supervisor for phd student

Ten types of PhD supervisor relationships – which is yours?

Lecturer, Griffith University

Disclosure statement

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

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

View all partners

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cheap labour

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

The “ghost supervisor”

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

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

Collateral damage

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

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

Creepy crawlers

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

Captivate and con

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

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

Colleague in training

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

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

• professional mentoring
• PhD supervisors

Audience Development Coordinator (fixed-term maternity cover)

Data and Reporting Analyst

Lecturer (Hindi-Urdu)

Director, Defence and Security

Opportunities with the new CIEHF

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/

What makes a good PhD supervisor? Top tips for managing the student-supervisor relationship.

Jan 8, 2020

When I started my PhD, the entire cohort of incoming students had an induction session in the university’s great hall. There were around 500 of us, from every department and every imaginable discipline. 

The induction itself was tedious, but there was one comment in particular that stood out immediately and stuck with me throughout my entire PhD journey. When a professor was asked in a Q&A what advice he would give incoming PhD students, he said to remember that, after your mother, your supervisor will be the most important person in your life.

Interested in group workshops, cohort-courses and a free PhD learning & support community? 

The team behind The PhD Proofreaders have launched The PhD People, a free learning and community platform for PhD students. Connect, share and learn with other students, and boost your skills with cohort-based workshops and courses.

Now I’m at the other end of the PhD and I’ve graduated, I’ve got some advice of my own to add to his. You see, the professor overlooked something really important, and that is that, by the time we were sitting in the induction, we had already chosen our supervisors (or had them assigned, as in my case).  

Why should that matter? Primarily because whether or not your supervisor becomes the most important person in your life depends how good that supervisor actually is, how well they are executing their duties, and how well you are managing the student-supervisor relationship. 

In this guide, I want to dig in a little more into what makes a good supervisor, before discussing what they should and shouldn’t be doing, why you need to please them (and how you can go about doing so), and how to make the 

How to choose a PhD supervisor 

The most important piece of advice for someone about to embark on a PhD and looking for a potential supervisor is to actually make an effort to talk to them about your research proposal.

Now, for many, your potential supervisor may be someone you already know, such as a lecturer, Master’s dissertation supervisor or tutor. Or, it may be someone from your department who you don’t know so well, but whose work fits your research interests. 

In either case, chances are you’ve interacted with them in a teacher-student kind of relationship, where they lecture and you take notes. Well, when thinking about your PhD and their role as a potential supervisor, it’s time to put on a different hat and approach them as a peer. Email them or call them and schedule a phone call or face-to-face meeting to talk about your proposal and solicit their advice. Be explicit about wanting them to supervise you and tell them why. They won’t bite. In all likelihood, they’ll be flattered. 

Now, the same applies even if it’s someone you don’t know or have never interacted with (perhaps if it’s someone from a different university or country). Approach them, explain what you intend to do and tell them exactly why you think they should supervise you.  

As you ask these questions, you’ll get a pretty good idea of what to look for in a potential supervisor. For one, their research interests need to align with yours. The closer they align the better. But, more than that, you need to consider whether they have published in your field (and whether they’re continuing to do so).

Often, though, the more high-profile academics will already be supervising a number of students. Try, if you can, to get an idea of how many PhD students they are currently supervising. This will give you a good idea of whether they’ll have the time required to nurture your project over the years it will take you to complete it, or whether they’ll be stretched too thin. Also, look at how many students they have supervised in the past and how many of them completed successfully. This will give you a good insight into their experience and competence.  

Remember back to that advice I got on my first day: the person you’re choosing to supervise your study will become the most important person in your life, so you need to consider the personal dimension too. Do you actually get on with them? You’ll be spending a lot of time together, and some of it will be when you’re at your most vulnerable (such as when you’re stressed, under incredible pressure or breaking down as the PhD blues get the better of you). Do you think this person is someone with whom you can have a good, friendly relationship? Can you talk openly to them? Will they be there for you when you need them and, more importantly, will you be able to ask them to be?

Once you’ve considered all this, don’t be afraid to approach them at a conference, swing by their office, drop them an email or phone them and run your project by them. The worst they can do is say no, and if they do they’ll likely give you great feedback and advice that you can take to another potential supervisor. But they may just turn around and say yes, and if you’ve done your homework properly, you’ll have a great foundation from which to start your PhD-journey. They’ll also likely work with you to craft your draft proposal into something that is more likely to be accepted. 

Your PhD Thesis. On one page.

Use our free PhD Structure Template to quickly visualise every element of your thesis.

What is the role of a supervisor?

Think of your supervisor like a lawyer. They are there to advise you on the best course of action as you navigate your PhD journey, but ultimately, the decisions you make are yours and you’re accountable for the form and direction your PhD takes.

In other words: they advise, you decide. 

I appreciate that is vague, though. What do they advise on?

Primarily, their job is:

8. To a certain extent, they often provide emotional and pastoral support

How many of these jobs they actually do will vary from supervisor to supervisor. You have to remember that academics, particularly those that are well known in their field, are often extremely busy and in many cases overworked and underpaid. They may simply not have the time to do all the things they are supposed to. Or, it may be the case that they simply don’t need to because you already have a good handle on things. 

What does a supervisor not do?

Your supervisor is not there to design your research for you, or to plan, structure or write your thesis. Remember, they advise and you decide. It’s you that’s coming up with the ideas, the plans, the outlines and the chapters. It’s their job to feedback on them. Not the other way around.

Unlike at undergraduate or masters level, their job isn’t to teach you in the traditional sense, and you aren’t a student in the traditional sense either. The onus is on you to do the work and take the lead on your project. That means that if something isn’t clear, or you need help with, say, a chapter outline, it is up to you to solicit that advice from your supervisor or elsewhere. They won’t hold your hand and guide you unless you ask them to.

Having said that, their job isn’t to nanny you. At PhD level it is expected that you can work independently and can self-motivate. It is not your supervisor’s job to chase you for chapter drafts or to motivate you to work. If you don’t do the work when you’re supposed to then it’s your problem, not theirs.

It’s also not their job to proofread or edit your work. In fact, if you’re handing in drafts that contain substantial fluency or language issues (say, if you’re a non-native English speaker), it’s likely to annoy them, particularly if you’re doing so at the later stages of the PhD, because they’ll have to spend as much time focusing on how you’re writing as they do on what you’re writing.

More troubling would be if you explicitly ask them to correct or edit the language. They won’t do this and will take a dim view of being asked. Instead, hire a proofreader or ask a friend with good writing skills to take a read through and correct any obvious language errors (check the rules laid out by your university to see what a proofreader can and cannot do though. As with everything in your PhD, the onus is on you to do things properly).

What you need to do to please your supervisor

The lines between what your supervisor will and will not do for you are blurred, and come down in large part to how much they like you. That means you should pay attention to pleasing them, or at least not actively irritating them.

There are a few simple things you can do that will make their life easier and, with that, boost their opinion of you and their willingness to go beyond their prescribed role.

First, and by this stage you shouldn’t need to be told this, meet deadlines, submit work to them when you said you would, and turn up to your supervision meetings on time. If you meet the deadlines you’ve set, they’re more likely to return work quicker and spend more time reading it prior to doing so.

Wrapping up

Managed well, you too can ensure that your supervisor is the most important person in your life. And you want them to be. Those who succeed in their PhDs and in their early academic careers are those who had effective supervision and approached their supervisor as a mentor.

Things don’t always go according to plan, though, and sometimes even with the best will in the world, supervisors under-perform, create problems or, in more extreme cases, sabotage PhD projects. This can be for a variety of reasons, but it leaves students in a difficult position; in the student-supervisor relationship, the student is relatively powerless, particularly if the supervisor is well known and highly esteemed. If this is the case, when things don’t go well, raising concerns with relevant channels may prove ineffective, and may even create more problems. In these extreme cases, you’ll have to draw on levels of diplomacy and patience you may never have known you had.  

Hello, Doctor…

Sounds good, doesn’t it?  Be able to call yourself Doctor sooner with our five-star rated How to Write A PhD email-course. Learn everything your supervisor should have taught you about planning and completing a PhD.

Now half price. Join hundreds of other students and become a better thesis writer, or your money back. 

Share this:

10 comments.

I am very grateful for your interesting and valuable advice here. Thank you very much!

Thanks for the kind words.

Though my PhD journey is still in an infancy stage, i can’t thank you enough for the wisdom, motivation and upliftment shared….thank you, i earnestly appreciate it.

You’re very kind. It’s my aim to help others and make their lives easier than mine was when I was doing my PhD. To hear that it’s working fills me with a lot of joy.

I am grateful for this e-mail. I really appreciate and I have learnt a lot about how to build a fruitful relationship with my supervisor.

Thank you again for your notable contribution to our PhD journey.

You’re very welcome. Thanks for reading.

I’m looking to doing a PhD research and believe your service and material would be very useful. It am in the process of applying for a place at SOAS and hope to be offered the opportunity. I anticipation of this I’m currently investigating and making notes to all the support I’ll need. The challenge for me is I’ll be 69 years old in November and into my 70s in three years time, and would need all the support and encouragement available.

So wish me luck.

Thanks for the comment. What you bring with you is experience and expertise. That will serve you well as you go through the PhD journey. Good luck!

Thank you so much for the valuable advice. I really appreciate your motivation and guidance regarding the PhD journey. Iam a second year PhD student with the University of South Africa and l think your words of wisdom will help me to maintain a friendly relationship with my supervisor until graduation. I thank you

You’re very welcome. I’m glad you’re finding what we do here useful. Keep up the good work.

Submit a Comment Cancel reply

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

Search The PhD Knowledge Base

Most popular articles from the phd knowlege base.

The PhD Knowledge Base Categories

• Your PhD and Covid
• Mastering your theory and literature review chapters
• How to structure and write every chapter of the PhD
• How to stay motivated and productive
• Techniques to improve your writing and fluency
• Advice on maintaining good mental health
• Resources designed for non-native English speakers
• PhD Writing Template
• Explore our back-catalogue of motivational advice

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

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

1. Expertise in Your Subject Area

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

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

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

2. Regular Supervisory Meetings

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

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

3. Feedback on Work in Progress

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

4. Advice and Support

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

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

5. Mediation and Representation

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

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

Browse PhDs Now

Join thousands of students.

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

• Previous Article
• Next Article

Cover Image

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

Your supervision filter

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

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

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

Download citation file:

• Ris (Zotero)
• Reference Manager

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Action Centred Supervisory Leadership.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Web Resources

Supervising PhDs

UKCGE Good Supervisory Practice Framework .

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

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

Get Email Alerts

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

This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only

Sign In or Create an Account

• Share on twitter
• Share on facebook

Career advice: how to supervise a PhD student for the first time

There are numerous survival guides for doctoral students, but much less advice on how to supervise phd candidates. robert macintosh offers some tips on becoming an effective supervisor.

• Share on linkedin
• Share on mail

Starting out Supervision will give you a chance to share the accumulated wisdom of your own PhD journey and anything else that has followed. However, you need to start at ground zero with each new student to help build a shared sense of what good practice looks like. 

A good first step is for both of you to take a small batch of seminal papers and agree to read them before swapping notes. This simple exercise will allow you the chance to demonstrate how to scrutinise the key ideas, assumptions, limitations and contributions that each author or authoring team makes in its paper. Doing so in the style of a collaborative, worked example will help to set a particular tone that will pay rich rewards in the months and years ahead. 

Being clear about the level of depth and the practicalities of note taking is as important as showing how you approach the basic task of getting to grips with the literature.

Give the feedback you wish you’d received Bemoaning the failings of your supervisor represents one of the most common ways of establishing rapport among a group of doctoral students. “They’re never there”, “they don’t give detailed comments”, “they’re always in a rush” and so forth. Each new supervisory relationship, however, represents your opportunity to break the cycle.

Recall your own anxieties and needs as a PhD student and try to offer your new student the kind of supervision that you wish you had received. Draw on your own supervision experiences, whether these were of being micromanaged or of Zen-like levels of uninterest. These formative experiences probably mean that you know what you should offer to your new student. Be bold and strive to provide the right balance between nurturing and challenging. You’ll also need to balance the other demands that arise in modern academic life – maybe you’ll find yourself reflecting on the reasons that your supervisor was always in a rush.

Search our database of more than 7,000 global university jobs

Beware unrealistic expectations As a new supervisor, one of the worst mistakes you could make would be to overlook quite how inexperienced you were as a new PhD student. Unfortunately we tend to airbrush out our early, bumbling incompetence and concentrate on the latter-day, polished professionalism that we now exhibit. 

Do not set supervisory expectations around the version of you that completed your own PhD some time ago. Rather, set them at the more modest level of the version of you that started your PhD journey even longer ago. Visiting unrealistic expectations on your new student is a recipe for unhappiness. You’ll be disappointed; they’ll be confused.

Be patient, supportive yet demanding Newly qualified supervisors can be among the most demanding because they remember the intensity of writing up and preparing for a viva. Having recently watched their own work being subjected to unforgiving scrutiny in the context of a viva, new doctoral graduates can, in turn, impose demands when they come to supervise and/or examine. 

However, a PhD is more expedition than sprint. Try to remember this, particularly in the early months, because your new student will no doubt experience plenty of false dawns and blind alleys as they grapple with the literature, realise that accessing data might be tricky and worry about their methodological preferences.

Simply being there and empathising is not enough either. You face the particular challenge of finding the right times and the right issues over which to demand higher quality work than your student feels that they can produce. Done well, later this will be recounted as providing inspiration. Handled badly, you will be seen as the uncaring taskmaster who made the whole thing unnecessarily tense. 

Notice your own foibles It is natural for us to develop particular quirks and preferences in our reading, reviewing and supervising. As you offer feedback on written work, draft presentations, posters and the like, see if you can spot common themes. Once you know the common themes, it is incumbent on you to offer some exemplars when students ask the not unreasonable question, “so what would good look like”?

Cultivate a little stockpile of excellent literature reviews, contribution statements and analyses of data. Have these to hand and offer them as a complement to the red ink in your feedback. 

These examples don’t have to be in exactly the same subject area, methodological tradition or empirical context. Indeed, it may be helpful if they aren’t. They don’t even have to be particularly contemporary. But you should be able to play the Graham Norton role while fronting the imaginary TV show called The Top 10 Research Papers Ever. 

Robert MacIntosh is head of the School of Social Sciences at  Heriot-Watt University . He writes regularly about academic life on the Heriot-Watt blog  thePhDblog.com .

POSTSCRIPT:

Print headline:  Steady yourself first to help others fly

Register to continue

Why register?

• Registration is free and only takes a moment
• Once registered, you can read 3 articles a month
• Sign up for our newsletter

Or subscribe for unlimited access to:

• Unlimited access to news, views, insights & reviews
• Digital editions
• Digital access to THE’s university and college rankings analysis

Already registered or a current subscriber? Login

Related articles

PhDs: ‘toxic’ supervisors and ‘students from hell’

How should universities handle breakdowns in PhD student-supervisor relationships?

Should you be friends with your PhD students?

Blurring the lines between supervisor and friend can cause difficulties for academics and students alike, says study by Finnish researchers

Related universities

Heriot-watt university, you might also like.

Give academics sabbaticals to revamp teaching, urges professor

Lack of innovation rewards mean lousy lectures live on, says Harvard University educationalist behind flipped learning

Learning behind bars: the shifting fortunes of prison education

While US prison reform campaigners celebrate reversal of 30-year ban on incarcerated students accessing Pell Grants, counterparts in England and Wales express concern that government inaction has stalled progress

Renaming postdocs and PhD students would boost respect, pay, progression

What other industry would deem those with so much prior training to still be mere trainees? Let’s call them what they are – researchers, says Michele Nardin

US university suggests AI could help ‘offset’ striking instructors

With 3,000 graduate students picketing for higher pay, Boston University dean encourages faculty to ‘think creatively’ about using technological alternatives

Featured jobs

• 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 .

Advising for progress: tips for PhD supervisors

In a previous post , we have seen the crucial role that having a sense of progress plays, not only in the productivity, but also in the engagement and persistence of a PhD student towards the doctorate. While this recognition (and the practices to “make progress visible” we saw) put a big emphasis on the student as the main active agent, PhD students are not the only actors in this play. Is there anything that doctoral supervisors can do to help? In this post, I go over some of the same management research on progress and our own evidence from the field, looking at what supervisors can do to support their students in perceiving continuous progress that eventually leads to a finished doctoral thesis.

The role of supervising on PhD students’ progress

One interesting aspect of Amabile and Kramer’s book 1 (based on the study of diaries of 238 employees), is that it is aimed mainly to managers , to help them understand what their role really is in a team of engaged and productive knowledge workers. While PhD supervisors are not technically the students’ “bosses” (even if some academic research teams do work like that), I think there is a thing or two that we could learn from advising our PhD students with the issue of progress in mind .

The book authors’ conclusion, contrary to widespread belief, is that the manager’s mission is not to “command and control”; it is not even to be the “team’s cheerleader”. After noting that steady progress is the most important factor in keeping the team motivated, they posit that the manager’s main role is to remove obstacles that may be stopping the team’s progress on its tracks.

Also, let us remember that the book phrases this most crucial aspect as “progress in work that matters ”. While the work should matter to the employees, to the team (in our case, to the PhD student) primarily, we as supervisors are a very important social connection in relation to the thesis (as one of the few that can -hopefully!- understand the thesis topic). And social validation is one of the most important mechanisms that our brains use to assess whether something is important 2 . Thus, an important part of supervising PhD work is to signal such work as meaningful and important (or, at least, to avoid portraying it as meaning less ). While we seldom fail at this intentionally, there are many ways in which a supervisor (or a boss) can inadvertently do so. These are what Amabile and Kramer call inhibitors and toxins (and their flip side, catalysts and nourishers ).

Inhibitors are events that hamper, or fail to support the project… and, in doing so, somehow imply that the project is not so important or meaningful (i.e., if it were important, everyone and the supervisor would be supporting it to ensure that it succeeds). Catalysts , on the other hand, are events or actions that support the development of the project. Examples of inhibitors and catalysts include:

• Providing clear goals for the work of the project (catalyst), vs. having vague goals for the work, or changing the goals repeatedly and without good reason (inhibitor). Even if, in a PhD, the students are often setting their own goals, we as supervisors can support students to formulate the goals and direction more clearly than they naturally would.
• Providing resources that are essential or helpful for the progress and completion of the project’s tasks (catalyst), vs. withdrawing critical resources from the project or its tasks (inhibitor). Two classic examples in the context of a PhD are measuring instruments or other research equipment (which maybe the supervisor can help secure for the student), and the supervisor’s own time and advice (which more insecure students may see as essential to the decision-making and progress of the research). The classic busy professor that is never available to meet and does not answer student emails… do you think s/he is going to catalyze or inhibit progress?
• Similarly, having peers or other external people help with some part of the project can also be a catalyst (e.g., bringing in a specialist from another field to help with some obscure aspects of a data analysis), while extraneous blockages can quickly inhibit progress: for instance, when bureaucratic steps and administrative staff pose hurdles to the research tasks without an apparently good reason, what does that say about the importance of the research?
• Quite simply, just stating that a work is important , or noting explicitly the impact it’s having (or may have) on others and the students themselves, is another catalyst for progress. Even mentioning in passing that we see how the students are learning a new skill successfully, can help. Conversely, saying out loud that the project’s outputs are pretty much useless, is a clear inhibitor (since nobody desires to waste their time in something that is both very hard and rather meaningless).

Aside from these actions directed at the project/work itself, there are also actions that can help or hamper progress, by targeting the person doing the work. Toxins are negative inter-personal episodes which attack the worker (in our case, the student): when somebody yells at you, doubts your capabilities to pull off some task, shames you in front of others… all those signal that you are worthless, and probably incapable of completing the project at hand (and hence, why bother?). Meanwhile, nourishers are positive inter-personal events which target the person: providing emotional support, encouragement, confidence in the person’s abilities, etc. These all signal your personal worth and ability to complete the work and, logically, can help PhD students continue putting in the effort needed to complete the thesis.

One more thing: the manager’s role is to remove obstacles that are extraneous (i.e., unnecessary) to the project. In research, some of our obstacles are intrinsic to the task, an inherent part of it: being systematic in our analyses, synthesizing multiple sources of knowledge and many other research tasks are hard , and there is no way around it. Hence, as supervisors we should do what is in our power to remove other obstacles that are not necessary, so that the hard work can be successfully done by the student. All this talking about removing obstacles is not about doing the core research work for the student (indeed, such behavior can in some cases be considered a toxin, since it signals that the student cannot do that core research task by themselves).

Finally, when looking at these different kinds of events or actions that happen throughout the daily life of a thesis project, we should beware of a well-known bias that we humans have: the negativity bias . Put simply, this bias means that negative events weigh more than positive ones, in our hearts and minds 3 . That is why I’d focus my attention more on removing unnecessary obstacles, avoiding project inhibitors or inter-personal toxins… rather than bringing in some fancy research resource (a catalyst) that is not essential, or throwing a party for the student (a nourisher).

Practices to supervise for progress

Aside from keeping in mind the general principles of removing unnecessary obstacles and signifying the doctoral work as important , is there anything else we can do as supervisors to help our doctoral students perceive progress and persist to finish the PhD? If you want to be more systematic about it, here are a few practices you can try:

• At the simplest level, you can point your students to learn about and implement some of the progress practices we saw in the previous post : making and celebrating smaller milestones, keeping a diary, self-tracking simple quantitative indicators, or working with objectives and key results (OKRs).
• Another very simple practice that I implement now in my own supervision is to just ask your PhD students about obstacles they may be facing. Sometimes the hurdles will be inherent to the task, or internal to the student (e.g., procrastination); sometimes the obstacles are unnecessary and should be removed… however, as a novice researcher, the student is not always able to distinguish between these different categories. Nowadays, in every PhD meeting I have, after the students report on their latest activity, or when we are discussing next steps, I try to ask something to the effect of: “is there anything blocking you from moving forward?”. Sometimes, nothing comes up, or something arises that is out of my influence; but, sometimes, a short email or minor effort on my side can help unblock an unnecessarily-stuck situation.
• Keep up to date on the student’s work : In Amabile and Kramer’s book 1 , they recommend managers to be systematic in being informed about what is happening in the employee’s work. To help with this, the authors devised a “daily progress checklist” , a short reflection guide in which the manager can ask herself, systematically, about the team’s progress and setbacks, catalysts and inhibitors, nourisher and toxins that the team has faced each day. Again, take this advice, coming from a study in the US creative/innovation industries, with a pinch of salt. Maybe in your supervision practice in academic research, other frequency is more appropriate (e.g., weekly, or whenever you meet your students) – many supervisors do not talk with their doctoral candidates each and every day. However, I think part of the point of the authors is for managers to increase the frequency of these information checkpoints. Hence, you can also try lightly checking in with your student a bit more frequently than you normally would. Maybe an informal chat or email will suffice, this is not about micro-managing or looking all the time over the student’s shoulder! This can also help signal that you care about the work; that it is important.
• Emphasize the learning process, not only the outcome : Another tip from the book on progress comes from the fact that some of the managers of successful teams were good at highlighting the learning process, the lessons learned from the work, especially in the face of a setback or failure. I believe this is especially important in a PhD, since a doctorate is , by nature, a learning process for the candidate. Hence, when the dreaded paper rejection comes, or an experiment fails, it is important that you, as supervisor, keep a clear head and guide the student in thinking through beyond the bad outcome or failure, to analyze the causes, what lessons have we learned from the failure, and what actions can be taken so that it does not happen next time. You can also think whether the negative results (or the lessons learnt) can be made into a contribution in itself 4 . I cannot underline this enough: failures are critical inflection points in a PhD. Make them into “teachable moments”, not breakup events!
• Have a “thesis map” . This is a tip that comes from our own field research talking with doctoral supervisors about progress. Some of the supervisors that reported being satisfied with their students’ progress, mentioned that they had some sort of (implicit or explicit) “map of the thesis”: a meta-plan of milestones along the path to a thesis in their area/discipline, so that the supervisor can have an idea of how far along the way to the thesis the student is (and how fast it is advancing, or whether there are sudden blocks in such advancement). Typical steps in this map might include: doing a synthesis of the state-of-the-art, coming up with a research direction from it, and presenting at a conference – during the first year; planning and conducting three experiments in the second year; etc. Naturally, this map or meta-plan varies a lot from discipline to discipline, and even for different kinds of thesis within a same area, so it seems that the supervisor has to devise this plan for themselves (I will probably explore this idea more in a later post). Although this kind of device has not been studied (to the best of my knowledge), it seems that having such a map explicitly in place would be very useful, both for the supervisor and for the student’s own perception of progress. It could even be used during the selection/onboarding phase of new PhD students, to make more concrete the workload, the breadth and depth of a PhD 5 .
• Finally, I’ll say it again: don’t make the students’ work seem meaningless , if you can in any way avoid it. Dismissing the student’s ideas as absurd, imposing our own ideas/direction on the student’s project without their understanding it… all may seem justified for the supervisor at some point of a thesis (but they are also indicators of students that later dropped out 6 ). Ignore this advice at your own risk!

NB: this post is based on the materials for a new series of participatory workshops for supervisors that we are running at Talinn University (Estonia) and the University of Valladolid (Spain). If you (or someone at your university) think that these ideas could be beneficial for your fellow doctoral supervisors, feel free to drop me a line , as we are thinking about how, where and when to expand this emerging program, once we validate its effectiveness.

Do you have other supervisory practices that help your students see the progress they make (or detect when they are stuck)? Does your supervisor use particular tricks to help you see how you’re progressing? If so, please let us know in the comments below!

Header photo: Advice on Keyboard, by www.gotcredit.com .

Amabile, T., & Kramer, S. (2011). The progress principle: Using small wins to ignite joy, engagement, and creativity at work . Harvard Business Press. ↩︎

To illustrate this, try to remember back to your teenage years, and the (now seemingly stupid) things that were life-or-death-important to you back then: your favorite rock band, wearing certain kind of sneakers, the approval of that “cool kid” in your class, etc. Back then, trying to detach yourself from your parents’ points of view, social validation from your peers was almost the only mechanism at your disposal to understand what mattered in life. ↩︎

In some studies trying to quantify this, they came up with the measure that negative events count as much as 3-4 times more than positive ones! ↩︎

Indeed, conferences or journals in some research areas are opening special spaces for such negative results, to fight the “publication bias” that threatens the validity of many of our findings. Shorter “negative results” papers in journals, or “failathons” in conferences, can be good venues to present such failed experiments, get a sense that the effort was not useless, and still help the advancement of your research area! ↩︎

One of the most common themes of PhD students that I’ve seen drop out (or consider dropping out) of the doctorate is the fact that they miscalculated the amount of work (and the kind of work) that a PhD entails. Many candidates enter with the idea that it is “just a longer master”, and are disappointed or disheartened when they see the amount of work needed, and the lack of very structured guidance that they are used to from their bachelors and masters degrees. ↩︎

Devos, C., Boudrenghien, G., Van der Linden, N., Azzi, A., Frenay, M., Galand, B., & Klein, O. (2017). Doctoral students’ experiences leading to completion or attrition: A matter of sense, progress and distress. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 32 (1), 61–77. ↩︎

• Productivity
• Self-tracking
• Supervision

Luis P. Prieto

Luis P. is a Ramón y Cajal research fellow at the University of Valladolid (Spain), investigating learning technologies, especially learning analytics. He is also an avid learner about doctoral education and supervision, and he's the main author at the A Happy PhD blog.

Google Scholar profile

Teaching & Learning

• Education Excellence
• Professional development
• Case studies
• Teaching toolkits
• MicroCPD-UCL
• Assessment resources
• Student partnership
• Generative AI Hub
• Community Engaged Learning
• UCL Student Success

Research and project supervision (all levels): an introduction  

Supervising projects, dissertations and research at UCL from undergraduate to PhD.

1 August 2019

Many academics say supervision is one of their favourite, most challenging and most fulfilling parts of their job.

Supervision can play a vital role in enabling students to fulfil their potential. Helping a student to become an independent researcher is a significant achievement – and can enhance your own teaching and research.

Supervision is also a critical element in achieving UCL’s strategic aim of integrating research and education. As a research-intensive university, we want all students, not just those working towards a PhD, to engage in research.

Successful research needs good supervision.

This guide provides guidance and recommendations on supervising students in their research. It offers general principles and tips for those new to supervision, at PhD, Master’s or undergraduate level and directs you to further support available at UCL.

What supervision means

Typically, a supervisor acts as a guide, mentor, source of information and facilitator to the student as they progress through a research project.

Every supervision will be unique. It will vary depending on the circumstances of the student, the research they plan to do, and the relationship between you and the student. You will have to deal with a range of situations using a sensitive and informed approach.

As a supervisor at UCL, you’ll help create an intellectually challenging and fulfilling learning experience for your students.

This could include helping students to:

• formulate their research project and question
• decide what methods of research to use
• become familiar with the wider research community in their chosen field
• evaluate the results of their research
• ensure their work meets the necessary standards expected by UCL
• keep to deadlines
• use feedback to enhance their work
• overcome any problems they might have
• present their work to other students, academics or interested parties
• prepare for the next steps in their career or further study.

At UCL, doctoral students always have at least two supervisors. Some faculties and departments operate a model of thesis committees, which can include people from industry, as well as UCL staff.

Rules and regulations

Phd supervision.

The supervision of doctoral students’ research is governed by regulation. This means that there are some things you must – and must not – do when supervising a PhD.  

• All the essential information is found in the UCL Code of Practice for Research Degrees .
• Full regulations in the UCL Academic Manual .  

All staff must complete the online course Introduction to Research Supervision at UCL  before beginning doctoral supervision.

Undergraduate and Masters supervision

There are also regulations around Master’s and undergraduate dissertations and projects. Check with the Programme Lead, your Department Graduate Tutor or Departmental Administrator for the latest regulations related to student supervision.

You should attend other training around research supervision. 

• Supervision training available through UCL Arena .

Doctoral (PhD) supervision: introducing your student to the university

For most doctoral students, you will often be their main point of contact at UCL and as such you are responsible for inducting them into the department and wider community.

Check that your student:

• knows their way around the department and about the facilities available to them locally (desk space, common room, support staff)
• has attended the Doctoral School induction and has received all relevant documents (including the Handbook and code of practice for graduate research degrees )
• has attended any departmental or faculty inductions and has a copy of the departmental handbook.

Make sure your student is aware of:

• key central services such as: Student Support and Wellbeing , UCL Students' Union (UCLU) and Careers
• opportunities to broaden their skills through UCL’s Doctoral Skills Development Programme
• the wider disciplinary culture, including relevant networks, websites and mailing lists.

The UCL Good Supervision Guide  (for PhD supervisors)

Establishing an effective relationship

The first few meetings you have with your student are critical and can help to set the tone for the whole supervisory experience for you and your student.

An early discussion about both of your expectations is essential:

• Find out your student’s motivations for undertaking the project, their aspirations, academic background and any personal matters they feel might be relevant.
• Discuss any gaps in their preparation and consider their individual training needs.
• Be clear about who will arrange meetings, how often you’ll meet, how quickly you’ll respond when the student contacts you, what kind of feedback they’ll get, and the norms and standards expected for academic writing.
• Set agendas and coordinate any follow-up actions. Minute meetings, perhaps taking it in turns with your student.
• For PhD students, hold a meeting with your student’s other supervisor(s) to clarify your expectations, roles, frequency of meetings and approaches.

Styles of supervision

Supervisory styles are often conceptualized on a spectrum from laissez-faire to more contractual or from managerial to supportive. Every supervisor will adopt different approaches to supervision depending on their own preferences, the individual relationship and the stage the student is at in the project.

Be aware of the positive and negative aspects of different approaches and styles.

Reflect on your personal style and what has prompted this – it may be that you are adopting the style of your own supervisor, or wanting to take a certain approach because it is the way that it would work for you.

No one style fits every situation: approaches change and adapt to accommodate the student and the stage of the project.

However, to ensure a smooth and effective supervision process, it is important to align your expectations from the very beginning. Discuss expectations in an early meeting and re-visit them periodically.

Checking the student’s progress

Make sure you help your student break down the work into manageable chunks, agreeing deadlines and asking them to show you work regularly.

Give your student helpful and constructive feedback on the work they submit (see the various assessment and feedback toolkits on the Teaching & Learning Portal ).

Check they are getting the relevant ethical clearance for research and/or risk assessments.

Ask your student for evidence that they are building a wider awareness of the research field.

Encourage your student to meet other research students and read each other’s work or present to each other.

Encourage your student to write early and often.

Checking your own performance

Regularly review progress with your student and any co-supervisors. Discuss any problems you might be having, and whether you need to revise the roles and expectations you agreed at the start.  

Make sure you know what students in your department are feeding back to the Student Consultative Committee or in surveys, such as the Postgraduate Research Experience Survey (PRES) . 

Responsibility for the student’s research project does not rest solely on you. If you need help, talk to someone more experienced in your department. Whatever the problem is you’re having, the chances are that someone will have experienced it before and will be able to advise you.

Continuing students can often provide the most effective form of support to new students. Supervisors and departments can foster this, for example through organising mentoring, coffee mornings or writing groups.

Be aware that supervision is about helping students carry out independent research – not necessarily about preparing them for a career in academia. In fact, very few PhD students go on to be academics.

Make sure you support your student’s personal and professional development, whatever direction this might take.

Every research supervision can be different – and equally rewarding.

Where to find help and support

Research supervision web pages from the UCL Arena Centre, including details of the compulsory Research Supervision online course. 

Appropriate Forms of Supervision Guide from the UCL Academic Manual

the PhD diaries

Good Supervision videos  (Requires UCL login)

The UCL Doctoral School

Handbook and code of practice for graduate research degrees

Doctoral Skills Development programme

Student skills support (including academic writing)

Student Support and Wellbeing

UCL Students' Union (UCLU)  

UCL Careers

External resources

Vitae: supervising a docorate

UK Council for Graduate Education

Higher Education Academy – supervising international students (pdf)

Becoming a Successful Early Career Researcher , Adrian Eley, Jerry Wellington, Stephanie Pitts and Catherine Biggs (Routledge, 2012) - book available on Amazon

This guide has been produced by the UCL Arena Centre for Research-based Education . You are welcome to use this guide if you are from another educational facility, but you must credit the UCL Arena Centre. 

Further information

More teaching toolkits  - back to the toolkits menu

Research supervision at UCL

UCL Education Strategy 2016–21  

Connected Curriculum: a framework for research-based education

The Laidlaw research and leadership programme (for undergraduates)

[email protected] : contact the UCL Arena Centre 

Download a printable copy of this guide  

Case studies : browse related stories from UCL staff and students.

Sign up to the monthly UCL education e-newsletter  to get the latest teaching news, events & resources.  

Education events

Funnelback feed: https://search2.ucl.ac.uk/s/search.json?collection=drupal-teaching-learn... Double click the feed URL above to edit

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...

A model for the supervisor–doctoral student relationship

• Open access
• Published: 05 February 2009
• Volume 58 , pages 359–373, ( 2009 )

Cite this article

You have full access to this open access article

• Tim Mainhard 1 ,
• Roeland van der Rijst 1 ,
• Jan van Tartwijk 1 &
• Theo Wubbels 1  

28k Accesses

132 Citations

4 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

The supervisor–doctoral student interpersonal relationship is important for the success of a PhD-project. Therefore, information about doctoral students’ perceptions of their relationship with their supervisor can be useful for providing detailed feedback to supervisors aiming at improving the quality of their supervision. This paper describes the development of the questionnaire on supervisor–doctoral student interaction (QSDI). This questionnaire aims at gathering information about doctoral students’ perceptions of the interpersonal style of their supervisor. The QSDI appeared to be a reliable and valid instrument. It can be used in research on the relationship between supervisor and doctoral student and can provide supervisors with feedback on their interpersonal style towards a particular student.

Similar content being viewed by others

Adapting the supervisory relationship measure for general medical practice

Shane Costello, Rebecca Kippen & Joan Burns

Exploring and understanding perceived relationships between doctoral students and their supervisors in China

Yanru Xu & Ji’an Liu

Assessment of psychometric properties of the questionnaire on supervisor-doctoral student interaction (QSDI) in Iran

Hooman Daryoushi, Amir Jalali, … Parvin Abbasi

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

Introduction

This paper describes the development and quality of the questionnaire on supervisor–doctoral student interaction (QSDI). The QSDI is aimed at gathering information about doctoral students’ perceptions of the interpersonal style of their supervisor. The results of this questionnaire can be useful for giving detailed feedback to doctoral student supervisors on their interpersonal style towards a particular student and for research on this relationship.

In most research universities in the Anglo-Saxon countries and counties like the Netherlands, PhD candidates do a research study under the supervision of one or two faculty members. These faculty members not only guide and support the PhD candidate, but also play an important role in the assessment of the quality of the final manuscript submitted. Heath ( 2002 ) argues that the success of the PhD system heavily depends on the supervisors, who must provide the time, expertise and support to foster the candidate’s research skills and attitudes, and to ensure the production of a thesis of acceptable standard. Importantly he concludes from analyses of PhD students’ views on supervision that, although the frequency of meetings between supervisor and candidate is essential, the quality of these meetings is even more (cf. Li and Seale 2007 ). Unfortunately, however, there seems to be more research on the frequency of contact than on its quality (e.g., Pearson 1996 ).

Research indicates that the supervisor–doctoral student interpersonal relationship is important for the success of a PhD-project (Golde 2000 ; Kam 1997 ; Marsh et al. 2002 ; McAlpine and Norton 2006 ). Ives and Rowley ( 2005 ) for example reported that good interpersonal working relationships between supervisors and their PhD students were associated with good progress and student satisfaction. Studies of mentoring showed that in particular the psychosocial aspect of mentoring was connected to the protégé’s sense of competence, confidence and role effectiveness (Luna and Cullen 1998 ; Paglis et al. 2006 ). Denicolo ( 2004 ) reports that in the eyes of PhD students positive attributes of supervisors are amongst others reliable, confidence in the student, encouraging, knowledgeable, informative, and sharing. Supervisors should have listening skills, encourage argument and debate, provide continuous feedback and support, be enthusiastic, and show warmth and understanding. Seagram et al. ( 1998 ) showed that important positive characteristics of supervisors according to their doctoral students were professional, pleasant, and supportive behavior.

Problems in the supervisory relationship

Several problems in the supervisor–doctoral candidate relationship may emerge; here we list a few.

First, a certain tension might exist between the supportive helping role of the supervisor and the requirements of the role to warrant dissertation quality. Murphy et al. ( 2007 ) refer to this double role of assessor and guide. Hockey ( 1996 , p. 363) cites Rapoport (1989): “… the significance of the relationship stems from its duality; the co-existence of intimacy, care and personal commitment on the one hand, and commitment to specific academic goals on the other”. Holligan ( 2005 ) analyses this tension in a case study on the conflicting demands put on the supervisor by the research production requirements of an institution versus the support of the PhD student’s autonomy and independence.

Second, a supervisory style that is apt for a particular student could be at odds with the preferred style of the supervisor, or the style he or she is competent to provide. An example of a broadly found distinction in style is what Sinclair ( 2004 ) calls a “hands on” approach that is relatively interventionist and a “hands off” approach that leaves candidates to their own devices. The candidates’ needs for one of these approaches may depend on the phase of their project. The ideal mentor scale of Rose ( 2003 ) has among others been developed to help resolve this problem. The problem of misalignment of supervisor’s and candidate’s style could also be found in the orientation towards supervision, for example in the field of task or person orientation such as distinguished by Murphy et al. ( 2007 ).

Finally, in many institutions it is not common to evaluate supervisory experience or discuss among staff how supervision is (or should be) provided. Nonetheless, such discussions might be profitable for the quality of the PhD students’ work. Leonard et al. ( 2006 ) conclude in a review of the literature on the impact of the working context and support of postgraduate research students that several studies show a need for supervisors to be more aware of the way in which their relationship with a student is developing. Being unaware of the development of the supervisory relationship, both at the part of the supervisor and the candidate, may be a major threat for the development of supervisory trajectories into a productive direction.

Perceptions and evaluations

With the QSDI one can collect data on doctoral candidates’ perceptions of the relationship with their supervisor. Although instruments to collect such data do not exist, data on students’ perceptions of learning environments have been used extensively in educational research and in professional development activities both in secondary and tertiary education. Several reviews of the validity of students’ evaluation of the effectiveness of instruction in universities have been carried out. Composite judgements of students display high validity and reliability (d’Appolonia and Abrami 1997 ; Braskamp and Ory 1994 ; Cashin and Downey 1992 ; Marsh and Roche 1997 ). Marsh et al. ( 2002 ) conclude that, with careful attention to measurement and theoretical issues, students’ evaluations of teaching are reliable and stable. Another reason to investigate students’ perceptions of supervisors’ behaviors is the use as a feedback instrument: student perceptions mediate between the supervisor behaviour and effects on the students (Shuell 1996 ).

Marsh et al. ( 2002 ) indicate that, although there is a vast body of research on undergraduate students’ evaluations of teacher classroom effectiveness, only few studies on the supervision of research and PhD students have been carried out. Not only little research systematically employed student questionnaires to evaluate the quality of the PhD research supervision, but even an instrument is missing that is specific for the doctoral student experience of the relationship with their supervisor. Several more general supervisory instruments have been used such as the supervisory style inventory (Nelson and Friedlander 2001 ) but this questionnaire is not thoroughly adjusted for the situation of PhD candidates. The ideal mentor scale (Rose 2003 , 2005 ) clearly has relevance for the supervisor PhD candidate relationship. By aiming at the assessment of the communication it wants to improve satisfaction with doctoral education by giving a means to align mentor’s and candidate’s profiles. It includes three subscales: integrity, guidance, and relationship that, however, in a study by Bell-Ellison and Dedrick ( 2008 ) were not consistently replicated. This questionnaire is grounded in the literature on mentor’s roles in life time development and therefore emphasizes features slightly different from characteristics of the PhD supervisory relationship.

On the other hand, more specific instruments have been used for the PhD situation. These usually include many different aspects of this situation (e.g., Anderson and Seashore-Louis 1994 ; Marsh et al. 2002 ) and thus do not give detailed information on the interpersonal relationships.

Theoretical framework

The research presented in this paper studies supervision of doctoral students from an interpersonal perspective. The interpersonal perspective describes and analyzes supervision in terms of the relationship between the supervisor and the doctoral student. Two elements are central to this perspective: the communicative systems approach and a model to describe the relationship aspect of supervisor behavior.

A major axiom of the systems approach to communication (Watzlawick et al. 1967 ) is that all behavior has a content and relationship aspect. This implies that supervisor behavior not only carries the content of the words being used, but also has an underlying relationship message. Interaction can be regarded as the exchange of content and relationship messages. When people interact for a longer period of time, mutual expectations will develop and, based on these expectations, patterns can be identified in the exchange of relationship messages. The patterns in the relationship messages that are communicated by the behavior of the people involved in a social system can be regarded as their interpersonal style in a relationship. What the style of a person in a relationship looks like is dependent on both parties in the communication. That means that how a relationship develops into a pattern depends on the behaviors of both parties. Therefore someone’s style depends also on the other in the communication and the style that someone displays may vary over different relationships of a person.

To describe this relationship-aspect of the supervisor behavior, we use a model developed by Wubbels et al. ( 2006 ) to analyze teacher behavior: the model of interpersonal teacher behavior. This model is based on Leary’s interpersonal circle (Leary 1957 ) in which the relationship aspect of behavior is described using an Influence and a Proximity dimension.

Although these two dimensions have occasionally been given other names, they have generally been accepted as universal descriptors of human interaction (e.g., Fiske et al. 2007 ; Judd et al. 2005 ). For the PhD supervisor–student relationship Gatfield ( 2005 ) in his model describes management styles with the help of two similar dimensions: structure and support. Lindén ( 1999 ) in a narrative study mentions two aspects of relationships: freedom and control, which seems to cover a smaller part of the relationship than the model by Wubbels et al. ( 2006 ). Murphy et al. ( 2007 ) studied supervisors’ and PhD candidates’ beliefs about higher degree supervision and reported controlling and guiding beliefs. These aspects clearly are present in the model used in our study.

The two dimensions of the model for interpersonal supervisor behavior, represented as two axes, underlie eight types of behavior: leadership, helpful/friendly, understanding, giving students freedom and responsibility, uncertain, dissatisfied, admonishing and strict (see Fig.  1 ).

The model for interpersonal supervisor behavior

An important aspect of our model is that the dimensions map a degree of behavior. A behavior that a supervisor displays has a degree of Influence and Proximity. The higher the degree of Influence the higher the behavior is displayed on the vertical axis and similarly for the degree of Proximity on the horizontal axis. For the eight sectors this means that the closer a behavior is to the center of the model the lower the intensity of the behavior is.

Another characteristic of our model is that the dimensions are independent. One might feel that showing behavior with a high degree of Influence needs to imply to be close to the other person, or the other way around that Influence always implies to be also a bit to the left on the Proximity dimension, showing oppositional behavior. However, such associations are not necessarily: high Influence behaviors as well as low Influence behaviors can go together with high or low Proximity behaviors. For example, a supervisor may provide guidance either by setting strict rules solely based on his/her own experience (high Influence, somewhat opposition) or by anticipating on or adapting to the student’s wishes (high Influence, somewhat cooperation). In this sense our model provides a richer description of the relationships than is provided by Gatfield ( 2005 ) who refers to poles instead of degrees of intensity of behavior.

Gatfield ( 2005 ) identified four supervisory styles by combining the two poles of the dimensions structure and support. The laissez faire type (low structure and low support) in terms of the sectors of our model for interpersonal teacher behavior primarily offers students responsibility and freedom. The pastoral type (high on support and low on structure) combines understanding and helpful and friendly behavior, whereas for the contractual style (high on support and high on structure) the emphasis is on leadership and helpful friendly behavioral aspects. Finally, Gatfield’s directorial type (high structure, low support) is employing a lot of strict and leadership behavior.

Based on the model of interpersonal teacher behavior, Wubbels et al. ( 2006 ) have developed the questionnaire on teacher interaction (QTI). This instrument can be used to gather information about teachers’ interpersonal styles in teacher–students communication in secondary classrooms (for an overview of the development of this questionnaire and research findings based on data gathered with this instrument, see Wubbels et al. 2006 ). The original Dutch version consists of 77 items that are answered on a five-point Likert scale. Several studies have been conducted on the reliability and validity of the QTI. In all these studies both reliability and validity were satisfying (Wubbels et al. 2006 ). The instrument exists in several languages, amongst others Dutch, English, French, Hebrew, Slovenian, and Turkish.

Later, the QTI was adapted to other educational settings, such as the interaction between student teacher and supervising teacher in teacher education (QSI; Kremer-Hayon and Wubbels 1993a ), and the interaction between school principals and their teachers in primary and secondary education (Kremer-Hayon and Wubbels 1993b ). The student teacher-supervising teacher situation resembles the PhD student supervisor situation. Similar to the interaction between student teacher and supervising teacher, the interaction between PhD student and supervisor is a one-to-one interaction, rather than a one-to-many interaction.

The present paper describes the development of the questionnaire on supervisor–doctoral student interaction (QSDI) as an adaptation of the QTI and the QSI by Kremer-Hayon and Wubbels ( 1993a ). The doctoral student supervisor interaction is a bi-directional relationship with both parties influencing the developing communication pattern. Because we want to use the QSDI for feedback purposes toward the supervisor we focus on measuring the style of the supervisor from the perspective of the doctoral student. Note that although we write about the interpersonal style of the supervisor, we always mean the style in relation to a particular student. What this style looks like depends on the behavior of the doctoral student as well.

Procedure and instruments

In order to represent the model for supervisor behavior (Fig.  1 ), the QSDI has to have eight scales corresponding to the eight sectors of the model. To represent the theoretical model the scales have to be ordered in a circumplex structure; this implies that two independent factors should underlie the eight scales. Every scale therefore should correlate highest with its neighbors in the model and the lower the farther away a scale is in the model; a scale should correlate highly negative with the scale opposite in the model. For the first version of the QSDI, six items per scale were formulated depicting different supervisor behaviors. These items were developed from the existing items used in secondary schools or teacher education. For example the item “my supervisor says that I am unskilled” emerged from the secondary item “this teacher says we do not perform well.” Items are scored on a five-point Likert scale ranging from ‘never/not at all’ to ‘always/very’. This early version was administered to 25 PhD students in the field of social sciences. Results were tested for circumplex structure (factor analyses and scale correlations) and scale reliabilities (Cronbach’s α). After additional adaptations a 48-item version of the QSDI was crafted. Subsequently, this version was administered to a larger sample of doctoral students.

To verify the concurrent validity of the QSDI, a modified version of the postgraduate research experience questionnaire (PREQ; Marsh et al. 2002 ) was administered to the target group alongside the QSDI. The PREQ was developed in a project of the Australian Council for Educational Research ( 1999 ) in a thorough process of literature review, analyses of good practice, institutional evaluation, and involving existing instruments. In several steps the questionnaire evolved to a form further investigated by Marsh et al. ( 2002 ). The PREQ appeared not to be useful to compare institutions but is a valuable measurement instrument for perceptions of individual students with good content and face validity and good psychometric characteristics such as the factor structure and scale reliability. The PREQ can be used to evaluate individual student’s experience of their PhD period in retrospect. It consists of six scales called ‘Supervision’, ‘Skill development’, ‘Climate’, ‘Infrastructure’, ‘Thesis examination’, and ‘Clarity’. Items were originally answered on an agree–disagree scale. We chose to use a five-point Likert scale ‘never/not at all’ and ‘always/very’ for the sake of uniformity of the combined QSDI–PREQ questionnaire. Because the current sample consisted of PhD students who were still working on their doctorate, our version was formulated in present rather than past tense. In addition, the ‘Thesis examination’ scale was excluded.

Finally, various doctoral student background characteristics (age, gender, and time spent on the project), gender of the supervisor, and the setting (meeting hours per week) were included. The questionnaire was administered online in English.

In total 155 members of the PhD division of the Netherlands Educational Research Association were invited by mail for participation; 98 questionnaires were completed. Of the remaining 57, 24 persons reported that they had received their doctorate already and thus had been invited erroneously. An additional 33 emails remained unreplied. Thus, the effective response ratio may be estimated to be 75%. Of the 98 participants 33% were male and 67% female; 54% were between 25 and 30 years old. Although a few students might have answered the questionnaire about the same supervisor most of the students will have had a different supervisor.

Reliability and internal validity of the QSDI

As mentioned above, the eight QSDI scales should be ordered on a circumplex. An important assumption of circumplex models is that correlations between scales are getting smaller as a function of the distance between scales and that a scale correlates highest negatively with its opposite scale. The 48 items version of the QSDI did not completely satisfactory show this correlation structure. Therefore, from four scales a total of seven items were removed. Thus the final version of the QSDI consisting of 41 items emerged (see Table  5 ).

The reliabilities (Cronbach’s α’s) of the eight resulting scales ranged between .70 and .87 (see Table  1 ) which is considered to be satisfactory to good.

Table  2 shows the correlations between the different scales of the QSDI. The circumplex assumption is only slightly violated with reference to the CD scale: the SO and OD scales showed greater negative correlations with the CD scale (−.69 and −.73, respectively) instead of the theoretically to be expected OS scale (−.66). Similarly, this disrupted correlation pattern led to a disturbance of the correlation pattern of the SC scale. In our sample SC showed the greatest negative correlation with the OD scale instead of the theoretically to be expected DO scale (−.52 and −.34, respectively).

Factor analyses showed that indeed two dimensions underlie the eight scales, and that the scales do follow each other in the correct order (Fig.  2 ). However, the scales are not evenly distributed over the circle. Because the two dimensions Influence and Proximity are supposed to be orthogonal the correlation between the two factors should be low. The actual correlation is 0.30, which is a bit higher than expected.

Results of factor analysis on the eight scales: rotated solution for two factors explaining 75% of the total variance

Concurrent validity of the QSDI

The α coefficients in the current sample for the PREQ ranged from .84 to .91 (see Table  3 ).

Although the QSDI and PREQ do not have the same aspiration with regard to the underlying constructs the questionnaires aim to measure, the QSDI might be understood as a further elaboration of the supervisor-scale of the PREQ. In order to investigate the concurrent validity correlations were calculated between the Influence and Proximity dimensions of the QSDI and the scales of the PREQ. In case of a satisfactory concurrent validity high correlations should be found between Influence and Proximity of the QSDI and the supervisor-scale, and the correlation pattern of the supervisor-scale with the other scales of the PREQ should resemble the pattern of the Influence and Proximity dimensions. The correlation matrix is provided in Table  4 .

As expected the highest correlations were found between the supervisor-scale of the PREQ and Influence and Proximity (.58 and .66, respectively). Influence and Proximity followed the general correlation pattern of the PREQ except of small differences for two correlations. The correlations between Influence and the climate scale (.30) was slightly lower than with the infrastructure scale (.35), and slightly higher that with the clarity scale (.29). Marsh et al. ( 2002 ) mention the supervisor and skill development scales as the ones most prominent connected to the supervisors’ role. They argue that the climate, infrastructure and clarity scales in addition include perceptions related to the academic unit and the entire university. This might explain lower correlations of the supervisor–doctoral student relationships with the last three scales.

Average profile

The scores for the perceptions of a specific doctoral student about his or her supervisor can be displayed in the model shown in Fig.  1 : the profile of a supervisor according to the particular student. As an example, the average profile in the data collected in this study is presented in Fig.  3 .

Average profile collected from doctoral students about theirs supervisors in this study ( n  = 96)

This graph shows that the supervisors in our sample are on average seen as displaying rather much leadership, helping/friendly, understanding behavior and providing a lot of student freedom an responsibility. They do not show a lot of uncertain, dissatisfied or admonishing behavior and the amount of strict behavior is moderate.

Correlational analyses showed that most background characteristics measured were not associated with the scores on dimensions or scales. Only for the Influence dimension two significant, but small correlations were found: supervisor gender correlated .24, and the number of meeting hours with the supervisor .31 with the Influence dimension. Female supervisors were seen more influential than male supervisors, and the more hours doctoral student and supervisor were meeting a week the more influential the student saw the supervisor.

Conclusion and discussion

Considering the Cronbach’s α’s of the eight scales in this study, the QSDI appeared to be a reliable instrument to gather data about doctoral students’ perceptions of their supervisor’s interpersonal style in the relationship with a particular student. The validity in terms of representing a circumplex model was reasonable but the scales were not evenly distributed on the circumplex. Comparison of the QSDI with the supervisor scale of the postgraduate research experience questionnaire showed the concurrent validity of the QSDI to be good.

The QSDI is an instrument that can be used to study the relationship between supervisors and their doctoral students. Research questions about this relationship are open to investigation with the QSDI in combination with instruments to measure other variables. One can study for example what supervisory styles are most effective in terms of length of doctoral studies, doctoral student’s satisfaction with the supervision or quality of dissertations. When combined with measuring doctoral students’ characteristics positive alignments of supervisory style with doctoral students can be sought. In learning environments research an important line of study includes two versions of student questionnaires: one asking for the preferred and the other for the actual experienced environment (cf. Fraser 1991 ). For doctoral supervision employing the QSDI in these two versions might reveal doctoral students’ preferences for supervision styles and combinations with preferences of supervisors and their actual styles can be studied. Finally, the QSDI can help evaluate interventions to improve supervisory relationships.

The QSDI can be used to provide supervisors with feedback about their interpersonal style with the aim to improve the quality of their supervision. Although communication between supervisor and doctoral student often will be so open that no data from a questionnaire are needed, using this questionnaire offers a framework to discuss the relationship and the data will add insights that not always will come to the fore in an unstructured discussion between supervisor and doctoral student. For a quick indication of the quality of the supervisor–doctoral student relationship sector scores can be used, and on a more detailed level scores on individual items may be utilized. By using actual and preferred forms of the QSDI discrepancies between situations strived for and what is accomplished can be brought to the surface, thus providing an avenue for improvement, and a basis for discussing supervision. Similarly, for the candidates such an assessment at the beginning of the project might help articulating what he or she wants from a supervisor. Thus, the QSDI can be used in the matching process when actual supervisors’ styles and preferred styles of students are known.

In addition to doctoral student’s perceptions, also supervisors’ perceptions of their own style and their preferred style can be collected by asking the supervisor to answer the questionnaire for this purpose. The sector scores conveniently can be displayed in the model both for doctoral student and supervisor perceptions (see Fig.  4 for an example).

Example of supervisor ideal, supervisor self perception and doctoral student perception

Several studies have shown that students’ feedback on instructors’ performance may have positive effects on an instructors’ teaching (see for a review Marsh and Dunkin 1997 ; Marsh and Roche 1993 ). Appropriate consultation strengthens this effect. Experiences with the QTI with teachers at the primary and secondary level are promising (Scott et al. 2003 ; Derksen 1995 ).With the QSDI we have some positive experience as a feedback instrument but no formal research study has been conducted until now. As has been shown for teacher’s feedback for students, important conditions must be met to make feedback supportive (Hattie and Timperley 2007 ). Such conditions are a good climate, thorough knowledge of the teacher of the content area, and an emphasis rather on the task than on the person. Important ingredients for an effective strategy to improve supervision based on students’ feedback probably are specific feedback, concrete suggestions for improvement and involvement of a trained consultant (Marsh et al. 2002 ). Through the items included, the QSDI gives ample opportunity to provide such concrete, specific information about aspects of the behavior that might need improvement. It gives for example a more differentiated view than the four styles distinguished by Gatfield ( 2005 ).

Several tenets of the model for interpersonal supervisor behavior seem important when the model is used for the purpose of coaching supervisors of PhD candidates. First, it is important to remember that the two dimensions of the model are independent. In our experience supervisors often assume that showing behavior that is high on the Influence dimension implies to be also a bit to the left on the Proximity dimension. Similarly they tend to combine high Proximity with low Influence behavior. This, however, is not necessary: high Influence as well as low Influence behaviors may go together with behaviors that are high or low on Proximity. As mentioned above, a supervisor for example may provide guidance either by setting strict rules solely based on his/her own experience (high Influence, somewhat opposition) or by anticipating on or adapting to the student’s wishes (high Influence, somewhat cooperation). Keeping this in mind might be helpful for supervisors.

Second, behaviors that are situated opposite to each other in the model are the most difficult to combine. For example, the tension that was mentioned in the section on supervisory problems in this paper between guidance and assessment is in the model reflected by the opposite position of the dissatisfied and helpful/friendly sectors. A supervisor must both be able to support a PhD student and display dissatisfaction when a product of the student does not meet the required standards. It might help to make supervisors aware of this opposite position and the need to learn to combine these behaviors productively, or to become flexible in their use in different situations.

Third, the concept of self reinforcing processes is important (Wubbels et al. 1988 ). In relationships between teachers and students different principles apply for the Influence and Proximity dimensions. Behaviors of participants associated with the Influence dimension tend to evoke opposite behaviors (i.e., reciprocity): for example, the more a supervisor might provide structure, the more a student might become dependent on the supervisor. For the Proximity dimension another process is involved (i.e., complementarity): behaviors on this dimension tend to evoke similar behavior of the other participant; the more friendliness the supervisor expresses, the more friendliness the student will show. Similarly, hostile behavior of the supervisor is likely to invoke hostility from the PhD student.

In conclusion, the QSDI can be used both as a research and as a feedback instrument. It can contribute to solving the three supervisory problems mentioned in the introduction of this paper. First, the opposite placement of helping/friendly and dissatisfied behavior in the model helps clarify the tension between guidance and assessment in the supervisory process. Second, analyzing doctoral student’s preferred style and the supervisor’s ideal may help in the matching of PhD candidates and supervisors. Finally, the use of the QSDI for feedback will help to strengthen or to create a climate in research institutes where evaluation of doctoral student’s experiences is common practice.

The QSDI maps the relationship between a doctoral student and his or her supervisor from the perspective of the student. For future research it could be interesting to complement this view with the supervisor’s perception of the student’s style. Kam ( 1997 ) for example showed the importance of a student’s tendency to rely on the supervisor is important in shaping the relationship.

Anderson, M. S., & Seashore-Louis, K. (1994). The graduate student experience and subscription to the norms of science. Research in Higher Education, 35 (3), 273–299. doi: 10.1007/BF02496825 .

Article   Google Scholar  

Australian Council for Educational Research. (1999). Evaluation and validation of the trial postgraduate research experience questionnaires . Camberwell: Australian Council for Educational Research.

Google Scholar  

Bell-Ellison, B. A., & Dedrick, R. F. (2008). What do doctoral students value in their ideal mentor? Research in Higher Education, 49 (6), 555–567.

Braskamp, L. A., & Ory, J. C. (1994). Assessing faculty work: Enhancing individual and institutional performance . San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Cashin, W. E., & Downey, R. G. (1992). Using global student ratings for summative evaluation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84 (4), 563–572.

d’Apollonia, S., & Abrami, P. C. (1997). Navigating student ratings of instruction. American Psychologist, 52 (11), 1198–1208.

Denicolo, P. (2004). Doctoral supervision of colleagues: Peeling off the veneer of satisfaction and competence. Studies in Higher Education, 29 (6), 693–707.

Derksen, K. (1995). Activating instruction: The effects of a teacher-training programme . Paper presented at the 6th conference of the European Association for Research on Learning and Instruction, Nijmegen.

Fiske, S. T., Cuddy, A. J. C., & Glick, P. (2007). Universal dimensions of social cognition: Warmth and competence. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 11 (2), 77–83.

Fraser, B. J. (1991). Two decades of classroom environment research. In B. J. Fraser & H. J. Walberg (Eds.), Educational environments (pp. 3–27). Oxford: Pergamon Press.

Gatfield, T. (2005). An investigation into PhD supervisory management styles: Development of a dynamic conceptual model and its managerial implications. Journal of Higher Education Policy and management, 27 (3), 311–325.

Golde, C. M. (2000). Should I stay or should I go? Student descriptions of the doctoral attrition process. The Review of Higher Education, 23 (2), 199–227.

Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77 (1), 81–112.

Heath, T. (2002). A quantitative analysis of PhD students’ views of supervision. Higher Education Research & Development, 21 (1), 41–53.

Hockey, J. (1996). A contractual solution to problems in the supervision of PhD degrees in the UK. Studies in Higher Education, 21 (3), 359–371.

Holligan, C. (2005). Fact and fiction: A case history of doctoral supervision. Educational Research, 47 (3), 267–278.

Ives, G., & Rowley, G. (2005). Supervisor selection or allocation and continuity of supervision: PhD students’ progress and outcomes. Studies in Higher Education, 30 (5), 535–555.

Judd, C. M., James-Hawkins, L., Yzerbyt, V., & Kashima, Y. (2005). Fundamental dimensions of social judgment: Understanding the relations between judgments of competence and warmth. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89 (6), 899–913.

Kam, B. H. (1997). Style and quality in research supervision: The supervisor dependency factor. Higher Education, 34 (1), 81–103.

Kremer-Hayon, L., & Wubbels, T. (1993a). Supervisors’ interpersonal behavior and student teachers’ satisfaction. In T. Wubbels & J. Levy (Eds.), Do you know what you look like?: Interpersonal relationships in education (pp. 123–135). London: The Falmer Press.

Kremer-Hayon, L., & Wubbels, T. (1993b). Principals’ interpersonal behavior and teachers’ satisfaction. In T. Wubbels & J. Levy (Eds.), Do you know what you look like?: Interpersonal relationships in education (pp. 113–122). London: The Falmer Press.

Leary, T. (1957). An interpersonal diagnoses of personality . New York, NY: The Ronald Press Company.

Leonard, D., Metcalfe, J., Becker, R., & Evans, J. (2006). Review of literature on the impact of working context and support on the postgraduate research student learning experience . New York, NY: The Higher Education Academy.

Li, S., & Seale, C. (2007). Managing criticism in PhD supervision: A qualitative case study. Studies in Higher Education, 32 (4), 511–526.

Lindén, J. (1999). The contribution of narrative to the process of supervising PhD students. Studies in Higher Education, 24 (3), 351–369.

Luna, G., & Cullen, D. (1998). Do graduate students need mentoring? College Student Journal, 32 (3), 322–330.

Marsh, H. W., & Dunkin, M. (1997). Students’ evaluations of university teaching: A multidimensional perspective. In R. P. Perry & J. C. Smart (Eds.), Effective teaching in higher education: Research and practice (pp. 241–320). New York, NY: Agathon.

Marsh, H. W., & Roche, L. A. (1993). The use of students’ evaluations and an individually structured intervention to enhance university teaching effectiveness. American Educational Research Journal, 30 (1), 217–251.

Marsh, H. W., & Roche, L. A. (1997). Making students’ evaluations of teaching effectiveness effective. American Psychologist, 52 (11), 1187–1197.

Marsh, H. W., Rowe, K. J., & Martin, A. (2002). PhD students’ evaluations of research supervision. The Journal of Higher Education, 73 (3), 313–348.

McAlpine, L., & Norton, J. (2006). Reframing out approach to doctoral programs: An integrative framework for action and research. Higher Education Research & Development, 25 (1), 3–17.

Murphy, N., Bain, J. D., & Conrad, L. M. (2007). Orientations to research higher degree supervision. Higher Education, 53 (2), 209–234.

Nelson, M. L., & Friedlander, M. L. (2001). A close look at conflictual supervisory relationships: The trainee’s perspective. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 48 (4), 384–395.

Paglis, L. L., Green, S. G., & Bauer, T. N. (2006). Does adviser mentoring add value? A longitudinal study of mentoring and doctoral student outcomes. Research in Higher Education, 47 (4), 451–476.

Pearson, M. (1996). Professionalising PhD education to enhance the quality of the student experience. Higher Education, 32 (3), 303–320.

Rose, G. L. (2003). Enhancement of mentor selection using the ideal mentor scale. Research in Higher Education, 44 (4), 473–494.

Rose, G. L. (2005). Group differences in graduate students’ concepts of the ideal mentor. Research in Higher Education, 46 (1), 53–79.

Scott, R., Fisher, D., & den Brok, P. (2003). Specialist science teachers’ classroom behaviors in 12 primary schools . Paper presented at the annual conference of the European Science Education Research Association, Noordwijkerhout.

Seagram, B. C., Gould, J., & Pyke, W. (1998). An investigation of gender and other variables on time to completion of doctoral degrees. Research in Higher Education, 39 (3), 319–335.

Shuell, T. J. (1996). Teaching and learning in a classroom context. In D. C. Berliner & R. C. Calfee (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 726–763). New York, NY: MacMillan.

Sinclair, M. (2004). The pedagogy of ‘good’ PhD supervision: A national cross-disciplinary investigation of PhD supervision . Canberra: Australian Government, Department of Education, Science and Training.

Watzlawick, P., Beavin, J. H., & Jackson, D. D. (1967). The pragmatics of human communication . New York, NY: Norton.

Wubbels, T., Créton, H., & Holvast, A. J. C. D. (1988). Undesirable classroom situations. Interchange, 19 (2), 25–40.

Wubbels, T., Brekelmans, M., den Brok, P., & van Tartwijk, J. (2006). An interpersonal perspective on classroom management in secondary classrooms in the Netherlands. In C. Evertson & C. Weinstein (Eds.), Handbook of classroom management: Research, practice, and contemporary issues (pp. 1161–1191). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Download references

Open Access

This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Noncommercial License which permits any noncommercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author(s) and source are credited.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands

Tim Mainhard, Roeland van der Rijst, Jan van Tartwijk & Theo Wubbels

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Theo Wubbels .

See Table  5 .

Rights and permissions

Open Access This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Noncommercial License ( https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/2.0 ), which permits any noncommercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author(s) and source are credited.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Mainhard, T., van der Rijst, R., van Tartwijk, J. et al. A model for the supervisor–doctoral student relationship. High Educ 58 , 359–373 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-009-9199-8

Download citation

Received : 21 July 2008

Accepted : 17 January 2009

Published : 05 February 2009

Issue Date : September 2009

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-009-9199-8

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

• PhD supervision
• Doctoral student
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

PhD Degree Program

The PhD program in Counseling is designed to prepare advanced professional practitioners in counseling, counselor education and counselor supervision with particular program emphases on multicultural and urban settings. Entry into the program presumes a master’s degree in counseling wherein one has acquired knowledge and skills in human development, helping relationships, group counseling, lifestyle and career development, assessment techniques, research and evaluation and clinical experiences in applied settings. The PhD is designed for individuals seeking advanced preparation as educational leaders in the roles of counselor educator,  counselor supervisor, professional counselor, and researcher. The PhD is not appropriate for individuals seeking preparation or licensure as a psychologist.

Program objectives are: (1) comprehension of concepts and theories underlying the profession of counseling; (2) ability to collect, analyze, and interpret individual and group data, and to generate and test hypotheses related to human behavior; (3) ability to effectively counsel in both individual and group settings: (4) ability to formulate, implement, and evaluate appropriate counseling programs and interventions; (5) ability to understand and demonstrate ethical behavior and the legal and ethical implications of that behavior; and (6) development of sensitivity and understanding of the needs of persons who are culturally different, including the ability to (a) examine attitudes and myths regarding the culturally different and (b) the sociopolitical forces impacting the culturally different client.

Program Prerequisites

A master’s degree in counseling that meets CACREP or CORE standards for core knowledge and skills. Students with a master’s degree in counseling that does not contain all core areas can be considered for admission, but will be required to complete additional coursework prior to enrolling in doctoral level courses.

Program Admission

provide official undergraduate and graduate transcripts of all academic work completed,

submit a Graduate Record Exam (GRE) score,

complete a program admission application including appropriate goals essay,

provide three letters of academic and/or professional reference,

undergo an interview with the faculty, and submit a writing sample.

The program selections committee selects students after all application materials and the personal interview are completed. Deadline for the completion of all admissions requirements is March 1 for the fall semester. Students are admitted one time per year and must begin their coursework during the fall semester.

Program Requirements

Thirty (30) semester hours in the major, including:.

• COUN 8501 - Doctoral Seminar Counseling Credit Hours: 3
• COUN 8502 - Counseling Residency Research Seminar Credit Hours: (3)
• COUN 8510 - Counselor Supervision Credit Hours: (3)
• COUN 8511 - Practicum in Counseling Credit Hours: (3)
• COUN 8512 - Teaching Counselor Education Credit Hours: (3)
• COUN 8530 - Doctoral Intern Counseling Credit Hours: (3-12)
• COUN 8831 - Adv Group Processes Credit Hours: (3)
• COUN 8841 - Adv Coun Thry & Tech Credit Hours: (3)

Select from one of the following courses for Multicultural/Diversity/Social Justice Issues in Counseling:

• COUN 8700 - Spiritual Issues in Counseling Credit Hours: (3)
• COUN 8751 - Gender Issues In Coun Credit Hours: (3)
• COUN 8752 - Coun Gay/Lesbian/Bisexl Credit Hours: (3)
• COUN 8820-8823 - Special Topics in Counseling Credit Hours: (1-3)
• CPSY 8798 - Soc Just Coun Credit Hours: (3)

Fifteen (15) semester hours in research:

• EDPR 8541 - Stat Meth App Ed I ** Credit Hours: (3)
• EDPR 8542 - Statistical Methods Applied to Education II Credit Hours: (3)
• EDPR 8561 - Qualitative Mthds Educ ** Credit Hours: (3)
• EDPR 8511 - Intro Ed and Psych Measurement ** Credit Hours: 3
• CPSY 8203 - Sem Coun/Coun Psy Res Credit Hours: (3)

Six (6) Elective semester hours:

such as marriage and family, crisis intervention, career, rehabilitation, school, mental health counseling, etc.

Nine (9) semester hours of dissertation:

NOTE: Students should familiarize themselves with the  Thesis/Dissertation Preparation Guide  before starting to write.

• COUN 9000 - Dissertation Credit Hours: (1-9)

All students:

All students must maintain a cumulative grade point average of 3.0 and make no less than a B- in all required courses.

UCCS Community

• Current Students
• Faculty Staff
• Alumni & Friends
• Parents & Families

Schools and Colleges

• College of Business
• College of Education
• College of Engineering and Applied Science
• College of Letters, Arts & Sciences
• College of Public Service
• Graduate School
• Helen and Arthur E. Johnson Beth-El College of Nursing and Health Sciences

Quick Links

• Search for Programs & Careers
• Academic Advising
• Ent Center for the Arts
• Kraemer Family Library
• Military and Veteran Affairs
• myUCCS Portal
• Campus Email
• Microsoft 365
• Mountain Lion Connect
• Support Network: Students
• Support Network: Faculty
• Account Help
• Status Board

Student Employment

Supervisor of the Year - 2024

Supervisors of the year.

The Office of Student Employment is happy to announce the first annual Student Employee Supervisor of the Year Program! Each year, supervisors across campus can be nominated for their outstanding work with student employees.

A committee will then take into consideration a variety of factors and select one candidate to hold the title of Supervisor of the Year.

Click here to see past winners!

2024 Supervisor of the year

Zak Kroger UCCS DOWNTOWN PRESENCE He is flexible with our schedules and makes an effort to schedule us with organizations that are interesting to us so we get a chance to speak with them. He goes out of his way to make UCCS Downtown not just a great place for the community of Colorado Springs, but for his student employees as well. He has given us so many opportunities to learn and grow with skills that we can use outside of college. He markets UCCS well using connections he has made in the community to get pictures in newsletters and pamphlets. The space is so busy now there is hardly ever a night off, which was not the case a year and a half ago before he started. He truly wants the best for UCCS and its Downtown presence, as well as for the people that work for him and that is why he deserves this award. ‏‏‎ ‎ "Zak is an excellent person, boss, and UCCS representative. He has gone above and beyond to make sure the space is used in the most effective way and emphasizes the importance of making connections within the community. Not only is he amazing at his job but he is kind to his employees as well."

From the outset, Dr. Gangemi has been a beacon of passion and knowledge, expertly guiding our project from its nascent stages—listening to deeply impactful interviews with law enforcement officers and correctional healthcare workers—to the exciting phase we find ourselves in today: drafting two significant manuscripts. This work has not only been a testament to our collaborative effort but has also been recognized for its importance, with acceptances to present at two prestigious conferences this summer, and more opportunities on the horizon. Dr. Gangemi's mentorship extends beyond academic guidance; they embody the very essence of support by securing funding for my attendance at these conferences, thus ensuring that our work reaches a broader audience. Their ability to intently listen and value my perspective has created an enriching environment of mutual respect and learning.  

Dr. Baez exemplifies the core values of social work, consistently empowering me as a student through transparent communication and expressing unwavering trust in my abilities. Her dedication is evident in her relentless enthusiasm and commitment to fostering my growth. Furthermore, Dr. Baez has facilitated my integration into a professional network that is at the forefront of developing an AI Symposium tailored for social workers, thereby enriching my educational and professional journey. Her communication is not only timely but insightful, extending beyond academic support to include sharing job opportunities that align with my career goals. This level of personalized attention and support underscores her commitment to my success. Having Dr. Baez as a supervisor has been an immense privilege. Her kindness and genuine interest in my development have been instrumental in my growth. She embodies the essence of an exemplary supervisor, making her an outstanding candidate for Supervisor of the Year

I am writing to enthusiastically nominate Jana Hoffmann, Executive Assistant to the Dean at College of Education UCCS, for the Supervisor of the Year Award. I believe that her outstanding dedication, leadership, and support make her an exemplary candidate for this recognition. She is an amazing leader: Jana embodies exceptional leadership qualities, inspiring those around her to strive for excellence and achieve their full potential. Her vision, passion, and commitment to the college's mission have played a pivotal role in driving positive change and fostering a culture of growth and innovation. Beyond her professional responsibilities, Jana cultivates a supportive and inclusive work environment where everyone feels valued, respected, and appreciated. Her genuine care, empathy, and approachability make her not only a boss but also a trusted friend and confidante to those she leads.  

I am nominating my supervisor Alé Ruiz because not only is she an exceptional MOSAIC staff member, but she is also a standout student at UCCS. Alé has previously served as a MOSAIC student staff member, and now has been currently serving as a full-time staff member - a position that she was unanimously voted to be. Alé has used her experiences of being a queer BIPOC student, staff member, and community member to help UCCS students, other staff and faculty, and their fellow peers. At the same time as being a full-time staff member at MOSAIC, Alé is pursuing a Master's degree in Sociology and is a full-time student. Their work in MOSAIC can be seen through various workshops like UndocuPeer, community programming, heritage month kickoffs and celebrations, and more. Even on days where she's not feeling the best, Alé succeeds in helping students, whether it's through academic guidance or bringing a smile to their face. As my supervisor she has helped me do my very best while still allowing me to be as free as possible within my job position. She shows full trust in me both in and outside of work, something I feel the same towards her. Alé's impact on the UCCS community is undeniable, as her presence is noticed in communities and offices outside of MOSAIC.  Ale has given me the change  to work with the MOSAIC center on campus, and they have been there to support me and my fellow staff members every step of the way. They go out of their way to help marginalized populations on campus, and I am thankful to know them!

ㅤNominees 2:

Patience, kindness, understanding, empathy, passion, and advocacy. These attributes come to mind when I think of what kind of leader Jeni has been for me as an employee at the T. Rowe Price Career and Innovation Center at the University of Colorado Colorado Springs. Before I was employed there, I was a frequent visitor to the Career Center, where I utilized the services and made strong connections with the employees there. Through these connections, I grew personally and professionally and decided to be a more integral part of our campus community. With Jeni's continued advice and guidance, I was inspired to join the LAS DEI commitee, where I get to express a student's voice on creating a more inclusive campus; I became a mentor to other students and volunteered in various campus activities. Jeni showed me there was more to college than getting good grades! Jeni is an excellent addition to the campus, and although she typically does not have direct contact with students, she is more than happy to answer students' questions enthusiastically. Positivity is contagious, and because of Jeni's attitude, I look forward to coming to a positive work environment every day.

Dr. Paige Whitney has been my supervisor since starting grad school (Fall 2022) and has been such a great leader/supervisor. She has demonstrated compassion, dedication, and commitment! She makes the community a better place for both students and participants. I always look forward to my part-time work with the Parkinson's Wellness & Recovery Moves at the Center for Active Living. It's great to have a supervisor who makes coming to work enjoyable!

Katelyn is such an amazing person, helpful but firm to her employees, I absolutely believe she deserves to win this award, she deserves all the accolades and recognition cause she is exceptional at what she does!

Ms. Season is a manger who truly cares about her employees wellbeing. She never questions if you need a day off and is very understanding to all circumstances. She loses the power structure in hopes to build authentic relationships and withholds traditions such as our holiday party and student appreciation week. I have learned conscious discipline that I want to use with my future children from working here and eternally grateful for this opportunity for two years now.

ㅤNominees 3:

Nikki Pike is an incredible environmental artist, mentor and educator. Her life philosophies are pertinent in the way she teaches--with kindness, understanding and a deep desire to make the world more beautiful. She is an incredible asset to the UCCS VA department, and to the arts community in general. Please see my letter of recommendation for further notes.

Jerry is beyond supportive of his employeesut he doesn't consider us employees first, he considers us people first. He is interested in our dreams and goals, and he does his best to help us achieve what we set out to do. Life comes before the job, but when we are on the job he expects excellence. He is extremely kind, yet he gets the job done.

The best supervisor anybody could ask for. Very understanding and honest, she holds the parking department’s weight on her back and without her they couldn’t function properly. It is time she receives the recognition she deserves.

Misty Evans is the most caring and dedicated person I know. There has been countless times when Misty has gone above and beyond for those around her. Her heart is truly unmatched. Every time someone is sick Misty is offering any support that she can. When someone is having a hard time she is always here to make them laugh and remind them how loved they are. This year I was applying for graduate schools, I am the first in my family to consider it and I was very stressed out. Misty wrote me multiple letters of recommendation and helped me find answers to what I was struggling with. On my birthday, Misty went out of her way to get me my favorite cookies and made sure to check in with me after I had surgery. These are just a few examples of who Misty is, you can ask anyone in the office of Student and Family Connections about her and they would only have nice things to say. Misty would do everything in her power to help others. She is the most selfless person I know. 

ㅤNominees 4:

Stephen is the most considerate and hardworking boss I have ever had. He constantly makes sure our work environment is positive and supportive. He listens to us and treats us with respect. He has been working as my supervisor for almost two years and he is one of the main reasons why I love to be at my job.

I’m nominating Noelle because of all of hard work that she does around the campus. She doesn’t get her flowers as much as she should. She’s very understanding and care about the Students of UCCS and the ones that she works closely with. Not to mention, she’s the advisor for Student Gov’t, which is not an easy job. I believe she deserves this and more.

Sharla has been my go-to for any questions I have as well as someone I feel comfortable talking to about my personal life when I need someone to talk to. I knew her as a student employee and I was so excited that she would be returning to the office as a supervisor. She is not my direct supervisor but she is my main point of contact and I am so happy to be working with her again.

Student Employee Supervisor Honorable Mention:

Superb understanding with an attention to detail that is greatly appreciated.

I have worked as a student employee for the office of registrar for the past 6-7 months and I will say my senior student employee Ms. Brenna Hoff has been an outstanding co-worker and mentor to not only me but the numerous new student employees that have been taken onto the registrar student employee team. She is preparing to graduate and move onto bugger and better things and it literally brings the moral down in our entire office when we talk about it. She will be greatly missed and I think this is the perfect recognition for this her efforts. She has worked for the registrars office as a student employee her entire duration with UCCS and has most definitely touched the lives and assisted every student and faculty member at least once. All done with the most knowledge, most kindness, most professionalize, and most effort I've seen come from a student worker. I aspire to will her shoes when she moves on into bigger, better things but I know that won't be possible. As a soon to be senior student employee within the registrar's office I would like to nominate Brenna because she's simply amazing and I would strongly think everyone else "student employee wise" would support me in sending in this nomination. I know for a fact the faculty would nominate her if they could. So Please Pick HER!

Nominating a Student Employee Supervisor

Student employees, colleagues, and campus community members may nominate any number of student employee supervisors for Student Employee Supervisor of the Year by submitting a Campus Nomination Form and a one page Submission Letter. Up to three letters of reference may also be submitted and will be used in judging the UCCS competition only.

Return the completed forms to the Student Employment Office by 5:00pm, Friday, April 5th, 2024.  (the Campus Nomination Form and one page Submission Letter are word documents which should be completed and submitted via the Campus Nomination Form link and adding attachments.  Late nomination forms will not be accepted.

In honor of National Student Employment Appreciation Week, we would like to also recognize our outstanding student employee supervisors! Students, colleagues, and campus community members can submit the nomination form electronically to our office to recognize their supervisor, past or present. Our student employees and their leaders have such a large impact on our campus and community and we would like to acknowledge that!

Below are the requirements that supervisors must meet in order to be nominated. A student can nominate more than one supervisor, however only one winner will be chosen.  The winner will be notified the week of April 8 th , 2024 in line with National Student Employment Appreciation week, where we will also announce our winner of Student Employee of the Year. Nominees for both programs will also be acknowledged on our website.

Minimum Requirements

• Must supervise at least one student employee
• An active UCCS employee, off campus work study supervisors are ineligible

Communication Sciences and Disorders

Future audiologist to come full circle on Cochlear Implant journey

When she was five years old, Priyanka Gupte received her first cochlear implant at Lurie Children’s Hospital. Fast forward a couple of decades, and she’s returning to Chicago to become a provider in the same audiology clinic, caring for pediatric patients with hearing loss.

Gupte, in her third year of the #2 ranked University of Iowa Doctor of Audiology program, begins her externship in the summer, working alongside clinical audiologists treating patients and counseling their families. 

“It will be exciting to return to my roots and the personal connection I have with the Cochlear Implant Program at Ann & Robert H. Lurie Children’s Hospital,” she said. 

Gupte was diagnosed with bilateral severe to profound sensorineural hearing loss just before her second birthday. After initially wearing hearing aids, she was fitted with a CI in her left ear and received a second CI in her right ear several years later.

“Initially, my right ear was not a candidate for the CI, as I was still getting benefit from my hearing aid. However, my hearing loss was progressive, and ultimately my residual hearing was gone,” she said. “The surgeon who first operated on me agreed it was time for the second surgery to happen.”

Living with hearing aids -- and later CIs -- pointed her to a communication sciences and disorders undergraduate major at New York University. While she initially leaned toward a career as a speech-language pathologist, an influential NYU professor encouraged her to consider audiology. 

The paradigm shift from audiology patient to audiology provider was impactful, Gupte said, as was the care she received from the CI audiologist at Lurie Children’s Hospital, a clinician she calls not only an advocate, but a role model. 

“(As a patient) she always kept me up to date on CI technology, but what I really appreciated was how she listened to me. She knew my parents had their own opinions, but she put my opinions first as I got older. She helped teach me how to maintain my CIs and urged me to be honest about my hearing.” she said. “I must credit this audiologist for being so supportive and incredible in her care.”

As a future audiologist, Gupte knows her own journey with hearing loss helps her relate to clients she treats at Iowa’s Wendell Johnson Speech and Hearing Clinic, the training clinic within Iowa's Department of Communication Sciences and Disorders (CSD). ”Patients appreciate hearing stories similar to what they face, which an audiologist with a hearing loss can tell them,” she said.

Her mentors agree.

“Our pediatric patients with cochlear implants are delighted to encounter Priyanka, a clinician who wears devices just like them,” said Julie Jeon, PhD, Clinical Assistant Professor in CSD. “Their faces light up as they point to Priyanka’s sound processors, excited to share this connection with their parents.”

Within the audiology profession, Gupte is among the minority of clinicians with a hearing loss, and that brings inevitable challenges. Most testing equipment and protocols were developed with an assumption that the audiologist can use normal hearing. For example, listening checks on patients’ hearing aids usually require a special stethoscope, which didn’t work well with Gupte’s CIs.

However, she did not face these difficulties alone and is quick to credit the clinical faculty in CSD for troubleshooting and cheering her on.

“My supervisors at Wendell Johnson were so helpful. They reached out to Iowa’s former audiology students with hearing loss to find out what has worked for them. Using their experiences, I figured out what would work for me. Having a supportive team of clinical instructors really helped me grow my confidence as a clinician,” she said. 

As her teacher, Jeon believes any effort spent in clinical trouble-shooting is far outweighed by Gupte’s role in  creating an environment where others can be authentically themselves.  

“ Priyanka's unique perspective as an audiologist with a cochlear implant has truly enriched our cultural competence within the healthcare sector, fostering a more inclusive environment for all individuals seeking care,” she said. 

“Leveraging the expertise of audiologists with personal experience of cochlear implants can lead to a more inclusive and culturally sensitive approach to patient care, ultimately fostering a more equitable healthcare landscape for all.”

NOTICE: The University of Iowa Center for Advancement is an operational name for the State University of Iowa Foundation, an independent, Iowa nonprofit corporation organized as a 501(c)(3) tax-exempt, publicly supported charitable entity working to advance the University of Iowa. Please review its full disclosure statement.