advisor or supervisor dissertation

• Remember me Not recommended on shared computers

Forgot your password?

• Applications

Is a PhD ADVISOR same as a PhD SUPERVISOR?

By aditi123 February 20, 2010 in Applications

Recommended Posts

I am a bit confused about the usage of the terms PhD Supervisor , PhD Guide & PhD Advisor .Are these terms used synonymously or do they have different meanings and functions?

Please help.

Link to comment

Share on other sites.

I am a bit confused about the usage of the terms PhD Supervisor , PhD Guide & PhD Advisor .Are these terms used synonymously or do they have different meanings and functions? Please help.

I've heard the term "guide" being used in India and "adviser" in the US. Supervisor probably in the UK? In any case, I'm pretty sure they mean the same thing.

Thank you for the information.

Never heard of the term "guide" being used.

"Supervisor" usually means who responsible for your paycheck. "Advisor" is the one who is monitoring your degree progress,and usually part of your PhD dissertation committee. Usually for those who are pursuing PhD full-time and doing RA work these two terms are the same thing. It is only different for those who are being paid doing something else (i.e. janitorial work) and only pursue PhD part-time.

• repatriate and hellopsy

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Already have an account? Sign in here.

• Existing user? Sign In
• Online Users
• All Activity
• My Activity Streams
• Unread Content
• Content I Started
• Results Search
• Post Results
• Leaderboard
• Create New...

Important Information

This website uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience on our website. See our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use

Dissertation Advisor 101

How to get the most from the student-supervisor relationship

By: Derek Jansen (MBA) | Expert Reviewer: Dr Eunice Rautenbach | January 2024

Many students feel a little intimidated by the idea of having to work with a research advisor (or supervisor) to complete their dissertation or thesis. Similarly, many students struggle to “connect” with their advisor and feel that the relationship is somewhat strained or awkward. But this doesn’t need to be the case!

In this post, we’ll share five tried and tested tips to help you get the most from this relationship and pave the way for a smoother dissertation writing process.

Overview: Working With Your Advisor

• Clarify everyone’s roles on day one
• Establish (and stick to) a regular communication cycle
• Develop a clear project plan upfront
• Be proactive in engaging with problems
• Navigate conflict like a diplomat

1. Clarify roles on day one

Each university will have slightly different expectations, rules and norms in terms of the research advisor’s role. Similarly, each advisor will have their own unique way of doing things. So, it’s always a good idea to begin the engagement process by clearly defining the roles and expectations in your relationship.

In practical terms, we suggest that you initiate a conversation at the very start of the engagement to discuss your goals, their expectations, and how they would like to work with you. Of course, you might not like what you hear in this conversation. However, this sort of candid conversation will help you get on the same page as early as possible and set the stage for a successful partnership.

To help you get started, here are some questions that you might consider asking in your initial conversation:

• How often would you like to meet and for how long?
• What should I do to prepare for each meeting?
• What aspects of my work will you comment on (and what won’t you cover)?
• Which key decisions should I seek your approval for beforehand?
• What common mistakes should I try to avoid from the outset?
• How can I help make this partnership as effective as possible?
• My academic goals are… Do you have any suggestions at this stage to help me achieve this?

As you can see, these types of questions help you get a clear idea of how you’ll work together and how to get the most from the relatively limited face time you’ll have.

Need a helping hand?

2. Establish a regular communication cycle

Just like in any relationship, effective communication is crucial to making the student-supervisor relationship work. So, you should aim to establish a regular meeting schedule and stick to it. Don’t cancel or reschedule appointments with your advisor at short notice, or do anything that suggests you don’t value their time. Fragile egos are not uncommon in the academic world, so it’s important to clearly demonstrate that you value and respect your supervisor’s time and effort .

Practically speaking, be sure to prepare for each meeting with a clear agenda , including your progress, challenges, and any questions you have. Be open and honest in your communication, but most importantly, be receptive to your supervisor’s feedback . Ultimately, part of their role is to tell you when you’re missing the mark. So, don’t become upset or defensive when they criticise a specific aspect of your work.

Always remember that your research advisor is criticising your work, not you personally . It’s never easy to take negative feedback, but this is all part of the learning journey that takes place alongside the research journey.

3. Have a clear project plan

Few things will impress your supervisor more than a well-articulated, realistic plan of action (aka, a project plan). Investing the time to develop this shows that you take your project (and by extension, the relationship) seriously. It also helps your supervisor understand your intended timeline, which allows the two of you to better align your schedules .

In practical terms, you need to develop a project plan with achievable goals . A detailed Gantt chart can be a great way to do this. Importantly, you’ll need to break down your thesis or dissertation into a collection of practical, manageable steps , and set clear timelines and milestones for each. Once you’ve done that, you should regularly review and adjust this plan with your supervisor to ensure that you remain on track.

Of course, it’s unlikely that you’ll stick to your plan 100% of the time (there are always unexpected twists and turns in a research project. However, this plan will lay a foundation for effective collaboration between yourself and your supervisor. An imperfect plan beats no plan at all.

4. Engage with problems proactively

One surefire way to quickly annoy your advisor is to pester them every time you run into a problem in your dissertation or thesis. Unexpected challenges are par for the course when it comes to research – how you deal with them is what makes the difference.

When you encounter a problem, resist the urge to immediately send a panicked email to your supervisor – no matter how massive the issue may seem (at the time). Instead, take a step back and assess the situation as holistically as possible. Force yourself to sit with the issue for at least a few hours to ensure that you have a clear, accurate assessment of the issue at hand. In most cases, a little time, distance and deep breathing will reveal that the problem is not the existential threat it initially seemed to be.

When contacting your supervisor, you should ideally present both the problem and one or two potential solutions . The latter is the most important part here. In other words, you need to show that you’ve engaged with the issue and applied your mind to finding potential solutions. Granted, your solutions may miss the mark. However, providing some sort of solution beats impulsively throwing the problem at your supervisor and hoping that they’ll save the day.

Simply put, mishaps and mini-crises in your research journey present an opportunity to demonstrate your initiative and problem-solving skills – not a reason to lose your cool and outsource the problem to your supervisor.

5. Navigate conflict like a diplomat 

As with any partnership, there’s always the possibility of some level of disagreement or conflict arising within the student-supervisor relationship. Of course, you can drastically reduce the likelihood of this happening by implementing some of the points we mentioned earlier. Neverthless, if a serious disagreement does arise between you and your supervisor, it’s absolutely essential that you approach it with professionalism and respect . Never let it escalate into a shouting contest.

In practical terms, it’s important to communicate your concerns as they arise (don’t let things simmer for too long). Simultaneously, it’s essential that you remain open to understanding your supervisor’s perspective – don’t become entrenched in your position. After all, you are the less experienced researcher within this duo.

Keep in mind that a lot of context is lost in text-based communication , so it can often be a good idea to schedule a short call to discuss your concerns or points of contention, rather than sending a 3000-word email essay. When going this route, be sure to take the time to prepare a clear, cohesive argument beforehand – don’t just “thought vomit” on your supervisor.

In the event that you do have a significant disagreement with your advisor, remember that the goal is to find a solution that serves your project (not your ego). This often requires compromise and flexibility. A “win at all costs” mindset is definitely not suitable here. Ultimately, you need to solve the problem, while still maintaining the relationship .

If you feel that you have already exhausted all possible avenues and still can’t find an acceptable middle ground, you can of course reach out to your university to ask for their assistance. However, this should be the very last resort . Running to your university every time there’s a small disagreement will not serve you well.

Recap: Key Takeaways

To sum up, a fruitful student-supervisor relationship hinges on clear role definition , effective and regular communication , strategic planning , proactive engagement , and professional conflict resolution .

Remember, your dissertation supervisor is there to help you, but you still need to put in the work . In many cases, they’ll also be the first marker of your work, so it really pays to put in the effort and build a strong, functional relationship with them.

Psst… there’s more (for free)

This post is part of our dissertation mini-course, which covers everything you need to get started with your dissertation, thesis or research project. 

You Might Also Like:

Submit a Comment Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

• Print Friendly

Study at Cambridge

About the university, research at cambridge.

• Undergraduate courses
• Events and open days
• Fees and finance
• Postgraduate courses
• How to apply
• Postgraduate events
• Fees and funding
• International students
• Continuing education
• Executive and professional education
• Courses in education
• How the University and Colleges work
• Term dates and calendars
• Visiting the University
• Annual reports
• Equality and diversity
• A global university
• Public engagement
• Give to Cambridge
• For Cambridge students
• For our researchers
• Business and enterprise
• Colleges & departments
• Email & phone search
• Museums & collections
• Student information
• PhD students' guide

Department of History and Philosophy of Science

• About the Department overview
• How to find the Department
• Annual Report
• Video and audio
• HPS Discussion email list
• Becoming a Visiting Scholar or Visiting Student overview
• Visitor fee payment
• Becoming an Affiliate
• Applying for research grants and post-doctoral fellowships
• Administration overview
• Information for new staff
• Information for examiners and assessors overview
• Operation of the HPS plagiarism policy
• Information for supervisors overview
• Supervising Part IB and Part II students
• Supervising MPhil and Part III students
• Supervising PhD students
• People overview
• Teaching Officers
• Research Fellows and Teaching Associates
• Professional Services Staff
• PhD Students
• Research overview
• Research projects overview
• Natural History in the Age of Revolutions, 1776–1848
• In the Shadow of the Tree: The Diagrammatics of Relatedness as Scientific, Scholarly and Popular Practice
• The Many Births of the Test-Tube Baby
• Culture at the Macro-Scale: Boundaries, Barriers and Endogenous Change
• Making Climate History overview
• Project summary
• Workstreams
• Works cited and project literature
• Research and teaching fellowships
• Histories of Artificial Intelligence: A Genealogy of Power overview
• From Collection to Cultivation: Historical Perspectives on Crop Diversity and Food Security overview
• Call for papers
• How Collections End: Objects, Meaning and Loss in Laboratories and Museums
• Tools in Materials Research
• Epsilon: A Collaborative Digital Framework for Nineteenth-Century Letters of Science
• Contingency in the History and Philosophy of Science
• Industrial Patronage and the Cold War University
• FlyBase: Communicating Drosophila Genetics on Paper and Online, 1970–2000
• The Lost Museums of Cambridge Science, 1865–1936
• From Hansa to Lufthansa: Transportation Technologies and the Mobility of Knowledge in Germanic Lands and Beyond, 1300–2018
• Medical Publishers, Obscenity Law and the Business of Sexual Knowledge in Victorian Britain
• Kinds of Intelligence
• Varieties of Social Knowledge
• The Vesalius Census
• Histories of Biodiversity and Agriculture
• Investigating Fake Scientific Instruments in the Whipple Museum Collection
• Before HIV: Homosex and Venereal Disease, c.1939–1984
• The Casebooks Project
• Generation to Reproduction
• The Darwin Correspondence Project
• History of Medicine overview
• Events overview
• Past events
• Philosophy of Science overview
• Study HPS overview
• Undergraduate study overview
• Introducing History and Philosophy of Science
• Frequently asked questions
• Routes into History and Philosophy of Science
• Part II overview
• Distribution of Part II marks
• BBS options
• Postgraduate study overview
• Why study HPS at Cambridge?
• MPhil in History and Philosophy of Science and Medicine overview
• A typical day for an MPhil student
• MPhil in Health, Medicine and Society
• PhD in History and Philosophy of Science overview
• Part-time PhD

PhD placement record

• Funding for postgraduate students
• Student information overview
• Timetable overview
• Primary source seminars
• Research methods seminars
• Writing support seminars
• Dissertation seminars
• BBS Part II overview
• Early Medicine
• Modern Medicine and Biomedical Sciences
• Philosophy of Science and Medicine
• Ethics of Medicine
• Philosophy and Ethics of Medicine
• Part III and MPhil
• Single-paper options
• Part IB students' guide overview
• About the course
• Supervisions
• Libraries and readings
• Scheme of examination
• Part II students' guide overview
• Primary sources
• Dissertation
• Key dates and deadlines
• Advice overview
• Examination advice
• Learning strategies and exam skills
• Advice from students
• Part III students' guide overview
• Essays and dissertation
• Subject areas
• MPhil students' guide overview
• PhD students' guide overview
• Welcome to new PhDs
• Registration exercise and annual reviews
• Your supervisor and advisor
• Progress log
• Intermission and working away from Cambridge
• The PhD thesis
• Submitting your thesis
• Examination
• News and events overview
• Seminars and reading groups overview
• Departmental Seminars
• Coffee with Scientists
• Cabinet of Natural History overview
• Publications
• History of Medicine Seminars
• The Anthropocene
• Calculating People
• Measurement Reading Group
• Teaching Global HPSTM
• Pragmatism Reading Group
• Foundations of Physics Reading Group
• Atmospheric Humanities Reading Group
• Values in Science Reading Group
• HPS Workshop
• Postgraduate Seminars overview
• Language Groups overview
• Latin Therapy overview
• Bibliography of Latin language resources
• Fun with Latin
• Archive overview
• Lent Term 2024
• Michaelmas Term 2023
• Easter Term 2023
• Lent Term 2023
• Michaelmas Term 2022
• Easter Term 2022
• Lent Term 2022
• Michaelmas Term 2021
• Easter Term 2021
• Lent Term 2021
• Michaelmas Term 2020
• Easter Term 2020
• Lent Term 2020
• Michaelmas Term 2019
• Easter Term 2019
• Lent Term 2019
• Michaelmas Term 2018
• Easter Term 2018
• Lent Term 2018
• Michaelmas Term 2017
• Easter Term 2017
• Lent Term 2017
• Michaelmas Term 2016
• Easter Term 2016
• Lent Term 2016
• Michaelmas Term 2015
• Postgraduate and postdoc training overview
• Induction sessions
• Academic skills and career development
• Print & Material Sources
• Other events and resources
• Part IB students' guide
• Part II students' guide
• Part III students' guide
• MPhil students' guide

As a new PhD student, you will be assigned a supervisor, who is responsible for guiding your studies. You are, however, expected to have the capacity and enthusiasm to organise your own research and to work on your own initiative. You are expected to submit written work at regular intervals for discussion with your supervisor.

We very much hope you will not have any problems with supervision, but if a problem does arise – because, for example, your supervisor is on leave for an extended period or your research takes a new direction, or for personal reasons – you should contact, in the first instance, any of the following: the Director of Graduate Studies, your advisor, the Head of Department or your College tutor. With any of these, you may wish to discuss whether you want to continue along the more formal lines of complaint proposed by the Student Registry.

By the middle of the first term of your PhD the Degree Committee will appoint an advisor for you. You should be actively engaged in selecting your advisor. You are encouraged to submit written work to your advisor at any time, but the submission should not be so extensive that it would prevent the advisor acting as an internal examiner of your thesis. You should meet your advisor at least once a year.

Email search

Privacy and cookie policies

Study History and Philosophy of Science

Undergraduate study

Postgraduate study

Library and Museum

Whipple Library

Whipple Museum

Museum Collections Portal

Research projects

History of Medicine

Philosophy of Science

© 2024 University of Cambridge

• Contact the University
• Accessibility
• Freedom of information
• Privacy policy and cookies
• Statement on Modern Slavery
• Terms and conditions
• University A-Z
• Undergraduate
• Postgraduate
• Research news
• About research at Cambridge
• Spotlight on...

• Skip to Content
• Catalog Home
• Institution Home
• Graduate Catalog /
• Academic Resources /
• Advising & Mentoring PhD Students /

Choosing a Dissertation Advisor

Introduction.

While some graduate groups may assign an advisor to a student upon admission to the program, in many graduate groups the responsibility for finding a dissertation advisor rests with the student. The choice of a faculty member who will supervise the dissertation work required to fulfill degree requirements is one of the most critical decisions a graduate student will make. A student will spend several years working with the faculty member of choice, and that choice will significantly affect the direction of the student’s career. Choosing a dissertation advisor, therefore, is an extremely important decision for doctoral students, although it is not immutable, as will be discussed later.

A student undertaking dissertation work needs an advisor who will be not only academically competent in a particular area but also willing to act as the student’s advocate when necessary. It is important that the student be able to work and communicate effectively with the advisor and not feel overwhelmed or intimidated in the relationship. Dissertation work can be lonely and isolating, and support from an advisor can be a crucial connection.  Each student requires the guidance of someone who will stimulate thought, who has sufficient interest in the student’s topic to produce new insights jointly, and who will challenge the student to think in a novel manner about the research.

Obtaining Information on Potential Advisors

Advisors generally serve as the dissertation supervisor. Students should be familiar with the University rules about who can supervise dissertation research and serve on a dissertation committee.  Several resources and strategies can help students identify an appropriate faculty advisor, as follows.

The graduate group website or handbook is a valuable source of information on potential advisors. Many graduate groups have developed websites that profile affiliated faculty members, including their areas of research, recent publications, and other academic activities. Literature searches can provide further information on the publications and preferred journals of particular faculty members. The graduate group chair can also provide valuable advice on potential advisors and can help students to become familiar with any specific graduate group policies on supervision.

Students can get to know potential advisors by taking a course, doing a lab rotation, acting as a teaching assistant, and/or attending seminars and other presentations by the faculty member.

Graduate students currently working with the potential advisor are an invaluable source of information. Students who are working or have worked with a particular advisor can be asked about their experience with that advisor and about the advisor’s expectations and working methods. Getting to know these students is also useful because anyone choosing to work with a faculty advisor would likely have close, future interactions with their students. Talking to multiple students is always encouraged given the possibly strong and differing opinions one might hear.

Students should make an appointment to meet potential advisors. Meeting a potential advisor is an essential step in determining whether a faculty member would be a good fit in terms of mentoring and interpersonal style and research interested. The following is a list of issues that might be covered in such a meeting: 

• How many graduate students do you advise? (Students may not want to pick a faculty member who has too many students already.)
• Typically, how often do you meet with your students?
• Typically, how much time do you expect students to take to complete their dissertation?
• How will we agree upon my research topic?
• Are there sufficient funds available for the research project?
• What will be the sources of my stipend/funding? What are ways you can provide assistance for finding additional funding if/when my stipend expires?
• What level of independence is expected of your graduate students?
• Is there any specific knowledge I need to have before starting to work with you?
• Will I have the opportunity to attend conferences? Publish papers? Present work at colloquia? Are there funds available for me to do so?
• Are you planning a sabbatical leave soon? If so, what arrangements for continued supervision will be made during your absence?
• What opportunities would I have in this area of research when I graduate?
• How do you typically assist students on the job market?
• Will guidelines be drawn up for working together?
• How will I receive feedback on my progress?

These questions are designed to help the student and the potential advisor determine whether a good match exists. Where appropriate, the student may also want to ask about the order of authorship on publications and intellectual property issues.

For students who are able to pick an advisor, the choice of a dissertation advisor is a decision to be made with a great deal of care and consideration. Discussion of the topics listed above will also give faculty members a sense of what students expect in terms of meetings, feedback, turn-around time on submitted work, etc. Taking time to explore these issues should result in a productive relationship for both student and advisor that culminates in a dissertation of original research, completed within a reasonable period of time.

Changing Advisors

There may be situations in which a student must change advisors. Some situations are beyond the student’s control; for example, when an advisor leaves the University or otherwise becomes unavailable. In other situations, the student may want to choose a different advisor; for example, if the focus of the research project changes to something outside of the current advisor’s expertise, or if work styles do not mesh well.

In these latter situations, students should understand that while there can be risks in changing advisors, it usually can be negotiated in a positive manner. Students deciding to change advisors should be sure to consult the graduate group for any specific policies and procedures that apply and be sure to ascertain if funding may change under a new advisor. Students should always be professional and respectful in interactions with the current advisor and potential new advisor and be certain that the proposed new advisor is willing and able to add them as a new advisee before discussing such a change with the current advisor. Students should focus discussions on interests and goals and not on negative incidents or difficulties. The potential new advisor, as well as leaders or other members of the graduate group, may have advice regarding how to broach this change with the current advisor.

Print Options

Print this page.

The PDF will include all information unique to this page.

A PDF of the entire 2023-24 catalog.

A PDF of the 2023-24 Undergraduate catalog.

A PDF of the 2023-24 Graduate catalog.

Loading metrics

Open Access

Ten simple rules for choosing a PhD supervisor

Contributed equally to this work with: Loay Jabre, Catherine Bannon, J. Scott P. McCain, Yana Eglit

* E-mail: [email protected]

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

• Loay Jabre, 
• Catherine Bannon, 
• J. Scott P. McCain, 

Published: September 30, 2021

• https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1009330
• Reader Comments

Citation: Jabre L, Bannon C, McCain JSP, Eglit Y (2021) Ten simple rules for choosing a PhD supervisor. PLoS Comput Biol 17(9): e1009330. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1009330

Editor: Scott Markel, Dassault Systemes BIOVIA, UNITED STATES

Copyright: © 2021 Jabre et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Funding: The authors received no specific funding for this work.

Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

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 ).

• PPT PowerPoint slide
• PNG larger image
• TIFF original image

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1009330.g001

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 ).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1009330.g002

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.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1009330.g003

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.

• View Article
• Google Scholar
• PubMed/NCBI
• 5. Smith D. The big benefits of working in a small lab. University Affairs. 2013. Available from: https://www.universityaffairs.ca/career-advice/career-advice-article/the-big-benefits-of-working-in-a-small-lab/

/images/cornell/logo35pt_cornell_white.svg" alt="advisor or supervisor dissertation"> Cornell University --> Graduate School

Advising guide for research students.

Success as a graduate student is a shared responsibility between students and faculty. For research students, the relationship with your research advisor, also known as your special committee chair, is extremely important. 

Your responsibility to identify and choose an advisor is one of the most critical tasks you have early in your graduate school career. It’s an opportunity to meet and get to know faculty in your field, to assess your needs for support and supervision, and to collaboratively define your goals, values, and strategic plan for your academic and professional career.

Graduate School Requirement

At Cornell, the faculty advisor in research degree programs is referred to as the special committee chair.

Doctoral students have a special committee of at least three Cornell faculty, which includes the special committee chair and two minor committee members.

Master’s students have a special committee of at least two Cornell faculty, which includes the special committee chair and one minor member.

For both doctoral and master’s degree students, the special committee chair must be a graduate faculty member in the student’s own field.

Definition of an Advisor

Advising  and  mentoring  are often used interchangeably, but understanding the distinctions is important as you choose an advisor.

Advisor Responsibilities

• Guides you in meeting the requirements and expectations for your degree
• Required coursework
• Exams required by the graduate field or the Graduate School
• Research proposal/prospectus
• Research project
• Thesis or dissertation
• Writes informed letters of recommendation for your job applications
• May be a valued colleague or collaborator after you graduate

Mentor Responsibilities

• Provides support and guidance that extends beyond scope of advising
• Demystifies the structure, culture, and unstated expectations of graduate education
• Expands your professional network by introducing you to others
• Provides nominations for awards or other recognitions
• Brings job opportunities to your attention and writes letters of recommendation as you apply for jobs
• Advocates for you within the graduate program and discipline
• May serve as a role model and source of inspiration
• May become a colleague and peer in your discipline and may continue serving a mentoring role

Finding an Advisor

When do i select my first advisor.

At Cornell, the process for obtaining your first advisor varies by field.

Your faculty advisor may be assigned prior to your arrival or you may begin your program with a faculty member you met during the application process.

In some graduate fields, the faculty director of graduate studies (DGS) advises all incoming students. This provides you with time to get to know faculty in your field. By the end of the first semester or year (varying by field), it’s expected that you will have identified your own, long-term advisor. 

In fields where students apply to study with a specific faculty member (rather than do rotations and choose a lab or research group and advisor), you will have chosen an advisor prior to arriving on campus.

You can begin initial conversations about expectations and the advising relationship with your new advisor prior to the start of your program via email.

Start your graduate study and research with clear expectations and thoughtful communication about your plans for an effective advising relationship and success in graduate school.

How do I find an advisor? 

Meet and get to know faculty in your courses and in graduate field seminars and other events.

Talk to advanced students about their experiences and perceptions of the faculty in your programs and ask questions about possible advisors:

• How would you describe their approach to advising?
• What can you tell me about their work style?
• What can you tell me about their research interests?
• How good are their communication skills?
• How clear are their expectations for their graduate students?
• Do they use timeliness in reviewing their students’ writing and their approach to giving feedback?
• How available are they to meet with their graduate students?

After you have gathered information, make an appointment to meet with a potential advisor.

Possible Questions

• Is there a typical timeline you encourage your students to follow in completing their degree programs?
• How often do you meet with your students at different stages of their graduate program? (For example, during coursework, research, and writing stages)
• What are your expectations for students to make conference presentations and submit publications?
• What are your authorship policies? (This is especially relevant in fields where there is collaborative research and publishing involving the student and advisor or a group of students, postdocs, and faculty.)
• How soon should I identify my research project?
• How do you describe the degree of guidance and supervision you provide with regards to your students becoming more independent in their research and scholarship?
• If you are joining a lab or research group: What are the sources of funding for this research? Are there any new or pending research grants?
• How many of your students seek, and secure, external funding? What are your expectations for students to apply for external fellowships?
• Do you have a statement of advising you can share that lists our respective responsibilities and clarifies mutual expectations?
• What’s your advice on how students can manage what they find to be the biggest challenges in their graduate program?

Add other questions to your list based on your own needs and specifics of your program, such as questions about specialized equipment, lab safety, travel to field sites, support and accommodations for special health needs, communication during a faculty member’s sabbatical, funding in fields where there are fewer fellowships and research grants, etc.

Getting Other Mentoring Needs Met

How do i find other mentor(s) .

You may find one faculty member who can serve as both advisor and mentor, but that’s not always the case.

Consider identifying and cultivating additional mentors if that is the case. 

Suggestions on where to look for a mentor:

• The minor members of your special committee
• A faculty member who is not on your committee, and perhaps not even in your graduate field
• Peers and postdoctoral fellows who have knowledge and experience in pertinent issues

No one mentor can meet all your needs.

Good mentors have many protégés and many other demands on their time, such as teaching, research, and university or professional service. They also may not have all the expertise you need, for example, if you decide to search for jobs in multiple employment sectors.

Develop a broad network of mentors whose expertise varies and who provide different functions based on your changing needs as you progress from new student to independent scholar and researcher.

NCFDD offers a webinar, “ Cultivating Your Network of Mentors, Sponsors, and Collaborators “, which students can view after activating a free NCFDD membership through Cornell.

Maximizing the Advising Relationship

A successful relationship with your advisor depends on several different factors and varies with needs and working styles of the individuals. Some of these factors are under your control. But some are not. 

Suggestions for Building a Successful Advising Relationship

• Identify what you need from an advisor.
• Communicate clearly and frequently with your advisor to convey your questions, expectations, goals, challenges, and degree progress. Follow up verbal communication and meetings with an email detailing your understanding of what you both agreed to and next steps.
• Update your written academic plan each semester or whenever major changes or adjustments are needed.
• Consider including your plans to write competitive fellowship applications and co-authored grant proposals.
• Consider including  plans for professional development  that support your skill-building objectives and career goals.
• Recognize that you and your advisor have distinct perspectives, backgrounds, and interests. Share yours. Listen to your advisor’s. There is mutual benefit to sharing and learning from this diversity.
• Work with your advisor to define a regular meeting schedule. Prepare and send written materials in advance of each meeting. These could include: your questions, academic and research plan and timeline, and drafts of current writing projects, such as fellowship applications, manuscripts, or thesis/dissertation chapters.
• Be prepared to negotiate, show flexibility, and compromise, as is important for any successful relationship.
• Be as candid as you are comfortable with about your challenges and concerns. Seek guidance about campus and other resources that can help you manage and address any obstacles.
• Reach out to others for advice. Anticipate challenges and obstacles in your graduate degree program and their impact on the advising relationship.

Be proactive in finding resources and gathering information that can help you and your advisor arrive at solutions to any problems and optimize your time together.

Making Use of Meetings

First meetings.

Your first meeting sets the tone for a productive, satisfying, and enduring relationship with your advisor. Your first meeting is an opportunity to discuss expectations and to review a working draft of your academic plan.

Questions to ask about expectations

• What do your most successful students do to complete their degree on time?
• How often do you want us to meet?
• May I send you questions via email, or do you prefer I just come to your office?
• Would you like weekly (biweekly? monthly?) updates on my research progress?
• Do you prefer reviewing the complete draft of a manuscript or may I send you sections for feedback?
• After each meeting, I’ll make a list of what we each agreed to do before our next meeting, to help me keep moving forward with my research. Would you like a copy of that list, too, via email?

Draft Academic Plan

Prepare and bring a draft plan that outlines your “big picture” plans for your coursework, research, and writing, as well as an anticipated graduation date. (Or, email in advance with a message, such as, “I’m looking forward to meeting with you on [date] at [time], [location]. In advance, I’m sending a copy of my academic plan and proposed schedule for our discussion.”)

Contents of the plan

• Include the requirements and deadlines of your degree program. (This is information you should be able to find online or in your program’s graduate student handbook.)
• Include a general timeline indicating when you plan to meet requirements for courses or seminars, any required papers (such as a second-year paper), exams required by the graduate field (such as the Q exam) or by the Graduate School (the A exam and the B exam for research degree students).
• If your graduate field has a specific set of required courses, indicate the semester you may complete each of them, and be open to suggestions from your advisor.
• If your field does not have required courses, have some idea about the courses you are interested in taking and solicit input and suggestions from your faculty advisor.

Subsequent Meetings

Use each subsequent meeting as an opportunity to update your written academic plan and stay on track to complete your required papers and exams, your research proposal or prospectus, and the chapters or articles that comprise your thesis or dissertation.

In later meetings, you can elaborate on your general initial plan:

• Adding specific coursework or seminars
• Add professional development opportunities that interest you (workshops, dissertation writing boot camp, Summer Success Symposium, Colman Leadership Program, etc.)
• Include intentions to participate in external conferences and travel to research sites
• Identify a semester or summer when you would like to complete an internship.

Your written plan is also important to document what your advisor has agreed to, especially when the deadline to submit a manuscript or your thesis is looming and you are awaiting feedback or approval from your advisor. Use a combination of oral and written communications to stay in touch with your advisor, establish common expectations, and mark your progress toward degree completion.

Meeting Frequency

The frequency of meetings between advisors and advisees varies by field and individual. Assess your own needs and understand your advisor’s expectations for frequency of communication (in person and via email).

• Does your advisor like to provide guidance each step of the way so that he or she is aware of the details of everything you are doing?
• Does your advisor want you to launch your work more independently and report back at pre-determined or regular intervals?
• What do you need to be productive? Are you ready to work more independently?

Be proactive in seeking information. Explicitly ask how often your advisor usually meets with new students and how the advisor prefers to be updated on your progress in between meetings. Ask your peers how frequently they meet with their advisor and whether this has changed over time.

There will be disciplinary differences in meeting frequency.

• In humanities and in some social sciences, where library, archive, and field research take students away from campus, maintaining regular communication is essential, including through scheduled meetings, whether in-person or virtual.
• In life sciences and physical sciences and engineering, students often see their advisors daily in the lab or meet as a research group about externally funded projects; these regular check-ins and conversations may replace formal meetings. Make sure that you are also scheduling one-on-one times to talk about your broader goals and academic and career planning progress, however.

Some of your decisions about meeting frequency will be informed by talking to others, but much of it you learn through experience working together with your advisor. Even this will  change over time  as you become a more independent researcher and scholar. Communicate with your advisor regularly about your changing needs and expectations at each stage of your graduate career.

Resolving Conflict

In any relationship, there can be conflict. And, in the advisor-advisee relationship, the power dynamic created by the supervision, evaluation and, in some cases, funding role of your advisor can make conflicts with your advisor seem especially high.

You have options, however, including:

• Code of Legislation of the Graduate Faculty
• Campus Code of Conduct
• Policy on Academic Misconduct
• Research Misconduct
• Graduate School Grievance Policy
• Intellectual Property policies
• Graduate Student Assistantships (Policy 1.3)
• Talking with your advisor to clarify any miscommunication. Cornell University’s Office of the Ombudsman , one of the offices on campus that offers confidentiality, can also assist you by talking through the issue and helping you gather information you need before you speak directly with your advisor.
• Speaking with someone in the Graduate School, either the Associate Dean for Academics ( [email protected] ) for academic issues, or the Senior Assistant Dean for Graduate Student Life ( [email protected] ) for other issues. These deans will listen, offer advice and support, and coach you through any conversation you might want to have with your advisor. Together, you can brainstorm possible solutions and evaluate alternative plans for resolution.
• Touching base with your director of graduate studies (DGS) – if this person is not also your advisor – to talk to about policies and possible solutions to the conflict.
• Soliciting peer advice. Discuss strategies for managing and resolving conflict with your advisor. “Do you have any suggestions for me?” “Have you ever had an issue like this…?” can be effective questions.
• Identifying a new advisor if the conflict can not be resolved. Your DGS can help with this, and the Graduate School (as above) can help as well.

The National Center for Faculty Development and Diversity offers a webinar, “ How to Engage in Healthy Conflict “, which students can view after activating a free NCFDD membership through Cornell.

Changing Advisors

On occasion, students find that they need or want to change their advisor. An advisor can resign as the student’s special committee chair/faculty advisor. The  Code  of Legislation of the Graduate Faculty describes the rights and responsibilities of students and faculty in each of these situations.

Typical reasons to seek a new advisor include:

• Research interests that veer from the faculty’s expertise or ability to fund a certain project
• Your advisor retires or resigns from the university or takes an extended leave of absence for personal or professional reasons
• Differences in goals, values, or an approach to work or communication style that can’t be resolved
• Serious issues, involving suspected inappropriate behavior, questionable research conduct, or alleged bias, discrimination, or harassment

If you are considering changing advisors:

• Talk to a member of your committee, your director of graduate studies (DGS), or someone in the Graduate School about the proposed change. Some issues, such as funding, require timely attention.
• Identify other faculty members who could serve as your advisor, then meet with one or more of them. The goal is to decide together if you are a good fit with their program. Tips: Discuss or rehearse this conversation with a trusted person, especially if there were issues with your last advisor. Be transparent about these issues and address them going forward with a new advisor. Often prospective advisors are more willing to take on a new graduate student who conveys genuine enthusiasm for their area of study rather than a student who seems to be looking for a way out of a current advising relationship that has gone sour.
• Consider how and when to inform your advisor if you plan to change advisors. Be professional and respectful. Thank your advisor for past support and guidance. Don’t damage, or further damage, the relationship.
• Your DGS, if appropriate
• Office of the University Ombudsman
• Graduate School’s Senior Assistant Dean for Graduate Student Life ( [email protected] )
• Graduate School’s Associate Dean for Academics ( [email protected] )

Forms: 

• Use Student Center if you are changing your advisor before your A exam (for Ph.D. students).
• Use the Post A Committee Change Petition form for changes after the A exam. More information is available on the Graduate School’s Policy pages .

Challenges and Potential Solutions

All good relationships take work. To navigate an advising relationship successfully over time, you should familiarize yourself with some common challenges and possible actions to take.

Challenge: Mismatch in communication needs or style

One example of a communication challenge in an advising relationship is when you want input along the way during a writing project, but you have an advisor who prefers to wait to comment on a complete written draft.

Some possible steps to address this might be to talk to peers about they have handled this in their relationship with their advisor or to explain to your advisor how his or her input at this earlier stage will help speed you along toward having a complete draft for review. It’s important in communicating with your advisor to show that you understand what alternative they are proposing and why (e.g., “I understand that …”).

Challenge: Advisor unavailable or away

Your advisor might be away from campus for a semester or more to conduct research or take a sabbatical leave. Or when a grant proposal deadline or report is looming, your advisor might be less available. Maybe you’ve emailed your advisor several times with no response.

Planning and stating in advance what you need, such as feedback on a manuscript draft or signatures on a fellowship application, can help your advisor anticipate when you will have time-sensitive requests. Making plans in advance to communicate by email or video conference when either of you will be away from campus for a longer period of time is another useful strategy. Your director of graduate studies (DGS) and other faculty who serve as special committee members can also provide advice when your advisor is unavailable.

Challenge: Misaligned expectations

You are ready to submit a manuscript for publication. Your advisor says it needs much more work. Or you begin your job search, applying to liberal arts colleges with very high reputations, or schools in your preferred geographic location, but your advisor insists that you should apply for positions at top research universities.

Discussing your needs and expectations early, and often, in the advising relationship is essential. Get comfortable, and skilled, advocating for yourself with your advisor. Use the annual  Student Progress Review  as an opportunity to communicate your professional interests and goals with your advisor. Use multiple mentors beyond your advisor to get advice and expertise on topics where you need a different perspective or support.

Sometimes challenges can become opportunities for you to develop and refine new skills in communication, negotiation, self-advocacy, and management of conflict, time, and resources. For example, although you might feel abandoned if your advisor is unavailable for a time, even this potentially negative experience could become an opportunity to learn how to advocate for yourself and communicate about your needs and perceived difficulties in the relationship.

Advising Resources

Graduate School deans and directors  are available to answer academic and non-academic questions and provide referrals to useful resources.

Counseling and Psychological Services  (CAPS) staff offer confidential, professional support for students seeking help with stress, anxiety, depression, grief, adjustment challenges, relationship difficulties, questions about identity, and managing existing mental health conditions.

Let’s Talk Drop-in Consultations  are informal, confidential walk-in consultations at various locations around campus.

External Resources

University of Michigan Rackham, How to Get the Mentoring You Want  

Laura Gail Lunsford & Vicki L. Baker, 2016, Great Mentoring in Graduate School: A Quick Start Guide for Protégés

Michigan State University, Guidelines for Graduate Student Advising and Mentoring Relationships  

Michigan State University, Graduate Student Career and Professional Development  

Template for Meeting Notes

Adapted and expanded from Maria Gardiner, Flinders University © Flinders University 2007; used with permission and published in  The Productive Graduate Student Writer  (Allen, 2019). Used here with permission of the author and publisher.  

Use this template for making notes to help you plan for a productive meeting with your advisor, keep track of plans made, and clearly identify next steps that you’ll need to take to follow up on what you discussed.

Mentoring Resources

Graduate school programs focused on mentoring, building mentoring skills for an academic career.

Develop and enhance effective communication and mentorship skills that are broadly transferrable to all careers. Offered by Future Faculty and Academic Careers.

Graduate and Professional Students International (GPSI) Peer Mentoring Program

Share lessons learned as a new international student at Cornell as a peer mentor with new international student peer mentees. Offered by the GPSI in collaboration with the Graduate School Office of Inclusion and Student Engagement.

Graduate Students Mentoring Undergraduates (GSMU)

Share knowledge with and provide support to undergraduate students interested in pursuing further education. Offered in collaboration with the Office of Academic Diversity Initiatives (OADI).

Multicultural Academic Council (MAC) Peer Mentoring Program

Develop strategies to excel academically and personally at Cornell and beyond as a peer mentee or share strategies as a peer mentor. Offered by MAC in collaboration with the Graduate School Office of Inclusion and Student Engagement.

NextGen Professors Program

Learn from faculty in Power Mentoring Sessions and prepare for careers across institutional types. Offered by the Graduate School Office of Inclusion and Student Engagement and Future Faculty and Academic Careers.

Graduate School Programs with a Mentoring Component

Graduate school primer: navigating academia workshop series.

Program for new students on navigating graduate school with sessions on mentoring.

Perspectives: The Complete Graduate Student

Program for continuing students on common issues with some sessions on mentoring.

GPWomeN-PCCW Speaker Series

Series for all students featuring talks by Cornell alumnae with an occasional mentoring focus.

Future Professors Institute

One-day event featuring workshops and guest speakers with occasional mentoring focus.

Intergroup Dialogue Project (IDP)

Peer-led courses blending theory and experiential learning to facilitate meaningful communication with occasional mentoring focus.

Building Allyship Series

Series for the campus community featuring panels designed for productive dialogue with occasional mentoring focus.

Institutional Memberships

Center for the integration of research, teaching, and learning (cirtl) network.

Access to resources on teaching and research mentoring.

Access to career development and mentoring resources.

New York Academy of Sciences (NYAS)

Access to resources, including webinars and articles on mentoring.

Mentoring Programs Across Campus

Give and receive advice as part of a peer mentoring program for all College of Engineering students. Offered by Diversity Programs in Engineering.

Mi Comunidad/My Community

Peer mentoring program run by graduate and professional students affiliated with the Latin@ Graduate Student Coalition (LGSC) and supported by the Latina/o Studies Program (LSP) and Latina/o/x Student Success Office (LSSO) at Cornell University.

Additional Resources:

• Mentoring and Leadership Tips from Graduate School Programs
• Cornell University Office of Faculty Development and Diversity – Resources for Mentors and Mentees
• Careers Beyond Academia LibGuide
• National Research Mentoring Network

Graduate School Articles on Mentoring:

• Alumna Addresses Importance of Mentoring
• Becoming Better Mentors Through Workshop Series
• August Offers Mentoring Advice
• ‘A Better Chance of Providing Access’: Future Professors Institute Fosters Inclusivity

Virtual Training and External Resources

• How to Get the Mentoring You Want: A Guide for Graduate Students – University of Michigan, Rackham Graduate School
• The Science of Effective Mentorship in STEMM – National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, Medicine
• Mentor Training: Online Learning Modules – University of Minnesota Clinical and Translational Science Institute
• Mentor Curricula and Training: Entering Mentoring – Center for the Improvement of Mentored Experiences in Research

For other resources, view the Advising Guide for Research Students.

If there is anything not included on this list that we should consider, please send the information and a link to [email protected] .

Academic & Employability Skills

Subscribe to academic & employability skills.

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 397 other subscribers.

Email Address

Writing your dissertation - working with your supervisor

Posted in: dissertations

Your supervisor

Before you begin your dissertation, it is highly likely you will be assigned a supervisor to oversee your progress from first steps to completion. Your supervisor will help you formulate ideas and give you guidance on how best to develop your research topic and course of action. But you need to always remember that this is your project, and your supervisor will not provide you with content or additional lessons on a particular topic. Their role is to help you work out your own pathways to success.

Get organised

Lecturers are very busy people, and your dissertation is only a small part of the duties and responsibilities they have to carry out during the summer months. So in order to get the most out of your supervisor and maintain a positive and productive professional relationship with them, you need to get organised.

Here are some important guidelines to follow:

• Agree a timetable of meetings at the start of your project and stick to it.
• Ensure that each meeting has a focus e.g. “setting a research problem”, “analysing the data”, with a clear set of questions to ask.
• your research plan
• early results of your data collection
• draft chapters.
• Arrive on time to each meeting you have arranged. At the end of each supervision meeting agree some action points for you to focus on before the next time you meet.
• Keep a record of what you decide in supervision sessions.
• Don't bug your supervisor with emails in between your meetings. Save up your questions for your next scheduled appointment.

If you are not happy with an aspect of your supervision, discuss this with your supervisor. If this is too difficult or awkward, your personal tutor may also be able to offer advice.

See also Communicating with your tutor

Share this:

• Click to print (Opens in new window)
• Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on WhatsApp (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)

Click here to cancel reply.

• Email * (we won't publish this)

Write a response

Navigating the dissertation process: my tips for final years

Imagine for a moment... After months of hard work and research on a topic you're passionate about, the time has finally come to click the 'Submit' button on your dissertation. You've just completed your longest project to date as part...

8 ways to beat procrastination

Whether you’re writing an assignment or revising for exams, getting started can be hard. Fortunately, there’s lots you can do to turn procrastination into action.

My takeaways on how to write a scientific report

If you’re in your dissertation writing stage or your course includes writing a lot of scientific reports, but you don’t quite know where and how to start, the Skills Centre can help you get started. I recently attended their ‘How...

• Research article
• Open access
• Published: 22 August 2019

The journey of thesis supervisors from novice to expert: a grounded theory study

• Leila Bazrafkan 1 ,
• Alireza Yousefy 2 ,
• Mitra Amini 1 &
• Nikoo Yamani 2  

BMC Medical Education volume  19 , Article number:  320 ( 2019 ) Cite this article

9448 Accesses

6 Citations

1 Altmetric

Metrics details

Supervision is a well-defined interpersonal relationship between the thesis supervisors and their students. The purpose of this study was to identify the patterns which can explain the process of expertise attainment by thesis supervisors. We aimed at developing a conceptual framework/model to explain this development based on the experience of both students and supervisors.

We have conducted a qualitative grounded theory study in 20 universities of medical sciences in Iran since 2017 by using purposive, snowball sampling, and theoretical sampling and enrolled 84 participants. The data were gathered through semi-structured interviews. Based on the encoding approach of Strauss and Corbin (1998), the data underwent open, axial, and selective coding by constant comparative analysis. Then, the core variables were selected, and a model was developed.

We could obtain three themes and seven related subthemes, the central variable, which explains the process of expertise as the phenomenon of concentration and makes an association among the subthemes, was interactive accountability. The key dimensions during expertise process which generated the supervisors’ competence development in research supervision consisted maturation; also, seven subthemes as curious observation, evaluation of the reality, poorly structured rules, lack of time, reflection in action, reflection on action, and interactive accountability emerged which explain the process of expertise attainment by thesis supervisors.

Conclusions

As the core variable in the expertise process, accountability must be considered in expertise development program planning and decision- making. In other words, efforts must be made to improve responsibility and responsiveness.

Peer Review reports

Supervision is a well-defined term in the interpersonal relationship between thesis supervisors and students. A supervisor is designated to assist the student’s development in terms of their research project [ 1 , 2 , 3 ]. Faculty members supervise the students because qualified supervision leads to success on the part of the student, and it has moral, reputational, and financial outcomes for the institution. Supervisors are expected to train students to gain competence in areas such as specialist skills, generalist skills, self-reliance skills, and group/team skills [ 4 ]. Expertise is derived from the three essential elements of knowledge, experience, and the ability to solve problems in society [ 5 , 6 , 7 ]. .According to Dreyfus, acquisition of expertise or practical wisdom represents a higher level of “self-actualization.” At this point, one reaches a level in which they can flourish in their talents and abilities. This enables the teachers to function in scientific communities and multicultural environments [ 7 ].

Wiscer has identified three stages in the thesis supervision process and describes the duties of the supervisors in each of them [ 8 ]. Pearson and Brew state that maturation in specialist skills, generalist skills, self-reliance skills, and group/team skills are the major areas that need to be promoted in the student. Moreover, these are the generic processes in which the supervisors should be involved for efficacious supervision if they aim to help the students develop in various institutional, disciplinary and professional settings; acquire appropriate expertise and features needed for employment; and make an outline of what might form a flexible professional development program for supervisors in this setting [ 3 ]. Vereijken et al. emphasized novice supervisors’ approaches to reach expertise in supervision and explained the relationship between practice and dilemmas among novice supervisors [ 9 ].

.Despite the importance of expertise in higher education and particularly research supervision, research abilities are not considered as one of the priorities in the employment of the academic staff. Furthermore, the newly employed faculty members are often involved in teaching, administrative tasks, and services in health care; this inhibits them from expertise attainment in other aspects such as research supervision [ 10 , 11 , 12 ]. In this regard, Malekafzali believes that in the area of research activities, the faculty members have serious weaknesses in defining the problem, choosing the appropriate method for research, analyzing the data, interpreting the results, and publishing scientific articles. Besides, there is a lack of coherent and compiled training programs which can enhance their research capabilities [ 13 ].

One of the most important factors contributing to the thesis and research quality is the process of developing expertise in supervisors’ research supervision. Most studies in our country have focused on research abilities during the research, and fewer studies have focused on the process of expertise acquisition in thesis supervision, and no actual model has been proposed for this [ 11 , 12 , 13 ]. The quantitative researches could not explain exactly how and through which process the faculty members, as thesis supervisors, become experts in thesis supervision since the expertise process is multi-factorial and has many unknown aspects. Considering the effective role of qualitative research in clarifying ambiguous and unknown aspects, we chose the grounded theory approach for this study [ 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 ]. This theory will be used when the investigator intends to determine the patterns of actions and social interactions needed for the development of expertise by specific groups of people in a specific setting [ 17 , 18 ].

In this study, we aimed to identify the themes that explain the expertise development process among thesis supervisors in Iran, and also to develop a conceptual framework/model to explain this development based on the experience of both students and supervisors.

This study was carried out in 20 universities of medical sciences with different ranks in Iran because universities are the places where supervisors and students interact purposefully to discourse the needs of experts on specific occasions and in specific conditions. In these universities, different students study with various disciplines. There are three types of universities in Iran. Type 1 universities are the ones with the most facilities, faculties, research presentations, international collaborations, and scientific outcomes. The second rank belongs to type 2, and the one with the least mentioned qualities is type 3 universities. All three types of universities were included in this study. In all these courses, writing a thesis is one of the requirements with the same role and regulation. The majority of the students in this research project were in the late stages of both undergraduate and postgraduate educational programs within the same function and regulation.

Study design

We conducted this qualitative study based on a grounded theory approach in a systematic form [ 17 , 18 ]. Grounded theory is a symbolic interaction which is derived from systematic data collection during the research process. In this strategy, collecting and analyzing data and the theory derived from the data have a close association [ 17 , 19 ]. The investigator’s purpose in using grounded theory is to describe and clarify a phenomenon in the social condition and to identify the essential processes working within [ 17 ].

Participants

In this study, 84 subjects including 56 faculty members of medical sciences, 20 undergraduate and postgraduate students (medical students, MS of Science, Ph.D. and residents), and eight managers in the field of research supervision participated. Using purposive sampling, snowball sampling with maximum variation, we selected the participants from a variety of academic ranks with different work experiences, as the key informants in thesis supervisors. Then, to continue the sampling, we used theoretical sampling and data saturation. The inclusion criterion was 5 years of work experience in thesis supervision, and the exclusion criterion was the unwillingness to participate in the study. Firstly, we collected data in Shiraz University with the help of a research supervisor who is known for his high quality of supervision and then data gathering was initiated in the university of Isfahan. There were 34 key informants from the two universities and 22 individuals from other universities. Students were selected based on their willingness to participate.

Theoretical sampling was used next to develop the tentative theory. The basis for theoretical sampling was the queries that emerged during data analysis. At this stage, the researcher interviewed the supervisor, administrators, and students. Theoretical sampling facilitated in verifying the supervisors’ responses and credibility of categories and resulted in more conceptual density. Data saturation was obtained when no new data emerged in the last five interviews. Therefore, data gathering by interviews was terminated.

Data collection

We collected the data primarily by semi-structured interviews from September 2017 to September 2018. The participants were recognized with unknown codes based on their field of work and setting, and each participant was interviewed in one or two sessions. Having obtained the participants’ informed consent, we recorded the interviews and they were transcribed verbatim immediately. The interviews began with open-ended general questions such as, “What did you experience during research supervision?” and then the participants were asked to describe their perceptions regarding their expertise process. Leading questions were also used to deeply explore the conditions, processes, and other factors that participants recognized as significant issues. The interview was based mostly on the questions which came up during the interview. On average, each interview lasted for an hour, during which field notes and memos were taken. At the end of each session, the participants were asked to give an opinion on other important topics which did not come up during the interview, followed by data collection and analysis which are simultaneously done in grounded theory; analytic thought and queries that arose from one interview were carried to the next one [ 20 ].

The data were also collected by unstructured observations of the educational atmosphere in the laboratory, and the faculty member and students’ counseling offices. These observations lasted 5 weeks, during which the faculties and students’ interactions and the manner of supervision were closely monitored. The observation was arranged to sample the maximum variety of research supervisor activity for some faculty member who is known to be a good or poor supervisor and detailed organized field notes were kept.

Also, we used the field notes to reflect emergent analytic concepts as a source of three angulations of data, frequently reconsidering the data, and referring to field notes in the context of each participant’s explanation. Analysis of the field notes facilitated in shaping contextual conditions and clarifying variations in the supervisors’ responses in each context. This led to the arrangement of several assumptions in the effect of contexts.

Data analysis

We simultaneously performed data collection and analysis. We read the scripts carefully several times and then entered them into MAXQDA (version10). We collected and analyzed the data practically and simultaneously by using a constant comparative method. Data were analyzed based on the 3-stage coding approach, including open, axial, and selective coding by Strauss and Corbin In the open coding stage, we extracted the basic concepts or meaning units from the gathered information. Then, more general concepts were formed by grouping similar concepts into one theme. The themes became clearer throughout the interviews. Then, the constructs of them were compared with each other to form tentative categories. After that, we conducted axial coding by using the guidelines given in Corbin and Strauss’s (2008) Paradigm Model [ 21 ]. The extracted themes (codes) in the previous (open coding) stage were summarized in 3 main themes during the axial coding stage, and then the core variables were selected in the selective coding stage [ 20 ]. To generate a reasonable theory to the community, a grounded theorist needs to condense the studied happenings a the precise sequence. To check the data against categories, the researcher asks questions related to certain categories and returns to the data to seek evidence. After developing a theory, the researcher is required to confirm the theory by comparing it with existing theories found in the recently available research [ 21 ]. We finalized the model after 5 days; during this time, we explained the relations between subcategories and the core category for realizing theoretical saturation and clarifying the theoretical power of the analysis explained about work as narration.

In terms of accuracy improvement, we used the Lincoln and Guba’s criteria, including credibility, dependability, conformability, and transferability [ 22 , 23 ].

To increase credibility, we collected data from different universities in Iran, and their credibility was also confirmed by three reviewers and experts in qualitative research. Also, some of the participants rechecked the data and the investigators’ description and interpretation of their experiences carefully. Prolonged engagement and tenacious observation facilitated the data credibility. In this way, the process of data collection and analysis took 12 months. Data triangulation and method triangulation also confirmed credibility [ 20 ]. The use of the maximum variation sampling method contributed to the dependability and conformability of data. Furthermore, once the explanation of the phenomenon was full, it was returned for confirmation to 3 participants of each university, and they validated the descriptions. Finally, to attain transferability, we adequately described the data in this article, so that a judgment of transferability can be made by readers.

Ethical considerations

This study was approved by the Ethics Committee of Isfahan University of Medical Sciences (92–6746). The participants were informed about the research aim and interviews. Informed consent for conducting and recording the interview was obtained. The confidentiality of the participants’ information was maintained throughout the study.

In this study, the mean age of the faculty members and students was 44.34 ± 14.60 and 28.54 ± 2.38 years, respectively. All the faculty members and most of the students were married. Only three students were single. Three themes and seven interrelated sub-themes emerged from the data (Table  1 ). The main variable, which explains the process of expertise as the phenomenon of concentration and makes an association among the categories, was interactive accountability. The key dimensions of the expertise process are displayed in a model (Fig.  1 ).

The process of expertise attainment in research supervisor model

Theme 1: engagement

In this theme, the initial phase of expertise, the supervisor starts to observe the others’ behavior in the students’ supervision and guidance based on the practical and cognitive skills previously acquired. They attempt to recognize the different needs based on the amount of their motivation and previous competence so that the models become important for them, and they recognize the scope of the needs based on their importance. Then, they try to understand the needs and values of real thesis supervision in this context. In this theme, two sub-themes, curious observation, and evaluation with reality emerged.

Curious observation

In this sub-theme, several concepts such as personal interest, self-awareness, ability to meet the students’ needs, ability to detect weaknesses in research skills, and observation of role models in this area act as the impellent factors in expertise attainment in research supervision.

Regarding personal interest, a successful faculty member in the area of research supervision said:

“…In my experience, faculties must be selected from those who have curious personalities as well as being good observers, first of all. In this way, they will have the appropriate intrinsic character to acquire knowledge in guidance and supervision)…” (Faculty member N0.3)

According to our participants, the most important intrinsic motivation is the desire to update the content knowledge and skills in research supervision. An experienced professor said:

“ … The knowledge gap between the new and old generations of faculty members is what forced me to update my knowledge...and it has been detected by myself…” (Faculty member N0.3).

Another important intrinsic motivation is the ability to meet the educational and research needs of students. However, usually these needs are combined; one of the faculty members put it:

“…I would like to be an expert in this process (thesis supervision) to meet my students’ needs. Because I have seen and felt this need many times before…” (Faculty member N0.12).

Since the publication of research directly affects the promotion of a faculty, some professors seek skills that are practical in article publication such as several statistical and basic skills for thesis writing. The participants considered the self-awareness and consciousness elements as very important. Through consciousness, one can better understand their needs.

Evaluation with reality

In this sub-theme, in the initial phase maintaining academic dignity and competition motivates the faculty members to obtain expertise in research supervision. At this point, the supervisor evaluates themself and their potentialities considering more precise features and acquired information (or data), so that they can find the distance between the optimal state and the existing conditions. They also evaluate the others’ potentialities in this field realistically and compete. Good supervision is then highlighted for them. Based on the supervisors’ experience, at this stage, they are seriously engaged in evaluation and competition.

Another motivation was obtaining academic and social promotion. Although the number of theses supervised by them can affect the academic promotion of supervisors, this effect is insignificant. The real motivation is maintaining academic dignity and competition amongst peers. A member of the clinical faculties stated:

“ … To enhance academic dignity, a faculty member should master various skills such as patient care, teaching, educational skills, and last but not least, research supervision. I got involved in research and thesis supervision because I felt I should not be left behind…” ( Faculty member N0.17).

At this stage, the junior supervisor tries to increase the cognitive knowledge in research supervision such as increasing specific knowledge of the discipline, planning, directing of a project effectively, and developing good interpersonal skills presented in research supervision.

Theme 2: supervision climate

In this theme, we describe the contextual factor which changes the process of expertise attainment in thesis supervisors. The result of the study reflects some concerns about the relationship between individuals in the context in that they interact purposefully but with barriers. The supervision climate in the thesis supervision process in this theme led to the emergence of two sub-themes, challenging shortcomings and role ambiguity. These challenges include poorly structured rules and regulations which, in turn, can cause confusion and role ambiguity.

Challenging shortcomings

This report shows that contextual factor plays a significant role in promoting the quality of a thesis in a university, but the process is faced with altered challenges such as inadequate resources, inadequate time, and ineffective evaluation and rule and regulation deficit. These challenges include the following. Most faculty members and students have experienced these shortcomings.

Various inadequate resources, such as access to new and online journals, laboratory equipment were one of the challenges for supervisors in certain aspects which required more competency, and the constraints on communication with the other academic centers worldwide undermine the sense of competition and hinder the effort put in to become an expert. One of the students said: “… I see how difficult it is to gain access to a good article or laboratory materials in this situation …we try, but it just isn’t possible...” (Faculty member N0.17).

Based on our results, the sudden changes in personal life, work position, and organizational change can affect the path to expertise. These changes such as marriage, work overload, admission of students over the capacity, new rules and regulation of scholar citizenship, promotion and so on can have both positive and negative impacts, depending on whether they facilitate or restrict the professional development of faculties as supervisors. For instance, an increase in student admission causes work overload, which results in neglecting self-improvement.

“…As you know, we are over- loaded with students (they have increased the number of admissions), which is beyond our capacity. This means that most of our time will be dedicated to teaching. Self-improvement is difficult due to lack of time…” (Faculty member N0.6).

Role ambiguity

Poorly structured supervision can occur where there is an ambiguous context of supervision structure, supervisors and students’ roles. Most participants, as faculty members, managers, and students have experienced some difficulties in this regard, due to poorly structured rules(EDITORS NOTE; do you mean ‘rules and regulations ‘here) and regulations and its impact on the thesis supervision. It is not only the rules themselves but also the way they are implemented. One of the faculty members expressed confusion over the rules related to the dissertation as follows:

“…It should be made clear what I must do exactly. It is obvious regarding supervision on the work of students; there are not the same expectations from an Assistant Professor, Associate Professor, and a professor. Most problems occur as a result of the gap in legislation; For example, the rules imply a full Professor does not need a statistical consult, while many supervisors like me do not have enough knowledge and skills in statistical analysis...” (Faculty member N0.1).

Failure to implement the rules also increases the sense of this ambiguity, and there are no specific rules for verifying capability and audits to determine inadequate experts in thesis supervision. The role ambiguity or unclear roles and responsibilities of the supervisor and student in the thesis process were other limitations that were emphasized by the majority of participants. A faculty member stated:

“… Supervisors have different roles during the thesis process. To enhance this process, one must exactly know one’s responsibilities. For instance, in the beginning, the supervisor should guide the students through the process of finding a suitable research topic, but if the teacher's role is unclear, then instead of guiding they may actually choose the topic, and if so, the students will be prevented from exploring, using their creative thinking, and improving their problem-solving abilities…” (Faculty member N0.1).

Various performance

Based on the participants’ experiences, in this situation in which there are inadequate resources and organizational and social problems, some faculty members are well-trained in the field of supervision. One of the senior faculty members said: “It is my honor to mention that despite the existence of many obstacles, I have been able to train well-educated students, who have become researchers and contribute to the development of science in my country.”

One of the most important causes of poor performance is ineffective evaluation. Based on the participants experiences, two main problems can result in ineffective evaluation. First of all is the inadequate feedback from the supervisor which leads to unmotivated learners and the second one is lack of feedback from the stakeholders and educational institutes which in turn diminishes the supervisor’s efforts toward self-improvement. These can lead to poor performance both in students and supervisors.

In one of the Ph.D. student’s words:

“…In this system, there is no supervision on the supervisors; there is no control or evaluation of their work. Also, the supervisors don't get feedback from their students during the research process, and there is no third person who investigates whether the report is real or not…” (student N0. 7).

Evidence from data suggests that an unfair judgment and evaluation of academic theses are other problems in the process of acquiring the merit of teachers. If there isn’t proper evaluation, students and supervisors would not have the right standards to correct their performance.

The professors do not always consider the lack of expertise to be the only cause of poor performance. Many believe that inadequate monitoring can also reduce the motivation for quality performance. This means that supervisors may obtain the necessary expertise, but they are not motivated to enhance their performance since they are not expected to do this. One student had experienced:

“…I was so thrilled that my thesis supervisor was an experienced, older and well-known professor, but unfortunately, I soon found out that not only was his scientific knowledge outdated, but also he lacked the necessary supervision skills, so he let the students do all the work unsupervised. He did not take any responsibility during the process…” (Student N0.4).

Another point which leads to poor performance is the fact that some faculty members do not comprehend the main purpose of the thesis writing process; actually, they do not know the difference between teaching and guiding in the project or thesis supervision. One of the basic science supervisors said: “… Some faculties consider a thesis as research work and not a lesson in which research methodology should be taught...” (Faculty member N0.5).

Performing poorly along with ignoring professional ethics can also lead to increased tension and stress in student-teacher relationships. This can result in despondency and frustration in both students and teachers and create a vicious cycle of inefficient supervisors who will train inefficient students or future supervisors.

One of the students put it this way:

“...I feel the absence of a supervisor in my research; I would have been more successful, and my results would have been better if I had had more guidance.” (Student N0.6).

Theme 3: maturation

In this theme, the secondary phase of expertise, the individual is emotionally involved and feels that success or failure is important. This is a stage in which the learner needs an integrated schedule to be competent, and as a result, success or failure will follow. The supervisors frequently think about personal promotion and takes action in this way. They try out different approaches, and sometimes due to disappointment and embarrassment they fail. Some individuals quit at this stage and never reach competence, or they have what may be called an artificial competence. And this does not mean that they are not considered to be well-known supervisors; rather, they know, as do the students, that they are not competent. At this stage, the supervisor attempts to acquire the identity of a researcher and tries to enhance his availability, and be dutiful, knowledgeable, and enthusiastic in research supervision. Along the lines of this theme, three sub-themes of Reflection in action, Reflection on action, and Interactive accountability emerged.

Reflection in action

In this sub-theme, the patterns of expertise development begin, and self-directed learning, participatory teaching and learning strategies through a hidden curriculum are considered. At this stage, the supervisor tries to follow self-directed learning, and the amount of time allocated to expertise acquirement seems to be one of the most important factors. In this regard, one stated:

“…My success in this case (research supervision) is, first of all, due to self-evaluation and self-effort. For instance, to be in control and take full responsibility, I think about everything related to the guidance of the students, and I felt the need to master every aspect of research, even the statistical skills needed for analysis…” (Faculty member N0.8).

The supervisors’ activities were divided into two groups: self-directed –learning strategy and gaining experience through individual effort. Expertise requires continuous interaction and experience. They evaluate their learning, and by this, they experience the manner of managing and allocating time for effective supervision. According to participants, the amount of time allocation for expertise seems to be one of the most important factors for self-directed learning and expertise acquirement.

The formal training workshops provided an opportunity for supervisors with similar terms and the same problems in terms of learning experiences, environmental features, students, and educational problems to come together in one place. Participants also considered the formal participatory teaching necessary since it can provide an opportunity for the peers to get together and exchange their experiences. As a clinical faculty member put it:

“…Collaborative strategies can be beneficial in many ways. One of them is the facilitation of experience exchanges amongst teachers, peers, and colleagues and modeling the behavior of teachers and teaching workshops that emphasize the importance of their expertise in research supervision…” (Faculty member N0.1).

In our participants’ experience, this self-directed learning is effective if, and only if, it is done accompanied by proper training and participatory teaching. Otherwise, it is a waste of time. As an example, one of the students in this field said:

“…my supervisor was a great teacher and put in a lot of time and effort on my thesis supervision; however, due to his lack of research skills, I had to change my thesis proposal three times. However, after he participated in a training course at the University of Oxford, his progress was unbelievable and impressive…and I saw his expertise…” (Student N0.11).

One of the faculty members also quoted:

“…When the teachers feel a gap in their knowledge or skill, the university must provide a comfortable, appropriate, and easy way for learning them …” (Faculty member N0.10).

Regarding this subject, one of the Managers in this field stated:

“…Another improvement strategy is the use of interpersonal interactions among faculty members, these instructive interpersonal interactions among the faculty members in similar conditions make it possible to benefit from peers’ feedback …” (Manager N0.1).

A hidden curriculum strategy, like learning through trial and error can also affect the expertise process. One of the professors expressed:

“… Learning through trial and error is very effective; through the supervision of each thesis, we learn some of our mistakes and try not to remake them in the next one …” (Faculty member N0.3).

The professors do not always consider the lack of expertise to be the only cause of poor performance. Many believe that inadequate monitoring can also reduce the motivation for quality performance. This means that supervisors may obtain the necessary expertise, but they are not motivated to enhance their performance since they are not expected to do this. One student’s experience:

Reflection on action

The learner provides an integrated schedule for their competence and uses all the facilitators and facilities around them for further efficiency and promotion. This stage is named Conditional Self-efficacy by expertise experience. At this stage, the supervisor is considered a competent individual who can guide the students based on the experiences of specialized and non-specialized faculty members.

In this regard, one of the students said:

“…I can acknowledge that my supervisor functioned very impressively in this thesis, but guidance and supervision are not static; rather, it is an active process. To be a good supervisor, the faculty members should try to keep up to date and revise their attitudes, duties, and their specialty and knowledge. …” (Student N0.3).

According to the participants, at this stage the supervisors have achieved meta-competence and general characteristics or professional value; are able to guide the students and others; and develop characteristics such as acquiring specific knowledge of the discipline, especially well-organized knowledge, planning, directing of a project effectively, having good interpersonal skills, and being dutiful, knowledgeable and enthusiastic in research.

One of the PhD students states: “… My supervisor is typical of an expert. His ingenious inquiries, extraordinary attention to science and his personality have always been admired and he has been a role model for me…” (Student N0.6).

For example, the supervisors attend educational programs on scientific writing and thesis evaluation as well as ethics in research and apply them in team work. Gradually, their competency can enable them to function as a good supervisor for their students. At this stage, the supervisor develops so that they can respond due to discovery and intuition. These responses replace their dubious and unskilled reactions. The supervisor now reflects various stages of supervision and guidance. They take action, and in fact, a part of their reactions are achieved through observation and recognition. In this stage, they not only recognize what should be done but also distinguish how to achieve it with more precise discretion. A competent person does the appropriate task in the most appropriate time using the right platform.

The time period required for training or acquiring expertise varies from one person to another. Some individuals become experts very soon, whilst it takes others longer.. As one of the professors said:

“…In the beginning, I was too concerned with my responsibility as a thesis supervisor and was not sure what I should do. However, after ten years of experience, I have gained a sense of awareness which makes supervision easier for me. Of course, up to date knowledge and skill as to managing a thesis are always necessary. It took me about 12 years to reach where I am today. Furthermore, an individual who is expert at present, will not be so in two years, so I want to say that the expertise in thesis supervision in a continuum, which depends on the supervisor’s reflections on work and activity …” (Faculty member N0.15).

The continuous path of expertise in supervision can be affected by various factors. This has resulted in a range of expertise and performance in supervisors. This range and continuum is a theme that most of our participants agreed with. One of the managers revealed:

“…There is surely a continuum of expertise. We cannot deny the expert supervisors; however, the existence of those with poor supervising skills must also be acknowledged (in thesis supervision). There are those on whose ethics, honesty, and knowledge we can rely on. On the other hand, there are a few who are not as trustworthy as needed.” (Manager N0.1).

The core variable: interactive accountability

As shown in Fig. 1 , through this survey, we found that the core variable in thesis supervision process is the interactive accountability shaped by interactions of supervisors and students in an academic setting, so to enhance the accountability, each group must take responsibility and do his or her job. In this regard, one of the managers claimed:

“…When supervisors find themselves responsible, and the university officials recognize this responsibility, the supervisors are motivated to seek expertise and try to enhance their competencies and acquire learning strategies because of being accountable…” (Manager N0.2)

This means that teachers must be responsive to the needs of students, university and community. Accountability is a mutual interaction between the students and their supervisor, in other words, if the student is responsive to his duties, he creates motivation in his supervisor. One of the participants commented;

“…I've always tried to be a competent thesis supervisor, so that I have the ability to meet the needs of the community and university as well as students. I say to myself when I accept the supervision of a thesis, I should be well accountable for its results…” (Faculty member N0.32)

This study aimed at exploring the processes of expertise among thesis supervisors based on the experience of faculty members, students, and managers of Iranian universities of medical sciences. The section concludes with an explanation of how these themes are a cohesive relationship, which enables the expertise development of supervisors. It seems that the core variable in the expertise process is the concept of interactive accountability and efforts to acquire the capacity to respond to the students and academic needs. This will help them to promote their professional behavior in research supervision. The importance of accountability and various types of ability in thesis supervision has also been emphasized by other studies [ 24 , 25 , 26 ]. It was also mentioned as the major feature of the supervisor in other studies [ 26 , 27 ].

In this study, “accountability” emerged as the behavioral pattern through which the supervisors resolved their main concern of being an expert in being responsive to academic and students’ needs. Supervision training is complex since academic choices in the real world can depend on supervisor characteristics. The results of this study revealed that in the initial phase of supervision, observation, evaluation, and reflection in action and maturation stage in the secondary phase were the major themes that emerged. This result compared with Bandura’s social learning and self-efficacy theory was significant in similarity and difference. Bandura believes that achieving self-efficacy is one of the most important contributors to competence. In his model, he suggested four sources of self-efficacy, including previous accomplishments, vicarious experiences such as having a role model, verbal persuasion such as coaching and evaluative feedback, and emotional arousal [ 28 , 29 ]. Likewise, in this study, we found that the emotional arousals such as personal interest in cooperative learning, peer competition, meeting the needs of students, self-awareness and the need for upgrading are the significant factors for the faculties’ expertise. Also, our participants found that the utilization of previous experiences is the most effective method of achieving personal competence. However, this study indicates conditional expertise, which means if an expert’s information is not up to date and they do not make any effort in this regard, being an expert and having expertise is not a permanent condition.

This study also revealed that self-effort, workshops, and role models, as part of a hidden curriculum, are influential methods of teacher empowerment which agrees with the results of some studies such as those of Britzman et al. and Patel et al. Patel et al. have also suggested the importance of role modeling; they believe that modeling and observing other faculty members behavior is an effective tool for promoting and strengthening the sense of efficacy in learners [ 30 , 31 ].

Based on our study results, among the learning methods used in Iran, the collaborative education and problem-based learning is the widely accepted method which is preferred by most faculties. Therefore, cooperative and collaborative learning strategies can be used in educating the faculty members towards expertise in supervision, as revealed in other studies [ 32 , 33 ].

Lack of time is reported by supervisors to be one of the most common barriers in trying to become an expert and carry out respectable worthy supervision, and taking one’s time is acknowledged as a motivating factor for putting in more effort in thesis supervision [ 34 , 35 , 36 ].

The effect of contextual factors is studied in several surveys [ 36 , 37 , 38 ]. Gillet et al. state that contextual and organizational factors play a key role in the competence of teachers in research supervision [ 36 ]. This study also showed that faculty expertise in thesis supervision was significantly affected by the impact of contextual interventional factors such as sudden changes, structural shortcomings, and educational environment. Based on our and other studies’ results, among the sudden changes, increased workload due to the increase in the student population has greatly affected expertise. Moreover, while an increase in the workload can lead to more experienced faculty members, it is very time-consuming and, therefore, reduces the chance to obtain new information and skills in thesis supervision [ 33 , 37 ].

Similar to our study, other studies such as those of Al-Naggar et al. and Yousefi et al. have also found insufficient monitoring and lack of formative evaluations to be one of the main obstacles in the thesis supervision process. Studies have indicated that to improve the supervision process, careful planning and incentive rules must be applied [ 5 , 34 ]. Similarly, our participants mentioned that rules and regulations which have resulted in the positive effect of research on scholarship and promotion had truly motivated them. Like our study, other studies in Iran have also found that the amount of time allocated to learning is one of the influential factors affecting the faculty members’ expertise [ 13 , 38 ]. A malfunctioning relationship between the student and supervisors can affect both of them negatively; that is, it can compel the students to misbehave and also reduce the teachers’ motivation to develop better skills. This malfunction may be due to the lack of constructive interactions or paternalism leadership in research supervision [ 39 , 40 ]. As shown in Fig. 1 , this study provided a conceptual framework that can be used in policy making and studies of expertise development in research supervision. This framework is based on the perception and experience of the majority of those involved in the thesis process. It also provides teachers with an opportunity to compare and share their experiences.

This model has three fields of experience, which yields a comprehensive gradient of the factors used for the development and progress of thesis supervision quality. In other words, it is a rational structure that makes an effort to cover a comprehensible number of stages, of concept, achievement, and impact or consequence. In other words, this model is a combination of a great number of items that help to recognize the present and future processes of expertise in thesis supervision, and future challenges in this area which predict results and impacts of supervisor’s knowledge, attitude and research supervision. Table one offers the categories and clarifications [ 17 ].

This study is based on our overall model of expertise attainment. This model reveals that specific personal efforts such as observation of prior knowledge, evaluation or self-assessments alongside the university contextual dynamics help to figure out how supervisors select their approaches and engagements, and respond carefully to their task, which in turn impacts the supervisors’ level of expertise and, finally, outcomes such as work and perseverance, which then help them to become an expert. Similar to the social learning theory of Bandura, this model also states that there is a mutual relationship between different parts that can mutually affect one another. For instance, faculty members have shown in various studies how one’s previous academic success and failure can affect the future levels of involvement and motivation. Based on the study aims, we focused on only three of the components of the model: observation, evaluation, and self-efficacy; in terms of motivational processes, we focused on four motivational components. The first is self-efficacy, defined as students’ judgments of supervisor abilities to carry out a task, and their beliefs about their ability to do so show the highest levels of academic achievement and also engagement in academic behaviors promoting learning.

Through the use of this grounded theory, we can begin to understand the supervisors’ challenges and why it may be difficult to become an expert in research supervision in practice. The junior supervisors curiously observe and evaluate their environment by reflection and in action and do their best to attain knowledge and skills in the supervision of the theses, so that they can reach maturation. They are mainly supported by prior knowledge of the research supervision, which they had acquired when they were students. The concept of “interactive accountability” refers to the fact that if the supervisor is responsive to the students’ needs, they can be an expert in supervision. If they cannot overcome the barriers and shortcomings such as lack of time, they will not attain expertise in thesis supervision.

Strengths and limitations of the study

This grounded theory study describes the main dimensions of expertise in research supervision from straight reports of a large qualitative sample ( n  = 84) which consists of thesis supervisors, from all Iranian universities in three different data collection phases. Like other qualitative research, the results of this study cannot be generalized; therefore, it is recommended that the researchers conduct further qualitative research in other contexts to support these findings.

Despite the above limitations, we believe that this model can be useful for supervisors in the thesis supervision area, not only in analyzing the supervisors’ experience of supervision and being an expert but also in recognizing the areas of intervention or development of teacher training.

Implications of the study

The findings of the present study will help administrators to choose the supervisor with definite criteria in medical sciences institutes and facilitate the expertise in the supervision process through elimination of the shortcomings and improvement of the educational climate. The supervisor’s interest, talent, and capabilities should be assessed at the beginning of their employment as academic staff. Supervisors should attend educational workshops for updating their knowledge about supervision. It is recommended that collaborative strategies and methods should be used, so that we can contribute to the process of becoming an expert. The assessment of supervisors’ functioning in supervising and provision of feedback can contribute to the process of expertise. Feedback received from students about their supervisors will improve the supervisor’s further expertise and capabilities. For future studies survey on the impact of successful models in thesis supervision, disclosure analysis studies about student and supervisor are recommended.

In this study, we aimed to find out how thesis supervisors achieve expertise in supervision. The results of our study indicated that thesis supervisors achieve expertise in supervision in two stages of engagement and maturation. The emotional need to be responsive towards peers and students is the main motivation for the acquisition of competency at observation and evaluation phase of engagement. Through the evaluation and observation phase, the supervisors reach cognitive competence, such as research skills. Also, in the maturation phases, they reach meta-competence in research supervision such as problem-solving and resolving dilemmas by reflection in and when exposed to dilemmas. Meanwhile, the effects of supervision climate include shortcomings and role ambiguities which should be taken into account. According to this model, when supervisors are exposed to such problems, they apply multiple strategies, such as self-directed and collaborative learning; and learning by trial and error and from the role models. This will help them to promote their professional behavior in research supervision. This study indicated that interactive accountability, as the core variable, can be guaranteed in thesis supervisors by making the role clear, creating a supportive context, and improving the academic competencies of staff in an ongoing fashion. Therefore, this can promote constructive expertise in supervisors and foster a deeper understanding of the supervisor’s expertise in thesis supervision.

Availability of data and materials

The datasets produced and analyzed during the present study are not publicly accessible due to participant confidentiality, but are obtainable from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Harwood N, Petrić B. Adaptive master’s dissertation supervision: a longitudinal case study. Teach High Educ. 2018; https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2018.1541881 .

Hal de Kleijn RA, Meijer PC, Brekelmans M, Pilot A. Adaptive research supervision: exploring expert thesis supervisors’ practical knowledge. High Educ Res Dev. 2015;34(1):117–30.

Article   Google Scholar  

Pearson M, Brew A. Research training and supervision development. Stud High Educ. 2002;27(2):135–50.

Light, G, Cox R, Calkins S. Learning and teaching in higher education: the reflective professional. 2nd ed. London: Paul Chapman; 2009.

Youseffi A, Bazrafkan L, Yamani N. A qualitative inquiry into the challenges and complexities of research supervision: viewpoints of postgraduate students and faculty members. J Adv Med Educ Prof. 2015;3(3):91.

Google Scholar  

Lee AM. Developing effective supervisors: concepts of research supervision. South Afr J High Educ. 2007;21(4):680–93.

Hall-Ellis SD, Grealy DS. The Dreyfus model of skill acquisition: a career development framework for succession planning and management in academic libraries. Coll Res Libr. 2013;74(6):587–603.

Wisker G. The good supervisor: Supervising postgraduate and undergraduate research for doctoral theses and dissertations. 2nd ed. Palgrave Macmillan; 2012.

Vereijken MW, van der Rijst RM, van Driel JH, Dekker FW. Novice supervisors’ practices and dilemmatic space in supervision of student research projects. Teach High Educ. 2018;23(4):522–42.

Haghdoost AA, Ghazi M, Rafiee Z, Afshari M. The trend of governmental support from post-graduated Iranian students in medical fields to study abroad. Iran J Public Health. 2013;42(Suppl 1):141–6.

Malekzadeh R, Mokri A, & , Azarmina P. Medical science and research in Iran. Arch Iran Med (2001)4(1):27–39.

Samari A, Sorkhabi E, Omran S, Geraeenejed. Research and identify the factors contributing to the process of “academic development”. Iran Univ Stud Educ Plann. 2014;2(4):67–100.

Malekafzali H, Majdzadeh S, Fotouhi A, Tavakoli S. Applied research methodology in medical sciences. Tehran: Tehran University of Medical Sciences; 2004.

Creswell JW. Qualitative inquiry and research design: choosing among five approaches. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publication; 2012.

Strauss AJC. Basic of qualitative research: techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. London: Sage Co; 1998.

Jeon Y-H. The application of grounded theory and symbolic interactionism. Scand J Caring Sci. 2004;18(3):249–56.

Denzin NK. The research act: A theoretical introduction to sociological methods. 2nd edition. Routledge: Taylor and Francis group; 2017.

Book   Google Scholar  

Dilley P. Interviews and the philosophy of qualitative research. J High Educ. 2004;75(1):127–32.

Strauss AJC. Basic of qualitative research: techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. London: Sage Co; 2008.

Cho JY, Lee E-H. Reducing confusion about grounded theory and qualitative content analysis: similarities and differences. Qual Rep. 2014;19(32):1–20.

Gioia DACK, Hamilton AL. Seeking qualitative rigor in inductive research notes on the Gioia methodology. Organ Res Methods. 2013;16(1):15–31.

Skeith L, Ridinger H, Srinivasan S, Givi B, Youssef N, Harris I. Exploring the thesis experience of master of health professions education graduates: a qualitative study. Int J Med Educ. 2018;9:113.

Yeatman A. Making supervision relationships accountable: graduate student logs. Aust Univ Rev. 1995;38(2):9–11.

Saaban A, Abu B, Jiar YK. Students and supervisors’ roles and responsibilities in doctoral research supervision. Adv Sci Lett. 2018;24(1):66–8.

Carter S, Laurs D, Chant L, Wolfgramm-Foliaki E. Indigenous knowledges and supervision: changing the lens. Innov Educ Teach Int. 2018;55(3):384–93.

Boston P. The three faces of supervision: Individual learning, group learning, and supervisor accountability. In C. Burck and G. Daniel (2010) (Eds.) Mirrors and Reflections Processes of Systemic Supervision. Routledge, Taylor, and Francis; 2010:27–48.

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Manathunga C. The development of research supervision: “turning the light on a private space”. Int J Acad Dev. 2005;10(1):17–30.

Bandura A. On the functional properties of perceived self-efficacy revisited. J Manag. 2012;38(1):9–44.

Bandura A. On deconstructing commentaries regarding alternative theories of self-regulation. J Manag. 2015;41(4):1025–44.

Britzman DP. Practice makes practice: A critical study of learning to teach. -State University of New York Press; 2003.

Patel M, Reed D, Smith C, Arora V. Role-modeling cost-conscious care—a national evaluation of perceptions of faculty at teaching hospitals in the United States. J Gen Intern Med. 2015;30(9):1294–8.

Howard M, Steensma HK, Lyles M, Dhanaraj C. Learning to collaborate through collaboration: how allying with expert firms influences collaborative innovation within novice firms. Strateg Manag J. 2015:n/a.

Steinert Y. Faculty development: core concepts and principles. Steinert Y, editor. Faculty development in the health professions. Innovation and change in professional education. 11: Springer Netherlands; 2014. 3–25.

Al-Naggar R, et al. Doctorate international students’ satisfaction and stress on academic supervision in a Malaysian University: a qualitative approach. Educ Res. 2012;3(3):264–9.

Gillet N, Gagné M, Sauvagère S, Fouquereau E. The role of supervisor autonomy support, organizational support, and autonomous and controlled motivation in predicting employees’ satisfaction and turnover intentions. Eur J Work Organ Psy. 2012;22(4):450–60.

Harden RM. AMEE guide no. 14: outcome-based education: part 1-an introduction to outcome-based education. Med Teach. 1999;21(1):7–14.

Bazrafkan L, Shokrpour N, Yousefi A, Yamani N. Management of stress and anxiety among phd students during thesis writing: a qualitative study. Health Care Manag. 2016;35(3):231–40.

Ghadirian L, Sayarifard A, Majdzadeh R, Rajabi F, Yunesian M. Challenges for better thesis supervision. Med J Islam Repub Iran. 2014;28:32.

Vehviläinen S, Löfström E. ‘I wish I had a crystal ball’: discourses and potentials for developing academic supervising. Stud High Educ. 2016;41(3):508–24.

Grossman ES. ‘My supervisor is so busy...’ informal spaces for postgraduate learning in the health sciences. South Afr J High Educ. 2016;30(2):94–109.

Download references

Acknowledgments

The researchers would like to thank all research participants of Medical Sciences Universities (faculty, student, and managers) who contributed to the study. The authors would also like to thank the Education Development Center of Shiraz University of Medical Sciences for cooperation in this study and special thanks to Professor Shokrpoour for her editing.

The present article was extracted from the thesis written by Leila Bazrafkan. The design and implementation of the project was financially supported by Esfahan University of Medical Sciences (Grant No. 92–6746).

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Clinical Education Research Center, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, Shiraz, Iran

Leila Bazrafkan & Mitra Amini

Department of Medical Education, Medical Education Research Center, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran

Alireza Yousefy & Nikoo Yamani

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

LB developed the study design, conducted the interviews and analysis, ensured trustworthiness, and drafted the manuscript. AY, as the supervisor participated in the study design, supervised the codes and data analysis process, and revised the manuscripts. NY as research advisor participated in the study and provided guidance during the study and MA revised the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Authors’ information

LB is an assistant professor of medical education in Medical Education Research Center, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences,

AY is Professor of Medical Education Dept., Medical Education Research Center, University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan

MA is Professor of Medical Education in the Medical Education Research Center, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences,

NY Associate Professor of Medical Education Dept., Medical Education Research Center, University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Nikoo Yamani .

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate.

This study was approved by the Ethics Committee of Isfahan University of Medical Sciences (92–6746). The participants were justified about the research aim and interviews. Informed consent for conducting and recording the interview was obtained. The confidentiality of the participants’ information was maintained throughout the study.

Consent for publication

Participants gave printed informed consent for the use of passages for publication.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ ), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Bazrafkan, L., Yousefy, A., Amini, M. et al. The journey of thesis supervisors from novice to expert: a grounded theory study. BMC Med Educ 19 , 320 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-019-1739-z

Download citation

Received : 07 February 2019

Accepted : 29 July 2019

Published : 22 August 2019

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-019-1739-z

Share this article

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

• Qualitative research
• Medical sciences faculty
• Grounded theory
• Thesis supervision

BMC Medical Education

ISSN: 1472-6920

• Submission enquiries: [email protected]
• General enquiries: [email protected]

• Roles and responsibilities of supervisors

Introduction  

• Knowledge of regulations, policies and procedures
• Advice on program of study, research and professional development
• Meetings/consultation
• Financial assistance
• Intellectual property
• Publications
• Withdrawal of supervisory duties
• Accommodation

Introduction

Effective graduate student supervision requires complex interactions between graduate students and their supervisors. The role of a supervisor is threefold: to advise graduate students, monitor their academic progress, and act as a mentor. Supervisors not only provide guidance, instruction and encouragement in the research activities of their students, but also take part in the evaluation and examination of their students’ progress, performance and navigation through the requirements of their academic program with the goal to ensure that their students are successful.

Supervisors are responsible for fostering the intellectual and scholarly development of their students. They also play an important role in providing advice about professional development and both academic and non-academic career opportunities, as they are able, and based upon the student’s career interests. 

While these expectations apply to all graduate students, supervising PhD students reflects a longer-term, more substantive commitment.  The privilege to supervise PhD students requires that the supervisor hold Approved Doctoral Dissertation Supervisor (ADDS) status. The intent of ADDS policy is to ensure that faculty have the appropriate knowledge to facilitate excellence in PhD supervision.

return to top

  Knowledge of regulations, policies and procedures

Effective graduate student supervision requires a knowledge and understanding of the University’s requirements and expectations.  To this end, supervisors should:

2.1    Be knowledgeable and remain updated on department, Faculty and University regulations, policies and procedures, and have these protocols guide the supervisors’ decision-making and behaviour as they interact with graduate students. Supervisors are encouraged to take the necessary steps to be well-informed with those Policies identified in section 1.2 .

2.2    Be familiar with the support services available to students and faculty at the University including those articulated in section 1.2 . This information is normally available through department graduate co-ordinators, Faculty Graduate Studies Offices, Graduate Studies and Postdoctoral Affairs (GSPA), the Graduate Student Association (GSA) or the University Secretariat.

2.3   Be informed about University of Waterloo policies and procedures that inform academic integrity  (Office of Research).

2.4    Be aware of the University of Waterloo and Tri-Agency policies and procedures associated with the conduct of research.   Where appropriate, supervisors should be prepared to provide guidance to students on:

• The responsible conduct of research, with particular emphasis on the Tri-Agency Framework as defined in the Faculty Association of University of Waterloo (FAUW) /University of Waterloo memorandum of Agreement (Section 14).
• The ethical conduct of research  (Office of Research) involving animals, animal or human tissues, and human participants

2.5   Have knowledge of the policies and procedures that govern international travel and security that can be found at Waterloo International.

return to top  

  Advice on program of study, research and professional development

As noted above, supervisors are expected to serve as mentors to their graduate students.  To this end, supervisors should be prepared to provide well-informed advice on academics and professional development.  More specifically, supervisors should be prepared to advise students on:

2.6    An academic program that is challenging, at the appropriate level for the degree being sought, and that can be accomplished within commonly understood and desirable time and resource expectations of the student and the supervisor.

2.7    The choice of courses and seminars needed to fulfil the degree requirements.

2.8    The development and construct of a research topic and proposal.

2.9    The development of a communication plan with the supervisory/advisory committee as to how the student’s progress will be assessed (including during thesis writing and completion), and the role of advisory committee members in the assessment.

2.10    The availability of internships, practica, co-op or other experiential learning opportunities as part of the program.

2.11    The availability of professional development resources for Waterloo graduate students to help advance the students’ career objectives.

Meetings/consultation 

The establishment and communication of common expectations are critical elements to positive experiences for both graduate students and their supervisors.  Achieving these outcomes can be facilitated by regular meetings and/or consultation between students, their supervisors, and where appropriate advisory committees. Especially important is timely feedback on students’ written submissions. 

The University encourages supervisors to:

2.12    Ensure, especially important in the case of doctoral students, that the student has:

• An advisory committee as required.
• A program of study consistent with department and Faculty requirements that has been approved by the advisory committee as required.
• A research plan that is appropriate in breadth, depth and time to completion (see  Milestones in master's and doctoral programs ).

2.13    Arrange for regular (as agreed by the student and supervisor) meetings (which may involve the advisory committee) with students for consultation to ensure steady progress. The frequency of such meetings will depend on the discipline/field of study, type of program, and the student’s progress. At least two, preferably more, meetings should be arranged in each academic term. Supervisors should also be reasonably accessible for meetings requested by their students. The approach to these student meetings should be individualized to reflect the needs of the student. For example, some students may need more support while other may need less.

2.14    Communicate their evaluation of student progress to the department once a year or more often if required. The report should clearly indicate the status of the student’s progress (i.e., satisfactory or unsatisfactory).  In the latter case, the report must include a clearly articulated set of conditions that if satisfied will restore the student’s status to satisfactory. Where the supervisor feels that the student will have serious difficulties finishing the program, the supervisor, in consultation with the advisory committee as appropriate, will inform in writing, both the student and the graduate officer of the nature of the problem(s), suggested remedies and may recommend withdrawal from the program.  More information on assessing students’ progress can be found in the Graduate Studies Academic Calendar.

2.15    Thoroughly review and provide constructive feedback on all written materials relevant to the thesis or research paper submitted by their students. The supervisor and the student are encouraged to establish in writing expectations on what constitutes timely feedback; a timeframe of two to three weeks depending on the complexity of the document is commonly applied. However, this can vary depending on various circumstances such as travel or vacation.  These circumstances should be discussed between the supervisor and student.

2.16   Have knowledge of the guidelines for evaluating students’ progress in a research program  (Graduate Studies Academic Calendar).

2.17   Inform students about the broad spectrum of resources available  (Writing and Communication Centre) to facilitate development of oral communication and writing skills.

2.18    Be active and supportive in promoting students’ well-being.  This may include:

• Inquiring about a student’s well-being, as appropriate.
• Directing students to appropriate support services , including Mental Health and Wellness resources  (Campus Wellness).
• Displaying empathy towards the student.

2.19    Complete as appropriate the University requirements for Sexual violence awareness, referral and support training  (Human Rights, Equity and Inclusion Office) to understand how to respond to disclosures of sexual violence and refer students to the appropriate supports.

The University recognizes that supervisors will be away from the University for extended periods of time (e.g., sabbatical, satellite campus, visiting professorship).  Being physically away from the University does not preclude a supervisor from remaining engaged with their graduate students.  In cases where the supervisor will not be available either in person or via electronic communications, the supervisor should:

2.20    Inform students, prospective students and the department of any anticipated extended period where communication will not be occurring. In cases when the absence is for a period of two months or more, supervisors should arrange for suitable communication methods. Interim supervision also must be arranged, for example, using members of advisory committees. Supervisors must inform the student’s department (chair/graduate officer) of the arrangements made for the period of absence, including supervision of laboratory or field work where graduate students continue to work during the absence.

2.21    Ensure students know that in situations where a supervisor works away from campus for two months or more and where their students can accompany the supervisor, the decision to remain on campus or to follow the supervisor rests entirely with the student. Students shall face no pressure (explicit or implicit) or consequences when making this choice and are not required to provide any reason.

As with the departmental representatives, supervisors have responsibility to advance safety.  More specifically, supervisors should:

2.22    Ensure a safe working environment both on and off campus (working alone, field work) by assessing hazards and implementing appropriate controls. This must be in accordance with the Occupational Health and Safety Act, Policy 34  (Secretariat) and department and Faculty regulations.  All supervisors must complete mandatory health and safety supervisor awareness training  (Safety Office) and must ensure that graduate students complete both mandatory and work-specific safety training.  More information can be found on the Safety Office website.

2.23    Ensure that students obtain additional training when new safety risks arise and ensure training is kept up to date.

Inherent to graduate education are the dissemination of knowledge and the participation in scholarly activities away from the University campus.  Travel (domestic and international) can include fieldwork, conferences, course work and other work related to the thesis. Supervisors are encouraged to support students’ travel to accomplish these important objectives.  Supervisors should:

2.24    Follow or encourage students to follow Policy 31  (Secretariat) that governs University-sanctioned travel.

2.25    Categorize and report risk associated with travel. Low risk  (Safety Office) are activities for which it is expected that participants will encounter hazards that are no greater than what they encounter in their everyday lives. Examples of significant risk (e.g. industrial sites, remote regions etc.) are noted on the Safety Office website .  Travel or field work that involves significant risk must be documented using the Fieldwork Risk Management Form from the Safety Office .  For low risk activities off campus, supervisors should:

• Provide advice on preparation for pre-departure orientation and planning for any travel and including associated risk, as they are able;

2.26    Document the student(s) location and duration of travel, including personal and emergency contact information. Review the material provided by Waterloo International to understand how to best mitigate risk and ensure safety for international travel.

2.27    Encourage students to register using the Pre-departure Travel Form at Waterloo International .

2.28    Consult the Government of Canada Travel Advice and Advisories web page for the international destination and discuss the mitigation of risk with the students to the destination.

 Financial assistance

Supervisors regularly provide financial support for their graduate students.  Both the supervisor and the student benefit when a clear understanding exists of the value of funding, and the academic outcomes that should occur from the supported activities.  Specifically, supervisors should:

2.29    Be informed about the spectrum of funding opportunities available through the department, Faculty and Graduate Studies and Postdoctoral Affairs (GSPA) for students in financial need and to communicate these sources to student.

2.30   Communicate clearly and in writing to their students the terms (e.g., amounts, length of time, conditions) of the financial commitment being made when financial assistance is to be provided from research grants or contracts under the supervisor’s direction.

2.31    Support students’ understanding of their funding, including a consideration of student expenses (primarily tuition and housing) and taxation, if appropriate.  

Intellectual property 

Increasingly, students and supervisors enter into their academic relationships with previously established intellectual property (IP).  Moreover, students and supervisors may have an expectation that their collective work may produce new IP.  Best practices include the articulation of students’ and supervisors’ understanding of IP relationships at regular intervals throughout the students’ academic program.  More specifically, supervisors should: 

2.32    Discuss issues related to intellectual property such as patents, software, copyright, and income from sales and royalties, and inform students of University policies about intellectual property and the conduct of research. It should be recognized that, in accordance with Policy 73  (Secretariat), intellectual property normally is owned by the creators. However, the University retains a royalty-free right to use, for educational and research purposes, any intellectual property created by faculty, staff and students. Ideally, supervisors and students should enter into a written agreement that expresses IP owned by either party prior to beginning the research relationship and the default way in which IP created by the researchers’ joint activities will be owned.  A common example is an assumption in the absence of an explicit agreement of joint IP ownership, with each researcher owning an equal share.

2.33    Ensure that students are aware of implications and/or obligations regarding intellectual property of research conducted under contract. If appropriate, discuss with their students and any research partners the protection of intellectual property by patent or copyright. Any significant intellectual contribution by a student must be recognized in the form of co-authorship. Supervisors must convey to students, in advance of publication, whether they intend to recognize the student as co-author for work under contract.

Publications 

Academic outputs – in various forms – document and demonstrate ownership of creative research and other scholarly activities.  These outputs are important for advancing knowledge and catalyzing additional scholarly activity in these areas and should be encouraged.  When supervisors and graduate students work collectively on these academic works, it is important for both that their relative contributions are represented appropriately.  To achieve these goals, supervisors should:

2.34    Discuss with their students, at an early stage of their program, authorship practices within the discipline and University policies about publications ( Policy 73  on the Secretariat website). 

2.35    Discuss and reach agreement with students, well in advance of publication and ideally at the outset of collaboration, the way in which authorship will be shared, if appropriate, between the supervisor, the student and other contributors for work conducted under contract.

2.36    Encourage the dissemination of students’ research results by publication in scholarly and research journals, presentation at conferences (domestic or international) and seminars;

2.37    Motivate the dissemination of research through non-traditional or non-academic avenues (e.g. Open Access resources, public presentations, and popular media).

Withdrawal of supervisory duties 

In rare cases supervisors may determine that they are not prepared or able to continue in a supervisory capacity.  When this occurs, the supervisor is required to:

2.38    Follow the guidelines in the Graduate Studies Academic Calendar regarding University Responsibilities Regarding Supervisory Relationships that outlines the steps for dissolution of the supervisory relationship.

back to top  

Accommodation 

The University is eager to establish conditions that maximize graduate students’ likelihood of success.  To this end, supervisors:

2.39    Have a duty to engage in accommodations processes with AccessAbility Services , as requested, and to provide appropriate accommodation to the point of undue hardship.

2.40    Remain informed of their roles and responsibilities with respect to accommodations.

<< previous section : Roles and responsibilities of departments, graduate officers and graduate co-ordinators

>> next section : Roles and responsibilities of graduate students

Related links

• Home - Guide for Graduate Research and Supervision
• Introduction to the Guide for Graduate Research and Supervision
• Roles and responsibilities of departments, graduate officers and graduate co-ordinators
• Roles and responsibilities of graduate students
• Roles and responsibilities of advisory committees
• Key university policies and reference materials

Graduate Studies and Postdoctoral Affairs (GSPA)

Needles Hall, second floor, room 2201

Graduate Studies Academic Calendar

Website feedback

• Contact Waterloo
• Maps & Directions
• Accessibility

The University of Waterloo acknowledges that much of our work takes place on the traditional territory of the Neutral, Anishinaabeg and Haudenosaunee peoples. Our main campus is situated on the Haldimand Tract, the land granted to the Six Nations that includes six miles on each side of the Grand River. Our active work toward reconciliation takes place across our campuses through research, learning, teaching, and community building, and is co-ordinated within the Office of Indigenous Relations .

Have a language expert improve your writing

Run a free plagiarism check in 10 minutes, generate accurate citations for free.

• Knowledge Base

Email contact with your dissertation supervisor

Published on October 13, 2015 by Sarah Vinz . Revised on August 24, 2018.

How to best approach your dissertation supervisor via email can vary by supervisor. For example, some supervisors are fine with being addressed by their first name, while others would prefer that you only use their title and surname.

Table of contents

The style and tone of your message, addressing your supervisor, keep it short and sweet, no response from your supervisor, formal or informal, here's why students love scribbr's proofreading services.

Discover proofreading & editing

Checklist: Formal email contact

Use an appropriate salutation. Example:  Dear Dr. X,

Explain the purpose of your email. Example: I am writing in follow-up to our meeting on Monday.

Be brief and clear about exactly what you want to say or ask. Example:  I have made the changes that we agreed on. Could you please check and confirm them?

Express your appreciation in advance. Example:  Thanks in advance for your help.

Use an appropriate closing. Example: Sincerely,

Your email looks appropriately formal.

In your first email contact with your dissertation supervisor, it is wise to address him or her quite formally (such as “Dear Dr. X” or “Dear Prof. Y”). You do not know what your supervisor will be comfortable with, so it is best to play it safe.

If your initial contact is too informal, your supervisor may get the wrong impression and start to question your professionalism and attitude.

If your supervisor’s response to your email closes with only his or her first name (such as “Sincerely, Ken”), you can assume that it is okay to address him or her by first name in your next message. To be extra safe, you can also wait until you have received a few more messages where he or she has closed in this way.

Examples of salutations and closings

Email signature.

It is generally not necessary to use an email signature when corresponding with your supervisor. However, if your program requires that you do so or if it is your personal preference, you can use the following model:

• Name (first and surname)
• Educational institution
• Phone number
• Email address

Flawless writing

What is important in all cases is that your message is error-free. Make sure you use proper English (or whichever language is appropriate) and that you do not make any grammatical or spelling errors. Before you send a message to your supervisor, you are strongly advised to re-read the text carefully or even to have someone else read it, too.

A neat and accurate message shows your supervisor that you are both professional and serious about your project.

Dissertation supervisors are often busy people who are involved in many things at the same time. It is therefore important to be as clear and specific as possible in your messages, so they can quickly see what your problem is and then react.

Tips for writing clear and maintaining smooth contact

• Make sure you stick to only things that are relevant to your dissertation. For example, do not share stories from your personal life with your supervisor (unless they are important with regard to your results).
• Formulate your questions as clearly and concisely as possible , so that your supervisor understands what you want and can respond quickly.
• Do not ask long or complicated questions in an email; saving these queries for times when you have more personal contact will make things easier for both of you. You will spare your supervisor the time that he or she would need to reply in writing. On your side, asking such questions face-to-face allows you to get more comprehensive answers and to ask follow-up questions if you do not understand something.
• Give your supervisor enough time to respond. For example, don’t send questions the night before you have to submit something; do it a few days in advance instead.
• Always respond as quickly as possible to messages from your supervisor (when relevant). This includes confirming any appointments your supervisor proposes, answering all of his or her questions, indicating things you don’t understand and providing any information that he or she requests.
• The responsibility for writing the dissertation is yours. Instead of waiting for your supervisor to make contact, take the initiative to make an appointment. This is also better for your supervisor, because it shows him or her that you are serious about your project.

Confirming appointments via email

If you arrange something about an appointment with your supervisor verbally, it is smart to still confirm it via email. You then have something in writing to fall back on if any issues arise.

Similarly, it is also a good idea to summarize what you have agreed on, such as deadlines and matters relating to substantive issues. Ask your supervisor to check and confirm your notes, so that you are both 100% clear on where you stand.

See some sample emails

Prevent plagiarism. Run a free check.

Supervisors will generally always respond to your messages, but some are faster than others. If you do not get a reply, first think about whether there could be an obvious reason for the delay, such as that it is already late in the evening, it’s the weekend, or it’s a holiday.

Also note that not all supervisors are available five days a week. You can often find out what days your supervisor is available through your school. Before taking any action, consider how fast you need an answer. You don’t want to appear too impatient to your supervisor.

If you really cannot wait any longer or you haven’t heard anything from your supervisor in several days, send a polite reminder email. You can either briefly restate your question or refer to your previous message.

If you still do not get a response, try contacting your program or university. A department secretary can often connect you with your supervisor.

Cite this Scribbr article

If you want to cite this source, you can copy and paste the citation or click the “Cite this Scribbr article” button to automatically add the citation to our free Citation Generator.

Vinz, S. (2018, August 24). Email contact with your dissertation supervisor. Scribbr. Retrieved April 9, 2024, from https://www.scribbr.com/tips/e-mail-contact-with-your-dissertation-supervisor/

Is this article helpful?

Sarah's academic background includes a Master of Arts in English, a Master of International Affairs degree, and a Bachelor of Arts in Political Science. She loves the challenge of finding the perfect formulation or wording and derives much satisfaction from helping students take their academic writing up a notch.

"I thought AI Proofreading was useless but.."

I've been using Scribbr for years now and I know it's a service that won't disappoint. It does a good job spotting mistakes”

Being a supervising professor or thesis advisor at Aalto University

Table of contents.

Good supervision allows the doctoral students to complete their studies and the associated research within the time specified in their Doctoral personal study plan. Defining a shared set of university-level principles for the supervision of doctoral students furthers the equal treatment of all students.

The doctoral programme committees monitor and develop the school-level practices of supervising doctoral students in line with the university policy. The supervision principles are defined in a manner that does not regulate supervision in too much detail but allows individual needs to be considered in each guidance case.

Doctoral education pilot

We are hiring 178 new doctoral researchers - get your doctorate from Aalto

Supervision of doctoral studies

Supervision plan, roles and responsibilities, changes of supervision arrangements, research fields and supervising professors at Aalto University, other information and instructions

Supervision resources

Supervising a doctoral student who also has employee status.

If you have a double role as both the supervisor and the supervising professor / thesis advisor of a doctoral student, please see the information below.

• Onboarding guide for new employee
• Researcher onboarding
• Information on well-being at work (e.g. occupational health care)
• Human Resource services at Aalto University

Diversity, inclusion and equality

Equality, diversity and inclusion at Aalto

Tips, toolkits and inspiring reads for fostering diversity (Learning hub on diversity and inclusion)

Training and self-study materials for supervising professors and thesis advisors

UNIPS (University Pedagogical Support) “Being a thesis supervisor” module (external link)

Aalto Pedagogical training Doctoral supervision (3 ECTS)

More information on UNIPS online courses

Findocnet.fi  (Transferable skills study opportunities, external link)

Recommendations for doctoral thesis supervision by the Finnish Advisory Board on Research Integrity (TENK) and Universities Finland UNIFI (external link)

Accepting new doctoral students & inviting visitors

Link to general information on doctoral admissions at Aalto University

School of Arts, Design and Architecture

Accepting new doctoral students.

New doctoral students are accepted to the Aalto Doctoral Programme in Arts, Design and Architecture only once a year, with the application period in March for studies starting in September. Application is competitive, typically only about 25%-30% of the applicants are selected.

Exception: If the Department receives external funding for doctoral candidate's position, it is possible to handle their applications to the doctoral programme in continuous application. In such cases the Head of the Department and the Planning Officer for the doctoral programme must be contacted well in advance before the Open position call is published. In such case the applicants first apply for the open position and only the selected applicant applies for the study right in the doctoral programme in the continuous application.

Applicant requests

All emails from applicants / prospective applicants with questions related to eligibility or instructions for applying should be forwarded to [email protected] to be answered.

If the applicant is asking if a certain professor could act as their supervising professor, we cannot give promises outside the actual application, but professors can give their opinion about whether or not they would be suitable supervising professor for that particular research topic. It is recommended to let the Head of Research know about such applicants as well.

Link to instructions for the applicant

Studying from abroad

The Doctoral Programme is mostly structured so that is beneficial for the doctoral students to be present in the Helsinki region. We encourage doctoral students to spend as much of their study time as possible in the Helsinki region, to be able to connect to the Department's research community and complete the required courses.

Visiting students and researchers

Department can host a limited number of visiting researchers per semester, depending on the overall situation of the department. All visitors must have a confirmation from a host professor before applying. Visiting Researcher should have preferably secured funding for the duration of the visit before applying for this position. Visiting Researcher is expected to undertake research and publication in collaboration with Department's personnel and independent research.

More information at Workday

School of Business

Link to instuctions for the applicant

School of Chemical Engineering

• There are application calls two times a year for doctoral study right at our Doctoral Programme.
• Sufficient language skills of the applicant are very essential part of the qualifications. See if your student needs to present language certificate !
• Full-time students are expected to complete their degree within four years.
• The supervising professor and the applicant shall go through the applicant’s research plan, study plan, supervision plan and funding resources.
• The supervising professor submits the recommendation letter and together with the thesis advisor their sign the form for supervision plan.
• The original master's degree certificate of the applicant is needed for the registering the new student and the granted study right'

School of Electrical Engineering

Admission of new doctoral students.

• New doctoral students are accepted to the Aalto Doctoral Programme in Electrical Engineering  once a month , except for in July (both for full-time and part-time applicants).
• Please check the guidelines on  how to apply to the Doctoral Programme in Electrical Engineering
• Full-time students are expected to complete their degree in four years and part-time students in 4-8 years.
• The supervising professor and the applicant shall go through the applicant’s research plan, credit plan, supervision plan and funding plan .
• When signing the above-mentioned plans of the applicant, the supervising professor commits him/herself to supervise the doctoral studies. The thesis advisor commits by signing the supervision plan, where the duties are divided between the supervising professor and the thesis advisor.  Please read about the  supervision of doctoral thesis and the  duties of supervising professors and thesis advisors (please scroll down). 
• The original master's degree certificate and transcript of the applicant are needed before admission . If the applicant has completed his/her Master's degree outside Aalto University, please make sure that the applicant brings along either certified copies or the original degree papers and translations of them (if they are not in Finnish, Swedish or English) when he/she comes to Finland. Regular copies/colored, scanned pdf versions are not sufficient!
• Sufficient language skills of the applicant makes your job easier! Please check the  language test requirements

Questions from applicants

All emails from applicants / prospective applicants with questions related to eligibility or instructions for applying should be forwarded to  [email protected] to be answered.

Visiting doctoral students at Aalto

A visiting international doctoral student might be eligible for an exchange student study right at Aalto. The study right can only be awarded if the student

• is nominated by their home university as an exchange student and the home university has an active exchange student agreement with Aalto School of Electrical Engineering. 
• is enrolled at their home university 
• takes courses at Aalto School of Electrical Engineering and the exchange period at Aalto is a part of their doctoral degree at the home university (e.g. research work for the doctoral thesis). 

The maximum duration of the exchange study right is one year. For more information and instructions, please contact [email protected] .   

School of Engineering

• The Doctoral Programme of the School of Engineering can be applied twice a year.
• The supervising professor and the applicant shall go through the applicant’s research plan, study plan, supervision plan and funding. Full-time doctoral students must be able to spend 80 % of their working hours on doctoral studies. Those applying for a full-time study mode must write a funding plan. Full-time students are expected to complete their degree within four years.
• By recommending an applicant as a doctoral student, the supervising professor will commit to act as the applicant’s supervising professor throughout the doctoral studies
• If you're recommending an applicant who has completed his/her Master's degree outside Finland, please make sure that the applicant brings along either certified copies or the original degree papers when he/she comes to Finland (if the papers are not sent via regular mail). Regular copies/colored, scanned pdf versions are not sufficient!

All emails from applicants / prospective applicants with questions related to eligibility or instructions for applying should be forwarded to the Learning Services of the Doctoral Programme in Engineering to be answered.

Temporal study right for visiting doctoral candidates at Aalto

• It is possible for a visiting international doctoral student, to get a temporal study right at Aalto to be able to take courses while here at Aalto. A general requirement is that the doctoral student is enrolled at his/her home university and the traineeship is part of his/her doctoral degree at the home university (e.g. research work for the doctoral thesis).
• I f your doctoral student would need a temporal study right at Aalto, please ask your doctoral student to contact the doctoral programme learning services

School of Science

• There are application times once a month (except in July).  
• Information about applying to Doctoral Programme in Science  
• Full-time doctoral students are expected to complete their degree within four years. They must be able to spend 80 % of their working hours on doctoral studies. For part-time doctoral students the study time is longer, up to 8 year.  
• The supervising professor and the applicant shall go through the applicant’s research plan , study plan , supervision plan and funding plan (incl. in the research plan).  
• The supervising professor commits by the above mentioned forms and the thesis advisor commits by signing the supervision plan. By signing the forms the supervising professor commits to act as the applicant’s supervising professor throughout the doctoral studies. Please read the supervision of doctoral students section below.
• The original master's degree certificate and transcript of the applicant are needed, if the applicant's degree is outside Aalto University. If the applicant has completed his/her Master's degree outside Finland, please make sure that the applicant brings along certified copies or the original degree papers when he/she comes to Finland. Regular copies/colored, scanned pdf versions are not sufficient!
• Sufficient language skills of the applicant make your job easier!
• It is possible for a visiting international doctoral student to get an exchange student study right at Aalto to be able to take courses while here at Aalto if the student's home university has a partnership contract with Aalto. A general requirement is that the doctoral student is enrolled at his/her home university and the traineeship is part of his/her doctoral degree at the home university (e.g. research work for the doctoral thesis). The maximum duration of the exchange study right is one year. For more information and instructions, please contact [email protected] .
• Please note, if the student's home university does not have a partnership contract with Aalto, visiting doctoral students can take courses at Aalto by applying for non-degree study right. More information can be found here .

Double affiliation

It is possible for professors to get a fixed term double affiliation in a partner school at Aalto. The purpose of the double affiliation is to establish research collaboration between schools and to have a double affiliation when applying for funding.

When a professor has acquired the double affiliation agreement with a partner school from Aalto, the research collaboration can also include supervision of doctoral students in the partner school.

A professor may become the only supervising professor of a doctoral student in the partner school if:

• The professor has a double affiliation agreement with the partner school (signed by the department heads of both schools)
• The professor has been assigned to a research field of the partner school for the fixed term of the double affiliation. The professor can be assigned to the research field of the partner school, only if the department head of the department where the research field is located supports this. The professor has to give reasons for this need (e.g. he/she has acquired funding to a project in the partner school)
• The degree and the result of the degree in the funding model will go only to the partner school (i.e. the school of the doctoral student).

Please note:

• The doctoral student and the supervising professor will follow the processes and requirements of the partner school, i.e. the school that has granted the study right for the doctoral student.
• The matters regarding this doctoral student will be processed only in the partner school (i.e. school of the doctoral student).
• The double affiliation professors assigned to a research field at the partner school will not be listed on the research field list at the Into web-pages.
• In cases where a double affiliation professor (fixed term) takes a new doctoral student in the partner school, the supervision plan needs to include the name of a second  professor from the partner school (i.e. school of the doctoral student), who is willing to continue as the supervising professor of that doctoral student if he/she has not graduated before the double affiliation agreement has expired.

SCI Doctoral Programme Committee 13 June 2017, updated 20.3.2018

Research collaboration may include collaboration on supervising doctoral students. There are 3 different types of collaboration in supervision of doctoral students:

• one of the collaborators is the supervising professor of the doctoral student (the supervising professor and the doctoral student are in the same school) and the other collaborator is the thesis advisor (partner school). The degree and the result will go to the school of the supervising professor.
• both schools will invest money in the project of the doctoral student (e.g. salary for the student) and thus the result of this doctoral degree will be divided between the schools in the funding model. In this scenario, one professor becomes the supervising professor (same school as the student) and the other professor the co-supervisor (partner school).
• in special cases a professor may become the only supervising professor of a doctoral student in the partner school (school of the doctoral student). This is possible if the professor has a double affiliation agreement to the partner school (please see below).

Doctoral personal study plan (DPSP)

The doctoral personal study plan (DPSP) is a tool for discussing about your doctoral students' plans and agreeing about the framework for their thesis work and your supervisory relationship.

DPSP has 5 parts:

• Credit plan (Sisu) (a plan concerning the content, scope and duration of studies with credits)
• Research plan (free format, Aalto template available)
• Supervision plan (Aalto template)
• Financing plan (free format, separate instructions)
• Career plan (free format, separate instructions)

All doctoral students must have a DPSP and update it when necessary.  Supervising professor's responsibility is to yearly follow their students' implementation of all the parts of the DPSP (according to Degree regulations on doctoral education ), but keeping up-to-date with the plans of the student more often is recommended.

Supervising professors must confirm their student's DPSP at the start of the studies. After that, they should confirm the DPSP e.g.

• If the supervising professor, advisor(s), research topic or research field changes.
• If the funding situation changes significantly.
• If the student takes courses in another university.
• When the student starts pre-examination, they must have an up-to-date and confirmed credit plan (Sisu) and career plan.

DPSP is collected and stored in the Student Success Hub (interface for faculty) / MyStudies (interface for students).

Student Success Hub for Aalto faculty is used online at https://aalto.my.salesforce.com

Instructions

• How to confirm a DPSP in the Student Success Hub?
• Student Success Hub instructions
• DPSP instructions for students

Resources for DPSP discussion

• Research Ethics for Doctoral Students (course)
• FinDocNet online courses
• Career Design for Doctoral Students
• Funding your doctoral studies
• Researcher skills for doctoral students

Degree structure and curriculum

The doctoral degree at Aalto University consists of 3 modules:

• General research studies
• Research field studies
• Doctoral thesis

The study modules 'General research studies' and 'Research field studies' comprise altogether 40 or 60 ECTS (40 ECTS in the fields of art and design & technology, 60 ECTS in the field of business). The scope and content of each of the study modules are described in the curriculum of the doctoral programme. Credit points are not awarded for the doctoral thesis. 

Please check curriculum requirements of your doctoral programme before confirming any DPSPs.

You can advise your doctoral student to find courses from

• Compulsory courses of the doctoral programme
• Other courses offered by the programme / School for doctoral students
• Language and communication courses for doctoral students & Finnish/Swedish courses by Aalto Language Centre
• Courses on transferable skills and competences offered at Aalto
• Courses from other Finnish universities, or from our networks like N5T, Cluster, Unite! etc.
• Aalto University Pedagogical training

Teaching a course for doctoral students

Teaching doctoral students follow the same principles as all other teaching leading towards a degree offered by Aalto University: it is planned and offered in the 2-year curriculum planning cycle, following the University's guidelines and schedules.

Each doctoral programme has its own curriculum, which consists of the degree requirements and course descriptions approved by the Academic Committee of the School, and which follows the degree structure presented above.

Courses aimed for doctoral students bear the letter 'L' in their course code. Often Master’s level courses bearing the letter ‘E’ in their course code are also planned so that they can be included in doctoral studies.

If you are interested in offering a course for doctoral students in your School, contact the planning officer of your School and note the 2-year planning cycle.

Curriculum design at Aalto University

Course practicalities for teachers

Doctoral thesis, pre-examination and defence

Doctoral thesis at Aalto University (aalto.fi) Public defence at Aalto University (aalto.fi)

Instructions for students: Finalising your doctoral studies (aalto.fi)

Using Turnitin for doctoral thesis (aalto.fi)

Responsibilities of supervising professor during pre-examination process

Before pre-examination.

It is responsibility of the supervising professor to

• General quality requirements for doctoral thesis at Aalto University
• Different formats of doctoral thesis
• Stages of pre-examination
• confirm that the manuscript is ready for pre-examination
• confirm that the authors contribution description written by the doctoral student in the doctoral thesis is correct and also, if applicable, that the clarification of subcontracting is correct.
• strong recommendation: use the Turnitin originality report in their evaluation of the unpublished parts of the thesis in order to notice possible plagiarism (see below)
• agree with the doctoral student about the language revision of the thesis, following their School's guidelines.
• find two independent pre-examiners for the doctoral thesis and ensure their impartiality, see below more information on Proposing pre-examiners and opponents
• fill out the necessary parts on the pre-examination application form (306). Application form available at the page Doctoral student forms .

During pre-examination

After the pre-examiners have been appointed in Doctoral Programme Committee meeting, the Doctoral programme's Doctoral education services (in BIZ, Department's secretary) will send them further instructions and the manuscript.

When the statements have arrived the Doctoral Programme sends them to the doctoral student and the supervising professor.

After pre-examination

It is responsibility of the supervising professor to make sure that the doctoral student makes all the necessary corrections to the thesis manuscript that have come up as a result of the pre-examination process.

The Doctoral Programme Committee grants the permission for public defence (i.e. permission for publishing the dissertation and to proceed to the defence). The opponent can be appointed directly after the pre-examination stage, if all the needed details are available.

Instructions for pre-examiners

After the pre-examiners have been appointed in Doctoral Programme Committee meeting, the Doctoral programme's Doctoral education services (in BIZ, Department's secretary) will send them the manuscript with further instructions. The instructions linked below can also be used to explain the responsibilities of a pre-examiner to potential examiners.

ARTS instructions BIZ instructions CHEM instructions ELEC instructions ENG instructions SCI instructions

Proposing pre-examiners and opponents

The supervising professor is responsible for proposing two independent preliminary examiners (pre-examiners) for the pre-examination and at a later stage one or two opponents for the defence. The supervising professor makes the proposal but may ask the thesis advisor(s) for suggestions for pre-examiners and opponent(s). The doctoral student cannot take part in making the proposal for the pre-examiners and opponent(s), but if they disagree (e.g. in case of bias), they can submit an official written response for the Doctoral programme committee before the pre-examiners / opponet(s) are appointed.

Note: Before making the proposal to the Doctoral Programme Committee, the supervising professor must contact the examiners and check that they are willing to examine the thesis within the given time.

The qualifications and suitability should be shown by presenting the pre-examiners’ and opponents’ CVs and lists of publications or an equivalent clarification (e.g. web links to the examiners’ home pages).

Pre-examiners

Supervising professor fills out the information on the Pre-examination application (306) form and gives the CVs and publication lists to the doctoral student to be attached to their online pre-examination request.

In addition the supervising professor may use the form Grounds for proposed pre-examiners/opponents (mandatory in BIZ & ELEC).

Doctoral student forms

Supervising professor fills out the information on the Opponent proposal (307) form, including opponent's CV and publication list.

In addition the supervising professor may use the form Grounds for proposed pre-examiners/opponents (mandatory in ELEC).

Requirements for pre-examiners and opponents

• The examiners have to hold a doctor’s degree.
• They have to possess sufficient scientific competence and authority in the thesis’ research field or fields and have a sufficient amount of scientific publications. Pre-examiners should actively publish in the field of the thesis.
• They should be among the best experts within the field from Finland or abroad. They need to be independent experts in the field, external to the School. The recommendation is to use international experts external to Aalto University.
• A pre-examiner may serve as an opponent. CHEM & ELEC: In this case, also a second opponent must also be appointed.
• Field of arts and design: It is possible to appoint a third pre-examiner on the basis of artistic merit only (without a doctor’s degree).

Objectivity and impartiality in choosing examiners

The pre-examiners and opponents are to present their own, independent, expert and impartial evaluation of the doctoral thesis and thus they cannot:

• be a close relative of the student
• be the student's immediate superior
• have a too close relation to the author of the thesis, its supervising professor or thesis advisor

Please also see Aalto University's general guidance on objectivity and impartiality (aalto.fi) and school-specific guidelines below.

School-specific guidelines regarding collaborations and more detailed requirements

The pre-examinerscannot

• have had significant collaboration, such as co-authored publications, with the doctoral student.
• have had significant collaboration, such as co-authored publications with the supervising professor or advisor of the student, especially during the previous five years.

The pre-examiners cannot

• have co-authored research papers with the doctoral student or supervising professor or thesis instructor or collaborated with in research in the past five years
• have close collaboration with the department of the supervising professor - such as postdoc position at the department within the past five years

For more questions, please contact the CHEM Doctoral Programme Committee.

The pre-examiners and opponents cannot

• in the past five years have co-authored research papers or currently be working on one with the doctoral student, supervising professor nor advisor, or otherwise collaborated within research 
• be from the school of the doctoral student, the school of the supervising professor / the co-supervisor / the thesis advisor, or from the research group in which the doctoral thesis is done. Only for very special reasons the examiner can be appointed from another school of Aalto (written motivation why nobody outside Aalto could be appointed).
• have a degree from the past 5 years from the school of the student

The supervising professor should strive to find experts from all over the world and thus it is recommended that at least one of the examiners is working outside Finland.

The pre-examiners cannot have co-authored research papers with the doctoral student or collaborated with in research in the past five years.

The pre-examiners cannot have had significant collaboration, such as co-authored publications with the supervising professor or advisor of the student, especially during the previous five years.

• At least one of pre-examiners should have substantial experience on supervising doctoral students. This should be shown by presenting the pre-examiners’ and opponents’ CV (including a timeline of academic appointments and doctoral student supervision experience) and a separate list of publications (Google scholar or equivalent is satisfactory). 
• When selecting examiners, we wish to remind you how important it is to give full consideration to all genders and members of underrepresented minority groups. 
• The pre-examiners / opponent(s) cannot have co-authored research papers with the doctoral student or collaborated with in research in the last five years
• Any joint research papers between the pre-examiners / opponent(s) and supervising professor or thesis advisor in the last five years must be unrelated to the doctoral thesis. A short clarification must be given in case joint papers exist.
• The pre-examiners and opponents cannot be from the school of the doctoral student, the school of the supervising professor, the co-supervisor or the thesis advisor or the research group in which the doctoral thesis is done. Only for very special reasons the examiner can be appointed from another school of Aalto (written motivation why nobody outside Aalto could be appointed).

Guidelines and regulations

Academic policies and regulations

Aalto University General Regulations on Teaching and Studying (in force from 1 August 2021)

Degree Regulations on Doctoral Education (in force from 1 August 2021 )

Aalto University guidelines on the languages of degree and instruction

Best practices from schools

This selection of supervision practices at Aalto University is meant to serve as a tool for peer-learning, providing practical tips and illustrating experiences on doctoral supervision from the ground.

School of Engineering (Majakka)

Majakka – doctoral education project.

Operating within the Water & Development Group, Majakka focuses on co-creating doctoral education and water research. Its aim is to make doctoral education increasingly systematic and better supervised, and thus to enhance its role in and for the society. The main goals of Majakka was to create a systematic model to support practices and supervision on doctoral education and research collaboration.

Key factors:

• Academic freedom combined with academic responsibilities
• Subsidiarity & co-creation
• Clear roles, goals, and feedback
• T-shaped competence profile and linkages to industry

Key benefits:

• Diverse research activities and continuous development, excellence reputation
• Work-life skills, including teamwork, communication and networking
• Early actions to meet the rising needs, self-organizing culture and activities without professors facilitating and coordinating everything
• Supervising professors and thesis advisors have active collaboration networks and innovative, proactive team to work with
• Highly engaged team to apply for external funding
• Holistic wellbeing and resilience to sudden changes
• Respect and appreciation of all

Read more about Majakka: Making Waves: Joining forces for better doctoral education in water research

For any questions regarding Majakka, please contact Postdoctoral researcher Maija Taka ( [email protected] )

Management of doctoral education

Doctoral education working group (dewg).

The President has appointed the Aalto University Doctoral Education Working Group, which develops the university’s doctoral education, discusses the mutual issues on doctoral education and prepares the university guidelines.

Management of doctoral education at Aalto University

Information on how doctoral education is lead and organised and related regultions

Doctoral education services

We support doctoral students, supervising professors, thesis advisors and doctoral programme directors in matters related to doctoral studies.

• Published: 26.10.2021
• Updated: 4.4.2024

• Rules/Help/FAQ Help/FAQ
• Members Current visitors
• Interface Language

Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.

Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.

• English Only

advisor or supervisor

• Thread starter slacker11
• Start date Jun 17, 2009
• Jun 17, 2009

Dear teacher and friends... How does one call the professor who helps their students to develop their work (doctorat and masters dissertation/thesis) at universities? They usually tell students what to do or help them to figure out things... I am not sure which name is appropiate, supervisor or advisor. thanks  

Senior Member

You would call them a professor . They teach you and advise you in the writing of your dissertation. Edit : I now understand what you are asking. I must agree with Nico. I would call someone who adivses OUTSIDE OF CLASS (then it would be your professor) an academic advisor .  

Around my university, they call such people advisors. Supervisor could be used but that is generally used more in the workplace, not the academic environment.  

thank you.  

Moderato con anima (English Only)

I think there might be a British/American divide here. Academics who guide students in writing their theses or dissertations are generally called supervisors in British universities (and in the Commonwealth). I think advisers would be the American term.  

Advisor vs. Supervisor: What Are the Differences?

Learn about the two careers and review some of the similarities and differences between them.

In any work environment, it’s important to have someone you can go to for help or advice. Depending on the company you work for, this person may be your supervisor or your advisor. Though these titles are often used interchangeably, there are some key differences between the two. In this article, we discuss the roles of an advisor and a supervisor, and we explain how they differ.

What is an Advisor?

Advisors provide guidance and support to clients in a specific area of expertise. They offer advice and recommendations on topics such as financial planning, career development, relationship counselling and more. Advisors typically have extensive experience and knowledge in their field, and they use this to help clients reach their goals. Advisors may work with individuals, families or groups, and they may be self-employed or work for a company. Some Advisors may also provide training or give lectures on their area of expertise.

What is a Supervisor?

Supervisors help manage a team of employees by assigning tasks, conducting performance reviews and dealing with employee issues. They develop work schedules to ensure that the team has adequate coverage and that projects are completed in a timely manner. Supervisors also serve as a point of contact between employees and upper management. They relay information between the two groups and ensure that employees understand company policies and procedures. In some cases, supervisors may also be responsible for training new employees.

Advisor vs. Supervisor

Here are the main differences between an advisor and a supervisor.

Advisors and supervisors share some job duties, such as leading a team, providing guidance and feedback and setting goals. However, advisors typically have more responsibilities because they work with higher-level employees. For example, an advisor might help executive leadership develop strategies for achieving departmental goals. Supervisors typically provide day-to-day guidance to their teams to ensure they complete tasks, such as ensuring employees adhere to safety regulations while completing assignments and monitoring employee performance.

Job Requirements

Advisors and supervisors typically need at least a bachelor’s degree to enter the field. However, some employers may prefer candidates with a master’s degree or higher. Additionally, many professionals in these roles pursue certifications through organizations like the National Association of Advisors for the Health Professions (NAAHP) or the American Nurses Credentialing Center (ANCC). These certifications can demonstrate that an advisor or supervisor has the necessary skills and knowledge to perform their job duties effectively.

Work Environment

Supervisors typically work in an office setting, but they may also travel to different locations. They often spend their days at a desk or on the job site and interact with employees and clients. Advisors usually work in an office environment, but they may also visit clients’ homes or other locations. They may spend time interacting with clients and providing support for them.

The main difference between an advisor and a supervisor is that an advisor provides guidance and support, while a supervisor manages and oversees work. Both roles require excellent communication skills, as they need to be able to explain tasks clearly and give instructions effectively. They also both need good people skills, as they will be working with employees on a daily basis.

Advisors typically need to have strong problem-solving skills, as they need to be able to find creative solutions to challenges their employees are facing. Supervisors usually need to have strong decision-making skills, as they need to be able to make quick decisions about how to solve problems and handle issues that arise. Both roles also require good organizational skills, as they need to be able to keep track of multiple projects and deadlines.

The average salary for an advisor is $66,768 per year, while the average salary for a supervisor is $62,225 per year. The salary for both positions may vary depending on the industry, the size of the company, the location of the job and the level of experience the employee has.

Quality Engineer vs. Manufacturing Engineer: What Are the Differences?

Hotel manager vs. general manager: what are the differences, you may also be interested in..., real estate broker vs. developer: what are the differences, data analyst vs. software developer: what are the differences, data analyst vs. statistician: what are the differences, electrician vs. instrument technician: what are the differences.