to get paid a reasonable, livable stipend. What is the minimum required take-home stipend, or does that even exist at the institution you are interested in? Are there hard cutoffs for funding once your time runs out, or does the institution have support for students who take longer than anticipated? If the supervisor supplies the funding, do they end up cutting off students when funds run low, or do they have contingency plans? ( Fig 1 ).

Professional development opportunities—A key aspect of graduate school training is professional development. In some research groups, it is normal for PhD students to mentor undergraduate students or take a semester to work in industry to get more diverse experiences. Other research groups have clear links with government entities, which is helpful for going into policy or government-based research. These opportunities (and others) are critical for your career and next steps. What are the career development opportunities and expectations of a potential supervisor? Is a potential supervisor happy to send students to workshops to learn new skills? Are they supportive of public outreach activities? If you are looking at joining a newer group, these sorts of questions will have to be part of the larger set of conversations about expectations. Ask: “What sort of professional development opportunities are there at the institution?”

Publications—Some PhD programs have minimum requirements for finishing a thesis (i.e., you must publish a certain number of papers prior to defending), while other programs leave it up to the student and supervisor to decide on this. A simple and important topic to discuss is: How many publications are expected from your PhD and when will you publish them? If you are keen to publish in high-impact journals, does your prospective supervisor share that aim? (Although question why you are so keen to do so, see the San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment ( www.sfdora.org ) to learn about the pitfalls of journal impact factor.)

Rule 4: It takes two to tango

Sooner or later, you will get to meet and interview with a prospective PhD supervisor. This should go both ways: Interview them just as much as they are interviewing you. Prepare questions and pay close attention to how they respond. For example, ask them about their “lab culture,” research interests (especially for the future/long term), and what they are looking for in a graduate student. Do you feel like you need to “put on an act” to go along with the supervisor (beyond just the standard interview mode)? Represent yourself, and not the person you think they are looking for. All of us will have some interviews go badly. Remember that discovering a poor fit during the interview has way fewer consequences than the incompatibility that could arise once you have committed to a position.

To come up with good questions for the prospective supervisor, first ask yourself questions. What are you looking for in a mentor? People differ in their optimal levels of supervision, and there is nothing wrong with wanting more or less than your peers. How much career guidance do you expect and does the potential supervisor respect your interests, particularly if your long-term goals do not include academia? What kind of student might not thrive in this research group?

Treat the PhD position like a partnership: What do you seek to get out of it? Keep in mind that a large portion of research is conducted by PhD students [ 4 ], so you are also an asset. Your supervisor will provide guidance, but the PhD is your work. Make sure you and your mentor are on the same page before committing to what is fundamentally a professional contract akin to an apprenticeship (see “ Rule 3 ”).

Rule 5: Workstyle compatibility

Sharing interests with a supervisor does not necessarily guarantee you would work well together, and just because you enjoyed a course by a certain professor does not mean they are the right PhD supervisor for you. Make sure your expectations for work and work–life approaches are compatible. Do you thrive on structure, or do you need freedom to proceed at your own pace? Do they expect you to be in the lab from 6:00 AM to midnight on a regular basis (red flag!)? Are they comfortable with you working from home when you can? Are they around the lab enough for it to work for you? Are they supportive of alternative work hours if you have other obligations (e.g., childcare, other employment, extracurriculars)? How is the group itself organized? Is there a lab manager or are the logistics shared (fairly?) between the group members? Discuss this before you commit!

Two key attributes of a research group are the supervisor’s career stage and number of people in the group. A supervisor in a later career stage may have more established research connections and protocols. An earlier career stage supervisor comes with more opportunities to shape the research direction of the lab, but less access to academic political power and less certainty in what their supervision style will be (even to themselves). Joining new research groups provides a great opportunity to learn how to build a lab if you are considering that career path but may take away time and energy from your thesis project. Similarly, be aware of pros and cons of different lab sizes. While big labs provide more opportunity for collaborations and learning from fellow lab members, their supervisors generally have less time available for each trainee. Smaller labs tend to have better access to the supervisor but may be more isolating [ 5 , 6 ]. Also note that large research groups tend to be better for developing extant research topics further, while small groups can conduct more disruptive research [ 7 ].

Rule 6: Be sure to meet current students

Meeting with current students is one of the most important steps prior to joining a lab. Current students will give you the most direct and complete sense of what working with a certain supervisor is actually like. They can also give you a valuable sense of departmental culture and nonacademic life. You could also ask to meet with other students in the department to get a broader sense of the latter. However, if current students are not happy with their current supervisor, they are unlikely to tell you directly. Try to ask specific questions: “How often do you meet with your supervisor?”, “What are the typical turnaround times for a paper draft?”, “How would you describe the lab culture?”, “How does your supervisor react to mistakes or unexpected results?”, “How does your supervisor react to interruptions to research from, e.g., personal life?”, and yes, even “What would you say is the biggest weakness of your supervisor?”

Rule 7: But also try to meet past students

While not always possible, meeting with past students can be very informative. Past students give you information on career outcomes (i.e., what are they doing now?) and can provide insight into what the lab was like when they were in it. Previous students will provide a unique perspective because they have gone through the entire process, from start to finish—and, in some cases, no longer feel obligated to speak well of their now former supervisor. It can also be helpful to look at previous students’ experiences by reading the acknowledgement section in their theses.

Rule 8: Consider the entire experience

Your PhD supervisor is only one—albeit large—piece of your PhD puzzle. It is therefore essential to consider your PhD experience as whole when deciding on a supervisor. One important aspect to contemplate is your mental health. Graduate students have disproportionately higher rates of depression and anxiety compared to the general population [ 8 ], so your mental health will be tested greatly throughout your PhD experience. We suggest taking the time to reflect on what factors would enable you to do your best work while maintaining a healthy work–life balance. Does your happiness depend on surfing regularly? Check out coastal areas. Do you despise being cold? Consider being closer to the equator. Do you have a deep-rooted phobia of koalas? Maybe avoid Australia. Consider these potentially even more important questions like: Do you want to be close to your friends and family? Will there be adequate childcare support? Are you comfortable with studying abroad? How does the potential university treat international or underrepresented students? When thinking about your next steps, keep in mind that although obtaining your PhD will come with many challenges, you will be at your most productive when you are well rested, financially stable, nourished, and enjoying your experience.

Rule 9: Trust your gut

You have made it to our most “hand-wavy” rule! As academics, we understand the desire for quantifiable data and some sort of statistic to make logical decisions. If this is more your style, consider every interaction with a prospective supervisor, from the first e-mail onwards, as a piece of data.

However, there is considerable value in trusting gut instincts. One way to trust your gut is to listen to your internal dialogue while making your decision on a PhD supervisor. For example, if your internal dialogue includes such phrases as “it will be different for me,” “I’ll just put my head down and work hard,” or “maybe their students were exaggerating,” you might want to proceed with caution. If you are saying “Wow! How are they so kind and intelligent?” or “I cannot wait to start!”, then you might have found a winner ( Fig 2 ).

Rule 10: Wash, rinse, repeat

The last piece of advice we give you is to do this lengthy process all over again. Comparing your options is a key step during the search for a PhD supervisor. By screening multiple different groups, you ultimately learn more about what red flags to look for, compatible work styles, your personal expectations, and group atmospheres. Repeat this entire process with another supervisor, another university, or even another country. We suggest you reject the notion that you would be “wasting someone’s time.” You deserve to take your time and inform yourself to choose a PhD supervisor wisely. The time and energy invested in a “failed” supervisor search would still be far less than what is consumed by a bad PhD experience ( Fig 3 ).

The more supervisors your interview and the more advice you get from peers, the more apparent these red flags will become.

Conclusions

Pursuing a PhD can be an extremely rewarding endeavor and a time of immense personal growth. The relationship you have with your PhD supervisor can make or break an entire experience, so make this choice carefully. Above, we have outlined some key points to think about while making this decision. Clarifying your own expectations is a particularly important step, as conflicts can arise when there are expectation mismatches. In outlining these topics, we hope to share pieces of advice that sometimes require “insider” knowledge and experience.

After thoroughly evaluating your options, go ahead and tackle the PhD! In our own experiences, carefully choosing a supervisor has led to relationships that morph from mentor to mentee into a collaborative partnership where we can pose new questions and construct novel approaches to answer them. Science is hard enough by itself. If you choose your supervisor well and end up developing a positive relationship with them and their group, you will be better suited for sound and enjoyable science.

Funding Statement

The authors received no specific funding for this work.

Your browser is unsupported

We recommend using the latest version of IE11, Edge, Chrome, Firefox or Safari.

Graduate College

Top tips for choosing a phd supervisor.

Özge Özden lays out the pros and cons you need to consider when choosing a supervisor, as well as five key qualities to look out for

Selecting a PhD supervisor is one of the most crucial – and difficult – decisions a young researcher will have to make. And while there is no failsafe method of choosing one, your decision will undoubtedly be influenced by the subject in which you intend to work, the sort of research you wish to do and your checklist of goals for your PhD.

It is unwise to dismiss the importance of any personality traits that you think may make a relationship with a supervisor difficult. Remember that, when doing research, there will be extreme highs and extreme lows throughout the duration of your PhD studies, so you should try to choose a supervisor with whom you can collaborate effectively during challenging circumstances. There are many supervisors out there, and it is almost always feasible to find someone with whom you can work well and produce a good research project.

• Ten platinum rules for PhD supervisors
• Tips for new PhD supervisors: how to hold effective meetings
• Bullying by supervisors is alive and well – now is the time to tackle it

A good PhD supervisor has experience overseeing PhD students through to completion, has a strong publication record, is active in their research field, has enough time to provide adequate supervision, is genuinely interested in your project, can provide mentorship and has a supportive personality.

Numerous PhD students criticise their adviser/s and, due to unstable supervisor-student interactions, end up dropping out. Ineffective and uncooperative supervisors may cause a lot of research students to feel quite uncomfortable. This is doubly important given that 32 per cent of PhD candidates are at risk of developing or already suffer from depression.

The ideas and opinions of your adviser are very important when you choose your doctoral research topic. If a doctoral student works on a subject that always arouses their curiosity and excites them then their discoveries will also often be interesting and they will be more likely to succeed. Of course, if the doctoral supervisor is interested in the subject chosen by their student, then that supervisor will be able to guide their student better.

In my opinion, the key difficulty with completing a PhD is not so much found academically, rather the process is incredibly difficult psychologically and emotionally. And there is added emotional weight if you are pursuing a PhD in a foreign nation far from your home, family and friends. As a result, selecting a good, friendly PhD supervisor is critical for engendering a healthy, long-term educational programme in which you are supported psychologically and emotionally.

What are the qualities of a good supervisor?

1. Effective communicator

Let’s assume you have a supervisor, but it’s still early days and you still have time to leave his or her domain. If you don’t receive a response to your emails from them within a fair amount of time, you need to discuss this. Always talk first, but if it continues you might seriously think about switching supervisors, because if you end up with one who ignores your emails and/or social media communications, such inactivity will always end up causing you issues, either directly or indirectly. An ideal supervisor should reply to your emails and messages promptly, even those sent via WhatsApp or other messaging apps, and offer helpful criticism.

2. Passionate

An excellent supervisor is passionate about the work of their pupils. They should be someone who is inspiring and uplifting, who helps their students reach new heights. Someone is not a good supervisor if they lack enthusiasm and interest in their role as your mentor and do not offer verbal encouragement.

3. Knowledgeable

Your supervisor ought to be informed and skilled in your area of study and have top-notch study methods and data analysis skills. If they do not, there is a higher probability you will experience difficulties with your academic studies.

4. Supportive of your career

You should try to choose a supervisor who has a demonstrable history of assisting students in launching their careers. Typically, a good supervisor would introduce pupils to his or her co-workers and let PhD students know about any seminars or conferences that are pertinent to their field of study and future plans. Additionally, a competent supervisor should encourage future partnerships once their student’s PhD studies are finished and make the publishing of their research products easier.

In order to support their academic careers, some faculty members who are not actively engaged in research take on PhD or masters students. How can you determine if they are active or not is the question. For a start, try looking up the potential supervisor’s research articles on Google Scholar, ResearchGate or other academic websites.

One of the most important aspects to consider when it comes to supervisors is their previous track record. Feel free to enquire how many research fellows or PhD students they have previously educated and what those fellows went on to achieve. How many went on to become successful academics? Finally, remember that it is usually helpful to spend some time working with your potential supervisor voluntarily before making your final decision.

Above all, remember that this is a significant choice; you should not make it without careful consideration.

Özge Özden is the dean of the faculty of agriculture at Near East University, North Cyprus, where she has been working since 2012.

Original post: https://www.timeshighereducation.com/campus/top-tips-choosing-phd-supervisor

• What You Should Expect from Your PhD Supervisor
• Doing a PhD

A good supervisor will act as your mentor. They will not only help you progress through each stage of a PhD program  but can also act as a source of information or someone to bounce ideas off. To get the most from your supervisor, it’s essential to first understand what their role and responsibilities are in relation to you and your PhD. This won’t only help you understand the different ways they can support you, but also enables you to define clear boundaries which will go a long way to ensuring an enjoyable and respected relationship between the two of you.

1. Expertise in Your Subject Area

You should expect your supervisor to be an expert in the subject you are focusing your PhD on. This is crucial as your supervisor will act as your primary means of support during your PhD. Therefore, the effectiveness of his or her support directly corresponds to their knowledge of your chosen subject, which could be the difference to your PhD succeeding or not.

In addition to this, a supervisor who is an expert in your chosen field could save you from unnecessarily adding a year or more to the duration of your PhD. This is because, as an expert, they will already possess an in-depth understanding of what can and cannot be achieved in the field and have an appreciation as to what would and what wouldn’t help your research stand out. This trait will help them keep you on track, which helps ensure your time is being used most effectively.

Ideally, your supervisor should have experience in supervising PhD students. Although you could theoretically tackle your PhD alone, there are many areas applicable to all PhDs, such as literature reviews, methodologies, experiments, thesis, and dissertations, that an experienced supervisor can guide you on.

2. Regular Supervisory Meetings

As good as your supervisor may be, their ability to support you only comes into fruition if you interact with them. You will be expected to arrange regular meetings with your supervisor, and if necessary, other members of your PhD panel. This will allow you to report back on your latest progress, discuss any issue you’re facing, and review any plans to identify potential improvements, etc. Some supervisors will suggest meeting at regular intervals, i.e. every other week, some will suggest meeting on completing a milestone, i.e. completion of your first draft of the literature review, and others will suggest meeting specifically as and when you need their support. While none are notably better than the other, the key is to pick what works best for you and to ensure you’re meeting them frequently, even if that means having to combine two or all of the approaches.

It’s important to appreciate your supervisor is going to be busy. They are not only going to be supervising you, but they’ll likely be providing supervision to several other students, teach undergraduate classes and have their own research projects going on. However, if you can’t meet your supervisor as often as you would like because of this, your communication doesn’t need to suffer. Instead, make use of email . Not only will your supervisor appreciate this as it gives him time to respond on his own schedule, but you’ll likely get a more detailed response.

3. Feedback on Work in Progress

Another vital aspect to expect from your supervisor is to receive continuous feedback on your work. With your supervisor being an expert in their field, he should be able to review your work and identify any issues or areas for improvement. Gaining feedback on your work is critical through all stages of your PhD. Initially, feedback will be imperative to ensure you’re staying on track. Besides this, it gives your supervisor the opportunity to help set up aspects of your PhD in ways they’ve witnessed first-hand to be most effective, for example, by suggesting an alternative way to structure your literature review or record your research findings. During the ending stages of your PhD, your supervisor will play an essential role in supporting you in the production of your thesis or dissertation. The more you liaise with them during this process, the smoother the process will be.

4. Advice and Support

The advice and support that your supervisor can offer you throughout your degree will be invaluable. As an old saying goes, you can never be distracted if you get the right advice from the right person, which in this case will be your supervisor. As well as providing technical support, many supervisors will also look to provide emotional support through words of encouragement when the moment warrants it. Having once undertaken the journey themselves, they fully appreciate how challenging and stressful the journey can be.

It’s important to note that although your supervisor is there to provide support, they are not there to help with the minor details or every problem you may encounter. The role of the supervisor is to mentor, not to teach, or do it for you. It will be your responsibility to plan, execute and monitor your own work and to identify gaps in your own knowledge and address them. Your supervisor may help by recommending literature to read or suggesting external training courses, however, you should expect nothing more intrusive than this.

5. Mediation and Representation

All universities and departments will have their own rules and regulations. As a professional academic student, you will have to adhere to these rules. These rules are unlikely to be limited to behaviour only with several rules influencing your work as a PhD student. These rules may relate to how you are expected to submit documentation or to the experiments that require special permission before being conducted within their labs. If you have any queries about any rule or regulation, your first point of contact should be your supervisor.

Before starting a PhD, it’s reasonable to have many expectations in mind. However, of all expectations, the one of your supervisors is likely to be the most important. Your supervisor will act as the backbone of your research project and should provide you with continuous support throughout each stage of your degree. A great supervisor may not only be the difference between a smooth and turbulent process, but sometimes may also be the difference between a successful and unsuccessful PhD.

Browse PhDs Now

Join thousands of students.

Join thousands of other students and stay up to date with the latest PhD programmes, funding opportunities and advice.

The PhD Journey – How to Identify a Fantastic Supervisor

Entering graduate school to complete a doctorate degree is one of the most important decisions in an academic’s research career. This decision requires a logical evaluation of one’s long-term career path. Before beginning a PhD course, some key aspects should be decided:

1) Choosing your niche of interest

2) Selecting an excellent supervisor

It is certainly easier to pursue your career when you identify a research problem that interests you. In addition, having shared interests with your mentor/supervisor will help build working relationships. It is wise to outline your interests first and then align it with those whose ideals reflect yours. There are plenty of examples in academia where the working relationship has suffered due to poor mentorship. Furthermore, in academia, poor mentorship is the unfortunate norm and not the exception, although academics are now actively raising awareness publicly. We have addressed some of these concepts previously that include –

• Dealing with a bad student-advisor relationship
• Managing work relationships with an advisor
• Dealing with unfair authorship claims
• Obtaining academic support for researchers

In this article, we outline a guide to selecting a good PhD supervisor – perhaps even a fantastic one.

Selection Criteria

In a recent review, researchers tapped their own experience on how to approach a supervisor for research opportunities. It is important to acknowledge your research plan , capacity for independent funds, and the type of supervision you seek. A supervisor will take on a variety of different roles (mentor, adviser, editor, and boss) in a 3-4 year PhD course. However, their primary task remains to provide you with resources and a sound research platform to advance your career.

Lab Rotations

Organize to meet your supervisor in person. This could be a primary visit to discuss the research potential or an expansive visit that includes visiting their research facility. Supervision is a partnership; learn and be willing to be guided constructively. There are some dos and don’ts that may assist you in the process right from the beginning of your PhD to thesis submission.

Healthy Work Partnership

Maintain continued interests in the research area. Furthermore, always maintain brief and productive communication as finding a supervisor is a personal choice. Maintain professional courtesy, while creating a healthy work partnership . A strong work relationship is mutual, always be mindful of what you contribute and receive in return.

Discussions with Present and Previous Lab Members

It is perhaps most vital , to ensure that a supervisor of interest has a good background both professionally and personally . Existing problems in academia arise mostly due to personal conflicts, rather than professional differences. If research on your potential employer’s background results in allegations, restart your search.

Ideal Supervision

The concept of an ideal supervisor varies across academic disciplines and can be a personal viewpoint as well. The University of Calgary has an entire e-book published on this subject. Although the search for an ideal supervisor is tedious; a few databases offer options to delineate the process. A reasonable research supervisor must:

• Mentor graduate students,
• Train students in research and
• Train students in writing publications/grants.

Lab Attrition Rates and Lab Placements

Choosing a research supervisor in the life sciences specifically is a bit more complicated than in other disciplines. Key reasons include funding rates, lab attrition, and ensuring first-author research publications for career advancement. This process can be facilitated by contacting the senior Faculty for general information. Alternately, you can also check your eligibility to receive independent funding as a graduate scholar through an affiliated public University. Once you decide that an individual meets the key criteria in your checklist, consider making a formal application with that fantastic researcher. Good luck.

Rate this article Cancel Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Enago Academy's Most Popular Articles

• Career Corner
• Trending Now

Recognizing the signs: A guide to overcoming academic burnout

As the sun set over the campus, casting long shadows through the library windows, Alex…

• Diversity and Inclusion

Reassessing the Lab Environment to Create an Equitable and Inclusive Space

The pursuit of scientific discovery has long been fueled by diverse minds and perspectives. Yet…

• AI in Academia
• Reporting Research

How to Improve Lab Report Writing: Best practices to follow with and without AI-assistance

Imagine you’re a scientist who just made a ground-breaking discovery! You want to share your…

Achieving Research Excellence: Checklist for good research practices

Academia is built on the foundation of trustworthy and high-quality research, supported by the pillars…

• Promoting Research

Concept Papers in Research: Deciphering the blueprint of brilliance

Concept papers hold significant importance as a precursor to a full-fledged research proposal in academia…

7 Steps of Writing an Excellent Academic Book Chapter

When Your Thesis Advisor Asks You to Quit

Virtual Defense: Top 5 Online Thesis Defense Tips

Sign-up to read more

Subscribe for free to get unrestricted access to all our resources on research writing and academic publishing including:

• 2000+ blog articles
• 50+ Webinars
• 10+ Expert podcasts
• 50+ Infographics
• 10+ Checklists
• Research Guides

We hate spam too. We promise to protect your privacy and never spam you.

I am looking for Editing/ Proofreading services for my manuscript Tentative date of next journal submission:

What should universities' stance be on AI tools in research and academic writing?

• Log in
• Site search

Choosing your PhD supervisor

After deciding on a topic for your Doctoral research project, it's now time to find a PhD supervisor - as they'll become crucial to your academic future

Most PhD students' choice of university is heavily influenced by the opportunity to work alongside a particular academic, as they're the person who'll have the biggest impact on your studies.

While it's possible to apply to an institution without contacting a potential supervisor beforehand, this approach can greatly diminish your chances of Doctoral success.

PhD candidates in many social sciences and arts and humanities subjects are encouraged to actively seek expert academics in their field prior to applying. However, some research projects - particularly those in science, technology, engineering and maths (STEM) subjects that are tied to a PhD studentship - already have a supervisor allocated.

How do I find a PhD supervisor?

You should identify academics actively researching in your field by:

• approaching lecturers working within your current or potential department, as these individuals may be able to recommend supervisors
• browsing articles, publications and blogs relevant to your project, identifying the most commonly cited researchers
• reading recently submitted PhD dissertations within your research area, noting the supervisor used.

Once you've compiled a shortlist of individuals, visit their online academic profiles - for example, their page on the university website or their own website/blog. You can also follow their social media activity on Twitter, Facebook and LinkedIn.

This will signpost you to the articles, blogs, books and reports they've contributed to, plus any exhibitions, public engagement work or PhD research they've participated in - allowing you to decide whether they're a suitable fit, academically speaking.

How do I approach a potential supervisor?

You can then approach your selected potential supervisor (or several, if you're still deciding) with a tailored, well-written and passionate email. Make a positive first impression by:

• attaching your academic CV
• avoiding overstatements or vague generalisations, while keeping your message clear and concise
• conveying your skills and knowledge by introducing your academic background and the field you intend to research
• referring to the academic by their correct title
• showing your familiarity with and interest in the academic's work
• letting them know about any funding you're applying for.

Conclude your message by asking whether you could visit them in person, or at the very least speak over the phone or via Skype/Zoom/Teams. If you receive no response within two weeks, send a follow-up email.

Don't take any rejection personally. The academic may simply be too busy, already supervising several PhD students, or unsure whether your project is suitable.

How do I make a good impression?

If an academic agrees to meet you, they'll be aiming to discover whether you have the passion, tenacity and academic potential to complete a PhD. This means that conveying your determination to complete such an arduous research project is an absolute necessity.

You can also display your enthusiasm by asking your supervisor relevant questions, such as:

• How far do you see your responsibilities towards me extending?
• How much time would you have for me, and how often would we meet?
• What arrangements, if any, would be in place for a second supervisor?
• What characteristics do you feel successful PhD students have?
• What do you expect from the students you supervise?
• What funding and additional support is available at this institution?
• What is your opinion of my research topic and proposed methodology?
• What things should I do to supplement my PhD?

What qualities does a good supervisor possess?

Before deciding whether a PhD supervisor is right for you and applying to your chosen institution, you should be certain that the individual is:

• not intending to leave the institution permanently or go on sabbatical during your PhD
• of a similar personality and working style to you
• reliable and approachable, with a strong track record of supervising PhD students
• someone you're inspired by and proud to associate with
• sufficiently interested in and enthusiastic about your project to commit three to four years of their guidance, support and encouragement
• up to date in their knowledge of the latest findings and publications within your field and has strong connections within the world of academia.

How do I develop a good relationship with my supervisor?

Your PhD supervisor will become your primary referee once you've graduated. Forging a strong relationship with them can greatly improve your chances of securing a postdoctoral job .

You can make a positive impression simply by performing many of the extra tasks expected of you - for example, teaching undergraduates, mentoring other postgraduates and representing the university at research conferences.

The University of Leicester recommends that you should also:

• be open and honest
• display independence and an ability to manage problems
• maintain regular contact
• meet agreed deadlines
• show a positive and professional attitude
• understand your mutual responsibilities and expectations
• use your supervisor's advice and feedback.

What can my supervisor help me with?

Unlike at Bachelors and Masters degree level, your supervisor isn't necessarily an expert in your specific field of study. You'll quickly know more about your research topic than they do - so you must appreciate that they may not have the answer to all your problems.

Indeed, your relationship with your supervisor will evolve as you become less dependent on their support. They will initially focus on helping you to produce quality research, but quickly shift their attention to reviewing your findings and assisting your professional development.

Can I change my PhD supervisor?

Some supervisors dedicate far more time to students than they're required to, while some prefer not to become too involved in their students' research. However, you shouldn't stay silent if you feel like things aren't working out - especially if you're studying a STEM subject, where your supervisor is often effectively your research collaborator.

It's for this reason you should spend plenty of time finding the right academic before enrolling, as changing your supervisor should be the last resort, unless your topic has significantly shifted in the initial months of study.

Find out more

• Explore funding postgraduate study .
• Discover 5 challenges faced by PhD students .
• Consider getting an academic job .

How would you rate this page?

On a scale where 1 is dislike and 5 is like

• Dislike 1 unhappy-very
• Like 5 happy-very

Thank you for rating the page

You're viewing this site as a domestic an international student

You're a domestic student if you are:

• a citizen of Australia or New Zealand,
• an Australian permanent resident, or
• a holder of an Australian permanent humanitarian visa.

You're an international student if you are:

• intending to study on a student visa,
• not a citizen of Australia or New Zealand,
• not an Australian permanent resident, or
• a temporary resident (visa status) of Australia.

How to find a PhD supervisor

Study tips Published 3 Mar, 2022  ·  5-minute read

Along with choosing your research topic and writing your proposal, selecting your supervisor is one of the crucial steps in starting your PhD journey . Join us and 2 current candidates as we explore how to find a PhD supervisor in Australia.

Your supervisor is going to be one of the most important people in your life for the next 3-4 years or more*.

*In fact, many PhD candidates become lifelong friends with their supervisors. But that’s a topic for another time.

So, you don’t want to find just any supervisor. For a fulfilling and successful candidature, you need to know how to choose a good PhD supervisor – as well as understanding what to expect from your PhD supervisor.

We spoke with 2 UQ PhD candidates, Sarah Kendall and Chelsea Janke, about how to find a PhD supervisor who aligns with you and your research project.

Completing your PhD at The University of Queensland?

Find a UQ PhD supervisor

Get googling

We’re not kidding. The best starting point is to jump online and start researching your options.

Sure, Google might not be your go-to platform once you’re researching your actual thesis. But for finding potential supervisors, Sarah believes it’s not a bad place to start.

“The first thing I would recommend to find the best supervisor for you is to do a whole lot of googling,” says Sarah.

“Google different academics, read about their areas of research, and compile a list of academics whose research aligns with your areas of interest.”

You likely already know some academics to google from your undergraduate or postgraduate studies. However, you can also explore potential PhD supervisors on university websites like UQ’s researchers hub .

Create a shortlist

As you’re researching your options, take note of any academics who seem like they could be a great fit.

You might find it helpful to use a spreadsheet or similar file to keep track of your shortlist, including details such as:

• university and school
• contact details
• link to their research page.

Consider including a space to write down 1-2 unique things that put each academic on your shortlist. For example, you may have studied under them previously and enjoyed their approach to teaching , or perhaps one of their recent projects is highly relevant to what you wish to research.

Meet with your potential supervisors

An important step in how to find a PhD supervisor is to find out what they’re like in person. This means contacting and setting up a time to meet each person on your shortlist.

Chelsea suggests an introductory email to get the ball rolling.

“Send an email briefly outlining who you are, your background, and what your research interests are,” she says.

Then it’s time to organise a face-to-face (or at least a screen-to-screen), and Sarah reckons this is the moment you’ll know whether it’s a match or not.

“I would recommend meeting with as many of the academics on your list as possible – whether in person or via Zoom,” says Sarah.

“Once you’ve talked with a potential supervisor, you’ll know immediately if they’re a good fit for your project – trust your gut!”

You want a supervisor who is encouraging, communicates well, and is enthusiastic about you and your project.

Sarah’s advisory team consists of 3 supervisors: Dr Caitlin Goss , Professor Heather Douglas , and Dr Robin Fitzgerald . Here’s what drew her to these academics:

“I chose this supervisory team because they’re all incredible role models and mentors for young women who are seeking a research career. They are open and encouraging, and I know they’ll always support me through the highs and the lows. Each of them also brings a unique skill set and body of expertise, which is important to me because I like approaching problems from different perspectives.”

Discover what else makes a good PhD supervisor .

But what if you meet multiple academics who fit the brief?

Well, that’s when understanding yourself becomes the tiebreaker. Chelsea believes knowing your personal preferences can help you choose a good PhD supervisor to match your work style.

“Identifying if a PhD supervisor might be good for you will be an individual thing,” says Chelsea.

“Some students want a supervisor who lets them be very independent, while others prefer someone who gives them very detailed instructions and has a lot of time for them.”

Think about what you want and aim to find someone who meets those criteria.

Sarah agrees that finding a PhD supervisor who gels with your personality should be a top priority.

“At the end of the day, you need to choose someone who you’re comfortable with, as you’ll be working with them for the next 3-4 years,” she says.

Speak with other students

Chelsea believes a great route to find out what to expect from your PhD supervisor is to talk to candidates who have researched with them.

“The best way to get a feel for how someone is as a supervisor is to ask their current or past students,” she says.

Things you can discover about a potential supervisor by speaking with their students include:

• whether they have a hands-on or hands-off approach
• if they’re easy to talk to
• who else they work with (e.g. other academics relevant to your research)
• whether they have funds
• how many other students they’re supervising at the moment.

These conversations with other candidates can reaffirm the vibe you got from your meeting with the academic, or it might encourage you to seek out someone who wasn’t that high on your shortlist.

Consider having multiple supervisors

You know what they say. Two’s company. Three’s a more comfortable PhD experience.

Did you know you can have more than a single PhD supervisor? Chelsea is quick to remind us of this, though she also warns against turning your research project into a research party by inviting too many academics.

“Keep in mind that you can have multiple supervisors, so one supervisor may have the funds while another may have more time for you,” she says.

“Although, having more than three supervisors is probably going to get very tricky to manage!”

In fact, if you do your PhD at UQ , you’ll conduct your research with an advisory team consisting of a principal adviser and at least one associate adviser.

Want to learn more from Sarah and Chelsea? Easy:

• Read Sarah’s series on becoming a law academic .
• Read about Chelsea’s award-winning PhD thesis on keeping crops healthy.

Share this Facebook Twitter LinkedIn Email

Related stories

How to get a PhD

4-minute read

Is a PhD worth it?

9-minute read

How long does a PhD take?

3-minute read

How to write a good PhD proposal

5-minute read

• Previous Article
• Next Article

Cover Image

The cover image is a ceramic tile stained with bovine blood used to train operators in proper forensic cleaning techniques. For further information see the article ‘“Out, Damned Spot”: The art and science of forensic restoration’. Image courtesy of Jennifer DeBruyn.

Your supervision filter

Opportunities for ‘associate’ supervision, supervision as practice, a model for supervisory leadership, communicating your supervision principles, final thoughts, further reading, author information, a beginner’s guide to supervising a phd researcher.

• Split-Screen
• Article contents
• Figures & tables
• Supplementary Data
• Peer Review
• Open the PDF for in another window
• Cite Icon Cite
• Get Permissions

Kay Guccione , Rhoda Stefanatos; A beginner’s guide to supervising a PhD researcher. Biochem (Lond) 31 October 2023; 45 (5): 11–15. doi: https://doi.org/10.1042/bio_2023_140

Download citation file:

• Ris (Zotero)
• Reference Manager

This beginner’s guide to supervision has been created for anyone who supports postgraduate researchers (PGRs) with any aspect of their research or the completion of their degree. The supervision of PGRs is a complex and time-consuming job, with a high degree of responsibility. Good supervision is a key component of PGR success and is vital to the health of our research as a nation as well as the health of our individual researchers. In the recent research literature, supervision has been shown to impact on PhD completion time, retention of students, their success, their perceptions of the value of the PhD, their mental health and well-being and their career choice. In acknowledgement, the UKRI statement of Expectations for Postgraduate Training states that “Research Organisations are expected to provide excellent standards of supervision, management and mentoring … ” and the UK’s Quality Assurance Agency states that therefore “Supervisors should be provided with sufficient time, support and opportunities to develop and maintain their supervisory practice”. Noting that “supervisors represent the most important external influence in the learning and development that occurs in students’ training” the International Union of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology’s Committee on Education details interpersonal responsibilities of the supervisor that cover the need to work as partners, see the student as a whole person, be aware of power imbalance and develop strategies for the resolution of relationship difficulties, as well as giving academic and career support.

Despite the life-shaping level of impact a supervisor has, learning to supervise well is not always a top priority for researchers in the often-intense early stages of building their career, and a great many supervisors find themselves having to learn to supervise in a hurry, as they take on their first formal responsibilities. With this in mind, please resist the temptation to save this article for ‘when problems arise’ – a proactive approach will help to avoid issues down the line. Those of you who are moving towards a future supervisor role may be tempted to bookmark this article for ‘when you are officially supervising’ – and so the point we would like to start by making is that if you are interacting with PGRs in the course of your work, you are already engaging with elements of supervisory practice. Supervision is not something you will switch on once you take a formal supervisor role, but a part of your practice that can and will develop. There is a great deal you can be learning, and indeed contributing to the PGR experience, long before your first ‘official’ (or first ‘challenging’) PhD student comes along. While we draw your attention here to several important areas of practice, this is not a guide that aims to simply hand you all the information you need to get started. Rather, it is intended to offer you some ideas to ignite your thinking about yourself and the experiences that have shaped you, about how you understand the role you play in ensuring successful doctoral completion and about your power and position, all of which influence how you react to and respond to others. An ill-considered approach may, after all, have lasting negative impact on your student.

The interpersonal nature of the job means that there is no single right way to supervise, and so creating your own personal blend of approaches is going to be important. What you choose to include in that blend will depend greatly on your own context, and your prior educational and workplace experiences. Consider your own educational journey to date, your family background and social context, your status and position, your personal values, what has challenged you, who has supported you and the privileges and power that you hold ( see here for a handy graphic to help you analyse these ). The cumulative effects of these factors and experiences have given you a filter through which you interpret your role and your purpose, as a supervisor.

Indulge us in a quick experiment. From your current perspective, how would you finish this sentence: The most important thing a supervisor can do is…. Now consider how you might have finished that sentence at the start of your PhD and the many thousands of ways it could have changed through the journey. Every PGR you encounter could finish this sentence differently, and it is good to be aware of that. Your own experience of being supervised will also tint and tone your supervision filter. There is a strong instinct to emulate what we have experienced as being ‘good supervision’, and to strongly reject what we perceive to be ‘bad supervision’. It’s easy to see how this approach can have limited effectiveness, for example if you and your supervisee’s perceptions of what constitutes ‘good supervision’ are very different. A clash in expectations can cause issues that persist through the PhD and influence your entire relationship

Thinking critically and systematically about how your personal experience influences your approach is important. Supplementing that, by engaging with a wide range of opportunities, resources and conversations is important in giving you the flexibility to be able to supervise across a wide range of people, situations and expectations.

So where to begin? As an ‘unofficial’ or, as we prefer to refer to it, an ‘associate’ supervisor, building up your experience and skills can be challenging. What activities to engage with, and what opportunities to support PGRs might be available to you? The answer will of course depend on your university, your department and the support and opportunities you have from specialist supervisor developers. We know not all universities (yet) offer the opportunity for research staff to be formally added to supervisory teams and so here we make suggestions that you can seek out or even create in your workplace, without formal supervisor status.

Day-to-day PGR support . The simplest form of associate supervision is found in the support, guidance, advice and training you offer to the PGRs that you share a workspace with. Welcoming new students, helping them adjust to the environment, rhythms and demands of the PhD and supporting them with research problem solving are all hugely valuable supervision work.

Creating collaborative spaces . Leading journal clubs, practice presentation sessions or writing groups, retreats or other peer-led support groups will give you opportunities to build specific knowledge of how PGRs learn to read critically, synthesize their reading and discuss their findings in line with the academic style and conventions of your discipline. As this is often a steep learning curve in the PhD, knowing how to support students in this will stand you in great stead.

Mentoring . Engaging with formal or informal opportunities to be a mentor will help you to sharpen your skills in how to deliver a powerful and meaningful conversation. Good-quality mentoring discussions can give PGRs an opportunity to make sense of their experiences, reset their expectations and remotivate themselves to get to the PhD finish-line. All incredibly useful elements of supervision.

Leading workshops . There may be opportunities to lead workshops as part of PGR induction week, research methods courses, research ethics or integrity workshops, skills development programmes or careers sessions. All will allow you to consider what PGRs need to know to succeed, and how you can best help them to do that learning.

Consider which of the aforementioned opportunities you are already doing, those that are available to you and those that are right for you – it’s not an ‘all or nothing’ approach so consider what is timely and sustainable for you. Decide what you might need to know, read, discuss or understand in order to perform those roles to the best of your ability. Below, we make some starter suggestions for ways to complement the experiential learning listed earlier, through engaging with a range of supervisor development activities and materials. Don’t forget that the Concordat to Support the Career Development of Researchers states that you are entitled to 10 days every year, to engage with professional learning and development, and this could be a perfect way to spend some of that time:

Read your institutional ‘PGR Code of Practice’, which sets out what PGRs can expect, what support they will receive and what they must agree to contribute and abide by. Perhaps your university also has a ‘statement of expectations for supervision’ type document too?

Understand the breadth of learning that supervisors should ensure takes place within a PhD by glancing at the UK’s national framework for PhD skills development, the Researcher Development Framework .

Read about the 10 areas of practice described by the UK Council for Graduate Education’s Good Supervisory Practice Framework and the accompanying Research Supervisor’s Bibliography.

Attend workshops and courses on supervision and join supervisor communities and conversations at your institution.

Read and subscribe to the Supervising PhDs Blog which publishes short, evidence-based articles, as quick 5-minute reads.

Observe experienced supervisors in practice. This can be done formally (by agreement, as a guest sitting in on a supervision meeting) or informally by observing interactions in your group, at conferences and in other shared spaces. Listen closely to what impact supervisors have on their PGRs and consider both supervisor and PGR perspectives.

Shadow formal processes. Associate supervisors can most commonly struggle with the opportunities to see the procedural checkpoints associated with PhD supervision. Arranging to support, deputize or shadow the supervisory team at PGR interviews, annual progress reviews and viva proceedings (where possible) can give you real insight into how to manage these tricky processes.

But before getting too immersed or overwhelmed in what is a vast wealth of supportive and enlightening material on PGR supervision, we would like to invite you to reflect on what opportunities to develop as a supervisor you are already engaged in and to offer you a framework for developing your supervisory practice.

Supervision is a practice . It is something you do, not merely something you are, and it is something you can learn and develop over time, not something that is innate. It’s helpful to recognize that you are continually learning from the experiences you have attained, and the further experiences, documents, advisory articles and training courses you will encounter. Supervision is commonly thought of as a research practice, in which we as the more experienced researcher advise the PGR, sharing the benefits of our knowledge of the subject area, of the research process and of the conventions and norms of our discipline. This process of socialization into the local and global research communities is important in creating a strong scientific identity.

Supervision should also be thought of as an educational practice because the PGR is learning from us, and in order to support them to gain their doctoral qualification, we deploy different ways of helping them learn. The learning in a PhD extends beyond the project or subject scope and includes knowledge of how to accrue skills and experiences that prepare them for a range of different future career options. A supervisor doesn’t have to be a careers advisor, but their support and open-mindedness to career exploration are greatly valued by those they supervise – especially since the vast majority of PhD graduates will find their long-term career success in roles beyond academic research and teaching.

Further, we would like to focus on the idea that good supervision must also be thought of as a leadership practice, as it is one through which we leverage our status and knowledge of the culture in which we work to show our PGRs how to operate successfully within the research environment and how to secure resources and opportunities. A good leader also holds the ability to relate to those they lead and to motivate and sustain them as they take on new responsibilities and challenges – highly relevant within a research degree context.

As you might already be imagining, these different ways of thinking about supervision and the different tasks they involve can overlap and intersect with each other.

Now you have had a chance to think about who you are and what you value as a supervisor, we present a leadership framework for thinking about what you do in practice as a supervisor. It is outdated to think of supervision as purely an academic pursuit, focused entirely on the task – the research project – yet many of the policy documents we encounter will naturally focus their attention on the formal processes and checkpoints of the doctorate. Emerging in the last decade, we have seen a welcome escalation of research literature and guidance related to the holistic and interpersonal aspects of supervision, working with the preferences, contexts, motivators, career aspirations and support needs of the individual supervisee.

What we want to emphasize ( Figure 1 ), with the aid of John Adair’s model of Action Centred Leadership (1973) is the often-neglected team aspect of supervision. We have selected Adair’s model to help to illustrate supervision in practice as, first, it highlights actions that we can take to lead effectively, rather than taking a more theoretical ‘leadership-style’ approach. Second, this model asks us to reflect on the balance we create between the different areas of practice, the task, the individual and the team, which can be a helpful framework for how to partition your time as a developing supervisor. It can also be a clue as to where you might seek training and development, for instance, if you spot areas on the model that you feel less confident with or less inclined towards.

Action Centred Supervisory Leadership.

Here are some ways in which you might consider your role in cultivating the team aspect of supervision, as a way of reducing uncertainty and stress for everyone involved and creating a cohesive and supportive culture for PGRs, and for yourself. Think about your ‘team’ in the broadest sense, not just those you supervise or manage, but across the entire research ecosystem around you:

The supervisory team . Most doctorates are now supervised by more than one supervisor. How can your team work together as a cohesive support crew for PGRs, rather than operating as a group of people with competing priorities and interests? How do you work in tandem with those with oversight of PGR matters, such as PGR Convenors and Deans.

Role clarity . This applies to defining the supervisory team roles, to student–supervisor roles and to student–student roles, where there are shared activities. Who takes responsibility for making progress in the PhD? Who takes action? Who makes decisions? What responsibilities are shared?

Values and behaviour . Does your team know what you value, and what you won’t stand for? What are the team rules on sustainable working hours, taking holidays and self-care. How do you expect your team to solve problems, admit mistakes and recognize their blind spots and learning needs? What kinds of interpersonal behaviour are and are not acceptable? What strategies do you have for resolving disagreements?

Cultivate collaboration . Expect people to work together and actively reduce comparison and competitiveness. Think beyond a ‘research collaboration’ and find regular spaces for peer-learning, team-working and group discussion. Think lab meetings, journal clubs, practice presentations and writing groups. Add online chat channels for rapid response peer support. How can these physical and online spaces take on a confidence-building supportive tone, rather than spotlighting one person?

Fairness, openness and equity between PGRs . Within your team how are you ensuring that opportunities come to everyone equally? What does an inclusive working practice look like to you? When decisions must be made, how are you communicating them?

Make introductions . Commonly, supervisors are the broker between PGRs and key people in your discipline and global research community. But think local too. Introduce your PGRs to the full support network including administrators, developers, funding specialists, librarians and finance teams. Help PGRs to navigate the organization and proactively find support.

Like your wider practice, how you bring these ideas together will be developed and informed by your own experience so far. The key success factor in all of the earlier points is that you are able to role model good practices yourself, not just require them of others. Your PGRs will be strongly influenced, not by what you say, but by what they see you do in reality.

Having now thought about your own supervision filter and how this interacts with your approach to the Action Centred Leadership model, you may be beginning to crystallize certain expectations, of yourself as a supervisor (now and in the future) and of the PGRs you will supervise. The idea of actively and explicitly ‘setting expectations’ with PGRs has in recent years become a mainstay of many supervisor development programmes and advice books. There are several common expectation-setting activity worksheets such as the one created by Anne Lee and the one created by Hugh Cairns (it would be interesting here to note whether you perceive that these linked resources are based more on the task, individual or team). These tools are designed to be used in the first weeks of the PhD to get off to a good start. However, we suggest that expectation setting can usefully begin before the PGR arrives, indeed before they are accepted on to the PhD programme. It is common for academics to list topics or projects they will supervise on their institutional web pages, so why not add how you will supervise and communicate the principles that govern your approach. When you interview potential PhD candidates, why not look beyond their academic achievements, and talk to them about what they are looking for in a supervisor?

We would like to thank you for reading this post and for committing your valuable time and energy to considering our points and to taking an intentional approach to supervision, an important academic responsibility and a vital underpinning of a good research culture. Don’t forget that while the PGRs you support as a supervisor at any stage will be very appreciative, not everyone will be aware of the level of effort and expertise you are contributing to your groups and departments. Documenting your contribution and your commitment to upholding good supervisory practice can be done on your CV, in job and promotion applications, in your annual performance and development reviews and even through formal professional recognition channels like the UKCGE Recognised (Associate) Supervisor Award. Having knowledge and awareness of the contribution you are making to upholding the standards set out by research funders and regulatory bodies will benefit you in funding applications and can also help you feed in to university conversations about the development opportunities staff need and the formal recognition and opportunities for supervision that we would like to see afforded to all levels of supervisors, who, after all, make a life-changing contribution to the career success and well-being of those they supervise.■

Adair, J. (1973) Action-centred leadership . McGraw-Hill, London.

Denicolo, P., Duke, D., and Reeves, J. (2019) Supervising to inspire doctoral researchers . Sage, London

Guerin, C. and Green, I. (2013). ‘“They’re the bosses”: feedback in team supervision’. J. Furt. High. Educ . 39 , 320–335. doi: 10.1080/0309877x.2013.831039

Robertson, M.J. (2017). Trust: The power that binds in team supervision of doctoral students. High. Educ. Res. Devel . 36 , 1463–1475. doi: 10.1080/07294360.2017.1325853

Wisker, G. (2012) The good supervisor: supervising postgraduate and undergraduate research for doctoral theses and dissertations . 2nd ed. Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke.

Web Resources

Supervising PhDs

UKCGE Good Supervisory Practice Framework .

Kay Guccione is Head of Research Culture & Researcher Development at the University of Glasgow, UK. She is a National Teaching Fellow, with research and practice specialisms in doctoral supervision, mentoring and community building for researchers. She is editor of the Supervising PhDs blog https://supervisingphds.wordpress.com/ . Email: [email protected] .

Rhoda Stefanatos is a Researcher Development Specialist at the University of Glasgow, UK. She leads the development of a wide range of opportunities, experiences and resources for research staff. She uses her rich experience as a researcher to inform her approach to empowering researchers to communicate, create and collaborate.

Get Email Alerts

• Online ISSN 1740-1194
• Print ISSN 0954-982X
• Submit Your Work
• Language-editing services
• Recommend to Your Librarian
• Request a free trial
• Accessibility
• Sign up for alerts
• Sign up to our mailing list
• The Biochemist Blog
• Biochemical Society Membership
• Publishing Life Cycle
• Biochemical Society Events
• About Portland Press
• Portland Press Tel
• +44 (0)20 3880 2795
• Portland Press Company no. 02453983
• Biochemical Society Tel
• +44 (0)20 3880 2793
• Email: [email protected]
• Biochemical Society Company no. 00892796
• Registered Charity no. 253894
• VAT no. GB 523 2392 69
• Privacy and cookies
• © Copyright 2024 Portland Press

This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only

Sign In or Create an Account

Research management

Sponsored by

Ten platinum rules for PhD supervisors

Is it time to add PhD supervision to your skill set? Tara Brabazon explains the pitfalls, challenges and rewards of this key academic role for the rookie mentor

Tara Brabazon

Additional links.

• More on this topic

Elsevier helps researchers and healthcare professionals advance science and improve health outcomes for the benefit of society.

Discover elsevier.

You may also like

Popular resources

.css-1txxx8u{overflow:hidden;max-height:81px;text-indent:0px;} Emotions and learning: what role do emotions play in how and why students learn?

A diy guide to starting your own journal, universities, ai and the common good, artificial intelligence and academic integrity: striking a balance, create an onboarding programme for neurodivergent students.

I receive strange emails. Some request money, sexual favours or a reference. Thousands, sent from students, have outlined the failures of PhD supervisors. From this dodgy digital pile, one message remains in my memory.

A young academic was outraged. He was so outraged that he used capital letters throughout the email. He was offended that I had written an article ,  aimed at prospective PhD students, that provided a guide to selecting a supervisor/adviser with care, ensuring that expectations, rights and responsibilities are assembled at the start of their enrolment. He was outraged – sorry, OUTRAGED – that I focused on students and their right to choose. I had supposedly displaced his capacity to supervise by suggesting that students check academic credentials and expertise.

• Want to get on in research? You need to manage people effectively
• Efficient communication that avoids overloading students or staff
• How to turn a PhD project into a commercial venture

This strange email captures the dense and difficult negotiations of power within PhD supervision. Students have choices. So do supervisors and advisers. The alignment of purpose and priorities is crucial. Too often, this relationship is toxic. Therefore, let’s park the outrage and provide 10 maxims to consider as we start – or continue – as a supervisor/adviser, so that we are authentic, credible and useful.

1. Just because you have completed a PhD does not mean you can supervise one

Very few academics hold teaching qualifications, particularly outside the education disciplines. Higher degree supervision – too often – is based on homology. We supervise as we were supervised. Or – more worryingly – we supervise how we think we were supervised. This strategy has never been effective – as confirmed by PhD attrition rates . As the PhD student cohort diversifies to include more women, Indigenous and First Nation students, rainbow students, scholars of colour, students with disabilities, and a wide span of ages, homology is not only inappropriate but destructive. My first 18 completions were all students under the age of 25. My next 30 were all over 40. Our students are changing . They will not put up with platitudes, excuses or comments about the good old days.

Experience is not enough. Expertise is required. Enrol in professional development courses. Learn how to supervise. Learn about doctoral studies. It is a burgeoning field of research. Do not assume that we know what we are doing because we graduated with a PhD. Simply because we drink milk does not mean we can run a dairy farm. In no other area of our scholarly lives would we generalise from a data set of one.

2. Any academic can meet a PhD student – the skill is enabling the completion and submission of a quality thesis

It is very pleasant to supervise PhD students. They are bright people who work hard and think deeply. Yet these meetings in and of themselves do not ensure completion or that the research will reach the intellectual level required of a PhD examination.

Do you know the intellectual standard required to pass a PhD in your discipline? In other words, can you read a student’s close-to-completed thesis and know that it will pass? Can you locate the line between major and minor corrections; major corrections and a revise and resubmit; and revise and resubmit and failure? Which disciplines encourage split decisions when examiners disagree? Do you know how the policies, procedures and regulations of your institution shape and frame the PhD thesis that is sent to examiners? How does the digital submission of the thesis transform its preparation and examination?

This knowledge is derived from learning about the doctoral policies and procedures in your institution, reading a large number of doctoral theses and examination reports, and volunteering to be a viva chair or milestone assessor as often as possible. 

Talking to students over coffee or in a lab is important. Understanding the standard required for a doctoral thesis to pass with minor corrections is crucial.

3. Beginnings matter, so work hard in the first year

While the focus of the candidature – from the first day – must be on the examination, a short and successful enrolment is based on a powerhouse first year. Some of the most dreadful – and longest – candidatures I have seen have emerged from supervisors allowing students to wander about, thinking about their honours, master’s or capstone projects, drinking coffee and ambling through conferences, while complaining about their lack of progress.

The best candidatures begin as if the student is driving in a Grand Prix. Start your engines. Hammer to the first corner. It is important that students do not simply redo earlier projects. Find a subject area quickly, and then render it discrete, manageable and viable. If students can rapidly determine research questions, even if they are clumsy, then they have a focus. A strong first year of enrolment gives students confidence; they can publish early in the project and start to gain meaningful feedback.

4. Assess the student’s information literacy in the first month of their enrolment

Two pathways connect a student and a supervisor. The first involves teaching a student through their undergraduate years, and they continue through to a PhD with you as their supervisor. The second pathway involves students selecting you to supervise their project from outside your courses, university or country. Both modes of admission hold dangers, mainly involving assumptions about information literacy, academic literacy and disciplinary literacy.

Before my students start their supervision – whether I have known them for years or just begun a teaching and learning relationship – I ensure that they complete a PhD set-up document . This pamphlet, which I have used for every student I have supervised over 24 years, incorporates all modes of the doctorate – including the PhD by prior publication and the artefact-and-exegesis thesis – and fulfils a diagnostic role. It ensures that the student is thinking about a topic, they verify methodological, epistemological and ontological considerations, and also log their information literacy. For the supervisor, the completed set-up document and the subsequent meeting – which I usually schedule for two hours – provides the initiation into the doctoral programme.

From this diagnostic tool, a suite of professional development programmes can be inserted into the candidature, particularly involving the library, librarians and information literacy. From this foundation, literature reviews, systematic reviews and scoping reviews can emerge, which enable a rapid narrowing of the project and the development of research questions. 

5. Assumptions kill doctorates

Students maintain assumptions about a PhD. So do supervisors. If these assumptions are not communicated and managed, students and supervisors move through the candidature misunderstanding each other. The resultant “conversations” are hooked into confusion, resentment, bitterness and anger. Statements such as: “It’s your PhD” and “Tell me what you want me to do next” pepper the enrolment. The set up document and initial meeting replace assumptions with talking points about the rights, responsibilities and roles of supervisors and students. A clear, honest discussion about meeting frequency, feedback, modes of communication and the management of challenges at the start of a candidature not only saves time but reduces the likelihood of changing supervisors through the programme and cuts student attrition.

6. The selection of examiners is the single most important moment in a doctoral programme

Examination matters to a PhD. Our last stand for quality assurance and excellence in our universities resides in doctoral programmes. If we “dial a mate” and bring in friends to examine, it is time to close our universities.  Standards matter. When I was dean of graduate research, it was amazing how often I had very senior colleagues attacking me with aggression only seen in extreme cage fighting about the importance of their research partner, grant collaborator, co-author or former student acting as an examiner. The mantra would progress as follows (yes, this is a direct quotation): “There are only three experts in this field in the world. I am one of them and I am friends with the other two.” In this case, the area with only three international experts was – wait for it – body image.

Select an examiner who is intensely research-active, aligned to the field of the thesis without being so close that the student would be viewed as a threat, and resolutely independent of the supervisor.

To ensure a strong selection of external examiners, enact a full digital evaluation to ensure that they are research-active and a decent person, rather than in need of a Snickers at the first critique or differing view. Finally – and this is sad to write – select experienced researchers, supervisors and examiners. The toughest examiners are – obviously – the most inexperienced. They have a data set of one: their own thesis. They are a genius (obviously). Any thesis they read in the early years after their own submission and examination must be substandard (to their own).

To shift to the Star Wars universe, find a Yoda examiner rather than one with the impetuous confidence of a young Obi Wan or Luke Skywalker.

7. Make sure the SOCK is obvious, clear and present in the abstract (and the introduction and conclusion)

The PhD has one characteristic: a significant, original contribution to knowledge (SOCK) . Without a SOCK, a PhD will not pass. Each word is important. Research can be a contribution but not original. It can be original but not significant. Supervisor and student must work together to ensure that the SOCK is the strong frame for the candidature and thesis. The earlier a student can ascertain their SOCK, the smoother the progression to completion.

The SOCK is presented in the second sentence of the abstract: “My significant, original contribution to knowledge is…” As supervisors, we need to move the student into the space where they can complete this sentence as early as possible in their enrolment.

Examiners are paid very little to assess a thesis. It is hard work. Think about an examiner reading a thesis while drinking a glass of chianti. Therefore, in every chapter, a student must remind the chianti-fuelled examiner about the purpose of this chapter and how it aligns with the SOCK of the thesis. Ensure that the abstract, introduction, conclusion and every single chapter hook into the SOCK.

8. PhD students are not your slaves, sexual partners, un(der)paid research assistants or writers of your articles

One of the saddest memories of my academic career emerged in a meeting (obviously) when I had started as a dean of graduate research. Senior scholars – research heavyweights – were assembled in the room. Very early in the meeting one of these Mike Tysons described their PhD students as “slaves.” That was appalling. What was chilling was the laughter that erupted in response to this nasty noun. 

PhD students do not exist to serve or service the supervisor. They are not drawing breath so that they can complete a supervisor’s research project or write a supervisor’s articles. We all know – personally and professionally – shocking stories about supervisors “appropriating” the work of their students or adding their name to papers in which they had minimal intellectual input. Research codes of conduct around the world – most stemming from the Vancouver protocol – are creating changes, with institutions and journals demanding transparency and integrity from all authors through the submission process.

PhD students need a supervisor to protect, guide, mentor and enable. It is an unequal relationship. Shocking cases have been revealed around the world of the sexual exploitation of students, from sexual harassment through to sexual assault. These cases demean all scholars. The standards we walk past are the standards we accept. A PhD candidate is a student, and therefore worthy of respect, care, guidance and clarity in the standards of a professional relationship.

9. Create a strong supervisory team

Most university systems around the world insist on a supervisory team. That change is welcome; we cannot guarantee that the scholars who start the supervision will remain in place until the examination. A team adds safety, and a safety net for the student.

Supervisory teams, composed of two or more colleagues, are important. Sometimes, the relationships are fraught or non-existent. Many co-supervisors are simply on paper for administrative purposes and not involved in the project. The best relationships involve one of the supervisors using their specific expertise – often in methodology – to enable the creation of a chapter. When that part of the project is completed, they step back from the supervision. 

Supervisors should meet before any student is involved in the process to discuss their expectations, hopes and concerns about the project and the student. How often are meetings held? Who is involved in those meetings? How is feedback to be organised? How are disagreements – scholarly or otherwise – to be resolved? These questions must be answered and agreed on before the student is involved in the process.

10. Do not confuse the production of refereed articles with the construction of a thesis

Every PhD should have a dissemination strategy. Research must be available to ensure citizens and fellow scholars can use it – and transform it. Examiners also recognise the value of peer-reviewed publications as part of the PhD. Experienced supervisors remember that  the best examiners differentiate between the processes of  peer reviewing and examination. 

I have published more than 250 refereed articles. I have graduated from only one PhD. The confusion between publishing articles and examination dumbs down our doctorates. Indeed, it is becoming customary to assume that three refereed articles are sufficient in scope, scale and quality to create a successful PhD examination.

Three articles in three years would not reach the level required to be “research-active” as a scholar. Many of us produce between five and 10 articles every year. Indeed, the PhD by prior publication , an unusual but burgeoning mode of doctorate, submits a long (20,000-40,000 words) contextual statement confirming the significant, original contribution to knowledge, followed by a large number of publications, often spanning from 12 to 25 articles. 

In terms of quality assurance, how could three articles be equivalent to an integrated research project of 100,000 words? Indeed, how could three articles be equivalent to the 12 or more publications submitted through a PhD by prior publication?

Fine PhDs have been passed without any publications emerging from them. Theses with refereed articles have been subjected to revision and re-examination. Publishing research during a PhD is valuable. It must not be assumed that peer review and examination are equivalent or converge.

A final note: supervising PhD students is a privilege. It is not a right. Doctoral studies and the scholarship of supervision (SoS)  literature are revealing how supervisory quality is built through experience, expertise, professional development and research-led andragogy. Our responsibilities as supervisors are not only to our students but also to our disciplines, to research ethics and the maintenance of standards. Great PhD students are our future. Great PhD supervisors remain at their service.

Tara Brabazon is professor of cultural studies at Flinders University. Her most recent books are 12 rules for (Academic) Life: A Stroppy Feminist Guide to Teaching, Learning, Politics and Jordan Peterson (Springer, 2022) and Comma: How to Restart, Reclaim and Reboot your PhD (Author’s Republic, 2022).

If you found this interesting and want advice and insight from academics and university staff delivered direct to your inbox each week,  sign up for the THE Campus newsletter .

For more insights from Tara Brabazon:

How to get students through their PhD thesis

10 truths a PhD supervisor will never tell you

How not to write a PhD thesis

14 essential PhD questions answered

Emotions and learning: what role do emotions play in how and why students learn?

Global perspectives: navigating challenges in higher education across borders, how to help young women see themselves as coders, contextual learning: linking learning to the real world, authentic assessment in higher education and the role of digital creative technologies, how hard can it be testing ai detection tools.

Register for free

and unlock a host of features on the THE site

View the latest institution tables

View the latest country/territory tables

What can your PhD supervisor do for you?

4 ways to a more productive relationship.

Gemma Conroy

Credit: Thomas Barwick/Getty

31 March 2020

Thomas Barwick/Getty

An Australian survey of PhD students and supervisors has revealed an alarming mismatch between their expectations.

While the 114 PhD students surveyed thought publishing at least four papers and winning grants or awards was the most important outcome of their candidature, the 52 supervisors said critical thinking skills, written communication, and discipline knowledge were the greatest indicators of their students’ success.

More than 20% of the students said they received little or no guidance overall, but only 3% of supervisors said they left students to their own devices. The findings were posted on bioRxiv.

Problems in the relationship between supervisor and students can cost dearly, both for individual students and for the wider research system. In North America, it is estimated that up to 50% of PhD students drop out of their candidature due to feelings of incompetence and a lack of support from supervisors and other faculty members.

A 2019 survey of 311 European universities reported that 34% of PhD students fail to complete their doctoral studies within six years, with many students likely quitting altogether.

Adam Cardilini, a teaching scholar at Deakin University where the Australian survey was conducted, says that discussing expectations and goals early on can lead to a better PhD experience for both students and their supervisors.

“We need to do our best to support candidates and improve research outcomes,” says Cardilini, who led the study.

Below are his four recommendations to help students and supervisors maintain a productive working relationship.

1. Be clear about expectations from the start

Discussing expectations at the beginning is one of the simplest ways to ensure PhD students and supervisors remain on the same page throughout the candidature, says Cardilini.

While building critical thinking skills from the outset can lead to better quality research down the line, Cardilini points out that there also needs to be more focus on “identifying where those critical thinking skills are best displayed.”

For instance, if a supervisor prizes critical thinking skills over publishing papers or winning grants, they should help candidates develop these skills from the start, such as by requiring students to spend six months reviewing papers.

“It’s about helping a candidate know how to read peer reviewed research and be critical of it instead of taking it as gospel,” says Cardilini. “I don’t think we explicitly teach this.”

2. Agree on achievable goals

Setting clear goals ensures that PhD students and supervisors work towards the same outcome, says Cardilini. These could include developing a particular skillset, publishing a certain number of papers, or winning grants.

Cardilini says that learning how to set achievable goals also teaches students how to effectively manage themselves, an essential skill for a productive research career.

“Often these skills are assumed or left up to the student to think about,” says Cardilini. “But it really takes some time for people to learn how to set a goal. I think that’s probably true for some supervisors as well.”

3. Help students be independent and collaborative

Guiding students to think for themselves and team up with other researchers can help candidates stay motivated throughout their PhD. It can also help them become more productive and collaborative down the track, notes Cardilini.

One way to facilitate this development is by creating an open, supportive culture where students can thrive and grow, says Cardilini. For instance, if a student wants to learn a certain type of analysis that the supervisor isn’t well-versed in, they can encourage the candidate to reach out to another research group that can teach them.

“If candidates are open about what they need and supervisors are open about what they can provide, they can talk about where the student needs to be independent, or collaborative,” says Cardilini.

4. Keep communication open

While everyone has different styles of communicating, it’s imperative that PhD students and supervisors agree on a style that suits both their needs, notes Cardilini.

By maintaining open dialogue throughout candidature, students and supervisors can address any issues before they turn into bigger problems. This can lead to a more productive working relationship and can prevent students from dropping out of their program, says Cardilini.

“If you can confront issues and be open to discussing them, you can move forward and have a more productive relationship,” says Cardilini. “But if the candidate dreads going to work or is afraid about how their supervisor will react to their manuscript, it slows everything down.”

Perhaps It’s Not You It’s Them: PhD Student-Supervisor Relationships

• First Online: 15 September 2022

Cite this chapter

• Zoë J. Ayres 2  

8514 Accesses

This chapter explores the PhD Student-Supervisor relationship, outlining the role of a PhD Supervisor, discussing relationship management, and how to recognise signs of bullying and harassment if they occur.

(Trigger Warnings: bullying, harassment, sexual harassment)

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

• Available as EPUB and PDF
• Read on any device
• Instant download
• Own it forever
• Compact, lightweight edition
• Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
• Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Depending on your country of study a PhD Supervisor may be called the Principal Investigator (PI) or you PhD Supervisor, or PhD Advisor. For the purpose of this chapter I will use “Supervisor”, to mean the academic in charge of your PhD research.

I count myself lucky every single day that I fell into the 76% category.

If you did not get this memo before starting your PhD, please do not worry. It is common for first-generation students to not get this information ahead of time.

Survivor bias is defined as the logical error of concentrating on the people or things that made it past some selection process and overlooking those that did not, typically because of their lack of visibility.

The sunk cost fallacy reasoning states that further investments or commitments are justified because the resources already invested will be lost otherwise . In the case of PhD study it can be that if we just “stick it out” and try to manage the abuse we are being subject to we will get our PhD. In reality, leaving and starting a PhD elsewhere may be beneficial.

van Rooij E, Fokkens-Bruinsma M, Jansen E (2021) Factors that influence PhD candidates’ success: the importance of PhD project characteristics. Stud Contin Educ 43(1):48–67

Article   Google Scholar  

Woolston C (2019) PhDs: the tortuous truth. Nature 575(7782):403–407

Pyke KD (2018) Institutional betrayal: inequity, discrimination, bullying, and retaliation in academia. Sociol Perspect 61(1):5–13

Vilkinas T (1998) Management of the PhD process: the challenging role of the supervisor. In: Quality in postgraduate research. University of Adelaide, Adelaide

Google Scholar  

Rose GL (2003) Enhancement of mentor selection using the ideal mentor scale. Res High Educ 44(4):473–494

Vilkinas T, Cartan G (2006) The integrated competing values framework: its spatial configuration. J Manage Dev 25(6):505–521

Guccione K, Hutchinson S (2021) Coaching and mentoring for academic development. Emerald Group, Bingley

Book   Google Scholar  

Hund AK, Churchill AC, Faist AM, Havrilla CA, Stowell SML, McCreery HF, Ng J, Pinzone CA, Scordato ESC (2018) Transforming mentorship in STEM by training scientists to be better leaders. Ecol Evol 8(20):9962–9974

Amundsen C, McAlpine L (2009) ‘Learning supervision’: trial by fire. Innov Educ Teach Int 46(3):331–342

Schimanski LA, Alperin JP (2018) The evaluation of scholarship in academic promotion and tenure processes: past, present, and future. F1000Research 71605

Bagilhole B (1993) How to keep a good woman down: an investigation of the role of institutional factors in the process of discrimination against women academics. Br J Sociol Educ 14(3):261–274

Aiston SJ, Jung J (2015) Women academics and research productivity: an international comparison. Gend Educ 27(3):205–220

Giacalone RA, Knouse SB, Montagliani A (1997) Motivation for and prevention of honest responding in exit interviews and surveys. J Psychol 131(4):438–448

Hall W, Liva S (2022) Falling through the cracks: graduate students’ experiences of mentoring absence. Can J Scholarsh Teach Learn 13(1):1–15

UK Research Councils Statement of Expectations for Postgraduate Training. https://www.ukri.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/UKRI-120721-StatementOfExpectationsPostGradTraining.pdf . Accessed 21 Jun 2022

Chamberlain S (2016) Ten types of PhD supervisor relationships - which is yours? https://theconversation.com/ten-types-of-phd-supervisor-relationships-which-is-yours-52967 . Accessed 21 Jun 2022

Clay M (2012) Sink or swim: drowning the next generation of research leaders? Aust Q 83(4):26–31

Bégin C, Géarard L (2013) The role of supervisors in light of the experience of doctoral students. Policy Futures Educ 11(3):267–276

Hemprich-Bennett D, Rabaiotti D, Kennedy E (2021) Beware survivorship bias in advice on science careers. Nature 598(7880):373–374

Parker-Jenkins M (2018) Mind the gap: developing the roles, expectations and boundaries in the doctoral supervisor–supervisee relationship. Stud High Educ 43(1):57–71

Moran H, Karlin L, Lauchlan E, Rappaport SJ, Bleasdale B, Wild L, Dorr J (2020) Understanding research culture: what researchers think about the culture they work in. Wellcome Trust, London, UK

Lee D (1998) Sexual harassment in PhD supervision. Gend Educ 10(3):299–312

Misawa M (2015) Cuts and bruises caused by arrows, sticks, and stones in academia: theorizing three types of racist and homophobic bullying in adult and higher education. Adult Learn 26(1):6–13

Cohen A, Baruch Y (2021) Abuse and exploitation of doctoral students: a conceptual model for traversing a long and winding road to academia. J Bus Ethics:1–18

Moss SE, Mahmoudi M (2021) STEM the bullying: an empirical investigation of abusive supervision in academic science. EClinicalMedicine 40101121

Gewin V (2021) How to blow the whistle on an academic bully. Nature 593(7858):299–301

Saló-Salgado L, Acocella A, Arzuaga García I, El Mousadik S, and Zvinavashe A (2021) Managing up: how to communicate effectively with your PhD adviser. https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-03703-z . Accessed 15 Feb 2022

The Wellbeing Thesis (2022) Managing your supervisor. https://thewellbeingthesis.org.uk/using-the-resources-available/managing-your-supervisor/ . Accessed 20 Feb 2022

Eley A, Jennings R (2005) Effective postgraduate supervision: improving the student/supervisor relationship. McGraw-Hill Education (UK), London, UK

Hockey J (1996) A contractual solution to problems in the supervision of PhD degrees in the UK. Stud High Educ 21(3):359–371

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Zoë J. Ayres

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2022 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Ayres, Z.J. (2022). Perhaps It’s Not You It’s Them: PhD Student-Supervisor Relationships. In: Managing your Mental Health during your PhD. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-14194-2_9

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-14194-2_9

Published : 15 September 2022

Publisher Name : Springer, Cham

Print ISBN : 978-3-031-14193-5

Online ISBN : 978-3-031-14194-2

eBook Packages : Biomedical and Life Sciences Biomedical and Life Sciences (R0)

Share this chapter

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

How to Cope with a Problematic PhD Supervisor

Completing a Ph.D. is a significant academic achievement that requires dedication, hard work, and the guidance of a supportive supervisor.

Are you facing challenges with your PhD supervisor?

Do you often feel ignored or belittled by them?

If you answered ‘yes’ to any of these questions, it’s clear that your PhD journey isn’t going as smoothly as you hoped.

However, there are strategies you can employ to cope with a problematic PhD supervisor and improve your relationship with them.

In this article, we will discuss different types of Problematic supervisors and provide strategies for dealing with each type, allowing you to navigate your PhD journey more effortlessly.

It may seem unfair, but difficult supervisors often get away with their behavior due to their past achievements and reputation as academic researchers.

Making a formal complaint against your supervisor may only complicate matters further. Instead, focus on developing strategies that can help reduce your PhD woes and bring you and your supervisor on the same page.

Table of Contents

Types of Problematic PhD Supervisors

To begin, it’s important to identify the type of supervisor you’re dealing with. According to the book “Coping with Difficult People,” there are seven categories into which difficult people can be divided.

• Hostile aggressive
• Silent & unresponsive
• Super-agreeable
• Know-it-all expert

Additionally, two more types have been identified in the book “The Smart Way to Your Ph.D.: 200 Secrets From 100 Graduates.”

• Micro-manager

Let’s explore each type and discuss strategies to handle them effectively.

1. Complainer

Any supervisor of this type will constantly have something to complain. It would not be incorrect to suggest that this type of supervisor is born with the ability to see faults in a student’s work.

To cope with a supervisor that constantly complains, you can do the following:

• Listen – You should actively listen to the complaints voiced by the supervisor in order to deal with them appropriately later on.
• Acknowledge – You must then acknowledge your supervisor’s comments in a suitable manner. To acknowledge, you could use phrases like “I understand what you’re driving at,” “I understand where you’re coming from,” or “I see why you’re concerned with xyz section of my research paper.”
• Intervene – If you think that your supervisor’s complaint is illogical, step in and explain why you disagree with that particular point. It could be beneficial to use phrases like “With your permission, I would like to contradict your point here” or “With all due respect, I beg to differ on this point.”
• Avoid accusation – Your supervisor should not perceive your words as an accusation when you express your thoughts to them. Instead, you should provide facts to support your claims on any topic that has been troubling your supervisor. Keep the conversation from turning into an accusation-reaccusation sequence. The sentence above could be expanded in the way that follows: “With all due respect, I beg to differ on this point and the following are the reasons: X, Y, & Z.”
• Get to problem-solving – In addition to providing your supervisor with facts and figures, you need to give solutions to the problems that he or she has brought up during the meeting. ”I understand why you’re concerned about the xyz section of my research paper,” for example. Respectfully, I beg to differ on this point, and X, Y, & Z are my reasons. Do you still think it to be an issue? If so, what changes do you suggest I make to this section to ensure that this particular chapter meets your expectations? It should be noted that complaining supervisors don’t always complain about a specific research issue in an effort to find a solution. They would rather do this to gain admiration and appreciation for their ability for finding faults. So, appreciate them in order to satisfy their unspoken desire for recognition.

2. Hostile-Aggressive

This particular group of supervisors or advisers tends to be confrontational, unfriendly, impolite, rude, and aggressive by nature. Such a supervisor will simply reject all of your ideas and drafts, leaving you disappointed in nearly every meeting.

To cope with this type of supervisor, employ the following strategies:

• Bide your time : Wait for the person to get calm before speaking to them so that your voice may be heard and understood.
• Be assertive – Once the supervisor’s drilling speech has lost momentum in the meeting, you should respond to the supervisor’s concerns about your PhD with assertiveness, supporting your claims with logic and reliable sources of information.
• Maintain eye contact: Look the supervisor in the eyes while you speak. This will demonstrate your confidence and optimism, which will enable you to take control of the situation and direct the conversation towards finding a solution.

3. Silent & Unresponsive

Though rare in academia, some supervisors may fail to return calls or emails and might skip addressing your questions during meetings.

To cope with such supervisors:

• Open-ended questions : Asking open-ended questions is the best way to get as much information as you can. For instance, Professor, what do you think of the solutions I have suggested for problems brought up during the previous meeting?
• Pausing helps : When you believe your question or doubt has not been well addressed, try pausing for a few moments to allow the professor to break the ice and address the question or doubt with a suitable explanation.
• Sum-up the conversation : Reiterate the points covered before the meeting finishes and ask the meeting’s supervisor to confirm your understanding. This would ensure that the supervisor properly identified and filled in any gaps in your understanding and that you had a clear set of goals to meet before the next meeting began.
• Follow up regularly: If your supervisor has asked you to work on one specific aspect of your PhD thesis, you must agree to a deadline and set a meeting time to discuss the progress of the work. The secret to success when dealing with this kind of supervisor is constant follow-up.
• Use your own judgement: If the supervisor doesn’t address any concerns you have with the PhD thesis, you may need to use your own judgement and email the supervisor to let them know the plan of action you intend to take.

4. Indecisive

Have you ever had a PhD supervisor advise you to start working on a certain research topic and then later propose that you change to a different one because the initial topic is no longer looking particularly promising? If so, you would describe that kind of supervisor as being indecisive.

Indecisive supervisors feel uncomfortable making solid decisions because they are worried that their decisions would be improper and ineffective.

You could employ the following strategies when dealing with a indecisive supervisor:

• Assertiveness is what works best with this type of supervisor. You can explain why a certain research project is worthwhile after your supervisor has rejected the study plan by being assertive. This would assist in restoring your supervisor’s trust in both you and the research you are conducting.
• Before meeting with an unclear supervisor for assistance, you must take responsibility of the PhD Thesis and conduct extensive study on your own. You won’t be able to convince your supervisor of your choices regarding your PhD Thesis until you are knowledgeable about the field of research.

5. Super-Agreeable

A supervisor in this category would always appreciate your work and would rarely bring up any facts that would anger or displease you as a student. If such a supervisor makes a promise, it should not be trusted blindly because the majority of the time, empty promises are made by this kind of PhD supervisors.

In short, you cannot rely on this type of supervisor for much assistance with your PhD thesis. You might employ the following strategies when dealing with this kind of supervisor:

• Speak out : Don’t wait for your supervisor to point out flaws in your work. Instead, discuss all of the problems you faced while drafting various sections of your PhD thesis with the supervisor and ask for solutions. Ask the supervisor if they are completely satisfied with the PhD thesis work that has been completed so far to prevent making significant changes in the later stages of the research work.
• Look out for unrealistic commitments — A super-agreeable supervisor is skilled at creating false promises, as was already indicated. You must therefore look out for these false commitments and figure out how to get around them. For instance, if your supervisor has promised to give you a letter of recommendation in response to your request for one, you cannot rely on that promise because it is possible that the supervisor may cause unnecessary delay in the delivery. In this situation, you must create an outline for the requested letter and give it to the supervisor, asking that they issue the recommendation letter as soon as possible. By taking this step, the letter will be delivered more quickly and reach you.
• Actively listen for humour- This kind of friendly supervisor will often use humour to draw attention to the research paper’s flaws. Therefore, it is your responsibility to always your ears open and pay attention to such humorous remarks in order to enhance the content of your PhD thesis.

6. Negativist

A negative PhD supervisor will continually highlight the negative aspects of your completed work in order to lower your morale. Your academic efforts will never be appreciated by this kind of supervisor.

To deal with a negative supervisor, you can employ the following strategies:

Avoid being influenced by the supervisor’s negative behavior. Instead, you can try to use the negative attitude of the supervisor as motivation to work harder and produce better results. Instead of focusing on the supervisor’s demoralizing behavior, try to focus on the issues you are trying to solve. Do not engage in arguments that, you know, will greatly increase the level of tension between you and the supervisor. If your negative supervisor is not willing to support you in any way, ask peers and other professors for assistance.

7. Know-it-All Expert

This type of supervisor, as the name suggests, is very knowledgeable in the field and would not be satisfied with any work that was not well-researched.

Supervisors in this category have extensive knowledge in their research area and expect well-researched work.

The following strategies can help you deal with a supervisor who is an know-it-all expert supervisor.

• No matter how talented you are as a researcher, you should always be polite when speaking with this type of supervisor. It’s possible that you won’t get the best support if you try to wow people with your knowledge of a certain field of research.
• Before meeting with this type of supervisor, you should equip yourself with the necessary knowledge. You could evaluate the issues you are facing and ask the supervisor for help solving them with a little preparation before the meeting.
• At the end of every in-person meeting, always thank your supervisor for offering valuable comments and guiding you in the right direction.

8. Micro-manager

A micro-managing supervisor is one that closely examines every aspect of your PhD work and keeps track of each deadline set up to review the current project and determine the best course of action. You can even receive a call from this kind of supervisor at odd hours to talk about the ongoing research project.

If your supervisor micromanages, you can do the following:

• You should take notes during each meeting with your PhD supervisor and agree on a due date for the revised  draft. This ensures that you are not interrupted before the agreed-upon deadline ends and that you complete the agreed-upon revision on time.
• The supervisor should be politely informed of your working hours so that they know when to contact you for an update (if necessary).

9. Super-Busy

A supervisor like this would have very little time to devote to your PhD research. Students who have been allocated a super-busy PhD Supervisor must remain self-motivated in order to effectively complete their PhD Thesis.

Here are some suggestions to help you deal with a supervisor who is super busy:

• Please conduct independent research to find solutions to the problems you are having with your PhD thesis if you can’t schedule a meeting with your supervisor.
• After that, send the supervisor an email outlining the steps you’ll take to address any research-related issues.
• If the supervisor detects any fault with the course of action you have chosen, you might receive some constructive feedback that will help you continue in the right direction.
• Seek alternative support: If your supervisor is consistently unavailable, consider seeking support from other faculty members or researchers in your field. They can provide guidance, feedback, and support for your research when your supervisor is too busy.
• Be organized: Plan and prepare for your meetings in advance. Make a list of specific questions or concerns you want to discuss and prioritize them to ensure you make the most of the limited time you have with your supervisor.
• Be concise: When communicating with a busy supervisor, keep your messages or conversations concise and to the point. Clearly articulate your main ideas or questions without excessive detail or unnecessary information.
• Respect their time: Be mindful of your supervisor’s schedule and commitments. If they have limited availability, try to schedule meetings well in advance and be punctual. Be respectful of their time during meetings by staying focused and not going off on tangents.
• Proactively seek feedback: Instead of waiting for your supervisor to provide feedback, take the initiative to seek feedback from other knowledgeable individuals in your research area. This will help you progress in your work and minimize the impact of your supervisor’s busy schedule.
• Be self-reliant: Take ownership of your research project and become more self-reliant. Conduct thorough literature reviews, engage in independent problem-solving, and seek resources and information outside of your supervisor’s immediate guidance.
• Establish clear expectations : Have open and honest conversations with your supervisor to establish clear expectations regarding communication, deadlines, and milestones. Clarify what support you need from them and discuss how you can work together effectively despite their busy schedule.
• Network with peers: Build connections with other PhD students or researchers in your field. Sharing experiences, challenges, and resources with peers can provide valuable support and guidance throughout your PhD journey.

Remember, every Ph.D. journey comes with its unique challenges.

By adopting a proactive approach, seeking support, and staying focused on your goals, you can overcome obstacles and successfully complete your doctoral studies.

Your research and contribution to your field are valuable, and you have the resilience to thrive, even in the face of a problematic supervisor.

Related Posts

How to become a postdoctoral researcher, top 10 fellowships to support phd studies in usa, how long does it take for phd in usa | structure, 20 tips for completing your phd in 36 months, resources for phd literature review, top 10 highest paying phd degrees in 2023, phd and postdoctoral positions at university of liege in belgium, how to complete your phd in 3 years, phd students seeking industry jobs: transitioning from academia to the corporate world, what are the pros and cons of being an older student in a phd program.

Comments are closed.

World leading higher education information and services Home News Blogs Courses Jobs

Ten types of phd supervisor relationships – which is yours.

| January 11, 2016 | 0 responses

It’s no secret that getting a PhD is a stressful process .

One of the factors that can help or hinder this period of study is the relationship between supervisor and student. Research shows that effective supervision can significantly influence the quality of the PhD and its success or failure.

PhD supervisors tend to fulfil several functions: the teacher; the mentor who can support and facilitate the emotional processes; and the patron who manages the springboard from which the student can leap into a career.

There are many styles of supervision that are adopted – and these can vary depending on the type of research being conducted and subject area.

Although research suggests that providing extra mentoring support and striking the right balance between affiliation and control can help improve PhD success and supervisor relationships, there is little research on the types of PhD-supervisor relationships that occur.

From decades of experience of conducting and observing PhD supervision, I’ve noticed ten types of common supervisor relationships that occur. These include:

The candidate is expected to replicate the field, approach and worldview of the supervisor, producing a sliver of research that supports the supervisor’s repute and prestige. Often this is accompanied by strictures about not attempting to be too “creative”.

Cheap labour

The student becomes research assistant to the supervisor’s projects and becomes caught forever in that power imbalance. The patron-client roles often continue long after graduation, with the student forever cast in the secondary role. Their own work is often disregarded as being unimportant.

The “ghost supervisor”

The supervisor is seen rarely, responds to emails only occasionally and has rarely any understanding of either the needs of the student or of their project. For determined students, who will work autonomously, the ghost supervisor is often acceptable until the crunch comes – usually towards the end of the writing process. For those who need some support and engagement, this is a nightmare.

The relationship is overly familiar, with the assurance that we are all good friends, and the student is drawn into family and friendship networks. Situations occur where the PhD students are engaged as babysitters or in other domestic roles (usually unpaid because they don’t want to upset the supervisor by asking for money). The chum, however, often does not support the student in professional networks.

Collateral damage

When the supervisor is a high-powered researcher, the relationship can be based on minimal contact, because of frequent significant appearances around the world. The student may find themselves taking on teaching, marking and administrative functions for the supervisor at the cost of their own learning and research.

The practice of supervision becomes a method of intellectual torment, denigrating everything presented by the student. Each piece of research is interrogated rigorously, every meeting is an inquisition and every piece of writing is edited into oblivion. The student is given to believe that they are worthless and stupid.

Creepy crawlers

Some supervisors prefer to stalk their students, sometimes students stalk their supervisors, each with an unhealthy and unrequited sexual obsession with the other. Most Australian universities have moved actively to address this relationship, making it less common than in previous decades.

Captivate and con

Occasionally, supervisor and student enter into a sexual relationship. This can be for a number of reasons, ranging from a desire to please to a need for power over youth. These affairs can sometimes lead to permanent relationships. However, what remains from the supervisor-student relationship is the asymmetric set of power balances.

Almost all supervision relationships contain some aspect of the counsellor or mentor, but there is often little training or desire to develop the role and it is often dismissed as pastoral care. Although the life experiences of students become obvious, few supervisors are skilled in dealing with the emotional or affective issues.

Colleague in training

When a PhD candidate is treated as a colleague in training, the relationship is always on a professional basis, where the individual and their work is held in respect. The supervisor recognises that their role is to guide through the morass of regulation and requirements, offer suggestions and do some teaching around issues such as methodology, research practice and process, and be sensitive to the life-cycle of the PhD process. The experience for both the supervisor and student should be one of acknowledgement of each other, recognising the power differential but emphasising the support at this time. This is the best of supervision.

There are many university policies that move to address a lot of the issues in supervisor relationships , such as supervisor panels, and dedicated training in supervising and mentoring practices. However, these policies need to be accommodated into already overloaded workloads and should include regular review of supervisors.

Author Bio: Susanna Chamberlain is a Lecturer at Griffith University

Tags: PhD supervision

• SUGGESTED TOPICS
• The Magazine
• Newsletters
• Managing Yourself
• Managing Teams
• Work-life Balance
• The Big Idea
• Data & Visuals
• Reading Lists
• Case Selections
• HBR Learning
• Topic Feeds
• Account Settings
• Email Preferences

6 Common Leadership Styles — and How to Decide Which to Use When

• Rebecca Knight

Being a great leader means recognizing that different circumstances call for different approaches.

Research suggests that the most effective leaders adapt their style to different circumstances — be it a change in setting, a shift in organizational dynamics, or a turn in the business cycle. But what if you feel like you’re not equipped to take on a new and different leadership style — let alone more than one? In this article, the author outlines the six leadership styles Daniel Goleman first introduced in his 2000 HBR article, “Leadership That Gets Results,” and explains when to use each one. The good news is that personality is not destiny. Even if you’re naturally introverted or you tend to be driven by data and analysis rather than emotion, you can still learn how to adapt different leadership styles to organize, motivate, and direct your team.

Much has been written about common leadership styles and how to identify the right style for you, whether it’s transactional or transformational, bureaucratic or laissez-faire. But according to Daniel Goleman, a psychologist best known for his work on emotional intelligence, “Being a great leader means recognizing that different circumstances may call for different approaches.”

• RK Rebecca Knight is a journalist who writes about all things related to the changing nature of careers and the workplace. Her essays and reported stories have been featured in The Boston Globe, Business Insider, The New York Times, BBC, and The Christian Science Monitor. She was shortlisted as a Reuters Institute Fellow at Oxford University in 2023. Earlier in her career, she spent a decade as an editor and reporter at the Financial Times in New York, London, and Boston.

Partner Center